Final Rule (Published)

55683

Rules and Regulations

Federal Register
Vol. 73, No. 188
Friday, September 26, 2008

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. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
8 CFR Parts 103 and 214
[DHS Docket No. ICEB–2008–0004]
RIN 1653–AA54

Adjusting Program Fees and
Establishing Procedures for Out-ofCycle Review and Recertification of
Schools Certified by the Student and
Exchange Visitor Program To Enroll F
and/or M Nonimmigrant Students
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

AGENCY:

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: $1,700 for a school
certification petition and $655 for each
site visit for certification; and $200 for
each F or M student. This rule also sets
a $180 fee for most J exchange visitors;
however, the $35 fee for each J 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 October 27, 2008.
The rule also establishes procedures
for the oversight and recertification of
schools attended by F and/or M
students, establishes procedures for
schools to submit recertification
petitions, adds a provision allowing a
school to voluntarily withdraw from its
certification, and clarifies procedures
for school operation with regard to F

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

and M students during recertification
and following a denial of recertification
or a withdrawal of certification. Finally,
the rule removes obsolete provisions
used prior to implementation of the
Student and Exchange Visitor
Information System (SEVIS).
DATES: This final rule is effective
October 27, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Louis Farrell, Director, Student and
Exchange Visitor Program; U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Department of Homeland Security;
Chester Arthur Building, 425 I St., NW.,
Suite 6034, Washington, DC 20536;
telephone number (202) 305–2346.
Program information can be found at
http://www.ice.gov/sevis.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
A. General Comments
1. Support for the Rule
2. Opposition to the Rule
3. Technical Corrections to the Proposed
Rule
B. Adjustment of SEVP Fees
1. Frequency of fee review and scale of fee
increase
2. Economies in efficiency
3. Fee increase for F, M and J
nonimmigrants
C. Enhancements
1. Issues/Concerns before SEVIS II
2. SEVIS II
3. Improved SEVIS and SEVIS II
Capabilities
4. SEVIS II and Biometrics
5. Additional CEU personnel
6. School liaison activity
D. Full Cost Information
1. Further reduced fee of $35 for au pairs,
camp counselors, and summer work
travel
2. Impacts on applicant groups
3. Certification fee
4. Site-visit fee
5. Inclusion of enforcement costs
E. Certification, Out-of-Cycle Review, and
Recertification Requirements
1. Form I–17
2. Notices and communications
3. Recordkeeping, retention, and reporting
requirements—Student Record
Requirements
4. SEVIS data integrity
5. Certification
6. Recertification
7. Out-of-cycle review
8. Designated school officials
9. Denial or withdrawal of SEVP
certification or recertification procedures
10. Regulatory Flexibility Act
III. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Review
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
G. Paperwork Reduction Act

List of Subjects
PART 103—POWERS AND DUTIES;
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS PART
214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES
Table of Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADIS Arrival and Departure Information
System
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CCD Consular Consolidated Database
CEU Compliance Enforcement Unit
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLAIMS Computer Linked Application
Information Management System
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DMV Department of motor vehicles
DoS Department of State
DSO Designated school official
EBSVERA Enhanced Border Security and
Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Public Law
107–173; May 14, 2002
FASAB Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board
FDMS Federal Docket Management System
FIN Functional identification number
FR Federal Register
FTTTF Foreign Terrorist Task Tracking
Force
HSPD–2 Homeland Security Presidential
Directive—2
IBIS Interagency Border Inspection System
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
IEFA Immigration Examinations Fee
Account
IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
INA Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
NAFSA Association of International
Educators
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NIV Nonimmigrant Visa
NOIW Notice of Intent to Withdraw
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NSEERS National Security Entry Exit
Registration System
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPT Optional practical training
PDSO Principal designated school official
PIA Privacy Information Assessment
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RO Responsible officer
RTI Real-time interface

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

55684

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

SAVE Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements
SBA Small Business Administration
SCB School Certification Branch
SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor
Information System
SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor
Program
SFFAS FASAB Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standard No. 4:
Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and
Standards for the Federal Government
UAM User Application Model
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
USA PATRIOT Act Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
US–VISIT United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
VIS Verification Information System

I. Background
On April 21, 2008, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), through U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), Student and Exchange Visitor
Program (SEVP), published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend
the fees charged by SEVP and to
establish a school certification program.
73 FR 21260. This final rule implements
those changes and other legal
requirements by amending DHS
regulations governing certification,
oversight and recertification of schools
by SEVP for attendance by F and/or M
students. The rule establishes
procedures for schools to submit
recertification petitions, adds a
provision allowing a school to
voluntarily withdraw from its existing
certification, clarifies procedures for
school operations with regard to F and
M visa students during recertification
and following a withdrawal of
certification, and removes obsolete
provisions used prior to implementation
of the Student and Exchange Visitor
Information System (SEVIS). SEVP
administers SEVIS as a Web-enabled
database that provides current
information on F, M and J
nonimmigrants in the United States.
The rule also adjusts the SEVP school
certification fee and student application
fees (Form I–901 SEVIS fee) to reflect
existing program operating costs,
program requirements, and planned
program enhancements. These fee
adjustments are driven by two factors:
(1) The need to comply with statutory
and regulatory requirements that SEVP
review its fee structure every two years
to ensure that the cost of the services
that are provided are fully captured by
fees assessed on those receiving the
services; and (2) the need to enhance

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

SEVP capability to meet current
program requirements and to achieve its
mission goals in support of homeland
security and countering immigration
fraud.
Once promulgated, the rule will allow
SEVP to fully fund activities and
institute critical near-term program and
system enhancements in a manner that
fairly allocates cost among the F, M and
J visa categories, and acknowledges
defined performance goals. These
enhancements include implementation
of the next generation SEVIS (i.e., SEVIS
II), increased enforcement capability,
expansion of school liaison activity, and
establishment of a school recertification
process.
SEVP makes these changes under a
series of statutory authorities, including,
but not limited to the following
immigration and homeland security
laws: sections 101(a)(15)(F)(i),
101(a)(15)(M)(i) and 101(a)(15)(J) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
(INA), as amended; section 641 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(IIRIRA), Public Law 104–208, Div. C,
110 Stat. 3009–546 (September 30,
1996); the Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public
Law 107–56, 115 Stat. 272 (October 26,
2001; USA PATRIOT Act); and the
Enhanced Border Security and Visa
Entry Reform Act of 2002 (EBSVERA),
Public Law 107–173, 116 Stat. 543 (May
14, 2002), codified at 8 U.S.C. 1762.
These laws govern the admission of
foreign nationals into the United States
in nonimmigrant status to attend
academic, language and vocational
schools, and to participate in foreign
exchange visitor programs. They require
that DHS collect certain information
about F and M students and J exchange
visitors at ports of entry. They also
establish certification and recertification
requirements for schools seeking
approval for school attendance by F
and/or M students.
DHS’s authority to assess fees arises
under IIRIRA sections 641(e)(1),
641(e)(4)(A) and 641(g)(2), as amended.
In addition, section 286(m) of the INA
permits the Secretary of Homeland
Security to collect fees at a level that
ensures recovery of the full costs of
providing adjudication services,
including the costs of providing similar
services without charge to asylum
applicants and certain other immigrants.
All fees collected by ICE pursuant to
this final rule are deposited as offsetting
receipts into the Immigration
Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) and
remain available to the Secretary until

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

expended for the purposes of the
program. IIRIRA section 641(e)(4)(B).
The fee assessments and collections
implemented under this final rule are
consistent with Office of Management
and Budget (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. The fees
implemented under this final rule also
are consistent with OMB Circular A–11,
Preparation, Submission and Execution
of the Budget, section 31.12 (July 2,
2007), which directs agencies to develop
user charge estimates based on the full
cost recovery policy set forth in OMB
Circular A–25.
Further, this rule complies with 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),
which provides federal government
standards regarding managerial cost
accounting and full cost recovery. The
Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
(CFO Act), 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 is consistent with these federal
sector financial and accounting laws,
rules and standards, and reflects fee
collection recommendations made by
the CFO. As such, the rule increases
funding that supports current SEVP
operations; provides funding for new
initiatives critical to improving the
program; funds operations to comply
with statutory requirements to
implement school recertification; and
reflects the implementation of specific
cost allocation methods to segment
program costs to the appropriate fee,
either F and M students, J exchange
visitors, or schools, to ensure
compliance with the federal sector legal
framework for fee setting.
This final rule amends the 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 also
implements mandatory review of fees
collected by SEVP. It sets the fee for
submitting a school certification
petition at $1,700 and the fee for each

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

site visit at $655. It sets the fee for each
F or M student at $200. The rule sets the
fee for certain J exchange visitors at
$180 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
October 27, 2008.
The rule also establishes procedures
for oversight and recertification of
schools with F and/or M students. This
includes procedures for schools to
submit recertification petitions as well
as procedures to allow a school to
voluntarily withdraw from an existing
certification. The rule further clarifies
procedures for school operation with
regard to F and M students during
recertification and following a denial of
recertification or a withdrawal of
certification. Finally, the rule removes
obsolete provisions used prior to
implementation of SEVIS.
II. Public Comments on the Proposed
Rule
The 60-day comment period for this
rulemaking action concluded on June
20, 2008; although SEVP allowed
posting of late-filed comments through
June 27, 2008. The proposed rule
identified several alternative means for
submitting comments. SEVP converted
all comments submitted, regardless of
means chosen for submission, to
electronic format where they may be
viewed electronically through the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov
(use DHS docket number ICEB–2008–
0004 when searching). SEVP received
61 written comments to FDMS.
In addition, in the weeks following
the publication of the proposed rule, the
SEVP Director and key staff, led in
several instances by the Assistant
Secretary for U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, launched a
nationwide tour of educational
institutions to engage the public in a
‘‘town hall’’ format to encourage open
dialogue, public comments and
understanding about the proposed rule.
SEVP opened the forums to the public
at large, and specifically invited officials
from every SEVP-certified school and
exchange visitor program sponsors from
a listing provided to SEVP by the
Department of State (DoS). SEVP posted
the transcripts of those forums on the
public docket for this rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov.
SEVP further extended outreach to the
public through the home page of the
SEVP Web site, http://www.ice.gov/
sevis. The site included related press

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

releases, ‘‘frequently asked questions’’
(FAQs), links to documents and access
to FDMS for comment submission.
Although not an official method of
comment submission, SEVP received
some rule-related input through its
policy guidance ‘‘help’’ e-mail address,
[email protected]. In these
instances, SEVP asked submitters to
comply with docket submission criteria,
but also added all substantive issues
related to the proposed rule raised in
those e-mails to the FDMS docket.
This final rule considered all
comments received during the comment
period and has responded to those
comments in this final rule. Below is a
summary of changes to the final rule
text made in response to public
comment:
1. The proposed text for 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1) related to the Form I–290B
has been removed.
2. The proposed text for 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1) related to the Form I–901 has
been amended slightly to clarify fees for
J visa holders by listing the J-visa
categories first and then the fees, and by
specifically listing the government
sponsored program visa categories
exempt from these fees.
3. The proposed text for 8 CFR
214.3(g)(1) Student Records is amended
by adding after the first sentence the
following text: ‘‘Student information not
required for entry in SEVIS may be kept
in the school’s student system of
records, but must be accessible to
DSOs.’’
4. The proposed text for 8 CFR
214.3(g)(1)(ii) is amended by adding a
parenthetical clarification regarding the
recordation of legal name changes as
follows: ‘‘Identification of the student,
to include name while in attendance
(record any legal name change), date
and place of birth, country of
citizenship, school’s student
identification number.’’
5. The proposed text for 8 CFR
214.3(g)(1)(xi), requiring schools to
maintain record of nonimmigrant
students’ ‘‘date of last entry into the
United States; most recent Form I–94
number and date of issue,’’ has been
deleted.
6. The proposed text for 8 CFR
214.3(g)(2)(iii)(D) Adjustment to the
program completion date is amended by
adding examples in parenthesis to read:
‘‘Any factors that influence the student’s
progress toward program completion
(e.g., deferred attendance, authorized
drop below, program extension) must be
reflected by making an adjustment
updating the program completion date.’’
7. The proposed text for 8 CFR
214.3(h)(2) Recertification is amended
by adding after the first sentence,

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

55685

‘‘There is no recertification petition
fee.’’
8. The proposed text for 8 CFR
214.4(a)(1) is amended to add the
sentence, ‘‘No fee is required with
appeals related to SEVP certification.’’
9. The proposed text for 8 CFR
214.4(a)(2)(xix) is amended to include
only those changes that represent a
‘‘material change to the scope of the
institution offerings’’ as follows:
‘‘Failure of a DSO to notify SEVP of
material changes, such as changes to the
school’s name, address, or curricular
changes that represent material change
to the scope of institution offerings (e.g.,
addition of a program, class or course
for which the school is issuing Forms I–
20, but which does not have Form I–17
approval), as required by 8 CFR
214.3(f)(1).’’
10. The proposed text of 8 CFR
214.4(h) is amended by adding the last
sentence, ‘‘No fee is required with
appeals related to denial of SEVP
recertification or withdrawal of SEVP
certification.’’
11. The proposed text of 8 CFR 214.13
is expanded to include paragraph (b)(1).
This allows a slight technical
correction—the addition of the G–7
category.
A. General Comments
Comments submitted to the docket for
this rulemaking were distributed
relatively evenly among various issues,
with concerns about the potential
impact of the increased I–901 SEVIS fee
on student and exchange visitor
participation in F, M and J programs
and questions about adjustments to
student reporting requirements
receiving the greatest number of
comments.
1. Support for the Rule
Some comments affirmed the purpose
and scope of the rule, acknowledging
the need to remove DHS authorization
to enroll F and/or M students from
noncompliant schools, and supporting
increased interaction and
communication among federal agencies
through the development of SEVIS II
and expanded SEVP liaison activity.
One commenter, in particular,
applauded U.S. government policy
related to assessing fees for the cost of
government programs and opined that
all costs associated with international
students’ presence in the United States
should be paid by students rather than
by U.S. taxpayers. SEVP agrees with and
appreciates these expressions of support
for the program and, in this final rule,
seeks to fulfill its legal requirements to
fully capture the costs associated with
carrying out government responsibilities

