Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, 23930-23979 [2019-10884]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23930-23979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10884]



[[Page 23929]]

Vol. 84

Thursday,

No. 100

May 23, 2019

Part V





 Department of Homeland Security





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





8 CFR Parts 103 and 214





 Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program; 
Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2019 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 23930]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule adjusts the Student and Exchange Visitor Program 
(SEVP) school certification petition fees and the application fees for 
nonimmigrants seeking to become academic (F visa) or vocational (M 
visa) students, or exchange visitors (J visa). The rule sets the 
following fees: $3,000 for a school certification petition; $655 for 
each school site visit; $1,250 to submit a school recertification 
petition; and $675 to submit an appeal or motion following a denial or 
withdrawal of a school petition. The rule also sets new fees for filing 
the Form I-901 at $350 for each F or M nonimmigrant student applicant 
and a $220 for most J exchange visitor applicants; however, the 
existing $35 fee for each J nonimmigrant exchange visitor seeking 
admission as an au pair, camp counselor, or summer work/travel program 
participant will remain the same. All fee payments addressed in this 
final rule must be made in the amounts established by this rule 
beginning June 24, 2019.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 24, 2019.

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 of Final Rule
    C. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
    A. The 2018 NPRM and Purpose of the Rule
    B. Authority To Collect Fees
III. Adjustment of SEVP Fees
    A. Basis for Fee Schedule
    B. SEVP Baseline Costs and Fees
    C. Methodology
    1. ABC Approach
    2. Full Cost
    3. Cost Basis for SEVP Fees Based on Current Services
    D. Summary of the Full Cost Information
    1. Fee Allocation
    2. SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 Cost Model Result
    3. Fee Calculations
    4. Fee Levels
IV. Technical Corrections to the Proposed Rule
V. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
    A. General Comments
    B. Comments on Timing of Fee Increase
    C. Comments on Enhancements
    1. SEVIS Modernization
    2. Increased SEVP Adjudication Personnel
    D. Comments on Specific Fees
    1. Fee for F, M and J Nonimmigrants
    2. Impacts on Specific Applicant Groups
    3. Continued Fee of $35 for Au Pairs, Camp Counselors and Summer 
Work Travel
    4. Recertification Fee
    5. Site Visit Fee
VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771: Regulatory Review
    1. Background and Purpose of the Rule
    2. Impacts of Regulatory Change
    3. Alternatives to Regulatory Change
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    2. A Statement of the Need for, and Objective of the Rule
    3. A Statement of Significant Issues Raised by the Public 
Comments
    4. The Response of the Agency to Any Comments Filed by the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of SBA
    5. A Description and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
    6. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and 
Other Compliance Requirements of the Final Rule
    7. A Description the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impacts
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Congressional Review Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
    G. Energy Effects
    H. Environment
    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

Table of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABC Activity Based Cost/Costing
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CTCEU Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOS Department of State
DSO Designated School Official
EBSVERA Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, 
Pub. L. 107-173; May 14, 2002
FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act
Form I-17 Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by 
Nonimmigrant Student
Form I-901 Fee Remittance for Certain F, J and M Nonimmigrants
Form I-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion
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
MD Management Directive
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDSO Principal Designated School Official
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Program
SFFAS FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is adjusting its fee 
schedule for nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors as well as for 
petitioning and certified schools. These fees are associated with SEVP 
and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (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).
    In accordance with the requirements and principles of the Chief 
Financial Officers Act of 1990, 31 U.S.C. 901-903 (CFO Act), and the 
Office of Management and Budget (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

[[Page 23931]]

fiscal year (FY) 2016 and FY 2017 in 2017. The projected results 
indicated that fee levels were 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 
is implementing the adjustments contained in this rule.
    SEVP has calculated the totality of its operating costs to set fees 
that fully recover such costs. Following its biennial fee review, SEVP 
anticipated that if it continued to operate at previous fee levels, it 
would experience a revenue shortfall. At previous fee levels, SEVP's 
expenditures exceeded revenues, without any service upgrades. The 
deficit had been covered by surplus revenue that was previously 
accumulated from 2009 to 2015. As a consequence of multiple factors, 
including inflation, costs associated with SEVIS enhancement, complying 
with a two-year recertification cycle of schools, increased demand for 
program and investigatory services, and increased litigation related to 
administrative enforcement and regulatory actions, the surplus is 
expected to be exhausted in FY 2019 even without any further service 
upgrades. The projected shortfall poses a risk of degrading operations 
and services funded by fee revenue. The fee increases in this final 
rule will allow SEVP to cover the current deficit between revenue and 
expenditures plus make necessary service upgrades. The 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 of the Final Rule

    This rule adjusts, institutes, and clarifies 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:
     Increases the two types of individual nonimmigrant student 
and exchange visitor application fees, specifically the F and M fee for 
Form I-901, ``Fee Remittance for Certain F, J and M Nonimmigrants,'' to 
$350 and the Form I-901 Full J fee to $220;
     Increases the SEVP school certification petition fee for 
initial certification to $3,000;
     Imposes a fee of $1,250 when a school files a petition for 
recertification of its existing SEVP certification;
     Imposes 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
     Maintains the $655 fee for a site visit at its current 
level, but clarifies that, with the effective date of the rule, SEVP is 
exercising 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 rule allows SEVP to fully fund 
activities included in this cost model 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

    With this final rule, SEVP will adjust fees to the amounts listed 
in Table 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.006

    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 projected 
for FY 2019. This increase in fees will 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 23932]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.007

II. Background

A. The 2018 NPRM and Purpose of the Rule

    On July 17, 2018, DHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) to amend the fees charged by SEVP. 83 FR 33762. This final rule 
implements those proposed changes by amending DHS regulations governing 
the fees charged by SEVP to F and/or M nonimmigrant students, schools 
that enroll such students, and fees charged to J nonimmigrant exchange 
visitors.
    SEVP helps ensure the integrity of the U.S. immigration system by 
collecting, maintaining, and analyzing information so only legitimate 
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors gain admission into the 
United States under these programs, and by ensuring that the 
institutions accepting them are certified and follow the rules that 
govern them. The information collected by SEVP and compliance 
investigations conducted on students and educational institutions 
support other law enforcement activities within ICE.
    The rule adjusts the SEVP school certification fee and implements a 
recertification fee, increases student and exchange visitor application 
fees (Form I-901 fees), and imposes a fee for a Form I-290B filed with 
SEVP, to reflect existing program operating costs, program 
requirements, and planned program enhancements. DHS maintains the fee 
for an initial school site visit at the current level, but clarifies 
that, with the effective date of the rule, DHS will 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. The rule sets the fee for an initial 
school certification petition at $3,000 and the fee for each site visit 
at $655. It sets a $1,250 fee for a school recertification petition and 
a $675 fee to submit an appeal or motion following a denial or 
withdrawal of a school certification. Further, it sets the fee for each 
F or M student at $350. The rule sets the fee for certain J exchange 
visitors at $220 and maintains the fee for exchange visitors seeking 
admission as au pairs, camp counselors, and summer work/travel program 
participants at $35. All fee payments addressed in this final rule must 
be made in the amounts established by this rule beginning June 24, 
2019.
    These fee adjustments are driven by two factors: The need to comply 
with statutory and regulatory requirements that SEVP review its fee 
structure biennially to ensure that the cost of the services that are 
provided by SEVP are captured by fees assessed on those receiving the 
services, and the need to enhance SEVP's capability to achieve current 
programmatic goals to support national security and counter immigration 
fraud through the development and implementation of critical system and 
programmatic enhancements. Enhancements to SEVIS, including the 
establishment and further expansion 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. ICE continues to examine programmatic goals 
and refine its cost projection model. Future fee reviews may capture 
additional includable costs, such as additional enforcement costs 
generated by SEVP information or compliance investigations.
    The rule ensures the full recovery of SEVP operational costs in a 
manner that fairly allocates costs between beneficiary classes and 
facilitates the development of activities designed to achieve defined 
program goals. These include new initiatives critical to improving 
homeland security through enhanced vetting of SEVIS users, increased 
adjudication personnel, and SEVIS modernization.

B. Authority To Collect Fees

    The Secretary is specifically authorized to collect fees for SEVP 
from prospective F and M nonimmigrant students and J nonimmigrant 
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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DHS has interpreted section 286(m), including its 
authorization for DHS to collect ``full costs'' for providing 
``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 interpretation 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). 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).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23933]]

    All fees collected under these authorities are deposited as 
offsetting receipts into the IEFA and remain 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 is implementing the 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, including OMB Circular 
A-25, User Charges (revised). See 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993). Section 
6 of OMB Circular A-25 defines ``full cost'' to include all direct and 
indirect cost to any part of the federal government for providing a 
good, resource, or service. For the purposes of this rulemaking, DHS 
considers ``full cost'' to mean the cost of all activities related to 
individual and organizational compliance issues within the jurisdiction 
of SEVP that DHS included in the cost model. 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. DHS also considers OMB Circular A-
11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget, section 51.13 
(June 29, 2018), which states that budget requests should reflect the 
results of the biennial review of existing user charges and of the 
potential for establishing user charges, under OMB Circular A-25. This 
final rule adjusts fees in order to recover the cost of services 
provided by SEVP.
    In addition, DHS considers 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 2018, 
which provides federal government standards regarding managerial cost 
accounting and full cost recovery. SFFAS No. 4 defines ``full cost'' to 
include ``direct and indirect costs that contribute to the output, 
regardless of funding sources.'' \2\ 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 final rule reflects consideration of these 
federal sector financial and accounting standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See FASAB, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting 
Standards 4: Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and Concepts 26 
(June 2018), https://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_4.pdf 
(last visited Oct. 26, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Adjustment of SEVP Fees

A. Basis for Fee Schedule

    As discussed in the NPRM, the new fees are based on estimates of 
funding needed to maintain and enhance SEVP's capability to achieve 
programmatic goals associated with its statutory mandate, including 
supporting national security and countering immigration fraud through 
the continued development and implementation of critical system and 
programmatic enhancements. This rule establishes the following fee 
structure detailed in Table 3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.008

    The current fee structure includes the Form I-901 fee, I-17 school 
certification fee, and the site visit fee. By introducing fees for 
other services, this final rule allows SEVP to fully fund activities 
included in the cost model and institute critical near-term program and 
system enhancements in a more equitable manner. The new fee structure 
also includes the addition of a recertification fee and a fee for 
filing an appeal or motion.
    With this rule, SEVP imposes a fee for filing an appeal using Form 
I-290B that is similar to the current fee for appeals

