Removal of Obsolete Procedures and Requirements Related to F, J, and M Nonimmigrants, 22903-22912 [2024-06657]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
• Immigration and Customs Enforcement

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22903-22912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06657]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 3, 2024 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 22903]]



DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

8 CFR Part 214

[DHS Docket No. ICEB-2021-0016]
RIN 1653-AA87


Removal of Obsolete Procedures and Requirements Related to F, J, 
and M Nonimmigrants

AGENCY: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of 
Homeland Security.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 12, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) issued an interim final rule, which amended regulations to update 
information that was no longer accurate since the creation of the 
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), the Web-based 
system DHS uses to collect and maintain current and ongoing information 
on Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified schools, F-1 
and M-1 nonimmigrant students, and J-1 Exchange Visitor Program 
participants and their sponsors. DHS is now issuing this final rule 
that introduces no substantive changes from the interim final rule.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is May 3, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public are 
available in DHS Docket No. ICEB-2021-0016. For access to the online 
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter ``DHS Docket No. 
ICEB-2021-0016'' in the ``Search'' box.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Snyder, Policy and Response 
Unit Chief, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW, Stop 5600, Washington, DC 
20536-5600; or by email at [email protected] or telephone at 703-603-
3400 (this is not a toll-free number). Find program information at 
https://www.ice.gov/sevis/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abbreviations

Abbreviation Amplification

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOJ Department of Justice
DOS Department of State
DSO Designated School Official
EBSVERA Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002
HSPD-2 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-2
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
of 1996
INA Immigration and Nationality Act
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
MD Management Directive
OMB Office of Management and Budget
SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Program
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

II. Background

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This rule responds to public comments on the interim final rule and 
finalizes the removal of obsolete procedures and requirements presented 
in the interim final rule. This final rule introduces no substantive 
changes and does not raise existing costs. There are no significant 
changes between the interim final rule and the final rule. In alignment 
with the Interim Final Rule, the Final Rule places no additional 
burdens on F, J, and M nonimmigrants, or on sponsoring academic 
institutions and programs.

B. Legal Authority

    Section 102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, 
116 Stat. 2135), 6 U.S.C. 112, section 103(a)(1) and (3) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (3), 
charge the Secretary with the administration and enforcement of the 
immigration and naturalization laws of the United States, to include 
the issuance of regulations. Section 214(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 
1184(a), gives the Secretary the authority to prescribe the time and 
conditions of admission of any noncitizen as a nonimmigrant.
    On March 1, 2003, when the responsibilities of the former 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) transferred from the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) to DHS pursuant to the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002), SEVP 
and the SEVIS functions transferred to DHS. Within DHS, U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) administers SEVP by ensuring 
that government agencies have essential information related to 
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors to preserve national 
security. For the sake of simplicity in this preamble, in rules 
promulgated prior to March 1, 2003, any reference to the INS, or ``the 
Service'' as it was referred to in the past, is now referred to as DHS, 
and any reference to the Attorney General is now referred to as the 
Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary).
    The INA established who may be admitted as F, J, or M 
nonimmigrants. Specifically, section 101(a)(15)(F) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(F), established the F classification for nonimmigrants who 
wish to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose 
of pursuing a full course of study at an academic or accredited 
language training school certified by SEVP, as well as for the spouses 
and minor children of such noncitizens.
    Section 101(a)(15)(J) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), 
established the J classification for nonimmigrants who wish to come to 
the United States temporarily to participate in exchange visitor 
programs designated by the Department of State (DOS), as well as for 
the spouses and minor children of such noncitizens.
    Section 101(a)(15)(M) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(M), 
established the M classification for nonimmigrants who wish to enter 
the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing a 
full course of study at an established vocational or other recognized 
nonacademic institution (other than a language training program) 
certified by SEVP, as well as for the spouses and minor children of 
such noncitizens.
    SEVP collects information related to nonimmigrant students and 
exchange visitors under various statutory

[[Page 22904]]

authorities. Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Public Law 104-208, 110 
Stat. 3009-704 (Sep. 30, 1996) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1372), 
authorized the creation of a program to collect current and ongoing 
information from schools and exchange visitor programs regarding 
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors during the course of their 
stay in the United States and stipulated that such information is to be 
collected electronically, where practicable. Section 641(e) of IIRIRA 
further directed that this information collection system be self-funded 
by the nonimmigrant foreign students and exchange visitors. To meet 
these requirements, DHS promulgated separate rulemakings that 
established the framework for SEVIS; required mandatory compliance for 
all schools to use SEVIS for the admission of new F, J, and M 
nonimmigrant students; \1\ and provided for the collection of a fee to 
be paid by certain nonimmigrants seeking status as F-1, F-3, M-1, or M-
3 nonimmigrant students or as J-1 nonimmigrant exchange visitors.\2\ 
The DOS placed similar mandatory SEVIS compliance requirements on DOS-
designated Exchange Visitor Program sponsors regarding J 
nonimmigrants.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Retention and Reporting of Information for F, J, and M 
Nonimmigrants; Student and Exchange Visitor Information System 
(SEVIS), 67 FR 76256 (Dec. 11, 2002).
    \2\ Authorizing Collection of the Fee Levied on F, J, and M 
Nonimmigrant Classifications Under Public Law 104-208; SEVIS, 69 FR 
39814 (July 1, 2004).
    \3\ Exchange Visitor Program: SEVIS Regulations, 67 FR 76307 
(Dec. 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SEVP is managed in accordance with Homeland Security Presidential 
Directive-2 (HSPD-2), Combating Terrorism Through Immigration Policies 
(Oct. 29, 2001), as amended, and section 502 of the Enhanced Border 
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 Public Law 107-173, 116 
Stat. 543, 563 (May 14, 2002) (EBSVERA). HSPD-2 requires the Secretary 
to conduct periodic, ongoing reviews of institutions certified to 
accept F nonimmigrants, and to include checks for compliance with 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. EBSVERA directs the Secretary 
to review the compliance with recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F) and 1372 of all schools approved for 
attendance by F students within two years of enactment, and every two 
years thereafter. These additional requirements have also been 
promulgated in rulemakings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Allowing Eligible Schools to Apply for Preliminary 
Enrollment in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System 
(SEVIS), 67 FR 44344 (July 1, 2002); Requiring Certification of all 
Service Approved Schools for Enrollment in the Student and Exchange 
Visitor Information System (SEVIS), 67 FR 60107 (Sept. 25, 2002); 
Adjusting Program Fees and Establishing Procedures for Out-of-Cycle 
Review and Recertification of Schools Certified by the Student and 
Exchange Visitor Program to Enroll F and/or M Nonimmigrant Students, 
73 FR 55683 (Sept. 26, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Student and Exchange Visitor Information System