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

55686

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

under the SEVP program through
appropriate fee assessments.
2. Opposition to the Rule
A number of comments were not
relevant to the substance of the
proposed rule; in particular those
questioning the government’s basis for
establishing and continuing SEVP
overall and criticizing the rule for not
addressing or solving immigration
issues in general. One comment, in
particular, questions the logic of
focusing U.S. government attention and
public resources on foreign students and
researchers as opposed to other
immigrant and nonimmigrant groups.
Other comments noted recent
increases in fees for nonimmigrants by
the Department of State (DoS) for visa
processing and by U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) for
benefit applications, and asked if the
fees could be better coordinated and
phased-in. These comments suggested
changes in substantive federal laws,
USCIS regulations and processes for
implementing the immigration laws by
USCIS, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and other agencies.
Several comments criticized the
Department’s law enforcement programs
for lack of collection of adequate law
enforcement data related to criminal
behavior. One comment, in particular,
asked that SEVP further illuminate the
scale of the problems that this
regulation purports to address and
provide additional information as to
how many uninvestigated leads related
to nonimmigrant student and exchange
visitor activities resulted in criminal
conduct, how many institutions are
complying with SEVP requirements,
and what percentage of foreign students
are represented by these institutions.
Finally, an advocacy group, endorsed
by four commenters, questioned the
efficacy of U.S. international education
policy and its intersection with national
immigration policy; concluding that
SEVIS is an example of government
regulation ‘‘for extraneous purposes,’’
developed in the absence of
comprehensive U.S. international
education policy.
All of these comments are beyond the
scope of this rulemaking. 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.
Several individual commenters
observed that the language in the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

preamble to the proposed rule regarding
terrorist threats to the United States
overstated the actual terrorist threat of a
relatively small segment of the total
population that visits the United States.
They believe that such language has
been a deterrent to foreign
nonimmigrant participation with
schools and exchange visitor programs.
Some commenters, including two
advocacy groups, feel that the
‘‘message’’ that foreign nationals will
perceive from the rule will be that the
United States is ‘‘unwelcoming.’’
SEVP strongly supports international
education. Most non-immigrant
students have positive experiences
while in the United States, and the
goodwill engendered by all that the
United States has to offer will encourage
mutually beneficial international
relations. SEVP, by ensuring students’
legitimacy, both reduces potential
terrorist threats and decreases the risk of
discrimination in the larger community,
contributing to a safe environment for
students and exchange visitors when
they attend programs in the United
States.
As discussed in the proposed rule,
and in sources such as The 9/11
Commission Report, a strong
immigration policy, including the
ability of the U.S. government to know
whether nonimmigrant visitors have
overstayed the term of their admission
to the United States, is critical to
safeguarding the homeland. See 72 FR at
21266. The National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks upon the United States
(the 9/11 Commission), in its seminal
report, noted:
Looking back, we can see that the routine
operations of our immigration laws—that is,
aspects of those laws not specifically aimed
at protecting against terrorism—inevitably
shaped al Qaeda planning and opportunities
* * * had the immigration system set a
higher bar for determining whether
individuals are who or what they claim to
be—and ensur[ed] routine consequences for
violations—it could potentially have
excluded, removed, or come into further
contact with several hijackers who did not
appear to meet the terms for admitting shortterm visitors. 1

SEVP strives to administer SEVIS and
the information collection and reporting
requirements mandated by statute for F
and M students and J exchange visitors
in a manner that best serves the
requirements of the law, supports the
missions of DHS and the Department of
State, and facilitates the ability of
foreign students and exchange visitors
to come to the United States. The fees
1 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon
the United States (2004) (9/11 Commission Report).

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

implemented under this final rule will
support SEVP’s efforts in continuing to
improve all of these purposes.
3. Technical Corrections to the Proposed
Rule
SEVP identified three required
technical corrections to the proposed
rule. SEVP discovered that Table 1:
Summary of Requirements by
Organization and Program Category, in
the section addressing Program
Expenses, the expenses for SEVIS II for
2009 and reflecting the change of
$25,100 are in error (carried over from
a previous calculation). The entry of
$25,100 is corrected to $25,600. The
correct entry was used for determining
the totals of the Program Expenses
section, so the totals remain unchanged.
Also, SEVP discovered that Table 12:
FY 2009 SEVP Program Fees, line 4, in
the proposed rule preamble, contained a
typographical error by stating ‘‘190’’ for
the I–901 SEVIS fee for most J–1
exchange visitors. The proposed rule
included and discussed the correct
‘‘180’’ figure at several points in the
document, including the proposed rule
text, and no commenter expressed
confusion over this proposed dollar
amount.
The proposed text of 8 CFR 214.13
did not include the G–7 visa category,
as required by law. SEVP expanded the
final rule text to include paragraph
(b)(1), which corrects this oversight by
adding the G–7 category. This inclusion
does not substantially change the intent
of the proposed rule but reflects a wellestablished and nondiscretionary legal
requirement.
B. Adjustment of SEVP Fees
1. Frequency of Fee Review and Scale
of Fee Increase
An individual commenter asked how
frequently the SEVP community should
expect future fee adjustments. In the
same vein, an advocacy group
commented that the rule asserts DHS
authority to revisit the fee every two
years, describing this authority and the
possible frequency of fee review as
‘‘drastic and sweeping.’’ Another
comment suggested that a more
business-like approach, sensitive to
consumers, would have been to raise
fees incrementally.
As stated in the NPRM, this is the first
adjustment of fees based upon actual
operational costs to the program
implemented by SEVP since 2002. Due
to the lapse in time and significant
increase in operating costs for the
program, SEVP had to propose, and now
implement, a substantial fee increase to
cover the actual operating costs of the

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
program. ICE is required by law and
Executive Order to review these fees on
a biennial basis. 31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8).
SEVP will continue to review its fees
every two years and make future fee
adjustments, as necessary, at more
regular intervals consistent with the
biennial review and in line with the
commenters’ suggestions.

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

2. Economies in Efficiency
Two individuals commented, without
providing specific examples, that
efficiencies in SEVP and DHS
operations, as well as at DoS, could
eliminate the need for fee increases.
Similarly, one commenter observed that
the Departments have not yet delivered
promised efficiencies and should do so
before raising fees.
SEVP is unable to respond to these
comments because they are vague and
fail to identify a means of achieving the
supposed efficiencies. They also do not
identify the Departments’ alleged
promised efficiencies. SEVP endorses
streamlining and promoting efficiencies
in its operations. This is one reason for
creating the SEVIS II system, which will
provide for more efficient processing
and sharing of student data. SEVP
disagrees that there remain significant
unrecognized efficiencies attainable
under the current program with the
current fee levels. As described in the
proposed rule, these adjusted fees are
based on expanding program operating
needs; including a need for the SEVIS
II system and additional enforcement
and liaison personnel to address the
existing and expanding SEVP caseload.
They are based on legal requirements,
including the recertification program
required by EBSVERA (8 U.S.C. 1762)
and Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-2 (HSPD–2) and are not
susceptible to overall reduction or
elimination by the program through
leveraging additional efficiencies.
3. Fee Increase for F, M, and J
Nonimmigrants
The largest volume of comments on
the proposed rule voiced concern that
the increase in the I–901 SEVIS fee
would adversely affect U.S.
competitiveness in the international
market for foreign student enrollment
and exchange visitor participation.
Some commenters expanded this
concern to emphasize the importance of
foreign student enrollment and
exchange visitor participation to the
U.S. culture and economy. These
comments, including a comment from a
major advocacy group, suggested that
SEVP seek alternative public funding
sources. Some of the comments in this
area asked if SEVP could decrease the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

burden on students by having the
student fee paid incrementally, part
before and part after visa issuance, to
minimize the loss to those that do not
receive visas.
SEVP fully appreciates the
importance of foreign student and
exchange visitor enrollment to the U.S.
culture and economy, and is firmly
committed to lawful visitation of foreign
nationals for this purpose. This is
reflected in recent enrollment data,
which indicate that enrollment of F, M
and J nonimmigrants at higher
education institutions is at a historic
high and does not indicate any
demonstrable variance in overall U.S.
market share in relation to other
countries.2
SEVP also observes that the comments
neither cited to nor provided a
published study or other data
supporting the suggestion that an
increase in government fees charged to
international students adversely affects
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. The
program thus has no objective basis for
concluding that international students
choose or reject attending education
institutions in the United States based
on government fees which, generally,
are a very small portion of the overall
costs of attending these programs.
Rather, SEVP research reveals that the
fees currently required for all incoming
F–1 students equates to similar fees
charged in other countries.3 An analysis
of twelve countries (Australia, Canada,
China, France, Germany, India, Japan,
Russia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia,
South Korea, and the United Kingdom)
shows that the average student visa fee
is $126.58. The composite U.S. cost,
after the effective date of this rule, will
be $330, which includes a visa
processing fee of $130 and the $200 I–
901 SEVIS fee. This fee is neither the
most expensive nor the least expensive
when compared with these twelve
countries. In fact, Australia, cited by
most commenters as the singular
competitor of U.S. market share,
currently charges nonimmigrant
students a total of $450. The table below
lists the fees charged by the twelve
countries researched in the SEVP
analysis.

2 http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/page/113974.
3 SEVP has placed these research materials in the
FDMS docket for this rulemaking.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

55687

STUDENT FEES IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Country

Costs

Australia ..........................................
Canada ............................................
China ...............................................
France .............................................
Germany .........................................
India ................................................
Japan ..............................................
Russia .............................................
Saudi Arabia ...................................
South Africa ....................................
South Korea ....................................
United Kingdom 4 ............................

$450.00
125.00
205.00
78.00
95.00
161.00
Free
$131.00
Free
37.00
45.00
192.00

There is also no objective evidence
that this fee is the sole, or even the most
important, criterion that a student might
consider while weighing educational
options. The increased I–901 SEVIS fee
represents less than 1% of the average
cost of yearly expenses for students in
a four-year program, an amount that
could easily be overshadowed by
changes in international currency
fluctuations or changes in school tuition
amounts in foreign countries.
Perhaps more importantly, the United
States features types of education, such
as community colleges and focused
vocational educational programs of
study that are unique in the world. The
United States offers courses of study,
specializations in content, and programs
that cannot be found anywhere else.
Noted research facilities, the majority of
which continue to be dominated by
American entities, provide
opportunities for advanced research and
collaboration among an increasingly
international community of scholars.
Given the many variables that go into a
decision to study abroad, and the lack
of validated data on this issue, there is
no basis to conclude that United States
government fees ultimately persuade a
student or exchange visitor not to attend
a school in this country. SEVP,
consequently, cannot conclude at this
time that an increase in the I–901 SEVIS
fee is directly or even indirectly related
to a decrease in U.S. competitiveness for
international students and exchange
visitors.
But even if a rise in the cost to F and
M students and J exchange visitors were
to cause a reduction in the demand by
foreign students or exchange visitors for
U.S. educational or exchange
opportunities, that point would not alter
this rulemaking. Current law requires
4 On January 30, 2008, the Home Office of the
United Kingdom (UK), the UK equivalent to DHS,
announced a new SEVP-like program for students
and exchange visitors that will likely include
additional fees. See http://
www.ukba.homeoffice.gov/managing borders/
managing immigration/a points-based system.

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

55688

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

that DHS and DoS recoup the full costs
of administering the programs that
manage F, M and J nonimmigrants from
those who benefit from it. DHS may not
reduce its fees based on a desire to
attract a greater number of aliens to the
program.
With respect to the suggestion of some
commenters that students pay SEVP fees
incrementally, SEVP cannot implement
such a payment system at this time due
to the additional administrative burden
and development costs such an
incremental payment system would
place on the program, but will continue
to study the idea.
C. Enhancements

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

1. Issues/Concerns Before SEVIS II
One commenter observed that DHS,
including SEVP, tends to institute new
requirements for schools and students
before either data systems or program
policy have been sufficiently developed
to support them and that, subsequently,
an inordinate amount of effort is
expended on ‘‘work-around’’ procedures
and data fixes. The observer sought
assurance that SEVP will have a
concrete plan to avoid premature
deployment of SEVIS II and to augment
policy and helpdesk staffing to support
anticipated need for problem resolution.
Another comment asked how SEVIS
users will transition from SEVIS I to
SEVIS II and how new functionalities in
SEVIS II will be introduced.
SEVP is committed to providing the
planning and support necessary to make
SEVIS II implementation a success.
SEVP has already started to engage with
its stakeholders and expects to continue
to engage in a major outreach initiative
for the SEVIS II rollout, including but
not limited to, meetings, brochures, enewsletters, and Web site postings.
A commenter suggested that, with
SEVIS II a year and a half from
activation, it would be very helpful if
SEVP would establish a Web-based
ability for students to self-report. SEVP
acknowledges the value of such an
innovation and will take the
consideration under advisement.
A commenter requested that schools
be given the ability in SEVIS to printout draft Forms I–17 for review prior to
submission. It is not likely such an
enhancement will be made to SEVIS I,
but SEVP will maintain the request as
a suggested system requirement for
SEVIS II.
A commenter reported instances of
erroneous data appearing in the CBP
port of entry data systems when
compared with SEVIS information on
the applicable J–1 exchange visitors that
was verified to be correct. This

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

comment is outside the scope of this
rule.
A commenter noted instances when
students’ visa and passport numbers
were identical in SEVIS. Data fixes were
requested but were not completed.
SEVP appreciates comments regarding
its systems and will note and investigate
to determine whether a data fix can be
made to resolve such a problem.
A commenter noted degraded
responsiveness in SEVIS during peak
times during the recent optional
practical training (OPT) validation.
SEVP acknowledges that response time
can be adversely affected by
circumstances beyond its control.
2. SEVIS II
Commenters included SEVP
stakeholders who had participated in
SEVIS II development meetings held by
SEVP in Washington D.C. last summer,
at which they identified several
requested system requirements for
SEVIS II. They commended SEVP on the
inclusion of all user communities in
SEVIS II development.
Two commenters questioned whether
SEVIS II becoming ‘‘paperless,’’ as
proposed, is a realistic expectation and
whether this paperless process is a
move away from faxing. SEVIS II is
certainly a move away from faxing.
SEVP anticipates that, with improved
access to data systems, and with the
incorporation of electronic signature
capability and availability of biometric
information coming in the near future,
U.S. government processes related to F,
M and J nonimmigrants will become
paperless. For example, in SEVIS II the
DSO will electronically sign the
equivalent to the Form I–20, Certificate
of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student
Status. SEVIS II will be paperless in
implementing its processes but will also
have the ability to generate paper forms.
As needs are identified by State and
local governments and the private
sector, SEVP will consider modifying
the format and content of paper Forms
I–20 to better serve their processes.
Another commenter asked how SEVIS
II paperless processes will interact with
the requirements of the Real ID Act of
2005. We understand that students and
exchange visitors are likely to need
paper documentation of their F, M or J
status in the United States to obtain
driver’s licenses, establish bank
accounts and other similar activities. As
discussed above, SEVIS II will allow for
the generation of paper forms as needed
by students and exchange visitors. As
the States move forward developing
their processes for verifying documents
presented by individuals seeking REAL
ID-compliant driver’s licenses or

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

identification cards as required under
the REAL ID Act 5 and DHS REAL ID
regulations, DHS will work with the
States to ensure that DMVs are able to
verify the immigration status of foreign
students and exchange visitors through
DHS’s Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements program (SAVE).6
A commenter asked how a Form I–20
generated out of SEVIS II for
identification purposes will meet State
DMV and/or Social Security
Administration (SSA) requirements that
necessitate the form having a port of
entry stamp. This comment points to a
training problem and not a SEVIS II data
system concern. While some port of
entry officials stamp Forms I–20 as a
courtesy, there is no requirement for
them to do so. A related misconception
is the expectation that Forms I–94,
Arrival/Departure Record, will be
stamped. Forms I–94 should be stamped
when their issuance is related to entry
into the United States. Forms I–94
issued in conjunction with approval of
a benefit are not stamped. SEVP
continues to conduct outreach among
government agencies to correct areas of
misinformation like these that
negatively impact nonimmigrants.
Two commenters asked if Form I–290,
Notice of Appeal or Motion, and USCIS
Form I–134, Affidavit of Support
Information, were being incorporated in
the transition to paperless processes.
The Form I–290 will be entirely
paperless. SEVP, with USCIS, is in the
process of deciding whether the Form I–
134 will be included in the paperless
process.
A commenter asked if the elimination
of paper Forms I–20 will extend to
border commuter students. The answer
is yes, the elimination of paper Forms
I–20 will extend to border commuter
students.
3. Improved SEVIS and SEVIS II
Capabilities
A few commenters asked about
SEVP’s efforts to improve SEVIS
interface and interoperability with other
government databases, in general. SEVP
recognizes that the value of SEVIS to the
United States, its citizens and the
nonimmigrants it tracks is multiplied by
increasing appropriate access to all
potential, legitimate users. Since the
inception of SEVP, the program has
entered into agreements and developed
5 See Pub. L. 109–13, 119 Stat. 231, 302 (May 11,
2005) (codified at 49 U.S.C. 30301 note), also 73 FR
5271 (Jan. 29, 2008), codified at 6 CFR part 37.
6 The SAVE Program allows Federal, State and
local government benefit-granting agencies, as well
as licensing bureaus, to check the immigration
status of non-citizens and citizen applicants
requesting benefits or entitlements.