[[Page 23934]]

filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) using Form 
I-290B. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(S) (listing the fee for appealing a 
decision over which the Board of Immigration Appeals does not have 
appellate jurisdiction). DHS also eliminates regulations that currently 
state there is no fee required for an appeal by a school, to maintain 
consistency and to more fairly balance allocation of the recovery of 
SEVP operational costs between beneficiary classes. Under this final 
rule, SEVP charges the fee for all appeals and motions.
    This rule ensures the recovery of SEVP operational costs in a 
manner that fairly allocates costs between beneficiary classes and 
facilitates the development of activities designed to achieve defined 
program goals. For example, the rule continues funding for critical 
SEVIS modernization efforts and incorporates the added cost of 
increased analytical support for investigative operations into the Form 
I-901 fee. The fee schedule will provide the necessary revenue for SEVP 
to fund approximately 20 additional SEVP adjudication personnel, 
including approximately 15 new frontline adjudicators. The additional 
adjudicators are intended to cover site visits which are authorized 
under a 2016 final rule,\3\ augment out -of -cycle review teams, and 
reduce times for recertifications, updates, and initial applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 81 FR 13039 (Mar. 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 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 nonimmigrant 
students and J nonimmigrant 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 Form I-901 fee, collected from students and exchange visitors, 
currently underwrites the operation of 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). The recertification fee paid by schools to remain certified 
partially funds 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 pursuant to the process set forth in 8 CFR 103.3(a) or 
103.5(a).\4\ 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 Form I-901 funds to offset the costs 
of SEVP appeals and motions. As noted in the proposed rule, DHS 
believes that the introduction of an appeal fee will result in a more 
equitable distribution of costs. Although DHS declined to introduce 
such a fee in 2008, DHS believes that given the costs of the appeal 
process and the increase in the I-901 fee, it is appropriate to 
establish an appeal fee at this time. With this rule, DHS removes the 
SEVP-related exceptions to the payment of the Form I-290B fee and adds 
regulatory text at 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 applies 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 OMB under control number 1615-0095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With these regulatory changes for the Form I-290B filing fee, DHS 
more fairly balances 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 set 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 Form 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), (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.
    SEVP will begin collecting the fee when a certified school adds a 
new physical location or campus following

[[Page 23935]]

the effective date of this final rule. The site visit fee applies 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 assists 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 
Principal Designated School Official (PDSO).

C. Methodology

    SEVP captured and allocated cost using an ABC approach to define 
full cost with regards to current SEVP activities and planned 
enhancements, 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 operations for 
current activities and planned enhancements 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, including 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. Consistent with instructive legislative and 
regulatory guidance, SEVP fees recoup the full cost of providing SEVP's 
overall resources and services.\5\ The amended fees are calculated to 
recoup the cost of current SEVP operations, including planned 
enhancements detailed in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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,\6\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 SEVP current 
activities and planned enhancements, 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 new 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.
    As with the previous fee adjustment in 2008, the goal of ICE 
compliance efforts is to achieve full compliance with F, M, and J 
nonimmigrant regulations by institutions participating in these 
programs and to prevent any abuse of SEVP for criminal purposes. 
Through consistent and expanded enforcement of SEVP requirements, the 
integrity of the F, M, and J nonimmigrant student and exchange visitor 
programs within the United States is better maintained. ICE continues 
to examine programmatic goals and refine its cost projection models. 
Future fee reviews may capture additional includable costs, such as 
additional enforcement costs for activities resulting from SEVP 
information or related compliance investigations.

[[Page 23936]]

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.
BILLING CODE 9111-28-P

[[Page 23937]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.009


[[Page 23938]]



D. Summary of the Full Cost Information

    The total cost projection for FY 2019 is $186,610,000 and for FY 
2020 is $188,405,000. Table 4 sets out the projected current services 
for SEVP and supporting Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit 
(CTCEU) and HSI Domestic Operations 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, SEVIS Modernization, increased numbers of 
adjudication personnel, and annualized inflation. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.010

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 Form I-901 fee, certification fee, 
recertification fee, fee for filing an appeal or motion, and site visit 
fee.
    Recently SEVP has only collected fees from students and exchange 
visitors--the Form 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 Form I-901 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 for services provided 
directly by SEVP. DHS opted for an updated fee structure that segments 
program cost to the appropriate fee--F and M nonimmigrant students, J 
nonimmigrant exchange visitors, or schools.
    The adjusted Form I-901 fee recovers 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 new fees. The Form I-901 fee is 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 adjusted school certification fee recovers a portion of the 
costs necessary to process initial school certifications. The new 
recertification fee recovers a portion of the cost to process school 
recertifications and a portion of SEVP administrative costs. The 
adjusted site visit fee recovers the full cost of performing the site 
visit upon initial school certification and when a school changes its 
physical location or adds a new physical location or campus. The new 
fee for filing an appeal or motion recovers a portion of the cost to 
process an appeal or motion. The remainder of these costs are covered 
by the adjusted Form I-901 fee as detailed in the preceding paragraph.
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 23939]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.011

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ SEVP Automated Management System

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23940]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.012


[[Page 23941]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.013


[[Page 23942]]


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. Form I-901 Fee
    To calculate fee amounts for the Form I-901 fee, SEVP estimated the 
number of fee payments expected in FY 2019 and FY 2020 for each of the 
three fee payment types: The reduced fee for J participants (excluding 
the additional cost for initial certification and recertification of 
SEVP-certified schools); the full fee for J participants (excluding the 
additional cost for initial certification and recertification of SEVP-
certified schools); and the full fee for F and M nonimmigrant students 
(including additional costs for certification, recertification, and 
appeals). The total fee category budget is taken directly from the FY 
2019 and FY 2020 SEVP ABC model, reflected in Table 8 and Table 9.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.015

    Form I-901 fees are calculated by dividing the fee-recoverable 
budget by the anticipated number of payments. This results in a fee-
recoverable amount of $290 for all F and M payments and $130 for both 
the J Full and J Partial fees. Model results indicate a required fee of 
$290 before addition of additional costs of other fee types, discussed 
throughout the remainder of the document. Additional costs of 
subsidization of other SEVP fees results in a F/M fee of $350.
    For reasons discussed below related to the $35 J-Partial fee, DHS 
must increase the J-Full fee by a proportional amount to cover the cost 
of operating the J program. This results in a J-Full fee of 
$220.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 nonimmigrant exchange visitors from the fee payment. Prior to this 
final rule, all F and M nonimmigrant students were required to pay 
$200, and nonexempt J nonimmigrant exchange visitors were required to 
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 Form 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 Form 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 Form I-901 fee payments in 
FY 2019 and FY 2020. SEVP calculated the Form I-901 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 Form I-901 fee payments for each Form I-901 
payment type separately. Table 10 reflects aggregate historical payment 
data for all three Form I-901 payment types.

[[Page 23943]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.016

    As indicated in Table 10, 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, poor fit, and limited data. 
SEVP's chosen model provided a conservative forecast that will allow 
SEVP to operate with stability. The fee payment forecast, reflected in 
Table 11, 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.017

b. Certification Cost
    SEVP uses historical data from FY 2012 to FY 2016 (Table 12) to 
find a three year moving average to forecast annual new initial 
certifications. SEVP predicts demand of approximately 426 initial 
certifications each year, which assumes the higher fee will not deter 
schools from applying for certification at a lower rate than the 
historical average. Historically, SEVP has used a forecasted increase 
in payments of approximately one percent annually due to the financial 
benefits schools derive from foreign student enrollment, but recent 
data on payments has led SEVP to apply a conservative zero percent 
growth.

[[Page 23944]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.018

    The total fee category budget is taken directly from the FY 2019 
and FY 2020 SEVP ABC model, reflected in Table 13.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.019

    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 new 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. While DHS is increasing the fee to 
ensure a more equitable distribution of costs, such a fee level could 
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 Form I-17 school certification 
fee by increasing the payment by only $1,300 to $3,000. The remainder 
of the costs for Form I-17 school certification is subsidized by the 
Form I-901 F and M 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 (Table 14). Because 
schools are required to recertify every two 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.020

    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 $5,925.74 each. To 
arrive at the new fee, rounding was applied to the result of the fee 
algorithm. This resulted 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

[[Page 23945]]

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.
    These increased costs are due to increased review of school records 
and other information submitted by schools as part of recertification 
to ensure that schools are remaining in compliance with all 
requirements. Ensuring compliance is a statutory requirement under 
EBSVERA that has been reaffirmed through the results of GAO audits and 
other Executive Branch reviews of SEVP operations. For example, as part 
of recertification, SEVP adjudicators independently verify state 
licenses, accreditation information, and other related information. 
SEVP is continuously trying to find ways to perform these checks more 
efficiently to reduce the burden. These reviews should become less 
burdensome as the modernization of SEVIS continues and more information 
becomes automated.
    DHS 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. In such circumstances, the school may bear administrative costs 
to help students transfer to a certified school. Affected students bear 
costs as well. Weighing all these factors, DHS sets the Form I-17 
recertification fee at $1,250. With this rule, DHS eliminates 
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 Form I-17 school recertification not recovered by the new 
fee are subsidized by the Form I-901 F and M fee. The explanation for 
shifting responsibility of the fee adjustment to the Form 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 (Table 15). The 
anticipated workload for these site visits is 600 per year, or 1,200 
visits over a 2-year period. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.021

    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 
certified school adds a new physical location or campus. Thus, in 
addition to the site fee(s) required upon initial certification, the 
site visit fee will now apply when a certified school updates its Form 
I-17 in SEVIS to indicate, pursuant to 8 CFR 214.3(h)(1)(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 an appeal or motion is 
calculated by determining the workload of appeals and motions over the 
FY 2019 and FY 2020 periods. Over the past two 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 (Table 16).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.022

BILLING CODE 9111-28-C
    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. The relative costs of seasoned federal 
employees involved in

