Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, 33762-33794 [2018-15140]
Download as PDF
33762
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
8 CFR Parts 103 and 214
[DHS No. ICEB–2017–0003]
RIN 1653–AA74
Adjusting Program Fees for the
Student and Exchange Visitor Program
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) proposes to adjust fees
charged by the Student and Exchange
Visitor Program (SEVP) to individuals
and organizations. DHS proposes to
raise the fee for Student and Exchange
Visitor Information System (SEVIS)
Form I–901, Fee Remittance for Certain
F, J, and M Nonimmigrants, for
nonimmigrants seeking to become
academic (F visa) or vocational (M visa)
students from $200 to $350. For most
categories of individuals seeking to
become exchange (J visa) visitors, DHS
proposes to increase the fee from $180
to $220. For those seeking admission as
J exchange visitors in the au pair, camp
counselor, and summer work or travel
program participant categories, DHS
proposes to maintain the fee at $35. In
addition to raising the student and
exchange visitor fees, DHS proposes to
increase the fee for submitting a school
certification petition from $1,700 to
$3,000. DHS proposes to maintain the
fee for an initial school site visit at the
current level of $655, but clarify that,
with the effective date of the rule, DHS
would exercise its current regulatory
authority to charge the site visit fee not
only when a certified school changes its
physical location, but also when it adds
a new physical location or campus. DHS
proposes to establish and clarify two
new fees: a $1,250 fee to submit a school
recertification petition and a $675 fee to
submit an appeal or motion following a
denial or withdrawal of a school
petition. Adjusting fees would ensure
fee levels are sufficient to recover the
full cost of activities of the program and
would establish a fairer balance of the
recovery of SEVP operational costs
between beneficiary classes.
DATES: Send comments by September
17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket No. ICEB–2017–
0003, to the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS), a
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
government-wide, electronic docket
management system, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for sending comments.
• Mail: Address all comments to
Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Student and
Exchange Visitor Program, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Department of Homeland Security, 500
12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536.
DHS docket staff, who maintain and
process ICE’s official regulatory dockets,
will scan the submission and post it to
FDMS.
Collection of information. You must
submit comments on the collection of
information discussed in this notice of
proposed rulemaking to both DHS’s
docket and the Office of Management
and Budget’s (OMB) Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA). OIRA submissions can be sent
using any of the following methods.
• Email (preferred): OIRA_
submission@omb.eop.gov (include the
docket number and ‘‘Attention: Desk
Officer for U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, DHS’’ in the
subject line of the email).
• Fax: 202–395–6566.
• Mail: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20503;
Attention: Desk Officer, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
DHS.
For additional instructions on sending
comments, see the ‘‘Public
Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Student and
Exchange Visitor Program; U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Department of Homeland Security; 500
12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536;
703–603–3400, sevp@ice.dhs.gov. This
is not a toll-free number. Program
information can be found at https://
www.ice.gov/sevis/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
B. Summary of Major Provisions
C. Costs and Benefits
II. Abbreviations and Acronyms
III. Public Participation
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
IV. Program Background
A. SEVP Legal Authorities
B. SEVP and Development of SEVIS
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Authority To Collect Fees
D. Full Cost Recovery
V. Proposed Adjustment of SEVP Fees
A. Activities Funded Under the 2008 Fee
Rule
1. Improved SEVIS Functionality
2. Oversight and Enforcement
3. Recertification
4. School Liaisons
B. Continuing SEVP Activities Funded
With Proposed Fees
1. SEVIS Modernization
2. Increased SEVP Adjudication Personnel
3. Additional Investigatory Support
C. Basis for Fee Schedule
D. SEVP Baseline Costs and Fees
E. Methodology
1. ABC Approach
2. Full Cost
3. Cost Basis for SEVP Fees Based on
Current Services
F. Summary of the Full Cost Information
1. Fee Allocation
2. SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 Cost Model
Results
3. Fee Calculations
4. Proposed Fee Levels
VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13771: Regulatory Review
1. Background and Purpose of the
Proposed Rule
2. Impacts of Regulatory Change
3. Alternatives
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Congressional Review Act
E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
H. Energy Effects
I. Environment
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
List of Subjects
The Proposed Amendments
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
DHS proposes to adjust its fee
schedule for students and exchange
visitors as well as for petitioning and
certified schools. These fees are
associated with SEVP and SEVIS. They
were last adjusted in 2008. See 73 FR
55683 (Sept. 26, 2008).
SEVP, an ICE component, is funded
entirely by fees charged to individual
applicants and organizational
petitioners. Fees collected from
individuals and organizations are
deposited into the Immigration
Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) and
used to fund the operational costs
associated with SEVP and its
management of SEVIS. See Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA) section
286(m), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m),
and Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
as amended, (IIRIRA) section 641(e), (g),
8 U.S.C. 1372(e), (g).
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
In accordance with the requirements
and principles of the Chief Financial
Officers Act of 1990, 31 U.S.C. 901–03
(CFO Act), and OMB Circular A–25,
SEVP reviews its associated fees that are
deposited into the IEFA biennially and,
if necessary, proposes adjustments to
ensure recovery of costs necessary to
meet national security, customer
service, and adjudicative processing
goals. SEVP completed a biennial fee
review for fiscal year (FY) 2016 and FY
2017 in 2017. The projected results
indicate that current fee levels are
insufficient to recover the full cost of
current and planned program activities.
Section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1356(m), provides that DHS may set fees
for adjudication and naturalization
services at a level that would ensure
recovery of the full costs of providing
such services, including the costs of
providing similar services without
charge to asylum applicants and certain
other immigrants. Additionally, section
641 of IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. 1372, authorizes
DHS to periodically revise fees that
cover the cost of carrying out SEVP and
maintenance of SEVIS. Pursuant to
these laws, DHS proposes the
adjustments contained in this rule.
SEVP calculates the totality of its fees
to recover the full cost of its overall
operations. Following its biennial fee
review, SEVP anticipates that if it
continues to operate at current fee
levels, it will experience a shortfall of
approximately $68.9 million beginning
in 2019. At current fee levels, SEVP’s
current expenditures exceed current
revenues, without any service upgrades.
The deficit is covered by surplus
revenue that was previously
accumulated from 2009 to 2015. This
surplus will be exhausted in FY 2019
even without any service upgrades. This
projected shortfall poses a risk of
degrading operations and services
funded by fee revenue. The proposed
fee increases would allow SEVP to cover
the current deficit between revenue and
expenditures plus make the necessary
service upgrades. The proposed fee
levels thus eliminate the risk of
degrading operations, while also
ensuring full cost recovery by providing
fees for each specific benefit that will
more adequately recover the cost
associated with administering the
benefit.
B. Summary of Major Provisions
The proposed rule would adjust,
institute, and clarify the application of
fees pertaining to services SEVP
provides to reflect existing and
projected operating costs, program
requirements, and continued planned
program improvements, in the following
manner:
• Increase the two types of individual
student and exchange visitor
application fees, specifically the F and
M I–901 SEVIS fee from $200 to $350
and the full J–1 I–901 SEVIS fee from
$180 to $220;
33763
• Increase the SEVP school
certification petition fee for initial
certification from $1,700 to $3,000;
• Institute a stand-alone fee of $1,250
when a school files a petition for
recertification of its existing SEVP
certification;
• Revise regulations to ensure
collection of a $675 fee to accompany
the filing of a Form I–290B, Notice of
Appeal or Motion, when a school
appeals or files a motion to reconsider
or reopen a denial or withdrawal of its
SEVP certification; and
• Maintain the $655 fee for a site visit
at its current level, but clarify that, with
the effective date of the rule, SEVP
would exercise its current regulatory
authority to charge the site visit fee
when a certified school changes its
physical location or adds a new
physical location or campus on its Form
I–17, ‘‘Petition for Approval of School
for Attendance by Nonimmigrant
Student.’’
In making these changes, the
proposed rule would allow SEVP to
fully fund activities and institute critical
near-term program and system
enhancements in a more equitable
manner through a fairer balance of the
recovery of SEVP operational costs
between beneficiary classes. A summary
of the current and future fee structures
is provided in Table 1 below.
C. Costs and Benefits
SEVP proposes to adjust fees to the
amounts listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1—CURRENT AND PROPOSED FEE AMOUNTS
Fee type
Current fee
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
I–901 F/M .....................................................................................................................................
I–901 J-Full ..................................................................................................................................
I–901 J-Partial ..............................................................................................................................
I–17 Initial Certification ................................................................................................................
I–17 Recertification ......................................................................................................................
Site Visit—initial ...........................................................................................................................
Site Visit—new location ...............................................................................................................
Appeal Fee ..................................................................................................................................
SEVP expects to have a total annual
increase in fees of $75.2 million in FY
2019 transferred from individuals and
entities for the services they receive.
Table 2 shows the summary of the total
annual number of payments,
incremental fee amounts, and total fees
transferred in FY 2019. This increase in
fees would allow SEVP to not only
maintain its current level of service but
also enhance SEVP’s capability to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
support national security and counter
immigration fraud through the
continued development and
implementation of critical system and
programmatic enhancements.
Enhancements to SEVIS, including the
establishment of a student portal, will
assist designated school officials (DSOs)
in their regulatory obligation to provide
accurate and timely information and
will also rebalance this reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$200
180
35
1,700
0
655
0
0
Proposed fee
$350
220
35
3,000
1,250
655
655
675
Incremental
fee
adjustment
$150
40
0
1,300
1,250
0
655
675
requirement by providing students an
automated means to update their
information. Increased numbers of
adjudication personnel will assist in
reducing the processing times for initial
petitions, updates, and recertifications,
while enhanced vetting protocols will
ensure that only those nonimmigrant
students who are eligible to enter and
remain in the country do so.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33764
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—ANNUAL PROPOSED INCREMENTAL FEE AMOUNTS, FY 2019
Projected
number of
payments
Proposed
incremental
fee amounts
Annual fees
transfer to
government
I–901 F and M .............................................................................................................................
I–901 J-Full ..................................................................................................................................
I–17 Initial Certification ................................................................................................................
I–17 Recertification ......................................................................................................................
Site Visits—initial .........................................................................................................................
Site Visits—new location .............................................................................................................
Appeals ........................................................................................................................................
418,393
157,550
426
4,373
426
174
54
$150
40
1,300
1,250
0
655
675
$62,758,950
6,302,000
553,800
3,279,750
0
113,970
36,450
Total ......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
75,231,420
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
II. Abbreviations and Acronyms
ABC Activity-Based Costing
ARO alternate responsible officer
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CEU Compliance Enforcement Unit
CTCEU Counterterrorism and Criminal
Exploitation Unit
CFO Chief Financial Officer
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DoS Department of State
DSO designated school official
EBSVERA Enhanced Border Security and
Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Public Law
107–173; May 14, 2002
FASAB Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board
FY Fiscal Year
HSPD–2 Homeland Security Presidential
Directive–2
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
IEFA Immigration Examinations Fee
Account
IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as
amended
INA Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952, as amended
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
IT information technology
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDSO principal designated school official
RO responsible officer
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFE request for evidence
SBA Small Business Administration
SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor
Information System
SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor
Program
SFFAS FASAB Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standard
SSA Social Security Administration
TSA Transportation Security
Administration
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
III. Public Participation
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you provide
unless you request that your personally
identifiable information be redacted. We
also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result
from this rulemaking action. See the
ADDRESSES section for information on
how to submit comments.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit comments, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section
of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide reasons
supporting each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your
comments and materials online or by
mail, but please use only one of these
means. We recommend that you include
your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the
body of your document so that we can
contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission. ICE will file
all comments sent to our docket
address, as well as items sent to the
address or email address listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, in the public docket, except for
comments containing marked
confidential information. If you submit
a comment, it will be considered
received by ICE when it is received at
the Docket Management Facility.
To submit your comments online, go
to https://www.regulations.gov and insert
the complete docket number starting
with ‘‘ICEB’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ box. Click
on the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ box and enter
your comment in the text box provided.
Click the ‘‘Continue’’ box, and if you are
satisfied with your comment, follow the
prompts to submit it. If you submit your
comments by mail, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic scanning and filing. Mailed
submissions may be on paper or CD–
ROM. If you would like ICE to
acknowledge receipt of comments
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
submitted by mail, include with your
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard or envelope on which the
docket number appears. We will stamp
the date of receipt on the postcard and
mail it to you.
We will consider all comments and
materials received during the comment
period and may change this proposed
rule based on your comments. The
docket is available for public inspection
before and after the comment closing
date.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov and insert
the complete docket number starting
with ‘‘ICEB’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ box. Click
on the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ and then
click on ‘‘View Comment’’ or ‘‘View
All’’ under the ‘‘Comments’’ section of
the page. Individuals without internet
access can make alternate arrangements
for viewing comments and documents
related to this rulemaking by contacting
ICE through the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section previously
listed. Note: Because the software used
in computing these fees proposed in this
rule is a commercial product licensed to
ICE, it may be accessed on-site by
appointment by calling the SEVP
Response Center at (800) 892–4829.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received in any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may wish to consider limiting the
amount of personal information that you
provide in any voluntary public
comment submission you make to DHS.
DHS may withhold information from
public viewing that it determines may
affect the privacy of an individual or is
offensive. For additional information,
please read the Privacy and Security
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Notice posted on https://
www.regulations.gov.
IV. Program Background
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
A. SEVP Legal Authorities
IIRIRA (Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, 110
Stat. 3009–546 (1996)) established the
requirement for the monitoring and
reporting of the activities of foreign
students and exchange visitors while
they reside in the United States (U.S.).
Section 641 of IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. 1372,
mandated that the Attorney General
develop and conduct a program for the
electronic collection of data by U.S.approved (i.e., certified) institutions of
higher education, other approved
educational institutions, and designated
exchange visitor programs, to monitor
nonimmigrants possessing or applying
for F, M, and J class visas with a
Certificate of Eligibility.1
In addition, President George W. Bush
issued Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 2 (HSPD–2) in October 2001,
which requires DHS to conduct
periodic, ongoing recertification of all
schools certified to accept F or M
students. Combating Terrorism Through
Immigration Policies, Oct. 29, 2001, as
amended by HSPD—5 (Management of
Domestic Incidents, Feb. 28, 2003,
Compilation of HSPDs (updated through
Dec. 31, 2007), available at https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT110HPRT39618/pdf/CPRT110HPRT39618.pdf.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002
created DHS, transferred a broad range
of immigration authorities from the
Attorney General and the Commissioner
of Immigration and Naturalization to the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and
vested ICE with responsibility for
administration of the electronic data
collection system, also known as SEVIS.
See Public Law 107–296, sec. 442(a)(4),
116 Stat. 2136, 2193–94 (codified at 6
U.S.C. 252(a)(4) (vesting SEVIS-related
authority in ‘‘Bureau of Border
Security’’); Reorganization Plan
Modification for the Department of
Homeland Security, H.R. Doc. No. 108–
1 Under INA section 101(a)(15)(F)(i), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F)(i), a foreign student may be admitted
into the United States in nonimmigrant status to
attend an academic or accredited language training
school (F nonimmigrant students). Under INA
section 101(a)(15)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(M)(i),
a foreign student may be admitted into the United
States in nonimmigrant status to attend a vocational
education school (M nonimmigrant students). An F
or M nonimmigrant student may enroll in a
particular school only if the Secretary of Homeland
Security has certified the school for the attendance
of such students. Under INA section 101(a)(15)(j),
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(j), a foreign citizen may be
admitted into the United States in nonimmigrant
status as an exchange visitor (J visa) in an exchange
program sponsored by the Department of State
(DoS).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
32, at 3–4 (2003) (set forth as a note to
6 U.S.C.A. 542 (West 2018)) (renaming
‘‘Bureau of Border Security’’ as ‘‘Bureau
of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’’); DHS Delegation
7030.2(2)(Z) (2004) (affirming delegation
of such authority from Secretary of
Homeland Security to ICE). ICE
assumed responsibility for SEVIS and
established SEVP. DHS has issued
regulations that address data collection
requirements for SEVP certification,
oversight, and recertification of schools
authorized to enroll F or M students. 8
CFR 214.3, 214.4.
B. SEVP and Development of SEVIS
SEVP is responsible for developing,
maintaining, and improving SEVIS,
which is an internet-based application
that facilitates timely electronic
reporting and monitoring of
nonimmigrant students, exchange
visitors, and their dependents in the
United States. SEVIS enables schools
and program sponsors to transmit
electronic information to DHS and the
Department of State (DoS) throughout a
student’s or exchange visitor’s program
in the United States. SEVIS is intended
to improve customer service by
streamlining the application and
adjudication processes. Through
continuing modernization efforts, it
addresses issues in student and school
system processes by providing
information technology (IT) solutions
and modifying business processes.
Schools and exchange visitor
programs have been required to enter F,
M, and J nonimmigrant data into SEVIS
since August 1, 2003. As of April 1,
2017, SEVIS contained 1.4 million
active F, M, and J student and exchange
visitor records. Approximately 8,700
schools are SEVP-certified and
approximately 1,500 exchange visitor
programs are DoS-designated.
SEVIS enables DHS and DoS to
efficiently administer their approval
(i.e., certification and designation,
respectively) and oversight processes of
schools and programs that wish to
benefit from enrolling nonimmigrants.
SEVIS assists law enforcement agencies
in tracking and monitoring F, M, and J
nonimmigrant status and apprehending
violators before they can potentially
endanger the national security of the
United States. SEVIS also assists other
federal agencies such as DoS, and other
DHS components such as U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) in better serving F, M,
and J nonimmigrant applicants. Finally,
SEVIS enables schools and exchange
visitor programs to instantaneously
transmit electronic information and
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33765
changes in required information on F,
M, and J nonimmigrants to ICE and DoS
throughout their stays in the United
States.2 These include required
notifications, reports, and updates to
personal data. SEVIS allows schools to
submit school certification applications,
update certification information, submit
updates to DHS that require
adjudication, and also create and update
F visa (academic) and M visa
(vocational) student and dependent
records. SEVP managers and
adjudicators have the capability to
adjudicate updates made to school
records using SEVIS, and principal
designated school officials (PDSOs) and
designated school officials (DSOs) are
notified through SEVIS of the
adjudication results. SEVIS also allows
program sponsors to submit designation
forms for the J–1 visa program, create
program designations, and update
program designation information. DoS
personnel have the capability to
adjudicate information submitted by
responsible officers (ROs) and alternate
responsible officers (AROs). ROs and
AROs are notified through SEVIS of any
adjudication results.
SEVIS shares information with other
agencies’ and components’ systems—
DoS, USCIS, CBP, Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), and
others—to better monitor the status of
student or exchange visitors throughout
their stays in the United States. This
allows DHS to meet the aims of the USA
PATRIOT Act. See Public Law 107–56,
sec. 416, 115 Stat. 272, 354–55 (2001).
In addition, that Act mandates that the
Secretary of Homeland Security,3 in
consultation with the Secretary of State,
collect information on the date of entry
and port of entry for each nonimmigrant
for whom information is collected under
IIRIRA section 641. Id. at sec. 416(b).
2 An individual seeking F or M nonimmigrant
student status must apply to an SEVP-certified
school and be accepted for enrollment. From the
enrollment information provided by the
nonimmigrant, the school enters student
information into SEVIS and issues a Form I–20,
‘‘Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student
Status.’’ The individual must submit a valid Form
I–20 when applying for an F or M visa. Similarly,
an individual seeking J–1 nonimmigrant status must
apply to a DoS-designated exchange visitor program
and be accepted for enrollment as a basis to apply
for a J exchange visitor visa. From the information
provided by the accepted individual, the exchange
visitor program enters exchange visitor information
into SEVIS and issues a Form DS–2019, ‘‘Certificate
of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J–1) Status.’’ The
applicant must submit a valid Form DS–2019 when
applying for a J visa.
3 The USA PATRIOT Act refers to the Attorney
General, but the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as
amended, transferred the functions of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to
DHS. Public Law 107–296, tit. IV, subtits. D, E, F,
116 Stat. 2135, 2192 (Nov. 25, 2002), as amended.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33766
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
C. Authority To Collect Fees
The Secretary is specifically
authorized to collect fees for SEVP from
prospective F and M students and J
exchange visitors, subject to certain
limits for certain J–1 nonimmigrants. 8
U.S.C. 1372(e)(1). The Secretary is
authorized to periodically revise those
fees, with certain exceptions, to take
into account changes in the overall cost
of carrying out the program. IIRIRA
section 641(e)(4)(A), (g)(2), 8 U.S.C.
1372(e)(4)(A), (g)(2). Similarly, section
286(m) of the INA authorizes the
Secretary to collect fees for adjudication
and naturalization services at a level
that would ensure recovery of the full
costs of providing such services,
including the costs of providing similar
services without charge to asylum
applicants and certain other immigrants.
Additionally, pursuant to INA section
286(m), the level that is set may include
recovery of any additional costs
associated with the administration of
the fees themselves. Under this
authority, user fees are employed not
only for the benefit of the payer of the
fee and any collateral benefit resulting
to the public, but also to provide a
benefit to certain others.4
All fees collected under these
authorities are deposited as offsetting
receipts into the IEFA and are available
to the Secretary until expended for
authorized purposes. See IIRIRA section
641(e)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(B); INA
section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS
proposes the revised fee schedule
contained in this rule in accordance
with the above-referenced authorities.
As a general matter, in developing
fees and fee rules, DHS looks to a range
of governmental accounting provisions.
OMB Circular A–25, User Charges
(Revised), para. 6, 58 FR 38142 (July 15,
1993), defines ‘‘full cost’’ to include all
direct and indirect costs to any part of
the Federal government for providing a
good, resource, or service. These costs
include, but are not limited to, an
appropriate share of the following:
Direct and indirect personnel cost,
physical overhead, consulting and other
indirect cost, management and
supervisory cost, enforcement,
information collection and research, and
establishment of standards and
regulation, including any required
environmental review.
4 The longstanding interpretation of DHS is that
the ‘‘including’’ clause in section 286(m) does not
constrain DHS’s fee authority under the statute. The
‘‘including’’’ clause offers only a non-exhaustive list
of some of the costs that DHS may consider part of
the full costs of providing adjudication and
naturalization services. See 8 U.S.C. 1356(m); 81 FR
26903, 26906 n.10 (May 4, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
Section 31.5 of OMB Circular A–11,
Preparation, Submission and Execution
of the Budget, July 1, 2016, directs
agencies to develop user charge
estimates based on the full cost recovery
policy set forth in OMB Circular A–25,
User Charges (budget formulation and
execution policy regarding user fees).
The Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board (FASAB) Statement of
Federal Financial Accounting Standards
(SFFAS) No. 4: Managerial Cost
Accounting Concepts and Standards for
the Federal Government, July 31, 1995,
updated June 2017, provides the
standards for managerial cost
accounting and full cost. SFFAS No. 4
defines ‘‘full cost’’ to include ‘‘direct
and indirect costs that contribute to the
output, regardless of funding sources.’’ 5
FASAB identifies various classifications
of costs to be included and recommends
various methods of cost assignment to
identify full cost. Activity-based costing
(ABC) is highlighted as a costing
methodology useful to determine full
cost within an agency.
The Chief Financial Officers Act of
1990, 31 U.S.C. 901–903, requires each
agency’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
to ‘‘review, on a biennial basis, the fees,
royalties, rents and other charges
imposed by the agency for services and
things of value it provides, and make
recommendations on revising those
charges to reflect cost incurred by it in
providing those services and things of
value.’’ 31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8).
This proposed rule would eliminate
the risk of a projected shortfall for SEVP
operations and services funded by fee
revenue. It proposes increased funding
that supports continuing and new
initiatives critical to improving the
program and reflects the
implementation of specific costallocation methods to segment program
costs to the appropriate fee—F and M
students, J exchange visitors, or schools.
D. Full Cost Recovery
Consistent with these authorities and
sources, this proposed rule would
ensure that SEVP recovers the full costs
for the services it provides and
maintains a projected level of service
necessary to fulfill its mission. The
proposed rule would do this in two
ways. First, where possible, the
proposed rule sets fees at levels
sufficient to cover the full cost of the
corresponding services and assigns
these fees to those who are the primary
beneficiaries. DHS works with OMB and
5 See FASAB, Statement of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards 4: Managerial Cost
Accounting Standards and Concepts 26 (June 2017),
available at https://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/
handbook_sffas_4.pdf (last visited Feb. 20, 2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
generally follows OMB Circular A–25,
which ‘‘establishes federal policy
regarding fees assessed for Government
services and for sale or use of
Government goods or resources.’’ See
OMB Circular A–25, User Charges
(Revised), para. 6, 58 FR 38142 (July 15,
1993). A primary objective of OMB
Circular A–25 is to ensure that federal
agencies recover the full cost of
providing specific services to users and
associated costs.
This proposed rule would set fees at
a level sufficient to fund the full cost of
conducting the program and general
operations for FY 2019. See INA sec.
286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS has
interpreted this statutory fee-setting
authority, including the authorization
for DHS to collect ‘‘full costs’’ for
providing, in pertinent part,
‘‘adjudication . . . services,’’ as granting
DHS broad discretion to charge fees at
a level that will ensure recovery of all
direct and indirect costs associated with
providing pertinent immigration
adjudication services. This approach is
also consistent with the SEVP-specific
fee authority referenced above, which
authorizes DHS to set fees at a level that
funds the full cost of conducting the
program. See IIRIRA section 641(e), 8
U.S.C. 1372(e).
In following OMB Circular A–25 to
the extent appropriate, including its
direction that fees should be set to
recover the costs of an agency’s services
in their entirety and that full costs are
determined based on the best available
records of the agency, DHS accounts for
the reality that costs of all SEVP
operations cannot always be directly
correlated to certain specific fees. DHS
therefore applies the discretion
provided in the above authorities, in
taking the following actions: (1)
Employing ABC to establish a model for
assigning costs to specific benefit
requests in a manner reasonably
consistent with OMB Circular A–25; (2)
distributing costs that are not attributed
to or driven by specific adjudication
services; and (3) making additional
adjustments to effectuate specific policy
objectives.
V. Proposed Adjustment of SEVP Fees
This proposed rule would amend the
current fee structure governing the
collection of fees from individuals by
increasing the individual student and
exchange visitor application fee (I–901
SEVIS fee). In addition, the rule
proposes to amend the fee structure
paid by schools by increasing the SEVP
school certification petition costs for
initial certification, instituting a fee to
address school recertification costs for
the ongoing recertification process, and
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
requiring a fee to accompany the filing
of an appeal, a motion to reconsider, or
a motion to reopen filed by a school
organization. SEVP proposes no change
to the current fee for site visits. The
proposed fees for recertification
petitions and appeals and motions
would better recover a reasonable
portion of related existing and projected
operating costs, program requirements,
and planned program improvements.
Fees were last adjusted in 2008. 73 FR
55683. Refined and expanded SEVP
operations, SEVIS modifications, as well
as inflation, have increased SEVP
operating costs and are the basis for the
proposed increases to the I–901 SEVIS
fee and the school certification petition
fee.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
A. Activities Funded Under the 2008
Fee Rule
In the 2008 rulemaking that resulted
in the most recent agency adjustment,
‘‘Adjusting Program Fees and
Establishing Procedures for Out-ofCycle Review and Recertification of
Schools Certified by the Student and
Exchange Visitor Program To Enroll F
and/or M Nonimmigrant Students’’
(2008 Fee Rule), DHS outlined its
rationale for a fee increase by
identifying a set of organizational
initiatives essential to its mission:
Improving SEVIS functionality,
improving oversight and enforcement,
implementing recertification
procedures, and developing school
liaison activity. 73 FR 55683. SEVP, in
accordance with its commitment to the
goals prescribed in that rule, has
implemented the following actions
since then:
1. Improved SEVIS Functionality
SEVP’s original plan to roll out a
comprehensive overhaul of SEVIS
(known as SEVIS II) was replaced by an
approach that focused on a series of
smaller and more targeted SEVIS
enhancements—now termed SEVIS
Modernization. New technologies have
become available since the
comprehensive SEVIS overhaul was first
envisioned. The use of these
technologies enables SEVP to apply
many of the functionalities that were
planned for SEVIS II to the current
system. At the same time, this approach
eliminates potential risks and
complications that result from migrating
mass quantities of critical data from one
system to the next, which would have
been necessary if the SEVIS II approach
had been fully implemented. Building
on the experience, knowledge, and
stakeholder feedback acquired during
the planning process, SEVP has
launched hundreds of smaller-scale
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
SEVIS enhancements. These efforts have
addressed the majority of national
security vulnerabilities previously
identified, by improving critical system
functionalities that support data
integrity in SEVIS, including
establishing system functions that
support standardization of student and
exchange visitor name and address data
entry. The enhancements have also
improved system performance for end
users. With the introduction of more
detailed SEVIS event history and new
abilities for DSOs to create student data
reports, these enhancements enable
action on multiple student records
simultaneously.
As an example, SEVP, in
collaboration with CBP, developed and
implemented an admissibility indicator
tool that links to real-time SEVIS data to
assist CBP officers at ports of entry in
determining whether F, M, and J
nonimmigrants may enter the United
States based on their SEVIS record
status. Prior to the availability of the
admissibility indicator, first-line CBP
officers relied on paper documentation
that the nonimmigrant student or
exchange visitor presented. Today, the
admissibility indicator gives CBP
officers a quick assessment of the most
pertinent and current SEVIS data that
are necessary in determining whether
nonimmigrant students, exchange
visitors, and their dependents are
eligible to enter the United States or
require further investigation. As a result,
CBP officers are able to use the
admissibility indicator at points of
inspection to quickly verify the
information contained on the paper
documentation that is also required for
entry. This assists in reducing long wait
times, aids with detecting and
preventing visa fraud, and otherwise
enhances compliance efforts and
national security.
2. Oversight and Enforcement
A dedicated compliance enforcement
program that includes criminal
investigative efforts is an integral part of
ensuring the operational effectiveness of
SEVP. By analyzing SEVIS data, SEVP
identifies indicators of potential misuse
or abuse of nonimmigrant status and
provides leads to Counterterrorism and
Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU) law
enforcement personnel for further
investigation. At the time the 2008 Fee
Rule was published, the Compliance
Enforcement Unit (CEU), the
predecessor of CTCEU, was not
sufficiently staffed to address all leads
generated from SEVIS. As a result, only
the highest priority leads were
investigated, which left open
unaddressed vulnerabilities. With the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33767
increased I–901 SEVIS fee revenue, DHS
has hired additional personnel and
currently funds 234 Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI) positions with
primary responsibility for nonimmigrant
violator investigations. The increased
number of HSI personnel assigned to
support CTCEU investigations has
enabled more robust coordination
between SEVP and CTCEU and has
successfully reduced the exploitation of
the laws and programs relating to
nonimmigrant students and exchange
visitors. An example of the result of
such close and extensive crosscoordination was the conviction of the
founder and president of Tri-Valley
University (TVU) on 31 counts in March
2014, ranging from conspiracy to
commit visa fraud and alien harboring
to money laundering.6 SEVP will
continue to support cooperation and
coordination with CTCEU to maintain
the viability of F, M, and J student and
exchange visitor programs within the
United States.
3. Recertification
SEVP implemented the recertification
procedure prescribed in the 2008 Fee
Rule beginning with its first
recertification cycle in 2010. Institutions
that participated in the first cycle have
been reviewed several times and will
continue to undergo the recertification
process every two years. Because there
are thousands of schools, recertification
is a rolling process allowing
adjudicators to address issues with one
school before moving on to the next.
Each school is notified 2 years to the
month following the date of its last
recertification or certification about its
need to file for recertification in order
to maintain its certification. From that
date, the school has 180 days to file for
recertification. 8 CFR 214.3(h)(2)(i). This
cycle helps ensure that only schools that
operate in accordance with the law
remain certified by SEVP.
4. School Liaisons
SEVP deployed the first group of field
representatives in April 2014, followed
by three additional groups later in 2014
and 2015, bringing the national total to
60 field representatives distributed
among three geographically determined
units. The field representatives serve as
liaisons between SEVP and SEVPcertified schools that enroll F and M
6 See Sentencing Memorandum, Docket Item No.
195 (Oct. 24, 2014), United States v. Su, Case No.11cr-00288 (N.D. Cal.), 2, 8, available at https://
www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178123/195/
united-states-v-su/; see also Jury Verdict, Docket
Item No. 119 (Mar. 24, 2014), United States v. Su,
supra, available at https://www.courtlistener.com/
docket/4178123/119/united-states-v-su/.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33768
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
nonimmigrant students and have
conducted more than 32,500 school
visits since the unit launch. Field
representatives serve as a key resource
for schools by providing individualized
instruction on the SEVP certification
and recertification processes. They also
educate DSOs on Federal statutes,
regulations, and guidance pertinent to F
and M students studying in the United
States. Because DSOs are responsible for
entering F and M nonimmigrant data
into SEVIS, the data integrity of the
system depends heavily on the DSOs’
understanding the importance of
accurate and timely reporting of the
required information. By providing
individualized assistance to DSOs, the
field representatives enhance national
security by maintaining and improving
the data integrity of SEVIS.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
B. Continuing SEVP Activities Funded
With Proposed Fees
In developing this proposed rule,
SEVP reviewed its current and projected
costs, identified goals for services,
analyzed projected future workload, and
allocated costs to specific services. In
addition to the full SEVP operating costs
described in the following sections, the
proposed fees would fund the
continuing efforts identified in the 2008
rule, now updated to reflect
technological refinements and
operational enhancements. These
updated activities include SEVIS
modernization and increases in
adjudication support and investigatory
and compliance personnel.
1. SEVIS Modernization
SEVIS is a web-based system that
schools and program sponsors use to
transmit information about their
programs and participating F, M, and J
nonimmigrants. It became fully
operational in February of 2003,
replacing a paper-based F, M, and J
nonimmigrant process.
Since its inception, SEVIS has
evolved well beyond its original
purpose as a data collection tool. Today,
approximately 35,000 officials from
approved schools and program sponsors
use SEVIS data to manage 1.4 million F,
M, and J nonimmigrants and their
dependents during their stays in the
United States. SEVIS provides real-time
administrative and enforcement
information to DHS components,
including CBP and USCIS, as well as
DoS. SEVIS also receives information
about F, M, and J nonimmigrant visa
applications, entry and exit records, and
benefit applications from these entities
through various interfaces. This makes
SEVIS a critical national security
component and a primary resource for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
law enforcement and intelligence
communities to extract the data
necessary to conduct counterterrorism
and counterintelligence threat analysis.