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
interfaces with several governmental
agencies. SEVIS currently interfaces
with: Foreign Terrorist Task Tracking
Force (FTTTF), U.S. Bank I–901, United
States Visitor and Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology (US–VISIT), CBP
Arrival & Departure Information System
(ADIS), USCIS Computer Linked
Application Information Management
System (CLAIMS), DoS Nonimmigrant
Visa, and DoS Consular Consolidated
Database (CCD). SEVP, through the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) Office of the Chief Information
Officer, is currently brokering
agreements for SEVIS II to interface
with: Pay.gov—I–17, ICE—Business
Compliance Enforcement—National
Security Entry Exit Registration System
(NSEERS), CBP Interagency Border
Inspection System (IBIS), User
Application Module (UAM)—single
sign-on, Non-Immigrant Visa Interface
(NIV) and the USCIS Verification
Information System (VIS). The
developing interface between SEVIS and
VIS, the database of the SAVE program,
will be a significant benefit. This
interface alone will significantly relieve
problem areas for nonimmigrants
interacting with SSA and the State
DMVs, or seeking authorized
employment.
Two commenters asked if SEVIS II
would ameliorate tracking problems
USCIS seems to have in keeping up with
student benefit petitions.
SEVP has an active partnership with
USCIS and both agencies are strongly
committed to developing the best
possible interface between their tracking
systems, SEVIS and CLAIMS. SEVP
acknowledges room for improvement,
but significant progress has been made.
A commenter observed that a lot of
unnecessary enforcement actions are
occurring because DHS and other
government data systems do not
adequately share information and
interfaces do not always send the
intended data. As discussed above,
SEVP is fully aware of the importance
of effective interfacing and places a high
priority on improving and increasing
interfaces with SEVIS II. The fees
implemented by this final rule will, in
part, be used to address these
interfacing issues. In recognition of the
current situation, SEVP has a staff
member that serves as a full-time liaison
with the ICE Compliance Enforcement
Unit (CEU). When data anomalies are
identified or there are indications that a
student may have violated status, this
individual is the first responder.
Through search of the relevant data
systems and telephone consultations
with school officials, most of these
concerns are resolved through a desk

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

audit, requiring no further action. CEU
investigators are assigned to follow up
with that small number of situations
that the liaison is unable to explain. Of
these, greater than 70% result in finding
substantive issues that warrant
investigation. Again, SEVP will use a
portion of the fees collected from this
final rule to improve this system.
Commenters asked about their
capability to extract information from
SEVIS II, especially to support the Open
Door census.
Enhancing the ability of SEVIS users
to extract and use information from
SEVIS was one of the biggest reasons
SEVP sought SEVIS II, and will be a key
purpose for which SEVP uses fees
assessed by this rule. The new system
will provide users additional history
information on individuals and will
vastly improve reporting and search
functionality.
Several commenters asked about the
impact of SEVIS II on J exchange visitor
programs. An advocacy group suggested
that J program interests have not been
met in SEVIS development.
SEVP does not concur. Officials from
DoS have had an active role in SEVIS
development. Since the inception of
SEVIS through SEVIS release 5.10,
released in August 2008, 99 system
upgrades (approximately one third of all
system upgrades in that period) have
been directed towards meeting exchange
visitor program needs. Of these, twentyfive percent of the upgrades dealt
directly with refining the redesignation
process. Regarding SEVIS II, of the more
than 1,300 functional requirements that
were developed from stakeholder input,
including input from the DoS and
exchange visitor program sponsors,
approximately 416 are exclusively for
use by the exchange visitor community.
Among the remaining system
requirements, approximately fifty
percent are shared commonly by the F,
M and J visa categories. Academic
representatives from the exchange
visitor program sponsors were involved
from the beginning of SEVIS II
development and some of these
individuals made particular note of the
significant improvements they had
observed and of the high level of
interagency cooperation. As is reflected
in the transcripts on the docket for this
rulemaking, senior leadership and staff
from DoS participated both during the
development meetings that collected
SEVIS II requirements and during the
recent town hall meetings. While the
specific needs of F, M and J schools and
programs may differ, it has been a
priority for SEVIS program developers
to ensure that new capabilities are
available to all SEVIS users. This rule,

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

55689

and the fees collected pursuant to the
rule, will enhance the exchange visitor
programs as well as F and M programs.
One commenter cited the significant
cost to his school in modifying data
systems to interface and support batchfeeding of data to SEVIS. He raised
concern that SEVIS II would pass a
similar, uncompensated cost on to
schools and exchange visitor program
sponsors.
SEVIS II is being designed to be fully
compatible with SEVIS I and consistent
with industry standards. All data
currently in SEVIS will be migrated by
SEVP into SEVIS II. Further, while
changes in data requirements are a
natural part of program evolution, there
are very few added fields beyond those
already in SEVIS. (Adding new fields,
historically, has been the biggest
recurring problem with batch
interfaces.) As discussed in the
proposed rule, SEVIS II enhancements
are a key part of these fee increases,
which are calculated to include
conversion costs. Consequently, SEVP
anticipates that any added costs to
SEVIS users for conversion to SEVIS II
will be negligible.
A commenter voiced concern that
schools which rely on the feeding of
data to SEVIS by batch do not have the
flexibility that real-time interface (RTI)
reliant schools have in responding to
SEVP changes. The commenter noted
that batch users must often use RTI
procedures to be able to meet SEVP
requirements. The commenter asked
that SEVP be mindful of this in
initiating changes.
SEVP will do so. Batch providers
were invited to attend SEVIS II
development workshops, at which they
voiced concerns and provided insights
into the amelioration of these concerns.
4. SEVIS II and Biometrics
Commenters asked about SEVIS II’s
use of biometrics.
SEVIS II, scheduled for deployment in
October 2009, will include a data field
to record a biometric identifier (i.e.,
functional identification number: FIN)
for nonimmigrant records. SEVIS II will,
however, have no functions related to
the acquisition or storage of biometric
information. SEVP will have access to
biometric information, as needed, and
will incorporate the use of biometrics in
its tracking processes. The costs related
to these processes are included in the
fees assessed by the rule.
Commenters also asked for a
description of how a biometric identifier
will impact recordkeeping processes
and management.
The biometric identifier will be
‘‘person-centric,’’ meaning that it will

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

55690

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

remain with the person for life
whenever they seek entry into the
United States or seek immigration
related benefits. The SEVIS identifier is
a record of a particular period of time
that an individual has been in F, M or
J status. The biometric identifier will tie
all SEVIS identifiers to an individual.
This will enable government, school
officials or exchange visitor program
sponsors to see all pertinent information
on a nonimmigrant in deciding whether
or not to grant benefits or accept that
individual for enrollment. For example,
if a student is terminated at one school
and chooses to seek reinstatement ‘‘by
travel,’’ the CBP inspector will see the
previous termination and assess the
situation in more depth than for a
normal ‘‘initial’’ student arriving for
entry into the United States. A biometric
identification will streamline all
government systems. Currently these
systems identify individuals through
consistencies in personal identification
information (e.g., name, birth date,
address). These fields are subject to
mistakes, such as entry errors and
variations in spelling, and are often
difficult to match from one system to
another. By having access to the
common biometric identifier,
government users can bypass less
reliable search fields and can readily
identify and correct data mistakes. As
discussed in the proposed rule, funding
these types of enhancements are part of
the purpose of these increased fee
assessments.
A commenter asked if the biometric
identifier and its ability to connect an
individual’s SEVIS records will have
any impact on the payment of the I–901
SEVIS fee when a student decides to
reinstate by travel.
The answer is no. If a student is out
of status and seeks to return to status by
leaving the United States and reentering, he or she must pay the I–901
SEVIS fee.
5. Additional CEU personnel
A commenter questioned the legal
authority of using the I–901 SEVIS fee
to support hiring of enforcement
officers, suggesting they should be
funded by appropriated monies.
As was discussed in the proposed
rule, 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A), (g)(2), 8
U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(B) and 8 U.S.C.
1356(m) provide the Secretary with
authority to establish, revise, collect,
retain and expend fees to operate SEVP.
This authority provides that fees be set
at a level that will ensure recovery of
the full costs of providing all services
for the program. The full cost concept
addresses the activities associated with
the continuum of providing services

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

under the program, from accepting
applications, to developing policy, to
enforcement of program regulations and
associated laws. Full cost includes the
direct and indirect costs to any part of
the federal government of providing a
good, resource, or service and these
costs include, but are not limited to, an
appropriate share of direct and indirect
personnel costs, including salaries and
fringe benefits such as medical
insurance and retirement; physical
overhead, consulting, and other indirect
costs including material and supply
costs, utilities, insurance, travel, and
rents or imputed rents on land,
buildings, and equipment; the
management and supervisory costs; and
the costs of enforcement, collection,
research, establishment of standards,
and regulation. See OMB Circular A–25,
User Charges (revised), section 6(d)(1).
As such, ‘‘enforcement costs’’ are part of
a continuum of program services and
are to be considered as part of the full
cost of program services chargeable as
user fees.
In addition, SEVP currently funds
only 79 CEU personnel. ICE is spending
much more than 79 agent full-time
hours investigating school and student
issues. There are hundreds of issues and
cases that arise in SEVIS and in the
student and academic institution area.
Those are categorized by high, medium
and low risk cases. Currently, the 79
positions SEVP funds do not cover all
of the cases identified as the high risk
cases, much less all cases. The
additional 155 positions funded by this
rule are meant to close this gap.
A commenter questioned whether the
increased funding for CEU personnel
would result in the hiring of employees
with greater specialized knowledge and
training, observing that some
investigators seem to have very little
knowledge of school and/or student
requirements.
SEVP does intend to use this
increased funding to hire additional
CEU personnel and to support
specialized training for CEU personnel
related to SEVP-certified schools, DoS
exchange visitor sponsors and F, M and
J nonimmigrants. Federal law
enforcement officers receive extensive,
standardized training at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Facility (FLETC)
in Glynco, Georgia. SEVP continues to
work with the appropriate authorities
within ICE and at FLETC to provide
training content for this curriculum.
SEVP also intends to hire liaisons
whose duties will include collateral
support of CEU investigators. This
should further help CEU personnel
understand school and exchange visitor

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

sponsor, as well as student and
exchange visitor requirements.
6. School liaison activity
One commenter nominated a person
to become an SEVP liaison. SEVP does
not accept nominations for SEVP liaison
positions, but urges interested
individuals to monitor
www.usajobs.opm.gov for vacancy
announcements related to these and
other SEVP positions.
More than one commenter noted a
general lack of knowledge in both DHS
and DoS about the structure of higher
education, particularly the unique needs
of research facilities and the critical
importance of not impeding foreign
scholar participation in their programs.
These commenters cited examples of
misunderstanding about the
applicability of accreditation to research
facilities seeking redesignation or
recertification and at least one comment
pointed to a research institute that is
having difficulty becoming accredited
because there are no qualified U.S.
candidates for enrollment and
accreditation requires that the program
be previously in operation.
(Redesignation by DoS requires
accreditation. SEVP certification
requires the program to have been
previously in operation.) Hope was
raised that the SEVP liaisons would
overcome this knowledge shortcoming.
SEVP appreciates these observations
and will follow-up with the
commenters. A ‘‘provisional
certification’’ status is under
consideration by SEVP but will not be
implemented with this rule due to the
additional cost and administrative
burden related to establishing such a
program.
A commenter asked if SEVP liaisons
would be able to assist schools and
students in determining the status of
benefit applications pending with
USCIS. SEVP is taking this suggestion
under consideration and will discuss it
with USCIS representatives.
An advocacy group and a concurring
commenter feel the need for liaisons is
created by SEVIS requirements being
‘‘cumbersome and complicated.’’
SEVP disagrees and notes that no
such comments were received in the
nationwide town hall meetings. To the
contrary, the introduction of liaison
support was received enthusiastically.
As discussed in the proposed rule,
liaison activity will be much more than
mere troubleshooting, but will also
provide timely information regarding
program enhancements, support CEU
activities and offer greater feedback to
SEVP on positive and negative user
comments and suggestions. Simply

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
making SEVIS more user friendly,
which is a key goal of SEVIS II, would
not eliminate the need for liaisons.
D. Full Cost Information
1. Further reduced 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.
Congress established the $35 fee for
au pairs, camp counselors and summer
work/travel program participants by law
and did not provide a similar set fee for
other categories of the J-visa for
exchange visitors. 8 U.S.C.
1372(e)(4)(A). This indicates a strong
Congressional intent that the fee for au
pairs, camp counselors and summer
work/travel programs remain set at $35.
Thus, SEVP did not adjust that fee.

