[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33762-33794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15140]
[[Page 33761]]
Vol. 83
Tuesday,
No. 137
July 17, 2018
Part VI
Department of Homeland Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8 CFR Parts 103 and 214
Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 33762]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
8 CFR Parts 103 and 214
[DHS No. ICEB-2017-0003]
RIN 1653-AA74
Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor
Program
AGENCY: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to adjust
fees charged by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to
individuals and organizations. DHS proposes to raise the fee for
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Form I-901, Fee
Remittance for Certain F, J, and M Nonimmigrants, for nonimmigrants
seeking to become academic (F visa) or vocational (M visa) students
from $200 to $350. For most categories of individuals seeking to become
exchange (J visa) visitors, DHS proposes to increase the fee from $180
to $220. For those seeking admission as J exchange visitors in the au
pair, camp counselor, and summer work or travel program participant
categories, DHS proposes to maintain the fee at $35. In addition to
raising the student and exchange visitor fees, DHS proposes to increase
the fee for submitting a school certification petition from $1,700 to
$3,000. DHS proposes to maintain the fee for an initial school site
visit at the current level of $655, but clarify that, with the
effective date of the rule, DHS would exercise its current regulatory
authority to charge the site visit fee not only when a certified school
changes its physical location, but also when it adds a new physical
location or campus. DHS proposes to establish and clarify two new fees:
a $1,250 fee to submit a school recertification petition and a $675 fee
to submit an appeal or motion following a denial or withdrawal of a
school petition. Adjusting fees would ensure fee levels are sufficient
to recover the full cost of activities of the program and would
establish a fairer balance of the recovery of SEVP operational costs
between beneficiary classes.
DATES: Send comments by September 17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket No. ICEB-2017-
0003, to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), a government-
wide, electronic docket management system, by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for sending comments.
Mail: Address all comments to Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief,
Student and Exchange Visitor Program, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, 500 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20536. DHS docket staff, who maintain and process ICE's
official regulatory dockets, will scan the submission and post it to
FDMS.
Collection of information. You must submit comments on the
collection of information discussed in this notice of proposed
rulemaking to both DHS's docket and the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
OIRA submissions can be sent using any of the following methods.
Email (preferred): [email protected] (include
the docket number and ``Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, DHS'' in the subject line of the email).
Fax: 202-395-6566.
Mail: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503;
Attention: Desk Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS.
For additional instructions on sending comments, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Student and
Exchange Visitor Program; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Department of Homeland Security; 500 12th Street SW, Washington, DC
20536; 703-603-3400, [email protected]. This is not a toll-free number.
Program information can be found at http://www.ice.gov/sevis/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
B. Summary of Major Provisions
C. Costs and Benefits
II. Abbreviations and Acronyms
III. Public Participation
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
IV. Program Background
A. SEVP Legal Authorities
B. SEVP and Development of SEVIS
C. Authority To Collect Fees
D. Full Cost Recovery
V. Proposed Adjustment of SEVP Fees
A. Activities Funded Under the 2008 Fee Rule
1. Improved SEVIS Functionality
2. Oversight and Enforcement
3. Recertification
4. School Liaisons
B. Continuing SEVP Activities Funded With Proposed Fees
1. SEVIS Modernization
2. Increased SEVP Adjudication Personnel
3. Additional Investigatory Support
C. Basis for Fee Schedule
D. SEVP Baseline Costs and Fees
E. Methodology
1. ABC Approach
2. Full Cost
3. Cost Basis for SEVP Fees Based on Current Services
F. Summary of the Full Cost Information
1. Fee Allocation
2. SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 Cost Model Results
3. Fee Calculations
4. Proposed Fee Levels
VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771: Regulatory Review
1. Background and Purpose of the Proposed Rule
2. Impacts of Regulatory Change
3. Alternatives
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Congressional Review Act
E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
H. Energy Effects
I. Environment
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
List of Subjects
The Proposed Amendments
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
DHS proposes to adjust its fee schedule for students and exchange
visitors as well as for petitioning and certified schools. These fees
are associated with SEVP and SEVIS. They were last adjusted in 2008.
See 73 FR 55683 (Sept. 26, 2008).
SEVP, an ICE component, is funded entirely by fees charged to
individual applicants and organizational petitioners. Fees collected
from individuals and organizations are deposited into the Immigration
Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) and used to fund the operational costs
associated with SEVP and its management of SEVIS. See Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) section 286(m), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), and
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as
amended, (IIRIRA) section 641(e), (g), 8 U.S.C. 1372(e), (g).
[[Page 33763]]
In accordance with the requirements and principles of the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990, 31 U.S.C. 901-03 (CFO Act), and OMB
Circular A-25, SEVP reviews its associated fees that are deposited into
the IEFA biennially and, if necessary, proposes adjustments to ensure
recovery of costs necessary to meet national security, customer
service, and adjudicative processing goals. SEVP completed a biennial
fee review for fiscal year (FY) 2016 and FY 2017 in 2017. The projected
results indicate that current fee levels are insufficient to recover
the full cost of current and planned program activities. Section 286(m)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), provides that DHS may set fees for
adjudication and naturalization services at a level that would ensure
recovery of the full costs of providing such services, including the
costs of providing similar services without charge to asylum applicants
and certain other immigrants. Additionally, section 641 of IIRIRA, 8
U.S.C. 1372, authorizes DHS to periodically revise fees that cover the
cost of carrying out SEVP and maintenance of SEVIS. Pursuant to these
laws, DHS proposes the adjustments contained in this rule.
SEVP calculates the totality of its fees to recover the full cost
of its overall operations. Following its biennial fee review, SEVP
anticipates that if it continues to operate at current fee levels, it
will experience a shortfall of approximately $68.9 million beginning in
2019. At current fee levels, SEVP's current expenditures exceed current
revenues, without any service upgrades. The deficit is covered by
surplus revenue that was previously accumulated from 2009 to 2015. This
surplus will be exhausted in FY 2019 even without any service upgrades.
This projected shortfall poses a risk of degrading operations and
services funded by fee revenue. The proposed fee increases would allow
SEVP to cover the current deficit between revenue and expenditures plus
make the necessary service upgrades. The proposed fee levels thus
eliminate the risk of degrading operations, while also ensuring full
cost recovery by providing fees for each specific benefit that will
more adequately recover the cost associated with administering the
benefit.
B. Summary of Major Provisions
The proposed rule would adjust, institute, and clarify the
application of fees pertaining to services SEVP provides to reflect
existing and projected operating costs, program requirements, and
continued planned program improvements, in the following manner:
Increase the two types of individual student and exchange
visitor application fees, specifically the F and M I-901 SEVIS fee from
$200 to $350 and the full J-1 I-901 SEVIS fee from $180 to $220;
Increase the SEVP school certification petition fee for
initial certification from $1,700 to $3,000;
Institute a stand-alone fee of $1,250 when a school files
a petition for recertification of its existing SEVP certification;
Revise regulations to ensure collection of a $675 fee to
accompany the filing of a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, when
a school appeals or files a motion to reconsider or reopen a denial or
withdrawal of its SEVP certification; and
Maintain the $655 fee for a site visit at its current
level, but clarify that, with the effective date of the rule, SEVP
would exercise its current regulatory authority to charge the site
visit fee when a certified school changes its physical location or adds
a new physical location or campus on its Form I-17, ``Petition for
Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student.''
In making these changes, the proposed rule would allow SEVP to
fully fund activities and institute critical near-term program and
system enhancements in a more equitable manner through a fairer balance
of the recovery of SEVP operational costs between beneficiary classes.
A summary of the current and future fee structures is provided in Table
1 below.
C. Costs and Benefits
SEVP proposes to adjust fees to the amounts listed in Table 1.
Table 1--Current and Proposed Fee Amounts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Fee type Current fee Proposed fee fee adjustment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F/M....................................................... $200 $350 $150
I-901 J-Full.................................................... 180 220 40
I-901 J-Partial................................................. 35 35 0
I-17 Initial Certification...................................... 1,700 3,000 1,300
I-17 Recertification............................................ 0 1,250 1,250
Site Visit--initial............................................. 655 655 0
Site Visit--new location........................................ 0 655 655
Appeal Fee...................................................... 0 675 675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP expects to have a total annual increase in fees of $75.2
million in FY 2019 transferred from individuals and entities for the
services they receive. Table 2 shows the summary of the total annual
number of payments, incremental fee amounts, and total fees transferred
in FY 2019. This increase in fees would allow SEVP to not only maintain
its current level of service but also enhance SEVP's capability to
support national security and counter immigration fraud through the
continued development and implementation of critical system and
programmatic enhancements. Enhancements to SEVIS, including the
establishment of a student portal, will assist designated school
officials (DSOs) in their regulatory obligation to provide accurate and
timely information and will also rebalance this reporting requirement
by providing students an automated means to update their information.
Increased numbers of adjudication personnel will assist in reducing the
processing times for initial petitions, updates, and recertifications,
while enhanced vetting protocols will ensure that only those
nonimmigrant students who are eligible to enter and remain in the
country do so.
[[Page 33764]]
Table 2--Annual Proposed Incremental Fee Amounts, FY 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Proposed Annual fees
number of incremental transfer to
payments fee amounts government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F and M................................................... 418,393 $150 $62,758,950
I-901 J-Full.................................................... 157,550 40 6,302,000
I-17 Initial Certification...................................... 426 1,300 553,800
I-17 Recertification............................................ 4,373 1,250 3,279,750
Site Visits--initial............................................ 426 0 0
Site Visits--new location....................................... 174 655 113,970
Appeals......................................................... 54 675 36,450
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 75,231,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Abbreviations and Acronyms
ABC Activity-Based Costing
ARO alternate responsible officer
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CEU Compliance Enforcement Unit
CTCEU Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit
CFO Chief Financial Officer
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DoS Department of State
DSO designated school official
EBSVERA Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-173; May 14, 2002
FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
FY Fiscal Year
HSPD-2 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-2
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IEFA Immigration Examinations Fee Account
IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996, as amended
INA Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
IT information technology
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDSO principal designated school official
RO responsible officer
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFE request for evidence
SBA Small Business Administration
SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Program
SFFAS FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard
SSA Social Security Administration
TSA Transportation Security Administration
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
III. Public Participation
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you provide unless you request that your
personally identifiable information be redacted. We also invite
comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism
impacts that might result from this rulemaking action. See the
ADDRESSES section for information on how to submit comments.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit comments, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide reasons supporting each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and materials online or by
mail, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we
have questions regarding your submission. ICE will file all comments
sent to our docket address, as well as items sent to the address or
email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, in
the public docket, except for comments containing marked confidential
information. If you submit a comment, it will be considered received by
ICE when it is received at the Docket Management Facility.
To submit your comments online, go to http://www.regulations.gov
and insert the complete docket number starting with ``ICEB'' in the
``Search'' box. Click on the ``Comment Now!'' box and enter your
comment in the text box provided. Click the ``Continue'' box, and if
you are satisfied with your comment, follow the prompts to submit it.
If you submit your comments by mail, submit them in an unbound format,
no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
scanning and filing. Mailed submissions may be on paper or CD-ROM. If
you would like ICE to acknowledge receipt of comments submitted by
mail, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard or
envelope on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date of
receipt on the postcard and mail it to you.
We will consider all comments and materials received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. The docket is available for public inspection before and
after the comment closing date.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the complete docket number starting with ``ICEB'' in the
``Search'' box. Click on the ``Open Docket Folder'' and then click on
``View Comment'' or ``View All'' under the ``Comments'' section of the
page. Individuals without internet access can make alternate
arrangements for viewing comments and documents related to this
rulemaking by contacting ICE through the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section previously listed. Note: Because the software used in
computing these fees proposed in this rule is a commercial product
licensed to ICE, it may be accessed on-site by appointment by calling
the SEVP Response Center at (800) 892-4829.
C. Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may wish to consider limiting the
amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary public
comment submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information from
public viewing that it determines may affect the privacy of an
individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the
Privacy and Security
[[Page 33765]]
Notice posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
IV. Program Background
A. SEVP Legal Authorities
IIRIRA (Pub. L. 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (1996))
established the requirement for the monitoring and reporting of the
activities of foreign students and exchange visitors while they reside
in the United States (U.S.). Section 641 of IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. 1372,
mandated that the Attorney General develop and conduct a program for
the electronic collection of data by U.S.-approved (i.e., certified)
institutions of higher education, other approved educational
institutions, and designated exchange visitor programs, to monitor
nonimmigrants possessing or applying for F, M, and J class visas with a
Certificate of Eligibility.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under INA section 101(a)(15)(F)(i), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F)(i), a foreign student may be admitted into the United
States in nonimmigrant status to attend an academic or accredited
language training school (F nonimmigrant students). Under INA
section 101(a)(15)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(M)(i), a foreign
student may be admitted into the United States in nonimmigrant
status to attend a vocational education school (M nonimmigrant
students). An F or M nonimmigrant student may enroll in a particular
school only if the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified the
school for the attendance of such students. Under INA section
101(a)(15)(j), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(j), a foreign citizen may be
admitted into the United States in nonimmigrant status as an
exchange visitor (J visa) in an exchange program sponsored by the
Department of State (DoS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, President George W. Bush issued Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 2 (HSPD-2) in October 2001, which requires DHS
to conduct periodic, ongoing recertification of all schools certified
to accept F or M students. Combating Terrorism Through Immigration
Policies, Oct. 29, 2001, as amended by HSPD--5 (Management of Domestic
Incidents, Feb. 28, 2003, Compilation of HSPDs (updated through Dec.