The threat of new forms of terrorism
and other criminal activity exploiting
the Nation’s immigration laws continues
to be a public safety and national
security concern in the United States.
As a result, there is an increasing need
for sophisticated SEVIS data analysis to
detect individuals who engage in
immigration fraud or otherwise pose a
risk to national security through willful
misrepresentation. In addition, end
users from schools and program
sponsors have expressed concerns and
provided feedback reflecting the
necessity to create SEVIS functionalities
that enable the accurate reporting of
new and innovative educational
program models. While SEVIS has been
modified to meet the most critical needs
through hundreds of upgrades and
patches, including adding abilities for
the system to preemptively address data
input errors, system functionality
concerns (due to time lags, system
constraints, and other system design
limitations) continue to affect all SEVIS
users and necessitate continuous
development of SEVIS design. In
response, SEVP has begun an effort—
known as SEVIS Modernization—that
involves redesigning the entire system
over time in prioritized increments.
Continued Modernization will increase
security by providing real-time, personcentric data. This data will reduce fraud
and increase awareness by providing
government officials with actionable
intelligence with which to make
decisions and initiate immigration
actions. Informed decisions and
efficient investigations allow for better
management of F, M, and J
nonimmigrant data and preventing highrisk individuals from entering the
United States.
To address critical system limitations
and improve the SEVIS user experience,
SEVP has identified the following list of
key SEVIS modernization priorities for
continued funding through the
increased I–901 SEVIS Fee revenue:
• Student Portal. F–1 students
engaged in authorized optional practical
training are required to report their
contact and employer information to
DHS. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(12), (f)(17). At
present, students report the required
information to their DSOs, who then
report the information in SEVIS. By
regulation, students must report any
new required information to their DSOs
within 10 days of the change, and the
DSOs must report such information in
SEVIS within 21 days. 8 CFR
214.2(f)(17).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
This external SEVIS student portal
will enable students to directly add or
edit the required contact and employer
information so that their SEVIS record
would be updated in real time. This will
reduce processing redundancies and
lessen the potential for data entry errors
by eliminating the need for the student
to first report such information to the
DSO who will then enter the reported
data into SEVIS. The portal will also
consequently reduce the workload of
DSOs and make the reported data
available to DHS sooner. With future
expansion, the portal will address
SEVIS vulnerabilities related to accurate
monitoring of F, M, and J nonimmigrant
status and location of nonimmigrant
students and exchange visitors by
closing national security vulnerabilities
related to person-centric, paperless,
people-matching capabilities. In
establishing a portal for student use in
this manner, DHS will encourage
students to assume responsibility for
maintaining their immigration status,
reduce the system’s reliance on paperdriven processes, and reinforce the
operational premise and security
advantages of ‘‘one person, one record.’’
Through use of a record-matching
protocol, all SEVIS records will be
collated and presented as a unified,
person-centric statement of information
and activity. These summaries will be
available to all operational entities,
including school officials, who will
have access in the SEVIS record to the
same up-to-date information, including
all student history.
• Support of the Adjudication
Process. As part of maintaining their
SEVP certification, schools are required
to update certain information in SEVIS
about their operations and programs any
time such information changes. See 8
CFR 214.3(g)(2). SEVP is required to
adjudicate such changes. SEVP
currently receives, on average, 350
weekly updates from schools; each
update may contain several subparts,
including school contact information
changes and additions of new programs.
At present, system constraints require
SEVP adjudicators to adjudicate all
parts of the update simultaneously and
to deny the entire update if even one
part of the update cannot be approved.
This causes additional workload and
delays for schools and adjudicators due
to resubmissions of updates. The new
SEVIS functionality that supports
adjudication will provide SEVP and
DoS with enhanced flexibility to
adjudicate school certification and
exchange visitor sponsor designation
updates and applications and
consequently enable SEVP and DoS to
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
adjudicate updates and applications
more efficiently.
• Automated Data Tracking.
Currently, SEVP and DoS manually
monitor SEVIS data for potential
noncompliance indicators with regard
to schools, students, and exchange
visitor program participants and
sponsors. In FY 2016, manual
monitoring yielded 75 compliance
investigations, which resulted in
withdrawal of certification for 21
noncompliant schools. Automated
SEVIS data tracking functionality would
provide SEVP and DoS with enhanced
abilities to track and monitor
compliance. This additional capability
would allow SEVP and DoS to more
quickly detect data trends that are
potential indicators of fraudulent
activities. With the use of automation,
SEVP anticipates a 100 percent increase
in fraudulent activity flags (from 75 to
150 per year), which is estimated to
significantly increase the detection rate
of noncompliant schools and
subsequent withdrawals of SEVP
certification due to noncompliance.
Such functionality would play an
important role in ensuring the integrity
of the Nation’s immigration system.
SEVIS Access Approval Tracking
System (SAATS). School officials
(PDSOs and DSOs) and program
officials (AROs and ROs) constitute the
largest and most critical component of
SEVIS users as they are responsible for
entering the initial student and
exchange visitor data into SEVIS. Their
need to access the system is confirmed
by petition through their sponsoring
school or program. Once granted access,
designated school and program officials
confirm their ongoing need for access in
a yearly validation exercise in which a
delayed response or no response results
in automatic system access denial.
Unlike government employees who
need access to SEVIS to perform official
functions, school and program officials
have not had to meet uniform security
requirements. Recently, SEVP began
conducting national criminal
background checks on designated
school officials (DSOs). SEVP has vetted
all DSOs at K–12 schools and, since
May 2017, has vetted all newly
designated DSOs, helping to ensure the
safety of nonimmigrant students and
exchange visitors and preserve the
integrity of SEVIS data. SEVP is
considering eventually extending this
screening and security review to DSOs
and ROs who were appointed prior to
May 2017 and other school and program
officials through regulatory action.
SEVP will bear the upfront cost of this
security review. When fully
implemented, all individuals who
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
require access to SEVIS will be vetted
prior to being granted such access. DHS
will complete the vetting adjudication
for the RO or ARO and provide a copy
of its decision to the DoS Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs.
This initiative will strengthen the
mechanism for approving user access to
SEVIS. DHS and DoS rely on PDSOs,
DSOs, ROs, and AROs as key links in
the process to mitigate potential threats
to national security and ensure
compliance with immigration law. DHS
would require that anyone nominated to
serve as a PDSO, DSO, RO, or ARO
receive a favorable SEVIS Access
Approval Process (SAAP) assessment
prior to their appointment and
subsequent approval for access to
SEVIS.
• Information Sharing. SEVIS
currently shares information and
exchanges data with 11 intragovernmental interface partners. The
modernized Information Sharing
module will be capable of sharing data
contained in modernized SEVIS data
stores with existing interface partners.
Other interfaces to support modernized
capabilities in other modules, including
paperless capabilities, are being
considered to address SEVIS
vulnerabilities. The centralization of all
information-sharing capabilities in a
single module will allow for efficiencies
in development efforts, system
performance, and sustainability.
• Use of Cloud Technologies. The
cloud infrastructure effort supports the
program by providing flexible, efficient,
and cost-effective cloud services and
infrastructure to facilitate and enable
agile development and testing
processes. While SEVIS actively
mitigates known security threats, it
lacks functionalities to proactively
analyze end user data to detect potential
misuse. The use of cloud technologies
will permit increased analysis of SEVIS
end user data and increase the
efficiency and security of controlling
and managing access to SEVIS by users
not affiliated with DHS, both
governmental and nongovernmental. In
addition, it will enable more efficient
management of user names and
passwords and allow credentials to be
safely passed among system
components. Such analysis is necessary
to create defined alerts about user
activity that is indicative of risk factors
to prompt timely criminal and
compliance investigations. The cloud
infrastructure module supports the
program by providing flexible, efficient,
and cost-effective cloud services and
infrastructure to facilitate and enable
agile development and testing
processes.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33769
This planned modernization effort,
with implementation during FY 2018–
2021, is expected to greatly enhance the
capability of DHS to identify and reduce
national security threats; reduce the
possibility for reporting errors by
prospective and approved F, M, and J
nonimmigrants, as well as their schools
and programs; and better provide
updated, correct, real-time information
to academic, law enforcement, and other
government users. SEVP projects that
the cost for developing and deploying
these SEVIS modifications is $53.19
million. SEVP would incur $13.15
million of that cost in FY 2018, $13.75
million in FY 2019, $13.14 million in
FY 2020, and $13.15 million in FY
2021.
2. Increased SEVP Adjudication
Personnel
In 2008, DHS proposed to recertify all
schools approved for attendance by F
and M students every 2 years, pursuant
to title V, section 502 of EBSVERA and
HSPD–2, and established procedures for
the review of each SEVP-certified school
every 2 years, as well as out-of-cycle
reviews whenever it determines that
clarification or investigation of school
performance or eligibility is necessary.
Recertification is a determination of
performance and compliance with
required standards in the period since
the previous certification. In this
comprehensive review of an SEVPcertified school by an SEVP adjudicator,
SEVP affirms that the school remains
eligible and is complying with
regulatory recordkeeping, retention,
reporting, and other requirements.
Performance is monitored through
SEVIS, DHS records, submissions from
the school, and possible onsite reviews.
If noncompliance is discovered, SEVP
requires schools, as appropriate, to
make corrections immediately. SEVP
reviews the school’s compliance with
Federal law and regulations.
In recent years, the scope of work of
SEVP adjudication has expanded to
include administrative compliance
enforcement, support of criminal
investigations, and adjudication of
school petitions, including certification
petitions, recertification petitions, and
updates to school information. As a
result, SEVP adjudicators have
experienced significant workload
increases, which in turn have resulted
in longer SEVP adjudication processing
times of school petitions and student
compliance issues.
Since initiating recertification, SEVP
has determined that the current number
of SEVP adjudication personnel is
inadequate to meet the congressional
requirement for recertifying or
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33770
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
withdrawing all currently certified
schools every 2 years. At present
staffing levels, SEVP is able to process
1,939, or 44 percent, of the required
annual projected 4,400 recertification
cases.
3. Additional Investigatory Support
Investigations of violations of
immigration status, as well as criminal
investigations of F and M students and
J exchange visitors, are primarily
coordinated by CTCEU. Information is
received, collated, and analyzed from a
number of DHS and other information
sources, including SEVIS, to generate
national security leads for field
personnel and prevent terrorists and
other criminals from exploiting the
Nation’s immigration system through
fraud. In its continuing support of
compliance efforts, SEVP seeks to fund
activities in two key areas: Support for
and integration of technological
advances and surge support for critical
incidents.
New technologies have enabled
sophisticated methods of extracting and
analyzing data. To make best use of
these technology force multipliers,
personnel would use the available
technologies to develop investigative
packages based on SEVIS research and
use of other designated government
computer systems, open source
websites, and other pertinent
information sources related to
individual students, exchange visitors,
and SEVP-certified schools. To the
extent that adequate resources are
allocated and employed for this
purpose, increased support levels would
reduce the vulnerability of the United
States to terrorist attacks and reduce the
potential for exploitation of certified
schools and designated exchange visitor
programs.
Through the fee adjustments proposed
in this rule, SEVP would continue
ensuring funding to enable a surge for
investigatory efforts, including
increased contract overtime or surge
staffing, in advance of planned critical
overstay enforcement operations. SEVP
would also fund the surge of continuous
and extended analytic support to HSI
field operations in the event of a
terrorist attack or during imminent
threat situations. This direct operational
support to field elements during
heightened threat situations or in the
aftermath of an attack would enable
CTCEU to quickly assess subjects of
investigative interest and to share
information to further investigations
with its law enforcement partners, ICE
legal counsel, and the U.S. Attorney’s
Office. Such surge support has been
used successfully and has proven
critical in furthering investigative efforts
and providing investigative focus in
recent threat situations and terrorist
attacks, including attacks in San
Bernardino, California; Orlando,
Florida; Columbus, Ohio; Baltimore,
Maryland; New York; New Jersey; and
Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
C. Basis for Fee Schedule
As previously noted, the proposed
amended fees comply with statutory
and regulatory requirements that SEVP
review its fee structure every 2 years to
ensure that the cost of the services
provided are fully captured by fees
assessed on those receiving the services.
The new fees are an estimate of the
current and projected costs of funding
needed to continue enhancing SEVP’s
capability to achieve programmatic
goals associated with its statutory
mandate—supporting national security
and countering immigration fraud
through the continued development and
implementation of critical system and
programmatic enhancements. This
proposed rule would establish the
following fee structure detailed in Table
3.
TABLE 3—PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE
Fee type
Responsible party
I–901 SEVIS Fee ............................
I–17 Certification Fee ......................
Site Visit Fee ...................................
Student or exchange visitor issued an initial Form I–20 or DS–2019 seeking an F, M, or J visa.
Institutions petitioning for SEVP certification to enroll international students.
Institutions applying for initial certification or certified schools changing locations or adding a campus/location.
Certified institutions seeking recertification every 2 years.
Institutions that have had certification or recertification denied by SEVP, including denied I–17 updates, or
that have had certification withdrawn, and which are filing an appeal or motion regarding the SEVP decision.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Recertification Fee ..........................
Appeal or Motion Fee .....................
The current fee structure includes the
I–901 SEVIS fee, I–17 certification fee,
and the site visit fee. The proposed rule
would allow SEVP to fully fund
activities and institute critical near-term
program and system enhancements in a
more equitable manner. The proposed
fee structure would also include the
addition of a recertification fee and a fee
for filing a motion or appeal.
With this rule SEVP proposes to
impose a fee for a Form I–290B, Notice
of Appeal or Motion, filed with SEVP at
a level that is comparable to the fee for
the Form I–290B when filed with
USCIS. DHS proposes to eliminate
regulations that currently state there is
no fee required for an appeal by a
school, to maintain consistency with
this clarification in the motions context
and to more fairly balance allocation of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
the recovery of SEVP operational costs
between beneficiary classes. Under this
proposal, SEVP would charge the fee for
all appeals and motions.
The proposed rule would ensure the
full recovery of SEVP operational costs
in a manner that fairly allocates costs
between beneficiary classes and would
facilitate the development of activities
designed to achieve defined program
goals. For example, the proposed rule
would continue funding for critical
SEVIS modernization efforts and would
incorporate the added cost of increased
analytical support for investigative and
enforcement operations into the I–901
SEVIS fee. The proposed fee schedule
would also allow SEVP to fully fund
additional SEVP adjudication
personnel.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
D. SEVP Baseline Costs and Fees
SEVP fees are paid by individuals and
organizations. DHS certifies schools that
enroll F and M students; recertifies
schools with active certifications;
conducts site visits; administers,
maintains, and develops SEVIS; collects
fees from prospective F and M students
and J exchange visitors, as well as from
schools; adjudicates motions and
appeals in regard to certification
petitions; undertakes investigatory
initiatives; and provides overall
guidance to schools about program
enrollment and compliance, as well as
the use of SEVIS. These activities are
funded solely through the collection of
fees.
The I–901 SEVIS fee, collected from
students and exchange visitors,
currently underwrites the operation of
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
SEVP; the cost of administering,
maintaining, and developing SEVIS; the
cost of school recertification; and all
activities related to individual and
organizational compliance issues within
the jurisdiction of SEVP. These
activities include the cost of
investigating the compliance of schools
participating in SEVP and exchange
visitor programs, as well as
investigations in which F, M, or J
nonimmigrants are identified as
potential threats to national security or
where it is suspected that an
immigration violation or fraud may be
occurring.
The certification fee is paid by
schools that petition for the authority to
issue Certificates of Eligibility (COE),
commonly referred to as Forms I–20, to
prospective nonimmigrant students for
the purpose of their applying for F or M
visas and admission to the United States
in those statuses. These monies fund the
base internal cost for SEVP to process
and adjudicate the initial school
certification petition (Form I–17,
‘‘Petition for Approval of School for
Attendance by Nonimmigrant
Student’’). The proposed recertification
fee paid by schools to remain certified
would fund the cost of adjudicating the
recertification petition.
If SEVP finds that a petitioning or
certified school does not meet
regulatory standards, it will deny the
affected school’s Form I–17 or withdraw
its SEVP certification. 8 CFR 214.4.
When SEVP sends a school a notice of
denial or withdrawal, the notice also
includes reasons for the unfavorable
decision(s), an explanation of the
school’s rights, and the applicable
appeal and motion filing information
and deadlines. In many cases, a school
may file an appeal or motion to reopen
and/or reconsider unfavorable decisions
issued by SEVP by filing the Form I–
290B, ‘‘Notice of Appeal or Motion,’’
pursuant to the process set forth in 8
CFR 103.3(a) or 103.5(a).7 A school may
initiate a motion to reopen or reconsider
to request that the original deciding
body review the unfavorable decision,
including an appeals decision, pursuant
to requirements in 8 CFR 103.5(a). A
school may also initiate an appeal in
order to request review of the
unfavorable Notice of Denial, Automatic
Withdrawal, or Withdrawal on Notice
by an authority independent of the
original deciding body. Currently, DHS
uses I–901 funds to offset the costs of
SEVP appeals and motions. This offset
7 Form I–290B is managed by USCIS and not ICE.
USCIS has agreed to the use of the form by ICE for
SEVP appeals and the use has been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1615–0095.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
is a result of the DHS determination in
the 2008 final fee rule to state in
regulations that no fee would be
required for appeals relating to SEVP
certification or recertification or a
withdrawal of SEVP certification. See 8
CFR 214.4(a)(1), (h). DHS proposes to
remove the SEVP-related exceptions to
the payment of the I–290B fee and add
regulatory text at proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(O) providing for the fee of
$675 when the Form I–290B is filed
with SEVP. This fee would apply when
schools or institutions file an appeal or
motion with regard to a denied petition
for initial certification or recertification
or a withdrawal of certification.
In proposing these regulatory changes
for the I–290B filing fee, DHS would
more fairly balance allocation of the
recovery of SEVP operational costs
among beneficiary classes. To date, the
cost of adjudicating appeals and
motions has never been placed directly
upon the beneficiaries of those
adjudications—the schools seeking to
obtain or maintain SEVP-certification.
The fee for filing the Form I–290B with
SEVP is being proposed at a level that
requires those who file the Form I–290B
to pay for at least a portion of the
operating expenses for DHS to
adjudicate the I–290B, while preventing
the fee from becoming cost prohibitive.
The site visit fee is currently paid by
schools that petition for certification to
issue Forms I–20 or by a certified school
when it physically moves to a new
location. DHS established this fee in the
2008 Fee Rule and with that rule
codified SEVP’s authority to charge the
fee when a school changes its physical
location or adds a new physical location
or campus. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(3)(ii)(B),
8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii).
Specifically, the 2008 Fee Rule imposed
a site visit fee of $655 for each location
listed on the Form I–17, and required
the Form I–17 to include ‘‘any physical
location in which a nonimmigrant can
attend classes through the school (i.e.,
campus, extension campuses, satellite
campuses, etc.).’’ See 73 FR 55683,
55698–55699 (amending 8 CFR
103.7(b)(3)(ii)(B) and 214.3(a)(1),
respectively). The 2008 Fee Rule also
imposed a continuing duty on schools
to update school locations as changes
arise, i.e., even after initial certification,
a school must update SEVIS within 21
days of a change to a range of
information types, including school
location and campus location. See 73 FR
55683, 55700 (amending 8 CFR
214.3(g)(2), (h)(3)). Consistent with the
aforementioned regulatory amendments,
the preamble to the 2008 Fee Rule made
clear that these provisions require the
imposition of a site visit fee for each
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33771
location listed on the initial SEVP
certification, as well as each location
added as part of an initial event, such
as a SEVIS update requesting approval
of a changed or new location or campus.
73 FR 55683, 55691.
But SEVP is not currently collecting
the fee when a certified school adds a
new physical location or campus. SEVP
intends to begin imposing the fee
following the effective date of any final
rule. The site visit fee would apply
when a certified school updates its
Form I–17 in SEVIS to indicate,
pursuant to 8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)(ii), it is
changing its physical location or adding
a new physical location or campus. This
revenue would assist in recovering the
costs DHS incurs for site visits of these
locations, including collecting evidence
on school eligibility for certification,
reviewing the facilities, and
interviewing personnel nominated on
the petition to become DSOs, including
the person nominated to be the PDSO.
E. Methodology
SEVP captured and allocated cost
using an ABC approach to define full
cost, outline the sources of SEVP cost,
and define the fees. The ABC approach
also provides detailed information on
the cost and activities allocated to each
fee.
1. ABC Approach
SEVP used CostPerform ABC
modeling software, Version 9.3 (0147),
to determine the full cost associated
with updating and maintaining SEVIS to
collect and maintain information on F,
M, and J nonimmigrants; certifying
schools; overseeing school compliance;
recertifying schools; adjudicating
appeals; investigating suspected
violations of immigration law and other
potential threats to national security by
F, M, or J nonimmigrants; providing
outreach and education to users; and
performing regulatory and policy
analysis. SEVP also used the model to
identify management and overhead
costs associated with the program.
ABC is a business management
methodology that links inputs (cost) and
outputs (products and services) by
quantifying how work is performed in
an organization (activities). The ABC
methodology allows fee-funded
organizations to trace service costs and
to calculate an appropriate fee for the
service, based on the cost of activities
associated with the services for which
the fee is levied.
Using the ABC methodology, SEVP
identified and defined the activities
needed to support SEVP functions to
include current and future initiatives.
SEVP captured the full cost of
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33772
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
operations and apportioned that full
cost to the appropriate program
activities. The full cost of each activity
is then assigned to the appropriate fee
category based on the nature of the
activity, as described further below. By
tracking costs to the various fee
categories, SEVP was able to use
forecasted payments to determine the
appropriate fee amount for each fee
type. SEVP examined historical data
and performed statistical payment
analysis to forecast payments in future
years.
SEVP used an independent contractor
and commercially available ABC
software to compute the fees. The
structure of the software was tailored to
SEVP needs for continual and real-time
fee review and cost management.
2. Full Cost
In building the ABC model, it was
critical for SEVP to identify the sources
and cost for all elements of the program.
Consistent with instructive legislative
and regulatory guidance, SEVP fees
recoup the full cost of providing the
agency’s overall resources and services.8
To the extent applicable, SEVP used
the cost accounting concepts and
standards recommended in the FASAB
Handbook, Version 15, ‘‘Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards
Number 4, Managerial Cost Accounting
Concepts and Standards for the Federal
Government’’ (2016). FASAB Standard
Number 4 sets the following five
standards as fundamental elements of
managerial cost accounting: (1)
Accumulate and report cost of activities
on a regular basis for management
information purposes; (2) establish
responsibility segments and match the
cost of each segment with its outputs;
(3) determine the full cost of
government goods and services; 9 (4)
recognize the costs of goods and
services provided among federal
entities; and (5) use appropriate costing
methodologies to accumulate and assign
costs to outputs.
SEVP calculates projected fees using
the full cost of operations, as defined by
a regularly updated spend plan. The
projected spend plans for FY 2019 and
FY 2020 were used in calculation of
SEVP’s proposed fee structure. Tables 4
through 7 detail the full cost of SEVP
operations, consistent with the spend
plan, from various perspectives: By
program category, by cost initiative, by
fee type, and by activity.
3. Cost Basis for SEVP Fees Based on
Current Services
The FY 2019 and FY 2020 budgets
provide the cost basis for the fees. These
budgets reflect the required revenue to
sustain current initiatives. The revenue
is also assessed to ensure a sufficient
level of continued funding for program
enhancements as discussed above, such
as enhanced vetting and investigative
analysis to support enforcement
operations, SEVIS Modernization, and
increased numbers of adjudication
personnel. Finally, the past budgets
provide the cost basis for adjusting
annualized cost-of-living increases.
Determining the projected cost for
continuation of current efforts involved
routine budget projection processes. The
budget establishes the current services
of the program and projects the
mandatory and cost-of-living
adjustments necessary to maintain
current services. The budget adjusts the
services provided by SEVP to include
enhancements that reflect program
policy decisions. Table 4 reflects the FY
2017 final budget, the FY 2018
approved budget, and the FY 2019 and
FY 2020 planned budget requests.
TABLE 4—STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS BY ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAM
CATEGORY
[Dollars in thousands]
2017 spend
plan
SEVP expenses
2018 spend
plan
2019 spend
plan
2020 spend
plan
SEVP Payroll
Full-Time Equivalent Personnel .......................................................................
Executive Office ...............................................................................................
Fee Management Section ...............................................................................
Field Representative Unit ................................................................................
Policy Section ..................................................................................................
Systems Management Unit .............................................................................
SEVP Response Center Section .....................................................................
School Certification Unit ..................................................................................
SEVP Analysis and Operations Section ..........................................................
New Required Positions ..................................................................................
Office of the Principal Legal Advisor ...............................................................
SEVP Outside Positions ..................................................................................
134
$1,735
$1,350
$6,480
$1,178
$1,258
$652
$2,993
$1,070
........................
$328
$1,444
175
$1,744
$1,597
$6,958
$969
$1,299
$652
$2,966
$1,226
$296
$517
$1,776
221
$2,048
$1,775
$7,641
$1,283
$1,391
$931
$3,291
$1,402
$2,357
$642
$2,545
221
$2,084
$1,806
$7,776
$1,325
$1,416
$941
$3,349
$1,388
$5,610
$659
$2,629
Total SEVP Payroll ...................................................................................
$18,488
$20,000
$25,306
$28,983
Advisory and Assistance Services ..................................................................
SEVIS (Modernization and O&M) * ..................................................................
Interagency Agreements with other agencies .................................................
Travel ...............................................................................................................
Service-wide Costs ..........................................................................................
$58,630
$8,237
$8,046
$1,474
$3,222
$58,108
$18,722
$9,815
$1,500
$4,015
$52,755
$22,241
$8,360
$1,100
$2,400
$50,977
$21,912
$8,583
$1,100
$2,400
Total Program Expenses ..........................................................................
$79,609
$92,160
$86,856
$84,972
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Program Expenses
8 These include but are not limited to: Direct and
indirect personnel cost, including salaries and
fringe benefits, such as medical insurance and
retirement; retirement cost, including all (funded or
unfunded) accrued cost not covered by employee
contributions, as specified in OMB Circular A–11;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
overhead, consulting, and other indirect cost,
including material and supply cost, utilities,
insurance, travel, as well as rents or imputed rents
on land, buildings, and equipment; management
and supervisory cost; and cost of enforcement,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
collection, research, establishment of standards,
and regulation.
9 Full cost includes the costs associated with
resources that directly or indirectly contribute to
the output and supporting services within the entity
and from other entities.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
33773
TABLE 4—STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS BY ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAM
CATEGORY—Continued
[Dollars in thousands]
2017 spend
plan
SEVP expenses
2018 spend
plan
2019 spend
plan
2020 spend
plan
CTCEU .............................................................................................................
$67,200
$74,450
$74,450
$74,450
Total, SEVP ..............................................................................................
$165,297
$186,610
$186,612
$188,405
* Includes costs for the SEVIS Modernization and SEVIS Operations and Maintenance.
F. Summary of the Full Cost Information
The total cost projection for FY 2019
is $186,612,000 and for FY 2020 is
$188,405,000. Table 4 sets out the
projected current services for SEVP and
supporting CTCEU personnel in FY
2019 ($74.45 million) and FY 2020
($74.45 million). These costs are direct
extensions of the FY 2018 costs that are
supported by the current fees. Table 5
summarizes the enhancements and
other costs, which include investigative
analysis to support enforcement
operations, SEVIS Modernization,
increased numbers of adjudication
personnel, and annualized inflation.
TABLE 5—FY 2018, FY 2019 AND FY 2020 SEVP COST BY INITIATIVE
FY 2018
budgeted cost
(thousands)
FY 2019
budgeted cost
(thousands)
FY 2020
budgeted cost
(thousands)
$95,097
70,200
$94,497
70,200
$95,106
70,200
Subtotal .........................................................................................................................
Enhancements and Other Costs:
Investigative Analysis Support .............................................................................................
SEVIS Modernization ...........................................................................................................
Increased Personnel .............................................................................................................
Annualized Inflation ..............................................................................................................
165,297
164,697
165,306
4,250
13,150
1,100
2,813
4,250
13,750
1,100
2,813
4,250
13,141
3,500
2,208
Subtotal .........................................................................................................................
21,313
21,913
23,099
Total .......................................................................................................................
186,610
186,610
188,405
Program cost by initiative
Program Base:
SEVP (Current operational costs) ........................................................................................
CTCEU (Current operational costs) .....................................................................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
1. Fee Allocation
The purpose of the ABC methodology
is to trace costs to organizational
elements, as well as identify all cost
components associated with the services
offered. For fee-based organizations
such as SEVP, this allows the
assignment of cost to one or more fees.
SEVP defined five fee categories: The I–
901 SEVIS fee, certification fee,
recertification fee, fee for motions and
appeals, and site visit fee.
Historically SEVP has only collected
fees from students and exchange
visitors—the I–901 fee—and from
schools applying for certification, to
include a separate site visit fee. In this
analysis, SEVP considered the creation
of additional fee categories for all the
distinct services it provides in deciding
how to apportion fees. For example,
SEVP considered charging a separate I–
901 SEVIS fee to F, M, and J
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
dependents. SEVP also examined
various tiered fee structures and
considered assigning some specific costs
to separate fees. The ABC fee model
allowed SEVP to evaluate these
scenarios. DHS opted for an updated fee
structure that segments program cost to
the appropriate fee—F and M students,
J exchange visitors, or schools.
The proposed I–901 SEVIS fee would
recover the systems cost for SEVIS,
including the remainder of certification,
recertification, site visits, as well as
appeals and motions costs that are not
covered by the respective proposed fees.
The fee would be apportioned between
three categories—full fee of $350 for F
and M students, reduced fee of $220 for
most J participants, and the further
reduced fee of $35 for certain J program
participants. Federal Governmentsponsored J program participants are
fee-exempt by law, so their costs will be
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
funded by other fee payers. 8 U.S.C.
1372(e)(3).
The proposed school certification fee
would recover a portion of the costs
necessary to process initial school
certifications. The proposed
recertification fee would recover a
portion of the cost to process school
recertifications and a portion of SEVP
administrative costs. The site visit fee
would recover the full cost of
performing the site visit for initial
school certification and when a school
changes its physical location or adds a
new physical location or campus. The
proposed fee for an appeal or motion
would recover a portion of the cost to
process an appeal or motion.
2. SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 Cost
Model Results
Table 6 shows the summary of SEVP
FY 2019 and FY 2020 cost by source of
cost.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33774
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—TOTAL SEVP FY 2019 AND FY 2020 COST BY FEE CATEGORY
FY 2019
budgeted cost
(thousands)
FY 2020
budgeted cost
(thousands)
I–901 SEVIS Fee .....................................................................................................................................................
I–17 Certification Fee ..............................................................................................................................................
I–17 Recertification Fee ...........................................................................................................................................
Site Visit Fee ...........................................................................................................................................................
Appeals Fee .............................................................................................................................................................
$159,835
1,909
22,522
385
1,956
$160,633
1,992
23,189
389
2,198
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
186,607
188,401
SEVP ABC model output category
Table 7 shows a more detailed cost
breakdown. The numbers are shown in
thousands, rather than millions, of
dollars due to the level of detail. There
are two levels for the costs: Process and
activity. Costs are allocated from
Table 7 details these costs from an
activity perspective. To simplify the
presentation, the numbers are rounded
to the nearest thousand. These numbers
are not rounded in the cost model.
payroll, contracts, and other expenses to
activities through activity surveys and
volume based cost allocations. The full
cost of operations from the spend plans
is distributed to the activities that best
describe the work being performed.
TABLE 7—DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN
[FY 19 + FY 20, dollars in thousands]
Process
Activity
I–901
I–17
certification
I–17
re-certification
I–17
site visit
Appeals
Certify Schools ................
A–01: Certify schools (initial certification) ...............
A–02: Recertify schools ...........................................
A–03: Notify students if school is withdrawn ..........
A–04: Withdraw schools from SEVIS ......................
A–05: Process appeals/motions ..............................
A–06: Process petition updates ..............................
A–07: Monitor school compliance ...........................
A–08: Monitor school risk ........................................
A–28: Conduct Student and Exchange Visitor (I–
901) investigations.
A–29: Conduct school and sponsor investigations
A–30: Operate CTCEU programs ...........................
A–31: Provide CTCEU liaison support ....................
A–41: Perform I–515 operations duties ..................
A–43: PDSO/DSO background checks ...................
A–16: Analyze and develop policy ..........................
A–17: Develop and review rules and regulations ...
A–18: Implement policy ...........................................
A–19: Develop future policy strategy ......................
A–11: Develop and deliver SEVP communications
A–12: Respond to stakeholders’ policy and technical inquiries (including Tier III Help Desk).
A–13: Provide Field Representative support ..........
A–14: Prepare and attend conferences/workshops
related to the SEVIS community.
A–15: Develop and conduct strategic communications.
A–20: Modify and enhance functionality of SEVP
mission systems (e.g., SEVIS, SEVPAMS 10).
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
$93,921
$3,115
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
$4,614
129
1,102
........................
3,036
3,761
3,446
16,574
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
$3,420
........................
........................
........................
........................
34,238
4,130
417
1,471
1,038
3,170
2,476
1,501
816
9,040
8,218
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
118
........................
6,042
729
74
........................
54
600
469
284
154
1,224
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
24
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
130
........................
13,731
3,404
........................
62
2,598
644
........................
13
........................
68
2,699
49
511
........................
........................
24,816
........................
........................
........................
........................
A–21: Operate and maintain SEVP mission systems (e.g., SEVIS, SEVPAMS).
A–22: Provide Tier I and Tier II Help Desk support
A–23: Conduct systems program management ......
A–24: Analyze and disseminate program data .......
A–25: Operate and maintain SEVP inter-office systems.
A–26: Maintain SEVP systems security ..................
A–27: Maintain SEVP physical security ..................
A–32: Provide Executive Leadership for SEVP ......
A–33: Provide SEVP administrative support ...........
A–34: Develop strategic plan ..................................
A–35: Manage financial resources ..........................
A–36: Manage procurement ....................................
A–37: Manage personnel resources .......................
A–38: Manage SEVP records .................................
A–39: Manage facility resources .............................
A–40: Manage I–901 payment system ...................
A–42: Manage I–901 J program .............................
A–44: Site Visits ......................................................
A–09: Develop and deliver SEVIS training .............
A–10: Develop and deliver internal training ............