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

2. Impacts on 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 and exchange visitors in shortterm status or individuals with limited
means (e.g., teachers and high school
students; those from poor countries;
language study). Commenters asked if
SEVP could establish a lower fee for
particular groups through regulation
suggesting, for example, a tiered fee of
$35 for exchange visitor programs
currently identified and for F/M
programs of study six months or less in
duration; $200 fee for F/M programs
more than six months; $180 for
exchange visitor programs other than
government sponsored. In a similar
request other comments, including
those from two major advocacy groups,
expressed support for the SEVP
initiative furthering the institution of a
short-term visa category. In fact, over
250 participants at a May 28, 2008, town
hall forum at the NAFSA national
conference were supportive of this idea.
SEVP cannot establish a lower fee as
requested. As discussed above and in
the proposed rule in relation to OMB
Circular A–25, User Charges (revised),
applicable laws, regulations and
directives prohibit SEVP from
establishing fees below program costs.
Any preference given by SEVP to a
select group would result in a penalty
to the participants at large. By allowing
a select group the same benefit as others
in the population at a fee below cost, the
fee for the majority of the population
must increase in order to fully cover
program costs. SEVP has reviewed its
program costs for processing students in

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

short-term status versus those in longterm status and can find no basis for
charging a lower fee for students on
short-term status. The government
would also incur additional
administrative costs associated with
separate processing of these fees.
Accordingly, and as was discussed in
the town hall meetings, SEVP is
constrained at this time to charge a
single set fee for each individual group.
A commenter noted that most
scholarships and assistance given to
students of limited means is directed to
costs after the student enters the United
States and that, consequently, the
various government fees can pose an
insurmountable burden on a student
since they are levied before entry and,
generally, not compensated.
Although SEVP appreciates
identification of this problem,
government agencies must collect fees at
the time services are provided. We
welcome further input from students
and schools at [email protected] as
to how they handle this situation.
One commenter questioned the timing
for implementation of the rule.
SEVP timed implementation of the
final rule for October 1, 2008, the
beginning of fiscal year 2009. This is the
date when the student enrollment is
completed for the largest population;
therefore, the fewest number of students
will be involved in initiation of the new
fee levels. By implementing the fee for
the beginning of the government fiscal
year, SEVP is able to better simplify and
reduce costs related to government
accounting. Further, as noted in the
NPRM and this final rule, SEVP has
been underfunded for many years since
the program has not implemented a fee
increase for several years. By
implementing the fees at the start of
SEVP’s fiscal year, the program funding
will be better aligned with its budgetary
and operational needs for the full fiscal
year and thus allow SEVP to better serve
its constituents.
3. Certification fee
A commenter noted that it was
unclear in the proposed text for 8 CFR
214.3(h)(2) whether or not schools must
submit a fee for recertification.
SEVP appreciates the observation and
has clarified the text accordingly,
inserting final rule text at 8 CFR
214.4(a)(1) and 8 CFR 214.4(h) that
expressly provides that no fee is
required with appeals related to SEVP
certification, recertification or
withdrawal of SEVP certification.
Two commenters, including a high
school administrator, suggested that the
increased SEVP certification fee may be
a disincentive to small schools to seek

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

55691

certification and cited the cultural value
of international students in these
settings. SEVP appreciates and agrees
with the observation of the cultural
value of having international students in
all settings. SEVP does not have the
authority, however, to identify and
designate specific groups of schools for
a lower fee because its costs are not
lower for small schools. SEVP welcomes
any additional suggestions for
potentially decreasing burdens on small
businesses.
4. Site-visit fee
A commenter from an SEVP-certified
school observed that the $655 site visit
fee would cut into its programming
funds.
The site-visit fee pertains only to
initial SEVP certification (or initial
events, such as approving a new
location or campus). Should a school
require an on-site review as a part of an
out-of-cycle review or recertification,
the expense of that visit will be borne
by SEVP as part of its compliance
funding. Accordingly, SEVP anticipates
that the site visit fee will have minimal
impact on programming funds for
certified schools.
5. Inclusion of enforcement costs
A professional association and an
advocacy group comment that fee
assessments should be limited to visa
application costs, and that costs related
to national security and anti-fraud are
benefits to the public that should be
borne by appropriated, taxpayer funds.
Another advocacy group commented
that, beyond visa application costs,
SEVP legal authorities allow for data
collection, but not for assessment of
enforcement costs.
SEVP agrees in part and disagrees in
part with these comments. SEVP agrees
that agency fees cannot be charged
based upon perceived furthering of
public policy goals if those fees are
unrelated to a specific service provided
by the agency to an identifiable
recipient. If, however, the agency does
confer a specific benefit upon an
identifiable beneficiary, then the fact
that the service may incidentally confer
a benefit upon the general public as well
does not preclude assessing a user fee.
See, e.g., Seafarers International Union
of North America v. United States Coast
Guard, 81 F.3d 179, 184 (DC Cir. 1996)
(interpreting Coast Guard user fees
established under the Independent
Offices Appropriations Act); quoting
Engine Manufacturers Ass’n v. EPA, 20
F.3d 1177, 1180 (DC Cir. 1994).
The direct benefits of the SEVP
program inure to F and M students and
J exchange visitors. The benefit

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

55692

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

conferred is admission into and lawful
presence in the United States, which
permits F and M students, and J
exchange visitors to receive academic,
vocational and exchange opportunities
and experiences not enjoyed by the
public-at-large. SEVP enforcement
activities create public confidence and
consistency within the program which
perpetuates and enables these visa
categories for the direct benefit of F and
M students, and J exchange visitors.
Homeland security and anti-fraud
benefits are incidental public benefits of
the program. These incidental public
benefits do not diminish SEVP’s
authority to assess fees against
identifiable beneficiaries.
In addition, as discussed above, 8
U.S.C. 1372 and 8 U.S.C. 1356(m),
authorize a full range of SEVP program
activities and collection of fees related
thereto, and not merely data collection.
Use of the I–901 SEVIS fee to fund the
activities of additional enforcement
officers to perform these activities is
thus authorized under 8 U.S.C.
1372(e)(4)(A), (g)(2), 8 U.S.C.
1372(e)(4)(B) and 8 U.S.C. 1356(m).
Pursuant to OMB Circular A–25, User
Fees (revised), Section 6(d)(1),
‘‘enforcement costs’’ are part of a
continuum of program services that
must be included as part of the full cost
of program services when assessing user
fees. Accordingly, inclusion of these
costs within the full cost of the program
is appropriate and congruent with the
full cost concept as outlined in federal
cost accounting guidance, federal policy
for user charges and legal precedent.
Another advocacy group commented
that charging J visa holders for
enforcement costs of DHS is redundant,
since DoS has its own compliance unit,
and ‘‘beyond the mandate of the rule.’’
SEVP does not concur. DHS is
mandated by the INA to enforce
immigration law for all nonimmigrants
and has done so historically for all
nonimmigrant populations, including
the J visa category. The compliance unit
at DoS reviews DoS designated sponsors
for their statutory and regulatory
compliance—not the immigrationrelated violations of exchange visitors.
The law enforcement programs of DHS
and DoS are separate and distinct, not
redundant.

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

E. Certification, Out-of-Cycle Review,
and Recertification Requirements
1. Form I–17
A few participants in the town hall
meetings had questions about
submitting updates to school
information. Individuals should address
additional questions about submitting

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

these updates to [email protected].
As stated at the forums and as presented
at numerous conferences over the last
several months, it is important that
school updates be timely. Updates to
this information are the single most
beneficial step most schools can take to
prepare for recertification.
2. Notices and communications
Two comments, respectively,
questioned whether electronic notices
and communications meet due process
requirements and whether schools
would need to obtain software to
transmit electronic signatures.
Various laws, rules and regulations
govern the use of electronic systems in
relation to the provision of government
services, and permit and encourage
government agencies to use electronic
notices. As such, these processes have
been found to satisfy due process
requirements. SEVP, as a program, and
SEVIS, as a Web-based data platform,
are inherently reliant on electronic
communication. For this reason, notices
and alerts are sent to multiple
addressees, as listed on the school’s
Form I–17. Capability to submit
electronic signatures will be a SEVIS II
design feature.
3. Recordkeeping, retention and
reporting requirements—Student Record
Requirements
Several commenters, including three
advocacy groups, opposed the proposed
text on recordkeeping, retention and
reporting as establishing new and
unnecessary requirements.
SEVP has deleted rule text in
response to these comments.
Specifically, SEVP proposed a new
requirement at 8 CFR 214.3(g)(1)(xi) that
the DSOs enter ‘‘date of last entry into
the United States; most recent Form
I–94 number and date of issue,’’ into
SEVIS, items which are normally
entered through SEVIS interface with
the CBP ADIS database. This interface is
not yet fully reliable and many DSOs
have found that inputting this arrival
information, like keeping copies of
Forms I–20, can be useful in helping
students expedite benefit applications.
Keeping this information is not
required, however, and the final rule
deletes proposed 8 CFR 214.3(g)(1)(xi).
Other SEVIS entries in the regulatory
text are not new, but have been clarified
with this rule.
One commenter suggested that,
because SEVIS is the only tracking
system of its kind, it is subject to misuse
and overuse.
SEVP does not concur and views the
proper use of SEVIS very differently.
SEVP is obligated to U.S. taxpayers to

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

maximize the effective utilization of the
data it collects. SEVP thus seeks every
opportunity to share SEVIS data with
appropriate, authorized users not only
for law enforcement purposes, but also
to facilitate validation of benefit
eligibility. This sharing benefits F, M
and J nonimmigrants by providing more
efficient delivery of benefits from
various agencies of the federal
government.
An individual commented that SEVP
needs to make better use of the data it
has in SEVIS.
While the comment did not provide
sufficient detail to prompt a response,
SEVP concurs and is committed to
developing data-driven management
and compliance processes.
A commenter asked whether records
review procedures require hard copy.
Not necessarily; records review will be
of the system that is in place at the
school, electronic or hard copy.
A commenter asked for clarification
that the ‘‘unabridged academic history
of the student at the institution’’ refers
to the institution’s primary student
recordkeeping system, not a duplication
of that system. Several commenters
presumed that SEVP was proposing
duplication of records. SEVP has edited
the final rule text in response to these
comments. The proposed text for 8 CFR
214.3(g)(1) Student Records is amended
by adding, after the first sentence:
‘‘Student information not required for
entry in SEVIS may be kept in the
school’s student system of records, but
must be accessible to DSOs.’’ This
clarification should eliminate any
unintended presumption about
duplication of records.
Several commenters also questioned
why DHS needed the information
introduced in 8 CFR 214.3(g)(1)(iv) and
thought SEVP was trying to do the job
of the schools. As many commenters
noted, the items introduced in 8 CFR
214.3(g)(1)(iv) are already included in
the recordkeeping processes and
systems of most bona fide institutions,
and many institutions go well beyond
these requirements. SEVP has identified
these as minimums that a bona fide
school should maintain in order to set
a standard for compliance. The absence
of effective recordkeeping is a strong
indicator that an institution is not suited
for SEVP certification (i.e., DSOs must
be able to explain how they obtain this
information, which is essential to
determining that a student is
maintaining status).
A commenter noted that their school
records policy did not require
transcripts with as much information as
required by this rule for transcripts
received from a transfer-out school (e.g.,

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
course numbers and credits are required
but grades are not).
SEVP responds that the institution
must be able to demonstrate how it
determined that the student was eligible
and met its requirements for transfer to
their institution. This may not be as
extensive as the records required by the
institution that conferred the credits.
One privacy advocate voiced privacy
concerns with respect to DHS access to
student records.
SEVP is diligent in its compliance
with individual privacy protections.
Examination of student records as part
of an institution’s audit is done solely
in support of that audit. Record access
is strictly limited to appropriate
authorized users. SEVP policy on
privacy issues is codified in the SEVP
Privacy Information Assessment (PIA),
available on its Web site.
Several comments questioned the
need for extending the student records
retention requirement from one to three
years.
SEVP responds that this is necessary
to support the two-year recertification
cycle and is consistent with the current
exchange visitor program standard.
Most schools and many states have
much more stringent records retention
schedules.
Similarly, a commenter asked how the
extended records retention requirement
will be implemented.
The requirement begins with
implementation of this rule and is not
retroactive (i.e., if a school’s records
were reviewed on that day, the reviewer
could not require records from further
back than the current requirement of
one year).
A comment noted the need for
improved entry and exit data in SEVIS
and observed that the rule makes no
mention of this in the recordkeeping
section.
SEVP strongly concurs on the
importance of this information. This
information is received from other DHS
agencies and points to a recognized
need to improve the SEVIS interface
with their systems, which is a key goal
of SEVIS II, as funded by this final rule.
An advocacy group suggested that the
rule unnecessarily broadens records
access beyond SEVP to include DHS.
The statutes authorizing this rule and
establishing DHS, including 8 U.S.C.
1372 and the Homeland Security Act of
2002, Public Law 107–296 (November
25, 2002), section 102(b), permit the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in his
discretion, to exercise these authorities
utilizing the various DHS resources at
his disposal. Moreover, blocking records
access to other components of DHS
would run directly counter to the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

lessons our Nation learned after 9/11.
See, e.g., The 9/11 Commission Report
at pp. 416–19.
An advocacy group and a commenter
stated that the proposed text at 8 CFR
214.3(g)(2)(ii)(E), requiring a school to
respond to a notification request by
DHS, is overly broad and that the
existing regulation limits such a request
to SEVIS.
SEVP does not concur. The
replacement of ‘‘SEVIS’’ in this text
updates the context of the existing
regulation. Since the current text was
approved (67 FR 76256, December 11,
2002), DHS instituted SEVP to
administer SEVIS. SEVIS, being a
database, can only distribute
notification requests from SEVP.
However, SEVP exists to support the
DHS enforcement agencies in tracking F,
M and J nonimmigrants. SEVP
investigatory activities are limited and,
as warranted, result in a hand-off to
more extensive investigation by other
DHS agencies, highlighting the
transition from internal compliance
related activities to law enforcement
activities that can only be rendered by
those immigration officers so
authorized. The text, consistent also
with 8 CFR 214.3(g)(1), facilitates
cooperation between SEVP-certified
schools and DHS. Notification requests
from these agencies may come outside
of SEVIS. Just as SEVP is limited in its
information collection by law, these
enforcement agencies have laws
restricting their information collection.
Any request for information from these
agencies will be governed by the laws
that apply to them respectively.
An advocacy group commented that
the use of the term ‘‘student,’’ rather
than ‘‘students,’’ to describe reporting
requirements limits DHS to requiring
reports on just individuals, not groups.
SEVP does not concur. As is
consistent with SEVP past practice, the
term ‘‘student’’ is expansive of
individual students and/or larger
populations of students depending on
the nature of the reporting request.
An advocacy group questions DHS
and SEVP authority to conduct
validation studies.
SEVP does not concur. On-going
validation of certified schools is
inherent in the out-of-cycle and
recertification processes. Validation
studies are one of many administrative
tools that SEVP uses to ensure that
issues are identified and corrected
before they become problems. SEVIS
data are examined through a variety of
filters to determine whether issues exist
across and among schools. Only when
data cannot be verified through existing
information does SEVP ask schools to

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

55693

validate information, reducing the
burden on their reporting. SEVIS II will
enhance this capability for SEVP,
further eliminating the burden on
schools.
A commenter asked for clarification of
proposed text in 214.3(g)(2)(iii)(D),
regarding factors impacting the
adjustment of program completion
dates.
SEVP has changed the rule text in
response to this comment by adding
examples in parentheses. The proposed
text for 8 CFR 214.3(g)(2)(iii)(D)
Adjustment to the program completion
date is amended and clarified to read:
‘‘Any factors that influence the student’s
progress toward program completion
(e.g., deferred attendance, authorized
drop below, program extension) must be
reflected by making an adjustment
updating the program completion date.’’
This clarification should resolve any
misunderstanding regarding factors
impacting the adjustment of program
completion dates.
A commenter suggested that CFR text
giving records and information access to
DHS representatives be limited to ICE
representatives, since they are
specifically tasked with student tracking
and compliance.
SEVP disagrees. While this reflects
the current practice, agencies and
tasking within DHS are subject to
realignment at the Secretary’s
discretion. SEVP appreciates the
suggestion, but concludes that ‘‘DHS’’
appropriately encompasses all
possibilities and reflects the legal
authorities underpinning the program
and the operation of the DHS.
4. SEVIS Data Integrity
A few commenters asked about
possible future innovations enabling F,
M and J nonimmigrants to access SEVIS
data.
SEVP appreciates the comment and
will explore these possibilities.
Several commenters asked if, as
interfaces with other data systems and
SEVIS increase and become more
reliable, mistakes from other systems
couldn’t be corrected electronically by
DSOs (e.g., Form I–94 errors with CBP
and SAVE errors, as they affect Social
Security and DMV applications). The
current priority with systems interfaces
is on accurate and complete data
sharing. It is reasonable to assume that
upgrading data integrity along the lines
of the comments will be considered and
is one of the reasons for the fee
increases implemented by this rule.