31, 2007), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-110HPRT39618/pdf/CPRT-110HPRT39618.pdf.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS, transferred a broad
range of immigration authorities from the Attorney General and the
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization to the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and vested ICE with responsibility for
administration of the electronic data collection system, also known as
SEVIS. See Public Law 107-296, sec. 442(a)(4), 116 Stat. 2136, 2193-94
(codified at 6 U.S.C. 252(a)(4) (vesting SEVIS-related authority in
``Bureau of Border Security''); Reorganization Plan Modification for
the Department of Homeland Security, H.R. Doc. No. 108-32, at 3-4
(2003) (set forth as a note to 6 U.S.C.A. 542 (West 2018)) (renaming
``Bureau of Border Security'' as ``Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement''); DHS Delegation 7030.2(2)(Z) (2004) (affirming
delegation of such authority from Secretary of Homeland Security to
ICE). ICE assumed responsibility for SEVIS and established SEVP. DHS
has issued regulations that address data collection requirements for
SEVP certification, oversight, and recertification of schools
authorized to enroll F or M students. 8 CFR 214.3, 214.4.
B. SEVP and Development of SEVIS
SEVP is responsible for developing, maintaining, and improving
SEVIS, which is an internet-based application that facilitates timely
electronic reporting and monitoring of nonimmigrant students, exchange
visitors, and their dependents in the United States. SEVIS enables
schools and program sponsors to transmit electronic information to DHS
and the Department of State (DoS) throughout a student's or exchange
visitor's program in the United States. SEVIS is intended to improve
customer service by streamlining the application and adjudication
processes. Through continuing modernization efforts, it addresses
issues in student and school system processes by providing information
technology (IT) solutions and modifying business processes.
Schools and exchange visitor programs have been required to enter
F, M, and J nonimmigrant data into SEVIS since August 1, 2003. As of
April 1, 2017, SEVIS contained 1.4 million active F, M, and J student
and exchange visitor records. Approximately 8,700 schools are SEVP-
certified and approximately 1,500 exchange visitor programs are DoS-
designated.
SEVIS enables DHS and DoS to efficiently administer their approval
(i.e., certification and designation, respectively) and oversight
processes of schools and programs that wish to benefit from enrolling
nonimmigrants. SEVIS assists law enforcement agencies in tracking and
monitoring F, M, and J nonimmigrant status and apprehending violators
before they can potentially endanger the national security of the
United States. SEVIS also assists other federal agencies such as DoS,
and other DHS components such as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in better
serving F, M, and J nonimmigrant applicants. Finally, SEVIS enables
schools and exchange visitor programs to instantaneously transmit
electronic information and changes in required information on F, M, and
J nonimmigrants to ICE and DoS throughout their stays in the United
States.\2\ These include required notifications, reports, and updates
to personal data. SEVIS allows schools to submit school certification
applications, update certification information, submit updates to DHS
that require adjudication, and also create and update F visa (academic)
and M visa (vocational) student and dependent records. SEVP managers
and adjudicators have the capability to adjudicate updates made to
school records using SEVIS, and principal designated school officials
(PDSOs) and designated school officials (DSOs) are notified through
SEVIS of the adjudication results. SEVIS also allows program sponsors
to submit designation forms for the J-1 visa program, create program
designations, and update program designation information. DoS personnel
have the capability to adjudicate information submitted by responsible
officers (ROs) and alternate responsible officers (AROs). ROs and AROs
are notified through SEVIS of any adjudication results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An individual seeking F or M nonimmigrant student status
must apply to an SEVP-certified school and be accepted for
enrollment. From the enrollment information provided by the
nonimmigrant, the school enters student information into SEVIS and
issues a Form I-20, ``Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant
Student Status.'' The individual must submit a valid Form I-20 when
applying for an F or M visa. Similarly, an individual seeking J-1
nonimmigrant status must apply to a DoS-designated exchange visitor
program and be accepted for enrollment as a basis to apply for a J
exchange visitor visa. From the information provided by the accepted
individual, the exchange visitor program enters exchange visitor
information into SEVIS and issues a Form DS-2019, ``Certificate of
Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status.'' The applicant must
submit a valid Form DS-2019 when applying for a J visa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVIS shares information with other agencies' and components'
systems--DoS, USCIS, CBP, Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
and others--to better monitor the status of student or exchange
visitors throughout their stays in the United States. This allows DHS
to meet the aims of the USA PATRIOT Act. See Public Law 107-56, sec.
416, 115 Stat. 272, 354-55 (2001). In addition, that Act mandates that
the Secretary of Homeland Security,\3\ in consultation with the
Secretary of State, collect information on the date of entry and port
of entry for each nonimmigrant for whom information is collected under
IIRIRA section 641. Id. at sec. 416(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The USA PATRIOT Act refers to the Attorney General, but the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, transferred the functions
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to DHS. Public
Law 107-296, tit. IV, subtits. D, E, F, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192 (Nov.
25, 2002), as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33766]]
C. Authority To Collect Fees
The Secretary is specifically authorized to collect fees for SEVP
from prospective F and M students and J exchange visitors, subject to
certain limits for certain J-1 nonimmigrants. 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(1). The
Secretary is authorized to periodically revise those fees, with certain
exceptions, to take into account changes in the overall cost of
carrying out the program. IIRIRA section 641(e)(4)(A), (g)(2), 8 U.S.C.
1372(e)(4)(A), (g)(2). Similarly, section 286(m) of the INA authorizes
the Secretary to collect fees for adjudication and naturalization
services at a level that would ensure recovery of the full costs of
providing such services, including the costs of providing similar
services without charge to asylum applicants and certain other
immigrants. Additionally, pursuant to INA section 286(m), the level
that is set may include recovery of any additional costs associated
with the administration of the fees themselves. Under this authority,
user fees are employed not only for the benefit of the payer of the fee
and any collateral benefit resulting to the public, but also to provide
a benefit to certain others.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The longstanding interpretation of DHS is that the
``including'' clause in section 286(m) does not constrain DHS's fee
authority under the statute. The ``including''' clause offers only a
non-exhaustive list of some of the costs that DHS may consider part
of the full costs of providing adjudication and naturalization
services. See 8 U.S.C. 1356(m); 81 FR 26903, 26906 n.10 (May 4,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All fees collected under these authorities are deposited as
offsetting receipts into the IEFA and are available to the Secretary
until expended for authorized purposes. See IIRIRA section
641(e)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(B); INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C.
1356(m). DHS proposes the revised fee schedule contained in this rule
in accordance with the above-referenced authorities.
As a general matter, in developing fees and fee rules, DHS looks to
a range of governmental accounting provisions. OMB Circular A-25, User
Charges (Revised), para. 6, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993), defines ``full
cost'' to include all direct and indirect costs to any part of the
Federal government for providing a good, resource, or service. These
costs include, but are not limited to, an appropriate share of the
following: Direct and indirect personnel cost, physical overhead,
consulting and other indirect cost, management and supervisory cost,
enforcement, information collection and research, and establishment of
standards and regulation, including any required environmental review.
Section 31.5 of OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission and
Execution of the Budget, July 1, 2016, directs agencies to develop user
charge estimates based on the full cost recovery policy set forth in
OMB Circular A-25, User Charges (budget formulation and execution
policy regarding user fees).
The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) Statement
of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 4: Managerial
Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government, July
31, 1995, updated June 2017, provides the standards for managerial cost
accounting and full cost. SFFAS No. 4 defines ``full cost'' to include
``direct and indirect costs that contribute to the output, regardless
of funding sources.'' \5\ FASAB identifies various classifications of
costs to be included and recommends various methods of cost assignment
to identify full cost. Activity-based costing (ABC) is highlighted as a
costing methodology useful to determine full cost within an agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See FASAB, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting
Standards 4: Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and Concepts 26
(June 2017), available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_4.pdf (last visited Feb. 20, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, 31 U.S.C. 901-903,
requires each agency's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to ``review, on a
biennial basis, the fees, royalties, rents and other charges imposed by
the agency for services and things of value it provides, and make
recommendations on revising those charges to reflect cost incurred by
it in providing those services and things of value.'' 31 U.S.C.
902(a)(8).
This proposed rule would eliminate the risk of a projected
shortfall for SEVP operations and services funded by fee revenue. It
proposes increased funding that supports continuing and new initiatives
critical to improving the program and reflects the implementation of
specific cost-allocation methods to segment program costs to the
appropriate fee--F and M students, J exchange visitors, or schools.
D. Full Cost Recovery
Consistent with these authorities and sources, this proposed rule
would ensure that SEVP recovers the full costs for the services it
provides and maintains a projected level of service necessary to
fulfill its mission. The proposed rule would do this in two ways.
First, where possible, the proposed rule sets fees at levels sufficient
to cover the full cost of the corresponding services and assigns these
fees to those who are the primary beneficiaries. DHS works with OMB and
generally follows OMB Circular A-25, which ``establishes federal policy
regarding fees assessed for Government services and for sale or use of
Government goods or resources.'' See OMB Circular A-25, User Charges
(Revised), para. 6, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993). A primary objective of
OMB Circular A-25 is to ensure that federal agencies recover the full
cost of providing specific services to users and associated costs.
This proposed rule would set fees at a level sufficient to fund the
full cost of conducting the program and general operations for FY 2019.
See INA sec. 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS has interpreted this
statutory fee-setting authority, including the authorization for DHS to
collect ``full costs'' for providing, in pertinent part, ``adjudication
. . . services,'' as granting DHS broad discretion to charge fees at a
level that will ensure recovery of all direct and indirect costs
associated with providing pertinent immigration adjudication services.
This approach is also consistent with the SEVP-specific fee authority
referenced above, which authorizes DHS to set fees at a level that
funds the full cost of conducting the program. See IIRIRA section
641(e), 8 U.S.C. 1372(e).
In following OMB Circular A-25 to the extent appropriate, including
its direction that fees should be set to recover the costs of an
agency's services in their entirety and that full costs are determined
based on the best available records of the agency, DHS accounts for the
reality that costs of all SEVP operations cannot always be directly
correlated to certain specific fees. DHS therefore applies the
discretion provided in the above authorities, in taking the following
actions: (1) Employing ABC to establish a model for assigning costs to
specific benefit requests in a manner reasonably consistent with OMB
Circular A-25; (2) distributing costs that are not attributed to or
driven by specific adjudication services;[thinsp]and (3) making
additional adjustments to effectuate specific policy objectives.
V. Proposed Adjustment of SEVP Fees
This proposed rule would amend the current fee structure governing
the collection of fees from individuals by increasing the individual
student and exchange visitor application fee (I-901 SEVIS fee). In
addition, the rule proposes to amend the fee structure paid by schools
by increasing the SEVP school certification petition costs for initial
certification, instituting a fee to address school recertification
costs for the ongoing recertification process, and
[[Page 33767]]
requiring a fee to accompany the filing of an appeal, a motion to
reconsider, or a motion to reopen filed by a school organization. SEVP
proposes no change to the current fee for site visits. The proposed
fees for recertification petitions and appeals and motions would better
recover a reasonable portion of related existing and projected
operating costs, program requirements, and planned program
improvements.
Fees were last adjusted in 2008. 73 FR 55683. Refined and expanded
SEVP operations, SEVIS modifications, as well as inflation, have
increased SEVP operating costs and are the basis for the proposed
increases to the I-901 SEVIS fee and the school certification petition
fee.
A. Activities Funded Under the 2008 Fee Rule
In the 2008 rulemaking that resulted in the most recent agency
adjustment, ``Adjusting Program Fees and Establishing Procedures for
Out-of- Cycle Review and Recertification of Schools Certified by the
Student and Exchange Visitor Program To Enroll F and/or M Nonimmigrant
Students'' (2008 Fee Rule), DHS outlined its rationale for a fee
increase by identifying a set of organizational initiatives essential
to its mission: Improving SEVIS functionality, improving oversight and
enforcement, implementing recertification procedures, and developing
school liaison activity. 73 FR 55683. SEVP, in accordance with its
commitment to the goals prescribed in that rule, has implemented the
following actions since then:
1. Improved SEVIS Functionality
SEVP's original plan to roll out a comprehensive overhaul of SEVIS
(known as SEVIS II) was replaced by an approach that focused on a
series of smaller and more targeted SEVIS enhancements--now termed
SEVIS Modernization. New technologies have become available since the
comprehensive SEVIS overhaul was first envisioned. The use of these
technologies enables SEVP to apply many of the functionalities that
were planned for SEVIS II to the current system. At the same time, this
approach eliminates potential risks and complications that result from
migrating mass quantities of critical data from one system to the next,
which would have been necessary if the SEVIS II approach had been fully
implemented. Building on the experience, knowledge, and stakeholder
feedback acquired during the planning process, SEVP has launched
hundreds of smaller-scale SEVIS enhancements. These efforts have
addressed the majority of national security vulnerabilities previously
identified, by improving critical system functionalities that support
data integrity in SEVIS, including establishing system functions that
support standardization of student and exchange visitor name and
address data entry. The enhancements have also improved system
performance for end users. With the introduction of more detailed SEVIS
event history and new abilities for DSOs to create student data
reports, these enhancements enable action on multiple student records
simultaneously.