    SEVP uses SEVIS to maintain information about:
     SEVP-certified schools;
     F-1 students enrolled in academic programs in the United 
States (and their F-2 dependents);
     M-1 students enrolled in vocational programs in the United 
States (and their M-2 dependents);
     DOS-designated Exchange Visitor Program sponsors; and
     J-1 Exchange Visitor Program participants (and their J-2 
dependents).
    SEVIS provides authorized users access to reliable information on 
F, J, and M nonimmigrants and their dependents. Schools use SEVIS to 
petition SEVP for certification, which allows the school to offer 
programs of study to nonimmigrant students. Designated school officials 
(DSOs) of SEVP-certified schools use SEVIS to:
     Update school information and apply for recertification of 
the school for the continued ability to issue the Form I-20, 
Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student Status or successor 
form, to nonimmigrant students and their dependents;
     Issue the Form I-20 or successor form to specific 
individuals to obtain F or M status while enrolled at the school;
     Fulfill the school's reporting responsibility regarding 
student addresses, courses of study, enrollment, employment, and 
compliance with the terms of student status; and
     Transfer student SEVIS records to other institutions.
    Exchange Visitor programs use SEVIS to petition DOS for designation 
as a sponsor so they can offer educational and cultural exchange 
programs to exchange visitors. Responsible officers of designated 
Exchange Visitor programs use SEVIS to:
     Update sponsor information and apply for re-designation 
every two years;
     Issue the Form DS-2019, Certificate of Eligibility for 
Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status, to specific individuals to obtain J 
status;
     Fulfill the sponsor's reporting responsibility regarding 
exchange visitor addresses, sites of activity, program participation, 
employment, and compliance with the terms of the J status; and
     Transfer the exchange visitor SEVIS records to other 
institutions.
    Noncitizens must apply to an SEVP-certified school and be accepted 
for enrollment as a student. SEVP-certified schools enter the 
prospective student's information into SEVIS and issue a Form I-20 or 
successor form. The prospective student then presents that endorsed 
form when applying for an F or M visa with DOS abroad. Similarly, a 
noncitizen must apply to a DOS-designated Exchange Visitor program and 
be accepted for enrollment as a basis for applying for a J exchange 
visitor visa. The Exchange Visitor program enters the prospective 
exchange visitor's information into SEVIS and issues a Form DS-2019. 
The prospective exchange visitor then submits that endorsed form when 
applying for a J visa with DOS abroad.
    At the time of admission into the United States, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection inspection officers will enter information into DHS 
systems related to the F, J, or M nonimmigrant's admission. These 
systems interface with SEVIS to provide SEVP and DOS with entry 
information about nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors.
    After admission and during the nonimmigrant student or exchange 
visitor's stay in the United States, SEVP-certified schools and 
Exchange Visitor programs are required to update information about 
approved F, J, and M nonimmigrants. SEVIS allows schools and Exchange 
Visitor programs to transmit required information electronically about 
F, J, and M nonimmigrants throughout the nonimmigrant student or 
exchange visitor's stay in the United States.
    SEVIS enables DHS and DOS to monitor and ensure proper 
recordkeeping and reporting by SEVP-certified schools and Exchange 
Visitor programs. Further, SEVIS provides a mechanism for nonimmigrant 
student and exchange visitor status violators to be identified so that 
appropriate action may be taken (i.e., denial of admission, denial of 
benefits, or removal from the United States). Prior to the creation of 
SEVIS in January 2003, enrollment of nonimmigrant students was an 
entirely manual and paper-based process, which meant that schools 
maintained their own paper records about nonimmigrant students that 
were only produced upon request.