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

55694

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

5. Certification
An advocacy group and a commenter
supported the requirement of
accreditation for SEVP certification.
SEVP acknowledges the value of
accreditation as an indicator of
institution bona fides and compliance,
but also has excellent experience with
many non-accredited schools. For nonaccredited schools, the SEVP School
Certification Branch has instituted and
continually refines measures of school
bona fides ‘‘in lieu’’ of accreditation.
A commenter requested amplification
of the ‘‘basic competencies for DSOs’’
that the site visit seeks to promote.
SEVP responds that unlike the
majority of schools already certified in
SEVIS that have extensive experience
and knowledge with enrolling F and/or
M nonimmigrants, schools seeking
initial SEVP certification today lack a
similar background. In compliance with
SEVP requirements and support of these
students, however, these schools must
be held to the same standard as all other
SEVP-certified schools. In recognition of
this, SEVP views the on-site visit for
initial certification as an outreach
instrument, an opportunity for intensive
training and familiarization. While
details of this outreach are evolving,
they include but are not limited to the
following topics: maneuvering in SEVIS;
becoming aware of pertinent regulations
and where to find them; complying with
recordkeeping, retention and reporting
requirements; Internet resources; and
contingency planning. These are
potential uses for the fees generated by
this rule.
Three comments requested that SEVP
better define what a campus is and what
is required of schools when a campus is
added (e.g., when is a fee required).
SEVP agrees with the comments but
does not intend to make this
clarification in this rule. SEVP, in the
meantime, provides individualized
guidance to schools on this issue. SEVP
intends to propose a rule amending 8
CFR 214.3 to be in place when
recertification begins and anticipates
addressing this issue in more detail in
that rulemaking.

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

6. Recertification
A commenter asked how SEVP will
determine the order in which schools
will become eligible for recertification.
A few factors that come into
consideration in determining the order
in which schools will become eligible
for recertification include, but are not
limited to: the amount of time since the
school’s previous certification; the
anticipated processing time for the
school (e.g., non-accredited schools take

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

longer than accredited schools); whether
the school is of special interest, either
by type of school or compliance
questions; and the anticipated School
Certification Branch (SCB) workload.
The order of processing will be chosen
to create a balanced workload.
A commenter asked if recertification
could be every five years, instead of
every two years.
SEVP cannot implement this proposal
because two-year certification is
mandated under EBSVERA and HSPD–
2. With out-of-cycle review on-going
and continuous from the time of initial
certification forward, the frequency of
recertification should be less of a
concern to schools. SEVP intends that
noncompliance be identified as soon as
possible after its occurrence and
appropriate action be taken
immediately. As the proposed rule
describes, recertification is an
affirmation of performance, not the
reopening of a school’s file for the first
time.
An advocacy group commented that
institutions should not be charged for
enforcement costs related to
certification and recertification. SEVP
notes, as was presented in the proposed
rule, fees charged to institutions for
certification and certification site visits
are not used for enforcement costs. As
described in the NPRM, these costs are
covered by other fees.
One comment asked about the
reasoning for reviewing DSO
compliance even when a DSO is no
longer employed by the school. SEVP
responds that an employer (i.e., school)
is responsible for oversight of all of its
employees and the consequences of
their actions. Termination of
employment, in and of itself, does not
absolve the employer of that
responsibility.
A commenter asked for more detail
about text stating that institutions must
have adequate qualified personnel to
perform DSO responsibilities.
SEVP has decided to leave this as an
area of institutional discretion for the
moment. Larger schools have asked if
the limit of ten DSOs at a campus could
be increased and/or if an associate DSO
position, with no advisory role but
ability to enter data, couldn’t be
established. SEVP is actively
considering both of these
recommendations. Some schools have
appointed senior management, whose
primary functions do not relate to
providing service to students, as DSOs.
SEVP discourages this practice. Smaller
schools have, on occasion, appointed
only one DSO. This makes full-time and
continuous adequate service of foreign
students nearly impossible.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

A commenter asked what will be the
focus of recertification.
Recertification will focus primarily on
how well a school updates records on
school information and student records.
For schools that are not accredited, bona
fides will need to be reconfirmed with
documentation ‘‘in lieu of
accreditation.’’ SEVP will develop and
send schools guidance on the
submission of petitions along with their
notification that entering the six-month
period of eligibility to submit a
recertification petition.
A commenter asked if SEVP-certified
schools for public school (grades 9–12)
and private school (grades
kindergarten–12) in a district or system
could file for recertification with a
single petition.
SEVP responds that, yes, these
schools may file for recertification with
a single petition.
A commenter asked if an institution
with more than one SEVIS identifier
(i.e., a number for the main campus and
each other campus) could file for
recertification with a single petition.
SEVP responds that, yes, this is
permitted.
Commenters were unclear about the
distinction between on-site visits and
on-site reviews.
As stated during the town hall
meetings, few schools would receive an
on-site review during SEVP
recertification. On-site review in
recertification is distinguished from an
on-site visit given during initial
certification. The purposes of an on-site
visit include confirmation of a school’s
eligibility for SEVP certification,
promoting basic competencies for DSOs,
and providing outreach to better
familiarize the school with the roles and
responsibilities that come with the
benefit of SEVP certification. The
purpose of an on-site review is,
generally, to address compliance. While
a few random on-site reviews may be
conducted to maintain a performance
baseline for all schools and to explore
potential performance benchmarks, the
primary reason an on-site review is
conducted is to resolve questions or
concerns about school performance.
Optional visits to schools by SEVP
personnel prior to the implementation
of the liaison program will be available
within SEVP resource constraints and
by invitation from the school. To offset
operational limitations in providing
these visits, comprehensive resources
on recertification will be provided on
the SEVP Web site.
A few comments included questions
on fees related to on-site visits and onsite reviews.

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

For initial SEVP certification
petitions, a petition fee ($1,700) is
required for each institution and an onsite visit fee ($655) is required for each
campus. School systems (limited to
public schools grades 9–12, private
schools grades K–12) require a petition
fee and a single on-site visit fee. SEVPcertified institutions that have a change
of ownership must pay a petition fee.
SEVP-certified institutions seeking
approval for change of location must
pay an on-site visit fee. SEVP-certified
institutions seeking approval for a new
campus must pay an on-site visit fee. No
fee is charged of institutions either
petitioning for recertification or selected
to receive an on-site review.
One comment asked how
accreditation might be a factor in
determining selection of a school for onsite review. To the extent that
accreditation provides an impartial
affirmation of school bona fides and
performance, it is less likely that an
accredited school will receive an on-site
review.
7. Out-of-Cycle Review
A few individual commenters and an
advocacy group felt out-of-cycle review,
as presented in the proposed rule, is too
broad.
SEVP disagrees. At the simplest level,
out-of-cycle review is nothing more than
maintaining the data integrity of SEVIS,
and describes a process that exists with
all data systems. Changes are reviewed
for accuracy and reasonableness. Most
out-of-cycle reviews constitute nothing
more than a desk audit conducted from
the SEVP offices. For example, a routine
update changing a zip code may result
in SEVP asking other schools impacted
by the change to update their
information. This sort of audit is not
invasive; rather, it is responsible.
An advocacy group commented that
audits of schools for other than changes
to SEVIS information identified as
material should be delayed until
recertification.
SEVP, again, does not concur.
Compliance management requires
resolution of anomalies in performance
when they are identified and before
potential problems escalate.
A commenter voiced concern about
unscheduled and large data requests of
schools from SEVP (e.g., the validation
study and OPT updating).
SEVP regrets the difficulties placed on
schools by these requests and
appreciates the patience and
understanding of SEVIS users in
explaining the obstacles they impose.
As a maturing program, SEVP is
committed to improving the
administration of future requests and

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

minimizing their frequency. SEVIS
users should realize that their
outstanding responsiveness on these
requests is noted by key decision
makers. Additionally, as SEVIS II is
developed and implemented, SEVP
looks forward to improved capability to
validate SEVIS information through
alternative means.
An individual commented that out-ofcycle review is a waste of SEVP and
school time for compliant schools. SEVP
is required to perform these out-of-cycle
reviews for due diligence. SEVP’s
review also allows the program to
monitor changes outside of the control
of SEVP or the schools (for example, the
zip code change referenced above).
One comment suggested that text
describing the events that trigger out-ofcycle review should be qualified with
‘‘may.’’
SEVP does not occur with this
comment. Introduction of this text into
the CFR only formalizes what has been
published in the SEVIS User Manual
and reviewed by SEVP for years. It
clarifies language currently found at 8
CFR 214.3(e)(3) and parallels the
explicitness that has to date only been
found in operational instructions.
Specifically, it identifies that SEVP
conducts a desk review of each of these
changes, determines what additional
information is required, requests that
information and then adjudicates the
petition update. This is not an elective
process that could be characterized by
‘‘may,’’ but a prescriptive process
directed by current regulation. With
many of these changes, a cursory review
is adequate and little or no direct
follow-up with the school is needed; the
out-of-cycle review has been transparent
to the school.
An individual commented that the
time period should be extended from 10
to 30 days.
SEVP does not agree. Schools are
required to keep school information in
SEVIS current at all times. A request for
an update of this information should
require nothing more than a few
moments of review and submission.
Because this relates to SEVP-certified
schools, supporting documentation
requested pertains only to changes since
certification. Presuming changes are
submitted to SEVP timely, authorizing
documentation for the changes should
be readily available.
8. Designated School Officials
A commenter questioned whether all
DSOs must be knowledgeable of
regulations.
Yes, the individual certifies to
knowledge of SEVP regulations when
they sign the Form I–17 accepting

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

55695

appointment to become a DSO. SEVP is
considering future personnel alignment
(e.g., positions with limited data entry
access to accommodate school
administrative processes) and will likely
adjust knowledge and training needs
accordingly to sustain role-related
SEVIS responsibilities.
A commenter questioned the
expectation that an individual be
knowledgeable of regulatory
requirements and SEVIS operation
when first appointed as a DSO.
When first appointed as DSOs,
individuals should have a basic
knowledge of SEVP regulatory
requirements and SEVIS operations. As
a practical matter SEVP does not expect
an entry level DSO to have detailed
regulatory knowledge but the individual
should be able to identify pertinent
regulations and demonstrate where they
can be found. SEVP has and is
developing resources to assist new
DSOs in getting up to speed as quickly
as possible. PDSOs should anticipate
the need for mentoring newly appointed
DSOs to assist in bringing them up to an
acceptable standard as quickly as
possible.
A commenter asked what
documentation must be submitted when
a new DSO is appointed and who must
sign the documentation.
SEVP responds that in addition to
submitting the identification of newly
appointed DSOs in SEVIS, the principal
designated school official (PDSO) of an
SEVP-certified institution must submit
copies of the school’s Form I–17 with
the PDSO and new appointee
signatures, as well as be able to provide
documentation certifying that the new
individual is a U.S. citizen or lawful
permanent resident to SEVP.
A commenter recommended
establishment of an alternate PDSO
position.
SEVP appreciates this
recommendation and is considering it as
one of many recommendations in the
realignment of personnel with SEVIS
roles and SEVP responsibilities.
A commenter asked for clarification of
the need for DSOs at locations other
than the main campus.
If students can complete a program of
study solely at the alternate location,
that location is a campus and must meet
DSO requirements. If students receive
part of their program of study at an
alternate location, but must receive the
remainder at another campus that meets
DSO requirements, this alternate
location is a satellite facility and does
not require DSOs. The underlying
purpose of this regulation is to ensure
proper monitoring of student activity
and to provide counsel to students. If a

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

55696

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

school is uncertain of their need for
DSOs, they should contact SEVP. Note
that DSOs can serve on multiple
campuses, as long as the institution can
assure that DSO responsibilities are
being met at each campus.
9. Denial or Withdrawal of SEVP
Certification or Recertification
Procedures
A commenter suggested that the text
citing reasons for withdrawal of SEVP
certification be expanded to include a
‘‘pattern’’ of such behavior, not limited
to a single violation.
It is unclear, based on the comment,
what would constitute a pattern and
what threshold of violation would be
permissible. SEVP believes the
suggestion opens the regulation to
ambiguity, and chooses to retain the
proposed text.
A commenter noted that, as used in
the proposed rule at 8 CFR
214.4(a)(2)(xix), the term ‘‘curriculum’’
was too broad and did not convey the
intended meaning.
SEVP appreciates the
recommendation and has modified the
text accordingly with an explanatory
parenthetical. Specifically, the proposed
text for 8 CFR 214.4(a)(2)(xix) is
amended to read as follows: ‘‘Failure of
a DSO to notify SEVP of material
changes, such as changes to the school’s
name, address, or curricular changes
that represent material change to the
scope of institution offerings (e.g.,
addition of a program, class or course
for which the school is issuing Forms I–
20, but which does not have Form I–17
approval), as required by 8 CFR
214.3(f)(1).’’ Addition of this text
clarifies the aspects of curriculum
change that must be reported.
10. Regulatory Flexibility Act

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

An individual commented that the I–
901 SEVIS fee will be a deterrent to
foreign student/exchange visitor
participation and, subsequently, will
place a strain on small to mid-sized
educational institutions.
As is discussed above and in more
detail in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
section below, SEVP does not concur
that the I–901 SEVIS fee will be a
deterrent to foreign student/exchange
visitor participation, nor does SEVP see
a disproportionate impact on smaller
schools.
III. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DHS is amending regulations
governing SEVP found in 8 CFR parts
103 and 214 to adjust the school

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

certification fee and the application fee
for nonimmigrants seeking to become
academic (F visa) or vocational (M visa)
students, or exchange visitors (J visa).
The final rule will increase the fees for
submitting a SEVP school certification
petition to $1,700, plus $655 for each
site visit; set the fee for each F or M
student at $200; set the fee for most J
exchange visitors at $180; and maintains
the fee for J exchange visitors seeking
admission as au pairs, camp counselors,
and summer work/travel program
participants at $35. In addition, this
final rule will establish procedures for
recertification of schools with F and/or
M students. The rule will become
effective October 1, 2008.
DHS recognizes that the final rule will
result in economic impacts on F, M, and
J nonimmigrants, as well as programs
and schools seeking to become SEVPcertified or recertified. In this section of
the final rule we will focus only on the
economic impact of the regulation on
small entities, as defined and required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.7 In
addition, we will address significant
comments submitted by the public on
the economic analysis and the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 8
which accompanied the proposed rule.
DHS has determined that the final rule
amending the initial SEVP school
certification fee and establishing
procedures for recertification of schools
with F and/or M students will not have
a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities; therefore, a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
was not necessary. The factual basis for
certification is presented in the
following analysis of the economic
effects of the final rule.
Currently, the fee for schools seeking
initial certification is $230, plus a $350
fee for each campus receiving a site
visit. These fees have not changed since
2002, prior to the reorganization of the
INS into DHS. Both the processes and
costs for adjudicating school petitions
for initial certification have changed
substantially since that time. SEVP is
statutorily required to regularly review
the fee level to ensure that the cost of
services provided by the program are
fully captured by fees assessed on those
7 According to the RFA, a small entity may be (1)
a small business, defined as any independently
owned and operated business not dominant in its
field; (2) a small not-for-profit organization; or (3)
a small governmental jurisdiction, defined as a
locality with a population of less than 50,000
persons.
8 ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis: Impact on
Small Schools of the Change in Fees for
Certification and Institution of Recertification by
the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

receiving the services.9 The increased
fee schedule set by this rule will recover
the full cost of SEVP operations with
fee-generated revenue, and align fees
with currently planned costs and
processes that have been redesigned and
refined as the program has expanded
over the years. Moreover, SEVP
examined three alternatives to the rule,
which are detailed in the economic
analysis to the proposed rule, all of
which were rejected because they did
not accomplish stated goals of the
regulation.
Accordingly, the final rule will
increase the initial certification fee for
schools seeking to admit F and/or M
students to $1700, plus an additional fee
of $655 per site visit. In addition, the
final rule will set procedures by which
SEVP-certified schools are recertified
every two years. The cost burden to the
schools associated with recertification
entail the time and effort associated
with filing the petition rather than
direct monetary outlays. It is important
to note that schools applying for SEVP
certification and recertification are
making a voluntary decision based on
their desire to admit nonimmigrant
students into their program. Likewise,
schools that have already been SEVPcertified, but have no F and/or M
students and no concrete plans to enroll
any have little incentive to recertify. As
such, the compliance requirements of
this rule only affect those schools
wishing to become SEVP-certified, or
those that wish to maintain their
approval to admit nonimmigrant
students, by undergoing recertification.
SEVP conducted an analysis of the
potential impact of the increased
certification fee using data drawn from
SEVIS in May 2007. All SEVP-certified
schools self-report average enrollment
and average tuition costs for students.
Therefore, SEVP did not need to use
publicly available information or use
sampling to gather data on the finances
of the type of schools applying for
certification. The reported number of F
and/or M students and the tuition costs
per F and/or M student were used to
estimate annual total tuition income.
The tuition cost per student was
determined by the data in the school’s
Form I–17, Petition for Approval of
School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant
Student, available in SEVIS.
While tuition revenue may
underestimate the actual school
revenue, this is the best information
available. It is the most significant
source of income for most schools and
9 As mandated by 31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8); OMB
Circular A–25.