As an example, SEVP, in collaboration with CBP, developed and
implemented an admissibility indicator tool that links to real-time
SEVIS data to assist CBP officers at ports of entry in determining
whether F, M, and J nonimmigrants may enter the United States based on
their SEVIS record status. Prior to the availability of the
admissibility indicator, first-line CBP officers relied on paper
documentation that the nonimmigrant student or exchange visitor
presented. Today, the admissibility indicator gives CBP officers a
quick assessment of the most pertinent and current SEVIS data that are
necessary in determining whether nonimmigrant students, exchange
visitors, and their dependents are eligible to enter the United States
or require further investigation. As a result, CBP officers are able to
use the admissibility indicator at points of inspection to quickly
verify the information contained on the paper documentation that is
also required for entry. This assists in reducing long wait times, aids
with detecting and preventing visa fraud, and otherwise enhances
compliance efforts and national security.
2. Oversight and Enforcement
A dedicated compliance enforcement program that includes criminal
investigative efforts is an integral part of ensuring the operational
effectiveness of SEVP. By analyzing SEVIS data, SEVP identifies
indicators of potential misuse or abuse of nonimmigrant status and
provides leads to Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit
(CTCEU) law enforcement personnel for further investigation. At the
time the 2008 Fee Rule was published, the Compliance Enforcement Unit
(CEU), the predecessor of CTCEU, was not sufficiently staffed to
address all leads generated from SEVIS. As a result, only the highest
priority leads were investigated, which left open unaddressed
vulnerabilities. With the increased I-901 SEVIS fee revenue, DHS has
hired additional personnel and currently funds 234 Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI) positions with primary responsibility for
nonimmigrant violator investigations. The increased number of HSI
personnel assigned to support CTCEU investigations has enabled more
robust coordination between SEVP and CTCEU and has successfully reduced
the exploitation of the laws and programs relating to nonimmigrant
students and exchange visitors. An example of the result of such close
and extensive cross-coordination was the conviction of the founder and
president of Tri-Valley University (TVU) on 31 counts in March 2014,
ranging from conspiracy to commit visa fraud and alien harboring to
money laundering.\6\ SEVP will continue to support cooperation and
coordination with CTCEU to maintain the viability of F, M, and J
student and exchange visitor programs within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Sentencing Memorandum, Docket Item No. 195 (Oct. 24,
2014), United States v. Su, Case No.11-cr-00288 (N.D. Cal.), 2, 8,
available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178123/195/united-states-v-su/; see also Jury Verdict, Docket Item No. 119
(Mar. 24, 2014), United States v. Su, supra, available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178123/119/united-states-v-su/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Recertification
SEVP implemented the recertification procedure prescribed in the
2008 Fee Rule beginning with its first recertification cycle in 2010.
Institutions that participated in the first cycle have been reviewed
several times and will continue to undergo the recertification process
every two years. Because there are thousands of schools,
recertification is a rolling process allowing adjudicators to address
issues with one school before moving on to the next.
Each school is notified 2 years to the month following the date of
its last recertification or certification about its need to file for
recertification in order to maintain its certification. From that date,
the school has 180 days to file for recertification. 8 CFR
214.3(h)(2)(i). This cycle helps ensure that only schools that operate
in accordance with the law remain certified by SEVP.
4. School Liaisons
SEVP deployed the first group of field representatives in April
2014, followed by three additional groups later in 2014 and 2015,
bringing the national total to 60 field representatives distributed
among three geographically determined units. The field representatives
serve as liaisons between SEVP and SEVP-certified schools that enroll F
and M
[[Page 33768]]
nonimmigrant students and have conducted more than 32,500 school visits
since the unit launch. Field representatives serve as a key resource
for schools by providing individualized instruction on the SEVP
certification and recertification processes. They also educate DSOs on
Federal statutes, regulations, and guidance pertinent to F and M
students studying in the United States. Because DSOs are responsible
for entering F and M nonimmigrant data into SEVIS, the data integrity
of the system depends heavily on the DSOs' understanding the importance
of accurate and timely reporting of the required information. By
providing individualized assistance to DSOs, the field representatives
enhance national security by maintaining and improving the data
integrity of SEVIS.
B. Continuing SEVP Activities Funded With Proposed Fees
In developing this proposed rule, SEVP reviewed its current and
projected costs, identified goals for services, analyzed projected
future workload, and allocated costs to specific services. In addition
to the full SEVP operating costs described in the following sections,
the proposed fees would fund the continuing efforts identified in the
2008 rule, now updated to reflect technological refinements and
operational enhancements. These updated activities include SEVIS
modernization and increases in adjudication support and investigatory
and compliance personnel.
1. SEVIS Modernization
SEVIS is a web-based system that schools and program sponsors use
to transmit information about their programs and participating F, M,
and J nonimmigrants. It became fully operational in February of 2003,
replacing a paper-based F, M, and J nonimmigrant process.
Since its inception, SEVIS has evolved well beyond its original
purpose as a data collection tool. Today, approximately 35,000
officials from approved schools and program sponsors use SEVIS data to
manage 1.4 million F, M, and J nonimmigrants and their dependents
during their stays in the United States. SEVIS provides real-time
administrative and enforcement information to DHS components, including
CBP and USCIS, as well as DoS. SEVIS also receives information about F,
M, and J nonimmigrant visa applications, entry and exit records, and
benefit applications from these entities through various interfaces.
This makes SEVIS a critical national security component and a primary
resource for law enforcement and intelligence communities to extract
the data necessary to conduct counterterrorism and counterintelligence
threat analysis.
The threat of new forms of terrorism and other criminal activity
exploiting the Nation's immigration laws continues to be a public
safety and national security concern in the United States. As a result,
there is an increasing need for sophisticated SEVIS data analysis to
detect individuals who engage in immigration fraud or otherwise pose a
risk to national security through willful misrepresentation. In
addition, end users from schools and program sponsors have expressed
concerns and provided feedback reflecting the necessity to create SEVIS
functionalities that enable the accurate reporting of new and
innovative educational program models. While SEVIS has been modified to
meet the most critical needs through hundreds of upgrades and patches,
including adding abilities for the system to preemptively address data
input errors, system functionality concerns (due to time lags, system
constraints, and other system design limitations) continue to affect
all SEVIS users and necessitate continuous development of SEVIS design.
In response, SEVP has begun an effort--known as SEVIS Modernization--
that involves redesigning the entire system over time in prioritized
increments. Continued Modernization will increase security by providing
real-time, person-centric data. This data will reduce fraud and
increase awareness by providing government officials with actionable
intelligence with which to make decisions and initiate immigration
actions. Informed decisions and efficient investigations allow for
better management of F, M, and J nonimmigrant data and preventing high-
risk individuals from entering the United States.
To address critical system limitations and improve the SEVIS user
experience, SEVP has identified the following list of key SEVIS
modernization priorities for continued funding through the increased I-
901 SEVIS Fee revenue:
Student Portal. F-1 students engaged in authorized
optional practical training are required to report their contact and
employer information to DHS. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(12), (f)(17). At
present, students report the required information to their DSOs, who
then report the information in SEVIS. By regulation, students must
report any new required information to their DSOs within 10 days of the
change, and the DSOs must report such information in SEVIS within 21
days. 8 CFR 214.2(f)(17).
This external SEVIS student portal will enable students to directly
add or edit the required contact and employer information so that their
SEVIS record would be updated in real time. This will reduce processing
redundancies and lessen the potential for data entry errors by
eliminating the need for the student to first report such information
to the DSO who will then enter the reported data into SEVIS. The portal
will also consequently reduce the workload of DSOs and make the
reported data available to DHS sooner. With future expansion, the
portal will address SEVIS vulnerabilities related to accurate
monitoring of F, M, and J nonimmigrant status and location of
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors by closing national
security vulnerabilities related to person-centric, paperless, people-
matching capabilities. In establishing a portal for student use in this
manner, DHS will encourage students to assume responsibility for
maintaining their immigration status, reduce the system's reliance on
paper-driven processes, and reinforce the operational premise and
security advantages of ``one person, one record.'' Through use of a
record-matching protocol, all SEVIS records will be collated and
presented as a unified, person-centric statement of information and
activity. These summaries will be available to all operational
entities, including school officials, who will have access in the SEVIS
record to the same up-to-date information, including all student
history.
Support of the Adjudication Process. As part of
maintaining their SEVP certification, schools are required to update
certain information in SEVIS about their operations and programs any
time such information changes. See 8 CFR 214.3(g)(2). SEVP is required
to adjudicate such changes. SEVP currently receives, on average, 350
weekly updates from schools; each update may contain several subparts,
including school contact information changes and additions of new
programs. At present, system constraints require SEVP adjudicators to
adjudicate all parts of the update simultaneously and to deny the
entire update if even one part of the update cannot be approved. This
causes additional workload and delays for schools and adjudicators due
to resubmissions of updates. The new SEVIS functionality that supports
adjudication will provide SEVP and DoS with enhanced flexibility to
adjudicate school certification and exchange visitor sponsor
designation updates and applications and consequently enable SEVP and
DoS to
[[Page 33769]]
adjudicate updates and applications more efficiently.
Automated Data Tracking. Currently, SEVP and DoS manually
monitor SEVIS data for potential noncompliance indicators with regard
to schools, students, and exchange visitor program participants and
sponsors. In FY 2016, manual monitoring yielded 75 compliance
investigations, which resulted in withdrawal of certification for 21
noncompliant schools. Automated SEVIS data tracking functionality would
provide SEVP and DoS with enhanced abilities to track and monitor
compliance. This additional capability would allow SEVP and DoS to more
quickly detect data trends that are potential indicators of fraudulent
activities. With the use of automation, SEVP anticipates a 100 percent
increase in fraudulent activity flags (from 75 to 150 per year), which
is estimated to significantly increase the detection rate of
noncompliant schools and subsequent withdrawals of SEVP certification
due to noncompliance. Such functionality would play an important role
in ensuring the integrity of the Nation's immigration system.
SEVIS Access Approval Tracking System (SAATS). School officials
(PDSOs and DSOs) and program officials (AROs and ROs) constitute the
largest and most critical component of SEVIS users as they are
responsible for entering the initial student and exchange visitor data
into SEVIS. Their need to access the system is confirmed by petition
through their sponsoring school or program. Once granted access,
designated school and program officials confirm their ongoing need for
access in a yearly validation exercise in which a delayed response or
no response results in automatic system access denial.
Unlike government employees who need access to SEVIS to perform
official functions, school and program officials have not had to meet
uniform security requirements. Recently, SEVP began conducting national
criminal background checks on designated school officials (DSOs). SEVP
has vetted all DSOs at K-12 schools and, since May 2017, has vetted all
newly designated DSOs, helping to ensure the safety of nonimmigrant
students and exchange visitors and preserve the integrity of SEVIS
data. SEVP is considering eventually extending this screening and
security review to DSOs and ROs who were appointed prior to May 2017
and other school and program officials through regulatory action. SEVP
will bear the upfront cost of this security review. When fully
implemented, all individuals who require access to SEVIS will be vetted
prior to being granted such access. DHS will complete the vetting
adjudication for the RO or ARO and provide a copy of its decision to
the DoS Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.
This initiative will strengthen the mechanism for approving user
access to SEVIS. DHS and DoS rely on PDSOs, DSOs, ROs, and AROs as key
links in the process to mitigate potential threats to national security
and ensure compliance with immigration law. DHS would require that
anyone nominated to serve as a PDSO, DSO, RO, or ARO receive a
favorable SEVIS Access Approval Process (SAAP) assessment prior to
their appointment and subsequent approval for access to SEVIS.
Information Sharing. SEVIS currently shares information
and exchanges data with 11 intra-governmental interface partners. The
modernized Information Sharing module will be capable of sharing data
contained in modernized SEVIS data stores with existing interface
partners. Other interfaces to support modernized capabilities in other
modules, including paperless capabilities, are being considered to
address SEVIS vulnerabilities. The centralization of all information-
sharing capabilities in a single module will allow for efficiencies in
development efforts, system performance, and sustainability.
Use of Cloud Technologies. The cloud infrastructure effort
supports the program by providing flexible, efficient, and cost-
effective cloud services and infrastructure to facilitate and enable
agile development and testing processes. While SEVIS actively mitigates
known security threats, it lacks functionalities to proactively analyze
end user data to detect potential misuse. The use of cloud technologies
will permit increased analysis of SEVIS end user data and increase the
efficiency and security of controlling and managing access to SEVIS by
users not affiliated with DHS, both governmental and nongovernmental.
In addition, it will enable more efficient management of user names and
passwords and allow credentials to be safely passed among system
components. Such analysis is necessary to create defined alerts about
user activity that is indicative of risk factors to prompt timely
criminal and compliance investigations. The cloud infrastructure module
supports the program by providing flexible, efficient, and cost-
effective cloud services and infrastructure to facilitate and enable
agile development and testing processes.