28,491
........................
........................
........................
........................
12,814
5,291
3,510
1,735
........................
........................
46
32
........................
........................
475
328
........................
........................
9
........................
........................
........................
50
........................
2,867
223
2,539
1,599
1,612
7,300
1,886
2,065
3,274
1,782
7,766
15,966
........................
5,936
2,613
37
4
33
21
29
95
25
27
60
23
........................
........................
........................
78
48
388
42
344
217
305
988
256
280
619
241
........................
........................
........................
803
494
........................
1
7
4
6
20
5
6
12
5
........................
........................
638
16
10
........................
4
36
23
32
105
27
30
66
25
........................
........................
........................
85
52
..................................................................................
314,355
3,902
51,827
775
4,155
Enforce Compliance with
Regulations and Laws.
Formulate Policy .............
Provide Stakeholder
Communications.
Provide Systems Program Management
Support.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Support SEVP Operations.
Train SEVP staff, other
staff, and DSOs.
Total .........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33775
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
3. Fee Calculations
The cost model provides detailed cost
information by activity and a summary
cost for each, giving the aggregate fee
cost by category. Next, SEVP projected
the total number of fee payments of each
type for FY 2019 and FY 2020 and
determined the fee-recoverable budget.
SEVP selected a forecasting approach to
determine the total number of expected
fee payments for each fee.
a. I–901 SEVIS Fee
To calculate a fee amount for the I–
901 SEVIS fee, SEVP estimated the
number of fee payments expected in FY
2019 and FY 2020 for each of the three
fee payment types: Reduced fee for J
participants (excluding the additional
cost for initial certification and
recertification of SEVP-certified
schools); full fee for J participants
(excluding the additional cost for initial
certification and recertification of SEVPcertified schools); and full fee for F and
M students (including additional costs
for certification, recertification, and
appeals).
Calculations for each of the three fee
payment types vary because each fee
type is treated differently in federal
statutes and regulations. Section 641 of
IIRIRA exempts Federal Governmentsponsored J–1 exchange visitors from
the fee payment. All F and M
nonimmigrant students are currently
required to pay $200, and nonexempt J
nonimmigrant exchange visitors
currently must pay $180. 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(H); 214.13(a). Congress
modified the statute in December of
2000 to establish a reduced fee of $35
for au pairs, camp counselors, or
participants in a summer work travel
program, demonstrating strong
congressional intent that the fee remain
at that level. Act of Dec. 21, 2000, Public
Law 106–553, app. B, sec. 110, 114 Stat.
2762, 2762A–51, 2762A–68. IIRIRA also
provided for revising the fee once the
program to collect information was
expanded to include information
collection on all F, M, and J
nonimmigrants. As a result, the I–901
fee was revised in 2008 under the
provisions of IIRIRA to take into
account the actual cost of carrying out
the program. See 73 FR 55683. The I–
901 fee is now being revised a second
time, through this rule, due to an
increase in the actual cost of carrying
out the program.
SEVP determined the number of
expected I–901 SEVIS fee payments in
FY 2019 and FY 2020. SEVP calculated
the I–901 SEVIS fee over a 2-year period
to account for potential fluctuation in
the forecast. SEVP used the change in
the numbers of payments received to
provide the trend data used to forecast
I–901 SEVIS fee payments for each I–
901 payment type separately. Table 8
reflects aggregate historical payment
data for all three I–901 payment types.
TABLE 8—F, M, AND J VISA ISSUANCE
2007–2017
Fiscal year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
697,054
753,065
644,912
699,983
749,082
744,027
767,805
829,636
885,728
866,623
796,820
Growth rate*
........................
8.0
¥14.4
8.5
7.0
¥0.7
3.2
8.1
6.8
¥2.2
¥8.1
* Growth rate rounded to nearest tenth of a
percent.
As indicated in Table 8, the level of
payments received varied greatly over
the past 10 years. This high degree of
variation in the historical data,
combined with the variables affecting
demand for visas, called for a
forecasting methodology that would
capture and account for deviations.
SEVP selected a statistical forecasting
method that uses trends in historical
data to forecast future payments. SEVP
selected ARIMA, an autoregressive
integrated moving average model to
forecast payments. An ARIMA model is
a statistical model that uses historical
time series data to predict future trends
and movements. A non-seasonal model
incorporates two major components:
Trend and moving average. The
autoregressive portion of the model, or
trend, states that past values have an
effect on current or future values and
that values are estimated based on the
weighted sum of past values. The
second component is moving average
which helps to smooth out the time
series to filter out extreme fluctuations
or outliers. In some cases a third
component is needed: Seasonality. Visa
data from 2004 to the present shows
extreme seasonality in the number of F,
M, and J visas issued. Seasonality is
factored into the model to account for
the U.S. academic calendar.
SEVP evaluated alternative
forecasting methods; however, SEVP
rejected these methods due to
inaccuracy and poor fit. SEVP’s chosen
model provided a conservative forecast
that will allow SEVP to operate with
stability. The fee payment forecast,
reflected in Table 9, places a balanced
mix of emphasis on recent and
historical data and still contains
sufficient data points to smooth out
some variability in the underlying data.
TABLE 9—I–901 SEVIS FEE PAYMENT FORECAST FY 2019–FY 2020
I–901 Payment type
FY 2019
FY 2020
Full Payments, F/M ..................................................................................................................................................
Full payment, J-Full .................................................................................................................................................
Subsidized, J-Partial ................................................................................................................................................
418,393
157,550
158,945
407,933
153,611
158,945
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
734,888
720,490
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
b. Certification Cost
SEVP uses historical data from FY
2012 to FY 2016 to find a 3-year moving
average to forecast annual new initial
certifications. SEVP predicts demand of
approximately 426 initial certifications
each year. SEVP assumes that the
10 SEVP
proposed higher fee will not deter
schools from applying for certification.
TABLE 10—THREE-YEAR MOVING AVERAGE OF THE NUMBER OF SCHOOL
CERTIFICATION PAYMENTS RECEIVED
Fiscal year
2012 ..........
2013 ..........
Automated Management System.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Payments
received
457
382
3-Year moving
average
........................
........................
33776
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—THREE-YEAR MOVING AV- F and M SEVIS fee, which is addressed
ERAGE OF THE NUMBER OF SCHOOL below.
CERTIFICATION
PAYMENTS
RE- c. Recertification Cost
CEIVED—Continued
To identify a fee level that would
Fiscal year
2014 ..........
2015 ..........
2016 ..........
Payments
received
3-Year moving
average
446
469
363
428
432
426
The total fee category budget is taken
directly from the FY 2019 and FY 2020
SEVP ABC model, reflected in Table 11.
TABLE 11—FY 2019–FY 2020 CERTIFICATION
FEE-RECOVERABLE
BUDGET
Fiscal year
Certification
payments
expected
recover the full cost of recertification
operations, SEVP determined the full
cost of recertification (including level of
effort and contract cost) and the
approximate number of schools willing
to recertify. Because schools are
required to recertify every 2 years, SEVP
anticipates that approximately one-half
of its certified schools—roughly 4,373
schools per year, given the current
certified school population of 8,746—
would recertify.
d. Site Visit Cost
TABLE 12—FY 2019–FY 2020 RESite visits consist of initial
CERTIFICATION
FEE-RECOVERABLE
certification site visits, change of
BUDGET
Fee-recoverable budget
Fiscal year
426
426
852
3,902,558
Recertification
payments
expected
2019 ..........
2020 ..........
4,373
4,373
$25,368,650
26,457,896
Total ...
8,746
School certification fees are
calculated by dividing the feerecoverable budget by the anticipated
number of payments. This results in a
fee-recoverable amount from schools of
$4,580 each. To arrive at the proposed
fee, rounding was applied to the result
of the fee algorithm. This results in a
certification fee of $4,600 per school.
Setting the certification fee at the $4,600
figure, however, leads to an increase of
the current school certification fee by
$2,900, resulting in a certification fee
over twice the current fee amount.
School certification is integral to
SEVP—F and M nonimmigrant students
can only attend SEVP-certified schools.
DHS is concerned that such an increase
of the school certification fee would
appear dramatic to schools seeking
initial certification and could lead to
fewer schools seeking initial
certification, so DHS proposes to keep
the fee increase at a level that will not
discourage potential new schools from
seeking certification. At the same time,
DHS considers that initial certification
bestows upon the school a valuable
asset, the ability to enroll F and M
nonimmigrant students, and an
increased fee amount is reasonable as
the initial certification process becomes
more extensive through the SEVIS
modernization and other technological
developments. Weighing these
concerns, DHS decided to subsidize the
I–17 certification fee by increasing the
payment by only $1,300 to $3,000. The
remainder of the costs for I–17
certification is subsidized by the I–901
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
location visits, and new campus or
location site visits. The anticipated
workload for these site visits is 600 per
year, or 1,200 visits over a 2-year period.
51,826,546
$1,909,680
1,992,878
Total ...
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
2019 ..........
2020 ..........
nonimmigrant status. Weighing all these
factors, DHS proposes that the I–17
recertification fee be $1,250. DHS
proposes to eliminate regulations that
state that no fee is required for the
school recertification process in order to
recover part of this cost, as part of an
effort to establish a more equitable
distribution of costs and more
sustainable level of cost recovery
relative to services provided. The costs
for I–17 recertification not recovered by
the proposed fee would be subsidized
by the I–901 F and M SEVIS fee. The
explanation for shifting responsibility of
the fee adjustment to the I–901 fee is
included below.
Fee-recoverable budget
To calculate an anticipated school
recertification fee, DHS divides the feerecoverable budget by the anticipated
number of payments. This results in a
fee-recoverable amount from schools of
$6,000 each. To arrive at the proposed
fee, rounding was applied to the result
of the fee algorithm. This would result
in a recertification fee of $6,000 per
school. DHS desires to institute a
recertification fee to more accurately
assign the costs of recertification
adjudication to those stakeholders who
are directly requesting the
adjudication—the SEVP-certified
schools—particularly since the costs of
recertification continue to increase as
the recertification process becomes
more robust. DHS considers, however,
that a recertification fee instituted in
this rule for the first time should not be
set at a level that could discourage
schools from seeking recertification.
DHS also considers that the
recertification amount should be less
than the initial certification amount so
that schools are encouraged to seek
recertification instead of allowing their
SEVP certification to be withdrawn and
applying for initial certification anew at
some later date. Withdrawal of SEVPcertification not only leads to the school
losing a valuable asset, but also leads to
complications for F and M
nonimmigrant students enrolled in the
withdrawn school, who are then forced
to transfer schools, leave the United
States, or risk facing immigration law
penalties for violating the terms of their
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
TABLE 13—FY 2019–FY 2020 SITE
VISIT FEE-RECOVERABLE BUDGET
Fiscal year
Site visit
payments
expected
Fee-recoverable budget
2019 ..........
2020 ..........
600
600
$385,674
389,689
Total ...
1,200
775,363
The current fee amount is $655 as
established in the 2008 Fee Rule that
codified SEVP’s authority to charge the
fee when a school changes its physical
location or adds new physical location
or campus. Following this rule’s
effective date, SEVP will collect the fee
when a school adds a new physical
location or campus. The site visit fee
would apply when a certified school
updates its Form I–17 in SEVIS to
indicate, pursuant to 8 CFR
214.3(h)(3)(ii), an added physical
location or campus. The site visit fee is
based on level of effort for both SEVP
staff and contracts that cover the cost of
operations.
e. Appeals and Motions Cost
Determining the full cost of
processing an appeal is essential to
improving the fee structure. The fee for
filing a motion or appeal is calculated
by determining the workload of appeals
and motions over the FY 2019 and FY
2020 periods. Over the past 2 years,
SEVP has processed 54 appeals and
motions annually. To maintain
conservative estimates, SEVP
anticipates that number will remain
constant over the FY 2019 and FY 2020
periods.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 14—FY 2019–FY 2020
APPEALS FEE-RECOVERABLE BUDGET
Fiscal year
Appeal and
motion
payments
expected
would charge the fee for all such
appeals and motions.
4. Proposed Fee Levels
Fee-recoverable budget
2019 ..........
2020 ..........
54
54
$1,956,375
2,198,825
Total ...
108
4,155,200
Fees for motions or appeals are
calculated by dividing the feerecoverable budget by the anticipated
number of payments over the FY 2019
and FY 2020 periods. This results in a
fee-recoverable amount of $38,474 for
each appeal. To arrive at the proposed
final cost, rounding was applied to the
result of the fee algorithm. This results
in a cost for a motion or appeal of
$38,500. SEVP believes that this fee,
while justified, is too high to impose on
the affected schools as the first fee to be
established and collected for the subject
appeals and motions, and that some
accommodation should be made to keep
the fee at a more reasonable amount.
Instead, DHS proposes adding $4.76 to
the Form I–901 F and M fees to
counterbalance the unfunded costs of
adjudicating appeals and motions. This
will better ensure that cost is not a
significant obstacle in pursuing an
administrative appeal or motion. The
Form I–290B fee when filed with SEVP
would be set at $675, which is currently
the same amount charged when the
form is filed with USCIS. See 8 CFR
103.7(b)(i)(S).11 The Form I–290B,
‘‘Notice of Appeal or Motion,’’ filed
with USCIS is the same form used for
appeals or motions related to any denial
of school certification or recertification
or a withdrawal of such certification.
Although the appeal fee would not be
set at the amount necessary to recover
the full costs of appeals and motions, by
setting a fee of $675, schools that benefit
from the appeal process would bear
some of its costs, and DHS would more
fairly balance allocation of the recovery
of SEVP operational costs between
beneficiary classes. As proposed, DHS
Viewing the SEVP fee structure and
affected parties comprehensively, DHS
proposes to adjust each fee in its fee
structure based not only on cost of
services, but also on the desire to spread
the impact of fee increases reasonably
among the various beneficiaries of SEVP
services. Despite the ABC calculations’
determination of the actual cost of each
service, which is represented by each
fee, DHS has determined that using the
I–901 revenue to subsidize the costs of
the SEVP’s other fees is an appropriate
course of action for two reasons. First,
the number of F and M students paying
the I–901 fee is substantially larger than
the number of entities paying each of
the school certification-related fees,
allowing for SEVP to lessen the impact
of fee increases in the aggregate. Second,
the subsidization is reasonable because
individuals paying the I–901 fee
necessarily benefit from the continued
certification of schools for their
enrollment and prompt and accurate
adjudication of appeals.
DHS proposes to increase the I–901
SEVIS fee for F and M students from
$200 to $350 and the full I–901 SEVIS
fee for most J exchange visitors from
$180 to $220. While these increases may
seem large, these fees have been
unchanged since 2008. 73 FR 55683
(Sept. 26, 2008). In 2008, the first time
these fees had been updated since
SEVP’s inception in 2004, the I–901
SEVIS fee for F and M students
increased from $100 to $200, and the
full I–901 SEVIS fee for most J exchange
visitors increased from $100 to $180.
See id. The I–901 SEVIS fee for special
J-visa categories (au pair, camp
counselor, and summer work travel)
would remain at the current $35 level,
consistent with the levels set by
Congress in 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A).
IIRIRA also exempts from the I–901
SEVIS fee J–1 exchange visitors who
participate in Federal Governmentsponsored J–1 exchange programs,
consistent with 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(3).
33777
DHS proposes to increase the initial
certification fee from $1,700 to $3,000.
This fee was originally set at $230,
effective in 2002, prior to the
reorganization of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) to become
part of DHS. See 66 FR 65811 (Dec. 21,
2001). The fee was increased in 2008 to
$1,700. See 73 FR 55683. This is the
base fee for certification and does not
include the site visit fee.
DHS proposes to establish a
recertification fee at $1,250, maintain
the site visit fee of $655, and set the I–
290B fee at $675. The cost for SEVP
recertification, site visits, and motions
and appeals adjudication is determined
by employing ABC principles,
previously described in this document,
balanced with SEVP’s desire to prevent
recertifications, site visits, appeals, and
motions filings from becoming cost
prohibitive. DHS is proposing a
recertification fee and a Form I–290B fee
for the first time, and SEVP believes that
charging recertification and appeals fees
sufficient to recover, on their own, the
fee-recoverable amount for such
services, may result in inordinately high
fees from the perspective of entities who
have regularly received the benefits of
these SEVP services at no additional
charge. Accordingly, DHS proposes to
set these fees at amounts below the feerecoverable cost. For the I–290B fee in
particular, DHS proposes to set the
amount at $675. DHS believes this
amount is appropriate because it is less
than both the fee for initial certification
and the fee for recertification. Further,
the amount $675 is already associated
with the Form I–290B when filing it
with USCIS. DHS believes $675 is a
logical starting point, because this is the
fee currently being charged by USCIS
for motions and appeals. While the
difference between the fee-recoverable
amount (approximately $38,500) and
the proposed fee of $675 is substantial,
subsidizing this fee by driving the
additional costs to the I–901 fee results
in an increase of only $4.76 to F/M
students paying that fee. The proposed
program fee schedule for SEVP
beginning in FY 2019 is shown in Table
15.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
TABLE 15—PROPOSED FY 2019 SEVP FEES
Category
Amount
I–901 SEVIS Fees:
• I–901 Primary F/M visa holders (Full) ......................................................................................................................................
• I–901 Primary J visa holders (Full) ...........................................................................................................................................
• I–901 Special J-visa categories (Subsidized payment) ............................................................................................................
I–17 School Fee:
........................
$350
220
35
........................
11 Because the underlying rationale for the
amount of the I–290B fee differs between SEVP and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
USCIS, the cost for appealing a claim or petition
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
using the I–290B Form could eventually be different
for SEVP and USCIS 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(S).
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33778
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 15—PROPOSED FY 2019 SEVP FEES—Continued
Category
Amount
• Certification Fee ........................................................................................................................................................................
• Recertification Fee ....................................................................................................................................................................
• Site visit fee for initial certification (base fee to be multiplied by number of locations cited on the Form I–17), and for new
physical locations ......................................................................................................................................................................
Appeal or Motion Fee:
• Appeal or Motion Fee ...............................................................................................................................................................
These proposed fee amounts, the cost
model outputs, and cost reallocation
amounts are shown in Table 16. The
cost reallocation amounts are negative
for the fees that are subsidized. The cost
reallocation amounts that are positive
3,000
1,250
655
........................
675
are the amounts per fee that subsidize
the other fee categories.
TABLE 16—PROPOSED FEE ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTS
Current fee
Activity based
cost model
output
Cost
reallocation
Final fee
Change
in fees
% Change
in fee
(a)
Fee
(b)
(c)
(d = b + c)
(e)
(f = (d/a) ¥1)
Appeal or Motion Fee: I–290B .................
I–901 F/M .................................................
I–901 J-Full ..............................................
I–901 J-Partial ..........................................
I–17 Initial Certification ............................
I–17 Recertification ..................................
Site Visit—initial .......................................
Site Visit—new location ...........................
N/A
200
180
35
1,700
N/A
655
0
Table 17 reflects the break-even
analysis based on the proposed fee
$38,475
290
123
123
4,600
6,000
650
650
($37,800)
60
97
(88)
(1,600)
(4,750)
5
5
$675
350
220
35
3,000
1,250
655
655
schedule and the proportional fee
volumes (rounded) required to generate
$675
150
30
0
1,300
1,250
0
655
N/A
75
22
0
76
N/A
0
N/A
sufficient revenue to offset projected
program costs.
TABLE 17—PROJECTED REVENUE—FY 2019 AND FY 2020
Proposed
fee amount
Fee category
I–901 F/M Full ..............................................................................................................................
I–901 J-Full ..................................................................................................................................
I–901 J-Partial ..............................................................................................................................
I–901 Subtotal:
Certification Fee ...................................................................................................................
Recertification Fee ................................................................................................................
Site Visit ................................................................................................................................
I–17 Subtotal:
Appeals .................................................................................................................................
Total ...............................................................................................................................
VI. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13771: Regulatory Review
Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’) and 13563
(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review’’) direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health, and safety
effects; distributive impacts; and
equity). Executive Order 13563
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Forecasted
revenue
$350
210
35
826,326
311,162
317,890
$289,214,144
68,455,584
11,126,150
3,000
1,250
655
852
8,746
1,200
2,556,000
10,932,500
786,000
675
........................
108
1,466,284
72,900
383,143,278
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. Executive Order
13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) directs
agencies to reduce regulation and
control regulatory costs and provides
that ‘‘for every one new regulation
issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination, and that the
cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a
budgeting process.’’
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has designated this rule a
‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ although
PO 00000
Forecasted
volume
not economically significant under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed
by OMB. This proposed rule would
impose transfer payments between the
public and the government. Thus, this
proposed rule is not expected to be
subject to the requirements of Executive
Order 13771. An initial regulatory
analysis follows.
1. Background and Purpose of the
Proposed Rule
SEVP is a fee funded program within
ICE that provides oversight of schools
and nonimmigrant students in the F and
M visa category. SEVP uses SEVIS to
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
implementation of this proposed rule
would provide SEVP with additional fee
revenue of $75.2 million in FY 2019 and
$73.5 million in FY 2020. If DHS does
not adjust the current fees to recover the
costs of processing the enrollment of F
and M students, certification and
recertification of schools, processing
relating to J exchange visitors, appeals,
and site visits, it will be forced to make
reductions in oversight, security, and
service as compared to current
projections.
To determine the full cost associated
with SEVP and the management of
SEVIS, SEVP used ABC methodology.
ABC first identifies activities in an
organization and then assigns the cost of
each activity according to the resources
they consume. SEVP identified the
following as its primary activities:
Collecting and retaining information on
F, M, and J nonimmigrants; certifying
schools; overseeing school compliance;
recertifying schools; adjudicating
appeals; investigating suspected
violations of immigration law and other
potential threats to national security by
F, M, or J nonimmigrants; providing
outreach and education to users; and
monitor and track certified schools and
F, M, and J nonimmigrant students. DoS
also uses SEVIS in the management of
the Exchange Visitor Program for
nonimmigrant exchange visitors in the J
visa category. SEVIS is a web-based
system administered by SEVP that
retains data on international students
and exchange visitors in the country.
SEVP uses SEVIS to ensure accurate
reporting and recordkeeping by schools
and exchange visitor programs. SEVP
also uses SEVIS to identify for
enforcement action student and
exchange visitors who are out of status.
The purpose of this proposed rule is
to generate the necessary revenue to
recover the full cost of the FY 2019 and
FY 2020 budgets. SEVP is authorized to
recover the full cost of all resources and
services provided. The costs of SEVP
activities have increased, and the fees
collected no longer cover the costs. The
fee increase is needed to meet long-term
cash flow needs and achieve solvency.
SEVP projects an annual budget of
$186.6 million in FY 2019 and $188.4
million in FY 2020. SEVP forecasts
$121.6 million in revenue for FY 2019
and FY 2020 without a fee change. The
33779
performing regulatory and policy
analysis. SEVP also recognizes
management and overhead costs
associated with the program.
SEVP proposes five fees paid by two
source categories: Individuals will pay
the I–901 SEVIS fee, and institutions
will pay the I–17 certification fee, I–17
recertification fee, the fee for a motion
or appeal, and the site visit fee. By
tracing expenditures of the activities
previously listed to the various fee
categories, SEVP forecasted fee
payments to determine the appropriate
fee amount for each fee type proposed
in this rule.
Table 18 presents an accounting
statement summarizing the annualized
transfer amounts and qualitative
benefits of the proposed rule. This rule
proposes that schools will pay a higher
fee for initial SEVP certification and
will incur a fee for recertification, a site
visit when adding a new physical
location or campus, and the filing of a
motion or appeal. In addition, F and M
students and J visitors will pay higher
fees.
TABLE 18—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT FOR FY 2019
Category
Primary estimate
Qualitative Benefits ..............
SEVP will be able to maintain the current level of service. This proposed rule will enhance SEVP’s capability to
support national security and counter immigration fraud through the continued development and implementation
of critical system and programmatic enhancements. Enhancements to SEVIS, including the establishment of a
student portal, will assist DSOs in their regulatory obligation to provide accurate and timely information and rebalance this reporting requirement by providing students an automated means to do so. Increased adjudication
personnel will assist in reducing recertification processing times, while enhanced vetting protocols will ensure
that only those eligible to enter and remain in the country do so
7% Discount Rate $75,231,420 from schools and students to the government
3% Discount Rate $75,231,420 from schools and students to the government
Transfers ..............................
Category
Effects
Source
Effects on State, local, and/or tribal government.
The proposed rule would increase and establish additional fees on state,
local, and/or tribal government-funded educational institutions for support
of SEVP operations. This rule proposes to increase the I–17 certification
fee and creates the I–17 recertification fee and a fee for filing an appeal
or motion. In addition, this rule announces that following completion of
this rulemaking, SEVP will collect a site visit fee when an SEVP-certified
school adds a campus/location.
The proposed rule would increase and establish additional fees for educational institutions in support of SEVP operations. This proposed rule
would increase the I–17 certification fee and create the I–17 recertification fee and a fee for filing an appeal or motion. In addition, this rule
announces that following the completion of this rulemaking, SEVP will
collect a site visit fee when a school certified by SEVP adds a campus/
location.
NPRM, Executive
Order 12866 analysis
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Effects on small businesses ........................
2. Impacts of Regulatory Change
This proposed rule would amend the
current fees for the individual student
and exchange visitor application fee (I–
901 SEVIS fee) and school certification
petition for initial certification. It would
maintain the current fee for site visits
and extend it to any change of location
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
or additional physical location or
campus reported as an update by a
certified school. It would also institute
a new fee for school recertification
petitions and the filing of appeals and
motions by schools. The amended fee
structure reflects existing and projected
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
operating costs, program requirements,
and planned program improvements.
The current I–901 SEVIS fees are
based on a fee analysis performed when
SEVP last increased the fees in 2008.
See 73 FR 55683. Those cost
calculations were established on the
basis of projected workload. Since 2008,
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33780
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
SEVP’s program mission tasks have
expanded significantly. The expansions
of certification, recertification, and
appeals costs and the subsidization of
excess costs not recovered by fees have
led to the need for the proposed fee
increase. Additionally, SEVP now
provides investigative analysis to
support enforcement operations, has
increased numbers of adjudication
personnel, and is undergoing SEVIS
Modernization. Concurrently, costs
associated with these program tasks
have been affected by increased costs
due to inflation. This rule proposes fees
that would result in recovery of the full
cost of SEVP operations with feegenerated revenue; alignment of the fees
with current and projected costs and
processes that have been adjusted as the
program has gained experience and
sophistication; and the agency’s
adoption of more detailed and accurate
data sources and improved management
tools to align resources and workload.
a. I–901 F and M SEVIS Fee
F nonimmigrants, as defined in INA
section 101(a)(15)(F), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F), are foreign students who
come to the United States to pursue a
full course of academic study in SEVPapproved schools and their dependents.
M nonimmigrants, as defined in INA
section 101(a)(15)(M), 8
U.S.C.1101(a)(15)(M), are foreign
nationals pursuing a full course of study
at an SEVP-certified vocational or other
recognized nonacademic program (other
than language training programs) in the
United States and their dependents.
International F and M nonimmigrant
students seeking temporary admission
into the United States to attend a U.S.
educational institution must pay the I–
901 F and M SEVIS fee. SEVP proposes
to increase the I–901 F and M SEVIS fee
from $200 to $350.
From 2007 through 2017, SEVP
received an average of 450,581 I–901 F
and M SEVIS payments per year. Table
19 shows the volume of I–901 F and M
SEVIS fee payments received and the
annual average number of fee payments
from 2007 to 2017. As previously
discussed, SEVP has forecasted 418,393
I–901 F and M payments in FY 2019
and 407,933 FY 2020, respectively.
TABLE 19—1–901 F AND M SEVIS
FEE PAYMENTS FYS 2010–2017
Fiscal year
Fee payments
2007 ......................................
2008 ......................................
2009 ......................................
2010 ......................................
2011 ......................................
2012 ......................................
2013 ......................................
2014 ......................................
2015 ......................................
2016 ......................................
2017 ......................................
Annual Average (2007–2017)
Forecasted 2019 ...................
Forecasted 2020 ...................
358,666
400,090
348,815
389,255
431,180
449,029
469,986
519,751
574,158
545,203
470,261
450,581
418,393
407,933
Table 20 illustrates the incremental
increase DHS is proposing with this rule
for the I–901 F and M fee. Individuals
who submit a Form I–901 will pay an
additional $150 under this proposed
rule, which is a 75 percent increase.
TABLE 20—I–901 F AND M INCREMENTAL FEE INCREASE
Type
Current fee
I–901 F and M .............................................................................................................................
SEVP estimates that the fee increase
would result in an annual increase of
transfer payment from students who
submit an I–901 form to the government
of approximately $62 million per year
($150 increase × 418,393 FY 2019
number of applicants = $62,758,950;
$150 increase × 407,933 FY2020 number
of applicants = $61,189,950).
b. I–901 J-Full SEVIS Fee
DoS generally oversees the exchange
visitor program, which includes
nonimmigrants who are charged the full
J SEVIS fee. J exchange visitors are
nonimmigrant individuals approved to
participate in an exchange visitor
program in the United States and the
spouse and dependents of the exchange
visitors. This SEVIS fee is associated
with J–1 nonimmigrants participating in
a designated exchange visitor program.
$200
Proposed fee
$350
Difference
(proposed¥
current)
$150
Certain other J–1 categories are subject
to a reduced fee or are exempt from a
fee in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1372(e).
SEVP and DoS have a memorandum of
reimbursable agreement. DoS sends
SEVP its actual expenditures, and SEVP
reimburses them quarterly. Each year,
SEVP and DoS review and update the
memorandum. Table 21 displays the
affected Exchange Visitor Program
categories subject to the full SEVIS fee
and the purpose of the visit.12
TABLE 21—J–1 EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM CATEGORIES SUBJECT TO FULL SEVIS FEE
Purpose of visit
Short-term Scholar ..........................
Professor and Research Scholar ....
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Exchange visitor program category
Lecture, observe, consult, training, demonstrate special skills.
Research Scholar: Research, observe, or consult in connection with a research project.
Professor: Teach or lecture at university, observe, or consult.
Pursue graduate medical education or training at accredited schools of medicine or scientific institutions.
Structured internship program that is in the student’s field of study.
Structured training program that is in the trainee’s professional field.
Observing, consulting, or demonstrating special skills.
Teach full-time in an accredited primary, including pre- kindergarten, or secondary (K–12) public or private
school.
Physician .........................................
Intern ...............................................
Trainee ............................................
Specialist .........................................
Teacher ...........................................
12 See Department of State, Exchange Visitor
Program Category Requirements (June 2016),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
available at https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2017/06/Exchange-Visitor-Program-
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Category-Requirements.pdf (last visited Feb. 26,
2018).
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33781
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 21—J–1 EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM CATEGORIES SUBJECT TO FULL SEVIS FEE—Continued
Exchange visitor program category
Purpose of visit
Secondary School Student .............
Study in the U.S. at accredited public or private secondary schools for an academic semester or an academic year, while living with American host families.
Participate in a degree or nondegree program at an accredited postsecondary academic institution, or participate in a student internship program.
Engage in observation tours, discussions, consultations, professional meetings, conferences, workshops
and travel when selected by a state or local government agency.
College and University Student ......
Government visitor (non-Federal) ...
SEVP receives an average of 151,958
I–901 Full J SEVIS payments per year
(FYs 2007–2017). Table 22 displays the
volume of Full I–901 J SEVIS fee
payments received and the annual
average number of fee payments. SEVP
has forecasted 157,550 I–901 J-Full
payments in FY 2019 and 153,611 in FY
2020.
TABLE 22—I–901 J-FULL SEVIS FEE
PAYMENTS FYS 2010–2017
Fiscal year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
TABLE 22—I–901 J-FULL SEVIS FEE
PAYMENTS FYS 2010–2017—Continued
Fee payments
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
132,213
137,173
129,979
139,534
148,253
155,008
160,522
172,530
168,967
164,401
162,959
Fiscal year
Average (2007–2017) ...........
Forecasted 2019 ...................
Forecasted 2020 ...................
Fee payments
151,958
157,550
153,611
The difference between the proposed
and current fees for the I–901 J-Full
applicants is $40, an increase of
approximately 22 percent, as shown in
Table 23.
TABLE 23—I–901 J-FULL INCREMENTAL FEE
Type
Current fee
Proposed fee
Difference
(proposed¥
current)
I–901 J-Full ..................................................................................................................................
$180
$220
$40
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
The total increase in transfer
payments from I–901 J-Full applicants
to the government is expected to be
$12,446,440 ($40 increase in fee ×
157,550 FY 2019 and 153,611 FY 2020
forecasted number of applicants). The
increase in J fees is meant to recover the
full cost of J program operations for
SEVP, which includes the
reimbursement to DoS, SEVIS costs, and
other adjudication services for J
exchange visitors. For the purposes of
calculating fees, SEVP isolates the costs
specifically incurred by operating the J
visa program. As it stands, the J visa
program operates at a greater cost than
the revenue that J visa fees bring to the
program; therefore, SEVP proposes an
increase to the J-Full visa to cover the
$39.4 million full cost of operating the
J visa program on an annual basis.
c. I–17 Certification and Recertification
Fee
For a U.S. school to enroll F and M
nonimmigrant students, it is required to
be certified by SEVP. A school petitions
for SEVP certification to enroll these
students by completing and submitting
Form I–17, ‘‘Petition for Approval of
School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant
Student,’’ online through SEVIS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
All SEVP-certified schools are
required to go through the
recertification process every 2 years to
ensure they remain qualified for
certification and adhere to all
requirements according to the
regulations.
From FY 2012 to 2016, there has been
an annual average of 423 schools
applying for SEVP certification. As
previously discussed, DHS calculated
the 3-year moving average to minimize
the variation in forecasting the
population data. The I–17 Initial
certifications from FYs 2012 through
2016 are shown in Table 24.
TABLE 24—FYS 2012–2016 I–17
INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS
Fiscal year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
PO 00000
I–17
certification
petitions
3-Year
moving
average
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
457
382
446
469
363
........................
........................
428
432
426
Total ...
2,117
SEVP uses the 3-year moving average
to predict that there will be 426 initial
certifications in both FY 2019 and FY
2020, respectively.
There are currently 8,746 SEVPcertified schools. DHS assumes that
approximately half, or approximately
4,373 schools, will recertify each year,
including the 1,728 schools with no
active F or M students. DHS assumes
that a school would prefer to recertify
for a $1,250 fee instead of allowing
certification to lapse and thereafter
having to again pay the proposed initial
certification fee of $3,000. The proposed
initial certification fee is a 76 percent
increase from the current fee.