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
is a reasonable approach to measuring
the impact of this fee rule.
As detailed in the economic analysis
and IRFA to the proposed rule, SEVP
developed a profile of schools applying
for certification for the last three years
using current SEVIS enrollment data.
Based on this developed profile, SEVP
projects that 700 new schools will
certify annually. Of these, we expect
about 575, or approximately 82% of the
schools seeking certification in the
future to be small schools by U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA)
standards.10 SBA’s size standard for all
schools, except flight schools and public
high schools, is $6 million or less in
annual receipts. The SBA small
business definition for flight schools is
$21.5 million or less in annual receipts.
The analysis uses the definition of a
small government jurisdiction as
defined in the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (RFA) to determine the small
entity threshold of public high schools.
Size classifications of SEVP-certified
public school districts were determined
using the figures from the National
Center for Education Statistics on the
Department of Education Web site.
Schools in districts serving populations
of 50,000 or less were designated as
small schools for the purposes of this
analysis.
Of the 575 small schools expected to
apply for certification, only 47 are
expected to have a compliance impact
of 1% or more. That is, the certification
fee is 1% or more of the total earnings
of the school, as calculated by the
tuition collected from F and/or M
students. The 47 small schools comprise
about 7% of all schools expected to
certify annually, and about 8% of all
small schools expected to certify
annually. Table 1 provides the projected
number of small schools at each level of
impact.

TABLE 1—PROJECTED NUMBER OF
SMALL SCHOOLS EXPECTED TO
CERTIFY BY LEVEL OF IMPACT
Level of impact

Projected
number of
small schools

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Under 0.5% .........................
0.5% to under 1% ...............
1% to under 2% ..................
2% to under 3% ..................
3% to under 4% ..................
4% to under 5% ..................
5% to under 6% ..................
6% to under 7% ..................

469
59
29
7
1
5
1
2

10 SBA’s small business size standards are
matched to industries described in the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
All types of SEVP-certified schools are described in
the NAICS codes for the Educational Sector (611).

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

55697

classified as small entities, we have
found that a significantly larger number
of the schools certified since 2004 were
small schools. In addition, we anticipate
that the overwhelming majority (over
90%) of potential small schools
Projected
applying for certification in the future
Level of impact
number of
small schools
will have compliance costs of 1% or less
of the annual tuition earnings collected
7% to under 8% ..................
0 from nonimmigrant students. As such,
10% to under 11% ..............
0 we believe the increased school
12% to under 13% ..............
1
certification fee will not prove to be a
23% to under 24% ..............
1
major disincentive for those schools
wishing to admit nonimmigrant
As evidenced from the table above,
students.
the overwhelming majority,
We did not receive public comments
approximately 91.8%, of small schools
in opposition of our belief that the rule
expected to apply for certification will
will not cause a significant economic
have compliance costs of less than 1%
impact to a substantial number of
of their annual earnings. Furthermore,
affected businesses, as stated in the
only 18 schools (about 3% of small
analysis accompanying the proposed
school certification applicants) will
rule. In light of public comments
have impact costs of 2% or more, and
received, combined with our analysis of
only 11 schools (about 2%) will have
the expected compliance costs impacts
impact costs of 3% or more. Only 5
of certification, DHS certifies that this
small schools (about 0.9%) are expected rule will not have a significant
to have compliance impacts of 5% or
economic impact on a substantial
more of their annual earnings.
number of small entities.
Public Comments on the Economic
B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Analysis and IRFA to the Proposed Rule
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The RFA requires agencies to address of 1995 (UMRA) requires certain actions
all significant public comments raised
to be taken by an agency before
in regard to the expected economic
‘‘promulgation of any rule that includes
impact of the regulation. SEVP received any federal mandate that may result in
two comments directly referencing the
the expenditure by State, Local and
economic impacts of the rule. One
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
commenter expressed concern over the
by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or
increase in the I–901 SEVIS fee, stating
more (adjusted annually for inflation) in
that the increased fee coupled with
any 1 year.’’ 2 U.S.C. 1532(a). This
immigration laws would result in
rulemaking is not a ‘‘Federal mandate,’’
decreased enrollment among small to
as defined for UMRA purposes, 2 U.S.C.
mid-sized educational institutions in
658(6), as the payment of an SEVP
the United States. While SEVP
certification fee by individuals, Local
recognizes that the increased
governments or other private sector
nonimmigrant student application fee
entities is (to the extent it could be
will place an additional cost burden on
termed an enforceable duty) one that
those students wishing to study in the
arises from participation in a voluntary
United States, we do not believe it will
federal program (i.e., applying for status
result in significant decreases in
as F–1, F–3, M–1, or M–3 students or as
enrollment among U.S. small to midJ–1 exchange visitor in the United States
size educational institutions. Prior to
or seeking approval from the United
implementing this rule, SEVP compared States for attendance by certain aliens
the new fee schedule for nonimmigrant
seeking status as F–1, F–3, M–1
students with that of our top 12 global
students). 2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A)(ii).
competitors and discovered that the
Therefore, no actions were deemed
new fees would place the United States
necessary under the provisions of the
firmly in the upper-middle of this
UMRA.
group. Furthermore, SEVP is under
C. Small Business Regulatory
statutory requirement to regularly
review and adjust fees collected so as to Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
capture the true operating costs of the
This rulemaking is not a major rule,
program. Another commenter expressed as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes
concern over the increase in the
of Congressional review of agency
certification fee, and stated the increase rulemaking under the Small Business
is a disincentive for schools, especially
Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996,
small schools, to seek certification.
Public Law 104–121. This rulemaking
Based on our review of current SEVPwould not result in an annual effect on
certification schools, especially those
the economy of more than $100 million;

TABLE 1—PROJECTED NUMBER OF
SMALL SCHOOLS EXPECTED TO
CERTIFY BY LEVEL OF IMPACT—
Continued

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

55698

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

a major increase in costs or prices; or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of U.S.-based companies to
compete with foreign-based companies
in domestic and export markets.
D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Review
This proposed rule is not considered
by DHS to be an economically
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),
Regulatory Planning and Review, since
it would not have an annual effect on
the U.S. economy of $100 million. The
implementation of this proposed rule
would provide ICE with additional fee
revenue of $58.538 million in FY 2009
and $62.581 million in FY 2010. It is,
however, a significant rulemaking under
the Executive order and therefore has
been reviewed by OMB.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This rulemaking would not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
or on the relationship between the
federal government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Consequently,
DHS has determined that this
rulemaking does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement, in accordance with
section 6 of Executive Order 13132.

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
This proposed rule meets the
applicable standards set forth in 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
G. 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
(1995), 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Schools
will be using SEVIS to petition for
recertification. The recertification
process requires schools to input data
into 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 captured in
SEVIS. The OMB Control Number for
this collection is 1615–0066 (changed to
1653–0038). With the implementation of
SEVIS under 67 FR 60107 (September
25, 2002), most schools enrolled in
SEVIS were petitioning for DHS
recertification, rather than initial

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

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 fees require
changes to SEVIS and the I–901
software to reflect the updated fee
amounts, as these systems generate the
pertinent petition and application
forms. SEVP would submit a revision to
OMB with respect to any changes to
existing information collection
approvals.
List of Subjects
8 CFR Part 103
Administrative practice and
procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Freedom of
Information, 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—POWERS AND DUTIES;
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS
1. The authority citation for part 103
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C.
1101, 1103, 1304, 1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701;
Public Law 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.

2. Section 103.7(b)(1) is amended by
revising the entries for Forms I–17,
I–290B, and I–901 in the listing of fees,
to read as follows:

■

§ 103.7

Fees.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
Form I–17. For filing a petition for
school certification—$1,700, plus a site
visit fee of $655 for each location listed
on the form.
*
*
*
*
*
Form I–901. For remittance of the
I–901 SEVIS fee for F and M students—
$200. For remittance of the I–901 SEVIS
fee for certain J exchange visitors—$180.
For remittance of the I–901 SEVIS fee
for J–1 au pairs, camp counselors, and
participants in a summer work/travel
program—$35. There is no I–901 SEVIS
fee remittance obligation for J exchange

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

visitors in federally-funded programs
with a program identifier designation
prefix that begins with G–1, G–2, G–3 or
G–7.
*

*

*

*

*

PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES
3. The authority citation for part 214
is revised to read as follows:

■

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182,
1184, 1185 (pursuant to E.O. 13323, 69 FR
241, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 278), 1186a,
1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301–1305, 1356,
1372, 1379, 1731–32; section 643, Public Law
104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–708; 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, 8 CFR part
2.

4. Section 214.3 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
b. Adding paragraph (a)(3);
c. Revising the first sentence in
paragraph (b) introductory text;
■ d. Revising the first sentence in
paragraph (c);
■ e. Revising paragraphs (d), (e), and (f);
■ f. Revising paragraph (g)(1);
■ g. Removing paragraph (g)(2);
■ h. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(3) and
(g)(4) as paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3)
respectively;
■ i. Revising newly designated
paragraph (g)(2) heading, and by
revising newly designated paragraphs
(g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii) introductory text,
(g)(2)(ii)(E), and (g)(2)(iii)(C);
■ j. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(D);
■ k. Revising paragraph (h);
■ l. Revising paragraph (i);
■ m. Revising the introductory text of
paragraph (k);
■ n. Revising paragraph (l)(1)(ii);
■ o. Revising paragraph (l)(2).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
■
■

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

(a) * * *
(1) General. A school or school system
seeking initial or continued
authorization for attendance by
nonimmigrant students under sections
101(a)(15)(F)(i) or 101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the
Act, or both, must file a petition for
certification or recertification with
SEVP, using the Student and Exchange
Visitor Information System (SEVIS), in
accordance with the procedures at
paragraph (h) of this section. The
petition must state whether the school
or school system is seeking certification
or recertification for attendance of
nonimmigrant students under section

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
101(a)(15)(F)(i) or 101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the
Act or both. The petition must identify
by name and address each location of
the school that is included in the
petition for certification or
recertification, specifically including
any physical location in which a
nonimmigrant can attend classes
through the school (i.e., campus,
extension campuses, satellite campuses,
etc.).
(i) School systems. A school system,
as used in this section, means public
school (grades 9–12) or private school
(grades kindergarten–12). A petition by
a school system must include a list of
the names and addresses of those
schools included in the petition with
the supporting documents.
(ii) Submission requirements.
Certification and recertification
petitions require that a complete Form
I–17, Petition for Approval of School for
Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student,
including supplements A and B and
bearing original signatures, be included
with the school’s submission of
supporting documentation. In
submitting the Form I–17, a school
certifies that the designated school
officials (DSOs) signing the form have
read and understand DHS regulations
relating to: Nonimmigrant students at 8
CFR 214.1, 214.2(f), and/or 214.2(m);
change of nonimmigrant classification
for students at 8 CFR 248; school
certification and recertification under
this section; withdrawal of school
certification under this section and 8
CFR 214.4; that both the school and its
DSOs intend to comply with these
regulations at all times; and that, to the
best of its knowledge, the school is
eligible for SEVP certification. Willful
misstatements may constitute perjury
(18 U.S.C. 1621).
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Eligibility. (i) The petitioner, to be
eligible for certification, must establish
at the time of filing that it:
(A) Is a bona fide school;
(B) Is an established institution of
learning or other recognized place of
study;
(C) Possesses the necessary facilities,
personnel, and finances to conduct
instruction in recognized courses; and
(D) Is, in fact, engaged in instruction
in those courses.
(ii) The petitioner, to be eligible for
recertification, must establish at the
time of filing that it:
(A) Remains eligible for certification
in accordance with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of
this section;
(B) Has complied during its previous
period of certification or recertification
with recordkeeping, retention, and

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

reporting requirements and all other
requirements of paragraphs (g), (j), (k),
and (l) of this section.
(b) * * * Institutions petitioning for
certification or recertification must
submit certain supporting documents as
follows, pursuant to sections
101(a)(15)(F) and (M) of the Act. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * * If the petitioner is a
vocational, business, or language school,
or American institution of research
recognized as such by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, it must submit
evidence that its courses of study are
accepted as fulfilling the requirements
for the attainment of an educational,
professional, or vocational objective,
and are not avocational or recreational
in character. * * *
(d) Interview of petitioner. The
petitioner or an authorized
representative of the petitioner may be
required to appear in person before or
be interviewed by telephone by a DHS
representative prior to the adjudication
of a petition for certification or
recertification. The interview will be
conducted under oath.
(e) Notices to schools related to
certification or recertification petitions
or to out-of-cycle review—(1) General.
All notices from SEVP to schools or
school systems related to school
certification, recertification, or out-ofcycle review (including, but not limited
to, notices related to the collection of
evidence, testimony, and appearance
pertaining to petitions for recertification
encompassing compliance with the
recordkeeping, retention and reporting,
and other requirements of paragraphs
(f), (g), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, as
well as to eligibility) will be served in
accordance with the procedures at 8
CFR 103.2(b)(1), (4)–(16), (18) and (19),
with the exception that all procedures
will be conducted by SEVP, the SEVP
Director, and the Assistant Secretary,
ICE, as appropriate, and except as
provided in this section. All such
notices will be served (i.e., generated
and transmitted) through SEVIS and/or
by e-mail. The date of service is the date
of transmission of the e-mail notice.
DSOs must maintain current contact
information, including current e-mail
addresses, at all times. Failure of a
school to receive SEVP notices due to
inaccurate DSO e-mail addresses in
SEVIS or blockages of the school’s
e-mail system caused by spam filters is
not grounds for appeal of a denial or
withdrawal. The term ‘‘in writing’’
means either a paper copy bearing
original signatures or an electronic copy
bearing electronic signatures.
(2) SEVP approval notification and
SEVIS updating by certified schools.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

55699

SEVP will notify the petitioner by
updating SEVIS to reflect approval of
the petition and by e-mail upon
approval of a certification or
recertification petition. The certification
or recertification is valid only for the
type of program and nonimmigrant
classification specified in the
certification or recertification approval
notice. The certification must be
recertified every two years and may be
subject to out-of-cycle review at any
time. Approval may be withdrawn in
accordance with 8 CFR 214.4.
(3) Modifications to Form I–17 while
a school is SEVP-certified. Any
modification made by an SEVP-certified
school on the Form I–17 at any time
after certification and for the duration of
a school’s authorization to enroll F and/
or M students must be reported to SEVP
and will be processed by SEVP in
accordance with the provisions of
paragraphs (f)(1), (g)(2) and (h)(3)(i) of
this section.
(4) Notice of Intent to Withdraw
(NOIW) SEVP certification—(i)
Automatic withdrawal. SEVP will serve
the school with an NOIW 30 days prior
to a school’s SEVP certification
expiration date if the school has not
submitted to SEVP a completed
recertification petition, in accordance
with paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
The school will be automatically
withdrawn immediately, in accordance
with 8 CFR 214.4(a)(3), if it has not
submitted a completed recertification
petition by the school’s certification
expiration date.
(ii) Withdrawal on notice. SEVP will
serve a Withdrawal on Notice, in
accordance with 8 CFR 214.4(b), if SEVP
determines that a school reviewed outof-cycle has failed to sustain eligibility
or has failed to comply with the
recordkeeping, retention, reporting and
other requirements of paragraphs (f), (g),
(j), (k), and (l) of this section. When a
school fails to file an answer to an
NOIW within the 30-day period, SEVP
will withdraw the school’s certification
and notify the DSOs of the decision, in
accordance with 8 CFR 214.4(d). Such
withdrawal of certification may not be
appealed.
(5) Notice of Denial. A Notice of
Denial will be served to a school when
SEVP denies a petition for initial
certification or recertification. The
notice will address appeals options.
Schools denied recertification must
comply with 8 CFR 214.4(i).
(6) Notice of Automatic Withdrawal.
Schools that relinquish SEVP
certification for any of the reasons cited
in 8 CFR 214.4(a)(3) will be served a
Notice of Automatic Withdrawal.