This planned modernization effort, with implementation during FY
2018-2021, is expected to greatly enhance the capability of DHS to
identify and reduce national security threats; reduce the possibility
for reporting errors by prospective and approved F, M, and J
nonimmigrants, as well as their schools and programs; and better
provide updated, correct, real-time information to academic, law
enforcement, and other government users. SEVP projects that the cost
for developing and deploying these SEVIS modifications is $53.19
million. SEVP would incur $13.15 million of that cost in FY 2018,
$13.75 million in FY 2019, $13.14 million in FY 2020, and $13.15
million in FY 2021.
2. Increased SEVP Adjudication Personnel
In 2008, DHS proposed to recertify all schools approved for
attendance by F and M students every 2 years, pursuant to title V,
section 502 of EBSVERA and HSPD-2, and established procedures for the
review of each SEVP-certified school every 2 years, as well as out-of-
cycle reviews whenever it determines that clarification or
investigation of school performance or eligibility is necessary.
Recertification is a determination of performance and compliance with
required standards in the period since the previous certification. In
this comprehensive review of an SEVP-certified school by an SEVP
adjudicator, SEVP affirms that the school remains eligible and is
complying with regulatory recordkeeping, retention, reporting, and
other requirements.
Performance is monitored through SEVIS, DHS records, submissions
from the school, and possible onsite reviews. If noncompliance is
discovered, SEVP requires schools, as appropriate, to make corrections
immediately. SEVP reviews the school's compliance with Federal law and
regulations.
In recent years, the scope of work of SEVP adjudication has
expanded to include administrative compliance enforcement, support of
criminal investigations, and adjudication of school petitions,
including certification petitions, recertification petitions, and
updates to school information. As a result, SEVP adjudicators have
experienced significant workload increases, which in turn have resulted
in longer SEVP adjudication processing times of school petitions and
student compliance issues.
Since initiating recertification, SEVP has determined that the
current number of SEVP adjudication personnel is inadequate to meet the
congressional requirement for recertifying or
[[Page 33770]]
withdrawing all currently certified schools every 2 years. At present
staffing levels, SEVP is able to process 1,939, or 44 percent, of the
required annual projected 4,400 recertification cases.
3. Additional Investigatory Support
Investigations of violations of immigration status, as well as
criminal investigations of F and M students and J exchange visitors,
are primarily coordinated by CTCEU. Information is received, collated,
and analyzed from a number of DHS and other information sources,
including SEVIS, to generate national security leads for field
personnel and prevent terrorists and other criminals from exploiting
the Nation's immigration system through fraud. In its continuing
support of compliance efforts, SEVP seeks to fund activities in two key
areas: Support for and integration of technological advances and surge
support for critical incidents.
New technologies have enabled sophisticated methods of extracting
and analyzing data. To make best use of these technology force
multipliers, personnel would use the available technologies to develop
investigative packages based on SEVIS research and use of other
designated government computer systems, open source websites, and other
pertinent information sources related to individual students, exchange
visitors, and SEVP-certified schools. To the extent that adequate
resources are allocated and employed for this purpose, increased
support levels would reduce the vulnerability of the United States to
terrorist attacks and reduce the potential for exploitation of
certified schools and designated exchange visitor programs.
Through the fee adjustments proposed in this rule, SEVP would
continue ensuring funding to enable a surge for investigatory efforts,
including increased contract overtime or surge staffing, in advance of
planned critical overstay enforcement operations. SEVP would also fund
the surge of continuous and extended analytic support to HSI field
operations in the event of a terrorist attack or during imminent threat
situations. This direct operational support to field elements during
heightened threat situations or in the aftermath of an attack would
enable CTCEU to quickly assess subjects of investigative interest and
to share information to further investigations with its law enforcement
partners, ICE legal counsel, and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Such surge
support has been used successfully and has proven critical in
furthering investigative efforts and providing investigative focus in
recent threat situations and terrorist attacks, including attacks in
San Bernardino, California; Orlando, Florida; Columbus, Ohio;
Baltimore, Maryland; New York; New Jersey; and Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.
C. Basis for Fee Schedule
As previously noted, the proposed amended fees comply with
statutory and regulatory requirements that SEVP review its fee
structure every 2 years to ensure that the cost of the services
provided are fully captured by fees assessed on those receiving the
services. The new fees are an estimate of the current and projected
costs of funding needed to continue enhancing SEVP's capability to
achieve programmatic goals associated with its statutory mandate--
supporting national security and countering immigration fraud through
the continued development and implementation of critical system and
programmatic enhancements. This proposed rule would establish the
following fee structure detailed in Table 3.
Table 3--Proposed Fee Structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee type Responsible party
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 SEVIS Fee................... Student or exchange visitor issued
an initial Form I-20 or DS-2019
seeking an F, M, or J visa.
I-17 Certification Fee............ Institutions petitioning for SEVP
certification to enroll
international students.
Site Visit Fee.................... Institutions applying for initial
certification or certified schools
changing locations or adding a
campus/location.
Recertification Fee............... Certified institutions seeking
recertification every 2 years.
Appeal or Motion Fee.............. Institutions that have had
certification or recertification
denied by SEVP, including denied I-
17 updates, or that have had
certification withdrawn, and which
are filing an appeal or motion
regarding the SEVP decision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current fee structure includes the I-901 SEVIS fee, I-17
certification fee, and the site visit fee. The proposed rule would
allow SEVP to fully fund activities and institute critical near-term
program and system enhancements in a more equitable manner. The
proposed fee structure would also include the addition of a
recertification fee and a fee for filing a motion or appeal.
With this rule SEVP proposes to impose a fee for a Form I-290B,
Notice of Appeal or Motion, filed with SEVP at a level that is
comparable to the fee for the Form I-290B when filed with USCIS. DHS
proposes to eliminate regulations that currently state there is no fee
required for an appeal by a school, to maintain consistency with this
clarification in the motions context and to more fairly balance
allocation of the recovery of SEVP operational costs between
beneficiary classes. Under this proposal, SEVP would charge the fee for
all appeals and motions.
The proposed rule would ensure the full recovery of SEVP
operational costs in a manner that fairly allocates costs between
beneficiary classes and would facilitate the development of activities
designed to achieve defined program goals. For example, the proposed
rule would continue funding for critical SEVIS modernization efforts
and would incorporate the added cost of increased analytical support
for investigative and enforcement operations into the I-901 SEVIS fee.
The proposed fee schedule would also allow SEVP to fully fund
additional SEVP adjudication personnel.
D. SEVP Baseline Costs and Fees
SEVP fees are paid by individuals and organizations. DHS certifies
schools that enroll F and M students; recertifies schools with active
certifications; conducts site visits; administers, maintains, and
develops SEVIS; collects fees from prospective F and M students and J
exchange visitors, as well as from schools; adjudicates motions and
appeals in regard to certification petitions; undertakes investigatory
initiatives; and provides overall guidance to schools about program
enrollment and compliance, as well as the use of SEVIS. These
activities are funded solely through the collection of fees.
The I-901 SEVIS fee, collected from students and exchange visitors,
currently underwrites the operation of
[[Page 33771]]
SEVP; the cost of administering, maintaining, and developing SEVIS; the
cost of school recertification; and all activities related to
individual and organizational compliance issues within the jurisdiction
of SEVP. These activities include the cost of investigating the
compliance of schools participating in SEVP and exchange visitor
programs, as well as investigations in which F, M, or J nonimmigrants
are identified as potential threats to national security or where it is
suspected that an immigration violation or fraud may be occurring.
The certification fee is paid by schools that petition for the
authority to issue Certificates of Eligibility (COE), commonly referred
to as Forms I-20, to prospective nonimmigrant students for the purpose
of their applying for F or M visas and admission to the United States
in those statuses. These monies fund the base internal cost for SEVP to
process and adjudicate the initial school certification petition (Form
I-17, ``Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant
Student''). The proposed recertification fee paid by schools to remain
certified would fund the cost of adjudicating the recertification
petition.
If SEVP finds that a petitioning or certified school does not meet
regulatory standards, it will deny the affected school's Form I-17 or
withdraw its SEVP certification. 8 CFR 214.4. When SEVP sends a school
a notice of denial or withdrawal, the notice also includes reasons for
the unfavorable decision(s), an explanation of the school's rights, and
the applicable appeal and motion filing information and deadlines. In
many cases, a school may file an appeal or motion to reopen and/or
reconsider unfavorable decisions issued by SEVP by filing the Form I-
290B, ``Notice of Appeal or Motion,'' pursuant to the process set forth
in 8 CFR 103.3(a) or 103.5(a).\7\ A school may initiate a motion to
reopen or reconsider to request that the original deciding body review
the unfavorable decision, including an appeals decision, pursuant to
requirements in 8 CFR 103.5(a). A school may also initiate an appeal in
order to request review of the unfavorable Notice of Denial, Automatic
Withdrawal, or Withdrawal on Notice by an authority independent of the
original deciding body. Currently, DHS uses I-901 funds to offset the
costs of SEVP appeals and motions. This offset is a result of the DHS
determination in the 2008 final fee rule to state in regulations that
no fee would be required for appeals relating to SEVP certification or
recertification or a withdrawal of SEVP certification. See 8 CFR
214.4(a)(1), (h). DHS proposes to remove the SEVP-related exceptions to
the payment of the I-290B fee and add regulatory text at proposed 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(O) providing for the fee of $675 when the Form I-290B
is filed with SEVP. This fee would apply when schools or institutions
file an appeal or motion with regard to a denied petition for initial
certification or recertification or a withdrawal of certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Form I-290B is managed by USCIS and not ICE. USCIS has
agreed to the use of the form by ICE for SEVP appeals and the use
has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under
control number 1615-0095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposing these regulatory changes for the I-290B filing fee,
DHS would more fairly balance allocation of the recovery of SEVP
operational costs among beneficiary classes. To date, the cost of
adjudicating appeals and motions has never been placed directly upon
the beneficiaries of those adjudications--the schools seeking to obtain
or maintain SEVP-certification. The fee for filing the Form I-290B with
SEVP is being proposed at a level that requires those who file the Form
I-290B to pay for at least a portion of the operating expenses for DHS
to adjudicate the I-290B, while preventing the fee from becoming cost
prohibitive.
The site visit fee is currently paid by schools that petition for
certification to issue Forms I-20 or by a certified school when it
physically moves to a new location. DHS established this fee in the
2008 Fee Rule and with that rule codified SEVP's authority to charge
the fee when a school changes its physical location or adds a new
physical location or campus. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(3)(ii)(B), 8 CFR
214.3(h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii). Specifically, the 2008 Fee Rule imposed a
site visit fee of $655 for each location listed on the Form I-17, and
required the Form I-17 to include ``any physical location in which a
nonimmigrant can attend classes through the school (i.e., campus,
extension campuses, satellite campuses, etc.).'' See 73 FR 55683,
55698-55699 (amending 8 CFR 103.7(b)(3)(ii)(B) and 214.3(a)(1),
respectively). The 2008 Fee Rule also imposed a continuing duty on
schools to update school locations as changes arise, i.e., even after
initial certification, a school must update SEVIS within 21 days of a
change to a range of information types, including school location and
campus location. See 73 FR 55683, 55700 (amending 8 CFR 214.3(g)(2),
(h)(3)). Consistent with the aforementioned regulatory amendments, the
preamble to the 2008 Fee Rule made clear that these provisions require
the imposition of a site visit fee for each location listed on the
initial SEVP certification, as well as each location added as part of
an initial event, such as a SEVIS update requesting approval of a
changed or new location or campus. 73 FR 55683, 55691.
But SEVP is not currently collecting the fee when a certified
school adds a new physical location or campus. SEVP intends to begin
imposing the fee following the effective date of any final rule. The
site visit fee would apply when a certified school updates its Form I-
17 in SEVIS to indicate, pursuant to 8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)(ii), it is
changing its physical location or adding a new physical location or
campus. This revenue would assist in recovering the costs DHS incurs
for site visits of these locations, including collecting evidence on
school eligibility for certification, reviewing the facilities, and
interviewing personnel nominated on the petition to become DSOs,
including the person nominated to be the PDSO.
E. Methodology
SEVP captured and allocated cost using an ABC approach to define
full cost, outline the sources of SEVP cost, and define the fees. The
ABC approach also provides detailed information on the cost and
activities allocated to each fee.
1. ABC Approach
SEVP used CostPerform ABC modeling software, Version 9.3 (0147), to
determine the full cost associated with updating and maintaining SEVIS
to collect and maintain information on F, M, and J nonimmigrants;
certifying schools; overseeing school compliance; recertifying schools;
adjudicating appeals; investigating suspected violations of immigration
law and other potential threats to national security by F, M, or J
nonimmigrants; providing outreach and education to users; and
performing regulatory and policy analysis. SEVP also used the model to
identify management and overhead costs associated with the program.
ABC is a business management methodology that links inputs (cost)
and outputs (products and services) by quantifying how work is
performed in an organization (activities). The ABC methodology allows
fee-funded organizations to trace service costs and to calculate an
appropriate fee for the service, based on the cost of activities
associated with the services for which the fee is levied.