The current fee to apply for initial
certification is $1,700, which has not
changed since 2008. SEVP does not
currently charge a recertification fee; the
proposed fee amount is $1,250. The I–
17 initial certification and I–17
recertification incremental fees are
shown in Table 25.
........................
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33782
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 25—I–17 INCREMENTAL FEES
Type
Proposed fee
I–17 Initial Certification Fee .........................................................................................................
I–17 Recertification Fee ...............................................................................................................
The annual increase in transfer
payments from schools to the
government from I–17 initial
certifications is expected to be $553,800
($1,300 increase in fee × 426 (FY 19 and
FY 20 forecasted number of I–17 initial
certifications)). The annual increase in
transfer payments from schools to the
government for I–17 recertification is
expected to be $5,466,250 ($1,250
increase in fee × 4,373 (FY 2019 and FY
2020 forecasted number of
recertifications)).
d. Fee for Motion or Appeal
When a school is denied certification
or recertification, the school receives a
denial letter through certified mail. The
denial letter explains the reason for the
denial and the steps to appeal. The
school can appeal by completing the
Form I–290B, ‘‘Notice of Appeal or
Motion,’’ within 30 days of receipt. This
rule proposes that SEVP impose a filing
fee of $675, which is also the fee
currently charged by USCIS upon
submission of the Form I–290B.13 SEVP
does not currently collect a fee from a
school that files a motion or appeal.
DHS proposes to revise its regulations to
institute this fee for a school filing a
motion or an appeal in order to establish
a more equitable distribution of costs,
improve services by decreasing an
appeals or motions throughput time and
a more sustainable level of cost recovery
relative to the services provided.
SEVP processed an average of 54
motions and appeals from schools
annually from 2013 to 2016. DHS
assumes that there will be the same
number of appeals or motions filed in
FY 2019 and FY 2020.
The total annual increase in transfer
payments from schools to the
government for filing a motion or appeal
is expected to be $36,450 ($675 fee × 54
(FY 2019 and FY 2020 forecasted
number of fee payments)).
e. Site Visit Fee
As noted above, current regulations
provide authority for SEVP to charge a
site visit fee to schools that apply for
initial certification or report a change of
physical location, or addition of a
physical location or campus. The site
visit allows SEVP an opportunity to
gather evidence on the school’s
eligibility, review school facilities, and
interview personnel listed on the I–17
petition as a PDSO or DSO. SEVP
currently collects the $655 fee when a
school files a petition for certification to
issue Forms I–20 or by a certified school
when it physically moves to a new
location. This proposed rule notifies the
public that following completion of this
Current fee
$3,000
1,250
$1,700
0
Difference
(proposed¥
current)
$1,300
1,250
rulemaking, SEVP plans to also collect
the fee from any certified school that
adds a physical location or campus, by
updating its Form I–17 in SEVIS,
consistent with the above authorities
and the agency’s longstanding
interpretation.
SEVP performs 600 site visits
annually. Of these 600 visits, 426 will
be at schools that apply for initial
certification and currently pay the $655
site visit fee. The remaining 174 site
visits may include visits when a school
adds a new physical location or campus.
DHS proposes that the site visit fee
amount, $655, remain the same.
The annual increase in transfer
payments from schools to the
government due to site visits is expected
to be $113,970 ($655 fee × 174 (FY 2019
and FY 2020 forecasted number of site
visits)).
f. Conclusion
SEVP expects to have a total increase
in fees of $68.7 million per year,
discounted at 7 percent, transferred
from individuals and entities for the
services they receive, to the government.
Table 26 shows the summary of the total
annual number of payments,
incremental fee amounts, and total fees
transferred.
TABLE 26—ANNUAL PROPOSED INCREMENTAL FEE AMOUNTS, FY 2019
Annual
number of
payments
Proposed
incremental
fee amounts
Annual fee
transfer to
government
418,393
157,550
426
4,373
426
174
54
$150
40
1,300
1,250
0
655
675
$62,758,950
6,302,000
553,800
5,466,250
0
113,970
36,450
Total ......................................................................................................................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
I–901 F and M .............................................................................................................................
I–901 J-Full ..................................................................................................................................
I–17 Initial Certification ................................................................................................................
I–17 Recertification ......................................................................................................................
Site Visits—initial .........................................................................................................................
Site Visits—new location .............................................................................................................
Appeals ........................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
75,231,420
3. Alternatives
SEVP examined several alternatives to
the proposed fee structure, including no
increase to any fee, only increasing the
I–901 SEVIS fee and I–17 fee, and the
unsubsidized results of the ABC model.
Without an increase in fees, SEVP
will be unable to maintain the level of
service for students and schools that it
currently provides as well as the
compliance and national security
activities discussed above. SEVP
considered the alternative of
maintaining fees at the current level but
with reduced services and increased
13 USCIS I–290B, ‘‘Notice of Appeal or Motion,’’
Filing Fee of $675, https://www.uscis.gov/i-290b.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
processing times, but has decided that
this would not be in the best interest of
applicants and schools. SEVP seeks to
minimize the impact on all parties, but
in particular small entities. If SEVP
followed this alternative scenario, there
would be a shortfall of revenue of over
$65.4 million in FY 2019 to cover
expenses. SEVP rejected this alternative.
SEVP must pay for the expenses of
maintaining and improving SEVIS and
adjudicating schools applying to be
certified by SEVP in a timely manner.
SEVP also considered raising only the
I–901 and I–17 certification fees instead
of including a new proposed fee for
recertification and for filing a motion or
appeal. If SEVP followed this scenario,
the I–901 F and M fee would increase
to $350 to cover the shortfall in revenue,
but the I–17 Initial Certification fee
would also increase to $4,200. This
would triple the existing certification
fee while allowing schools with zero
foreign students to remain active SEVP
schools that require SEVP effort for
recertification. SEVP rejected this fee
structure as it would continue to add
workload to SEVP’s recertification
branch. Without any disincentive to
recertify, the list of schools recertifying
would likely continue to grow. The
proposed fees, however, would establish
a more equitable distribution of costs
and a more sustainable level of cost
recovery relative to the services
provided.
SEVP also considered the
unsubsidized results of the ABC model
as an alternative, which allocated the I–
901 F and M fee, school certification
fees, and the fee to file an appeal or
motion as shown in Table 27.
TABLE 27—UNSUBSIDIZED FEE
AMOUNTS
Fee type
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
I–901 F and M ......................
I–901 J-Full ...........................
I–901 J-Partial ......................
I–17 Initial Certification .........
I–17 Recertification ...............
Appeal or Motion ..................
Site Visit ................................
Unsubsidized
fee amounts
$290
130
130
4,600
6,000
38,475
650
SEVP rejected this alternative for
several reasons. Most conspicuously,
the fee to file a motion or appeal filed
on the USCIS-managed Form I–290B has
been set at $675. Since a fee of $38,475
would be significantly higher than any
other SEVP fee it may improperly
discourage schools from filing a motion
or appeal. Similarly, SEVP rejected the
alternative to set the recertification fee
at the ABC model output amount of
$6,000. A recertification fee higher than
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
the initial certification fee would
discourage schools from seeking
recertification. SEVP instead proposes
to set the recertification fee at a level is
less than the initial certification fee.
When schools can maintain their
certification, F and M nonimmigrant
students enrolled in the withdrawn
school avoid complications such as
being forced to transfer schools, leave
the United States, or risk facing
immigration law penalties for violating
the terms of their nonimmigrant status.
SEVP also rejected the initial
certification fee of $4,600 because it
finds that an increase of almost three
times the current fee of $1,700 is
excessive. In the fee development, DHS
balanced the challenge of minimizing
the costs to schools and students while
recovering funding to support SEVP
services. The population of I–901 F and
M students relative to the population of
I–17 schools allows for a minimal fee
adjustment to be spread over the student
population to reduce the cost burden on
individual institutions seeking
recertification.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
at 5 U.S.C. 603 requires DHS to consider
the economic impact its proposed rules
will have on small entities. In
accordance with the RFA, DHS has
prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that
examines the impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities. The term ‘‘small
entities’’ encompasses small businesses,
not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of fewer than 50,000.
DHS requests information and data
from the public that would assist in
better understanding the impact of this
proposed rule on small entities. DHS
also seeks alternatives that will
accomplish the same objectives and
minimize the proposed rule’s economic
impact on small entities.
1. A Description of the Reasons Why the
Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
DHS proposes this rule to adjust
current fees and introduce new fees to
ensure that SEVP is able to recover the
full costs of the management and
support of its program activities. DHS’s
objectives and legal authority for this
proposed rule are further discussed
throughout this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33783
2. A Succinct Statement of the
Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
The objective of the proposed rule is
to prevent an anticipated funding deficit
in operating the SEVP. More
specifically, this proposed rule would
increase the SEVP funding stream by
adjusting the I–901 F and M fee, I–901
J-Full fee, and I–17 Certification fee and
instituting the I–17 Recertification fee
and a fee for filing a motion or appeal.
This proposed rule would also
announce the collection of a site visit
fee when an SEVP-certified school adds
a new physical location or campus, at
which it provides educational services
to nonimmigrant students. The funding
supports continuing operations and new
initiatives critical to SEVP oversight of
schools and the monitoring of
nonimmigrant students in the F, M, and
J visa classifications for national
security purposes.
The legal basis for this proposed rule
increasing the SEVP funding stream is
grounded in the Homeland Security Act
of 2002, which created DHS and
imparted upon DHS the responsibility
for SEVIS. DHS uses SEVIS to meet the
monitoring and verification
requirements under EBSVERA, Public
Law 107–173, secs. 501–502, 116 Stat.
543, 560–63 (2002) (codified at 8 U.S.C.
1761–1762), and to conduct a
recertification of schools every 2 years
following the date of EBSVERA’s
enactment. The Secretary of Homeland
Security is authorized to collect fees for
SEVP from prospective F and M
students and J exchange visitors. IIRIRA
section 641(e)(1), as amended, 8 U.S.C.
1372(e)(1). Initially, fees for most groups
of F, M, and J classes of prospective
nonimmigrants were statutorily limited
to not exceed $100, except in the case
of the fee for special J visa categories—
au pairs, camp counselors, and
participants in summer work travel
programs—which was set at $35
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A). This
fee level has been maintained consistent
with Congressional intent. The
Secretary is authorized to revise
nonimmigrant fees on a periodic basis to
account for changes in the cost of
executing SEVP. IIRIRA section
641(g)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1372(g)(2). In
addition, INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C.
1356(m), provides that DHS may set fees
‘‘at a level that will ensure recovery of
the full costs of providing [adjudication]
services.’’
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33784
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
3. A Description—and, Where Feasible,
an Estimate of the Number—of Small
Entities to Which the Proposed Rule
Will Apply
This analysis does not apply to
increases in the I–901 F and M fees
because these fees are paid by
individuals who are not, for purposes of
the RFA, within the definition of small
entities established by 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
DHS believes that J fees are also paid by
individuals and requests comment on
this assumption.
As of May 2017, there were a total of
8,746 SEVP-certified schools that would
be subject to the I–17 recertification fee,
site visit fee, and fee to file a motion or
an appeal. New schools applying for
SEVP certification would be subject to
the proposed I–17 initial certification
fee. Of the 8,746 SEVP-certified schools,
2,013 have identified as public schools
on their I–17 form. The remaining 6,733
schools have identified themselves on
the Form I–17 as private for-profit,
private nonprofit, or private unspecified
entities.14
Of the 2,013 SEVP-certified public
schools, DHS conducted a random
sample of 100 15 schools to approximate
the number of public schools in a
governmental jurisdiction with a
population of less than 50,000. Out of
the 100 public schools, 62, or 62
percent, are located in a city with a
population fewer than 50,000. DHS
infers 1,248 SEVP-certified public
schools are considered a small entity as
defined by SBA.
DHS conservatively assumes that all
1,507 private nonprofit schools certified
by SEVP are small entities because they
are not dominant in their fields. DHS
also assumes that the 4,755 schools that
are private unspecified are small
entities. DHS requests comments on
these assumptions.
To determine which of the remaining
471 private for-profit schools are
considered a small entity, DHS
references the Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards
represented by business average annual
receipts. Receipts are generally defined
as a firm’s total income or gross income.
SBA’s Table of Small Business Size
Standards is matched to the North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) for industries.16 DHS
matches information provided by the
schools in SEVIS regarding what
programs of study it is engaged in with
an appropriate NAICS industry
description. NAICS is the standard
classification used to categorize
business establishments for the purpose
of collecting, analyzing, and publishing
statistical data related to the U.S.
economy.
DHS finds that the revenue of 332 of
the 471 private, for-profit schools meet
the SBA size standard of a small
business according to their industry.
DHS estimates each private school’s
annual receipts by multiplying the
approximate annual cost of room, board,
and tuition by the average annual
number of total students, based on data
provided by the schools on their Forms
I–17. Every 2 years, as part of the
recertification process, a school submits
the approximate annual cost of room,
board, and tuition per student and the
average annual number of total students,
both domestic and international. DHS
acknowledges that this method to
estimate receipts may be an incomplete
account of a school’s income, which
may also include contributions from
private individuals or other
endowments. Since these data reflect a
snapshot of all SEVP-certified schools as
of May 24, 2017, DHS acknowledges
there may be day-to-day changes in the
status of a school’s certification and that
a school’s revenue may differ from
actual revenue due to a 2-year lag in
school self-reporting before a school is
required to recertify.
Given these assumptions, DHS
estimates that 7,842 schools meet the
SBA definition of a small entity. This is
approximately 90 percent of the 8,746 of
SEVP-certified schools included in this
analysis.
Table 28 shows a summary by school
type of the number of SEVP-certified
schools and estimated small entities.
TABLE 28—SEVP-CERTIFIED SCHOOLS BY SCHOOL TYPE
Description
Total
Small entities
Public Schools .........................................................................................................................................................
Private, nonprofit schools ........................................................................................................................................
Private, unspecified schools ....................................................................................................................................
Private, for-profit schools .........................................................................................................................................
2,013
1,507
4,755
471
1,248
1,507
4,755
332
Total Number of SEVP-Certified Schools ........................................................................................................
8,746
7,842
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Table 29 provides a summary of the
SEVP-certified schools by industry. The
table also shows the NAICS industry
description, the NAICS code, and the
number of small and large schools by
industry. Note that the number of small
schools includes all nonprofits and
unspecified private schools. Most
industries with SEVP-certified schools
consist of a majority of small schools.
14 Prior to October 1, 2016, schools had two
options in SEVIS to select their school type: Public
or private unspecified. With the recent SEVIS
update, schools can only choose one of three
options: Public, private for-profit, or private
nonprofit.
15 The random sample helps ensure an accurate
representation of the population with each school
having an equal chance of being included. In
determining the sample size DHS utilized a 90
percent confidence level (z-score), 10 percent
margin of error (e), and a 50 percent population
proportion (p) used as an unknown input and to
maximize the estimate to overestimate sample size.
The sample size equation used n = z2p(1¥p)/e2
provided inputs 1.652(.5)(.5)/.01 = 69 and rounded
up to 100 to over sample. DHS identified
geographic population data matched to the school’s
city address provided in SEVIS, sourced from U.S.
Census Bureau 2010–2016 Cities and Towns
(Incorporated Places and Minor Civil Divisions) at
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/
popest/total-cities-and-towns.html.
16 U.S. Small Business Administration, Tables of
Small Business Size Standards Matched to NAICS
Codes (Oct. 1, 2017), available at https://
www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_
Standards_Table_2017.xlsx.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33785
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 29—NUMBER OF SEVP-CERTIFIED SCHOOLS BY INDUSTRY
School industry
Elementary and Secondary Schools.
Junior Colleges ...............
Colleges, Universities,
and Professional
Schools.
Computer Training ..........
Professional and Management Development
Training.
Cosmetology and Barber
Schools.
Flight Training .................
Apprenticeship Training ..
Other Technical and
Trade Schools.
Fine Arts Schools ............
Sports and Recreation Instruction.
Language Schools ..........
Exam Preparation and
Tutoring.
All Other Misc. Schools
and Instruction.
Educational Support
Services.
Public Schools (Elementary, Secondary, and
High School).
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Total .........................
NAICS industry description
Number of
small schools
Number of
non-small
schools
Total SEVPcertified
schools
Percent
small
schools
Industry primarily engaged in providing academic
courses and related course work that contain a
basic preparatory education. A basic preparatory
education generally starts kindergarten through
12th grade.
Industry primarily engaged in providing academic
or technical courses and granting associate degrees, certificates, or diplomas below the baccalaureate level.
Industry primarily engaged in providing academic
courses and granting degrees at baccalaureate
or graduate levels. The requirement for admission is at least a high school diploma or equivalent general academic training.
Industry primarily engaged in providing computer
training (except computer repair), such as computer programming, software packages, computerized business systems, computer electronics
technology, computer operations, and local area
network management.
Industry primarily engaged in providing a collection
of short interval courses and sessions for management and professional development. Training
for career development may be provided directly
to individuals or through employers’ training programs, and courses may be customized or
modified to meet the special needs of customers.
Industry primarily engaged in providing training in
hair styling, barbering, or cosmetic arts, such as
makeup or skin care.
Industry primarily engaged in providing aviation
and flight training.
Industry primarily engaged in providing apprenticeship training programs.
Industry primarily engaged in providing job or career vocational or technical courses (except cosmetology and barber training, aviation and flight
training, and apprenticeship training).
Establishments primarily engaged in offering instruction in the arts, including dance, art, drama,
and music.
Industry primarily contains institutions such as
camps and schools, primarily engaged in providing instruction in athletic activities to groups
of individuals.
Industry primarily engaged in providing foreign language instruction (including sign language).
Industry primarily engaged in providing training for
standardized examinations and/or educational
tutoring services.
Industry primarily engaged in providing instruction
(except academic schools, colleges and universities, business, computer, management, technical, trade, fine arts, athletic, language instruction, tutoring, and automobile driving instruction).
Industry primarily engaged in providing non-instructional services that support educational
processes or systems.
Industry primarily engaged in providing academic
courses and related course work that contain a
basic public education.
611110
3,472
18
3,490
99
611210
11
2
13
85
611310
2,150
57
2,207
97
611420
13
0
13
100
611430
18
0
18
100
611511
91
3
94
97
611512
199
1
200
100
611513
39
1
40
98
611519
183
6
189
97
611610
79
3
82
96
611620
10
0
10
100
611630
286
44
330
87
611691
8
4
12
67
611699
32
0
32
100
611710
2
0
2
100
N/A
1,248
765
2,013
62
..................................................................................
........................
7,842
904
8,746
90
Table 30 presents the type of schools
with active F and M students and the
percent of students enrolled in small
schools. Most F and M students are
enrolled at small schools. Of the 8,746
SEVP-certified schools, DHS identified
1,728 with no active F or M students
VerDate Sep<11>2014
NAICS codes
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
and determined that 1,296 of these are
considered small entities as defined by
SBA. Note that although there are two
SEVP-certified schools in the education
support services industry (shown in
Table 29), there are no active F and M
students in these schools. DHS applies
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the results of the sample of SEVPcertified public schools to the number of
students in SEVP-certified public
schools (619,295) to estimate that the
number of students in small SEVPcertified public schools is 383,963.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33786
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 30—TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTIVE F AND M STUDENTS BY INDUSTRY
School industry
Total active
F and M
students in
small schools
Total active
F and M
students
Elementary and Secondary Schools ...........................................................................................
Junior Colleges ............................................................................................................................
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools .......................................................................
Computer Training .......................................................................................................................
Professional and Management Development Training ...............................................................
Cosmetology and Barber Schools ...............................................................................................
Flight Training ..............................................................................................................................
Apprenticeship Training ...............................................................................................................
Other Technical and Trade Schools ............................................................................................
Fine Arts Schools ........................................................................................................................
Sports and Recreation Instruction ...............................................................................................
Language Schools .......................................................................................................................
Exam Preparation and Tutoring ..................................................................................................
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ........................................................................
Educational Support Services .....................................................................................................
Public Schools .............................................................................................................................
60,990
409
419,593
404
217
91
6,598
71
1,108
1,736
13
33,500
1,469
218
........................
383,963
63,491
418
429,784
404
217
93
6,605
75
1,111
2,030
13
41,867
1,984
218
........................
619,295
DHS estimated SEVP-certified public
schools’ revenue to examine the impact
of the proposed fee adjustments on
small public schools. The tuition
provided by public schools in SEVIS
may not represent a public school’s total
revenue because most of the U.S.
students would generally not pay the
tuition provided to attend public
schools. Instead, DHS assumes that a
public school’s county or city’s tax
revenue is the best revenue source
against which to assess the impact of the
proposed fee adjustments. DHS
collected local government revenue,
expenditure, debt, and assets from the
U.S. Census Bureau 2015 State and
Local Government Survey 17 to examine
the impact of the increased fees on the
public schools included in the sample.
A county or city’s revenue may be an
overestimation of a public school’s
capability to pay the fees related to
SEVP-certification, appeals, or site visits
for new locations. This revenue
approximation may minimize the
impact of the fee adjustments for public
schools. DHS requests comments on
these assumptions.
Table 31 displays the range of annual
revenue by each school industry and for
public schools, from the small school
Percent of
students
at small
schools
96
98
98
100
100
98
100
95
100
86
100
80
74
100
0
62
with the lowest revenue to the median
revenue of all the small schools to the
small school with the largest revenue. It
also shows the average revenue of all
the small schools in that industry. The
Colleges, Universities, and Professional
Schools industry has the widest range
from maximum to minimum revenue
due to the assumption that all private,
unspecified schools are small entities,
while the Educational Support Services
industry that only has two schools
included has the smallest range of
maximum to minimum revenue for any
one industry.
TABLE 31—RANGE OF ANNUAL REVENUE BY SCHOOL INDUSTRY
Lowest annual
revenue
School industry
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Elementary and Secondary Schools ...........................................................
Junior Colleges ............................................................................................
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools .......................................
Computer Training .......................................................................................
Professional and Management Development Training ...............................
Cosmetology and Barber Schools ...............................................................
Flight Training ..............................................................................................
Apprenticeship Training ...............................................................................
Other Technical and Trade Schools ............................................................
Fine Arts Schools ........................................................................................
Sports and Recreation Instruction ...............................................................
Language Schools .......................................................................................
Exam Preparation and Tutoring ..................................................................
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ........................................
Educational Support Services .....................................................................
Public Schools .............................................................................................
Median annual
revenue
$28,800
44,400
26,400
425,000
129,600
70,000
36,000
132,000
64,000
66,000
276,800
118,500
3,150,000
83,250
340,000
4,389,000
$5,116,550
2,560,000
28,432,500
3,000,000
717,500
2,183,000
3,000,000
10,265,875
2,800,000
2,895,000
1,165,000
5,725,000
5,043,189
845,000
521,750
192,353,500
17 Available at https://www.census.gov/govs/
local/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Largest annual
revenue
$1,680,000,000
15,255,000
5,002,524,120
14,000,000
2,904,625
66,907,200
60,000,000
106,080,000
82,800,000
130,000,000
9,312,500
108,000,000
27,000,000
469,050,000
703,500
17,833,251,000
Average
annual
revenue
$13,194,355
4,271,901
96,761,518
3,881,631
1,000,423
4,092,673
5,959,154
21,004,563
7,570,939
9,425,304
2,626,805
7,514,433
6,983,297
18,359,767
521,750
1,315,830,548
33787
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
4. A Description of the Projected
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the
Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities That Will
Be Subject to the Requirement and the
Types of Professional Skills Necessary
for Preparation of the Report or Record
The proposed rule would increase
and establish additional fees for
educational institutions in support of
SEVP operations. DHS estimates the
annual impact to small schools based on
the school cost of compliance as
represented as a percentage of their
annual revenue. Table 32 displays the
proposed fees, the current fees, and the
difference in these amounts. This
analysis examines the impact that the
proposed incremental fee for the Form
I–17 certification and the proposed fees
for recertification, site visits to add a
new physical location or campus, and
the filing of a motion or an appeal
would have on small SEVP-certified
schools.
TABLE 32—PROPOSED SCHOOL FEES BY TYPE
Fee type
Proposed fee
I–17 Certification Fee ......................................................................................
I–17 Recertification Fee ...................................................................................
Site Visit Fee—initial ........................................................................................
Site Visit Fee—new location ............................................................................
Motion or Appeal Fee ......................................................................................
I–17 Certification Fee
A school files a petition and pays a
certification fee to become eligible to
issue the Form I–20, ‘‘Certificate of
Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student
Status,’’ to prospective international
students after admitting them for a
course of study. Certification also
authorizes the school to enroll
Current fee
$3,000
1,250
655
655
675
international students after they enter
the country on an F or M student visa.
Schools must initially go through the
vetting process for authorization by DHS
to enroll F and/or M nonimmigrant
students and pay the I–17 certification
fee, which is currently $1,700 and
proposed to increase to $3,000. The
incremental fee is the difference
$1,700
0
655
0
0
Difference
(proposed¥
current)
Percent
increase
$1,300
1,250
0
655
675
76
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
between the proposed fee ($3,000) and
current fee ($1,700), or $1,300. From
2012 to 2016, DHS processed 2,117 I–17
petitions and payments. Out of the
2,117 schools, 1,151, or 54 percent, were
identified as meeting the SBA definition
of a small school, or estimated to be a
small public school based on the sample
conducted, as illustrated in Table 33.
TABLE 33—I–17 INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS FYS 2012–2016
Total I–17
initial
certifications
Fiscal year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Percent of
small school
I–17 initial
certifications
Small school
I–17 initial
certifications
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
457
382
446
469
363
236
218
270
260
167
52
57
60
55
46
Total ......................................................................................................................................
2,117
1,151
54
2014–2016 3-year annual average ...............................................................................
426
232
55
SEVP forecasted the total I–17 initial
certifications in FY 2019 and FY 2020
to be 426 using the 3-year annual
average of FY 2014 through 2016 initial
certifications. Using that same
methodology, 232 small schools applied
for initial I–17 certification on average
each year. DHS assumes the growth of
small schools per industry seeking
SEVP certification will remain constant
in the future. DHS multiplied the
annual average number of small schools
applying for initial certification by the
percent of small schools in each
industry, as presented in Table 29. This
calculation yields the number of small
schools expected to petition for initial I–
17 certification by industry. The results
are presented in Table 34.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
TABLE 34—EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF SMALL SCHOOLS TO INITIALLY CERTIFY BY SCHOOL INDUSTRY
Annual number
of small schools
applying for initial
certification
School industry
Elementary and Secondary Schools ...............................................................................................................................................
Junior Colleges ................................................................................................................................................................................
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools ...........................................................................................................................
Computer Training ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Professional and Management Development Training ...................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
103
0
64
0
1
33788
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 34—EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF SMALL SCHOOLS TO INITIALLY CERTIFY BY SCHOOL INDUSTRY—Continued
Annual number
of small schools
applying for initial
certification
School industry
Cosmetology and Barber Schools ...................................................................................................................................................
Flight Training ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Apprenticeship Training ...................................................................................................................................................................
Other Technical and Trade Schools ................................................................................................................................................
Fine Arts Schools ............................................................................................................................................................................
Sports and Recreation Instruction ...................................................................................................................................................
Language Schools ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Exam Preparation and Tutoring ......................................................................................................................................................
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ............................................................................................................................
Educational Support Services .........................................................................................................................................................
Public Schools .................................................................................................................................................................................
3
6
1
5
2
0
8
0
1
0
37
Total Small Schools ..................................................................................................................................................................
232
This analysis examines the impact the
$1,300 incremental fee has on small
schools that might seek initial
certification after the final rule is
effective. DHS assumes that the range of
revenue of the small schools that will
apply for certification is similar to the
range of revenue of current SEVPcertified small schools and uses this
range to show the potential impacts.
Table 35 shows the impact as a
percentage for the schools with the
lowest annual revenue, median annual
revenue, and largest annual revenue, as
well as the average annual revenue for
all schools in that industry. From these
results, DHS does not expect the I–17
certification incremental fee to have an
impact greater than 1 percent on the
average small school annual revenue.
However, there is an expected impact
greater than 1 percent for some small
schools with the lowest annual revenue
in their industry. On average the
estimated 194 small schools that apply
for initial I–17 certification annually
and pay an incremental fee of $1,300
will experience an impact of less than
1 percent of their estimated annual
revenue.
TABLE 35—INITIAL CERTIFICATION FEE IMPACT FOR SMALL SCHOOLS BY TYPE OF SCHOOL
I–17 initial
certification
incremental
fee impact on
the school with
the lowest
revenue
(percent)
Type of school
I–17 initial
certification
incremental
fee impact on
the school with
the median
revenue
(percent)
4.5
2.9
4.9
0.3
1.0
1.9
3.6
1.0
2.0
2.0
0.5
1.1
0.0
1.6
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
Elementary and Secondary Schools ...............................................................
Junior Colleges ................................................................................................
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools ...........................................
Computer Training ...........................................................................................
Professional and Management Development Training ...................................
Cosmetology and Barber Schools ...................................................................
Flight Training ..................................................................................................
Apprenticeship Training ...................................................................................
Other Technical and Trade Schools ................................................................
Fine Arts Schools ............................................................................................
Sports and Recreation Instruction ...................................................................
Language Schools ...........................................................................................
Exam Preparation and Tutoring ......................................................................
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ............................................
Educational Support Services .........................................................................
Public Schools .................................................................................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
I–17 Recertification Fee
SEVP-certified schools are required to
file for recertification every 2 years to
demonstrate that they have complied
with all recordkeeping, retention,
reporting, and other requirements when
registering F and M students. There is
currently no fee charged to schools for
recertification, but this proposed rule
establishes a new fee for that process.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
To measure the impact on small
schools, DHS first estimated the number
of small schools that will recertify. DHS
assumes 50 percent (4,373) of the total
number of schools in this analysis
(8,746) will recertify each year. DHS
multiplies the recertification rate of 50
percent by the total number of small
schools to generate the estimation that
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
I–17 initial
certification
incremental
fee impact on
the school
with the
largest
revenue
(percent)
I–17 initial
certification
incremental
fee impact on
the average
school
revenue
(percent)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.13
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.25
0.0
3,921 18 small schools will recertify
annually. DHS examined all 7,842 small
SEVP-certified schools to determine the
impact of the recertification fee, as it is
assumed that a significant number of the
schools will pursue recertification
within the next 2 years.
18 7,842 × 50 percent = 3,921 small schools
recertifying each year.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33789
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
DHS assumes that the total number of
SEVP-certified schools will remain
static as new schools become certified
and other schools withdraw
certification. DHS therefore assumes
that the annual increase of total
recertifications will be zero.
As previously discussed, DHS
identified 1,296 SBA-defined small
schools with no active F or M
international students. DHS included
these schools in this analysis and
assumes they will opt to pay the
recertification fee of $1,250 rather than
reapplying for initial certification with a
proposed fee of $3,000 at such time in
the future that they enroll F or M
students.
Table 36 illustrates the number of
small schools that will recertify by
industry and the I–17 recertification
incremental fee impact as a percent of
the small school’s annual revenue. From
these findings, of the 7,842 small
schools expected to apply for
recertification and pay the proposed fee
of $1,250, 50 schools, or 0.6 percent,
will experience an impact greater than
1 percent but less than 3 percent of the
school’s annual revenue. For the
remaining schools, DHS does not expect
the incremental fee to have an impact of
greater than 1 percent.
TABLE 36—RECERTIFICATION FEE IMPACT FOR SMALL SCHOOLS BY TYPE OF SCHOOL
School industry
0%2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Total
3,472
11
2,150
13
18
91
199
39
183
79
10
286
8
33790
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 37—SITE VISIT FEE IMPACT ON ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE—Continued
Type of school
0%2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Total
3,472
33791
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 39—IMPACT OF INITIAL CERTIFICATION FEE INCREASE PLUS AN APPEAL FEE—Continued
Type of school
0%2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
6. A Description of Any Significant
Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
Which Accomplish the Stated
Objectives of Applicable Statutes and
Minimize Any Significant Economic
Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small
Entities
SEVP examined several alternatives to
the proposed fee structure, including no
increase to any fee, only increasing the
I–901 SEVIS fee and I–17 fee, and not
subsidizing the school fees with the I–
901 F and M fees.
Without an increase in fees, SEVP
will be unable to maintain the level of
service for students and schools that it
currently provides as well as the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Total
compliance and national security
activities discussed above. SEVP
considered the alternative of
maintaining fees at the current level but
with reduced services and increased
processing times, but has decided that
this would not be in the best interest of
applicants and schools. SEVP seeks to
minimize the impact on all parties, but
in particular small entities. SEVP must
pay for the expenses of maintaining and
improving SEVIS and adjudicating
schools in a timely manner. If SEVP
followed this alternative scenario, there
would be a shortfall of revenue to cover
the expenses of over $65.4 million in FY
2019. SEVP rejected this alternative, as
SEVP must pay for the expenses of
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33792
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
maintaining and improving SEVIS and
certifying and recertifying schools in a
timely manner.
SEVP also considered only raising the
I–901 and I–17 certification fees instead
of including new proposed fees for
recertification and for filing a motion or
appeal. If SEVP followed this scenario,
the I–901 F and M fee would increase
to $350 to cover the shortfall in revenue,
but the I–17 Initial Certification fee
would also increase to $4,200. This
would triple the existing certification
fee while continuing to allow schools
with no foreign students to remain
active SEVP schools that require SEVP
effort for recertification. SEVP rejected
this fee structure as it would continue
to add workload to SEVP’s
recertification branch. Without a
disincentive to not recertify, the list of
schools recertifying would never stop
growing. SEVP rejected this alternative
because the proposed fees would
establish a more equitable distribution
of costs and a more sustainable level of
cost recovery relative to the services
provided as compared to this
alternative.
SEVP also considered the results of
the ABC model as an alternative, which
allocated the I–901 F and M fee, school
certification fees, and the fee to file an
appeal or motion as shown in Table 41.
TABLE 41—UNSUBSIDIZED FEE
AMOUNTS
Fee type
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
I–901 F and M ......................
I–901 J-Full ...........................
I–901 J-Partial ......................
I–17 Initial Certification .........
I–17 Recertification ...............
Appeal or Motion ..................
Site Visit ................................