D. Interim Final Rule

    On December 12, 2022, DHS published an interim final rule which 
removed obsolete procedures and

[[Page 22905]]

requirements in 8 CFR 214.1, 214.2, 214.3, 214.4, 214.12, and 214.13 
governing F, J, and M nonimmigrants that no longer apply since the 
implementation of SEVIS in 2003. The rule also removed language 
requiring original signatures on Form I-17 or successor form and 
clarified the regulatory language that implies the requirement for 
original signatures on Form I-20 or successor form, and made technical 
changes to correct typographical errors, update references, and reflect 
the transfer of responsibilities to DHS from DOJ.\5\ See Removal of 
Obsolete Procedures and Requirements Related to F, J, and M 
Nonimmigrants, 87 FR 75891 (Dec. 12, 2022) (2022 Interim Final Rule), 
amended by; Removal of Obsolete Procedures and Requirements Related to 
F, J, and M Nonimmigrants; Correcting Amendments, 88 FR 53761 (Aug. 11, 
2023) (correction to 2022 Interim Final Rule). DHS received four 
comments on the 2022 Interim Final Rule. DHS considered all public 
comments before issuing this final rule. DHS is finalizing these 
changes to eliminate confusion and provide clarity to the public. A 
discussion of the public comments and responses follows later in this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Regulatory Changes From Interim Final Rule to Final Rule

    The interim final rule made general wording, capitalization, and 
style changes. Some examples of these changes include, replacing 
numeric symbols under 10 with the corresponding word; inserting 
indefinite articles where appropriate; and replacing phrases such as 
``not pursuing'' with ``no longer pursuing.'' Additionally, the interim 
final rule removed references to ``approval'' and its derivatives and 
replaced them with ``certify'' and its derivatives to mean 
authorization for schools to enroll foreign students.\6\ Further, the 
interim final rule updated terminology to reflect the transfer of 
certain functions and responsibilities of the former INS to DHS. 
Technical amendments of this nature apply throughout the amended 
sections. As discussed in the III. Discussion of Public Comments on the 
Interim Final Rule section below of this final rule, DHS has considered 
the input provided by commenters in response to the interim final rule. 
The majority of commenters supported the proposed changes, and DHS is 
finalizing the changes in the interim final rule, with some non-
significant modifications. This final rule amends 8 CFR 214 to clarify 
who can provide medical evidence, removes and reserves obsolete 
language related to transfers, and adopts some of the commenters' 
suggestions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SEVP previously used both ``certified'' and ``approved'' 
interchangeably. To eliminate confusion, SEVP now uses only 
``certify'' and its derivatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Public Comments on the Interim Final Rule

A. Summary of Public Comments

    In response to the interim final rule, DHS received four public 
comments from stakeholders, including two institutions of higher 
education, an association of international educators, and a member of 
the public. DHS reviewed all the comments and addresses them in this 
final rule.
    Three of the four commenters expressed support for the interim 
final rule. Two commenters thanked DHS and SEVP for their continued 
engagement and willingness to modernize. Another commenter said that 
they welcomed the opportunity to review (the interim final rule) 
because it helps clarify and streamline the workflow, ``which benefits 
our international students and scholars as well.'' One commenter 
suggested clarifying one of the changes, and the other three offered 
suggestions for additional regulatory changes. All of the comments were 
reviewed and considered, but some of the suggestions were out of scope 
for this final rule and adopting them would require notice and comment; 
for that reason, those out-of-scope comments were not adopted in this 
final rule. However, DHS may consider those suggestions when 
contemplating future enhancements to SEVP and SEVIS.

B. Comments Expressing General Support

    Comment: Some commenters described how the interim final rule helps 
to clarify, streamline, and modernize processes.
    Response: DHS appreciates this observation and believes that this 
rulemaking places no additional burden on F, J, and M nonimmigrants, or 
on sponsoring academic institutions and programs. Further, DHS observes 
that eliminating original signatures on the Form I-17 or successor form 
will further streamline processes because it eliminates the requirement 
for DSOs to obtain original signatures.

C. Comments Expressing Opposition

    DHS received no comments expressing opposition to the interim final 
rule.

D. Comments Providing Additional Suggestions

    Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS clarify the language 
about who may provide the medical documentation that a DSO must see 
before authorizing a reduced course load for a nonimmigrant student. 
The commenter specifically suggests removing ``psychiatrist'' from the 
approved provider list. The commenter states that because a 
psychiatrist is a medical doctor there is no need to parse 
psychiatrists out from other medical doctors.
    Response: DHS agrees with the commenter that medical doctor 
includes psychiatrist and that the wording about who may provide the 
medical documentation could be clarified further; therefore, DHS is 
adopting this suggestion by amending the regulatory text to read: ``In 
order to authorize a reduced course load based upon a medical 
condition, the student must provide medical documentation from a 
licensed medical doctor, a licensed doctor of osteopathy, a licensed 
psychologist, or a licensed clinical psychologist to the DSO to 
substantiate the illness or medical condition.''
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that DHS expand the list of 
medical providers qualified to provide the medical documentation that a 
DSO must see before authorizing a reduced course load. For instance, 
they stated that ``these days, many U.S. citizens are likelier to be 
seen by a nurse practitioner. . ., or a social worker or mental health 
counselor.''
    Response: DHS acknowledges that many health care services can be 
delivered by a variety of providers, such as the ones suggested by 
commenters. However, the scope and purpose of this interim final rule 
and final rule are not to add more medical professionals to the list of 
accepted medical providers, (see 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(iii)(B)), but to 
clarify the language of the regulation to indicate that a licensed 
psychologist or psychiatrist could provide the evidence for the 
student's mental health diagnoses; Expanding the list of medical 
providers is a significant change that would require public review and 
comment and is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, DHS 
cannot adopt this suggestion at this time, but may consider this 
suggestion in the event of a future rulemaking.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested that DHS should eliminate 
obsolete wording about transfer procedures.
    Response: DHS agrees with this suggestion because the transfer 
procedures outlined in 8 CFR