Using the ABC methodology, SEVP identified and defined the
activities needed to support SEVP functions to include current and
future initiatives. SEVP captured the full cost of
[[Page 33772]]
operations and apportioned that full cost to the appropriate program
activities. The full cost of each activity is then assigned to the
appropriate fee category based on the nature of the activity, as
described further below. By tracking costs to the various fee
categories, SEVP was able to use forecasted payments to determine the
appropriate fee amount for each fee type. SEVP examined historical data
and performed statistical payment analysis to forecast payments in
future years.
SEVP used an independent contractor and commercially available ABC
software to compute the fees. The structure of the software was
tailored to SEVP needs for continual and real-time fee review and cost
management.
2. Full Cost
In building the ABC model, it was critical for SEVP to identify the
sources and cost for all elements of the program. Consistent with
instructive legislative and regulatory guidance, SEVP fees recoup the
full cost of providing the agency's overall resources and services.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ These include but are not limited to: Direct and indirect
personnel cost, including salaries and fringe benefits, such as
medical insurance and retirement; retirement cost, including all
(funded or unfunded) accrued cost not covered by employee
contributions, as specified in OMB Circular A-11; overhead,
consulting, and other indirect cost, including material and supply
cost, utilities, insurance, travel, as well as rents or imputed
rents on land, buildings, and equipment; management and supervisory
cost; and cost of enforcement, collection, research, establishment
of standards, and regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent applicable, SEVP used the cost accounting concepts
and standards recommended in the FASAB Handbook, Version 15,
``Statement of Financial Accounting Standards Number 4, Managerial Cost
Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government'' (2016).
FASAB Standard Number 4 sets the following five standards as
fundamental elements of managerial cost accounting: (1) Accumulate and
report cost of activities on a regular basis for management information
purposes; (2) establish responsibility segments and match the cost of
each segment with its outputs; (3) determine the full cost of
government goods and services; \9\ (4) recognize the costs of goods and
services provided among federal entities; and (5) use appropriate
costing methodologies to accumulate and assign costs to outputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Full cost includes the costs associated with resources that
directly or indirectly contribute to the output and supporting
services within the entity and from other entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP calculates projected fees using the full cost of operations,
as defined by a regularly updated spend plan. The projected spend plans
for FY 2019 and FY 2020 were used in calculation of SEVP's proposed fee
structure. Tables 4 through 7 detail the full cost of SEVP operations,
consistent with the spend plan, from various perspectives: By program
category, by cost initiative, by fee type, and by activity.
3. Cost Basis for SEVP Fees Based on Current Services
The FY 2019 and FY 2020 budgets provide the cost basis for the
fees. These budgets reflect the required revenue to sustain current
initiatives. The revenue is also assessed to ensure a sufficient level
of continued funding for program enhancements as discussed above, such
as enhanced vetting and investigative analysis to support enforcement
operations, SEVIS Modernization, and increased numbers of adjudication
personnel. Finally, the past budgets provide the cost basis for
adjusting annualized cost-of-living increases.
Determining the projected cost for continuation of current efforts
involved routine budget projection processes. The budget establishes
the current services of the program and projects the mandatory and
cost-of-living adjustments necessary to maintain current services. The
budget adjusts the services provided by SEVP to include enhancements
that reflect program policy decisions. Table 4 reflects the FY 2017
final budget, the FY 2018 approved budget, and the FY 2019 and FY 2020
planned budget requests.
Table 4--Student and Exchange Visitor Program Summary of Requirements by Organization and Program Category
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 spend 2018 spend 2019 spend 2020 spend
SEVP expenses plan plan plan plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP Payroll
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-Time Equivalent Personnel.................. 134 175 221 221
Executive Office................................ $1,735 $1,744 $2,048 $2,084
Fee Management Section.......................... $1,350 $1,597 $1,775 $1,806
Field Representative Unit....................... $6,480 $6,958 $7,641 $7,776
Policy Section.................................. $1,178 $969 $1,283 $1,325
Systems Management Unit......................... $1,258 $1,299 $1,391 $1,416
SEVP Response Center Section.................... $652 $652 $931 $941
School Certification Unit....................... $2,993 $2,966 $3,291 $3,349
SEVP Analysis and Operations Section............ $1,070 $1,226 $1,402 $1,388
New Required Positions.......................... .............. $296 $2,357 $5,610
Office of the Principal Legal Advisor........... $328 $517 $642 $659
SEVP Outside Positions.......................... $1,444 $1,776 $2,545 $2,629
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total SEVP Payroll.......................... $18,488 $20,000 $25,306 $28,983
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advisory and Assistance Services................ $58,630 $58,108 $52,755 $50,977
SEVIS (Modernization and O&M) *................. $8,237 $18,722 $22,241 $21,912
Interagency Agreements with other agencies...... $8,046 $9,815 $8,360 $8,583
Travel.......................................... $1,474 $1,500 $1,100 $1,100
Service-wide Costs.............................. $3,222 $4,015 $2,400 $2,400
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Program Expenses...................... $79,609 $92,160 $86,856 $84,972
[[Page 33773]]
CTCEU........................................... $67,200 $74,450 $74,450 $74,450
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, SEVP................................. $165,297 $186,610 $186,612 $188,405
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes costs for the SEVIS Modernization and SEVIS Operations and Maintenance.
F. Summary of the Full Cost Information
The total cost projection for FY 2019 is $186,612,000 and for FY
2020 is $188,405,000. Table 4 sets out the projected current services
for SEVP and supporting CTCEU personnel in FY 2019 ($74.45 million) and
FY 2020 ($74.45 million). These costs are direct extensions of the FY
2018 costs that are supported by the current fees. Table 5 summarizes
the enhancements and other costs, which include investigative analysis
to support enforcement operations, SEVIS Modernization, increased
numbers of adjudication personnel, and annualized inflation.
Table 5--FY 2018, FY 2019 and FY 2020 SEVP Cost by Initiative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Program cost by initiative budgeted cost budgeted cost budgeted cost
(thousands) (thousands) (thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Base:
SEVP (Current operational costs)............................ $95,097 $94,497 $95,106
CTCEU (Current operational costs)........................... 70,200 70,200 70,200
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 165,297 164,697 165,306
Enhancements and Other Costs:
Investigative Analysis Support.............................. 4,250 4,250 4,250
SEVIS Modernization......................................... 13,150 13,750 13,141
Increased Personnel......................................... 1,100 1,100 3,500
Annualized Inflation........................................ 2,813 2,813 2,208
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 21,313 21,913 23,099
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 186,610 186,610 188,405
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fee Allocation
The purpose of the ABC methodology is to trace costs to
organizational elements, as well as identify all cost components
associated with the services offered. For fee-based organizations such
as SEVP, this allows the assignment of cost to one or more fees. SEVP
defined five fee categories: The I-901 SEVIS fee, certification fee,
recertification fee, fee for motions and appeals, and site visit fee.
Historically SEVP has only collected fees from students and
exchange visitors--the I-901 fee--and from schools applying for
certification, to include a separate site visit fee. In this analysis,
SEVP considered the creation of additional fee categories for all the
distinct services it provides in deciding how to apportion fees. For
example, SEVP considered charging a separate I-901 SEVIS fee to F, M,
and J dependents. SEVP also examined various tiered fee structures and
considered assigning some specific costs to separate fees. The ABC fee
model allowed SEVP to evaluate these scenarios. DHS opted for an
updated fee structure that segments program cost to the appropriate
fee--F and M students, J exchange visitors, or schools.
The proposed I-901 SEVIS fee would recover the systems cost for
SEVIS, including the remainder of certification, recertification, site
visits, as well as appeals and motions costs that are not covered by
the respective proposed fees. The fee would be apportioned between
three categories--full fee of $350 for F and M students, reduced fee of
$220 for most J participants, and the further reduced fee of $35 for
certain J program participants. Federal Government-sponsored J program
participants are fee-exempt by law, so their costs will be funded by
other fee payers. 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(3).
The proposed school certification fee would recover a portion of
the costs necessary to process initial school certifications. The
proposed recertification fee would recover a portion of the cost to
process school recertifications and a portion of SEVP administrative
costs. The site visit fee would recover the full cost of performing the
site visit for initial school certification and when a school changes
its physical location or adds a new physical location or campus. The
proposed fee for an appeal or motion would recover a portion of the
cost to process an appeal or motion.
2. SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 Cost Model Results
Table 6 shows the summary of SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 cost by
source of cost.
[[Page 33774]]
Table 6--Total SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 Cost by Fee Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2019 FY 2020
SEVP ABC model output category budgeted cost budgeted cost
(thousands) (thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 SEVIS Fee......................... $159,835 $160,633
I-17 Certification Fee.................. 1,909 1,992
I-17 Recertification Fee................ 22,522 23,189
Site Visit Fee.......................... 385 389
Appeals Fee............................. 1,956 2,198
-------------------------------
Total............................... 186,607 188,401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 shows a more detailed cost breakdown. The numbers are shown
in thousands, rather than millions, of dollars due to the level of
detail. There are two levels for the costs: Process and activity. Costs
are allocated from payroll, contracts, and other expenses to activities
through activity surveys and volume based cost allocations. The full
cost of operations from the spend plans is distributed to the
activities that best describe the work being performed. Table 7 details
these costs from an activity perspective. To simplify the presentation,
the numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. These numbers are not
rounded in the cost model.
Table 7--Detailed Cost Breakdown
[FY 19 + FY 20, dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 I-17 re- I-17 site
Process Activity I-901 certification certification visit Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certify Schools........................ A-01: Certify schools (initial .............. $3,115 .............. .............. ..............
certification).
A-02: Recertify schools........ .............. .............. $4,614 .............. ..............
A-03: Notify students if school .............. .............. 129 .............. ..............
is withdrawn.
A-04: Withdraw schools from .............. .............. 1,102 .............. ..............
SEVIS.
A-05: Process appeals/motions.. .............. .............. .............. .............. $3,420
A-06: Process petition updates. .............. .............. 3,036 .............. ..............
A-07: Monitor school compliance .............. .............. 3,761 .............. ..............
A-08: Monitor school risk...... .............. .............. 3,446 .............. ..............
Enforce Compliance with Regulations and A-28: Conduct Student and $93,921 .............. 16,574 .............. ..............
Laws. Exchange Visitor (I-901)
investigations.
A-29: Conduct school and 34,238 .............. 6,042 .............. ..............
sponsor investigations.
A-30: Operate CTCEU programs... 4,130 .............. 729 .............. ..............
A-31: Provide CTCEU liaison 417 .............. 74 .............. ..............
support.
A-41: Perform I-515 operations 1,471 .............. .............. .............. ..............
duties.
A-43: PDSO/DSO background 1,038 .............. 54 .............. ..............
checks.
Formulate Policy....................... A-16: Analyze and develop 3,170 .............. 600 .............. ..............
policy.
A-17: Develop and review rules 2,476 .............. 469 .............. ..............
and regulations.
A-18: Implement policy......... 1,501 .............. 284 .............. ..............
A-19: Develop future policy 816 .............. 154 .............. ..............
strategy.
Provide Stakeholder Communications..... A-11: Develop and deliver SEVP 9,040 118 1,224 24 130
communications. 8,218 .............. .............. .............. ..............
A-12: Respond to stakeholders'
policy and technical inquiries
(including Tier III Help Desk).
A-13: Provide Field 13,731 .............. 2,598 .............. ..............
Representative support.
A-14: Prepare and attend 3,404 62 644 13 68
conferences/workshops related
to the SEVIS community.
A-15: Develop and conduct 2,699 49 511 .............. ..............
strategic communications.
Provide Systems Program Management A-20: Modify and enhance 24,816 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Support. functionality of SEVP mission
systems (e.g., SEVIS, SEVPAMS
10).
A-21: Operate and maintain SEVP 28,491 .............. .............. .............. ..............
mission systems (e.g., SEVIS,
SEVPAMS).
A-22: Provide Tier I and Tier 12,814 .............. .............. .............. ..............
II Help Desk support.
A-23: Conduct systems program 5,291 .............. .............. .............. ..............
management.
A-24: Analyze and disseminate 3,510 46 475 9 50
program data.
A-25: Operate and maintain SEVP 1,735 32 328 .............. ..............
inter-office systems.
Support SEVP Operations................ A-26: Maintain SEVP systems 2,867 37 388 .............. ..............
security. 223 4 42 1 4
A-27: Maintain SEVP physical
security.
A-32: Provide Executive 2,539 33 344 7 36
Leadership for SEVP.
A-33: Provide SEVP 1,599 21 217 4 23
administrative support.
A-34: Develop strategic plan... 1,612 29 305 6 32
A-35: Manage financial 7,300 95 988 20 105
resources.
A-36: Manage procurement....... 1,886 25 256 5 27
A-37: Manage personnel 2,065 27 280 6 30
resources.
A-38: Manage SEVP records...... 3,274 60 619 12 66
A-39: Manage facility resources 1,782 23 241 5 25
A-40: Manage I-901 payment 7,766 .............. .............. .............. ..............
system.
A-42: Manage I-901 J program... 15,966 .............. .............. .............. ..............
A-44: Site Visits.............. .............. .............. .............. 638 ..............