Unsubsidized
fee amounts
$290
130
130
4,600
6,000
38,475
650
SEVP rejected this alternative for
several reasons. Setting the fee at
$38,475 may discourage schools from
filing a motion or appeal.
Similarly, SEVP rejected the
alternative of setting the recertification
fee at $6,000. A recertification fee higher
than the initial certification fee would
discourage schools from seeking
recertification.
SEVP instead proposes to set the
recertification fee at a level is less than
the initial certification fee. When
schools can maintain their certification,
F and M nonimmigrant students
enrolled in the withdrawn school avoid
complications such as being forced to
transfer schools, leave the United States,
or risk facing immigration law penalties
for violating the terms of their
nonimmigrant status.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
SEVP also rejected the initial
certification fee of $4,600 because it
finds that an increase of almost three
times the current fee of $1,700 is
excessive. In the fee development, DHS
balanced the challenge of minimizing
the costs to schools and students while
recovering funding to support SEVP
services. The population of I–901 F and
M students relative to the population of
I–17 schools allows for a minimal fee
adjustment to be spread over the student
population to reduce the cost burden on
individual institutions seeking
recertification. DHS requests comment
on the impacts on small entities of the
unsubsidized fee amounts, impacts on
small entities of the proposed fee
amounts, and other ways in which DHS
could modify the proposed rule to
reduce burdens for small entities or
better ensure that the burdens on small
entities, individuals, and others subject
to the rule are appropriately distributed.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, 109
Stat. 48 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), requires federal agencies to assess
the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, UMRA
addresses actions that may result in the
expenditure by a State, local, or tribal
government in the aggregate or by the
private sector of $100 million (adjusted
for inflation) or more in any 1 year. 2
U.S.C. 1532(a). Though this rule would
not result in such an expenditure, DHS
does discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble. In addition,
DHS maintains that this rulemaking is
not a ‘‘Federal mandate,’’ as defined for
UMRA purposes, 2 U.S.C. 658(6), as the
payment of an SEVP certification fee by
individuals, local governments, or other
private sector entities is (to the extent it
could be termed an enforceable duty)
one that arises from participation in a
voluntary Federal program (i.e.,
applying for status as F–1, F–3, M–1, or
M–3 students or as a J–1 exchange
visitor in the United States or seeking
approval from the United States for
attendance by certain aliens seeking
status as F–1, F–3, or M–1 students). 2
U.S.C. 658(7)(A)(ii). For these reasons,
no additional actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the
UMRA.
D. Congressional Review Act
This rulemaking is not a major rule,
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes
of congressional review of agency
rulemaking pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, Public Law
104–121, sec. 251, 110 Stat. 868, 873
(codified at 5 U.S.C. 804). This
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
rulemaking would not result in an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; a major increase in
costs or prices; or significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of U.S.-based companies to
compete with foreign-based companies
in domestic and export markets. If
implemented as proposed, DHS will
submit to Congress and the Comptroller
General of the United States a report
about the issuance of the final rule prior
to its effective date, as required by 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1).
E. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
Pursuant to Section 213(a) of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104–
121, 110 Stat. 847, 858–59, DHS wants
to assist small entities in understanding
this proposed rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects and participate
in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please consult ICE using
the contact information provided in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. DHS has
analyzed this proposed rule under that
Order and has determined that it does
not have implications for federalism.
G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
This proposed rule meets the
applicable standards set forth in 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden.
H. Energy Effects
DHS has analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. DHS has
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 but is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
I. Environment
The U.S. Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive (MD)
023–01 Rev. 01 establishes procedures
that DHS and its Components use to
comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), Public Law 91–190, 83 Stat.
852 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321–4375),
and the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations for
implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500
through 1508. CEQ regulations allow
federal agencies to establish categories
of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment and, therefore,
do not require an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact
Statement. 40 CFR 1508.4. The MD 023–
01 Rev. 01 lists the Categorical
Exclusions that DHS has found to have
no such effect. MD 023–01 Rev. 01,
Appendix A, Table 1.
For an action to be categorically
excluded, MD 023–01 Rev. 01 requires
the action to satisfy each of the
following three conditions:
(1) The entire action clearly fits
within one or more of the Categorical
Exclusions.
(2) The action is not a piece of a larger
action.
(3) No extraordinary circumstances
exist that create the potential for a
significant environmental effect. MD
023–01 Rev. 01 section V.B(1)–(3).
Where it may be unclear whether the
action meets these conditions, MD 023–
01 Rev. 01 requires the administrative
record to reflect consideration of these
conditions. MD 023–01 Rev. 01 section
V.B.
DHS has analyzed this proposed rule
under MD 023–01 Rev. 01. DHS has
made a preliminary determination that
this action is one of a category of actions
that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule clearly
fits within the Categorical Exclusion
found in MD 023–01 Rev. 01, Appendix
A, Table 1, number A3(a):
‘‘Promulgation of rules . . . of a strictly
administrative or procedural nature’’;
and A3(d): ‘‘Promulgation of rules . . .
that interpret or amend an existing
regulation without changing its
environmental effect.’’ This proposed
rule is not part of a larger action. This
proposed rule presents no extraordinary
circumstances creating the potential for
significant environmental effects.
Therefore, this proposed rule is
categorically excluded from further
NEPA review.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
33793
The Proposed Amendments
All Departments are required to
submit to OMB for review and approval
any reporting or recordkeeping
requirements inherent in a rule under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat. 163
(codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Schools use SEVIS to petition for
recertification. The recertification
process requires schools to input data in
SEVIS, print the Form I–17, and sign the
form. The electronic data captured for
the Form I–17 have been previously
approved for use by OMB as one
component of the data that are captured
in SEVIS. The OMB Control Number for
this collection is 1653–0038 (previously
1615–0066 before being transferred from
USCIS to ICE). With the regulatory
implementation of SEVIS (67 FR 60107,
Sept. 25, 2002), most schools enrolled in
SEVIS were petitioning for DHS
recertification, rather than initial
certification (i.e., enrolling F or M
nonimmigrant students for the first
time). The workload for both
certification and recertification was
included under OMB 1615–0066.
The changes to the certification and
recertification fees, as well as the I–901
fees, would require changes to SEVIS
and the I–901 software to reflect the
updated fee amounts, as these systems
generate the pertinent petition and
application forms. DHS would submit a
revision to OMB with respect to any
changes to existing information
collection approvals.
DHS’s institution of the fee for a
motion or appeal with regard to a denial
of school certification or recertification,
or a withdrawal of such certification,
would not require a form amendment to
reflect the charging of the fee. The
instructions associated with the Form I–
290B, which schools can currently use
for such motions and appeals, contain
information regarding the use associated
with Form I–17 decisions and the $675
fee.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Department of Homeland
Security proposes to amend 8 CFR parts
103 and 214 of Chapter I of Title 8 of
the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
List of Subjects
8 CFR Part 103
Administrative practice and
procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Freedom of
Information, Immigration, Privacy,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Surety bonds.
8 CFR Part 214
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Employment,
Foreign officials, Health professions,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Students.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
PART 103—IMMIGRATION BENEFITS;
BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS;
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS
1. The authority citation for part 103
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8
U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 1356, 1365b; 31
U.S.C. 9701; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135
(6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874,
15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR part
2; Pub. L. 112–54.
2. Amend § 103.7 by revising
paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(B) and (H) and
adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(O) to read as
follows:
■
§ 103.7
Fees.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Petition for Approval of School for
Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student
(Form I–17). For filing a petition for
school certification: $3,000, plus:
(1) A site visit fee of $655 for each
location required to be listed on the
form,, and
(2) For filing a petition for school
recertification: $1,250.
*
*
*
*
*
(H) Fee Remittance for Certain F, J,
and M Nonimmigrants (Form I–901).
The fee for Form I–901 is:
(1) For F and M students: $350.
(2) For J–1 au pairs, camp counselors,
and participants in a summer work or
travel program: $35.
(3) For all other J exchange visitors
(except those participating in a program
sponsored by the Federal Government):
$220.
(4) There is no Form I–901 fee for J
exchange visitors in federally funded
programs with a program identifier
designation prefix that begins with G–1,
G–2, G–3, or G–7.
*
*
*
*
*
(O) Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form
I–290B) filed with ICE SEVP. For a Form
I–290B ‘‘Notice of Appeal or Motion,’’
filed with the Student and Exchange
Visitor Program (SEVP): $675.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES
3. The authority citation for part 214
is revised to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
33794
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C.
1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187,
1221, 1281, 1282, 1301–1305, and 1372;
section 643, Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–
708; Pub. L. 106–386, 114 Stat. 1477–1480;
section 141 of the Compacts of Free
Association with the Federated States of
Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, and with the Government of Palau,
48 U.S.C. 1901 note, and 1931 note,
respectively, 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2.
4. Amend § 214.3 by revising
paragraph (h)(2) to read as follows:
■
§ 214.3 Approval of schools for enrollment
of F and M nonimmigrants.
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) Recertification. Schools are
required to file a completed petition for
SEVP recertification before the school’s
certification expiration date, which is 2
years from the date of their previous
SEVP certification or recertification
expiration date. The school must submit
the proper nonrefundable recertification
petition fee as provided in 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(B). SEVP will review a
petitioning school’s compliance with
the recordkeeping, retention, and
reporting, and other requirements of
paragraphs (f), (g), (j), (k), and (l) of this
section, as well as continued eligibility
for certification, pursuant to paragraph
(a)(3) of this section.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:15 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
5. Amend § 214.4 by revising the
heading and paragraphs (a)(1) and (h) to
read as follows:
■
§ 214.4 Denial of certification, denial of
recertification, or withdrawal of SEVP
certification.
(a) General—(1) Denial of
certification. The petitioning school will
be notified of the reasons and its appeal
rights if a petition for certification is
denied, in accordance with the
provisions of 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(iii). A
petitioning school denied certification
may file a new petition for certification
at any time.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Appeals. A school may file an
appeal of a denial or withdrawal no
later than 15 days after the service of the
decision by ICE. The appeal must state
the reasons and grounds for contesting
the denial or withdrawal of the
approval. The appeal must be
accompanied by the fee as provided in
8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(ii)(O).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Amend § 214.13 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 214.13 SEVIS fee for certain F, J, and M
nonimmigrants.
(a) Applicability. The following aliens
are required to submit a payment in the
amount indicated for their status to the
Student and Exchange Visitor Program
(SEVP) in advance of obtaining
nonimmigrant status as an F or M
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
student or J exchange visitor, in
addition to any other applicable fees,
except as otherwise provided for in this
section:
(1) An alien who applies for F–1 or F–
3 status in order to enroll in a program
of study at an SEVP-certified institution
of higher education, as defined in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended, or in a
program of study at any other SEVPcertified academic or language training
institution, including private
elementary and secondary schools and
public secondary schools, the amount of
$350;
(2) An alien who applies for J–1 status
in order to commence participation in
an exchange visitor program designated
by the Department of State (DoS), the
amount of $210, with a reduced fee for
certain exchange visitor categories as
provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of
this section; and
(3) An alien who applies for M–1 or
M–3 status in order to enroll in a
program of study at an SEVP-certified
vocational educational institution,
including a flight school, in the amount
of $350.
*
*
*
*
*
Claire M. Grady,
Deputy Secretary (Acting).
[FR Doc. 2018–15140 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–28–P
E:\FR\FM\17JYP4.SGM
17JYP4
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33762-33794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15140]
[[Page 33761]]
Vol. 83
Tuesday,
No. 137
July 17, 2018
Part VI
Department of Homeland Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 CFR Parts 103 and 214
Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 33762]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
8 CFR Parts 103 and 214
[DHS No. ICEB-2017-0003]
RIN 1653-AA74
Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor
Program
AGENCY: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to adjust
fees charged by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to
individuals and organizations. DHS proposes to raise the fee for
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Form I-901, Fee
Remittance for Certain F, J, and M Nonimmigrants, for nonimmigrants
seeking to become academic (F visa) or vocational (M visa) students
from $200 to $350. For most categories of individuals seeking to become
exchange (J visa) visitors, DHS proposes to increase the fee from $180
to $220. For those seeking admission as J exchange visitors in the au
pair, camp counselor, and summer work or travel program participant
categories, DHS proposes to maintain the fee at $35. In addition to
raising the student and exchange visitor fees, DHS proposes to increase
the fee for submitting a school certification petition from $1,700 to
$3,000. DHS proposes to maintain the fee for an initial school site
visit at the current level of $655, but clarify that, with the
effective date of the rule, DHS would exercise its current regulatory
authority to charge the site visit fee not only when a certified school
changes its physical location, but also when it adds a new physical
location or campus. DHS proposes to establish and clarify two new fees:
a $1,250 fee to submit a school recertification petition and a $675 fee
to submit an appeal or motion following a denial or withdrawal of a
school petition. Adjusting fees would ensure fee levels are sufficient
to recover the full cost of activities of the program and would
establish a fairer balance of the recovery of SEVP operational costs
between beneficiary classes.
DATES: Send comments by September 17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket No. ICEB-2017-
0003, to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), a government-
wide, electronic docket management system, by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for sending comments.
Mail: Address all comments to Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief,
Student and Exchange Visitor Program, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, 500 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20536. DHS docket staff, who maintain and process ICE's
official regulatory dockets, will scan the submission and post it to
FDMS.
Collection of information. You must submit comments on the
collection of information discussed in this notice of proposed
rulemaking to both DHS's docket and the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
OIRA submissions can be sent using any of the following methods.
Email (preferred): [email protected] (include
the docket number and ``Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, DHS'' in the subject line of the email).
Fax: 202-395-6566.
Mail: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503;
Attention: Desk Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS.
For additional instructions on sending comments, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Student and
Exchange Visitor Program; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Department of Homeland Security; 500 12th Street SW, Washington, DC
20536; 703-603-3400, [email protected]. This is not a toll-free number.
Program information can be found at https://www.ice.gov/sevis/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
B. Summary of Major Provisions
C. Costs and Benefits
II. Abbreviations and Acronyms
III. Public Participation
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
IV. Program Background
A. SEVP Legal Authorities
B. SEVP and Development of SEVIS
C. Authority To Collect Fees
D. Full Cost Recovery
V. Proposed Adjustment of SEVP Fees
A. Activities Funded Under the 2008 Fee Rule
1. Improved SEVIS Functionality
2. Oversight and Enforcement
3. Recertification
4. School Liaisons
B. Continuing SEVP Activities Funded With Proposed Fees
1. SEVIS Modernization
2. Increased SEVP Adjudication Personnel
3. Additional Investigatory Support
C. Basis for Fee Schedule
D. SEVP Baseline Costs and Fees
E. Methodology
1. ABC Approach
2. Full Cost
3. Cost Basis for SEVP Fees Based on Current Services
F. Summary of the Full Cost Information
1. Fee Allocation
2. SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 Cost Model Results
3. Fee Calculations
4. Proposed Fee Levels
VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771: Regulatory Review
1. Background and Purpose of the Proposed Rule
2. Impacts of Regulatory Change
3. Alternatives
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Congressional Review Act
E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
H. Energy Effects
I. Environment
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
List of Subjects
The Proposed Amendments
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
DHS proposes to adjust its fee schedule for students and exchange
visitors as well as for petitioning and certified schools. These fees
are associated with SEVP and SEVIS. They were last adjusted in 2008.
See 73 FR 55683 (Sept. 26, 2008).
SEVP, an ICE component, is funded entirely by fees charged to
individual applicants and organizational petitioners. Fees collected
from individuals and organizations are deposited into the Immigration
Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) and used to fund the operational costs
associated with SEVP and its management of SEVIS. See Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) section 286(m), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), and
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as
amended, (IIRIRA) section 641(e), (g), 8 U.S.C. 1372(e), (g).
[[Page 33763]]
In accordance with the requirements and principles of the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990, 31 U.S.C. 901-03 (CFO Act), and OMB
Circular A-25, SEVP reviews its associated fees that are deposited into
the IEFA biennially and, if necessary, proposes adjustments to ensure
recovery of costs necessary to meet national security, customer
service, and adjudicative processing goals. SEVP completed a biennial
fee review for fiscal year (FY) 2016 and FY 2017 in 2017. The projected
results indicate that current fee levels are insufficient to recover
the full cost of current and planned program activities. Section 286(m)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), provides that DHS may set fees for
adjudication and naturalization services at a level that would ensure
recovery of the full costs of providing such services, including the
costs of providing similar services without charge to asylum applicants
and certain other immigrants. Additionally, section 641 of IIRIRA, 8
U.S.C. 1372, authorizes DHS to periodically revise fees that cover the
cost of carrying out SEVP and maintenance of SEVIS. Pursuant to these
laws, DHS proposes the adjustments contained in this rule.
SEVP calculates the totality of its fees to recover the full cost
of its overall operations. Following its biennial fee review, SEVP
anticipates that if it continues to operate at current fee levels, it
will experience a shortfall of approximately $68.9 million beginning in
2019. At current fee levels, SEVP's current expenditures exceed current
revenues, without any service upgrades. The deficit is covered by
surplus revenue that was previously accumulated from 2009 to 2015. This
surplus will be exhausted in FY 2019 even without any service upgrades.
This projected shortfall poses a risk of degrading operations and
services funded by fee revenue. The proposed fee increases would allow
SEVP to cover the current deficit between revenue and expenditures plus
make the necessary service upgrades. The proposed fee levels thus
eliminate the risk of degrading operations, while also ensuring full
cost recovery by providing fees for each specific benefit that will
more adequately recover the cost associated with administering the
benefit.
B. Summary of Major Provisions
The proposed rule would adjust, institute, and clarify the
application of fees pertaining to services SEVP provides to reflect
existing and projected operating costs, program requirements, and
continued planned program improvements, in the following manner:
Increase the two types of individual student and exchange
visitor application fees, specifically the F and M I-901 SEVIS fee from
$200 to $350 and the full J-1 I-901 SEVIS fee from $180 to $220;
Increase the SEVP school certification petition fee for
initial certification from $1,700 to $3,000;
Institute a stand-alone fee of $1,250 when a school files
a petition for recertification of its existing SEVP certification;
Revise regulations to ensure collection of a $675 fee to
accompany the filing of a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, when
a school appeals or files a motion to reconsider or reopen a denial or
withdrawal of its SEVP certification; and
Maintain the $655 fee for a site visit at its current
level, but clarify that, with the effective date of the rule, SEVP
would exercise its current regulatory authority to charge the site
visit fee when a certified school changes its physical location or adds
a new physical location or campus on its Form I-17, ``Petition for
Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student.''
In making these changes, the proposed rule would allow SEVP to
fully fund activities and institute critical near-term program and
system enhancements in a more equitable manner through a fairer balance
of the recovery of SEVP operational costs between beneficiary classes.
A summary of the current and future fee structures is provided in Table
1 below.
C. Costs and Benefits
SEVP proposes to adjust fees to the amounts listed in Table 1.
Table 1--Current and Proposed Fee Amounts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Fee type Current fee Proposed fee fee adjustment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F/M....................................................... $200 $350 $150
I-901 J-Full.................................................... 180 220 40
I-901 J-Partial................................................. 35 35 0
I-17 Initial Certification...................................... 1,700 3,000 1,300
I-17 Recertification............................................ 0 1,250 1,250
Site Visit--initial............................................. 655 655 0
Site Visit--new location........................................ 0 655 655
Appeal Fee...................................................... 0 675 675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP expects to have a total annual increase in fees of $75.2
million in FY 2019 transferred from individuals and entities for the
services they receive. Table 2 shows the summary of the total annual
number of payments, incremental fee amounts, and total fees transferred
in FY 2019. This increase in fees would allow SEVP to not only maintain
its current level of service but also enhance SEVP's capability to
support national security and counter immigration fraud through the
continued development and implementation of critical system and
programmatic enhancements. Enhancements to SEVIS, including the
establishment of a student portal, will assist designated school
officials (DSOs) in their regulatory obligation to provide accurate and
timely information and will also rebalance this reporting requirement
by providing students an automated means to update their information.
Increased numbers of adjudication personnel will assist in reducing the
processing times for initial petitions, updates, and recertifications,
while enhanced vetting protocols will ensure that only those
nonimmigrant students who are eligible to enter and remain in the
country do so.
[[Page 33764]]
Table 2--Annual Proposed Incremental Fee Amounts, FY 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Proposed Annual fees
number of incremental transfer to
payments fee amounts government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F and M................................................... 418,393 $150 $62,758,950
I-901 J-Full.................................................... 157,550 40 6,302,000
I-17 Initial Certification...................................... 426 1,300 553,800
I-17 Recertification............................................ 4,373 1,250 3,279,750
Site Visits--initial............................................ 426 0 0
Site Visits--new location....................................... 174 655 113,970
Appeals......................................................... 54 675 36,450
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 75,231,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Abbreviations and Acronyms
ABC Activity-Based Costing
ARO alternate responsible officer
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CEU Compliance Enforcement Unit
CTCEU Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit
CFO Chief Financial Officer
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DoS Department of State
DSO designated school official
EBSVERA Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-173; May 14, 2002
FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
FY Fiscal Year
HSPD-2 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-2
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IEFA Immigration Examinations Fee Account
IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996, as amended
INA Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
IT information technology
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDSO principal designated school official
RO responsible officer
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFE request for evidence
SBA Small Business Administration
SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Program
SFFAS FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard
SSA Social Security Administration
TSA Transportation Security Administration
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
III. Public Participation
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you provide unless you request that your
personally identifiable information be redacted. We also invite
comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism
impacts that might result from this rulemaking action. See the
ADDRESSES section for information on how to submit comments.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit comments, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide reasons supporting each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and materials online or by
mail, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we
have questions regarding your submission. ICE will file all comments
sent to our docket address, as well as items sent to the address or
email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, in
the public docket, except for comments containing marked confidential
information. If you submit a comment, it will be considered received by
ICE when it is received at the Docket Management Facility.
To submit your comments online, go to https://www.regulations.gov
and insert the complete docket number starting with ``ICEB'' in the
``Search'' box. Click on the ``Comment Now!'' box and enter your
comment in the text box provided. Click the ``Continue'' box, and if
you are satisfied with your comment, follow the prompts to submit it.
If you submit your comments by mail, submit them in an unbound format,
no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
scanning and filing. Mailed submissions may be on paper or CD-ROM. If
you would like ICE to acknowledge receipt of comments submitted by
mail, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard or
envelope on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date of
receipt on the postcard and mail it to you.
We will consider all comments and materials received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. The docket is available for public inspection before and
after the comment closing date.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and
insert the complete docket number starting with ``ICEB'' in the
``Search'' box. Click on the ``Open Docket Folder'' and then click on
``View Comment'' or ``View All'' under the ``Comments'' section of the
page. Individuals without internet access can make alternate
arrangements for viewing comments and documents related to this
rulemaking by contacting ICE through the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section previously listed. Note: Because the software used in
computing these fees proposed in this rule is a commercial product
licensed to ICE, it may be accessed on-site by appointment by calling
the SEVP Response Center at (800) 892-4829.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may wish to consider limiting the
amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary public
comment submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information from
public viewing that it determines may affect the privacy of an
individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the
Privacy and Security
[[Page 33765]]
Notice posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
IV. Program Background
A. SEVP Legal Authorities
IIRIRA (Pub. L. 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (1996))
established the requirement for the monitoring and reporting of the
activities of foreign students and exchange visitors while they reside
in the United States (U.S.). Section 641 of IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. 1372,
mandated that the Attorney General develop and conduct a program for
the electronic collection of data by U.S.-approved (i.e., certified)
institutions of higher education, other approved educational
institutions, and designated exchange visitor programs, to monitor
nonimmigrants possessing or applying for F, M, and J class visas with a
Certificate of Eligibility.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under INA section 101(a)(15)(F)(i), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F)(i), a foreign student may be admitted into the United
States in nonimmigrant status to attend an academic or accredited
language training school (F nonimmigrant students). Under INA
section 101(a)(15)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(M)(i), a foreign
student may be admitted into the United States in nonimmigrant
status to attend a vocational education school (M nonimmigrant
students). An F or M nonimmigrant student may enroll in a particular
school only if the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified the
school for the attendance of such students. Under INA section
101(a)(15)(j), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(j), a foreign citizen may be
admitted into the United States in nonimmigrant status as an
exchange visitor (J visa) in an exchange program sponsored by the
Department of State (DoS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, President George W. Bush issued Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 2 (HSPD-2) in October 2001, which requires DHS
to conduct periodic, ongoing recertification of all schools certified
to accept F or M students. Combating Terrorism Through Immigration
Policies, Oct. 29, 2001, as amended by HSPD--5 (Management of Domestic
Incidents, Feb. 28, 2003, Compilation of HSPDs (updated through Dec.
31, 2007), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-110HPRT39618/pdf/CPRT-110HPRT39618.pdf.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS, transferred a broad
range of immigration authorities from the Attorney General and the
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization to the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and vested ICE with responsibility for
administration of the electronic data collection system, also known as
SEVIS. See Public Law 107-296, sec. 442(a)(4), 116 Stat. 2136, 2193-94
(codified at 6 U.S.C. 252(a)(4) (vesting SEVIS-related authority in
``Bureau of Border Security''); Reorganization Plan Modification for
the Department of Homeland Security, H.R. Doc. No. 108-32, at 3-4
(2003) (set forth as a note to 6 U.S.C.A. 542 (West 2018)) (renaming
``Bureau of Border Security'' as ``Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement''); DHS Delegation 7030.2(2)(Z) (2004) (affirming
delegation of such authority from Secretary of Homeland Security to
ICE). ICE assumed responsibility for SEVIS and established SEVP. DHS
has issued regulations that address data collection requirements for
SEVP certification, oversight, and recertification of schools
authorized to enroll F or M students. 8 CFR 214.3, 214.4.
B. SEVP and Development of SEVIS
SEVP is responsible for developing, maintaining, and improving
SEVIS, which is an internet-based application that facilitates timely
electronic reporting and monitoring of nonimmigrant students, exchange
visitors, and their dependents in the United States. SEVIS enables
schools and program sponsors to transmit electronic information to DHS
and the Department of State (DoS) throughout a student's or exchange
visitor's program in the United States. SEVIS is intended to improve
customer service by streamlining the application and adjudication
processes. Through continuing modernization efforts, it addresses
issues in student and school system processes by providing information
technology (IT) solutions and modifying business processes.
Schools and exchange visitor programs have been required to enter
F, M, and J nonimmigrant data into SEVIS since August 1, 2003. As of
April 1, 2017, SEVIS contained 1.4 million active F, M, and J student
and exchange visitor records. Approximately 8,700 schools are SEVP-
certified and approximately 1,500 exchange visitor programs are DoS-
designated.
SEVIS enables DHS and DoS to efficiently administer their approval
(i.e., certification and designation, respectively) and oversight
processes of schools and programs that wish to benefit from enrolling
nonimmigrants. SEVIS assists law enforcement agencies in tracking and
monitoring F, M, and J nonimmigrant status and apprehending violators
before they can potentially endanger the national security of the
United States. SEVIS also assists other federal agencies such as DoS,
and other DHS components such as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in better
serving F, M, and J nonimmigrant applicants. Finally, SEVIS enables
schools and exchange visitor programs to instantaneously transmit
electronic information and changes in required information on F, M, and
J nonimmigrants to ICE and DoS throughout their stays in the United
States.\2\ These include required notifications, reports, and updates
to personal data. SEVIS allows schools to submit school certification
applications, update certification information, submit updates to DHS
that require adjudication, and also create and update F visa (academic)
and M visa (vocational) student and dependent records. SEVP managers
and adjudicators have the capability to adjudicate updates made to
school records using SEVIS, and principal designated school officials
(PDSOs) and designated school officials (DSOs) are notified through
SEVIS of the adjudication results. SEVIS also allows program sponsors
to submit designation forms for the J-1 visa program, create program
designations, and update program designation information. DoS personnel
have the capability to adjudicate information submitted by responsible
officers (ROs) and alternate responsible officers (AROs). ROs and AROs
are notified through SEVIS of any adjudication results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An individual seeking F or M nonimmigrant student status
must apply to an SEVP-certified school and be accepted for
enrollment. From the enrollment information provided by the
nonimmigrant, the school enters student information into SEVIS and
issues a Form I-20, ``Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant
Student Status.'' The individual must submit a valid Form I-20 when
applying for an F or M visa. Similarly, an individual seeking J-1
nonimmigrant status must apply to a DoS-designated exchange visitor
program and be accepted for enrollment as a basis to apply for a J
exchange visitor visa. From the information provided by the accepted
individual, the exchange visitor program enters exchange visitor
information into SEVIS and issues a Form DS-2019, ``Certificate of
Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status.'' The applicant must
submit a valid Form DS-2019 when applying for a J visa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVIS shares information with other agencies' and components'
systems--DoS, USCIS, CBP, Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
and others--to better monitor the status of student or exchange
visitors throughout their stays in the United States. This allows DHS
to meet the aims of the USA PATRIOT Act. See Public Law 107-56, sec.
416, 115 Stat. 272, 354-55 (2001). In addition, that Act mandates that
the Secretary of Homeland Security,\3\ in consultation with the
Secretary of State, collect information on the date of entry and port
of entry for each nonimmigrant for whom information is collected under
IIRIRA section 641. Id. at sec. 416(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The USA PATRIOT Act refers to the Attorney General, but the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, transferred the functions
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to DHS. Public
Law 107-296, tit. IV, subtits. D, E, F, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192 (Nov.
25, 2002), as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33766]]
C. Authority To Collect Fees
The Secretary is specifically authorized to collect fees for SEVP
from prospective F and M students and J exchange visitors, subject to
certain limits for certain J-1 nonimmigrants. 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(1). The
Secretary is authorized to periodically revise those fees, with certain
exceptions, to take into account changes in the overall cost of
carrying out the program. IIRIRA section 641(e)(4)(A), (g)(2), 8 U.S.C.
1372(e)(4)(A), (g)(2). Similarly, section 286(m) of the INA authorizes
the Secretary to collect fees for adjudication and naturalization
services at a level that would ensure recovery of the full costs of
providing such services, including the costs of providing similar
services without charge to asylum applicants and certain other
immigrants. Additionally, pursuant to INA section 286(m), the level
that is set may include recovery of any additional costs associated
with the administration of the fees themselves. Under this authority,
user fees are employed not only for the benefit of the payer of the fee
and any collateral benefit resulting to the public, but also to provide
a benefit to certain others.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The longstanding interpretation of DHS is that the
``including'' clause in section 286(m) does not constrain DHS's fee
authority under the statute. The ``including''' clause offers only a
non-exhaustive list of some of the costs that DHS may consider part
of the full costs of providing adjudication and naturalization
services. See 8 U.S.C. 1356(m); 81 FR 26903, 26906 n.10 (May 4,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All fees collected under these authorities are deposited as
offsetting receipts into the IEFA and are available to the Secretary
until expended for authorized purposes. See IIRIRA section
641(e)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(B); INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C.
1356(m). DHS proposes the revised fee schedule contained in this rule
in accordance with the above-referenced authorities.
As a general matter, in developing fees and fee rules, DHS looks to
a range of governmental accounting provisions. OMB Circular A-25, User
Charges (Revised), para. 6, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993), defines ``full
cost'' to include all direct and indirect costs to any part of the
Federal government for providing a good, resource, or service. These
costs include, but are not limited to, an appropriate share of the
following: Direct and indirect personnel cost, physical overhead,
consulting and other indirect cost, management and supervisory cost,
enforcement, information collection and research, and establishment of
standards and regulation, including any required environmental review.
Section 31.5 of OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission and
Execution of the Budget, July 1, 2016, directs agencies to develop user
charge estimates based on the full cost recovery policy set forth in
OMB Circular A-25, User Charges (budget formulation and execution
policy regarding user fees).
The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) Statement
of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 4: Managerial
Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government, July
31, 1995, updated June 2017, provides the standards for managerial cost
accounting and full cost. SFFAS No. 4 defines ``full cost'' to include
``direct and indirect costs that contribute to the output, regardless
of funding sources.'' \5\ FASAB identifies various classifications of
costs to be included and recommends various methods of cost assignment
to identify full cost. Activity-based costing (ABC) is highlighted as a
costing methodology useful to determine full cost within an agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See FASAB, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting
Standards 4: Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and Concepts 26
(June 2017), available at https://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_4.pdf (last visited Feb. 20, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, 31 U.S.C. 901-903,
requires each agency's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to ``review, on a
biennial basis, the fees, royalties, rents and other charges imposed by
the agency for services and things of value it provides, and make
recommendations on revising those charges to reflect cost incurred by
it in providing those services and things of value.'' 31 U.S.C.
902(a)(8).
This proposed rule would eliminate the risk of a projected
shortfall for SEVP operations and services funded by fee revenue. It
proposes increased funding that supports continuing and new initiatives
critical to improving the program and reflects the implementation of
specific cost-allocation methods to segment program costs to the
appropriate fee--F and M students, J exchange visitors, or schools.
D. Full Cost Recovery
Consistent with these authorities and sources, this proposed rule
would ensure that SEVP recovers the full costs for the services it
provides and maintains a projected level of service necessary to
fulfill its mission. The proposed rule would do this in two ways.
First, where possible, the proposed rule sets fees at levels sufficient
to cover the full cost of the corresponding services and assigns these
fees to those who are the primary beneficiaries. DHS works with OMB and
generally follows OMB Circular A-25, which ``establishes federal policy
regarding fees assessed for Government services and for sale or use of
Government goods or resources.'' See OMB Circular A-25, User Charges
(Revised), para. 6, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993). A primary objective of
OMB Circular A-25 is to ensure that federal agencies recover the full
cost of providing specific services to users and associated costs.
This proposed rule would set fees at a level sufficient to fund the
full cost of conducting the program and general operations for FY 2019.
See INA sec. 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS has interpreted this
statutory fee-setting authority, including the authorization for DHS to
collect ``full costs'' for providing, in pertinent part, ``adjudication
. . . services,'' as granting DHS broad discretion to charge fees at a
level that will ensure recovery of all direct and indirect costs
associated with providing pertinent immigration adjudication services.
This approach is also consistent with the SEVP-specific fee authority
referenced above, which authorizes DHS to set fees at a level that
funds the full cost of conducting the program. See IIRIRA section
641(e), 8 U.S.C. 1372(e).