[[Page 22906]]

214.2(f)(8)(iii) no longer apply since the implementation of SEVIS. 
DSOs no longer note ``transfer completed on (date)'' on a student's 
Form I-20 (or successor form), return the Form I-20 (or successor form) 
to the student, and send a copy elsewhere. Therefore, DHS is removing 
and reserving that paragraph.
    Comment: One commenter suggested DHS make additional changes to 
remove other obsolete procedures and requirements, including:
     ``Item (2) of Table 2 to Paragraph (f), the paragraph 
contents of 8 CFR 214.2(f), should be revised by changing `(2) I-20 ID' 
to `(2) Student maintenance of Form I-20 or successor form.'
     ``Remove 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(iii), a pre-SEVIS provision.''
     ``Remove 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(F)(2), a pre-SEVIS 
provision.''
     ``In 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i), remove the three asterisks (* * 
*) that appear between the third and fourth sentences.''
     ``In 8 CFR 214.2(m)(l)(i)(B), remove the word ``SEVIS'' 
that precedes the term `Form 1-20.' ''
     ``In 8 CFR 214.2(j)(l)(i), the term `SEVIS Form DS-2019' 
appears four times. The word `SEVIS' should be removed in those 
instances.''
     ``In 8 CFR 214.2(j)(l)(vii), the term `SEVIS Form DS-2019' 
appears one time. The word `SEVIS' should be removed in that 
instance.''
     ``To retain parity with the F and M regulations, DHS 
should consider using the term `Form DS-2019 or successor form' 
wherever the term `Form DS-2019' appears in 8 CFR 214.1.''
    Response: DHS appreciates these suggestions for additional changes 
and has made some of the suggested corrections already (see ICEB-2021-
0016, Correcting amendments, published August 9, 2023). DHS will adopt 
the suggestions to amend paragraphs 8 CFR 214.2(f) and (m) related to 
the Form I-20 and pre-SEVIS provisions. However, 8 CFR 214.2(j) falls 
under the authority of DOS, so DHS cannot adopt the suggestions related 
to the Form DS-2019.

E. Comments Out of Scope

    Comment: One commenter suggested that to meet the student demand 
for online, hybrid, and in-person courses, and to give schools the 
ability to offer instruction using these preferred learning styles, DHS 
should eliminate or reduce the physical presence requirement for 
nonimmigrant students.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that hybrid and online instruction 
methods are becoming increasingly common. However, changing the 
regulatory requirement for nonimmigrant students to take no more than 
the equivalent of one online or distance education course \7\ is a 
significant change that would require public review and comment and is 
outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this 
suggestion at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Only one class or three credits per session, term, semester, 
trimester, or quarter may be counted toward the full course of study 
requirement if the class is taken online or through distance 
education and does not require the student's physical attendance for 
classes, examination, or other purposes integral to completion of 
the class. If the F-1 student's course of study is in a language 
training program, no online or distance education classes may be 
considered to count toward the student's full course of study 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters suggested DHS should allow additional 
reduced course load authorizations beyond what is currently allowed.
    Response: Changing regulations to allow nonimmigrant students to 
engage in less than a full course of study \8\ with more frequency than 
is currently allowed under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(iii) is a significant 
regulatory change that would require public review and comment and is 
outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this 
suggestion at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A full course of study is described in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS should allow DSOs to make 
exceptions for nonimmigrant students who have not applied for an 
extension of their program of study.
    Response: Allowing DSOs to grant exceptions to nonimmigrant 
students who did not apply for an extension until after the program end 
date noted on the Form I-20 or successor form is a significant 
regulatory change that would require public review and comment and is 
outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this 
suggestion at this time.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that DHS should clarify the 
meaning of ``initial'' in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(iii)(A), which states, 
``The DSO may authorize a reduced course load on account of a student's 
initial difficulty with the English language or reading requirements, 
unfamiliarity with U.S. teaching methods, or improper course level 
placement,'' noting ``it would be helpful to clarify which reasons can 
(or cannot) be used.'' In addition, commenters suggested expanding when 
the list of reasons may be used to include times beyond the initial 
period.
    Response: DHS interprets the term ``initial'' as it is used in 8 
CFR 214.2(f)(6)(iii)(A) to refer to a new student at the beginning of 
their studies in the United States. Expanding when the reasons to drop 
below a full course of study for academic reasons may be used is a 
significant regulatory change that would require public review and 
comment and is outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot 
adopt this suggestion at this time.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS allow practical training 
to be authorized once per educational level instead of only allowing an 
additional 12 months of practical training when a student changes to a 
higher educational level.
    Response: DHS appreciates that practical training is useful to 
students. However, changing practical training requirements is a 
significant regulatory change that would require public review and 
comment and is outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot 
adopt this suggestion at this time.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS should allow for 
``continued authorization of a medical reduced course load beyond 12 
months for chronic and/or serious conditions.'' The commenter stated 
that the current policy is discriminatory to students with 
disabilities.
    Response: DHS appreciates that nonimmigrant students with health 
challenges may require additional time to complete a course of study 
and is considering how to better address this reality. However, 
changing the requirements for how long a DSO may authorize a reduced 
course load (or, if necessary, no course load) due to a chronic or 
serious illness or a disability is a significant regulatory change that 
would require public review and comment and is outside the scope of 
this rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this suggestion at this time.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS remove the requirement 
that an optional practical training application must be filed with 
USCIS within a certain number of days from the date when the DSO 
recommends it in SEVIS.
    Response: Changing practical training requirements is a significant 
regulatory change that would require public review and comment and is 
outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this 
suggestion at this time.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that DHS eliminate the 
requirement for a travel endorsement signature on the Form I-20 for 
students returning to the United States from a temporary absence of 
five months or less.
    Response: Eliminating the requirement for returning students to 
present a properly endorsed Form I-20