[[Page 23946]]

rendering a decision and the few petitioners result in costs that SEVP 
felt should be subsidized. To arrive at the 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.\8\ Instead, DHS is 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 is set at $675, which is 
currently the same amount charged when the form is filed with USCIS. 
See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(S).\9\ The Form I-290B 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 is not 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 bear some of its costs, 
and DHS more fairly balances allocation of the recovery of SEVP 
operational costs between beneficiary classes. DHS will charge the fee 
for all such appeals and motions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ If a school is denied certification or withdrawn from 
certification, it can file an appeal with an independent 
Administrative Appeals Team (AAT). The AAT has sustained 
approximately 92 percent of decisions.
    \9\ Because the underlying rationale for the amount of the I-
290B fee differs between SEVP and USCIS, DHS may change the I-290B 
fee for USCIS but not for SEVP, meaning the Form I-290B may have two 
different fees in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Fee Levels
    Viewing the SEVP fee structure and affected parties 
comprehensively, DHS is adjusting 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 Form 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 Form 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 Form I-901 fee necessarily 
benefit from the continued certification of schools for their 
enrollment and prompt and accurate adjudication of appeals.
    DHS is increasing the Form I-901 fee for F and M students from $200 
to $350 and the full Form I-901 fee which applies to most J exchange 
visitors from $180 to $220. 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 Form I-901 fee for F 
and M students increased from $100 to $200, and the Form I-901 J full 
fee increased from $100 to $180. See id. The Form I-901 fee for special 
J-visa categories (au pair, camp counselor, and summer work travel) 
remains 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 Form 
I-901 fee J-1 exchange visitors who participate in Federal Government-
sponsored J-1 exchange programs. 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(3).
    DHS is increasing 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 is establishing a recertification fee at $1,250, maintaining 
the site visit fee of $655, and sets the Form I-290B fee at $675. The 
cost for SEVP recertification, site visits, and motions and appeals 
adjudication is determined by employing ABC principles, described in 
the proposed rule, balanced with SEVP's desire to prevent 
recertifications, site visits, appeals, and motions filings from 
becoming cost-prohibitive. See 83 FR 33762, 33771. DHS is setting a 
recertification fee and setting 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. As noted below, public 
comments received in response to the NPRM supported this assessment. 
Accordingly, DHS is setting these fees at amounts below the fee-
recoverable cost. For the Form I-290B fee in particular, DHS is setting 
the amount at $675. DHS believes this amount best addresses concerns 
raised in public comments about entities paying a Form I-290B fee for 
the first time 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 fee of $675 is substantial, subsidizing this fee by driving the 
additional costs to the Form I-901 fee results in an increase of only 
$4.76 to F/M students paying that fee. The program fee schedule for 
SEVP beginning in FY 2019 is shown in Table 17.
BILLING CODE 9111-28-P

[[Page 23947]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.023

    These fee amounts, the cost model outputs, and cost reallocation 
amounts are shown in Table 18. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.024

    Table 19 reflects the break-even analysis based on the fee schedule 
and the proportional fee volumes (rounded) required to generate 
sufficient revenue to offset projected program costs.

[[Page 23948]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.025

BILLING CODE 9111-28-C

IV. Technical Corrections to the Proposed Rule

    DHS identified six sets of required technical corrections to the 
proposed rule, as follows.
    First, DHS identified that in the NPRM's Table 7: Form I-901 Fee 
Payment Forecast FY 2019-FY 2020, contained a minor mathematical error 
due to rounding. On line three, column three, FY 2020 full payment, J-
Full, stated as 153,611 is corrected to 153,612 in what is Table 11 of 
this final rule.
    Second, DHS changed a corresponding number in the NPRM's Table 22: 
Form I-901 Full J Fee Payments FYs 2010-2017 (Table 24 in this final 
rule), line 16, column 2 from 153,611 to the corrected 153,612. DHS 
also made two additional conforming corrections in the preamble text 
where the incorrect figure 153,611 was changed to 153,612 and in 
accordance corrected a sum of total increase in transfer payments from 
I-901 J-Full applicants from $12,446,440 to $12,446,480. These changes 
are minor and do not change the substance of the rule.
    Third, DHS discovered that the NPRM's Table 17: Projected Revenue--
FY 2019 and FY 2020, contained the following four errors:
     On line two, column four, a mathematical error indicating 
the forecasted I-901 F/M Full revenue as $289,214,144. The entry of 
$289,214,144 is corrected to $289,214,100.
     On line three, column four, a correlating mathematical 
error indicating the forecasted I-901 J-Full fee revenue as 
$68,455,584. The entry of $68,455,584 is corrected to $68,455,640.
     On line three, column two, a typographical error stating 
``210'' for the Form I-901 fee the ``J-Full'' category. The correct 
amount, as included and discussed elsewhere in the proposed rule, is 
``220.''
     On line eleven, column four, a correlating mathematical 
error indicating the total forecasted revenue as $383,143,278. The 
entry of $383,143,278 is corrected to $383,125,290. The proposed rule 
included and discussed the correct ``220'' figure at several points in 
the document, and no commenter expressed confusion over these proposed 
dollar amounts.
    Fourth, DHS identified a section of the NPRM's proposed regulatory 
text at 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(ii)(B) that could be confusing to some 
readers. Though no commenters expressed confusion about the provision, 
DHS determined that the text, as published in the NPRM, made it appear 
as though a school going through recertification would be required to 
pay the $3,000 initial certification fee in addition to the $1,250 
recertification fee, plus $655 per additional site. As previously noted 
throughout the preamble to the NPRM, the $1,250 recertification fee is 
charged in lieu of the full $3,000 fee for an initial certification, 
and an additional fee of $655 is charged when a certified school 
reports a new physical location where it provides education to 
international students and which was not previously reported on its 
Form I-17. See, e.g., 83 FR 33762, 33771 (discussing the basis and 
purpose of DHS's intention to collect a site visit fee when a school 
changes or adds a new physical location or campus), 33773 (noting 
different costs for initial certification and recertification 
processes), 33776 (describing the fee-recoverable amount of 
recertification separately from initial certification), 33781-82 & 
33788-89 (explaining the impact of the recertification fee). DHS amends 
the regulatory text at 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(ii)(B) to clarify this 
provision.
    Fifth, DHS identified a section of the NPRM's proposed regulatory 
text at 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(ii)(H) that unnecessarily referred to fee 
remittance for ``certain'' F, J, and M nonimmigrants when all potential 
scenarios for fee remittance in these categories are in fact addressed. 
DHS amends the regulatory text at 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(ii)(H) to delete 
the word ``certain.''
    Sixth, the NPRM's proposed regulatory text at 8 CFR 214.13(a)(2) 
inadvertently provided that the fee for certain J-1 status applicants 
is $210. The correct amount, as referenced elsewhere both in the 
regulatory text proposed in the NPRM and in its preamble, is $220. DHS 
amends the regulatory text at 8 CFR 214.13(a)(2) to correct this error. 
The revised regulatory text of this fee level does not change the 
intent of the proposed rule.
    Last, the authority sections for the text of the CFR are amended to 
include additional references to relevant statutory authorities. 
Specifically, DHS is adding citations to 8 U.S.C. 1356 and 8 U.SC. 
1372, which also serve as sources of authority relevant to 8 CFR parts 
103 and 214.

V. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

    DHS provided a 60-day comment period for this rulemaking following 
publication of the NPRM. The comment period concluded on September 17, 
2018. DHS received approximately 300 comments.
    DHS has carefully reviewed all comments received during the comment 
period and summarizes and responds to all significant comments received 
in the following sections of this final rule preamble, with some 
additional responses to small entities-related comments in the Final 
Regulatory

[[Page 23949]]

Flexibility Analysis section below.\10\ This final rule does not make 
any substantive revisions to the proposed rule based on the comments 
received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Overall, the final rule does not address comments seeking 
changes in statutes, regulations, policy or processes unrelated to 
or not addressed by the proposed rule. It also does not respond to 
requests for changes in procedures of other DHS components or other 
agencies, or the resolution of any other issues not within the scope 
of the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Comments

    DHS received comments from a broad spectrum of individuals and 
organizations, including representatives of schools and universities, 
advocacy organizations, public policy groups and other interested 
persons. Most commenters expressed general opposition to the fee 
increases; others expressed concerns related to specific fees.
    While most commenters opined the proposed fees were generally too 
high, many also expressed their understanding of the necessity of some 
fee increases. Some comments favored increasing fees, acknowledging the 
need to account for the costs of current SEVP services and planned 
enhancements without financially impacting the U.S. taxpayer. A few 
commenters expressed their appreciation for the fees having remained 
the same since 2008. Additionally, one commenter opined that the 
increase in fees may decrease the likelihood of visa overstays by 
curtailing visa applications. Another commenter expressed appreciation 
for the U.S. government policy related to assessing fees for the cost 
of government programs and opined that all costs associated with 
nonimmigrant students' presence in the United States should be paid by 
students rather than by U.S. taxpayers. Some commenters supported the 
fee increases but stated that the proposed fees were too low and that 
DHS should consider raising the fees further.
    Some commenters suggested alternative methods to reduce costs and 
inefficiencies. DHS also received some comments on subjects that are 
not directly related to the proposed fee amounts and are outside the 
scope of the NPRM. For example, some commenters suggested that DHS 
should allocate funds from other areas of the department to address 
SEVP funding deficits rather than raise the fees.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In addition to noting that it would be outside the scope of 
this rulemaking to artificially reduce the fee amounts in the hopes 
of receiving another lawful source of funding, DHS notes that such 
an approach would be irresponsible. As explained earlier in this 
preamble, by statute, SEVP is completely funded by the fees it 
collects. Congress specifically authorized SEVP to recover the full 
cost of agency operations, and has not indicated an intention to 
increase DHS appropriations to fund costs that SEVP could have 
recouped through fees. DHS cannot place SEVP operations at risk in 
the hopes of securing additional funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, comments submitted to the docket for this rulemaking were 
dominated by concerns about the potential impact the increased Form I-
901 fee would have on nonimmigrant student enrollments and concerns 
about the potential impact of the new recertification fee on a school's 
ability to continue being certified by SEVP. Commenters, particularly 
those representing institutions with few nonimmigrant students, 
specifically stated that the new recertification fee is excessive and 
would adversely affect their ability to remain an SEVP-certified 
school. Finally, several commenters observed that the fee changes will 
send a signal to nonimmigrant students that the United States intends 
to restrict access to its educational opportunities.
    In response to these comments, SEVP notes that it supports 
international education. Nonimmigrant students typically have positive 
experiences while in the United States, and the goodwill engendered by 
all that the United States has to offer encourages mutually beneficial 
international relations. SEVP, by ensuring that individuals admitted to 
the United States as F, J, and M nonimmigrants are bona fide students 
and exchange visitors, reduces fraud, abuse, and potential terrorist 
threats, contributing to a safe environment for students and exchange 
visitors when they attend programs in the United States. In order for 
SEVP to continue to facilitate the benefits of U.S. educational and 
exchange experiences to F, J, and M nonimmigrants, SEVP must maintain 
its current systems and operational staff and make refinements now 
possible through progressive adaptions, both of which require 
appropriate funding.