Train SEVP staff, other staff, and DSOs A-09: Develop and deliver SEVIS 5,936 78 803 16 85
training. 2,613 48 494 10 52
A-10: Develop and deliver
internal training.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. ............................... 314,355 3,902 51,827 775 4,155
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33775]]
3. Fee Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ SEVP Automated Management System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost model provides detailed cost information by activity and a
summary cost for each, giving the aggregate fee cost by category. Next,
SEVP projected the total number of fee payments of each type for FY
2019 and FY 2020 and determined the fee-recoverable budget. SEVP
selected a forecasting approach to determine the total number of
expected fee payments for each fee.
a. I-901 SEVIS Fee
To calculate a fee amount for the I-901 SEVIS fee, SEVP estimated
the number of fee payments expected in FY 2019 and FY 2020 for each of
the three fee payment types: Reduced fee for J participants (excluding
the additional cost for initial certification and recertification of
SEVP-certified schools); full fee for J participants (excluding the
additional cost for initial certification and recertification of SEVP-
certified schools); and full fee for F and M students (including
additional costs for certification, recertification, and appeals).
Calculations for each of the three fee payment types vary because
each fee type is treated differently in federal statutes and
regulations. Section 641 of IIRIRA exempts Federal Government-sponsored
J-1 exchange visitors from the fee payment. All F and M nonimmigrant
students are currently required to pay $200, and nonexempt J
nonimmigrant exchange visitors currently must pay $180. 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(H); 214.13(a). Congress modified the statute in
December of 2000 to establish a reduced fee of $35 for au pairs, camp
counselors, or participants in a summer work travel program,
demonstrating strong congressional intent that the fee remain at that
level. Act of Dec. 21, 2000, Public Law 106-553, app. B, sec. 110, 114
Stat. 2762, 2762A-51, 2762A-68. IIRIRA also provided for revising the
fee once the program to collect information was expanded to include
information collection on all F, M, and J nonimmigrants. As a result,
the I-901 fee was revised in 2008 under the provisions of IIRIRA to
take into account the actual cost of carrying out the program. See 73
FR 55683. The I-901 fee is now being revised a second time, through
this rule, due to an increase in the actual cost of carrying out the
program.
SEVP determined the number of expected I-901 SEVIS fee payments in
FY 2019 and FY 2020. SEVP calculated the I-901 SEVIS fee over a 2-year
period to account for potential fluctuation in the forecast. SEVP used
the change in the numbers of payments received to provide the trend
data used to forecast I-901 SEVIS fee payments for each I-901 payment
type separately. Table 8 reflects aggregate historical payment data for
all three I-901 payment types.
Table 8--F, M, and J Visa Issuance 2007-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Total Growth rate*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................... 697,054 ..............
2008.................................... 753,065 8.0
2009.................................... 644,912 -14.4
2010.................................... 699,983 8.5
2011.................................... 749,082 7.0
2012.................................... 744,027 -0.7
2013.................................... 767,805 3.2
2014.................................... 829,636 8.1
2015.................................... 885,728 6.8
2016.................................... 866,623 -2.2
2017.................................... 796,820 -8.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Growth rate rounded to nearest tenth of a percent.
As indicated in Table 8, the level of payments received varied
greatly over the past 10 years. This high degree of variation in the
historical data, combined with the variables affecting demand for
visas, called for a forecasting methodology that would capture and
account for deviations.
SEVP selected a statistical forecasting method that uses trends in
historical data to forecast future payments. SEVP selected ARIMA, an
autoregressive integrated moving average model to forecast payments. An
ARIMA model is a statistical model that uses historical time series
data to predict future trends and movements. A non-seasonal model
incorporates two major components: Trend and moving average. The
autoregressive portion of the model, or trend, states that past values
have an effect on current or future values and that values are
estimated based on the weighted sum of past values. The second
component is moving average which helps to smooth out the time series
to filter out extreme fluctuations or outliers. In some cases a third
component is needed: Seasonality. Visa data from 2004 to the present
shows extreme seasonality in the number of F, M, and J visas issued.
Seasonality is factored into the model to account for the U.S. academic
calendar.
SEVP evaluated alternative forecasting methods; however, SEVP
rejected these methods due to inaccuracy and poor fit. SEVP's chosen
model provided a conservative forecast that will allow SEVP to operate
with stability. The fee payment forecast, reflected in Table 9, places
a balanced mix of emphasis on recent and historical data and still
contains sufficient data points to smooth out some variability in the
underlying data.
Table 9--I-901 SEVIS Fee Payment Forecast FY 2019-FY 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 Payment type FY 2019 FY 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Payments, F/M...................... 418,393 407,933
Full payment, J-Full.................... 157,550 153,611
Subsidized, J-Partial................... 158,945 158,945
-------------------------------
Total............................... 734,888 720,490
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Certification Cost
SEVP uses historical data from FY 2012 to FY 2016 to find a 3-year
moving average to forecast annual new initial certifications. SEVP
predicts demand of approximately 426 initial certifications each year.
SEVP assumes that the proposed higher fee will not deter schools from
applying for certification.
Table 10--Three-Year Moving Average of the Number of School
Certification Payments Received
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments 3-Year moving
Fiscal year received average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................... 457 ..............
2013.................................... 382 ..............
[[Page 33776]]
2014.................................... 446 428
2015.................................... 469 432
2016.................................... 363 426
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total fee category budget is taken directly from the FY 2019
and FY 2020 SEVP ABC model, reflected in Table 11.
Table 11--FY 2019-FY 2020 Certification Fee-Recoverable Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification Fee-
Fiscal year payments recoverable
expected budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019.................................... 426 $1,909,680
2020.................................... 426 1,992,878
-------------------------------
Total............................... 852 3,902,558
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School certification fees are calculated by dividing the fee-
recoverable budget by the anticipated number of payments. This results
in a fee-recoverable amount from schools of $4,580 each. To arrive at
the proposed fee, rounding was applied to the result of the fee
algorithm. This results in a certification fee of $4,600 per school.
Setting the certification fee at the $4,600 figure, however, leads to
an increase of the current school certification fee by $2,900,
resulting in a certification fee over twice the current fee amount.
School certification is integral to SEVP--F and M nonimmigrant students
can only attend SEVP-certified schools. DHS is concerned that such an
increase of the school certification fee would appear dramatic to
schools seeking initial certification and could lead to fewer schools
seeking initial certification, so DHS proposes to keep the fee increase
at a level that will not discourage potential new schools from seeking
certification. At the same time, DHS considers that initial
certification bestows upon the school a valuable asset, the ability to
enroll F and M nonimmigrant students, and an increased fee amount is
reasonable as the initial certification process becomes more extensive
through the SEVIS modernization and other technological developments.
Weighing these concerns, DHS decided to subsidize the I-17
certification fee by increasing the payment by only $1,300 to $3,000.
The remainder of the costs for I-17 certification is subsidized by the
I-901 F and M SEVIS fee, which is addressed below.
c. Recertification Cost
To identify a fee level that would recover the full cost of
recertification operations, SEVP determined the full cost of
recertification (including level of effort and contract cost) and the
approximate number of schools willing to recertify. Because schools are
required to recertify every 2 years, SEVP anticipates that
approximately one-half of its certified schools--roughly 4,373 schools
per year, given the current certified school population of 8,746--would
recertify.
Table 12--FY 2019-FY 2020 Recertification Fee-Recoverable Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recertification Fee-
Fiscal year payments recoverable
expected budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019................................... 4,373 $25,368,650
2020................................... 4,373 26,457,896
--------------------------------
Total.............................. 8,746 51,826,546
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate an anticipated school recertification fee, DHS divides
the fee-recoverable budget by the anticipated number of payments. This
results in a fee-recoverable amount from schools of $6,000 each. To
arrive at the proposed fee, rounding was applied to the result of the
fee algorithm. This would result in a recertification fee of $6,000 per
school. DHS desires to institute a recertification fee to more
accurately assign the costs of recertification adjudication to those
stakeholders who are directly requesting the adjudication--the SEVP-
certified schools--particularly since the costs of recertification
continue to increase as the recertification process becomes more
robust. DHS considers, however, that a recertification fee instituted
in this rule for the first time should not be set at a level that could
discourage schools from seeking recertification. DHS also considers
that the recertification amount should be less than the initial
certification amount so that schools are encouraged to seek
recertification instead of allowing their SEVP certification to be
withdrawn and applying for initial certification anew at some later
date. Withdrawal of SEVP-certification not only leads to the school
losing a valuable asset, but also leads to complications for F and M
nonimmigrant students enrolled in the withdrawn school, who are then
forced to transfer schools, leave the United States, or risk facing
immigration law penalties for violating the terms of their nonimmigrant
status. Weighing all these factors, DHS proposes that the I-17
recertification fee be $1,250. DHS proposes to eliminate regulations
that state that no fee is required for the school recertification
process in order to recover part of this cost, as part of an effort to
establish a more equitable distribution of costs and more sustainable
level of cost recovery relative to services provided. The costs for I-
17 recertification not recovered by the proposed fee would be
subsidized by the I-901 F and M SEVIS fee. The explanation for shifting
responsibility of the fee adjustment to the I-901 fee is included
below.
d. Site Visit Cost
Site visits consist of initial certification site visits, change of
location visits, and new campus or location site visits. The
anticipated workload for these site visits is 600 per year, or 1,200
visits over a 2-year period.
Table 13--FY 2019-FY 2020 Site Visit Fee-Recoverable Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site visit Fee-
Fiscal year payments recoverable
expected budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019.................................... 600 $385,674
2020.................................... 600 389,689
-------------------------------
Total............................... 1,200 775,363
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current fee amount is $655 as established in the 2008 Fee Rule
that codified SEVP's authority to charge the fee when a school changes
its physical location or adds new physical location or campus.
Following this rule's effective date, SEVP will collect the fee when a
school adds a new physical location or campus. The site visit fee would
apply when a certified school updates its Form I-17 in SEVIS to
indicate, pursuant to 8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)(ii), an added physical location
or campus. The site visit fee is based on level of effort for both SEVP
staff and contracts that cover the cost of operations.
e. Appeals and Motions Cost
Determining the full cost of processing an appeal is essential to
improving the fee structure. The fee for filing a motion or appeal is
calculated by determining the workload of appeals and motions over the
FY 2019 and FY 2020 periods. Over the past 2 years, SEVP has processed
54 appeals and motions annually. To maintain conservative estimates,
SEVP anticipates that number will remain constant over the FY 2019 and
FY 2020 periods.
[[Page 33777]]
Table 14--FY 2019-FY 2020 Appeals Fee-Recoverable Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal and
motion Fee-
Fiscal year payments recoverable
expected budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019.................................... 54 $1,956,375
2020.................................... 54 2,198,825
-------------------------------
Total............................... 108 4,155,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fees for motions or appeals are calculated by dividing the fee-
recoverable budget by the anticipated number of payments over the FY
2019 and FY 2020 periods. This results in a fee-recoverable amount of
$38,474 for each appeal. To arrive at the proposed final cost, rounding
was applied to the result of the fee algorithm. This results in a cost
for a motion or appeal of $38,500. SEVP believes that this fee, while
justified, is too high to impose on the affected schools as the first
fee to be established and collected for the subject appeals and
motions, and that some accommodation should be made to keep the fee at
a more reasonable amount. Instead, DHS proposes adding $4.76 to the
Form I-901 F and M fees to counterbalance the unfunded costs of
adjudicating appeals and motions. This will better ensure that cost is
not a significant obstacle in pursuing an administrative appeal or
motion. The Form I-290B fee when filed with SEVP would be set at $675,
which is currently the same amount charged when the form is filed with
USCIS. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(i)(S).\11\ The Form I-290B, ``Notice of
Appeal or Motion,'' filed with USCIS is the same form used for appeals
or motions related to any denial of school certification or
recertification or a withdrawal of such certification. Although the
appeal fee would not be set at the amount necessary to recover the full
costs of appeals and motions, by setting a fee of $675, schools that
benefit from the appeal process would bear some of its costs, and DHS
would more fairly balance allocation of the recovery of SEVP
operational costs between beneficiary classes. As proposed, DHS would
charge the fee for all such appeals and motions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Because the underlying rationale for the amount of the I-
290B fee differs between SEVP and USCIS, the cost for appealing a
claim or petition using the I-290B Form could eventually be
different for SEVP and USCIS 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(S).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Proposed Fee Levels
Viewing the SEVP fee structure and affected parties
comprehensively, DHS proposes to adjust each fee in its fee structure
based not only on cost of services, but also on the desire to spread
the impact of fee increases reasonably among the various beneficiaries
of SEVP services. Despite the ABC calculations' determination of the
actual cost of each service, which is represented by each fee, DHS has
determined that using the I-901 revenue to subsidize the costs of the
SEVP's other fees is an appropriate course of action for two reasons.
First, the number of F and M students paying the I-901 fee is
substantially larger than the number of entities paying each of the
school certification-related fees, allowing for SEVP to lessen the
impact of fee increases in the aggregate. Second, the subsidization is
reasonable because individuals paying the I-901 fee necessarily benefit
from the continued certification of schools for their enrollment and
prompt and accurate adjudication of appeals.