[[Page 22907]]

(or successor form) is a significant regulatory change that would 
require public review and comment and is outside the scope of this 
rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this suggestion at this time.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS clarify what the term 
``continues'' means in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii) and that DHS clarify that 
the transfer from one educational level to another can be downward as 
well as upward.
    Response: DHS interprets the term ``continues'' as it is used in 8 
CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii) to mean that a student is maintaining status when 
they continue to be enrolled, even when transferring from one 
educational level to another. The term as used here underscores the 
importance of continued enrollment to maintain status. Adding a 
description of what ``continues'' means within the context of 8 CFR 
214.2(f)(5)(ii) is a significant regulatory change that would require 
public review and comment and is outside the scope of this rule; 
therefore, DHS cannot adopt this suggestion at this time.

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    DHS developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes 
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. The below sections 
summarize the analyses based on a number of these statutes or Executive 
orders.

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) as amended 
by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is deemed to be 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.
    This final rule has not been designated a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by 
Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, this final rule has not been 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This final rule removes unnecessary procedures and requirements in 
8 CFR 214.1, 214.2, 214.3, 214.4, 214.12, and 214.13 that govern F, J, 
and M nonimmigrants. These changes are necessary to improve clarity and 
remove obsolete or unnecessary information that no longer applies since 
the implementation of SEVIS. This final rule introduces no substantive 
changes; does not raise existing costs; and places no additional burden 
on F, J, and M nonimmigrants or their sponsoring academic institutions 
and programs.
Summary of the Analysis
    DHS estimates that this final rule will have no costs and will 
result in quantifiable cost savings and additional unquantifiable 
benefits. As shown in Table 1, DHS estimates this final rule will have 
a 10-year annualized monetized cost savings of $27,568 in 2022 dollars 
(for both 3 and 7 percent discount rates) and unquantified benefits 
with regard to convenience, time savings, and improvements to the 
environment from reduced paper use. Table 1 summarizes the findings of 
this regulatory impact analysis (RIA).

             Table 1--OMB Circular A-4 Accounting Statement
                       [In millions 2022 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                    Impact               Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Benefits
 ($ Mil):
    (3%).....................  $0.03................  RIA.
    (7%).....................  $0.03................  RIA.
Annualized Quantified, but
 Unmonetized, Benefits.
Unquantified Benefits........  Convenience and time   RIA.
                                savings in signature
                                collection.
                               Reduced paper use....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Costs ($
 Mil):
    (3%).....................  No Cost..............  RIA.
    (7%).....................  No Cost..............  RIA.
Annualized Quantified, but     No Cost..............  RIA.
 Unmonetized, Costs.
Qualitative (Un-quantified)    No Cost..............  RIA.
 Costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized
 Transfers.
From Whom to Whom............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Other Analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on State, Local, and/  No Impact............  FR.
 or Tribal Governments.
Effects on Small Business....  No Impact............  FR.
Effects on Wages.............
Effects on Growth............
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 22908]]

Baseline
    This section details the regulatory baseline for this final rule. 
Table 2 below provides a summary of the anticipated changes to baseline 
conditions.