B. Comments on Timing of Fee Increase

    Several commenters expressed their understanding of the necessity 
to increase the fees; however, they suggested that instead of a one-
time increase, a more consumer-friendly approach would be to raise fees 
incrementally over time to allow schools and students more time to 
budget and plan for the increase. DHS recognizes that the fees impose a 
burden on prospective students and schools. However, in order to ensure 
that fee levels are sufficient to recover the full cost of activities 
of the program immediately upon the effective date of the final rule, 
DHS calculations indicate that the fee amounts must remain, at a 
minimum, as proposed. 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. Additional factors as to why DHS cannot implement such a 
tiered payment system at this time include the additional 
administrative burden and development costs such an incremental payment 
system would place on the program as well as time delays in 
development.

C. Comments on Enhancements

1. SEVIS Modernization
    One commenter observed that since the NPRM was published, DHS has 
already implemented the SEVIS Student Portal, which the NPRM described 
as a part of the SEVIS modernization for which it required additional 
funding. In addition, a university expressed dissatisfaction with the 
current portal functionality and requested specific technical 
improvements. DHS acknowledges that the initial phase of the SEVIS 
Student Portal has now been launched. However, DHS clarifies that the 
proposed funding is intended to allow DHS to improve the portal and to 
expand the use of the portal to areas other than those currently 
online. DHS plans on building on the successes of and lessons learned 
from the initial Student Portal launch phase. Such expansion requires 
the additional revenue enabled by the fee increase.
    One commenter also questioned the need for a DSO background check 
that is connected to SEVIS modernization and opined that such checks 
are duplicative as human resources offices in educational institutions 
already conduct their own background checks. DHS supports any school's 
initiative to conduct employee background checks when those employees 
will be accessing SEVIS but disagrees that the current DSO verification 
is a duplication of those efforts. FISMA, the Federal Information 
Security Management Act of 2002, as amended, requires that SEVP protect 
government information by applying appropriate suitability checks to 
non-government users. See generally, e.g., 44 U.S.C. 3554(a). These 
checks are potentially substantively different than, and not 
replaceable by, those background checks used by private entities.

[[Page 23950]]

2. Increased SEVP Adjudication Personnel
    Many commenters opined that current recertification processing 
times are too lengthy and observed that while the NPRM indicated that 
hiring additional SEVP adjudication personnel was a partial reason for 
the fee increases, there was no description of the impact such hiring 
would have on reducing adjudication times. Several SEVP-certified 
schools expressed support for the fee increase specifically on the 
condition that adjudications would become more expedited after new 
adjudicators were hired. Other comments noted that the quality and 
efficiency of SEVP adjudications needed to be assessed and asked that 
funds be directed to improve and expedite the adjudication process. As 
an alternative to increasing the number of adjudication personnel, an 
organizational commenter, supported by other commenters, opined that 
``SEVP has opted to fully adjudicate nearly every change to Form I-17'' 
and questioned whether all such adjudications are necessary. The 
commenter further noted that by doing so, SEVP has created unnecessary 
work that has created a work backlog and delays.
    SEVP agrees that its policy is to adjudicate most changes to the 
fields contained within the Form I-17. However, the lack of sound 
alternative methods to mitigate risks has necessitated such 
adjudications. SEVP notes that it continuously investigates and 
assesses opportunities for more streamlined, risk-based methods 
available, including opportunities that may arise due to new ways of 
analyzing school and student data. For purposes of this rulemaking, 
however, the underlying fee review, as described in the NPRM preamble, 
uses historical staffing and workload information for current SEVP 
functions and planned future initiatives to establish future revenue 
needs. SEVP lacks a methodology to reliably estimate downward 
adjustments in revenue needs based on workload adjustments that have 
yet to be made. To the extent that ICE makes such adjustments in the 
future, any efficiencies would be reflected in a subsequent fee 
rulemaking.
    This change will allow SEVP to fund additional personnel needed to 
improve case processing, reduce backlogs, and move toward more 
expedited processing times. That being said, superseding priorities may 
arise, which could not have been known at the time fee cycle 
calculations were made, that may impact SEVP's ability to meet 
petitioner expectations at all times. It is possible that at times, 
SEVP will need to shift adjudicator workloads and priorities away from 
recertification to address emergent issues, which may impact case 
processing efficiency and backlogs.

D. Comments on Specific Fees

1. Fee for F, M and J Nonimmigrants
    Almost all of the submitted comments voiced concern that the 
increase in the Form I-901 fee would adversely affect U.S. 
competitiveness in the international market for nonimmigrant student 
enrollment and exchange visitor participation. Some cited decreasing 
nonimmigrant student enrollments in the United States and corresponding 
increasing enrollments in other English-speaking countries, notably in 
Canada and Australia. Many commenters emphasized the importance of 
nonimmigrant student enrollment and exchange visitor participation to 
U.S. productivity and innovation and specifically identified the 
negative impact the decrease in enrollment would have on school 
programs, the U.S. economy and local jobs. While DHS acknowledges the 
potential for increased fees to theoretically lead to decreased 
enrollment and subsequent negative effects on the U.S. economy, these 
commenters provided no supporting facts or data to demonstrate that 
such broad effects are a likely outcome of this particular fee 
increase. Therefore, DHS determines that such concerns do not outweigh 
the Department's need to increase the Form I-901 fee.
    Some commenters suggested that SEVP could decrease the burden on 
students by having the student fee increase gradually over a longer 
period of time, amortized annually based on the length of the student 
program, to minimize the potential impact on student enrollment.
    One commenter criticized the decision to use the Form I-901 fee to 
effectively reallocate some of the costs of services for which SEVP has 
assessed a fee, such as recertification. The commenter stated that the 
cost reallocation undermined the consistency of the ABC approach, and 
that as a result of the cost reallocation, students would bear the 
burden of costs that are more fairly attributed to educational 
institutions.
    As noted above, SEVP appreciates the importance of nonimmigrant 
student and exchange visitor enrollment to the U.S. culture and economy 
and is firmly committed to lawful admission of nonimmigrants for this 
purpose. SEVP also observes that while many of the comments provided 
historical data to show a recent decrease in nonimmigrant student 
enrollment, they neither cited nor provided a published study or other 
credible data supporting the suggestion that an increase in government 
fees charged to nonimmigrant students of the scale proposed in the NPRM 
would adversely affect their decision to choose the United States for 
academic or vocational study, or exchange visits. SEVP, likewise, has 
been unable to locate such a study. DHS thus has no objective basis for 
concluding that nonimmigrant students significantly base their 
decisions for attending educational institutions in the United States 
on government fees which, generally, are a small portion of the overall 
costs of attending these programs.
    For instance, the increased Form I-901 fee represents approximately 
one percent of the average cost of yearly expenses for students in a 
four-year program.\12\ DHS believes that amortizing these costs over 
the course of a student's stay in the United States would be 
administratively cumbersome and inappropriate, given the need to fund 
SEVP operations. For example, because many of the operational costs of 
nonimmigrant student enrollment associated with establishing an F or M 
student record in SEVIS occur prior to or at the beginning of the 
program of study (such as maintaining the SEVIS database and educating 
DSOs), amortization would result in ICE incurring costs years before it 
recovers such costs through fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Facts: 
Tuition costs of colleges and universities, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76 (last visited Oct. 26, 2018) (showing 
the 2015-16 average total tuition, fees, room and board rates 
charged for full-time undergraduate students in degree-granting 
institutions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, there are a variety of types of educational 
institutions in the United States, such as community colleges and 
focused vocational educational programs of study that are relatively 
unique in the world. These United States institutions offer fields of 
study; academic, social, and geographic environments; and support 
services that cannot be found anywhere else. Noted American research 
facilities provide opportunities for advanced research and 
collaboration among an increasingly international community of 
scholars. Given the many variables that go into a nonimmigrant 
student's decision to study abroad, and the lack of validated data on 
this issue, there is no reliable basis to conclude that U.S. government 
fees represent a significant factor in

[[Page 23951]]