In following OMB Circular A-25 to the extent appropriate, including
its direction that fees should be set to recover the costs of an
agency's services in their entirety and that full costs are determined
based on the best available records of the agency, DHS accounts for the
reality that costs of all SEVP operations cannot always be directly
correlated to certain specific fees. DHS therefore applies the
discretion provided in the above authorities, in taking the following
actions: (1) Employing ABC to establish a model for assigning costs to
specific benefit requests in a manner reasonably consistent with OMB
Circular A-25; (2) distributing costs that are not attributed to or
driven by specific adjudication services;[thinsp]and (3) making
additional adjustments to effectuate specific policy objectives.
V. Proposed Adjustment of SEVP Fees
This proposed rule would amend the current fee structure governing
the collection of fees from individuals by increasing the individual
student and exchange visitor application fee (I-901 SEVIS fee). In
addition, the rule proposes to amend the fee structure paid by schools
by increasing the SEVP school certification petition costs for initial
certification, instituting a fee to address school recertification
costs for the ongoing recertification process, and
[[Page 33767]]
requiring a fee to accompany the filing of an appeal, a motion to
reconsider, or a motion to reopen filed by a school organization. SEVP
proposes no change to the current fee for site visits. The proposed
fees for recertification petitions and appeals and motions would better
recover a reasonable portion of related existing and projected
operating costs, program requirements, and planned program
improvements.
Fees were last adjusted in 2008. 73 FR 55683. Refined and expanded
SEVP operations, SEVIS modifications, as well as inflation, have
increased SEVP operating costs and are the basis for the proposed
increases to the I-901 SEVIS fee and the school certification petition
fee.
A. Activities Funded Under the 2008 Fee Rule
In the 2008 rulemaking that resulted in the most recent agency
adjustment, ``Adjusting Program Fees and Establishing Procedures for
Out-of- Cycle Review and Recertification of Schools Certified by the
Student and Exchange Visitor Program To Enroll F and/or M Nonimmigrant
Students'' (2008 Fee Rule), DHS outlined its rationale for a fee
increase by identifying a set of organizational initiatives essential
to its mission: Improving SEVIS functionality, improving oversight and
enforcement, implementing recertification procedures, and developing
school liaison activity. 73 FR 55683. SEVP, in accordance with its
commitment to the goals prescribed in that rule, has implemented the
following actions since then:
1. Improved SEVIS Functionality
SEVP's original plan to roll out a comprehensive overhaul of SEVIS
(known as SEVIS II) was replaced by an approach that focused on a
series of smaller and more targeted SEVIS enhancements--now termed
SEVIS Modernization. New technologies have become available since the
comprehensive SEVIS overhaul was first envisioned. The use of these
technologies enables SEVP to apply many of the functionalities that
were planned for SEVIS II to the current system. At the same time, this
approach eliminates potential risks and complications that result from
migrating mass quantities of critical data from one system to the next,
which would have been necessary if the SEVIS II approach had been fully
implemented. Building on the experience, knowledge, and stakeholder
feedback acquired during the planning process, SEVP has launched
hundreds of smaller-scale SEVIS enhancements. These efforts have
addressed the majority of national security vulnerabilities previously
identified, by improving critical system functionalities that support
data integrity in SEVIS, including establishing system functions that
support standardization of student and exchange visitor name and
address data entry. The enhancements have also improved system
performance for end users. With the introduction of more detailed SEVIS
event history and new abilities for DSOs to create student data
reports, these enhancements enable action on multiple student records
simultaneously.
As an example, SEVP, in collaboration with CBP, developed and
implemented an admissibility indicator tool that links to real-time
SEVIS data to assist CBP officers at ports of entry in determining
whether F, M, and J nonimmigrants may enter the United States based on
their SEVIS record status. Prior to the availability of the
admissibility indicator, first-line CBP officers relied on paper
documentation that the nonimmigrant student or exchange visitor
presented. Today, the admissibility indicator gives CBP officers a
quick assessment of the most pertinent and current SEVIS data that are
necessary in determining whether nonimmigrant students, exchange
visitors, and their dependents are eligible to enter the United States
or require further investigation. As a result, CBP officers are able to
use the admissibility indicator at points of inspection to quickly
verify the information contained on the paper documentation that is
also required for entry. This assists in reducing long wait times, aids
with detecting and preventing visa fraud, and otherwise enhances
compliance efforts and national security.
2. Oversight and Enforcement
A dedicated compliance enforcement program that includes criminal
investigative efforts is an integral part of ensuring the operational
effectiveness of SEVP. By analyzing SEVIS data, SEVP identifies
indicators of potential misuse or abuse of nonimmigrant status and
provides leads to Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit
(CTCEU) law enforcement personnel for further investigation. At the
time the 2008 Fee Rule was published, the Compliance Enforcement Unit
(CEU), the predecessor of CTCEU, was not sufficiently staffed to
address all leads generated from SEVIS. As a result, only the highest
priority leads were investigated, which left open unaddressed
vulnerabilities. With the increased I-901 SEVIS fee revenue, DHS has
hired additional personnel and currently funds 234 Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI) positions with primary responsibility for
nonimmigrant violator investigations. The increased number of HSI
personnel assigned to support CTCEU investigations has enabled more
robust coordination between SEVP and CTCEU and has successfully reduced
the exploitation of the laws and programs relating to nonimmigrant
students and exchange visitors. An example of the result of such close
and extensive cross-coordination was the conviction of the founder and
president of Tri-Valley University (TVU) on 31 counts in March 2014,
ranging from conspiracy to commit visa fraud and alien harboring to
money laundering.\6\ SEVP will continue to support cooperation and
coordination with CTCEU to maintain the viability of F, M, and J
student and exchange visitor programs within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Sentencing Memorandum, Docket Item No. 195 (Oct. 24,
2014), United States v. Su, Case No.11-cr-00288 (N.D. Cal.), 2, 8,
available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178123/195/united-states-v-su/; see also Jury Verdict, Docket Item No. 119
(Mar. 24, 2014), United States v. Su, supra, available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178123/119/united-states-v-su/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Recertification
SEVP implemented the recertification procedure prescribed in the
2008 Fee Rule beginning with its first recertification cycle in 2010.
Institutions that participated in the first cycle have been reviewed
several times and will continue to undergo the recertification process
every two years. Because there are thousands of schools,
recertification is a rolling process allowing adjudicators to address
issues with one school before moving on to the next.
Each school is notified 2 years to the month following the date of
its last recertification or certification about its need to file for
recertification in order to maintain its certification. From that date,
the school has 180 days to file for recertification. 8 CFR
214.3(h)(2)(i). This cycle helps ensure that only schools that operate
in accordance with the law remain certified by SEVP.
4. School Liaisons
SEVP deployed the first group of field representatives in April
2014, followed by three additional groups later in 2014 and 2015,
bringing the national total to 60 field representatives distributed
among three geographically determined units. The field representatives
serve as liaisons between SEVP and SEVP-certified schools that enroll F
and M
[[Page 33768]]
nonimmigrant students and have conducted more than 32,500 school visits
since the unit launch. Field representatives serve as a key resource
for schools by providing individualized instruction on the SEVP
certification and recertification processes. They also educate DSOs on
Federal statutes, regulations, and guidance pertinent to F and M
students studying in the United States. Because DSOs are responsible
for entering F and M nonimmigrant data into SEVIS, the data integrity
of the system depends heavily on the DSOs' understanding the importance
of accurate and timely reporting of the required information. By
providing individualized assistance to DSOs, the field representatives
enhance national security by maintaining and improving the data
integrity of SEVIS.
B. Continuing SEVP Activities Funded With Proposed Fees
In developing this proposed rule, SEVP reviewed its current and
projected costs, identified goals for services, analyzed projected
future workload, and allocated costs to specific services. In addition
to the full SEVP operating costs described in the following sections,
the proposed fees would fund the continuing efforts identified in the
2008 rule, now updated to reflect technological refinements and
operational enhancements. These updated activities include SEVIS
modernization and increases in adjudication support and investigatory
and compliance personnel.
1. SEVIS Modernization
SEVIS is a web-based system that schools and program sponsors use
to transmit information about their programs and participating F, M,
and J nonimmigrants. It became fully operational in February of 2003,
replacing a paper-based F, M, and J nonimmigrant process.
Since its inception, SEVIS has evolved well beyond its original
purpose as a data collection tool. Today, approximately 35,000
officials from approved schools and program sponsors use SEVIS data to
manage 1.4 million F, M, and J nonimmigrants and their dependents
during their stays in the United States. SEVIS provides real-time
administrative and enforcement information to DHS components, including
CBP and USCIS, as well as DoS. SEVIS also receives information about F,
M, and J nonimmigrant visa applications, entry and exit records, and
benefit applications from these entities through various interfaces.
This makes SEVIS a critical national security component and a primary
resource for law enforcement and intelligence communities to extract
the data necessary to conduct counterterrorism and counterintelligence
threat analysis.
The threat of new forms of terrorism and other criminal activity
exploiting the Nation's immigration laws continues to be a public
safety and national security concern in the United States. As a result,
there is an increasing need for sophisticated SEVIS data analysis to
detect individuals who engage in immigration fraud or otherwise pose a
risk to national security through willful misrepresentation. In
addition, end users from schools and program sponsors have expressed
concerns and provided feedback reflecting the necessity to create SEVIS
functionalities that enable the accurate reporting of new and
innovative educational program models. While SEVIS has been modified to
meet the most critical needs through hundreds of upgrades and patches,
including adding abilities for the system to preemptively address data
input errors, system functionality concerns (due to time lags, system
constraints, and other system design limitations) continue to affect
all SEVIS users and necessitate continuous development of SEVIS design.
In response, SEVP has begun an effort--known as SEVIS Modernization--
that involves redesigning the entire system over time in prioritized
increments. Continued Modernization will increase security by providing
real-time, person-centric data. This data will reduce fraud and
increase awareness by providing government officials with actionable
intelligence with which to make decisions and initiate immigration
actions. Informed decisions and efficient investigations allow for
better management of F, M, and J nonimmigrant data and preventing high-
risk individuals from entering the United States.
To address critical system limitations and improve the SEVIS user
experience, SEVP has identified the following list of key SEVIS
modernization priorities for continued funding through the increased I-
901 SEVIS Fee revenue:
Student Portal. F-1 students engaged in authorized
optional practical training are required to report their contact and
employer information to DHS. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(12), (f)(17). At
present, students report the required information to their DSOs, who
then report the information in SEVIS. By regulation, students must
report any new required information to their DSOs within 10 days of the
change, and the DSOs must report such information in SEVIS within 21
days. 8 CFR 214.2(f)(17).
This external SEVIS student portal will enable students to directly
add or edit the required contact and employer information so that their
SEVIS record would be updated in real time. This will reduce processing
redundancies and lessen the potential for data entry errors by
eliminating the need for the student to first report such information
to the DSO who will then enter the reported data into SEVIS. The portal
will also consequently reduce the workload of DSOs and make the
reported data available to DHS sooner. With future expansion, the
portal will address SEVIS vulnerabilities related to accurate
monitoring of F, M, and J nonimmigrant status and location of
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors by closing national
security vulnerabilities related to person-centric, paperless, people-
matching capabilities. In establishing a portal for student use in this
manner, DHS will encourage students to assume responsibility for
maintaining their immigration status, reduce the system's reliance on
paper-driven processes, and reinforce the operational premise and
security advantages of ``one person, one record.'' Through use of a
record-matching protocol, all SEVIS records will be collated and
presented as a unified, person-centric statement of information and
activity. These summaries will be available to all operational
entities, including school officials, who will have access in the SEVIS
record to the same up-to-date information, including all student
history.
Support of the Adjudication Process. As part of
maintaining their SEVP certification, schools are required to update
certain information in SEVIS about their operations and programs any
time such information changes. See 8 CFR 214.3(g)(2). SEVP is required
to adjudicate such changes. SEVP currently receives, on average, 350
weekly updates from schools; each update may contain several subparts,
including school contact information changes and additions of new
programs. At present, system constraints require SEVP adjudicators to
adjudicate all parts of the update simultaneously and to deny the
entire update if even one part of the update cannot be approved. This
causes additional workload and delays for schools and adjudicators due
to resubmissions of updates. The new SEVIS functionality that supports
adjudication will provide SEVP and DoS with enhanced flexibility to
adjudicate school certification and exchange visitor sponsor
designation updates and applications and consequently enable SEVP and
DoS to
[[Page 33769]]
adjudicate updates and applications more efficiently.
Automated Data Tracking. Currently, SEVP and DoS manually
monitor SEVIS data for potential noncompliance indicators with regard
to schools, students, and exchange visitor program participants and
sponsors. In FY 2016, manual monitoring yielded 75 compliance
investigations, which resulted in withdrawal of certification for 21
noncompliant schools. Automated SEVIS data tracking functionality would
provide SEVP and DoS with enhanced abilities to track and monitor
compliance. This additional capability would allow SEVP and DoS to more
quickly detect data trends that are potential indicators of fraudulent
activities. With the use of automation, SEVP anticipates a 100 percent
increase in fraudulent activity flags (from 75 to 150 per year), which
is estimated to significantly increase the detection rate of
noncompliant schools and subsequent withdrawals of SEVP certification
due to noncompliance. Such functionality would play an important role
in ensuring the integrity of the Nation's immigration system.
SEVIS Access Approval Tracking System (SAATS). School officials
(PDSOs and DSOs) and program officials (AROs and ROs) constitute the
largest and most critical component of SEVIS users as they are
responsible for entering the initial student and exchange visitor data
into SEVIS. Their need to access the system is confirmed by petition
through their sponsoring school or program. Once granted access,
designated school and program officials confirm their ongoing need for
access in a yearly validation exercise in which a delayed response or
no response results in automatic system access denial.
Unlike government employees who need access to SEVIS to perform
official functions, school and program officials have not had to meet
uniform security requirements. Recently, SEVP began conducting national
criminal background checks on designated school officials (DSOs). SEVP
has vetted all DSOs at K-12 schools and, since May 2017, has vetted all
newly designated DSOs, helping to ensure the safety of nonimmigrant
students and exchange visitors and preserve the integrity of SEVIS
data. SEVP is considering eventually extending this screening and
security review to DSOs and ROs who were appointed prior to May 2017
and other school and program officials through regulatory action. SEVP
will bear the upfront cost of this security review. When fully
implemented, all individuals who require access to SEVIS will be vetted
prior to being granted such access. DHS will complete the vetting
adjudication for the RO or ARO and provide a copy of its decision to
the DoS Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.
This initiative will strengthen the mechanism for approving user
access to SEVIS. DHS and DoS rely on PDSOs, DSOs, ROs, and AROs as key
links in the process to mitigate potential threats to national security
and ensure compliance with immigration law. DHS would require that
anyone nominated to serve as a PDSO, DSO, RO, or ARO receive a
favorable SEVIS Access Approval Process (SAAP) assessment prior to
their appointment and subsequent approval for access to SEVIS.
Information Sharing. SEVIS currently shares information
and exchanges data with 11 intra-governmental interface partners. The
modernized Information Sharing module will be capable of sharing data
contained in modernized SEVIS data stores with existing interface
partners. Other interfaces to support modernized capabilities in other
modules, including paperless capabilities, are being considered to
address SEVIS vulnerabilities. The centralization of all information-
sharing capabilities in a single module will allow for efficiencies in
development efforts, system performance, and sustainability.
Use of Cloud Technologies. The cloud infrastructure effort
supports the program by providing flexible, efficient, and cost-
effective cloud services and infrastructure to facilitate and enable
agile development and testing processes. While SEVIS actively mitigates
known security threats, it lacks functionalities to proactively analyze
end user data to detect potential misuse. The use of cloud technologies
will permit increased analysis of SEVIS end user data and increase the
efficiency and security of controlling and managing access to SEVIS by
users not affiliated with DHS, both governmental and nongovernmental.
In addition, it will enable more efficient management of user names and
passwords and allow credentials to be safely passed among system
components. Such analysis is necessary to create defined alerts about
user activity that is indicative of risk factors to prompt timely
criminal and compliance investigations. The cloud infrastructure module
supports the program by providing flexible, efficient, and cost-
effective cloud services and infrastructure to facilitate and enable
agile development and testing processes.
This planned modernization effort, with implementation during FY
2018-2021, is expected to greatly enhance the capability of DHS to
identify and reduce national security threats; reduce the possibility
for reporting errors by prospective and approved F, M, and J
nonimmigrants, as well as their schools and programs; and better
provide updated, correct, real-time information to academic, law
enforcement, and other government users. SEVP projects that the cost
for developing and deploying these SEVIS modifications is $53.19
million. SEVP would incur $13.15 million of that cost in FY 2018,
$13.75 million in FY 2019, $13.14 million in FY 2020, and $13.15
million in FY 2021.
2. Increased SEVP Adjudication Personnel
In 2008, DHS proposed to recertify all schools approved for
attendance by F and M students every 2 years, pursuant to title V,
section 502 of EBSVERA and HSPD-2, and established procedures for the
review of each SEVP-certified school every 2 years, as well as out-of-
cycle reviews whenever it determines that clarification or
investigation of school performance or eligibility is necessary.
Recertification is a determination of performance and compliance with
required standards in the period since the previous certification. In
this comprehensive review of an SEVP-certified school by an SEVP
adjudicator, SEVP affirms that the school remains eligible and is
complying with regulatory recordkeeping, retention, reporting, and
other requirements.
Performance is monitored through SEVIS, DHS records, submissions
from the school, and possible onsite reviews. If noncompliance is
discovered, SEVP requires schools, as appropriate, to make corrections
immediately. SEVP reviews the school's compliance with Federal law and
regulations.
In recent years, the scope of work of SEVP adjudication has
expanded to include administrative compliance enforcement, support of
criminal investigations, and adjudication of school petitions,
including certification petitions, recertification petitions, and
updates to school information. As a result, SEVP adjudicators have
experienced significant workload increases, which in turn have resulted
in longer SEVP adjudication processing times of school petitions and
student compliance issues.
Since initiating recertification, SEVP has determined that the
current number of SEVP adjudication personnel is inadequate to meet the
congressional requirement for recertifying or
[[Page 33770]]
withdrawing all currently certified schools every 2 years. At present
staffing levels, SEVP is able to process 1,939, or 44 percent, of the
required annual projected 4,400 recertification cases.
3. Additional Investigatory Support
Investigations of violations of immigration status, as well as
criminal investigations of F and M students and J exchange visitors,
are primarily coordinated by CTCEU. Information is received, collated,
and analyzed from a number of DHS and other information sources,
including SEVIS, to generate national security leads for field
personnel and prevent terrorists and other criminals from exploiting
the Nation's immigration system through fraud. In its continuing
support of compliance efforts, SEVP seeks to fund activities in two key
areas: Support for and integration of technological advances and surge
support for critical incidents.
New technologies have enabled sophisticated methods of extracting
and analyzing data. To make best use of these technology force
multipliers, personnel would use the available technologies to develop
investigative packages based on SEVIS research and use of other
designated government computer systems, open source websites, and other
pertinent information sources related to individual students, exchange
visitors, and SEVP-certified schools. To the extent that adequate
resources are allocated and employed for this purpose, increased
support levels would reduce the vulnerability of the United States to
terrorist attacks and reduce the potential for exploitation of
certified schools and designated exchange visitor programs.
Through the fee adjustments proposed in this rule, SEVP would
continue ensuring funding to enable a surge for investigatory efforts,
including increased contract overtime or surge staffing, in advance of
planned critical overstay enforcement operations. SEVP would also fund
the surge of continuous and extended analytic support to HSI field
operations in the event of a terrorist attack or during imminent threat
situations. This direct operational support to field elements during
heightened threat situations or in the aftermath of an attack would
enable CTCEU to quickly assess subjects of investigative interest and
to share information to further investigations with its law enforcement
partners, ICE legal counsel, and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Such surge
support has been used successfully and has proven critical in
furthering investigative efforts and providing investigative focus in
recent threat situations and terrorist attacks, including attacks in
San Bernardino, California; Orlando, Florida; Columbus, Ohio;
Baltimore, Maryland; New York; New Jersey; and Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.
C. Basis for Fee Schedule
As previously noted, the proposed amended fees comply with
statutory and regulatory requirements that SEVP review its fee
structure every 2 years to ensure that the cost of the services
provided are fully captured by fees assessed on those receiving the
services. The new fees are an estimate of the current and projected
costs of funding needed to continue enhancing SEVP's capability to
achieve programmatic goals associated with its statutory mandate--
supporting national security and countering immigration fraud through
the continued development and implementation of critical system and
programmatic enhancements. This proposed rule would establish the
following fee structure detailed in Table 3.
Table 3--Proposed Fee Structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee type Responsible party
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 SEVIS Fee................... Student or exchange visitor issued
an initial Form I-20 or DS-2019
seeking an F, M, or J visa.
I-17 Certification Fee............ Institutions petitioning for SEVP
certification to enroll
international students.
Site Visit Fee.................... Institutions applying for initial
certification or certified schools
changing locations or adding a
campus/location.
Recertification Fee............... Certified institutions seeking
recertification every 2 years.
Appeal or Motion Fee.............. Institutions that have had
certification or recertification
denied by SEVP, including denied I-
17 updates, or that have had
certification withdrawn, and which
are filing an appeal or motion
regarding the SEVP decision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current fee structure includes the I-901 SEVIS fee, I-17
certification fee, and the site visit fee. The proposed rule would
allow SEVP to fully fund activities and institute critical near-term
program and system enhancements in a more equitable manner. The
proposed fee structure would also include the addition of a
recertification fee and a fee for filing a motion or appeal.
With this rule SEVP proposes to impose a fee for a Form I-290B,
Notice of Appeal or Motion, filed with SEVP at a level that is
comparable to the fee for the Form I-290B when filed with USCIS. DHS
proposes to eliminate regulations that currently state there is no fee
required for an appeal by a school, to maintain consistency with this
clarification in the motions context and to more fairly balance
allocation of the recovery of SEVP operational costs between
beneficiary classes. Under this proposal, SEVP would charge the fee for
all appeals and motions.
The proposed rule would ensure the full recovery of SEVP
operational costs in a manner that fairly allocates costs between
beneficiary classes and would facilitate the development of activities
designed to achieve defined program goals. For example, the proposed
rule would continue funding for critical SEVIS modernization efforts
and would incorporate the added cost of increased analytical support
for investigative and enforcement operations into the I-901 SEVIS fee.
The proposed fee schedule would also allow SEVP to fully fund
additional SEVP adjudication personnel.
D. SEVP Baseline Costs and Fees
SEVP fees are paid by individuals and organizations. DHS certifies
schools that enroll F and M students; recertifies schools with active
certifications; conducts site visits; administers, maintains, and
develops SEVIS; collects fees from prospective F and M students and J
exchange visitors, as well as from schools; adjudicates motions and
appeals in regard to certification petitions; undertakes investigatory
initiatives; and provides overall guidance to schools about program
enrollment and compliance, as well as the use of SEVIS. These
activities are funded solely through the collection of fees.
The I-901 SEVIS fee, collected from students and exchange visitors,
currently underwrites the operation of
[[Page 33771]]
SEVP; the cost of administering, maintaining, and developing SEVIS; the
cost of school recertification; and all activities related to
individual and organizational compliance issues within the jurisdiction
of SEVP. These activities include the cost of investigating the
compliance of schools participating in SEVP and exchange visitor
programs, as well as investigations in which F, M, or J nonimmigrants
are identified as potential threats to national security or where it is
suspected that an immigration violation or fraud may be occurring.
The certification fee is paid by schools that petition for the
authority to issue Certificates of Eligibility (COE), commonly referred
to as Forms I-20, to prospective nonimmigrant students for the purpose
of their applying for F or M visas and admission to the United States
in those statuses. These monies fund the base internal cost for SEVP to
process and adjudicate the initial school certification petition (Form
I-17, ``Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant
Student''). The proposed recertification fee paid by schools to remain
certified would fund the cost of adjudicating the recertification
petition.
If SEVP finds that a petitioning or certified school does not meet
regulatory standards, it will deny the affected school's Form I-17 or
withdraw its SEVP certification. 8 CFR 214.4. When SEVP sends a school
a notice of denial or withdrawal, the notice also includes reasons for
the unfavorable decision(s), an explanation of the school's rights, and
the applicable appeal and motion filing information and deadlines. In
many cases, a school may file an appeal or motion to reopen and/or
reconsider unfavorable decisions issued by SEVP by filing the Form I-
290B, ``Notice of Appeal or Motion,'' pursuant to the process set forth
in 8 CFR 103.3(a) or 103.5(a).\7\ A school may initiate a motion to
reopen or reconsider to request that the original deciding body review
the unfavorable decision, including an appeals decision, pursuant to
requirements in 8 CFR 103.5(a). A school may also initiate an appeal in
order to request review of the unfavorable Notice of Denial, Automatic
Withdrawal, or Withdrawal on Notice by an authority independent of the
original deciding body. Currently, DHS uses I-901 funds to offset the
costs of SEVP appeals and motions. This offset is a result of the DHS
determination in the 2008 final fee rule to state in regulations that
no fee would be required for appeals relating to SEVP certification or
recertification or a withdrawal of SEVP certification. See 8 CFR
214.4(a)(1), (h). DHS proposes to remove the SEVP-related exceptions to
the payment of the I-290B fee and add regulatory text at proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(O) providing for the fee of $675 when the Form I-290B
is filed with SEVP. This fee would apply when schools or institutions
file an appeal or motion with regard to a denied petition for initial
certification or recertification or a withdrawal of certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Form I-290B is managed by USCIS and not ICE. USCIS has
agreed to the use of the form by ICE for SEVP appeals and the use
has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under
control number 1615-0095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposing these regulatory changes for the I-290B filing fee,
DHS would more fairly balance allocation of the recovery of SEVP
operational costs among beneficiary classes. To date, the cost of
adjudicating appeals and motions has never been placed directly upon
the beneficiaries of those adjudications--the schools seeking to obtain
or maintain SEVP-certification. The fee for filing the Form I-290B with
SEVP is being proposed at a level that requires those who file the Form
I-290B to pay for at least a portion of the operating expenses for DHS
to adjudicate the I-290B, while preventing the fee from becoming cost
prohibitive.
The site visit fee is currently paid by schools that petition for
certification to issue Forms I-20 or by a certified school when it
physically moves to a new location. DHS established this fee in the
2008 Fee Rule and with that rule codified SEVP's authority to charge
the fee when a school changes its physical location or adds a new
physical location or campus. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(3)(ii)(B), 8 CFR
214.3(h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii). Specifically, the 2008 Fee Rule imposed a
site visit fee of $655 for each location listed on the Form I-17, and
required the Form I-17 to include ``any physical location in which a
nonimmigrant can attend classes through the school (i.e., campus,
extension campuses, satellite campuses, etc.).'' See 73 FR 55683,
55698-55699 (amending 8 CFR 103.7(b)(3)(ii)(B) and 214.3(a)(1),
respectively). The 2008 Fee Rule also imposed a continuing duty on
schools to update school locations as changes arise, i.e., even after
initial certification, a school must update SEVIS within 21 days of a
change to a range of information types, including school location and
campus location. See 73 FR 55683, 55700 (amending 8 CFR 214.3(g)(2),
(h)(3)). Consistent with the aforementioned regulatory amendments, the
preamble to the 2008 Fee Rule made clear that these provisions require
the imposition of a site visit fee for each location listed on the
initial SEVP certification, as well as each location added as part of
an initial event, such as a SEVIS update requesting approval of a
changed or new location or campus. 73 FR 55683, 55691.
But SEVP is not currently collecting the fee when a certified
school adds a new physical location or campus. SEVP intends to begin
imposing the fee following the effective date of any final rule. The
site visit fee would apply when a certified school updates its Form I-
17 in SEVIS to indicate, pursuant to 8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)(ii), it is
changing its physical location or adding a new physical location or
campus. This revenue would assist in recovering the costs DHS incurs
for site visits of these locations, including collecting evidence on
school eligibility for certification, reviewing the facilities, and
interviewing personnel nominated on the petition to become DSOs,
including the person nominated to be the PDSO.
E. Methodology
SEVP captured and allocated cost using an ABC approach to define
full cost, outline the sources of SEVP cost, and define the fees. The
ABC approach also provides detailed information on the cost and
activities allocated to each fee.
1. ABC Approach
SEVP used CostPerform ABC modeling software, Version 9.3 (0147), to
determine the full cost associated with updating and maintaining SEVIS
to collect and maintain information on F, M, and J nonimmigrants;
certifying schools; overseeing school compliance; recertifying schools;
adjudicating appeals; investigating suspected violations of immigration
law and other potential threats to national security by F, M, or J
nonimmigrants; providing outreach and education to users; and
performing regulatory and policy analysis. SEVP also used the model to
identify management and overhead costs associated with the program.
ABC is a business management methodology that links inputs (cost)
and outputs (products and services) by quantifying how work is
performed in an organization (activities). The ABC methodology allows
fee-funded organizations to trace service costs and to calculate an
appropriate fee for the service, based on the cost of activities
associated with the services for which the fee is levied.
Using the ABC methodology, SEVP identified and defined the
activities needed to support SEVP functions to include current and
future initiatives. SEVP captured the full cost of
[[Page 33772]]
operations and apportioned that full cost to the appropriate program
activities. The full cost of each activity is then assigned to the
appropriate fee category based on the nature of the activity, as
described further below. By tracking costs to the various fee
categories, SEVP was able to use forecasted payments to determine the
appropriate fee amount for each fee type. SEVP examined historical data
and performed statistical payment analysis to forecast payments in
future years.
SEVP used an independent contractor and commercially available ABC
software to compute the fees. The structure of the software was
tailored to SEVP needs for continual and real-time fee review and cost
management.
2. Full Cost
In building the ABC model, it was critical for SEVP to identify the
sources and cost for all elements of the program. Consistent with
instructive legislative and regulatory guidance, SEVP fees recoup the
full cost of providing the agency's overall resources and services.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ These include but are not limited to: Direct and indirect
personnel cost, including salaries and fringe benefits, such as
medical insurance and retirement; retirement cost, including all
(funded or unfunded) accrued cost not covered by employee
contributions, as specified in OMB Circular A-11; overhead,
consulting, and other indirect cost, including material and supply
cost, utilities, insurance, travel, as well as rents or imputed
rents on land, buildings, and equipment; management and supervisory
cost; and cost of enforcement, collection, research, establishment
of standards, and regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent applicable, SEVP used the cost accounting concepts
and standards recommended in the FASAB Handbook, Version 15,
``Statement of Financial Accounting Standards Number 4, Managerial Cost
Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government'' (2016).
FASAB Standard Number 4 sets the following five standards as
fundamental elements of managerial cost accounting: (1) Accumulate and
report cost of activities on a regular basis for management information
purposes; (2) establish responsibility segments and match the cost of
each segment with its outputs; (3) determine the full cost of
government goods and services; \9\ (4) recognize the costs of goods and
services provided among federal entities; and (5) use appropriate
costing methodologies to accumulate and assign costs to outputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Full cost includes the costs associated with resources that
directly or indirectly contribute to the output and supporting
services within the entity and from other entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP calculates projected fees using the full cost of operations,
as defined by a regularly updated spend plan. The projected spend plans
for FY 2019 and FY 2020 were used in calculation of SEVP's proposed fee
structure. Tables 4 through 7 detail the full cost of SEVP operations,
consistent with the spend plan, from various perspectives: By program
category, by cost initiative, by fee type, and by activity.
3. Cost Basis for SEVP Fees Based on Current Services
The FY 2019 and FY 2020 budgets provide the cost basis for the
fees. These budgets reflect the required revenue to sustain current
initiatives. The revenue is also assessed to ensure a sufficient level
of continued funding for program enhancements as discussed above, such
as enhanced vetting and investigative analysis to support enforcement
operations, SEVIS Modernization, and increased numbers of adjudication
personnel. Finally, the past budgets provide the cost basis for
adjusting annualized cost-of-living increases.
Determining the projected cost for continuation of current efforts
involved routine budget projection processes. The budget establishes
the current services of the program and projects the mandatory and
cost-of-living adjustments necessary to maintain current services. The
budget adjusts the services provided by SEVP to include enhancements
that reflect program policy decisions. Table 4 reflects the FY 2017
final budget, the FY 2018 approved budget, and the FY 2019 and FY 2020
planned budget requests.
Table 4--Student and Exchange Visitor Program Summary of Requirements by Organization and Program Category
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 spend 2018 spend 2019 spend 2020 spend
SEVP expenses plan plan plan plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP Payroll
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-Time Equivalent Personnel.................. 134 175 221 221
Executive Office................................ $1,735 $1,744 $2,048 $2,084
Fee Management Section.......................... $1,350 $1,597 $1,775 $1,806
Field Representative Unit....................... $6,480 $6,958 $7,641 $7,776
Policy Section.................................. $1,178 $969 $1,283 $1,325
Systems Management Unit......................... $1,258 $1,299 $1,391 $1,416
SEVP Response Center Section.................... $652 $652 $931 $941
School Certification Unit....................... $2,993 $2,966 $3,291 $3,349
SEVP Analysis and Operations Section............ $1,070 $1,226 $1,402 $1,388
New Required Positions.......................... .............. $296 $2,357 $5,610
Office of the Principal Legal Advisor........... $328 $517 $642 $659
SEVP Outside Positions.......................... $1,444 $1,776 $2,545 $2,629
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total SEVP Payroll.......................... $18,488 $20,000 $25,306 $28,983
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advisory and Assistance Services................ $58,630 $58,108 $52,755 $50,977
SEVIS (Modernization and O&M) *................. $8,237 $18,722 $22,241 $21,912
Interagency Agreements with other agencies...... $8,046 $9,815 $8,360 $8,583
Travel.......................................... $1,474 $1,500 $1,100 $1,100
Service-wide Costs.............................. $3,222 $4,015 $2,400 $2,400
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Program Expenses...................... $79,609 $92,160 $86,856 $84,972
[[Page 33773]]
CTCEU........................................... $67,200 $74,450 $74,450 $74,450
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, SEVP................................. $165,297 $186,610 $186,612 $188,405
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes costs for the SEVIS Modernization and SEVIS Operations and Maintenance.
F. Summary of the Full Cost Information
The total cost projection for FY 2019 is $186,612,000 and for FY
2020 is $188,405,000. Table 4 sets out the projected current services
for SEVP and supporting CTCEU personnel in FY 2019 ($74.45 million) and
FY 2020 ($74.45 million). These costs are direct extensions of the FY
2018 costs that are supported by the current fees. Table 5 summarizes
the enhancements and other costs, which include investigative analysis
to support enforcement operations, SEVIS Modernization, increased
numbers of adjudication personnel, and annualized inflation.