                                           Table 2--Baseline Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Cost impact to   Benefit impact to
            Provision                Description of    Affected population       affected           affected
                                         change                                 population         population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Signatures for Form I-17  Removing original  SEVP-certified        None.............  Cost savings for
                                    signature          schools.                                 schools in
                                    requirement to                                              reducing the
                                    allow for                                                   time needed for
                                    greater freedom                                             school officials
                                    in adopting                                                 to physically
                                    electronic                                                  sign forms for
                                    signature and                                               electronic
                                    transmission of                                             filing.
                                    documents.
All Other Technical Revisions....  Changing the       School officials,     None.............  The benefit of
                                    wording in the     students, and                            the rule's
                                    rule to promote    others who need to                       greater clarity,
                                    clarity and        understand and                           accuracy, and
                                    consistency,       follow the                               currency and the
                                    remove obsolete    requirements of the                      promotion of an
                                    language, and      rule, including                          overall better
                                    codify             legal practitioners                      understanding of
                                    procedures and     and school                               the rule.
                                    practices.         administrators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The baseline is the state of the world prior to the Coronavirus 
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in which all signatures on Form I-17 
documents were required to be original, rather than electronic. It also 
includes all of the previous wording in SEVP regulations that would 
remain unchanged if this final rule does not take effect.
Background and Purpose
    SEVP certifies qualifying schools and grants them access to SEVIS. 
DSOs at these SEVP-certified schools are their primary respondents in 
terms of reporting data. DSOs collect and enter the required 
information in SEVIS. That data is used to populate a school's Form I-
17 and a student's Form I-20. DSOs carry nearly all of their school's 
reporting burden.
    This final rule removes obsolete procedures and requirements and 
clarifies regulatory language associated with SEVP. The only 
quantifiable economic impact is from DHS allowing electronic signatures 
to replace original signatures on Form I-17 documents, which DSOs must 
prepare and send electronically to ICE. This change has been in place 
since 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 allowances that DHS 
implemented. However, prior to those allowances, DSOs were required to 
prepare their own paper copies of the Form I-17 documents, with the 
original signatures of each DSO who was required to sign the form, as 
well as that of the president, owner, or head of the school. 
Furthermore, many of those original signatures on any given Form I-17 
document had to be made on the same piece of paper (on any pages in the 
document having space for more than one signature), thus requiring that 
piece of paper to be physically delivered to each individual who needed 
to sign their name on the same page. These individuals may be located 
in different buildings on the same campus, or even on different 
campuses for schools with more than one campus location. Consequently, 
the signing of the Form I-17 often required the transport of the same 
paper document among individuals in different locations and required 
coordination among them and other school officials to complete the 
process.
    To prevent circulation of paper documents during the pandemic, DHS 
allowed DSOs to use electronic signature software to sign the Form I-
17, rather than requiring original signatures among the various school 
officials. DSOs can also generate completed Form I-17 documents 
electronically, without needing to scan the signed paper documents 
before sending them electronically to ICE. In this final rule, DHS is 
allowing these cost savings and conveniences to continue permanently 
after the pandemic is sufficiently mitigated and the COVID-19-related 
allowances are no longer in effect.
    The other changes proposed in this final rule are changes in 
wording that have largely become obsolete and irrelevant, such as 
references to ``INS'' or references to procedures that are no longer 
implemented. These revisions will improve the clarity, accuracy, and 
currency of the regulations for school officials, students and others 
who need to read and understand them.
Analytical Considerations
    DHS divided the analysis into two general categories: (1) the 
effects of DHS allowing Form I-17 documents to be signed and 
transmitted electronically after the COVID-19-related allowances no 
longer apply; and (2) the effects of revisions in language, references, 
and stated procedures to improve the accuracy and clarity of SEVP-
related regulations and to codify practices that have already been 
adopted. Of these two areas of the analysis, DHS determined that only 
the first (involving electronic signing and transmission of the Form I-
17) is amenable to quantitative analysis and to the estimation of 
benefits and costs. DHS determined that the second area (textual 
changes to improve the accuracy, clarity, and understanding of the 
regulations) is not amenable to quantitative measures. DHS made this 
determination based on the many ambiguities that would exist in any 
efforts to define and measure such concepts as ``clarity,'' or to 
define and measure the extent to which individuals

[[Page 22909]]

would benefit from such improvements in clarity (such as in time 
savings or levels of comprehension). Nevertheless, DHS determined that 
qualitative descriptions of this second area would be sufficient to 
justify the changes.
    DHS identified one effect of this final rule, with regard to 
electronic signatures for the Form I-17, that could provide an 
additional benefit. As stated, one of the advantages of electronic 
signatures is that paper documents no longer need to be physically 
transported to each person who signs the form. DHS allowance of 
electronic signatures avoids resources being spent by the school to 
transport these documents from one place to another for the required 
school officials to sign them. It also avoids resources being spent to 
place the documents in envelopes and address them and then for other 
individuals to open the envelopes and sign the documents.
    However, DHS is unable to quantify this potential cost savings. DHS 
does not have data on how many people on average need to sign the form 
and how far away they are from each other (such as whether they have 
offices adjacent to each other or they are at campuses in different 
cities). Adding to the uncertainty would be whether the transport of 
these documents occurred along with other documents between the 
offices, so that no separate delivery was required to transport them 
individually. The burden of these original signatures would depend on 
whether school employees needed to take extra time to transport the 
documents separately from other documents delivered via intra-campus 
mail. DHS also does not have data on the time needed to produce 
electronic signatures, which would then need to be subtracted from the 
time needed to sign the paper documents for DHS to estimate the cost 
savings of electronic signatures. For example, if the mechanisms for 
officials to electronically sign documents are easily accomplished on 
their computers, it might not take very long to sign. However, if 
officials must follow complicated procedures on their computer to 
provide those electronic signatures, then it might take more time to 
sign.
Time Horizon for the Analysis
    DHS estimates the economic effects of this final rule will be 
sustained indefinitely. ICE used a 10-year timeframe (from 2023 through 
2032) to outline, quantify, and monetize the costs and benefits of this 
final rule, and to demonstrate its net effects.
Affected Population
    This final rule affects two types of entities: (1) SEVP-certified 
schools (and the DSOs who work for those SEVP-certified schools), and 
(2) any individuals and organizations that might benefit from 
improvements in the way the regulations are written, including offices 
within DHS that interact with the affected SEVP-certified schools, and 
various U.S.-based and international organizations that may assist or 
represent F and M nonimmigrant students. In 2022, SEVP-certified 
schools submitted in SEVIS a total of 8,535 distinct Form I-17 
documents to ICE.
Costs of the Rule
    DHS determined that there are no costs associated with this final 
rule. When considering the cost of this final rule, DHS determined that 
there are no costs for SEVP-certified schools to develop information-
technology capabilities to electronically sign and transmit documents. 
DHS assumes that SEVP-certified schools already have the necessary 
information technology capabilities in place to electronically sign and 
transmit the Form I-17 documents.
Cost Savings
    DHS estimated the cost savings to SEVP-certified schools if paper 
copies and original signatures are no longer needed for the Form I-17 
documents in accordance with this final rule. Table 3 displays these 
cost savings, estimated at $27,568 per year, in 2022 dollars. This cost 
savings estimate is based on 8,535 Form I-17 documents submitted to ICE 
in 2022. Without this final rule in place, DSOs would have to provide 
their original signatures on the Form I-17, as they did before the 
COVID-19 pandemic. DSOs would then need to scan these documents and 
send an electronic copy of them to ICE. DHS estimated that each 
document would require approximately 3 minutes of labor to be scanned. 
As shown in Table 3, this results in total labor costs of $19,033. DHS 
estimated the average number of pages per Form I-17 document to be 10 
pages, which, at an estimated cost of $0.10 per page for paper and 
printing, contributes to an additional cost savings of $8,535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Total DSO compensation of $44.68 is based on the mean hourly 
national wage estimates for Educational, Guidance, and Career 
Counselors and Advisors multiplied by the benefits-to-wage 
multiplier for civilian workers, calculated as $30.87 * 1.45. The 
benefits-to-wage multiplier represents the employee wages and 
benefits costs paid by employers, as calculated by BLS for civilian 
workers, and is calculated as follows: ($43.93 Total Employee 
Compensation per hour)/($30.35 Wages and Salaries per hour) = 
1.44744 = 1.45 (rounded). See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics: 21-1012 Educational, 
Guidance, and Career Counselors and Advisors, May 2022, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2022/may/oes211012.htm; and U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Economic News Release, Employer Cost for Employee 
Compensation (September 2023), Table 1, Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation by ownership (dated December 15, 2023), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12152023.htm. Last accessed 
January 30, 2024.