DHS proposes to increase the I-901 SEVIS fee for F and M students
from $200 to $350 and the full I-901 SEVIS fee for most J exchange
visitors from $180 to $220. While these increases may seem large, these
fees have been unchanged since 2008. 73 FR 55683 (Sept. 26, 2008). In
2008, the first time these fees had been updated since SEVP's inception
in 2004, the I-901 SEVIS fee for F and M students increased from $100
to $200, and the full I-901 SEVIS fee for most J exchange visitors
increased from $100 to $180. See id. The I-901 SEVIS fee for special J-
visa categories (au pair, camp counselor, and summer work travel) would
remain at the current $35 level, consistent with the levels set by
Congress in 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A). IIRIRA also exempts from the I-901
SEVIS fee J-1 exchange visitors who participate in Federal Government-
sponsored J-1 exchange programs, consistent with 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(3).
DHS proposes to increase the initial certification fee from $1,700
to $3,000. This fee was originally set at $230, effective in 2002,
prior to the reorganization of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) to become part of DHS. See 66 FR 65811 (Dec. 21, 2001).
The fee was increased in 2008 to $1,700. See 73 FR 55683. This is the
base fee for certification and does not include the site visit fee.
DHS proposes to establish a recertification fee at $1,250, maintain
the site visit fee of $655, and set the I-290B fee at $675. The cost
for SEVP recertification, site visits, and motions and appeals
adjudication is determined by employing ABC principles, previously
described in this document, balanced with SEVP's desire to prevent
recertifications, site visits, appeals, and motions filings from
becoming cost prohibitive. DHS is proposing a recertification fee and a
Form I-290B fee for the first time, and SEVP believes that charging
recertification and appeals fees sufficient to recover, on their own,
the fee-recoverable amount for such services, may result in
inordinately high fees from the perspective of entities who have
regularly received the benefits of these SEVP services at no additional
charge. Accordingly, DHS proposes to set these fees at amounts below
the fee-recoverable cost. For the I-290B fee in particular, DHS
proposes to set the amount at $675. DHS believes this amount is
appropriate because it is less than both the fee for initial
certification and the fee for recertification. Further, the amount $675
is already associated with the Form I-290B when filing it with USCIS.
DHS believes $675 is a logical starting point, because this is the fee
currently being charged by USCIS for motions and appeals. While the
difference between the fee-recoverable amount (approximately $38,500)
and the proposed fee of $675 is substantial, subsidizing this fee by
driving the additional costs to the I-901 fee results in an increase of
only $4.76 to F/M students paying that fee. The proposed program fee
schedule for SEVP beginning in FY 2019 is shown in Table 15.
Table 15--Proposed FY 2019 SEVP Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 SEVIS Fees: ..............
I-901 Primary F/M visa holders (Full)...... $350
I-901 Primary J visa holders (Full)........ 220
I-901 Special J-visa categories (Subsidized 35
payment)...........................................
I-17 School Fee: ..............
[[Page 33778]]
Certification Fee.......................... 3,000
Recertification Fee........................ 1,250
Site visit fee for initial certification 655
(base fee to be multiplied by number of locations
cited on the Form I-17), and for new physical
locations..........................................
Appeal or Motion Fee: ..............
Appeal or Motion Fee....................... 675
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These proposed fee amounts, the cost model outputs, and cost
reallocation amounts are shown in Table 16. The cost reallocation
amounts are negative for the fees that are subsidized. The cost
reallocation amounts that are positive are the amounts per fee that
subsidize the other fee categories.
Table 16--Proposed Fee Adjustment Amounts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity based
Fee Current fee cost model Cost Final fee Change in fees % Change in
output reallocation fee
(a) (b) (c) (d = b + c) (e) (f = (d/a) -1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal or Motion Fee: I-290B............................ N/A $38,475 ($37,800) $675 $675 N/A
I-901 F/M............................................... 200 290 60 350 150 75
I-901 J-Full............................................ 180 123 97 220 30 22
I-901 J-Partial......................................... 35 123 (88) 35 0 0
I-17 Initial Certification.............................. 1,700 4,600 (1,600) 3,000 1,300 76
I-17 Recertification.................................... N/A 6,000 (4,750) 1,250 1,250 N/A
Site Visit--initial..................................... 655 650 5 655 0 0
Site Visit--new location................................ 0 650 5 655 655 N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17 reflects the break-even analysis based on the proposed fee
schedule and the proportional fee volumes (rounded) required to
generate sufficient revenue to offset projected program costs.
Table 17--Projected Revenue--FY 2019 and FY 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed fee Forecasted Forecasted
Fee category amount volume revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F/M Full.................................................. $350 826,326 $289,214,144
I-901 J-Full.................................................... 210 311,162 68,455,584
I-901 J-Partial................................................. 35 317,890 11,126,150
I-901 Subtotal:
Certification Fee........................................... 3,000 852 2,556,000
Recertification Fee......................................... 1,250 8,746 10,932,500
Site Visit.................................................. 655 1,200 786,000
I-17 Subtotal:
Appeals..................................................... 675 108 72,900
Total................................................... .............. 1,466,284 383,143,278
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771: Regulatory Review
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'') directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule
a ``significant regulatory action,'' although not economically
significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
the rule has been reviewed by OMB. This proposed rule would impose
transfer payments between the public and the government. Thus, this
proposed rule is not expected to be subject to the requirements of
Executive Order 13771. An initial regulatory analysis follows.
1. Background and Purpose of the Proposed Rule
SEVP is a fee funded program within ICE that provides oversight of
schools and nonimmigrant students in the F and M visa category. SEVP
uses SEVIS to
[[Page 33779]]
monitor and track certified schools and F, M, and J nonimmigrant
students. DoS also uses SEVIS in the management of the Exchange Visitor
Program for nonimmigrant exchange visitors in the J visa category.
SEVIS is a web-based system administered by SEVP that retains data on
international students and exchange visitors in the country. SEVP uses
SEVIS to ensure accurate reporting and recordkeeping by schools and
exchange visitor programs. SEVP also uses SEVIS to identify for
enforcement action student and exchange visitors who are out of status.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to generate the necessary
revenue to recover the full cost of the FY 2019 and FY 2020 budgets.
SEVP is authorized to recover the full cost of all resources and
services provided. The costs of SEVP activities have increased, and the
fees collected no longer cover the costs. The fee increase is needed to
meet long-term cash flow needs and achieve solvency.
SEVP projects an annual budget of $186.6 million in FY 2019 and
$188.4 million in FY 2020. SEVP forecasts $121.6 million in revenue for
FY 2019 and FY 2020 without a fee change. The implementation of this
proposed rule would provide SEVP with additional fee revenue of $75.2
million in FY 2019 and $73.5 million in FY 2020. If DHS does not adjust
the current fees to recover the costs of processing the enrollment of F
and M students, certification and recertification of schools,
processing relating to J exchange visitors, appeals, and site visits,
it will be forced to make reductions in oversight, security, and
service as compared to current projections.
To determine the full cost associated with SEVP and the management
of SEVIS, SEVP used ABC methodology. ABC first identifies activities in
an organization and then assigns the cost of each activity according to
the resources they consume. SEVP identified the following as its
primary activities: Collecting and retaining information on F, M, and J
nonimmigrants; certifying schools; overseeing school compliance;
recertifying schools; adjudicating appeals; investigating suspected
violations of immigration law and other potential threats to national
security by F, M, or J nonimmigrants; providing outreach and education
to users; and performing regulatory and policy analysis. SEVP also
recognizes management and overhead costs associated with the program.
SEVP proposes five fees paid by two source categories: Individuals
will pay the I-901 SEVIS fee, and institutions will pay the I-17
certification fee, I-17 recertification fee, the fee for a motion or
appeal, and the site visit fee. By tracing expenditures of the
activities previously listed to the various fee categories, SEVP
forecasted fee payments to determine the appropriate fee amount for
each fee type proposed in this rule.
Table 18 presents an accounting statement summarizing the
annualized transfer amounts and qualitative benefits of the proposed
rule. This rule proposes that schools will pay a higher fee for initial
SEVP certification and will incur a fee for recertification, a site
visit when adding a new physical location or campus, and the filing of
a motion or appeal. In addition, F and M students and J visitors will
pay higher fees.
Table 18--Accounting Statement for FY 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Primary estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative Benefits............................. SEVP will be able to maintain the current level of service.
This proposed rule will enhance SEVP's capability to support
national security and counter immigration fraud through the
continued development and implementation of critical system
and programmatic enhancements. Enhancements to SEVIS,
including the establishment of a student portal, will assist
DSOs in their regulatory obligation to provide accurate and
timely information and rebalance this reporting requirement
by providing students an automated means to do so. Increased
adjudication personnel will assist in reducing
recertification processing times, while enhanced vetting
protocols will ensure that only those eligible to enter and
remain in the country do so
Transfers........................................ 7% Discount Rate $75,231,420 from schools and students to the
government
3% Discount Rate $75,231,420 from schools and students to the
government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Effects Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on State, local, and/or tribal The proposed rule would increase and NPRM, Executive Order
government. establish additional fees on state, local, 12866 analysis
and/or tribal government-funded educational
institutions for support of SEVP operations.
This rule proposes to increase the I-17
certification fee and creates the I-17
recertification fee and a fee for filing an
appeal or motion. In addition, this rule
announces that following completion of this
rulemaking, SEVP will collect a site visit
fee when an SEVP-certified school adds a
campus/location.
Effects on small businesses........... The proposed rule would increase and Initial Regulatory
establish additional fees for educational Flexibility Analysis
institutions in support of SEVP operations.
This proposed rule would increase the I-17
certification fee and create the I-17
recertification fee and a fee for filing an
appeal or motion. In addition, this rule
announces that following the completion of
this rulemaking, SEVP will collect a site
visit fee when a school certified by SEVP
adds a campus/location.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Impacts of Regulatory Change
This proposed rule would amend the current fees for the individual
student and exchange visitor application fee (I-901 SEVIS fee) and
school certification petition for initial certification. It would
maintain the current fee for site visits and extend it to any change of
location or additional physical location or campus reported as an
update by a certified school. It would also institute a new fee for
school recertification petitions and the filing of appeals and motions
by schools. The amended fee structure reflects existing and projected
operating costs, program requirements, and planned program
improvements.
The current I-901 SEVIS fees are based on a fee analysis performed
when SEVP last increased the fees in 2008. See 73 FR 55683. Those cost
calculations were established on the basis of projected workload. Since
2008,
[[Page 33780]]
SEVP's program mission tasks have expanded significantly. The
expansions of certification, recertification, and appeals costs and the
subsidization of excess costs not recovered by fees have led to the
need for the proposed fee increase. Additionally, SEVP now provides
investigative analysis to support enforcement operations, has increased
numbers of adjudication personnel, and is undergoing SEVIS
Modernization. Concurrently, costs associated with these program tasks
have been affected by increased costs due to inflation. This rule
proposes fees that would result in recovery of the full cost of SEVP
operations with fee-generated revenue; alignment of the fees with
current and projected costs and processes that have been adjusted as
the program has gained experience and sophistication; and the agency's
adoption of more detailed and accurate data sources and improved
management tools to align resources and workload.
a. I-901 F and M SEVIS Fee
F nonimmigrants, as defined in INA section 101(a)(15)(F), 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F), are foreign students who come to the United States to
pursue a full course of academic study in SEVP-approved schools and
their dependents. M nonimmigrants, as defined in INA section
101(a)(15)(M), 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)(M), are foreign nationals pursuing a
full course of study at an SEVP-certified vocational or other
recognized nonacademic program (other than language training programs)
in the United States and their dependents. International F and M
nonimmigrant students seeking temporary admission into the United
States to attend a U.S. educational institution must pay the I-901 F
and M SEVIS fee. SEVP proposes to increase the I-901 F and M SEVIS fee
from $200 to $350.
From 2007 through 2017, SEVP received an average of 450,581 I-901 F
and M SEVIS payments per year. Table 19 shows the volume of I-901 F and
M SEVIS fee payments received and the annual average number of fee
payments from 2007 to 2017. As previously discussed, SEVP has
forecasted 418,393 I-901 F and M payments in FY 2019 and 407,933 FY
2020, respectively.
Table 19--1-901 F and M SEVIS Fee Payments FYs 2010-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fee payments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................................... 358,666
2008.................................................... 400,090
2009.................................................... 348,815
2010.................................................... 389,255
2011.................................................... 431,180
2012.................................................... 449,029
2013.................................................... 469,986
2014.................................................... 519,751
2015.................................................... 574,158
2016.................................................... 545,203
2017.................................................... 470,261
Annual Average (2007-2017).............................. 450,581
Forecasted 2019......................................... 418,393
Forecasted 2020......................................... 407,933
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 20 illustrates the incremental increase DHS is proposing with
this rule for the I-901 F and M fee. Individuals who submit a Form I-
901 will pay an additional $150 under this proposed rule, which is a 75
percent increase.
Table 20--I-901 F and M Incremental Fee Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
Type Current fee Proposed fee (proposed-
current)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F and M................................................... $200 $350 $150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP estimates that the fee increase would result in an annual
increase of transfer payment from students who submit an I-901 form to
the government of approximately $62 million per year ($150 increase x
418,393 FY 2019 number of applicants = $62,758,950; $150 increase x
407,933 FY2020 number of applicants = $61,189,950).
b. I-901 J-Full SEVIS Fee
DoS generally oversees the exchange visitor program, which includes
nonimmigrants who are charged the full J SEVIS fee. J exchange visitors
are nonimmigrant individuals approved to participate in an exchange
visitor program in the United States and the spouse and dependents of
the exchange visitors. This SEVIS fee is associated with J-1
nonimmigrants participating in a designated exchange visitor program.