Table 5--FY 2018, FY 2019 and FY 2020 SEVP Cost by Initiative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Program cost by initiative budgeted cost budgeted cost budgeted cost
(thousands) (thousands) (thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Base:
SEVP (Current operational costs)............................ $95,097 $94,497 $95,106
CTCEU (Current operational costs)........................... 70,200 70,200 70,200
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 165,297 164,697 165,306
Enhancements and Other Costs:
Investigative Analysis Support.............................. 4,250 4,250 4,250
SEVIS Modernization......................................... 13,150 13,750 13,141
Increased Personnel......................................... 1,100 1,100 3,500
Annualized Inflation........................................ 2,813 2,813 2,208
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 21,313 21,913 23,099
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 186,610 186,610 188,405
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fee Allocation
The purpose of the ABC methodology is to trace costs to
organizational elements, as well as identify all cost components
associated with the services offered. For fee-based organizations such
as SEVP, this allows the assignment of cost to one or more fees. SEVP
defined five fee categories: The I-901 SEVIS fee, certification fee,
recertification fee, fee for motions and appeals, and site visit fee.
Historically SEVP has only collected fees from students and
exchange visitors--the I-901 fee--and from schools applying for
certification, to include a separate site visit fee. In this analysis,
SEVP considered the creation of additional fee categories for all the
distinct services it provides in deciding how to apportion fees. For
example, SEVP considered charging a separate I-901 SEVIS fee to F, M,
and J dependents. SEVP also examined various tiered fee structures and
considered assigning some specific costs to separate fees. The ABC fee
model allowed SEVP to evaluate these scenarios. DHS opted for an
updated fee structure that segments program cost to the appropriate
fee--F and M students, J exchange visitors, or schools.
The proposed I-901 SEVIS fee would recover the systems cost for
SEVIS, including the remainder of certification, recertification, site
visits, as well as appeals and motions costs that are not covered by
the respective proposed fees. The fee would be apportioned between
three categories--full fee of $350 for F and M students, reduced fee of
$220 for most J participants, and the further reduced fee of $35 for
certain J program participants. Federal Government-sponsored J program
participants are fee-exempt by law, so their costs will be funded by
other fee payers. 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(3).
The proposed school certification fee would recover a portion of
the costs necessary to process initial school certifications. The
proposed recertification fee would recover a portion of the cost to
process school recertifications and a portion of SEVP administrative
costs. The site visit fee would recover the full cost of performing the
site visit for initial school certification and when a school changes
its physical location or adds a new physical location or campus. The
proposed fee for an appeal or motion would recover a portion of the
cost to process an appeal or motion.
2. SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 Cost Model Results
Table 6 shows the summary of SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 cost by
source of cost.
[[Page 33774]]
Table 6--Total SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 Cost by Fee Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 FY 2020
SEVP ABC model output category budgeted cost budgeted cost
(thousands) (thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 SEVIS Fee......................... $159,835 $160,633
I-17 Certification Fee.................. 1,909 1,992
I-17 Recertification Fee................ 22,522 23,189
Site Visit Fee.......................... 385 389
Appeals Fee............................. 1,956 2,198
-------------------------------
Total............................... 186,607 188,401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 shows a more detailed cost breakdown. The numbers are shown
in thousands, rather than millions, of dollars due to the level of
detail. There are two levels for the costs: Process and activity. Costs
are allocated from payroll, contracts, and other expenses to activities
through activity surveys and volume based cost allocations. The full
cost of operations from the spend plans is distributed to the
activities that best describe the work being performed. Table 7 details
these costs from an activity perspective. To simplify the presentation,
the numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. These numbers are not
rounded in the cost model.
Table 7--Detailed Cost Breakdown
[FY 19 + FY 20, dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 I-17 re- I-17 site
Process Activity I-901 certification certification visit Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certify Schools........................ A-01: Certify schools (initial .............. $3,115 .............. .............. ..............
certification).
A-02: Recertify schools........ .............. .............. $4,614 .............. ..............
A-03: Notify students if school .............. .............. 129 .............. ..............
is withdrawn.
A-04: Withdraw schools from .............. .............. 1,102 .............. ..............
SEVIS.
A-05: Process appeals/motions.. .............. .............. .............. .............. $3,420
A-06: Process petition updates. .............. .............. 3,036 .............. ..............
A-07: Monitor school compliance .............. .............. 3,761 .............. ..............
A-08: Monitor school risk...... .............. .............. 3,446 .............. ..............
Enforce Compliance with Regulations and A-28: Conduct Student and $93,921 .............. 16,574 .............. ..............
Laws. Exchange Visitor (I-901)
investigations.
A-29: Conduct school and 34,238 .............. 6,042 .............. ..............
sponsor investigations.
A-30: Operate CTCEU programs... 4,130 .............. 729 .............. ..............
A-31: Provide CTCEU liaison 417 .............. 74 .............. ..............
support.
A-41: Perform I-515 operations 1,471 .............. .............. .............. ..............
duties.
A-43: PDSO/DSO background 1,038 .............. 54 .............. ..............
checks.
Formulate Policy....................... A-16: Analyze and develop 3,170 .............. 600 .............. ..............
policy.
A-17: Develop and review rules 2,476 .............. 469 .............. ..............
and regulations.
A-18: Implement policy......... 1,501 .............. 284 .............. ..............
A-19: Develop future policy 816 .............. 154 .............. ..............
strategy.
Provide Stakeholder Communications..... A-11: Develop and deliver SEVP 9,040 118 1,224 24 130
communications. 8,218 .............. .............. .............. ..............
A-12: Respond to stakeholders'
policy and technical inquiries
(including Tier III Help Desk).
A-13: Provide Field 13,731 .............. 2,598 .............. ..............
Representative support.
A-14: Prepare and attend 3,404 62 644 13 68
conferences/workshops related
to the SEVIS community.
A-15: Develop and conduct 2,699 49 511 .............. ..............
strategic communications.
Provide Systems Program Management A-20: Modify and enhance 24,816 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Support. functionality of SEVP mission
systems (e.g., SEVIS, SEVPAMS
10).
A-21: Operate and maintain SEVP 28,491 .............. .............. .............. ..............
mission systems (e.g., SEVIS,
SEVPAMS).
A-22: Provide Tier I and Tier 12,814 .............. .............. .............. ..............
II Help Desk support.
A-23: Conduct systems program 5,291 .............. .............. .............. ..............
management.
A-24: Analyze and disseminate 3,510 46 475 9 50
program data.
A-25: Operate and maintain SEVP 1,735 32 328 .............. ..............
inter-office systems.
Support SEVP Operations................ A-26: Maintain SEVP systems 2,867 37 388 .............. ..............
security. 223 4 42 1 4
A-27: Maintain SEVP physical
security.
A-32: Provide Executive 2,539 33 344 7 36
Leadership for SEVP.
A-33: Provide SEVP 1,599 21 217 4 23
administrative support.
A-34: Develop strategic plan... 1,612 29 305 6 32
A-35: Manage financial 7,300 95 988 20 105
resources.
A-36: Manage procurement....... 1,886 25 256 5 27
A-37: Manage personnel 2,065 27 280 6 30
resources.
A-38: Manage SEVP records...... 3,274 60 619 12 66
A-39: Manage facility resources 1,782 23 241 5 25
A-40: Manage I-901 payment 7,766 .............. .............. .............. ..............
system.
A-42: Manage I-901 J program... 15,966 .............. .............. .............. ..............
A-44: Site Visits.............. .............. .............. .............. 638 ..............
Train SEVP staff, other staff, and DSOs A-09: Develop and deliver SEVIS 5,936 78 803 16 85
training. 2,613 48 494 10 52
A-10: Develop and deliver
internal training.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. ............................... 314,355 3,902 51,827 775 4,155
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33775]]
3. Fee Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ SEVP Automated Management System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost model provides detailed cost information by activity and a
summary cost for each, giving the aggregate fee cost by category. Next,
SEVP projected the total number of fee payments of each type for FY
2019 and FY 2020 and determined the fee-recoverable budget. SEVP
selected a forecasting approach to determine the total number of
expected fee payments for each fee.
a. I-901 SEVIS Fee
To calculate a fee amount for the I-901 SEVIS fee, SEVP estimated
the number of fee payments expected in FY 2019 and FY 2020 for each of
the three fee payment types: Reduced fee for J participants (excluding
the additional cost for initial certification and recertification of
SEVP-certified schools); full fee for J participants (excluding the
additional cost for initial certification and recertification of SEVP-
certified schools); and full fee for F and M students (including
additional costs for certification, recertification, and appeals).
Calculations for each of the three fee payment types vary because
each fee type is treated differently in federal statutes and
regulations. Section 641 of IIRIRA exempts Federal Government-sponsored
J-1 exchange visitors from the fee payment. All F and M nonimmigrant
students are currently required to pay $200, and nonexempt J
nonimmigrant exchange visitors currently must pay $180. 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(H); 214.13(a). Congress modified the statute in
December of 2000 to establish a reduced fee of $35 for au pairs, camp
counselors, or participants in a summer work travel program,
demonstrating strong congressional intent that the fee remain at that
level. Act of Dec. 21, 2000, Public Law 106-553, app. B, sec. 110, 114
Stat. 2762, 2762A-51, 2762A-68. IIRIRA also provided for revising the
fee once the program to collect information was expanded to include
information collection on all F, M, and J nonimmigrants. As a result,
the I-901 fee was revised in 2008 under the provisions of IIRIRA to
take into account the actual cost of carrying out the program. See 73
FR 55683. The I-901 fee is now being revised a second time, through
this rule, due to an increase in the actual cost of carrying out the
program.
SEVP determined the number of expected I-901 SEVIS fee payments in
FY 2019 and FY 2020. SEVP calculated the I-901 SEVIS fee over a 2-year
period to account for potential fluctuation in the forecast. SEVP used
the change in the numbers of payments received to provide the trend
data used to forecast I-901 SEVIS fee payments for each I-901 payment
type separately. Table 8 reflects aggregate historical payment data for
all three I-901 payment types.
Table 8--F, M, and J Visa Issuance 2007-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Total Growth rate*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................... 697,054 ..............
2008.................................... 753,065 8.0
2009.................................... 644,912 -14.4
2010.................................... 699,983 8.5
2011.................................... 749,082 7.0
2012.................................... 744,027 -0.7
2013.................................... 767,805 3.2
2014.................................... 829,636 8.1
2015.................................... 885,728 6.8
2016.................................... 866,623 -2.2
2017.................................... 796,820 -8.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Growth rate rounded to nearest tenth of a percent.
As indicated in Table 8, the level of payments received varied
greatly over the past 10 years. This high degree of variation in the
historical data, combined with the variables affecting demand for
visas, called for a forecasting methodology that would capture and
account for deviations.
SEVP selected a statistical forecasting method that uses trends in
historical data to forecast future payments. SEVP selected ARIMA, an
autoregressive integrated moving average model to forecast payments. An
ARIMA model is a statistical model that uses historical time series
data to predict future trends and movements. A non-seasonal model
incorporates two major components: Trend and moving average. The
autoregressive portion of the model, or trend, states that past values
have an effect on current or future values and that values are
estimated based on the weighted sum of past values. The second
component is moving average which helps to smooth out the time series
to filter out extreme fluctuations or outliers. In some cases a third
component is needed: Seasonality. Visa data from 2004 to the present
shows extreme seasonality in the number of F, M, and J visas issued.
Seasonality is factored into the model to account for the U.S. academic
calendar.
SEVP evaluated alternative forecasting methods; however, SEVP
rejected these methods due to inaccuracy and poor fit. SEVP's chosen
model provided a conservative forecast that will allow SEVP to operate
with stability. The fee payment forecast, reflected in Table 9, places
a balanced mix of emphasis on recent and historical data and still
contains sufficient data points to smooth out some variability in the
underlying data.
Table 9--I-901 SEVIS Fee Payment Forecast FY 2019-FY 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 Payment type FY 2019 FY 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Payments, F/M...................... 418,393 407,933
Full payment, J-Full.................... 157,550 153,611
Subsidized, J-Partial................... 158,945 158,945
-------------------------------
Total............................... 734,888 720,490
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Certification Cost
SEVP uses historical data from FY 2012 to FY 2016 to find a 3-year
moving average to forecast annual new initial certifications. SEVP
predicts demand of approximately 426 initial certifications each year.
SEVP assumes that the proposed higher fee will not deter schools from
applying for certification.
Table 10--Three-Year Moving Average of the Number of School
Certification Payments Received
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments 3-Year moving
Fiscal year received average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................... 457 ..............
2013.................................... 382 ..............
[[Page 33776]]
2014.................................... 446 428
2015.................................... 469 432
2016.................................... 363 426
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total fee category budget is taken directly from the FY 2019
and FY 2020 SEVP ABC model, reflected in Table 11.
Table 11--FY 2019-FY 2020 Certification Fee-Recoverable Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification Fee-
Fiscal year payments recoverable
expected budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019.................................... 426 $1,909,680
2020.................................... 426 1,992,878
-------------------------------
Total............................... 852 3,902,558
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School certification fees are calculated by dividing the fee-
recoverable budget by the anticipated number of payments. This results
in a fee-recoverable amount from schools of $4,580 each. To arrive at
the proposed fee, rounding was applied to the result of the fee
algorithm. This results in a certification fee of $4,600 per school.
Setting the certification fee at the $4,600 figure, however, leads to
an increase of the current school certification fee by $2,900,
resulting in a certification fee over twice the current fee amount.
School certification is integral to SEVP--F and M nonimmigrant students
can only attend SEVP-certified schools. DHS is concerned that such an
increase of the school certification fee would appear dramatic to
schools seeking initial certification and could lead to fewer schools
seeking initial certification, so DHS proposes to keep the fee increase
at a level that will not discourage potential new schools from seeking
certification. At the same time, DHS considers that initial
certification bestows upon the school a valuable asset, the ability to
enroll F and M nonimmigrant students, and an increased fee amount is
reasonable as the initial certification process becomes more extensive
through the SEVIS modernization and other technological developments.
Weighing these concerns, DHS decided to subsidize the I-17
certification fee by increasing the payment by only $1,300 to $3,000.
The remainder of the costs for I-17 certification is subsidized by the
I-901 F and M SEVIS fee, which is addressed below.
c. Recertification Cost
To identify a fee level that would recover the full cost of
recertification operations, SEVP determined the full cost of
recertification (including level of effort and contract cost) and the
approximate number of schools willing to recertify. Because schools are
required to recertify every 2 years, SEVP anticipates that
approximately one-half of its certified schools--roughly 4,373 schools
per year, given the current certified school population of 8,746--would
recertify.
Table 12--FY 2019-FY 2020 Recertification Fee-Recoverable Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recertification Fee-
Fiscal year payments recoverable
expected budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019................................... 4,373 $25,368,650
2020................................... 4,373 26,457,896
--------------------------------
Total.............................. 8,746 51,826,546
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate an anticipated school recertification fee, DHS divides
the fee-recoverable budget by the anticipated number of payments. This
results in a fee-recoverable amount from schools of $6,000 each. To
arrive at the proposed fee, rounding was applied to the result of the
fee algorithm. This would result in a recertification fee of $6,000 per
school. DHS desires to institute a recertification fee to more
accurately assign the costs of recertification adjudication to those
stakeholders who are directly requesting the adjudication--the SEVP-
certified schools--particularly since the costs of recertification
continue to increase as the recertification process becomes more
robust. DHS considers, however, that a recertification fee instituted
in this rule for the first time should not be set at a level that could
discourage schools from seeking recertification. DHS also considers
that the recertification amount should be less than the initial
certification amount so that schools are encouraged to seek
recertification instead of allowing their SEVP certification to be
withdrawn and applying for initial certification anew at some later
date. Withdrawal of SEVP-certification not only leads to the school
losing a valuable asset, but also leads to complications for F and M
nonimmigrant students enrolled in the withdrawn school, who are then
forced to transfer schools, leave the United States, or risk facing
immigration law penalties for violating the terms of their nonimmigrant
status. Weighing all these factors, DHS proposes that the I-17
recertification fee be $1,250. DHS proposes to eliminate regulations
that state that no fee is required for the school recertification
process in order to recover part of this cost, as part of an effort to
establish a more equitable distribution of costs and more sustainable
level of cost recovery relative to services provided. The costs for I-
17 recertification not recovered by the proposed fee would be
subsidized by the I-901 F and M SEVIS fee. The explanation for shifting
responsibility of the fee adjustment to the I-901 fee is included
below.
d. Site Visit Cost
Site visits consist of initial certification site visits, change of
location visits, and new campus or location site visits. The
anticipated workload for these site visits is 600 per year, or 1,200
visits over a 2-year period.
Table 13--FY 2019-FY 2020 Site Visit Fee-Recoverable Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site visit Fee-
Fiscal year payments recoverable
expected budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019.................................... 600 $385,674
2020.................................... 600 389,689
-------------------------------
Total............................... 1,200 775,363
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current fee amount is $655 as established in the 2008 Fee Rule
that codified SEVP's authority to charge the fee when a school changes
its physical location or adds new physical location or campus.
Following this rule's effective date, SEVP will collect the fee when a
school adds a new physical location or campus. The site visit fee would
apply when a certified school updates its Form I-17 in SEVIS to
indicate, pursuant to 8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)(ii), an added physical location
or campus. The site visit fee is based on level of effort for both SEVP
staff and contracts that cover the cost of operations.
e. Appeals and Motions Cost
Determining the full cost of processing an appeal is essential to
improving the fee structure. The fee for filing a motion or appeal is
calculated by determining the workload of appeals and motions over the
FY 2019 and FY 2020 periods. Over the past 2 years, SEVP has processed
54 appeals and motions annually. To maintain conservative estimates,
SEVP anticipates that number will remain constant over the FY 2019 and
FY 2020 periods.
[[Page 33777]]
Table 14--FY 2019-FY 2020 Appeals Fee-Recoverable Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal and
motion Fee-
Fiscal year payments recoverable
expected budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019.................................... 54 $1,956,375
2020.................................... 54 2,198,825
-------------------------------
Total............................... 108 4,155,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fees for motions or appeals are calculated by dividing the fee-
recoverable budget by the anticipated number of payments over the FY
2019 and FY 2020 periods. This results in a fee-recoverable amount of
$38,474 for each appeal. To arrive at the proposed final cost, rounding
was applied to the result of the fee algorithm. This results in a cost
for a motion or appeal of $38,500. SEVP believes that this fee, while
justified, is too high to impose on the affected schools as the first
fee to be established and collected for the subject appeals and
motions, and that some accommodation should be made to keep the fee at
a more reasonable amount. Instead, DHS proposes adding $4.76 to the
Form I-901 F and M fees to counterbalance the unfunded costs of
adjudicating appeals and motions. This will better ensure that cost is
not a significant obstacle in pursuing an administrative appeal or
motion. The Form I-290B fee when filed with SEVP would be set at $675,
which is currently the same amount charged when the form is filed with
USCIS. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(i)(S).\11\ The Form I-290B, ``Notice of
Appeal or Motion,'' filed with USCIS is the same form used for appeals
or motions related to any denial of school certification or
recertification or a withdrawal of such certification. Although the
appeal fee would not be set at the amount necessary to recover the full
costs of appeals and motions, by setting a fee of $675, schools that
benefit from the appeal process would bear some of its costs, and DHS
would more fairly balance allocation of the recovery of SEVP
operational costs between beneficiary classes. As proposed, DHS would
charge the fee for all such appeals and motions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Because the underlying rationale for the amount of the I-
290B fee differs between SEVP and USCIS, the cost for appealing a
claim or petition using the I-290B Form could eventually be
different for SEVP and USCIS 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(S).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Proposed Fee Levels
Viewing the SEVP fee structure and affected parties
comprehensively, DHS proposes to adjust each fee in its fee structure
based not only on cost of services, but also on the desire to spread
the impact of fee increases reasonably among the various beneficiaries
of SEVP services. Despite the ABC calculations' determination of the
actual cost of each service, which is represented by each fee, DHS has
determined that using the I-901 revenue to subsidize the costs of the
SEVP's other fees is an appropriate course of action for two reasons.
First, the number of F and M students paying the I-901 fee is
substantially larger than the number of entities paying each of the
school certification-related fees, allowing for SEVP to lessen the
impact of fee increases in the aggregate. Second, the subsidization is
reasonable because individuals paying the I-901 fee necessarily benefit
from the continued certification of schools for their enrollment and
prompt and accurate adjudication of appeals.
DHS proposes to increase the I-901 SEVIS fee for F and M students
from $200 to $350 and the full I-901 SEVIS fee for most J exchange
visitors from $180 to $220. While these increases may seem large, these
fees have been unchanged since 2008. 73 FR 55683 (Sept. 26, 2008). In
2008, the first time these fees had been updated since SEVP's inception
in 2004, the I-901 SEVIS fee for F and M students increased from $100
to $200, and the full I-901 SEVIS fee for most J exchange visitors
increased from $100 to $180. See id. The I-901 SEVIS fee for special J-
visa categories (au pair, camp counselor, and summer work travel) would
remain at the current $35 level, consistent with the levels set by
Congress in 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A). IIRIRA also exempts from the I-901
SEVIS fee J-1 exchange visitors who participate in Federal Government-
sponsored J-1 exchange programs, consistent with 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(3).
DHS proposes to increase the initial certification fee from $1,700
to $3,000. This fee was originally set at $230, effective in 2002,
prior to the reorganization of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) to become part of DHS. See 66 FR 65811 (Dec. 21, 2001).
The fee was increased in 2008 to $1,700. See 73 FR 55683. This is the
base fee for certification and does not include the site visit fee.
DHS proposes to establish a recertification fee at $1,250, maintain
the site visit fee of $655, and set the I-290B fee at $675. The cost
for SEVP recertification, site visits, and motions and appeals
adjudication is determined by employing ABC principles, previously
described in this document, balanced with SEVP's desire to prevent
recertifications, site visits, appeals, and motions filings from
becoming cost prohibitive. DHS is proposing a recertification fee and a
Form I-290B fee for the first time, and SEVP believes that charging
recertification and appeals fees sufficient to recover, on their own,
the fee-recoverable amount for such services, may result in
inordinately high fees from the perspective of entities who have
regularly received the benefits of these SEVP services at no additional
charge. Accordingly, DHS proposes to set these fees at amounts below
the fee-recoverable cost. For the I-290B fee in particular, DHS
proposes to set the amount at $675. DHS believes this amount is
appropriate because it is less than both the fee for initial
certification and the fee for recertification. Further, the amount $675
is already associated with the Form I-290B when filing it with USCIS.
DHS believes $675 is a logical starting point, because this is the fee
currently being charged by USCIS for motions and appeals. While the
difference between the fee-recoverable amount (approximately $38,500)
and the proposed fee of $675 is substantial, subsidizing this fee by
driving the additional costs to the I-901 fee results in an increase of
only $4.76 to F/M students paying that fee. The proposed program fee
schedule for SEVP beginning in FY 2019 is shown in Table 15.
Table 15--Proposed FY 2019 SEVP Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 SEVIS Fees: ..............
I-901 Primary F/M visa holders (Full)...... $350
I-901 Primary J visa holders (Full)........ 220
I-901 Special J-visa categories (Subsidized 35
payment)...........................................
I-17 School Fee: ..............
[[Page 33778]]
Certification Fee.......................... 3,000
Recertification Fee........................ 1,250
Site visit fee for initial certification 655
(base fee to be multiplied by number of locations
cited on the Form I-17), and for new physical
locations..........................................
Appeal or Motion Fee: ..............
Appeal or Motion Fee....................... 675
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These proposed fee amounts, the cost model outputs, and cost
reallocation amounts are shown in Table 16. The cost reallocation
amounts are negative for the fees that are subsidized. The cost
reallocation amounts that are positive are the amounts per fee that
subsidize the other fee categories.
Table 16--Proposed Fee Adjustment Amounts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity based
Fee Current fee cost model Cost Final fee Change in fees % Change in
output reallocation fee
(a) (b) (c) (d = b + c) (e) (f = (d/a) -1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal or Motion Fee: I-290B............................ N/A $38,475 ($37,800) $675 $675 N/A
I-901 F/M............................................... 200 290 60 350 150 75
I-901 J-Full............................................ 180 123 97 220 30 22
I-901 J-Partial......................................... 35 123 (88) 35 0 0
I-17 Initial Certification.............................. 1,700 4,600 (1,600) 3,000 1,300 76
I-17 Recertification.................................... N/A 6,000 (4,750) 1,250 1,250 N/A
Site Visit--initial..................................... 655 650 5 655 0 0
Site Visit--new location................................ 0 650 5 655 655 N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17 reflects the break-even analysis based on the proposed fee
schedule and the proportional fee volumes (rounded) required to
generate sufficient revenue to offset projected program costs.
Table 17--Projected Revenue--FY 2019 and FY 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed fee Forecasted Forecasted
Fee category amount volume revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F/M Full.................................................. $350 826,326 $289,214,144
I-901 J-Full.................................................... 210 311,162 68,455,584
I-901 J-Partial................................................. 35 317,890 11,126,150
I-901 Subtotal:
Certification Fee........................................... 3,000 852 2,556,000
Recertification Fee......................................... 1,250 8,746 10,932,500
Site Visit.................................................. 655 1,200 786,000
I-17 Subtotal:
Appeals..................................................... 675 108 72,900
Total................................................... .............. 1,466,284 383,143,278
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771: Regulatory Review
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'') directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule
a ``significant regulatory action,'' although not economically
significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
the rule has been reviewed by OMB. This proposed rule would impose
transfer payments between the public and the government. Thus, this
proposed rule is not expected to be subject to the requirements of
Executive Order 13771. An initial regulatory analysis follows.
1. Background and Purpose of the Proposed Rule
SEVP is a fee funded program within ICE that provides oversight of
schools and nonimmigrant students in the F and M visa category. SEVP
uses SEVIS to
[[Page 33779]]
monitor and track certified schools and F, M, and J nonimmigrant
students. DoS also uses SEVIS in the management of the Exchange Visitor
Program for nonimmigrant exchange visitors in the J visa category.
SEVIS is a web-based system administered by SEVP that retains data on
international students and exchange visitors in the country. SEVP uses
SEVIS to ensure accurate reporting and recordkeeping by schools and
exchange visitor programs. SEVP also uses SEVIS to identify for
enforcement action student and exchange visitors who are out of status.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to generate the necessary
revenue to recover the full cost of the FY 2019 and FY 2020 budgets.
SEVP is authorized to recover the full cost of all resources and
services provided. The costs of SEVP activities have increased, and the
fees collected no longer cover the costs. The fee increase is needed to
meet long-term cash flow needs and achieve solvency.
SEVP projects an annual budget of $186.6 million in FY 2019 and
$188.4 million in FY 2020. SEVP forecasts $121.6 million in revenue for
FY 2019 and FY 2020 without a fee change. The implementation of this
proposed rule would provide SEVP with additional fee revenue of $75.2
million in FY 2019 and $73.5 million in FY 2020. If DHS does not adjust
the current fees to recover the costs of processing the enrollment of F
and M students, certification and recertification of schools,
processing relating to J exchange visitors, appeals, and site visits,
it will be forced to make reductions in oversight, security, and
service as compared to current projections.
To determine the full cost associated with SEVP and the management
of SEVIS, SEVP used ABC methodology. ABC first identifies activities in
an organization and then assigns the cost of each activity according to
the resources they consume. SEVP identified the following as its
primary activities: Collecting and retaining information on F, M, and J
nonimmigrants; certifying schools; overseeing school compliance;
recertifying schools; adjudicating appeals; investigating suspected
violations of immigration law and other potential threats to national
security by F, M, or J nonimmigrants; providing outreach and education
to users; and performing regulatory and policy analysis. SEVP also
recognizes management and overhead costs associated with the program.
SEVP proposes five fees paid by two source categories: Individuals
will pay the I-901 SEVIS fee, and institutions will pay the I-17
certification fee, I-17 recertification fee, the fee for a motion or
appeal, and the site visit fee. By tracing expenditures of the
activities previously listed to the various fee categories, SEVP
forecasted fee payments to determine the appropriate fee amount for
each fee type proposed in this rule.
Table 18 presents an accounting statement summarizing the
annualized transfer amounts and qualitative benefits of the proposed
rule. This rule proposes that schools will pay a higher fee for initial
SEVP certification and will incur a fee for recertification, a site
visit when adding a new physical location or campus, and the filing of
a motion or appeal. In addition, F and M students and J visitors will
pay higher fees.
Table 18--Accounting Statement for FY 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Primary estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative Benefits............................. SEVP will be able to maintain the current level of service.
This proposed rule will enhance SEVP's capability to support
national security and counter immigration fraud through the
continued development and implementation of critical system
and programmatic enhancements. Enhancements to SEVIS,
including the establishment of a student portal, will assist
DSOs in their regulatory obligation to provide accurate and
timely information and rebalance this reporting requirement
by providing students an automated means to do so. Increased
adjudication personnel will assist in reducing
recertification processing times, while enhanced vetting
protocols will ensure that only those eligible to enter and
remain in the country do so
Transfers........................................ 7% Discount Rate $75,231,420 from schools and students to the
government
3% Discount Rate $75,231,420 from schools and students to the
government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Effects Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on State, local, and/or tribal The proposed rule would increase and NPRM, Executive Order
government. establish additional fees on state, local, 12866 analysis
and/or tribal government-funded educational
institutions for support of SEVP operations.
This rule proposes to increase the I-17
certification fee and creates the I-17
recertification fee and a fee for filing an
appeal or motion. In addition, this rule
announces that following completion of this
rulemaking, SEVP will collect a site visit
fee when an SEVP-certified school adds a
campus/location.
Effects on small businesses........... The proposed rule would increase and Initial Regulatory
establish additional fees for educational Flexibility Analysis
institutions in support of SEVP operations.
This proposed rule would increase the I-17
certification fee and create the I-17
recertification fee and a fee for filing an
appeal or motion. In addition, this rule
announces that following the completion of
this rulemaking, SEVP will collect a site
visit fee when a school certified by SEVP
adds a campus/location.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Impacts of Regulatory Change
This proposed rule would amend the current fees for the individual
student and exchange visitor application fee (I-901 SEVIS fee) and
school certification petition for initial certification. It would
maintain the current fee for site visits and extend it to any change of
location or additional physical location or campus reported as an
update by a certified school. It would also institute a new fee for
school recertification petitions and the filing of appeals and motions
by schools. The amended fee structure reflects existing and projected
operating costs, program requirements, and planned program
improvements.
The current I-901 SEVIS fees are based on a fee analysis performed
when SEVP last increased the fees in 2008. See 73 FR 55683. Those cost
calculations were established on the basis of projected workload. Since
2008,
[[Page 33780]]
SEVP's program mission tasks have expanded significantly. The
expansions of certification, recertification, and appeals costs and the
subsidization of excess costs not recovered by fees have led to the
need for the proposed fee increase. Additionally, SEVP now provides
investigative analysis to support enforcement operations, has increased
numbers of adjudication personnel, and is undergoing SEVIS
Modernization. Concurrently, costs associated with these program tasks
have been affected by increased costs due to inflation. This rule
proposes fees that would result in recovery of the full cost of SEVP
operations with fee-generated revenue; alignment of the fees with
current and projected costs and processes that have been adjusted as
the program has gained experience and sophistication; and the agency's
adoption of more detailed and accurate data sources and improved
management tools to align resources and workload.
a. I-901 F and M SEVIS Fee
F nonimmigrants, as defined in INA section 101(a)(15)(F), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F), are foreign students who come to the United States to
pursue a full course of academic study in SEVP-approved schools and
their dependents. M nonimmigrants, as defined in INA section
101(a)(15)(M), 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)(M), are foreign nationals pursuing a
full course of study at an SEVP-certified vocational or other
recognized nonacademic program (other than language training programs)
in the United States and their dependents. International F and M
nonimmigrant students seeking temporary admission into the United
States to attend a U.S. educational institution must pay the I-901 F
and M SEVIS fee. SEVP proposes to increase the I-901 F and M SEVIS fee
from $200 to $350.
From 2007 through 2017, SEVP received an average of 450,581 I-901 F
and M SEVIS payments per year. Table 19 shows the volume of I-901 F and
M SEVIS fee payments received and the annual average number of fee
payments from 2007 to 2017. As previously discussed, SEVP has
forecasted 418,393 I-901 F and M payments in FY 2019 and 407,933 FY
2020, respectively.
Table 19--1-901 F and M SEVIS Fee Payments FYs 2010-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fee payments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................................... 358,666
2008.................................................... 400,090
2009.................................................... 348,815
2010.................................................... 389,255
2011.................................................... 431,180
2012.................................................... 449,029
2013.................................................... 469,986
2014.................................................... 519,751
2015.................................................... 574,158
2016.................................................... 545,203
2017.................................................... 470,261
Annual Average (2007-2017).............................. 450,581
Forecasted 2019......................................... 418,393
Forecasted 2020......................................... 407,933
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 20 illustrates the incremental increase DHS is proposing with
this rule for the I-901 F and M fee. Individuals who submit a Form I-
901 will pay an additional $150 under this proposed rule, which is a 75
percent increase.
Table 20--I-901 F and M Incremental Fee Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
Type Current fee Proposed fee (proposed-
current)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F and M................................................... $200 $350 $150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP estimates that the fee increase would result in an annual
increase of transfer payment from students who submit an I-901 form to
the government of approximately $62 million per year ($150 increase x
418,393 FY 2019 number of applicants = $62,758,950; $150 increase x
407,933 FY2020 number of applicants = $61,189,950).
b. I-901 J-Full SEVIS Fee
DoS generally oversees the exchange visitor program, which includes
nonimmigrants who are charged the full J SEVIS fee. J exchange visitors
are nonimmigrant individuals approved to participate in an exchange
visitor program in the United States and the spouse and dependents of
the exchange visitors. This SEVIS fee is associated with J-1
nonimmigrants participating in a designated exchange visitor program.
Certain other J-1 categories are subject to a reduced fee or are exempt
from a fee in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1372(e). SEVP and DoS have a
memorandum of reimbursable agreement. DoS sends SEVP its actual
expenditures, and SEVP reimburses them quarterly. Each year, SEVP and
DoS review and update the memorandum. Table 21 displays the affected
Exchange Visitor Program categories subject to the full SEVIS fee and
the purpose of the visit.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Department of State, Exchange Visitor Program Category
Requirements (June 2016), available at https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Exchange-Visitor-Program-Category-Requirements.pdf (last visited Feb. 26, 2018).