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

55700

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

(7) Notice of Withdrawal. A school
found to be ineligible for continued
SEVP certification as a result of an outof-cycle review will receive a Notice of
Withdrawal. Schools withdrawn must
comply with 8 CFR 214.4(i).
(8) Notice of SEVIS Access
Termination Date. The Notice of SEVIS
Access Termination Date gives the
official date for the school’s denial or
withdrawal to be final and SEVIS access
to be terminated. In most situations,
SEVP will not determine a SEVIS access
termination date for that school until
the appeals process has concluded and
the initial denial or withdrawal has
been upheld, in accordance with 8 CFR
214.4(i)(3). The school will no longer be
able to access SEVIS and SEVP will
automatically terminate any remaining
Active SEVIS records for that school on
that date.
(f) Adjudication of a petition for SEVP
certification or recertification—(1)
Approval. The school is required to
immediately report through SEVIS any
change to its school information upon
approval of a petition for SEVP
certification or recertification.
Modification to school information
listed in paragraph (h)(3) of this section
will require a determination of
continued eligibility for certification.
The certification or recertification is
valid only for the type of program and
student specified in the approval notice.
The certification may be withdrawn in
accordance with the provisions of 8 CFR
214.4, is subject to review at any time,
and will be reviewed every two years.
(2) Denial. The petitioner will be
notified of the reasons for the denial and
appeal rights, in accordance with the
provisions of 8 CFR part 103 and 8 CFR
214.4, if SEVP denies a petition for
certification or recertification.
(g) * * *
(1) Student records. An SEVPcertified school must keep records
containing certain specific information
and documents relating to each F–1 or
M–1 student to whom it has issued a
Form I–20, while the student is
attending the school and until the
school notifies SEVP, in accordance
with the requirements of paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of this section, that the
student is not pursuing a full course of
study. Student information not required
for entry in SEVIS may be kept in the
school’s student system of records, but
must be accessible to DSOs. The school
must keep a record of having complied
with the reporting requirements for at
least three years after the student is no
longer pursuing a full course of study.
The school must maintain records on
the student in accordance with
paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

if a school recommends reinstatement
for a student who is out of status. The
school must maintain records on the
student for three years from the date of
the denial if the reinstatement is denied.
The DSO must make the information
and documents required by this
paragraph available, including academic
transcripts, and must furnish them to
DHS representatives upon request.
Schools must maintain and be able to
provide an academic transcript or other
routinely maintained student records
that reflect the total, unabridged
academic history of the student at the
institution, in accordance with
paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section. All
courses must be recorded in the
academic period in which the course
was taken and graded. The information
and documents that the school must
keep on each student are as follows:
(i) Identification of the school, to
include name and full address.
(ii) Identification of the student, to
include name while in attendance
(record any legal name change), date
and place of birth, country of
citizenship, and school’s student
identification number.
(iii) Current address where the
student and his or her dependents
physically reside. In the event the
student or his or her dependents cannot
receive mail at such physical residence,
the school must provide a mailing
address in SEVIS. If the mailing address
and the physical address are not the
same, the school must maintain a record
of both mailing and physical addresses
and provide the physical location of
residence of the student and his or her
dependents to DHS upon request.
(iv) Record of coursework. Identify
the student’s degree program and field
of study. For each course, give the
periods of enrollment, course
identification code and course title; the
number of credits or contact hours, and
the grade; the number of credits or clock
hours, and for credit hour courses the
credit unit; the term unit (semester
hour, quarter hour, etc.). Include the
date of withdrawal if the student
withdrew from a course. Show the grade
point average for each session or term.
Show the cumulative credits or clock
hours and cumulative grade point
average. Narrative evaluation will be
accepted in lieu of grades when the
school uses no other type of grading.
(v) Record of transfer credit or clock
hours accepted. Type of hours, course
identification, grades.
(vi) Academic status. Include the
effective date or period if suspended,
dismissed, placed on probation, or
withdrawn.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

(vii) Whether the student has been
certified for practical training, and the
beginning and end dates of certification.
(viii) Statement of graduation (if
applicable). Title of degree or credential
received, date conferred, program of
study or major.
(ix) Termination date and reason.
(x) The documents referred to in
paragraph (k) of this section.
Note to paragraph (g)(1): A DHS officer
may request any or all of the data in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (x) of this section
on any individual student or class of students
upon notice. This notice will be in writing
if requested by the school. The school will
have three work days to respond to any
request for information concerning an
individual student, and ten work days to
respond to any request for information
concerning a class of students. The school
will respond orally on the same day the
request for information is made if DHS
requests information on a student who is
being held in custody, and DHS will provide
a written notification that the request was
made after the fact, if the school so desires.
DHS will first attempt to gain information
concerning a class of students from DHS
record systems.

(2) Reporting changes in student and
school information. (i) Schools must
update SEVIS with the current
information within 21 days of a change
in any of the information contained in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (h)(3) of this
section.
(ii) Schools are also required to report
within 21 days any change of the
information contained in paragraph
(g)(1) or the occurrence of the following
events:
*
*
*
*
*
(E) Any other notification request not
covered by paragraph (g)(1) of this
section made by DHS with respect to the
current status of the student.
(iii) * * *
(C) The start date of the student’s next
session, term, semester, trimester, or
quarter. For initial students, the start
date is the ‘‘program start date’’ or
‘‘report date.’’ (These terms are used
interchangeably.) The DSO may choose
a reasonable date to accommodate a
student’s need to be in attendance for
required activities at the school prior to
the actual start of classes when
determining the report date on the Form
I–20. Such required activities may
include, but are not limited to, research
projects and orientation sessions. The
DSO may not, however, indicate a
report date more than 30 days prior to
the start of classes. The next session
start date is the start of classes for
continuing students.
(D) Adjustment to the program
completion date. Any factors that
influence the student’s progress toward

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
program completion (e.g., deferred
attendance, authorized drop below,
program extension) must be reflected by
making an adjustment updating the
program completion date.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) SEVP certification, recertification,
out-of-cycle review, and oversight of
schools.
(1) Certification. A school seeking
SEVP certification for attendance by
nonimmigrants under section
101(a)(15)(F)(i) or 101(a)(15)(m)(i) of the
Act must use SEVIS to file an electronic
petition (which compiles the data for
the Form I–17) and must submit the
nonrefundable certification petition fee
on-line.
(i) Filing a petition. The school must
access the SEVP Web site at http://
www.ice.gov/sevis to file a certification
petition in SEVIS. The school will be
issued a temporary ID and password in
order to access SEVIS to complete and
submit an electronic Form I–17. The
school must submit the proper
nonrefundable certification petition fee
as provided in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1).
(ii) Site visit, petition adjudication
and school notification. SEVP will
conduct a site visit for each petitioning
school and its additional schools or
campuses. SEVP will contact the school
to arrange the site visit. The school must
comply with and complete the visit
within 30 days after the date SEVP
contacts the school to arrange the visit,
or the petition for certification will be
denied as abandoned. DSOs and school
officials that have signed the school’s
Form I–17 petition must be able to
demonstrate to DHS representatives
how they obtain access to the
regulations cited in the certification as
part of the site visit. Paper or electronic
access is acceptable. DSOs must be able
to extract pertinent citations within the
regulations related to their requirements
and responsibilities. SEVP will serve a
notice of approval and SEVIS will be
updated to reflect the school’s
certification if SEVP approves the
school’s certification petition.
(iii) Certification denial. SEVP will
serve a notice of denial in accordance
with paragraph (f)(2) of this section if a
school’s petition for certification is
denied.
(2) Recertification. Schools are
required to file a completed petition for
SEVP recertification before the school’s
certification expiration date, which is
two years from the date of their previous
SEVP certification or recertification
expiration date, except for the first
recertification cycle after publication of
the recertification rule. There is no
recertification petition fee. SEVP will

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

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.
(i) Filing of petition for recertification.
Schools must submit a completed Form
I–17 (including supplements A and B)
using SEVIS, and submit a paper copy
of the Form I–17 bearing original
signatures of all officials. SEVP will
notify all DSOs of a previously certified
school 180 days prior to the school’s
certification expiration date that the
school may submit a petition for
recertification. A school may file its
recertification petition at any time after
receipt of this notification. A school
must submit a complete recertification
petition package, as outlined in the
submission guidelines, by its
certification expiration date. SEVP will
send a notice of confirmation of
complete filing or rejection to the school
upon receipt of any filing of a petition
for recertification.
(A) Notice of confirmation assures a
school of uninterrupted access to SEVIS
while SEVP adjudicates the school’s
petition for recertification. A school that
has complied with the petition
submission requirements will continue
to have SEVIS access after its
certification expiration date while the
adjudication for recertification is
pending. The school is required to
comply with all regulatory
recordkeeping, retention and reporting,
and other requirements of paragraphs
(f), (g), (j), (k), and (l) of this section
during the period the petition is
pending.
(B) Notice of rejection informs a
school that it must take prompt
corrective action in regard to its
recertification petition prior to its
certification expiration date to ensure
that its SEVIS access will not be
terminated and its petition for
recertification will be accepted for
adjudication.
(ii) Consequence of failure to petition.
SEVP will serve an NOIW to the school
30 days prior to a school’s certification
expiration date. SEVP will no longer
accept a petition for recertification from
the school and will immediately
withdraw the school’s certification if the
school does not petition for
recertification, abandons its petition, or
does not submit a complete
recertification petition package by the
certification expiration date, in
accordance with the automatic
withdrawal criteria in 8 CFR 214.4(a)(3).

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

55701

The school must comply with 8 CFR
214.4(i) upon withdrawal.
(iii) School recertification process—
(A) General. School recertification
reaffirms the petitioning school’s
eligibility for SEVP certification and the
school’s compliance with
recordkeeping, retention, reporting and
other requirements of paragraphs (f), (g),
(j), (k), and (l) of this section since its
previous certification.
(B) Compliance. Assessment by SEVP
of a school petitioning for recertification
will focus primarily on overall school
compliance, but may also include
examination of individual DSO
compliance as data and circumstances
warrant. Past performance of these
individuals, whether or not they
continue to serve as principal
designated school officials (PDSOs) or
DSOs, will be considered in any petition
for recertification of the school.
(C) On-site review for recertification.
All schools are subject to on-site review,
at the discretion of SEVP, in
conjunction with recertification. The
school must comply with and complete
an on-site review within 30 days of the
notification by a DHS representative of
a school that it has been selected for an
on-site review for recertification, or the
petition for recertification will be
denied as abandoned, resulting in the
school’s withdrawal from SEVIS.
(iv) Recertification approval. SEVP
will serve a notice of approval if a
school’s petition for recertification is
approved. The date of the subsequent
recertification review will be two years
after the school’s certification expiration
date from this petition cycle.
(v) Recertification denial. SEVP will
serve a notice of denial if a school’s
petition for recertification is denied, in
accordance with 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(i).
(vi) Adjustment of certification
expiration date. Schools eligible for
recertification before March 25, 2009
will, at a minimum, have their
certification expiration date extended to
March 25, 2009. SEVP may extend the
certification expiration date beyond this
date during the first cycle of
recertification.
(3) Out-of-cycle review and oversight
of SEVP-certified schools. (i) SEVP will
determine if out-of-cycle review is
required upon receipt in SEVIS of any
changes from an SEVP-certified school
to its Form I–17 information. The Form
I–17 information that requires out-ofcycle review when changed includes:
(A) Approval for attendance of
students (F/M/both);
(B) Name of school system; name of
main campus;
(C) Mailing address of the school;
(D) Location of the school;

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

55702

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

(E) School type;
(F) Public/private school indicator;
(G) Private school owner name;
(H) The school is engaged in;
(I) The school operates under the
following Federal, State, Local or other
authorization;
(J) The school has been approved by
the following national, regional, or state
accrediting association or agency;
(K) Areas of study;
(L) Degrees available from the school;
(M) If the school is engaged in
elementary or secondary education;
(N) If the school is engaged in higher
education;
(O) If the school is engaged in
vocational or technical education;
(P) If the school is engaged in English
language training;
(Q) Adding or deleting campuses;
(R) Campus name;
(S) Campus mailing address; and
(T) Campus location address.
(ii) SEVP may request a school to
electronically update all Form I–17
fields in SEVIS and provide SEVP with
documentation supporting the update.
The school must complete such updates
in SEVIS and submit the supporting
documentation to SEVP within 10
business days of the request from SEVP.
(iii) SEVP may review a school’s
certification at any time to verify the
school’s compliance with the
recordkeeping, retention, reporting and
other requirements of paragraphs (f), (g),
(j), (k), and (l) of this section to verify
the school’s continued eligibility for
SEVP certification pursuant to
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. SEVP
may initiate remedial action with the
school, as appropriate, and may initiate
withdrawal proceedings against the
school pursuant to 8 CFR 214.4(b) if
noncompliance or ineligibility of a
school is identified.
(iv) On-site review. SEVP-certified
schools are subject to on-site review at
any time. SEVP will initiate withdrawal
proceedings against a certified school,
pursuant to 8 CFR 214.4(b), if the
certified school selected for on-site
review prior to its certification
expiration date fails to comply with and
complete the review within 30 days of
the date SEVP contacted the school to
arrange the review.
(v) Notice of Continued Eligibility.
SEVP will serve the school a notice of
continued eligibility if, upon
completion of an out-of-cycle review,
SEVP determines that the school
remains eligible for certification. Such
notice will not change the school’s
previously-determined certification
expiration date unless specifically
notified by SEVP.
(vi) Withdrawal of certification. SEVP
will institute withdrawal proceedings in