 Table 3--Cost Savings From Original Signatures Not Required for Form I-
                                   17
                            [In 2022 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Factor in the analysis              Measures      Costs savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Number of Forms I-17 Scanned in 2022.           8,535  ..............
B. Number of Minutes to Scan Each                      3  ..............
 Document...............................
C. Hourly Labor Rate for DSO \9\........          $44.68  ..............
D. Estimated Labor Cost Per Document               $2.23  ..............
 Scanned [(B/60) x C]...................
                                         -------------------------------
E. Total Labor Costs (A x D)............  ..............         $19,033
F. Estimated Pages Per Scan.............              10  ..............
G. Estimated Cost Per Page (for Paper              $0.10  ..............
 and Printing)..........................
H. Estimated Paper Costs Per Mailing (H            $1.00  ..............
 x I)...................................
                                         -------------------------------
I. Total Paper Costs (A x H)............  ..............           8,535
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Cost Savings for Not Preparing  ..............          27,568
     and Scanning the Forms I-17 (E+I)..
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 22910]]

    Table 4 summarizes the impact of this final rule over the 10-year 
period, starting in 2023. The 10-year discounted cost-savings of this 
final rule in 2022 dollars would range from $193,626 to $235,161 (with 
7 percent and 3 percent discount rates, respectively).

                                      Table 4--Total Estimated Cost Savings
                                                [In 2022 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Year                             Undiscounted      Discounted at 3%    Discounted at 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................             $27,568             $26,765             $25,765
2...................................................              27,568              25,986              24,079
3...................................................              27,568              25,229              22,504
4...................................................              27,568              24,494              21,032
5...................................................              27,568              23,780              19,656
6...................................................              27,568              23,088              18,370
7...................................................              27,568              22,415              17,168
8...................................................              27,568              21,762              16,045
9...................................................              27,568              21,129              14,995
10..................................................              27,568              20,513              14,014
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................................             275,681             235,161             193,626
Annualized..........................................  ..................              27,568              27,568
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualitative Cost Savings
    As previously described, the qualitative benefits of this final 
rule include benefits to those who may need to understand and follow 
the regulations, including school officials and organizations that 
assist or represent F and M students. Specifically, the technical 
revisions increase clarity, accuracy, and currency, and promote a 
better understanding of the regulation.
Analysis of Alternatives
    Because this final rule does not pose any costs to the public or to 
the government, DHS is not able to find any alternative that could have 
any lower costs. In principle, even when the costs of a new rule are 
zero, an alternative rule could still be preferable if that rule could 
offer higher benefits, and thus higher net benefits. However, this too 
would not be possible in this case, because the benefits of any 
comparable rule could only be in the same form as the benefits of this 
final rule--those benefits being cost savings (for SEVP-certified 
schools). For any alternative to offer greater benefits, it would need 
to reduce the costs that SEVP-certified schools incur in processing and 
delivering Form I-17 documents. Because this final rule already allows 
for electronic signatures and submission of the forms by email, there 
are no less-expensive alternatives to preparing and distributing the 
forms.
    DHS considered the no-action alternative for this final rule. Table 
5 summarizes the effects of this alternative. The no-action alternative 
would result in continued costs to SEVP-certified schools for original 
signatures and would maintain obsolete language. As a result, DHS 
rejected this alternative.

                                        Table 5--Summary of Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                               Benefits                                Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take No-Action.....................  None.................................  1. Annual costs to SEVP-certified
                                                                             schools of $27,568 due to the
                                                                             preparation and scanning of Form I-
                                                                             17 documents (reverting to the pre-
                                                                             COVID signature requirement).
                                                                            2. Cost associated with the greater
                                                                             difficulty imposed on school
                                                                             officials, students, and others who
                                                                             need to understand and follow
                                                                             requirements governing F and M
                                                                             nonimmigrant students due to the
                                                                             obsolescence of certain language in
                                                                             the current regulatory text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of 
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. However, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice-
and-comment rulemaking; therefore, since this action is exempt under 
the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not subject to the regulatory 
flexibility analysis requirements. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This is not a major rule, as defined by section 804 of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This final rule will not 
result in an annual effect on the United States 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 United States-based companies to compete 
with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 
of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this final rule does 
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement.