Table 21--J-1 Exchange Visitor Program Categories Subject to Full SEVIS
Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange visitor program category Purpose of visit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-term Scholar................ Lecture, observe, consult, training,
demonstrate special skills.
Professor and Research Scholar.... Research Scholar: Research, observe,
or consult in connection with a
research project.
Professor: Teach or lecture at
university, observe, or consult.
Physician......................... Pursue graduate medical education or
training at accredited schools of
medicine or scientific
institutions.
Intern............................ Structured internship program that
is in the student's field of study.
Trainee........................... Structured training program that is
in the trainee's professional
field.
Specialist........................ Observing, consulting, or
demonstrating special skills.
Teacher........................... Teach full-time in an accredited
primary, including pre-
kindergarten, or secondary (K-12)
public or private school.
[[Page 33781]]
Secondary School Student.......... Study in the U.S. at accredited
public or private secondary schools
for an academic semester or an
academic year, while living with
American host families.
College and University Student.... Participate in a degree or nondegree
program at an accredited
postsecondary academic institution,
or participate in a student
internship program.
Government visitor (non-Federal).. Engage in observation tours,
discussions, consultations,
professional meetings, conferences,
workshops and travel when selected
by a state or local government
agency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP receives an average of 151,958 I-901 Full J SEVIS payments per
year (FYs 2007-2017). Table 22 displays the volume of Full I-901 J
SEVIS fee payments received and the annual average number of fee
payments. SEVP has forecasted 157,550 I-901 J-Full payments in FY 2019
and 153,611 in FY 2020.
Table 22--I-901 J-Full SEVIS Fee Payments FYs 2010-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fee payments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................................... 132,213
2008.................................................... 137,173
2009.................................................... 129,979
2010.................................................... 139,534
2011.................................................... 148,253
2012.................................................... 155,008
2013.................................................... 160,522
2014.................................................... 172,530
2015.................................................... 168,967
2016.................................................... 164,401
2017.................................................... 162,959
Average (2007-2017)..................................... 151,958
Forecasted 2019......................................... 157,550
Forecasted 2020......................................... 153,611
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between the proposed and current fees for the I-901
J-Full applicants is $40, an increase of approximately 22 percent, as
shown in Table 23.
Table 23--I-901 J-Full Incremental Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
Type Current fee Proposed fee (proposed-
current)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 J-Full................................................. $180 $220 $40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total increase in transfer payments from I-901 J-Full
applicants to the government is expected to be $12,446,440 ($40
increase in fee x 157,550 FY 2019 and 153,611 FY 2020 forecasted number
of applicants). The increase in J fees is meant to recover the full
cost of J program operations for SEVP, which includes the reimbursement
to DoS, SEVIS costs, and other adjudication services for J exchange
visitors. For the purposes of calculating fees, SEVP isolates the costs
specifically incurred by operating the J visa program. As it stands,
the J visa program operates at a greater cost than the revenue that J
visa fees bring to the program; therefore, SEVP proposes an increase to
the J-Full visa to cover the $39.4 million full cost of operating the J
visa program on an annual basis.
c. I-17 Certification and Recertification Fee
For a U.S. school to enroll F and M nonimmigrant students, it is
required to be certified by SEVP. A school petitions for SEVP
certification to enroll these students by completing and submitting
Form I-17, ``Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by
Nonimmigrant Student,'' online through SEVIS.
All SEVP-certified schools are required to go through the
recertification process every 2 years to ensure they remain qualified
for certification and adhere to all requirements according to the
regulations.
From FY 2012 to 2016, there has been an annual average of 423
schools applying for SEVP certification. As previously discussed, DHS
calculated the 3-year moving average to minimize the variation in
forecasting the population data. The I-17 Initial certifications from
FYs 2012 through 2016 are shown in Table 24.
Table 24--FYs 2012-2016 I-17 Initial Certifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17
Fiscal year certification 3-Year moving
petitions average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................... 457 ..............
2013.................................... 382 ..............
2014.................................... 446 428
2015.................................... 469 432
2016.................................... 363 426
-------------------------------
Total............................... 2,117 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP uses the 3-year moving average to predict that there will be
426 initial certifications in both FY 2019 and FY 2020, respectively.
There are currently 8,746 SEVP-certified schools. DHS assumes that
approximately half, or approximately 4,373 schools, will recertify each
year, including the 1,728 schools with no active F or M students. DHS
assumes that a school would prefer to recertify for a $1,250 fee
instead of allowing certification to lapse and thereafter having to
again pay the proposed initial certification fee of $3,000. The
proposed initial certification fee is a 76 percent increase from the
current fee.
The current fee to apply for initial certification is $1,700, which
has not changed since 2008. SEVP does not currently charge a
recertification fee; the proposed fee amount is $1,250. The I-17
initial certification and I-17 recertification incremental fees are
shown in Table 25.
[[Page 33782]]
Table 25--I-17 Incremental Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
Type Proposed fee Current fee (proposed-
current)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 Initial Certification Fee.................................. $3,000 $1,700 $1,300
I-17 Recertification Fee........................................ 1,250 0 1,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual increase in transfer payments from schools to the
government from I-17 initial certifications is expected to be $553,800
($1,300 increase in fee x 426 (FY 19 and FY 20 forecasted number of I-
17 initial certifications)). The annual increase in transfer payments
from schools to the government for I-17 recertification is expected to
be $5,466,250 ($1,250 increase in fee x 4,373 (FY 2019 and FY 2020
forecasted number of recertifications)).
d. Fee for Motion or Appeal
When a school is denied certification or recertification, the
school receives a denial letter through certified mail. The denial
letter explains the reason for the denial and the steps to appeal. The
school can appeal by completing the Form I-290B, ``Notice of Appeal or
Motion,'' within 30 days of receipt. This rule proposes that SEVP
impose a filing fee of $675, which is also the fee currently charged by
USCIS upon submission of the Form I-290B.\13\ SEVP does not currently
collect a fee from a school that files a motion or appeal. DHS proposes
to revise its regulations to institute this fee for a school filing a
motion or an appeal in order to establish a more equitable distribution
of costs, improve services by decreasing an appeals or motions
throughput time and a more sustainable level of cost recovery relative
to the services provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ USCIS I-290B, ``Notice of Appeal or Motion,'' Filing Fee of
$675, https://www.uscis.gov/i-290b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP processed an average of 54 motions and appeals from schools
annually from 2013 to 2016. DHS assumes that there will be the same
number of appeals or motions filed in FY 2019 and FY 2020.
The total annual increase in transfer payments from schools to the
government for filing a motion or appeal is expected to be $36,450
($675 fee x 54 (FY 2019 and FY 2020 forecasted number of fee
payments)).
e. Site Visit Fee
As noted above, current regulations provide authority for SEVP to
charge a site visit fee to schools that apply for initial certification
or report a change of physical location, or addition of a physical
location or campus. The site visit allows SEVP an opportunity to gather
evidence on the school's eligibility, review school facilities, and
interview personnel listed on the I-17 petition as a PDSO or DSO. SEVP
currently collects the $655 fee when a school files a petition for
certification to issue Forms I-20 or by a certified school when it
physically moves to a new location. This proposed rule notifies the
public that following completion of this rulemaking, SEVP plans to also
collect the fee from any certified school that adds a physical location
or campus, by updating its Form I-17 in SEVIS, consistent with the
above authorities and the agency's longstanding interpretation.
SEVP performs 600 site visits annually. Of these 600 visits, 426
will be at schools that apply for initial certification and currently
pay the $655 site visit fee. The remaining 174 site visits may include
visits when a school adds a new physical location or campus. DHS
proposes that the site visit fee amount, $655, remain the same.
The annual increase in transfer payments from schools to the
government due to site visits is expected to be $113,970 ($655 fee x
174 (FY 2019 and FY 2020 forecasted number of site visits)).
f. Conclusion
SEVP expects to have a total increase in fees of $68.7 million per
year, discounted at 7 percent, transferred from individuals and
entities for the services they receive, to the government. Table 26
shows the summary of the total annual number of payments, incremental
fee amounts, and total fees transferred.
Table 26--Annual Proposed Incremental Fee Amounts, FY 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Annual fee
Annual number incremental transfer to
of payments fee amounts government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F and M................................................... 418,393 $150 $62,758,950
I-901 J-Full.................................................... 157,550 40 6,302,000
I-17 Initial Certification...................................... 426 1,300 553,800
I-17 Recertification............................................ 4,373 1,250 5,466,250
Site Visits--initial............................................ 426 0 0
Site Visits--new location....................................... 174 655 113,970
Appeals......................................................... 54 675 36,450
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 75,231,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Alternatives
SEVP examined several alternatives to the proposed fee structure,
including no increase to any fee, only increasing the I-901 SEVIS fee
and I-17 fee, and the unsubsidized results of the ABC model.
Without an increase in fees, SEVP will be unable to maintain the
level of service for students and schools that it currently provides as
well as the compliance and national security activities discussed
above. SEVP considered the alternative of maintaining fees at the
current level but with reduced services and increased
[[Page 33783]]
processing times, but has decided that this would not be in the best
interest of applicants and schools. SEVP seeks to minimize the impact
on all parties, but in particular small entities. If SEVP followed this
alternative scenario, there would be a shortfall of revenue of over
$65.4 million in FY 2019 to cover expenses. SEVP rejected this
alternative. SEVP must pay for the expenses of maintaining and
improving SEVIS and adjudicating schools applying to be certified by
SEVP in a timely manner.
SEVP also considered raising only the I-901 and I-17 certification
fees instead of including a new proposed fee for recertification and
for filing a motion or appeal. If SEVP followed this scenario, the I-
901 F and M fee would increase to $350 to cover the shortfall in
revenue, but the I-17 Initial Certification fee would also increase to
$4,200. This would triple the existing certification fee while allowing
schools with zero foreign students to remain active SEVP schools that
require SEVP effort for recertification. SEVP rejected this fee
structure as it would continue to add workload to SEVP's
recertification branch. Without any disincentive to recertify, the list
of schools recertifying would likely continue to grow. The proposed
fees, however, would establish a more equitable distribution of costs
and a more sustainable level of cost recovery relative to the services
provided.
SEVP also considered the unsubsidized results of the ABC model as
an alternative, which allocated the I-901 F and M fee, school
certification fees, and the fee to file an appeal or motion as shown in
Table 27.
Table 27--Unsubsidized Fee Amounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubsidized
Fee type fee amounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F and M........................................... $290
I-901 J-Full............................................ 130
I-901 J-Partial......................................... 130
I-17 Initial Certification.............................. 4,600
I-17 Recertification.................................... 6,000
Appeal or Motion........................................ 38,475
Site Visit.............................................. 650
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP rejected this alternative for several reasons. Most
conspicuously, the fee to file a motion or appeal filed on the USCIS-
managed Form I-290B has been set at $675. Since a fee of $38,475 would
be significantly higher than any other SEVP fee it may improperly
discourage schools from filing a motion or appeal. Similarly, SEVP
rejected the alternative to set the recertification fee at the ABC
model output amount of $6,000. A recertification fee higher than the
initial certification fee would discourage schools from seeking
recertification. SEVP instead proposes to set the recertification fee
at a level is less than the initial certification fee. When schools can
maintain their certification, F and M nonimmigrant students enrolled in
the withdrawn school avoid complications such as being forced to
transfer schools, leave the United States, or risk facing immigration
law penalties for violating the terms of their nonimmigrant status.
SEVP also rejected the initial certification fee of $4,600 because
it finds that an increase of almost three times the current fee of
$1,700 is excessive. In the fee development, DHS balanced the challenge
of minimizing the costs to schools and students while recovering
funding to support SEVP services. The population of I-901 F and M
students relative to the population of I-17 schools allows for a
minimal fee adjustment to be spread over the student population to
reduce the cost burden on individual institutions seeking
recertification.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) at 5 U.S.C. 603 requires DHS
to consider the economic impact its proposed rules will have on small
entities. In accordance with the RFA, DHS has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that examines the impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities. The term ``small entities''
encompasses small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than 50,000.
DHS requests information and data from the public that would assist
in better understanding the impact of this proposed rule on small
entities. DHS also seeks alternatives that will accomplish the same
objectives and minimize the proposed rule's economic impact on small
entities.
1. A Description of the Reasons Why the Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
DHS proposes this rule to adjust current fees and introduce new
fees to ensure that SEVP is able to recover the full costs of the
management and support of its program activities. DHS's objectives and
legal authority for this proposed rule are further discussed throughout
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
The objective of the proposed rule is to prevent an anticipated
funding deficit in operating the SEVP. More specifically, this proposed
rule would increase the SEVP funding stream by adjusting the I-901 F
and M fee, I-901 J-Full fee, and I-17 Certification fee and instituting
the I-17 Recertification fee and a fee for filing a motion or appeal.
This proposed rule would also announce the collection of a site visit
fee when an SEVP-certified school adds a new physical location or
campus, at which it provides educational services to nonimmigrant
students. The funding supports continuing operations and new
initiatives critical to SEVP oversight of schools and the monitoring of
nonimmigrant students in the F, M, and J visa classifications for
national security purposes.
The legal basis for this proposed rule increasing the SEVP funding
stream is grounded in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created
DHS and imparted upon DHS the responsibility for SEVIS. DHS uses SEVIS
to meet the monitoring and verification requirements under EBSVERA,
Public Law 107-173, secs. 501-502, 116 Stat. 543, 560-63 (2002)
(codified at 8 U.S.C. 1761-1762), and to conduct a recertification of
schools every 2 years following the date of EBSVERA's enactment. The
Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to collect fees for SEVP
from prospective F and M students and J exchange visitors. IIRIRA
section 641(e)(1), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(1). Initially, fees for
most groups of F, M, and J classes of prospective nonimmigrants were
statutorily limited to not exceed $100, except in the case of the fee
for special J visa categories--au pairs, camp counselors, and
participants in summer work travel programs--which was set at $35
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A). This fee level has been maintained
consistent with Congressional intent. The Secretary is authorized to
revise nonimmigrant fees on a periodic basis to account for changes in
the cost of executing SEVP. IIRIRA section 641(g)(2), 8 U.S.C.
1372(g)(2). In addition, INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), provides
that DHS may set fees ``at a level that will ensure recovery of the
full costs of providing [adjudication] services.''
[[Page 33784]]
3. A Description--and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number--of
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
This analysis does not apply to increases in the I-901 F and M fees
because these fees are paid by individuals who are not, for purposes of
the RFA, within the definition of small entities established by 5
U.S.C. 601(6). DHS believes that J fees are also paid by individuals
and requests comment on this assumption.
As of May 2017, there were a total of 8,746 SEVP-certified schools
that would be subject to the I-17 recertification fee, site visit fee,
and fee to file a motion or an appeal. New schools applying for SEVP
certification would be subject to the proposed I-17 initial
certification fee. Of the 8,746 SEVP-certified schools, 2,013 have
identified as public schools on their I-17 form. The remaining 6,733
schools have identified themselves on the Form I-17 as private for-
profit, private nonprofit, or private unspecified entities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Prior to October 1, 2016, schools had two options in SEVIS
to select their school type: Public or private unspecified. With the
recent SEVIS update, schools can only choose one of three options:
Public, private for-profit, or private nonprofit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 2,013 SEVP-certified public schools, DHS conducted a random
sample of 100 \15\ schools to approximate the number of public schools
in a governmental jurisdiction with a population of less than 50,000.
Out of the 100 public schools, 62, or 62 percent, are located in a city
with a population fewer than 50,000. DHS infers 1,248 SEVP-certified
public schools are considered a small entity as defined by SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The random sample helps ensure an accurate representation
of the population with each school having an equal chance of being
included. In determining the sample size DHS utilized a 90 percent
confidence level (z-score), 10 percent margin of error (e), and a 50
percent population proportion ([pi]) used as an unknown input and to
maximize the estimate to overestimate sample size. The sample size
equation used n = z2[pi](1-[pi])/e2 provided
inputs 1.652(.5)(.5)/.01 = 69 and rounded up to 100 to
over sample. DHS identified geographic population data matched to
the school's city address provided in SEVIS, sourced from U.S.
Census Bureau 2010-2016 Cities and Towns (Incorporated Places and
Minor Civil Divisions) at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-cities-and-towns.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS conservatively assumes that all 1,507 private nonprofit schools
certified by SEVP are small entities because they are not dominant in
their fields. DHS also assumes that the 4,755 schools that are private
unspecified are small entities. DHS requests comments on these
assumptions.
To determine which of the remaining 471 private for-profit schools
are considered a small entity, DHS references the Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards represented by business average
annual receipts. Receipts are generally defined as a firm's total
income or gross income. SBA's Table of Small Business Size Standards is
matched to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
for industries.\16\ DHS matches information provided by the schools in
SEVIS regarding what programs of study it is engaged in with an
appropriate NAICS industry description. NAICS is the standard
classification used to categorize business establishments for the
purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data
related to the U.S. economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Tables of Small
Business Size Standards Matched to NAICS Codes (Oct. 1, 2017),
available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table_2017.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS finds that the revenue of 332 of the 471 private, for-profit
schools meet the SBA size standard of a small business according to
their industry. DHS estimates each private school's annual receipts by
multiplying the approximate annual cost of room, board, and tuition by
the average annual number of total students, based on data provided by
the schools on their Forms I-17. Every 2 years, as part of the
recertification process, a school submits the approximate annual cost
of room, board, and tuition per student and the average annual number
of total students, both domestic and international. DHS acknowledges
that this method to estimate receipts may be an incomplete account of a
school's income, which may also include contributions from private
individuals or other endowments. Since these data reflect a snapshot of
all SEVP-certified schools as of May 24, 2017, DHS acknowledges there
may be day-to-day changes in the status of a school's certification and
that a school's revenue may differ from actual revenue due to a 2-year
lag in school self-reporting before a school is required to recertify.
Given these assumptions, DHS estimates that 7,842 schools meet the
SBA definition of a small entity. This is approximately 90 percent of
the 8,746 of SEVP-certified schools included in this analysis.
Table 28 shows a summary by school type of the number of SEVP-
certified schools and estimated small entities.
Table 28--SEVP-Certified Schools by School Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Total Small entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Schools.......................... 2,013 1,248
Private, nonprofit schools.............. 1,507 1,507
Private, unspecified schools............ 4,755 4,755
Private, for-profit schools............. 471 332
-------------------------------
Total Number of SEVP-Certified 8,746 7,842
Schools............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 29 provides a summary of the SEVP-certified schools by
industry. The table also shows the NAICS industry description, the
NAICS code, and the number of small and large schools by industry. Note
that the number of small schools includes all nonprofits and
unspecified private schools. Most industries with SEVP-certified
schools consist of a majority of small schools.
[[Page 33785]]
Table 29--Number of SEVP-Certified Schools by Industry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total SEVP-
School industry NAICS industry description NAICS codes Number of Number of non- certified Percent small
small schools small schools schools schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary and Secondary Schools....... Industry primarily engaged in 611110 3,472 18 3,490 99
providing academic courses and
related course work that
contain a basic preparatory
education. A basic preparatory
education generally starts
kindergarten through 12th
grade.
Junior Colleges........................ Industry primarily engaged in 611210 11 2 13 85
providing academic or
technical courses and granting
associate degrees,
certificates, or diplomas
below the baccalaureate level.
Colleges, Universities, and Industry primarily engaged in 611310 2,150 57 2,207 97
Professional Schools. providing academic courses and
granting degrees at
baccalaureate or graduate
levels. The requirement for
admission is at least a high
school diploma or equivalent
general academic training.
Computer Training...................... Industry primarily engaged in 611420 13 0 13 100
providing computer training
(except computer repair), such
as computer programming,
software packages,
computerized business systems,
computer electronics
technology, computer
operations, and local area
network management.
Professional and Management Development Industry primarily engaged in 611430 18 0 18 100
Training. providing a collection of
short interval courses and
sessions for management and
professional development.
Training for career
development may be provided
directly to individuals or
through employers' training
programs, and courses may be
customized or modified to meet
the special needs of customers.
Cosmetology and Barber Schools......... Industry primarily engaged in 611511 91 3 94 97
providing training in hair
styling, barbering, or
cosmetic arts, such as makeup
or skin care.
Flight Training........................ Industry primarily engaged in 611512 199 1 200 100
providing aviation and flight
training.
Apprenticeship Training................ Industry primarily engaged in 611513 39 1 40 98
providing apprenticeship
training programs.
Other Technical and Trade Schools...... Industry primarily engaged in 611519 183 6 189 97
providing job or career
vocational or technical
courses (except cosmetology
and barber training, aviation
and flight training, and
apprenticeship training).
Fine Arts Schools...................... Establishments primarily 611610 79 3 82 96
engaged in offering
instruction in the arts,
including dance, art, drama,
and music.
Sports and Recreation Instruction...... Industry primarily contains 611620 10 0 10 100
institutions such as camps and
schools, primarily engaged in
providing instruction in
athletic activities to groups
of individuals.
Language Schools....................... Industry primarily engaged in 611630 286 44 330 87
providing foreign language
instruction (including sign
language).
Exam Preparation and Tutoring.......... Industry primarily engaged in 611691 8 4 12 67
providing training for
standardized examinations and/
or educational tutoring
services.
All Other Misc. Schools and Instruction Industry primarily engaged in 611699 32 0 32 100
providing instruction (except
academic schools, colleges and
universities, business,
computer, management,
technical, trade, fine arts,
athletic, language
instruction, tutoring, and
automobile driving
instruction).
Educational Support Services........... Industry primarily engaged in 611710 2 0 2 100
providing non-instructional
services that support
educational processes or
systems.
Public Schools (Elementary, Secondary, Industry primarily engaged in N/A 1,248 765 2,013 62
and High School). providing academic courses and
related course work that
contain a basic public
education.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. ............................... .............. 7,842 904 8,746 90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 30 presents the type of schools with active F and M students
and the percent of students enrolled in small schools. Most F and M
students are enrolled at small schools. Of the 8,746 SEVP-certified
schools, DHS identified 1,728 with no active F or M students and
determined that 1,296 of these are considered small entities as defined
by SBA. Note that although there are two SEVP-certified schools in the
education support services industry (shown in Table 29), there are no
active F and M students in these schools. DHS applies the results of
the sample of SEVP-certified public schools to the number of students
in SEVP-certified public schools (619,295) to estimate that the number
of students in small SEVP-certified public schools is 383,963.
[[Page 33786]]
Table 30--Total Number of Active F and M Students by Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total active F
and M students Total active F Percent of
School industry in small and M students students at
schools small schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary and Secondary Schools................................ 60,990 63,491 96
Junior Colleges................................................. 409 418 98
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools................ 419,593 429,784 98
Computer Training............................................... 404 404 100
Professional and Management Development Training................ 217 217 100
Cosmetology and Barber Schools.................................. 91 93 98
Flight Training................................................. 6,598 6,605 100
Apprenticeship Training......................................... 71 75 95
Other Technical and Trade Schools............................... 1,108 1,111 100
Fine Arts Schools............................................... 1,736 2,030 86
Sports and Recreation Instruction............................... 13 13 100
Language Schools................................................ 33,500 41,867 80
Exam Preparation and Tutoring................................... 1,469 1,984 74
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction................. 218 218 100
Educational Support Services.................................... .............. .............. 0
Public Schools.................................................. 383,963 619,295 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS estimated SEVP-certified public schools' revenue to examine the
impact of the proposed fee adjustments on small public schools. The
tuition provided by public schools in SEVIS may not represent a public
school's total revenue because most of the U.S. students would
generally not pay the tuition provided to attend public schools.
Instead, DHS assumes that a public school's county or city's tax
revenue is the best revenue source against which to assess the impact
of the proposed fee adjustments. DHS collected local government
revenue, expenditure, debt, and assets from the U.S. Census Bureau 2015
State and Local Government Survey \17\ to examine the impact of the
increased fees on the public schools included in the sample. A county
or city's revenue may be an overestimation of a public school's
capability to pay the fees related to SEVP-certification, appeals, or
site visits for new locations. This revenue approximation may minimize
the impact of the fee adjustments for public schools. DHS requests
comments on these assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Available at https://www.census.gov/govs/local/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 31 displays the range of annual revenue by each school
industry and for public schools, from the small school with the lowest
revenue to the median revenue of all the small schools to the small
school with the largest revenue. It also shows the average revenue of
all the small schools in that industry. The Colleges, Universities, and
Professional Schools industry has the widest range from maximum to
minimum revenue due to the assumption that all private, unspecified
schools are small entities, while the Educational Support Services
industry that only has two schools included has the smallest range of
maximum to minimum revenue for any one industry.
Table 31--Range of Annual Revenue by School Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowest annual Median annual Largest annual Average annual
School industry revenue revenue revenue revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary and Secondary Schools.............. $28,800 $5,116,550 $1,680,000,000 $13,194,355
Junior Colleges............................... 44,400 2,560,000 15,255,000 4,271,901
Colleges, Universities, and Professional 26,400 28,432,500 5,002,524,120 96,761,518
Schools......................................
Computer Training............................. 425,000 3,000,000 14,000,000 3,881,631
Professional and Management Development 129,600 717,500 2,904,625 1,000,423
Training.....................................
Cosmetology and Barber Schools................ 70,000 2,183,000 66,907,200 4,092,673
Flight Training............................... 36,000 3,000,000 60,000,000 5,959,154
Apprenticeship Training....................... 132,000 10,265,875 106,080,000 21,004,563
Other Technical and Trade Schools............. 64,000 2,800,000 82,800,000 7,570,939
Fine Arts Schools............................. 66,000 2,895,000 130,000,000 9,425,304
Sports and Recreation Instruction............. 276,800 1,165,000 9,312,500 2,626,805
Language Schools.............................. 118,500 5,725,000 108,000,000 7,514,433
Exam Preparation and Tutoring................. 3,150,000 5,043,189 27,000,000 6,983,297
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and 83,250 845,000 469,050,000 18,359,767
Instruction..................................
Educational Support Services.................. 340,000 521,750 703,500 521,750
Public Schools................................ 4,389,000 192,353,500 17,833,251,000 1,315,830,548
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33787]]
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the Requirement
and the Types of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the
Report or Record
The proposed rule would increase and establish additional fees for
educational institutions in support of SEVP operations. DHS estimates
the annual impact to small schools based on the school cost of
compliance as represented as a percentage of their annual revenue.
Table 32 displays the proposed fees, the current fees, and the
difference in these amounts. This analysis examines the impact that the
proposed incremental fee for the Form I-17 certification and the
proposed fees for recertification, site visits to add a new physical
location or campus, and the filing of a motion or an appeal would have
on small SEVP-certified schools.
Table 32--Proposed School Fees by Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
Fee type Proposed fee Current fee (proposed- Percent
current) increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 Certification Fee.......................... $3,000 $1,700 $1,300 76
I-17 Recertification Fee........................ 1,250 0 1,250 N/A
Site Visit Fee--initial......................... 655 655 0 0
Site Visit Fee--new location.................... 655 0 655 N/A
Motion or Appeal Fee............................ 675 0 675 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 Certification Fee
A school files a petition and pays a certification fee to become
eligible to issue the Form I-20, ``Certificate of Eligibility for
Nonimmigrant Student Status,'' to prospective international students
after admitting them for a course of study. Certification also
authorizes the school to enroll international students after they enter
the country on an F or M student visa. Schools must initially go
through the vetting process for authorization by DHS to enroll F and/or
M nonimmigrant students and pay the I-17 certification fee, which is
currently $1,700 and proposed to increase to $3,000. The incremental
fee is the difference between the proposed fee ($3,000) and current fee
($1,700), or $1,300. From 2012 to 2016, DHS processed 2,117 I-17
petitions and payments. Out of the 2,117 schools, 1,151, or 54 percent,
were identified as meeting the SBA definition of a small school, or
estimated to be a small public school based on the sample conducted, as
illustrated in Table 33.
Table 33--I-17 Initial Certifications FYs 2012-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Total I-17 Small school I- small school I-
Fiscal year initial 17 initial 17 initial
certifications certifications certifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012............................................................ 457 236 52
2013............................................................ 382 218 57
2014............................................................ 446 270 60
2015............................................................ 469 260 55
2016............................................................ 363 167 46
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 2,117 1,151 54
-----------------------------------------------
2014-2016 3-year annual average......................... 426 232 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP forecasted the total I-17 initial certifications in FY 2019
and FY 2020 to be 426 using the 3-year annual average of FY 2014
through 2016 initial certifications. Using that same methodology, 232
small schools applied for initial I-17 certification on average each
year. DHS assumes the growth of small schools per industry seeking SEVP
certification will remain constant in the future. DHS multiplied the
annual average number of small schools applying for initial
certification by the percent of small schools in each industry, as
presented in Table 29. This calculation yields the number of small
schools expected to petition for initial I-17 certification by
industry. The results are presented in Table 34.
Table 34--Expected Annual Number of Small Schools To Initially Certify
by School Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of
small schools
School industry applying for
initial
certification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary and Secondary Schools...................... 103
Junior Colleges....................................... 0
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools...... 64
Computer Training..................................... 0
Professional and Management Development Training...... 1
[[Page 33788]]
Cosmetology and Barber Schools........................ 3
Flight Training....................................... 6
Apprenticeship Training............................... 1
Other Technical and Trade Schools..................... 5
Fine Arts Schools..................................... 2
Sports and Recreation Instruction..................... 0
Language Schools...................................... 8
Exam Preparation and Tutoring......................... 0
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction....... 1
Educational Support Services.......................... 0
Public Schools........................................ 37
-----------------
Total Small Schools............................... 232
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This analysis examines the impact the $1,300 incremental fee has on
small schools that might seek initial certification after the final
rule is effective. DHS assumes that the range of revenue of the small
schools that will apply for certification is similar to the range of
revenue of current SEVP-certified small schools and uses this range to
show the potential impacts. Table 35 shows the impact as a percentage
for the schools with the lowest annual revenue, median annual revenue,
and largest annual revenue, as well as the average annual revenue for
all schools in that industry. From these results, DHS does not expect
the I-17 certification incremental fee to have an impact greater than 1
percent on the average small school annual revenue. However, there is
an expected impact greater than 1 percent for some small schools with
the lowest annual revenue in their industry. On average the estimated
194 small schools that apply for initial I-17 certification annually
and pay an incremental fee of $1,300 will experience an impact of less
than 1 percent of their estimated annual revenue.
Table 35--Initial Certification Fee Impact for Small Schools by Type of School
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 initial
I-17 initial I-17 initial certification I-17 initial
certification certification incremental certification
incremental incremental fee impact on incremental
Type of school fee impact on fee impact on the school fee impact on
the school the school with the the average
with the with the largest school revenue
lowest revenue median revenue revenue (percent)
(percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary and Secondary Schools................ 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.01
Junior Colleges................................. 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.03
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.00
Computer Training............................... 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.03
Professional and Management Development Training 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.13
Cosmetology and Barber Schools.................. 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.03
Flight Training................................. 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.02
Apprenticeship Training......................... 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.01
Other Technical and Trade Schools............... 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.02
Fine Arts Schools............................... 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.01
Sports and Recreation Instruction............... 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.05
Language Schools................................ 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.02
Exam Preparation and Tutoring................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction. 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.01
Educational Support Services.................... 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.25
Public Schools.................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 Recertification Fee
SEVP-certified schools are required to file for recertification
every 2 years to demonstrate that they have complied with all
recordkeeping, retention, reporting, and other requirements when
registering F and M students. There is currently no fee charged to
schools for recertification, but this proposed rule establishes a new
fee for that process.
To measure the impact on small schools, DHS first estimated the
number of small schools that will recertify. DHS assumes 50 percent
(4,373) of the total number of schools in this analysis (8,746) will
recertify each year. DHS multiplies the recertification rate of 50
percent by the total number of small schools to generate the estimation
that 3,921 \18\ small schools will recertify annually. DHS examined all
7,842 small SEVP-certified schools to determine the impact of the
recertification fee, as it is assumed that a significant number of the
schools will pursue recertification within the next 2 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 7,842 x 50 percent = 3,921 small schools recertifying each
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33789]]
DHS assumes that the total number of SEVP-certified schools will
remain static as new schools become certified and other schools
withdraw certification. DHS therefore assumes that the annual increase
of total recertifications will be zero.
As previously discussed, DHS identified 1,296 SBA-defined small
schools with no active F or M international students. DHS included
these schools in this analysis and assumes they will opt to pay the
recertification fee of $1,250 rather than reapplying for initial
certification with a proposed fee of $3,000 at such time in the future
that they enroll F or M students.
Table 36 illustrates the number of small schools that will
recertify by industry and the I-17 recertification incremental fee
impact as a percent of the small school's annual revenue. From these
findings, of the 7,842 small schools expected to apply for
recertification and pay the proposed fee of $1,250, 50 schools, or 0.6
percent, will experience an impact greater than 1 percent but less than
3 percent of the school's annual revenue. For the remaining schools,
DHS does not expect the incremental fee to have an impact of greater
than 1 percent.
Table 36--Recertification Fee Impact for Small Schools by Type of School
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School industry 0%https://www.uscis.gov/i-290b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS processed 215 motions and appeals from schools from 2013 to
2016. Out of the 215 school motions and appeals, DHS determined that
74, or 34.4 percent, were filed by small schools. Among the 74 small
schools, 4 had 2 appeals within the same year or over the 4-year
period. During the 4-year period, there was an average of 19 appeals
and motions filed by small schools annually.
DHS examined all 7,842 small schools to estimate the impact of the
proposed appeal and motion fee on estimated annual revenue. The impact
is calculated by dividing the fee to file a motion or appeal by the
school's estimated annual revenue. Of the 7,842 SEVP-certified small
schools, 7,826, or 99.8 percent, would experience an impact less than
or equal to 1 percent of their estimated annual revenue were the school
to file an appeal or motion. DHS estimates 13 small schools, or 0.2
percent, would realize an impact between 1 percent and 2 percent of
their estimated annual revenue. In addition, three small schools, or
0.04 percent, would experience an impact greater than 2 percent but
less than 3 percent of estimated annual revenue. Table 38 shows the
number of small schools within the range of impact to each school's
estimated annual revenue.
Table 38--Appeal and Motion Fee Impact on Estimated Annual Revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of school 0%