persuading a student or exchange visitor to attend a school in the 
United States, or not. SEVP, consequently, cannot conclude at this time 
that the increase in the Form I-901 fee as a result of this rule would 
be directly or even indirectly related to a decrease in U.S. 
competitiveness for foreign students and exchange visitors.
    Further, as discussed in the NPRM, after the fees were last 
increased in 2008 there was a brief decrease in the combined F, M, and 
J I-901 payments. However, the I-901 payment rate quickly recovered and 
ultimately reached record levels while the fees remained at the 
increased levels. See 83 FR 33762, 33775. Accordingly, an increase in 
fees does not necessarily precipitate a drop in enrollment. DHS 
acknowledges, however, that its analysis of the dropoff and subsequent 
increase in participants may not capture some applicants who forewent 
participation in SEVP due to the increased cost of application.
    With respect to the comment about the use of cost reallocation, 
i.e., the use of Form I-901 fee revenues to subsidize program integrity 
measures (such as mandatory biennial reviews) that would otherwise be 
funded through other fees (such as fees paid by schools), DHS notes 
that the benefits of program integrity measures accrue to F and M 
students and J exchange visitors, not just to institutions. DHS 
accordingly believes it reasonable for each F, M, and J nonimmigrant to 
share the cost by paying a small fee for this benefit rather than 
requiring SEVP-certified or Department of State (DOS)-designated 
institutions to bear the entire cost themselves. DHS also believes that 
such sharing of the costs, by lowering the respective costs of 
certification or designation, may be a contributing factor to the 
diversification of the type of schools that have sought SEVP 
certification and/or DOS designation thus benefiting F, M, and J 
nonimmigrants with a greater choice of schools.
    In addition, as discussed above, 8 U.S.C. 1372 and 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) 
authorize a full range of SEVP activities and collection of fees 
related thereto, and not merely data collection. Also, inclusion of 
these costs is not inconsistent with the full cost concept as outlined 
in federal cost accounting guidance, generally applicable federal 
policy for user charges, and legal precedent.
    Finally, DHS notes that even if a rise in the cost to F and M 
nonimmigrant students and J nonimmigrant exchange visitors were to 
cause a reduction in the demand by foreign students or exchange 
visitors for U.S. educational or exchange opportunities, that result 
would not alter this rulemaking. DHS and DOS must recoup the costs of 
administering the programs that manage F, M, and J nonimmigrants. The 
program cannot operate at a projected deficit based on a desire to 
attract a greater number of foreign students. If the rise in the cost 
causes a substantial reduction in the demand by foreign students or 
exchange visitors for U.S. educational or exchange opportunities, the 
lower revenue may not sustain the programs that manage the F, M, and J 
nonimmigrants. As stated previously, SEVP reviews its associated fees 
that are deposited into the IEFA biennially and, if necessary, will 
propose adjustments to ensure recovery of costs necessary to meet 
national security, customer service, and adjudicative processing goals 
at that time.
2. Impacts on Specific Applicant Groups
    Several commenters voiced concern about the negative impact of the 
increased fee on all F, M, and J nonimmigrants, but particularly on 
students in short-term programs such as intensive English programs that 
are already reporting declines in enrollment. Several commenters 
expressed concern that specific groups of nonimmigrant students or 
specific programs could be disproportionately affected by the fee 
increases. For example, many commenters expressed concern that short-
term programs of study, specifically English language training 
programs, would be negatively impacted by the increase in Form I-901 
fees. These commenters noted that such programs are shorter than full 
degree programs and often cost less, making the fee increase relatively 
more burdensome than for students enrolled in multi-year programs of 
study.
    For instance, some of these commenters suggested that the fee 
should be proportionate to the type of program of study a student is 
engaged in. Some of these comments suggested that students in short-
term programs should be charged a lower fee than students in multi-year 
degree programs. One commenter suggested that for such short-term 
programs, the Form I-901 fee could account for 25 to 30 percent of the 
cost of a short-term program and stated that such a high percentage 
would be cost-prohibitive to many students to enroll in such programs. 
However, the commenter did not provide a clear basis for that 25 to 30 
percent estimate, propose a specific amount for a short-term program 
fee, or explain how DHS would distinguish between ``short-term'' 
students and longer-term students. Some commenters requested that DHS 
establish a lower or a graduated fee for the student, exchange visitor 
and school fees to minimize negative impact specifically of potential 
declining enrollments.
    DHS declines to establish a lower or graduated fee for specific 
subgroups of nonimmigrants, such as those who require shorter-term 
nonimmigrant status, for multiple reasons.
    First, SEVP has reviewed its program costs for processing students 
in short-term nonimmigrant status versus those in long-term 
nonimmigrant status and can find no convincing basis for charging a 
lower fee for students on short-term status. As discussed above and in 
the proposed rule, DHS must establish a fee schedule that allows for 
recovery of the full costs of current SEVP services and planned 
enhancements. The proposed fee schedule was based on a fee model that 
captured the full cost of operations for current activities and planned 
enhancements and apportioned that full cost to the appropriate program 
activities. The model assigned costs to the appropriate fee category 
based on the nature of the activity. The model does not contain 
separate activity types for students in short-term programs as compared 
to long-term programs.
    DHS nonetheless conducted a qualitative review of the activities 
and their associated costs, and found that students in short-term 
programs do not necessarily impose lower costs on SEVP than students in 
long term programs. For instance, as indicated in Table 7, significant 
portion of the costs assigned to the I-901 fee are for student and 
exchange visitor investigations and school and sponsor investigations. 
Such investigations are not significantly less likely for students in 
short-term programs, and in some cases, poor oversight of students by 
short-term program DSOs has resulted in a particular need for 
investigations of those students and programs. Similarly, SEVP system 
maintenance costs are not significantly lower for short-term 
students.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For instance, the creation of a SEVIS record, regardless of 
program affiliation or program length, has certain fixed costs 
shared by all nonimmigrant students. In addition, with respect to 
the increased fees on the schools themselves, SEVP notes that the 
costs of certification, recertification, maintaining SEVIS, and 
training DSOs do not necessarily vary based on program type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, DHS would incur additional administrative costs associated 
with separate processing of these fees, increasing the costs for all 
participants.
    Finally, as F-1 nonimmigrant students may easily transfer from one

[[Page 23952]]

type of a program of study to another without paying another I-901 fee, 
charging a lower fee for certain types of programs creates an 
opportunity for abuse of the transfer function in order to avoid paying 
a full fee.
    Accordingly, DHS will charge a single set fee regardless of the 
student's anticipated program length or other considerations.
3. Continued Fee of $35 for Au Pairs, Camp Counselors and Summer Work 
Travel
    One commenter asked why the $35 fee for au pairs, camp counselors, 
and summer work/travel programs was not included in the funding 
increase and why such a fee could not be increased to subsidize F and M 
nonimmigrant student fee.
    For the J-visa for exchange visitors, Congress provided the 
Department of Homeland Security with the authority to set fees 
consistent with the Department's estimation of the cost per individual 
of providing services. In addition to that general authority, Congress 
also specifically indicated that the fee for au pairs, camp counselors, 
and participants in summer work travel programs should be $35. 8 U.S.C. 
1372(e)(4)(A). Based on the clear Congressional intent that the fee for 
au pairs, camp counselors and summer work/travel programs remain set at 
$35, the Department has decided to keep the fee set at that level.
4. Recertification Fee
    Many commenters objected to the introduction of a recertification 
fee, stating that it will disproportionately burden smaller 
institutions, because those schools obtain less revenue from F and M 
nonimmigrant students. Some representatives of small institutions 
commented that the proposed recertification fee increase would likely 
be cost-prohibitive to them and they would likely not seek to renew 
their SEVP certification. Other commenters voiced concerns over the 
timing of the increase in the middle of an academic budget cycle.
    DHS declines to establish a lower fee for smaller institutions, 
because following a qualitative review of the fee model (which does not 
distinguish between institutions based on size), DHS could not identify 
a convincing basis for doing so. Many of the administrative costs 
associated with recertification are fundamentally similar regardless of 
school size or type. Universities, secondary schools, public or private 
schools, and F and M schools receive the same SEVP certification. The 
workload and cost of certification adjudications does not change for 
different types of schools. In addition, institutions with large 
nonimmigrant student populations typically require fewer resources in 
some respects, since they are more knowledgeable, have a stable 
professional pool of employees, and have better internal reporting 
systems to assist in their compliance efforts. By contrast, schools 
with smaller enrollments may require more frequent training of DSOs, or 
significant oversight if they are identified as higher risk.
    With respect to the timing of the proposed fee increase, DHS 
appreciates this concern, but notes that DHS announced the likely 
publication of the proposed rule well in advance of the current 
academic year.\14\ In addition, although the fee schedule will occur in 
the middle of a budget cycle, not all schools will be impacted during 
the current budget cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Spring 2018 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory 
and Deregulatory Actions, RIN 1653-AA74, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201804&RIN=1653-AA74 
(last visited Jan. 7, 2019) (indicating likely publication of a 
proposed rule in September of 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiple commenters also opined that the interval of SEVP school 
recertification is too frequent at two years. One commenter suggested 
that the frequency of recertification should be decreased from two 
years to four or five years. DHS notes that EBSVERA, section 502, 8 
U.S.C. 1762, and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-2 (HSPD-2) 
provided for DHS to periodically review all schools approved for 
attendance by F or M nonimmigrant students. Further, EBSVERA requires 
that DHS recertify all such schools within two years of enactment and 
conduct an additional recertification of these schools every two years 
thereafter. See 8 U.S.C. 1762(a). As the two-year recertification cycle 
is a statutory requirement, the frequency cannot be modified through 
rulemaking. Therefore, comments suggesting alternative recertification 
intervals are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
5. Fee for Filing an Appeal or Motion
    A few individuals and organizations commented on SEVP charging a 
fee to submit an appeal or motion following a denial or withdrawal of a 
school petition, the majority voicing their opposition to charging such 
a fee. Some questioned the meaningfulness of the fee when it covers 
only a fraction of the actual appeal cost and encouraged DHS to explore 
ways to increase efficiencies to decrease the cost of appeals and 
motions. DHS recognizes the potentially adverse impact of a high appeal 
fee, and therefore reallocated some of the costs of handling appeals to 
other SEVP fees. DHS notes that it is exploring ways to increase 
efficiencies to reduce the cost of adjudications. At this time, 
however, DHS feels that the benefits of charging a fee to recover some 
portion of the costs of reviewing appeals and motions remain 
compelling. One commenter stated that the fee was excessive as the 
appeal process is the only recourse or way for the applicant to engage 
with adjudicators for discussion. DHS notes that this notice comes at a 
point in the overall process during which the applicant or petitioner 
has had significant opportunities for dialogue (see, e.g., 8 CFR 
214.4(b)(3) (referencing a school's right to request a telephonic 
interview after receiving a notice of intent to withdrawal SEVP 
certification)), and so concerns about the impact of the appeal fee 
amount for this reason are overstated.
6. Site Visit Fee
    Some commenters asked SEVP to reconsider charging a site visit fee 
when an SEVP-certified school adds a new physical location or a campus 
where it plans to enroll F and M students. In particular, an 
organizational commenter objected to DHS's statement in the proposed 
rule that under the 2008 Fee Rule, DHS must impose 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. See 83 FR 
at 33771. The commenter wrote that current regulations require site 
visits only in the context of initial school certification under 8 CFR 
214.3(h)(1), and not in the context of recertification (8 CFR 
214.3(h)(2)) and out-of-cycle reviews (8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)). According to 
the commenter, those provisions refer to ``on-site reviews,'' not to 
site visits. The commenter also suggested that the on-site review, when 
necessary, is a less costly endeavor than an initial school 
certification site visit and thus a school should not be charged for an 
on-site review but only for an initial site visit.
    As an initial matter, DHS disagrees with the commenter's assessment 
of the scope of the site visit fee under existing regulations. When DHS 
established the site visit fee, DHS made clear that for initial SEVP 
certification petitions, a petition fee ($1,700) is required for each 
institution and a site visit fee ($655) is required for each campus. 
DHS also made clear that SEVP-certified institutions seeking approval 
for change