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

accordance with 8 CFR 214.4(b) if, upon
completion of an out-of-cycle review,
SEVP determines that a school or its
programs are no longer eligible for
certification.
(vii) Voluntary withdrawal. A school
can voluntarily withdraw from SEVP
certification at any time or in lieu of
complying with an out-of-cycle review
or request. Failure of a school to comply
with an out-of-cycle review or request
by SEVP will be treated as a voluntary
withdrawal. A school must initiate
voluntary withdrawal by sending a
request for withdrawal on official school
letterhead to SEVP.
(i) Administration of student
regulations. DHS officials may conduct
out-of-cycle, on-site reviews on the
campuses of SEVP-certified schools to
determine whether nonimmigrant
students on those campuses are
complying with DHS regulations
pertaining to them, including the
requirement that each maintains a valid
passport. DHS officers will take
appropriate action regarding violations
of the regulations by nonimmigrant
students.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Issuance of Certificate of
Eligibility. A DSO of an SEVP-certified
school must sign any completed Form
I–20 issued for either a prospective or
continuing student or a dependent. A
Form I–20 issued by a certified school
system must state which school within
the system the student will attend. Only
a DSO of an SEVP-certified school may
issue a Form I–20 to a prospective
student and his or her dependents, and
only after the following conditions are
met:
*
*
*
*
*
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Each campus must have one
PDSO. The PDSO is responsible for
updating SEVIS to reflect the addition
or deletion of any DSO on his or her
associated campus. SEVP will use the
PDSO as the point of contact on any
issues that relate to the school’s
compliance with the regulations, as well
as any system alerts generated by SEVIS.
SEVP may also designate certain
functions in SEVIS for use by the PDSO
only. The PDSO of the main campus is
the only DSO authorized to submit a
Form I–17 for recertification. The PDSO
and DSO will share the same
responsibilities in all other respects.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Name, title, and sample signature.
Petitions for SEVP certification, review
and recertification must include the
names, titles, and sample signatures of
designated officials. An SEVP-certified

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

school must update SEVIS upon any
changes to the persons who are
principal or designated officials, and
furnish the name, title and e-mail
address of any new official within 21
days of the change. Any changes to the
PDSO or DSO must be made by the
PDSO within 21 days of the change.
DHS may, at its discretion, reject the
submission of any individual as a DSO
or withdraw a previous submission by
a school of an individual.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 214.4 is amended by:
■ a. Revising the section heading;
■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2) and
(a)(3) as paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4)
respectively;
■ d. Adding a new paragraph (a)(2);
■ e. Revising newly designated
paragraph (a)(3);
■ f. Revising paragraph (b);
■ g. Revising paragraphs (g) and (h); and
by
■ h. Adding paragraph (i).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 214.4 Denial of certification, denial of
recertification or withdrawal of SEVP
certification.

(a) * * *
(1) Denial of certification. The
petitioning school will be notified of the
reasons and appeal rights if a petition
for certification is denied, in accordance
with the provisions of 8 CFR
103.3(a)(1)(iii). No fee is required with
appeals related to SEVP certification. A
petitioning school denied certification
may file a new petition for certification
at any time.
(2) Denial of recertification or
withdrawal on notice. The school must
wait at least one calendar year from the
date of denial of recertification or
withdrawal on notice before being
eligible to petition again for SEVP
certification if a school’s petition for
recertification is denied by SEVP
pursuant to 8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)(v), or its
certification is withdrawn on notice
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
Eligibility to re-petition will be at the
discretion of the Director of SEVP. SEVP
certification of a school or school
system for the attendance of
nonimmigrant students, pursuant to
sections 101(a)(15)(F)(i) and/or
101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, will be withdrawn on
notice subsequent to out-of-cycle
review, or recertification denied, if the
school or school system is determined
to no longer be entitled to certification
for any valid and substantive reason
including, but not limited to, the
following:

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(i) Failure to comply with 8 CFR
214.3(g)(1) without a subpoena.
(ii) Failure to comply with 8 CFR
214.3(g)(2).
(iii) Failure of a DSO to notify SEVP
of the attendance of an F–1 transfer
student as required by 8 CFR
214.2(f)(8)(ii).
(iv) Failure of a DSO to identify on the
Form I–20 which school within the
system the student must attend, in
compliance with 8 CFR 214.3(k).
(v) Willful issuance by a DSO of a
false statement, including wrongful
certification of a statement by signature,
in connection with a student’s school
transfer or application for employment
or practical training.
(vi) Conduct on the part of a DSO that
does not comply with the regulations.
(vii) The designation as a DSO of an
individual who does not meet the
requirements of 8 CFR 214.3(l)(1).
(viii) Failure to provide SEVP paper
copies of the school’s Form I–17 bearing
the names, titles, and signatures of
DSOs as required by 8 CFR 214.3(l)(2).
(ix) Failure to submit statements of
DSOs as required by 8 CFR 214.3(l)(3).
(x) Issuance of Forms I–20 to students
without receipt of proof that the
students have met scholastic, language,
or financial requirements as required by
8 CFR 214.3(k)(2).
(xi) Issuance of Forms I–20 to aliens
who will not be enrolled in or carry full
courses of study, as defined in 8 CFR
214.2(f)(6) or 214.2(m)(9).
(xii) Failure to operate as a bona fide
institution of learning.
(xiii) Failure to employ adequate
qualified professional personnel.
(xiv) Failure to limit advertising in the
manner prescribed in 8 CFR 214.3(j).
(xv) Failure to maintain proper
facilities for instruction.
(xvi) Failure to maintain accreditation
or licensing necessary to qualify
graduates as represented in the school’s
Form I–17.
(xvii) Failure to maintain the physical
plant, curriculum, and teaching staff in
the manner represented in the Form
I–17.
(xviii) Failure to comply with the
procedures for issuance of Forms I–20
as set forth in 8 CFR 214.3(k).
(xix) Failure of a DSO to notify SEVP
of material changes, such as changes to
the school’s name, address, or curricular
changes that represent material change
to the scope of institution offerings (e.g.,
addition of a program, class or course
for which the school is issuing Forms
I–20, but which does not have Form I–
17 approval), as required by 8 CFR
214.3(f)(1).
(3) Automatic withdrawal. A school
that is automatically withdrawn and

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:40 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

subsequently wishes to enroll
nonimmigrant students in the future
may file a new petition for SEVP
certification at any time. The school
must use the certification petition
procedures described in 8 CFR
214.3(h)(1) to gain access to SEVIS for
submitting its petition. Past compliance
with the recordkeeping, retention,
reporting and other requirements of 8
CFR 214.3(f), (g), (j), (k), and (l), and
with the requirements for transition of
students under paragraph (i) of this
section will be considered in the
evaluation of a school’s subsequent
petition for certification. SEVP
certification will be automatically
withdrawn:
(i) As of the date of termination of
operations, if an SEVP-certified school
terminates its operations.
(ii) As of a school’s certification
expiration date, if an SEVP-certified
school does not submit a completed
recertification petition in the manner
required by 8 CFR 214.3(h)(2).
(iii) Sixty days after the change of
ownership if an SEVP-certified school
changes ownership, unless the school
files a new petition for SEVP
certification, in accordance with the
procedures at 8 CFR 214.3(h)(1), within
60 days of the change of ownership.
SEVP will review the petition if the
school properly files such petition to
determine whether the school still
meets the eligibility requirements of 8
CFR 214.3(a)(3) and is still in
compliance with the recordkeeping,
retention, reporting and other
requirements of 8 CFR 214.3(f), (g), (j),
(k), and (l). SEVP will institute
withdrawal proceedings in accordance
with paragraph (b) of this section if,
upon completion of the review, SEVP
finds that the school is no longer
eligible for certification, or is not in
compliance with the recordkeeping,
retention, reporting and other
requirements of 8 CFR 214.3(f), (g), (j),
(k), and (l).
(iv) If an SEVP-certified school
voluntarily withdraws from its
certification.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Withdrawal on notice. SEVP will
initiate an out-of-cycle review and serve
the school with an NOIW if SEVP has
information that a school or school
system may no longer be entitled to
SEVP certification prior to the school
being due for its two-year
recertification. The NOIW will inform
the school of:
(1) The grounds for withdrawing
SEVP certification.
(2) The 30-day deadline from the date
of the service of the NOIW for the

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

55703

school to submit sworn statements, and
documentary or other evidence, to rebut
the grounds for withdrawal of
certification in the NOIW. An NOIW is
not a means for the school to submit
evidence that it should have previously
submitted as a part of its established
reporting requirements.
(3) The school’s right to submit a
written request (including e-mail)
within 30 days of the date of service of
the NOIW for a telephonic interview in
support of its response to the NOIW.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Decision. The decision of SEVP
will be in accordance with 8 CFR
103.3(a)(1).
(h) Appeals. Notices of denial or
withdrawal of SEVP certification will
include appeal alternatives and filing
instructions. Any appeal must be taken
within 15 days after the service of the
decision by stating the reasons for the
appeal in the notice of appeal provided
with the instructions, and supported by
a statement or brief specifically setting
forth the grounds for contesting the
withdrawal of the approval. No fee is
required with appeals related to denial
of SEVP recertification or withdrawal of
SEVP certification.
(i) Operations at a school when SEVP
certification is relinquished or
withdrawn, or whose recertification is
denied and on the SEVIS access
termination date.
(1) General. A school whose
certification is relinquished or
withdrawn, or whose recertification is
denied may, at SEVP discretion, no
longer be able to create Initial student
records or issue new Forms I–20,
Certificate of Eligibility for
Nonimmigrant Student, for initial
attendance. Schools must comply with
the instructions given in the notice of
withdrawal or denial with regard to
management of status for their Initial
and continuing F and/or M students. All
other SEVIS functionality, including
event reporting for students, will remain
unchanged until the school’s SEVIS
access termination date. The school
must continue to comply with the
recordkeeping, retention, reporting and
other requirements of 8 CFR 214.3(f),
(g), (j), (k), and (l) until its SEVIS access
termination date.
(2) SEVIS access termination. In
determining the SEVIS access
termination date, SEVP will consider
the impact that such date will have
upon SEVP, the school, and the school’s
nonimmigrant students in determining
the SEVIS access termination date. In
most situations, SEVP will not
determine a SEVIS access termination
date for that school until the appeals

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1

55704

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

process has concluded and the initial
denial or withdrawal has been upheld
unless a school whose certification is
withdrawn or whose recertification is
denied is suspected of criminal activity
or poses a potential national security
threat. The school will no longer be able
to access SEVIS, and SEVP will
automatically terminate any remaining
Active SEVIS records for that school on
the SEVIS access termination date.
(3) Legal obligations and
ramifications for a school and its DSOs
when a school is having SEVP
certification denied or withdrawn.
Schools are obligated to their students
to provide the programs of study to
which they have committed themselves
in the students’ application for
enrollment and acceptance process.
Schools are obligated to the U.S.
government to comply with the
recordkeeping, retention, reporting and
other requirements contained in 8 CFR
214.3. With any new petition for SEVP
certification, SEVP will consider the
extent to which a school has fulfilled
these obligations to students and the
U.S. government during any previous
period of SEVP certification.
■ 6. Section 214.13 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1), to
read as follows:

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

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

(a) Applicability. The following aliens
are required to submit a payment in the
amount indicated for their status to the
Student and Exchange Visitor Program
(SEVP) in advance of obtaining
nonimmigrant status as an F or M
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 languagetraining institution including private
elementary and secondary schools and
public secondary schools, the amount of
$200;
(2) An alien who applies for J–1 status
in order to commence participation in
an exchange visitor program designated
by the Department of State (DoS), the
amount of $180, 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

VerDate Aug<31>2005

18:25 Sep 25, 2008

Jkt 214001

vocational educational institution,
including a flight school, in the amount
of $200.
(b) Aliens not subject to a fee. No
SEVIS fee is required with respect to:
(1) A J–1 exchange visitor who is
coming to the United States as a
participant in an exchange visitor
program sponsored by the Federal
government, identified by a program
identifier designation prefix of G–1,
G–2, G–3, or G–7;
*
*
*
*
*
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–22786 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–28–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
12 CFR Part 3
[Docket ID OCC–2008–0015]
RIN 1557–AD15

Risk-Based Capital Guidelines—Money
Market Mutual Funds
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, Treasury.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request
for public comment.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY: To reduce liquidity and other
strains being experienced by money
market mutual funds, the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System adopted on September 19, 2008,
a special lending facility that enables
depository institutions and bank
holding companies to borrow from the
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston on a
nonrecourse basis if they use the
proceeds of the loan to purchase certain
types of asset-backed commercial paper
(ABCP) from money market mutual
funds. This lending facility is referenced
to as the ABCP Lending Facility. To
facilitate the ability of national banks to
participate in the program, the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
has adopted, on an interim final basis,
an exemption from its risk-based capital
guidelines for ABCP held by a national
bank as a result of its participation in
this program.
DATES: This interim final rule is
effective on September 19, 2008.
However, comments must be received
on or before October 31, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Because paper mail in the
Washington, DC area and at the OCC is
subject to delay, commenters are
encouraged to submit comments by e-

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

mail, if possible. Please use the title
‘‘Risk-Based Capital Guidelines—Money
Market Mutual Funds’’ to facilitate the
organization and distribution of the
comments. You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal—
‘‘Regulations.gov’’: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov, under the ‘‘More
Search Options’’ tab click next to the
‘‘Advanced Docket Search’’ option
where indicated, select ‘‘Comptroller of
the Currency’’ from the agency dropdown menu, then click ‘‘Submit.’’ In the
‘‘Docket ID’’ column, select ‘‘OCC–
2008–0015’’ to submit or view public
comments and to view supporting and
related materials for this interim final
rule. The ‘‘How to Use This Site’’ link
on the Regulations.gov home page
provides information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions
for submitting or viewing public
comments, viewing other supporting
and related materials, and viewing the
docket after the close of the comment
period.
• E-mail:
[email protected].
• Mail: Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Mail
Stop 1–5, Washington, DC 20219.
• Fax: (202) 874–4448.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: 250 E
Street, SW., Attn: Public Information
Room, Mail Stop 1–5, Washington, DC
20219.
Instructions: You must include
‘‘OCC’’ as the agency name and ‘‘Docket
ID OCC–2008–0015’’ in your comment.
In general, OCC will enter all comments
received into the docket and publish
them on the Regulations.gov Web site
without change, including any business
or personal information that you
provide such as name and address
information, e-mail addresses, or phone
numbers. Comments received, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record
and subject to public disclosure. Do not
enclose any information in your
comment or supporting materials that
you consider confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may review comments and other
related materials that pertain to this
interim final rule by any of the
following methods:
• Viewing Comments Electronically:
Go to http://www.regulations.gov, under
the ‘‘More Search Options’’ tab click
next to the ‘‘Advanced Docket Search’’
option where indicated, select
‘‘Comptroller of the Currency’’ from the
agency drop-down menu, then click
‘‘Submit.’’ In the ‘‘Docket ID’’ column,
select ‘‘OCC–2008–0015’’ to view public
comments for this rulemaking action.

E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM

26SER1