[[Page 22911]]

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, 
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100 million (in 1995 dollars) or more in any one year, and it will not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no 
actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

F. Congressional Review Act

    This final rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, 
also known as the ``Congressional Review Act,'' as enacted in section 
251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 868 et seq. This final rule will 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 enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises in domestic and export markets. See 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 
rule will be submitted to Congress and GAO consistent with the 
Congressional Review Act's requirements no later than its effective 
date.

G. Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
departments are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any 
reporting requirements inherent in a rule. This final rule does not 
impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.

I. National Environmental Policy Act

    DHS Management Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 and Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01 Rev. 01 establishes the policy and procedures that DHS and 
its Components use to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375, and the Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 
through 1508.
    The CEQ regulations enable 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 DHS Categorical Exclusions are listed in IM 023-01-001-01 
Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1.
    For an action to be categorically excluded, the action must 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; and
    3. No extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential 
for a significant environmental effect. IM 023-01-001-01 Rev. 01 
section V(B)(2)(a)-(c).
    If the action does not clearly meet all three conditions, DHS or 
the Component prepares an Environmental Assessment or Environmental 
Impact Statement, according to CEQ requirements, MD 023-01, and IM 023-
01-001-01 Rev. 01.
    DHS has analyzed this action under MD 023-01 Rev. 01 and IM 023-01-
001-01 Rev.01. DHS has made a determination that this rulemaking action 
is one of a category of actions that do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This 
action clearly fits within the Categorical Exclusion found in IM 023-
01-001-01 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1, number A3(d): ``Promulgation of 
rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the development and 
publication of policies, orders, directives, notices, procedures, 
manuals, advisory circulars, and other guidance documents of the 
following nature: (d) Those that interpret or amend an existing 
regulation without changing its environmental effect.'' This final rule 
is not part of a larger action and presents no extraordinary 
circumstances creating the potential for significant environmental 
effects. Therefore, a more detailed NEPA review is not necessary. DHS 
seeks any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of any 
significant environmental effects from this final rule.

J. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    DHS reviewed this final rule and has determined that under 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or 
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    DHS reviewed this final rule and has determined that it will not 
cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking 
implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

L. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    DHS reviewed this final rule and has determined that it does not 
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 
disproportionately affect children.

M. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    DHS reviewed this final rule and determined that it does not use 
technical standards.

N. Family Assessment

    DHS has determined that this action would not affect family well-
being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 
(Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 214

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange 
program, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Students.

Amendments to the Regulations

    DHS amends part 214 of chapter I, of title 8 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 214--NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 214 continues 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, 1357, and 1372; sec. 
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;

[[Page 22912]]

Pub. L. 115-218, 132 Stat. 1547 (48 U.S.C. 1806).


0
2. Amend Sec.  214.2 as follows:
0
a. In Table 2 to Paragraph (f)--Paragraph Contents, item (2), remove 
``I-20 ID'' and add in its place ``Form I-20 or successor form''.
0
b. Paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(B) is revised.
0
c. Paragraph (f)(8)(iii) is removed and reserved.
0
d. Paragraph (f)(9)(ii)(F)(2) is removed and reserved.
0
e. In paragraph (m)(l)(i)(B), remove ``SEVIS Form I-20'' and add in its 
place ``Form 1-20''.
0
f. The introductory text of paragraph (m)(9)(vi) is revised.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  214.2  Special requirements for admission, extension, and 
maintenance of status.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Medical conditions. The DSO may authorize a reduced course load 
(or, if necessary, no course load) due to a student's temporary illness 
or medical condition for a period of time not to exceed an aggregate of 
12 months while the student is pursuing a course of study at a 
particular program level. In order to authorize a reduced course load 
based upon a medical condition, the student must provide medical 
documentation from a licensed medical doctor, a licensed doctor of 
osteopathy, a licensed psychologist, or a licensed clinical 
psychologist to the DSO to substantiate the illness or medical 
condition. The student must provide current medical documentation and 
the DSO must reauthorize the drop below full course of study each new 
term, session, or semester. A student previously authorized to drop 
below a full course of study due to illness or medical condition for an 
aggregate of 12 months may not be authorized by a DSO to reduce their 
course load on subsequent occasions while pursuing a course of study at 
the same program level. A student may be authorized to reduce course 
load for a reason of illness or medical condition on more than one 
occasion while pursuing a course of study, so long as the aggregate 
period of that authorization does not exceed 12 months.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (vi) Reduced course load. The designated school official may 
authorize an M-1 student to engage in less than a full course of study 
only where the student has been compelled by illness or a medical 
condition that has been documented by a licensed medical doctor, a 
licensed doctor of osteopathy, a licensed psychologist, or a licensed 
clinical psychologist to interrupt or reduce their course of study. A 
DSO may not authorize a reduced course load for more than an aggregate 
of 5 months per course of study. An M-1 student previously authorized 
to drop below a full course of study due to illness or medical 
condition for an aggregate of 5 months, may not be authorized by the 
DSO to reduce their course load on subsequent occasions during their 
particular course of study.

Alejandro N. Mayorkas,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2024-06657 Filed 4-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-CB-P