[[Page 23953]]

of location must pay a site visit fee, and that SEVP-certified 
institutions seeking approval for a new campus must pay a site visit 
fee. 73 FR 55683, 55695.
    These requirements are reflected in existing regulations, which 
provide as follows:
     The site visit fee applies to each location required to be 
listed on the form, and is not limited to the initial certification 
context. 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(ii)(B).
     As part of initial certification, SEVP will conduct a site 
visit for each petitioning school and its additional schools or 
campuses. 8 CFR 214.3(h)(1)(ii). As noted above, a fee is charged for 
each additional school or campus at the initial certification stage.
     The Form I-17 must include ``any physical location in 
which a nonimmigrant can attend classes through the school (i.e., 
campus, extension campuses, satellite campuses, etc.).'' 8 CFR 
214.3(a)(1)).
     Schools are subject to a continuing duty to update SEVIS 
school locations as changes arise, i.e., even after initial 
certification, within 21 days of a change to a range of information 
types on the Form I-17, including school location and campus location. 
See 8 CFR 214.3(g)(2), (h)(3).
    This makes amply clear that the intent of the 2008 Fee Rule was to 
apply the site visit fee whenever a school fulfills its duty to add a 
school or campus location in SEVIS.
    DHS reaffirms that interpretation in this final rule. The site 
visit fee applies at the initial certification stage, and when a 
certified school updates its Form I-17 in SEVIS to indicate, pursuant 
to 8 CFR 214.3(g)(2)(i) and (h)(3), that it is changing its physical 
location or adding a new physical location or campus.
    DHS emphasizes that the imposition of this fee is necessary to 
support the relevant operations. The revenue generated by the 
imposition of this fee assists in recovering the costs that DHS incurs 
for these site visits, which are necessary for program integrity 
purposes. Site visits are no less burdensome in the post-certification 
context, and warrant an equivalent fee, because SEVP must assess that 
the schools continue to possess the necessary facilities, personnel, 
and finances to conduct instruction regardless of the point in time at 
which the schools choose to use a location for the instruction of 
nonimmigrant students.

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 has designated this rule a 
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by OMB. This final rule 
imposes transfer payments between the public and the government with no 
new cost burdens. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 
Executive Order 13771.
    No comments were received concerning the regulatory impact analysis 
contained in the proposed rule. With the exception of a minor technical 
amendment to Table 24, as described earlier in this preamble, there are 
no changes from the proposed to the final regulatory impact analysis. A 
final regulatory impact analysis follows.
1. Background and Purpose of the Rule
    SEVP is a fee-funded program within ICE that provides oversight of 
certified schools and nonimmigrant students in the F and M visa 
category. SEVP uses SEVIS to monitor and track certified schools and F 
and M 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 nonimmigrant 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 enforcement actions for students and exchange visitors who are 
out of status.
    The purpose of this final 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 
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.
    With this rule, SEVP will collect five fees paid by two source 
categories: Individuals will pay the Form I-901 fee, and institutions 
will pay the Form I-17 certification fee, Form 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 in this rule.
    Table 20 presents an accounting statement summarizing the 
annualized transfer amounts and qualitative benefits of the final rule. 
With this rule, schools will pay a higher fee for initial SEVP 
certification and will incur a fee

[[Page 23954]]

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 
nonimmigrant students and J nonimmigrant exchange visitors will pay 
higher fees.
BILLING CODE 9111-28-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.026

2. Impacts of Regulatory Change
    This rule amends the current fee levels for the individual student 
and exchange visitor application fee (Form I-901 fee) and school 
certification petition for initial certification. It maintains the 
current fee for site visits and makes clear that SEVP will impose it 
for any change of location or additional physical location or campus 
reported as an update by a certified school. It also institutes a 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 Form I-901 fee levels 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, SEVP's program mission tasks have expanded 
significantly. The expansions of certification, recertification, and

[[Page 23955]]

appeals costs and the subsidization of excess costs not recovered by 
fees have led to the need for the 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's 
fees will result in recovery of the full cost of SEVP analysis and 
support 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. Form I-901 F and M 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 Form I-901 
F and M fee. In this final rule, SEVP increases the Form I-901 F and M 
fee from $200 to $350.
    From 2007 through 2017, SEVP received an average of 450,581 Form I-
901 F and M fee payments per year. Table 21 shows the volume of Form I-
901 F and M fee payments received and the annual average number of fee 
payments from 2007 to 2017. As previously discussed, SEVP has 
forecasted 418,393 Form I-901 F and M fee payments in FY 2019 and 
407,933 FY 2020, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.027

    Table 22 illustrates the incremental increase DHS is finalizing 
with this rule for the Form I-901 F and M fee. Individuals who submit a 
Form I-901 will pay an additional $150 under this final rule, which is 
a 75 percent increase.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.028

    SEVP estimates that the fee increase will result in an annual 
increase of transfer payment from students who submit a Form I-901 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 FY 2020 number of applicants = $61,189,950).
b. Form I-901 J--Full Fee
    DOS generally oversees the exchange visitor program, which includes 
nonimmigrants who are charged the full Form I-901 J 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 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

[[Page 23956]]

SEVP its actual expenditures, and SEVP reimburses them quarterly. Each 
year, SEVP and DOS review and update the memorandum. Table 23 displays 
the affected Exchange Visitor Program categories subject to the full 
Form I-901 J fee and the purpose of the visit.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Department of State, Exchange Visitor Program Category 
Requirements (June 2016), https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Exchange-Visitor-Program-Category-Requirements.pdf 
(last visited Feb. 26, 2018).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.029

    SEVP receives an average of 151,958 Form I-901 Full J payments per 
year (FYs 2007-2017). Table 24 displays the volume of Form I-901 Full J 
fee payments received and the annual average number of fee payments. 
SEVP has forecasted 157,550 Form I-901 Full J payments in FY 2019 and 
153,612 in FY 2020.

[[Page 23957]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.030

    The difference between the final and current fees for the Form I-
901 Full J applicants is $40, an increase of approximately 22 percent, 
as shown in Table 25.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.031

    The annual increase in transfer payments from Form I-901 Full J 
applicants to the government is expected to be $6,302,000 in FY 2019 
and $6,144,480 in FY 2020 ($40 increase in fee x 157,550 FY 2019 and 
153,612 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 Form I-901 J fees bring to the 
program; therefore, SEVP increases the Form I-901 Full J fee to cover 
the $39.4 million full cost of operating the J visa program on an 
annual basis.
c. Form I-17 School 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 two 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 three year moving average to minimize the variation in 
forecasting the population data. The Form I-17 initial certifications 
from FYs 2012 through 2016 are shown in Table 26.

[[Page 23958]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.032

    SEVP uses the three year moving average to predict that there will 
be 426 initial certifications in both FY 2019 and FY 2020, 
respectively.
    As of May 2017, there were 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 
nonimmigrant 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 initial certification fee of 
$3,000. The 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 new fee amount is $1,250. The Form I-17 
initial certification and Form I-17 recertification incremental fees 
are shown in Table 27.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.033

    The annual increase in transfer payments from schools to the 
government from Form 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 Form I-17 initial certifications)). The annual increase in 
transfer payments from schools to the government for Form 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 filing the Form I-290B. This rule finalizes that 
SEVP impose a filing fee of $675, which is also the fee currently 
charged by USCIS upon submission of the Form I-290B.\16\ SEVP does not 
currently collect a fee from a school that files a motion or appeal. 
DHS finalizes its regulations to institute this fee for a school filing 
an appeal or motion 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ USCIS Form 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 an appeal or motion 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 Form I-17 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 final 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. The site 
visit fee amount, $655, remains 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 seven percent, transferred from individuals and 
entities for the services they receive, to the government.

[[Page 23959]]

Table 28 shows the summary of the total annual number of payments, 
incremental fee amounts, and total fees transferred.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.034

3. Alternatives to Regulatory Change
    SEVP examined several alternatives to the final fee structure, 
including no increase to any fee, only increasing the Form I-901 fee 
and Form I-17 SEVP school certification 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 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 Form I-901 and Form I-17 
certification fees instead of including a new fee for recertification 
and for filing an appeal or motion. If SEVP followed this scenario, the 
Form I-901 F and M fee would have increased to $350 to cover the 
shortfall in revenue, but the Form I-17 initial certification fee would 
have also increased to $4,200. This would have tripled 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 have 
continued to add workload to SEVP's recertification branch. Without any 
disincentive to recertify, the list of schools recertifying would 
likely continue to grow. The new fees, however, 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 Form I-901 F and M fee, school 
certification fees, and the fee to file an appeal or motion as shown in 
Table 29.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.035

BILLING CODE 9111-28-P

[[Page 23960]]

    SEVP rejected this alternative for several reasons. As a starting 
point, the current fee to file Form I-290B with USCIS is $675. The same 
form is required to file an appeal or motion with SEVP and using the 
existing USCIS fee is a consistent and reasonable means of implementing 
this new fee without discouraging schools from seeking an appeal. 
Setting the appeal fee at the amount that SEVP's standard methodology 
would dictate ($38,475) would result in a fee that is prohibitively 
expensive for many SEVP-certified schools, a significant portion of 
which have fewer than ten nonimmigrant students. 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 also discourage schools from seeking 
recertification. SEVP instead sets the recertification fee at a level 
that 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, an 
increase of almost three times the current fee of $1,700. 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 Form I-901 F and M nonimmigrant students relative to 
the population of Form 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

1. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) at 5 U.S.C. 604 generally 
requires Federal agencies to consider the economic impact of their 
rules on small entities. In accordance with the RFA, DHS has prepared a 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) that examines the impacts 
of the 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.
2. A Statement of the Need for, and Objective of, the Rule
    This rule will adjust current fees and collect new fees to ensure 
that SEVP is able to recover the costs of the management and support of 
its program activities. DHS's objectives and legal authority for this 
final rule are further discussed throughout this final rule preamble. 
The objective of the final rule is to prevent an anticipated funding 
deficit in operating the SEVP. More specifically, this rule increases 
the SEVP funding stream by adjusting the Form I-901 F and M fee, Form 
I-901 J-Full fee, and Form I-17 certification fee, and by instituting 
the Form I-17 recertification fee and a fee for filing an appeal or 
motion. This final rule also announces 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 existing SEVP activities and planned 
enhancements critical to current SEVP oversight of schools and the 
monitoring of nonimmigrant students in the F, M, and J visa 
classifications for national security purposes. ICE continues to 
examine programmatic goals, which may include enforcement costs 
generated by SEVP information or compliance investigations. As such 
projections have not yet been completed, any related costs are beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking effort.
    The legal basis for this final 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 
sections 501-02, 8 U.S.C. 1761-62), and to conduct a recertification of 
schools every two 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 nonimmigrant students and J nonimmigrant 
exchange visitors. IIRIRA section 641(e)(1), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 
1372(e)(1). 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.''
3. A Statement of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in 
Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of 
the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any 
Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments
    DHS published the Adjusting Program Fees for the Student Exchange 
Visitor Program NPRM which included the initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis on July 17, 2018 (83 FR 33762) with the comment period ending 
September 17, 2018. During the 60-day comment period, DHS received 
multiple comments that referred to the proposed rule's potential impact 
on small entities. These comments, however, did not result in any 
revisions to the established fee amounts for small entities in this 
final rule. DHS summarizes and responds to the significant issues 
raised by the public comments below.
Comments on Form I-17 Recertification Fee
    Several commenters objected to the proposed Form I-17 
recertification fee. Commenters specifically mentioned that the Form I-
17 recertification will disproportionately burden smaller entities. 
Several commenters discussed concerns with the new Form I-17 
recertification fee, because it is required every two years. One 
commenter said small rural public-school districts cannot afford the 
new expense of $1,250 to petition for recertification. A commenter who 
identified himself as affiliated with a rural high-need public school 
district, said the recertification fee will greatly inhibit the 
district's ability to continue a valuable program for its students.
    One commenter wrote the proposed recertification fee would be cost-
prohibitive to their international program and they would therefore be 
forced to pass on the additional expense incurred to the program onto 
international students. This commenter suggested applying a prorated 
fee schedule based upon the average number of Forms I-20 issued or the 
average number of attending students during the prior certification 
period.
    A commenter stated that he or she was uncertain as to what 
information, statistics, guidance and studies were used to derive the 
proposed fees, but that it was not fair for a small institution to have 
to pay the same amount as an institution with high enrollment.

[[Page 23961]]

    One commenter wrote that the recertification fee burden on small 
institutions may be the reason some institutions close their F-1 
programs, which would negatively impact potential students who can no 
longer attend and domestic students who miss out on the opportunity for 
cultural and academic exchange. Overall, many commenters stated that it 
is not fair for a small institution to pay the same amount as an 
institution with larger enrollment numbers.
DHS Response to Comments on the Form I-17 Recertification Fee
    Many commenters objected to DHS requiring small schools to petition 
for recertification and pay the fee every two years. DHS is mandated by 
EBSVERA section 502, 8 U.S.C. 1762(a), and HSPD-2 to periodically 
review all schools approved for admission of F or M students; EBSVERA 
specifically mandates a two-year review cycle. The recertification fee 
is used to support DHS's compliance with EBSVERA and HSPD-2 and to 
improve the recertification process.
    Regarding the commenters' suggestion that DHS apply a gradual fee 
scale over time or base the fee on the number of international students 
attending the school, DHS considered this alternative but has 
ultimately decided not to institute a separate fee amount for small 
institutions. As DHS notes earlier under the section entitled, 
Recertification Fee, DHS declines establishing a lower fee for smaller 
institutions. Following a qualitative review of the fee model (which 
does not distinguish between institutions based on size), DHS could not 
identify a convincing basis for establishing a lower fee for small 
institutions. However, DHS identified two main reasons for keeping the 
recertification fee the same for all size schools. First, many of the 
administrative costs related to the recertification process are 
essentially similar irrespective of school type. The workload and cost 
of recertification adjudications does not change for different types of 
schools. Second, institutions with large nonimmigrant student 
populations typically require fewer resources in some respects, since 
they are more knowledgeable in the process, have a stable professional 
pool of employees, and have better internal reporting systems to assist 
in their compliance efforts. By contrast, schools with smaller 
nonimmigrant enrollment may require more frequent training of DSOs, or 
significant oversight if they are identified as higher risk.
    Further, DHS conducted an analysis that compared the amount of the 
recertification fee to the overall revenue of affected small entities. 
DHS found that of the 7,037 small schools expected to apply for 
recertification and pay the final fee of $1,250, 50 schools, or less 
than one percent of all the small schools, will experience an impact 
greater than one percent, but less than three percent, of the school's 
annual revenue. See a detailed recertification fee regulatory 
flexibility analysis below.
    With respect to the commenter who expressed uncertainty with 
respect to how the recertification and other fees are determined, DHS 
refers the commenter to the NPRM preamble, which described SEVP's 
current and future spend plans by organization and program category 
(Table 4), described future budget plans by initiative (Table 5), and 
allocated costs by activity type (Table 7). The NPRM also contained a 
comprehensive discussion of the basis for the individual fee 
calculations (see, e .g., 83 FR 33775 et seq.), as well as information 
about how to access the software used to calculate the fees (see 83 FR 
33764).
Comments on Proposed Form I-901 Fees
    Commenters objected that the proposed increase in the I-901 fees 
may lead to decreased enrollment at their small institutions from 
international students. Commenters raised objections that the increase 
in the I-901 fees made their small institutions less competitive with 
schools in other countries.
DHS Response to Proposed Form I-901 Fees
    In response to these comments, SEVP reiterates from above that it 
supports international education. As stated above, nonimmigrant 
students typically have positive experiences while in the United 
States, and the goodwill engendered by all that the United States has 
to offer encourages mutually beneficial international relations. 
However, DHS must establish a fee schedule that allows for recovery of 
the full costs of current SEVP services and planned enhancements. 
Increasing the Form I-901 fees allows DHS to recover the costs of SEVP 
services and planned enhancements.
Comments on All Fee Adjustments and Potential Alternatives
    Some commenters expressed concern that all the fee adjustments 
proposed would be burdensome to their small institutions and that DHS 
should charge its fees based on a scale of how many international 
students are enrolled.
DHS Response to Comments on All Fee Adjustments and Proposed 
Alternatives
    DHS conducted an initial regulatory flexibility act analysis to 
consider how all the fee adjustments may cumulatively affect a small 
entity that is responsible for paying them. Commenters did not provide 
significant new data for DHS to consider in terms of impacts to small 
institutions. DHS rejects the alternative suggested by commenters to 
have a fee structure based on a scale of how many international 
students are enrolled at an institution. As stated above, since many of 
the costs associated with establishing an F or M student record in 
SEVIS occur prior to or at the beginning of the program of study (such 
as fixed costs of maintaining the system and educating DSOs), an 
equitable reduction in fees based on the number of students would be 
insignificant. SEVP reviews its fee structure biennially and will 
continue to explore additional means of configuring or tailoring the 
fees to better meet the needs of the stakeholders, including 
consideration of a tiered program if justified. In light of the 
significant adjustments in its fee structure, in its next biennial 
review SEVP will take into specific consideration any reductions in 
participation by small entities when determining a potential need for a 
tiered program.
4. The Response of the Agency To Any Comments Filed by the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in Response 
to the Proposed Rule, and a Detailed Statement of Any Change Made to 
the Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a Result of the Comments
    DHS did not receive comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule.
5. A Description and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of Why No Such Estimate Is 
Available

[[Page 23962]]

    This analysis does not apply to increases in the Form 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 assumes that the Form I-901 J fees 
are also paid by individuals and did not receive comments on this 
assumption.
    As of May 2017, there were a total of 8,746 SEVP-certified schools 
that would be subject to the Form I-17 recertification fee, site visit 
fee, and fee to file a motion or an appeal. New schools applying for 
SEVP certification will be subject to the Form I-17 initial 
certification fee. Of the 8,746 SEVP-certified schools, 2,013 have 
identified as public schools on their Form 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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 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 \18\ schools to approximate the number of public schools 
in governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000. 
Out of the 100 public schools, 22 are located in a city or school 
district with a population fewer than 50,000. Using this finding of 22 
percent, DHS infers 443 SEVP-certified public schools are considered a 
small entity as defined by SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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 = (z [supcaret] (1 - [pi])) / e [supcaret]2 provided 
inputs ([1.65] [supcaret]2(.5)(.5))/301 = 69 and rounded up to 100 
to over sample. DHS has revised the number of small public schools 
estimated in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. DHS 
estimated the number of small public schools by first identifying 
that 61 of the 100 entities are state-administered entities are 
therefore not considered small entities under the RFA. For the 
remaining schools, DHS then identified geographic population data 
matched to the school district as provided in SEVIS, sourced from 
the U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Program, 
https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2016/demo/saipe/2016-school-districts.html (last visited April 19, 2019) or 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), 
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-cities-and-towns.html (last visited July 11, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 conservatively assumes that the 4,755 schools 
that are private unspecified are small entities. DHS did not receive 
comments on this assumption.
    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.\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Tables of Small 
Business Size Standards Matched to NAICS Codes (Oct. 1, 2017), 
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 two 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 7,037 schools meet the 
SBA definition of a small entity. This is approximately 80 percent of 
the 8,746 of SEVP-certified schools included in this analysis.
    Table 30 shows a summary by school type of the number of SEVP-
certified schools and estimated small entities.
BILLING CODE 9111-28-P

[[Page 23963]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.036

    Table 31 provides a summary of the SEVP-certified schools by 
industry. Table 31 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 23964]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.037


[[Page 23965]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.038


[[Page 23966]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.039

    Table 32 presents the type of schools with active F and M 
nonimmigrant students and the percent of students enrolled in small 
schools. Most F and M nonimmigrant students are enrolled at small 
schools. Of the 8,746 SEVP-

[[Page 23967]]

certified schools, DHS identified 1,728 with no active F or M 
nonimmigrant 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 31), there are no active F and M nonimmigrant 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 136,245.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.040

    DHS estimated SEVP-certified public schools' revenue to examine the 
impact of the 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 school district, county, or city's tax revenue 
is the best revenue source against which to assess the impact of the 
fee adjustments. DHS collected local government revenue, expenditure, 
debt, and assets from the U.S. Census Bureau 2015 State and Local 
Government Survey \20\ to examine the impact of the increased fees on 
the public schools included in the sample. A school district, 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. In other words, the use of revenue as a 
proxy for ability to pay may result in understating the impact of the 
fee increase on public schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ United States Census, 2015 State & Local Government Finance 
Historical Tables, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/econ/gov-finances/summary-tables.html (last visited Nov. 1, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 33 displays the range of annual revenue by each school 
industry and for public schools, from the small school

[[Page 23968]]

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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.041

6. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Final Rule, Including an Estimate of the 
Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement and 
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report 
or Record
    The final rule will 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 34 displays the final fees, the current fees, and the difference 
in these amounts. This analysis examines the impact that the final 
incremental fee for the Form I-17 certification and the final 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.

[[Page 23969]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.042

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. SEVP certification 
authorizes the school to enroll international students after they enter 
the country as F or M nonimmigrant students. Schools must initially go 
through the vetting process for authorization by DHS to enroll F and/or 
M nonimmigrant students and pay the Form I-17 school certification fee, 
which is currently $1,700 and determined to increase to $3,000. The 
incremental fee is the difference between the finalized fee ($3,000) 
and current fee ($1,700), or $1,300. From 2012 to 2016, DHS processed 
2,117 Forms I-17 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 35.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.043

    SEVP forecasted the total Form I-17 initial certifications in FY 
2019 and FY 2020 to be 426 using the three-year annual average of FY 
2014 through 2016 initial certifications. Using that same methodology, 
232 small schools applied for initial Form 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 31. This calculation yields the number of small 
schools expected to petition for initial Form I-17 certification by 
industry. The results are presented in Table 36.

[[Page 23970]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.044

    This analysis examines the impact the $1,300 incremental fee has on 
small schools that might seek initial certification after this 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 37 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 Form I-17 certification incremental fee to have an impact greater 
than one percent on the average small school annual revenue. However, 
there is an expected impact greater than one percent for some small 
schools with the lowest annual revenue in their industry. On average 
the estimated 194 small schools that apply for initial Form I-17 
certification annually and pay an incremental fee of $1,300 will 
experience an impact of less than one percent of their estimated annual 
revenue.

[[Page 23971]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.045


[[Page 23972]]


I-17 Recertification Fee
    SEVP-certified schools are required to file for recertification 
every two 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 final 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 3,519 \21\ small schools will recertify annually. DHS examined all 
7,037 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 two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 7,037 x 50 percent = 3,518.5 small schools recertifying 
each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS assumes that the total number of SEVP-certified schools will 
remain static as new schools become certified and other schools' 
certifications are relinquished, withdrawn, or denied. 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 nonimmigrant 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 finalized fee of $3,000 at such time in the future 
that they enroll F or M nonimmigrant students.
    Table 38 illustrates the number of small schools that will 
recertify by industry and the Form I-17 recertification incremental fee 
impact as a percent of the small school's annual revenue. From these 
findings, of the 7,037 small schools expected to apply for 
recertification and pay the finalized fee of $1,250, 50 schools, or 0.7 
percent, will experience an impact greater than one percent but less 
than three 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 one percent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.046


[[Page 23973]]


Site Visit Fee
    Current regulations provide authority for SEVP to charge a site 
visit fee to schools that apply for initial certification or add a new 
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 Form 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 final rule 
notifies the public that SEVP will collect the fee from any certified 
school that adds a new campus or physical location by updating its Form 
I-17 in SEVIS, consistent with 8 CFR 214.3(h)(3) and the agency's 
description when it established the fee in 2008 that such a fee could 
apply to such an initial event. 73 FR 55683, 55691.
    SEVP performs 600 site visits annually. Of these site visits, 426 
would be performed as part of the forecasted initial certifications, 
leaving the capacity for 174 site visits to be performed when a school 
adds a campus. In order to estimate the impact on a school's revenue of 
the site visit fee for a new instructional campus, DHS assumes that any 
of the currently SEVP-certified schools could add a campus and require 
a site visit. Table 39 shows the finalized site visit fee impact on 
estimated annual revenue for all 7,037 small schools certified by SEVP 
and the type of school. Of the total 7,037 small schools, 7,022, or 
99.8 percent, would have a site visit fee impact of less than or equal 
to one percent of their annual revenue. Twelve small schools, or 0.2 
percent of small schools, would have an impact of greater than one 
percent but less than or equal to two percent of their annual revenue. 
Three small schools would have a site visit fee impact greater than two 
percent but less than three percent of their annual revenue.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.047

Fee To File an Appeal or Motion
    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 filing the Form I-290B. This final rule imposes a 
$675 filing fee for submission of the Form I-290B.\22\ Currently no fee 
is imposed when a school submits the Form I-290B for a motion or 
appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ USCIS, Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, Filing Fee, 
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, four schools had two appeals within the same year or over the 
four-year period. During the four-year period, there was an average of 
19 appeals and motions filed by small schools annually.
    DHS examined all 7,037 small schools to estimate the impact of the 
final appeal and motion fee on estimated

[[Page 23974]]

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 7,037 
SEVP-certified small schools, 7,021, or 99.8 percent, would experience 
an impact less than or equal to one 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 one 
percent and two percent of their estimated annual revenue. In addition, 
three small schools, or 0.04 percent, would experience an impact 
greater than two percent but less than three percent of estimated 
annual revenue. Table 40 shows the number of small schools within the 
range of impact to each school's estimated annual revenue.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.048

    The possible total impact on small entities in any year can be 
determined by examining scenarios in which a school may pay more than 
one of the finalized adjustments in fees in the same year. DHS examines 
the following scenarios and determines that the impact on any small 
school's revenue is less than three percent on any school industry 
type: (1) A school appeals an initial certification or (2) a school 
appeals a recertification and adds a new location requiring a site 
visit.
    A school may pay the initial certification fee and then it may 
appeal the results of the initial certification within the same year. 
DHS estimates that this would be an increase of $1,975 ($1,300 
incremental fee for Form I-17 initial certification plus $675 fee for 
an appeal). More than 98 percent of schools would be impacted less than 
one percent in this scenario, as shown in Table 41. The impacts of this 
scenario would be greater than the impacts of a scenario where a school 
appeals a recertification, which would add to $1,925 in increased fees 
($1,250 I-17 recertification fee plus $675 for an appeal).

[[Page 23975]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.049

    A school may seek recertification in the same year it adds a new 
physical location or campus that requires a site visit and then it may 
appeal the findings of a recertification. A recertification fee would 
not include a site visit to a new location. DHS estimates that this 
would be an increase of $2,580 ($1,250 Form I-17 recertification fee 
plus $655 for a site visit at a new location plus $675 for an appeal). 
Under this scenario, the impact on small schools' revenue would be less 
than one percent for all but 139 small schools. The impact on these 139 
schools' revenues would be less than three percent as shown in Table 
42.

[[Page 23976]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.050

7. A Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the 
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the 
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative 
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant 
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the 
Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected
    SEVP examined several alternatives to the final fee structure, 
including no increase to any fee, only increasing the Form I-901 fee 
and Form I-17 initial school certification fee, not subsidizing the 
school fees with the Form I-901 F and M fees, and, as noted above, a 
graduated or sliding-scale fee structure based either on student 
population numbers or program length.
    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 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 maintaining and improving SEVIS and certifying and 
recertifying schools in a timely manner.
    SEVP also considered only raising the Form I-901 fees and the Form 
I-17 initial certification fee instead of including new finalized fees 
for recertification and for filing an appeal or motion. If SEVP 
followed this scenario, while the Form I-901 F and M fee would increase 
to $350 to cover the shortfall in revenue, the Form 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 program. Without a 
disincentive to not recertify, the list of schools recertifying would 
never stop growing. SEVP rejected this alternative because the 
finalized 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 Form I-901 F and M fee, school 
certification fees, and the fee to file an appeal or motion as shown in 
Table 43.

[[Page 23977]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MY19.051

BILLING CODE 9111-28-C
    SEVP rejected this alternative for several reasons. Setting the fee 
at $38,475 may discourage schools from filing an appeal or motion.
    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 as opposed to relinquishing certification or allowing 
certification to expire and subsequently applying again for initial 
certification.
    SEVP instead sets the recertification fee at a level that 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 Form I-901 F and M 
nonimmigrant students relative to the population of Form 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.

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 one year. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a). Though this rule will 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 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. 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. 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 final rule under that Order and has 
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

G. Energy Effects

    DHS has analyzed this final 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 on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy.

H. Environment

    DHS 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),

[[Page 23978]]

and the Council on Environmental Quality. regulations for implementing 
NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. The Council on Environmental 
Quality 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 final rule under MD 023-01 Rev. 01. DHS has 
made a 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 final 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 rule is not part of a larger 
action. This rule presents no extraordinary circumstances creating the 
potential for significant environmental effects. Therefore, this rule 
is categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    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 will be using 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 
(originally 1615-0066 before the collection was transferred from United 
States Citizenship and Immigration Services 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 Form I-901 fees, would require changes to SEVIS and the Form I-
901 software to reflect the updated fee amounts, as these systems 
generate the pertinent petition and application forms. DHS will 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, will not require a form amendment to reflect the 
charging of the fee. The instructions associated with the Form I-290B, 
which is currently used for such motions and appeals, contain 
information regarding the $675 fee.

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.

    Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 103--IMMIGRATION BENEFITS; BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS; 
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 103 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 
1356, 1356b, 1372; 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, 125 Stat 550.


0
 2. Amend Sec.  103.7 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(B) and (H) and 
adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(O) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 a site visit fee of $655 for each location required to be 
listed on the form. For filing a petition for school recertification: 
$1,250, plus a site visit fee of $655 for each new location required to 
be listed on the form.
* * * * *
    (H) Fee Remittance for 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 filed with the Student and Exchange Visitor Program 
(SEVP): $675.
* * * * *

PART 214--NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES

0
 3. The authority citation for part 214 is revised to read as follows:

     Authority:  6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 
1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305, 1356, 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.


0
4. Amend Sec.  214.3 by revising paragraph (h)(2) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  214.3  Approval of schools for enrollment of F and M 
nonimmigrants.

* * * * *

[[Page 23979]]

    (h) * * *
    (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.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  214.4 by revising the section heading and paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  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).
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  214.13 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  214.13  SEVIS fee for certain F, J, and M nonimmigrants.

    (a) Applicability. The aliens in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of 
this section 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 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 SEVP-certified 
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, the amount of $220, 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.
* * * * *

Kevin K. McAleenan,
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2019-10884 Filed 5-22-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-28-P