Certain other J-1 categories are subject to a reduced fee or are exempt
from a fee in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1372(e). SEVP and DoS have a
memorandum of reimbursable agreement. DoS sends SEVP its actual
expenditures, and SEVP reimburses them quarterly. Each year, SEVP and
DoS review and update the memorandum. Table 21 displays the affected
Exchange Visitor Program categories subject to the full SEVIS fee and
the purpose of the visit.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Department of State, Exchange Visitor Program Category
Requirements (June 2016), available at https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Exchange-Visitor-Program-Category-Requirements.pdf (last visited Feb. 26, 2018).
Table 21--J-1 Exchange Visitor Program Categories Subject to Full SEVIS
Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange visitor program category Purpose of visit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-term Scholar................ Lecture, observe, consult, training,
demonstrate special skills.
Professor and Research Scholar.... Research Scholar: Research, observe,
or consult in connection with a
research project.
Professor: Teach or lecture at
university, observe, or consult.
Physician......................... Pursue graduate medical education or
training at accredited schools of
medicine or scientific
institutions.
Intern............................ Structured internship program that
is in the student's field of study.
Trainee........................... Structured training program that is
in the trainee's professional
field.
Specialist........................ Observing, consulting, or
demonstrating special skills.
Teacher........................... Teach full-time in an accredited
primary, including pre-
kindergarten, or secondary (K-12)
public or private school.
[[Page 33781]]
Secondary School Student.......... Study in the U.S. at accredited
public or private secondary schools
for an academic semester or an
academic year, while living with
American host families.
College and University Student.... Participate in a degree or nondegree
program at an accredited
postsecondary academic institution,
or participate in a student
internship program.
Government visitor (non-Federal).. Engage in observation tours,
discussions, consultations,
professional meetings, conferences,
workshops and travel when selected
by a state or local government
agency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP receives an average of 151,958 I-901 Full J SEVIS payments per
year (FYs 2007-2017). Table 22 displays the volume of Full I-901 J
SEVIS fee payments received and the annual average number of fee
payments. SEVP has forecasted 157,550 I-901 J-Full payments in FY 2019
and 153,611 in FY 2020.
Table 22--I-901 J-Full SEVIS Fee Payments FYs 2010-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fee payments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................................... 132,213
2008.................................................... 137,173
2009.................................................... 129,979
2010.................................................... 139,534
2011.................................................... 148,253
2012.................................................... 155,008
2013.................................................... 160,522
2014.................................................... 172,530
2015.................................................... 168,967
2016.................................................... 164,401
2017.................................................... 162,959
Average (2007-2017)..................................... 151,958
Forecasted 2019......................................... 157,550
Forecasted 2020......................................... 153,611
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between the proposed and current fees for the I-901
J-Full applicants is $40, an increase of approximately 22 percent, as
shown in Table 23.
Table 23--I-901 J-Full Incremental Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
Type Current fee Proposed fee (proposed-
current)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 J-Full................................................. $180 $220 $40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total increase in transfer payments from I-901 J-Full
applicants to the government is expected to be $12,446,440 ($40
increase in fee x 157,550 FY 2019 and 153,611 FY 2020 forecasted number
of applicants). The increase in J fees is meant to recover the full
cost of J program operations for SEVP, which includes the reimbursement
to DoS, SEVIS costs, and other adjudication services for J exchange
visitors. For the purposes of calculating fees, SEVP isolates the costs
specifically incurred by operating the J visa program. As it stands,
the J visa program operates at a greater cost than the revenue that J
visa fees bring to the program; therefore, SEVP proposes an increase to
the J-Full visa to cover the $39.4 million full cost of operating the J
visa program on an annual basis.
c. I-17 Certification and Recertification Fee
For a U.S. school to enroll F and M nonimmigrant students, it is
required to be certified by SEVP. A school petitions for SEVP
certification to enroll these students by completing and submitting
Form I-17, ``Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by
Nonimmigrant Student,'' online through SEVIS.
All SEVP-certified schools are required to go through the
recertification process every 2 years to ensure they remain qualified
for certification and adhere to all requirements according to the
regulations.
From FY 2012 to 2016, there has been an annual average of 423
schools applying for SEVP certification. As previously discussed, DHS
calculated the 3-year moving average to minimize the variation in
forecasting the population data. The I-17 Initial certifications from
FYs 2012 through 2016 are shown in Table 24.
Table 24--FYs 2012-2016 I-17 Initial Certifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17
Fiscal year certification 3-Year moving
petitions average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................... 457 ..............
2013.................................... 382 ..............
2014.................................... 446 428
2015.................................... 469 432
2016.................................... 363 426
-------------------------------
Total............................... 2,117 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP uses the 3-year moving average to predict that there will be
426 initial certifications in both FY 2019 and FY 2020, respectively.
There are currently 8,746 SEVP-certified schools. DHS assumes that
approximately half, or approximately 4,373 schools, will recertify each
year, including the 1,728 schools with no active F or M students. DHS
assumes that a school would prefer to recertify for a $1,250 fee
instead of allowing certification to lapse and thereafter having to
again pay the proposed initial certification fee of $3,000. The
proposed initial certification fee is a 76 percent increase from the
current fee.
The current fee to apply for initial certification is $1,700, which
has not changed since 2008. SEVP does not currently charge a
recertification fee; the proposed fee amount is $1,250. The I-17
initial certification and I-17 recertification incremental fees are
shown in Table 25.
[[Page 33782]]
Table 25--I-17 Incremental Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
Type Proposed fee Current fee (proposed-
current)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 Initial Certification Fee.................................. $3,000 $1,700 $1,300
I-17 Recertification Fee........................................ 1,250 0 1,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual increase in transfer payments from schools to the
government from I-17 initial certifications is expected to be $553,800
($1,300 increase in fee x 426 (FY 19 and FY 20 forecasted number of I-
17 initial certifications)). The annual increase in transfer payments
from schools to the government for I-17 recertification is expected to
be $5,466,250 ($1,250 increase in fee x 4,373 (FY 2019 and FY 2020
forecasted number of recertifications)).
d. Fee for Motion or Appeal
When a school is denied certification or recertification, the
school receives a denial letter through certified mail. The denial
letter explains the reason for the denial and the steps to appeal. The
school can appeal by completing the Form I-290B, ``Notice of Appeal or
Motion,'' within 30 days of receipt. This rule proposes that SEVP
impose a filing fee of $675, which is also the fee currently charged by
USCIS upon submission of the Form I-290B.\13\ SEVP does not currently
collect a fee from a school that files a motion or appeal. DHS proposes
to revise its regulations to institute this fee for a school filing a
motion or an appeal in order to establish a more equitable distribution
of costs, improve services by decreasing an appeals or motions
throughput time and a more sustainable level of cost recovery relative
to the services provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ USCIS I-290B, ``Notice of Appeal or Motion,'' Filing Fee of
$675, https://www.uscis.gov/i-290b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP processed an average of 54 motions and appeals from schools
annually from 2013 to 2016. DHS assumes that there will be the same
number of appeals or motions filed in FY 2019 and FY 2020.
The total annual increase in transfer payments from schools to the
government for filing a motion or appeal is expected to be $36,450
($675 fee x 54 (FY 2019 and FY 2020 forecasted number of fee
payments)).
e. Site Visit Fee
As noted above, current regulations provide authority for SEVP to
charge a site visit fee to schools that apply for initial certification
or report a change of physical location, or addition of a physical
location or campus. The site visit allows SEVP an opportunity to gather
evidence on the school's eligibility, review school facilities, and
interview personnel listed on the I-17 petition as a PDSO or DSO. SEVP
currently collects the $655 fee when a school files a petition for
certification to issue Forms I-20 or by a certified school when it
physically moves to a new location. This proposed rule notifies the
public that following completion of this rulemaking, SEVP plans to also
collect the fee from any certified school that adds a physical location
or campus, by updating its Form I-17 in SEVIS, consistent with the
above authorities and the agency's longstanding interpretation.
SEVP performs 600 site visits annually. Of these 600 visits, 426
will be at schools that apply for initial certification and currently
pay the $655 site visit fee. The remaining 174 site visits may include
visits when a school adds a new physical location or campus. DHS
proposes that the site visit fee amount, $655, remain the same.
The annual increase in transfer payments from schools to the
government due to site visits is expected to be $113,970 ($655 fee x
174 (FY 2019 and FY 2020 forecasted number of site visits)).
f. Conclusion
SEVP expects to have a total increase in fees of $68.7 million per
year, discounted at 7 percent, transferred from individuals and
entities for the services they receive, to the government. Table 26
shows the summary of the total annual number of payments, incremental
fee amounts, and total fees transferred.
Table 26--Annual Proposed Incremental Fee Amounts, FY 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Annual fee
Annual number incremental transfer to
of payments fee amounts government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F and M................................................... 418,393 $150 $62,758,950
I-901 J-Full.................................................... 157,550 40 6,302,000
I-17 Initial Certification...................................... 426 1,300 553,800
I-17 Recertification............................................ 4,373 1,250 5,466,250
Site Visits--initial............................................ 426 0 0
Site Visits--new location....................................... 174 655 113,970
Appeals......................................................... 54 675 36,450
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 75,231,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Alternatives
SEVP examined several alternatives to the proposed fee structure,
including no increase to any fee, only increasing the I-901 SEVIS fee
and I-17 fee, and the unsubsidized results of the ABC model.
Without an increase in fees, SEVP will be unable to maintain the
level of service for students and schools that it currently provides as
well as the compliance and national security activities discussed
above. SEVP considered the alternative of maintaining fees at the
current level but with reduced services and increased
[[Page 33783]]
processing times, but has decided that this would not be in the best
interest of applicants and schools. SEVP seeks to minimize the impact
on all parties, but in particular small entities. If SEVP followed this
alternative scenario, there would be a shortfall of revenue of over
$65.4 million in FY 2019 to cover expenses. SEVP rejected this
alternative. SEVP must pay for the expenses of maintaining and
improving SEVIS and adjudicating schools applying to be certified by
SEVP in a timely manner.
SEVP also considered raising only the I-901 and I-17 certification
fees instead of including a new proposed fee for recertification and
for filing a motion or appeal. If SEVP followed this scenario, the I-
901 F and M fee would increase to $350 to cover the shortfall in
revenue, but the I-17 Initial Certification fee would also increase to
$4,200. This would triple the existing certification fee while allowing
schools with zero foreign students to remain active SEVP schools that
require SEVP effort for recertification. SEVP rejected this fee
structure as it would continue to add workload to SEVP's
recertification branch. Without any disincentive to recertify, the list
of schools recertifying would likely continue to grow. The proposed
fees, however, would establish a more equitable distribution of costs
and a more sustainable level of cost recovery relative to the services
provided.
SEVP also considered the unsubsidized results of the ABC model as
an alternative, which allocated the I-901 F and M fee, school
certification fees, and the fee to file an appeal or motion as shown in
Table 27.
Table 27--Unsubsidized Fee Amounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubsidized
Fee type fee amounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-901 F and M........................................... $290
I-901 J-Full............................................ 130
I-901 J-Partial......................................... 130
I-17 Initial Certification.............................. 4,600
I-17 Recertification.................................... 6,000
Appeal or Motion........................................ 38,475
Site Visit.............................................. 650
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP rejected this alternative for several reasons. Most
conspicuously, the fee to file a motion or appeal filed on the USCIS-
managed Form I-290B has been set at $675. Since a fee of $38,475 would
be significantly higher than any other SEVP fee it may improperly
discourage schools from filing a motion or appeal. Similarly, SEVP
rejected the alternative to set the recertification fee at the ABC
model output amount of $6,000. A recertification fee higher than the
initial certification fee would discourage schools from seeking
recertification. SEVP instead proposes to set the recertification fee
at a level is less than the initial certification fee. When schools can
maintain their certification, F and M nonimmigrant students enrolled in
the withdrawn school avoid complications such as being forced to
transfer schools, leave the United States, or risk facing immigration
law penalties for violating the terms of their nonimmigrant status.
SEVP also rejected the initial certification fee of $4,600 because
it finds that an increase of almost three times the current fee of
$1,700 is excessive. In the fee development, DHS balanced the challenge
of minimizing the costs to schools and students while recovering
funding to support SEVP services. The population of I-901 F and M
students relative to the population of I-17 schools allows for a
minimal fee adjustment to be spread over the student population to
reduce the cost burden on individual institutions seeking
recertification.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) at 5 U.S.C. 603 requires DHS
to consider the economic impact its proposed rules will have on small
entities. In accordance with the RFA, DHS has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that examines the impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities. The term ``small entities''
encompasses small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than 50,000.
DHS requests information and data from the public that would assist
in better understanding the impact of this proposed rule on small
entities. DHS also seeks alternatives that will accomplish the same
objectives and minimize the proposed rule's economic impact on small
entities.
1. A Description of the Reasons Why the Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
DHS proposes this rule to adjust current fees and introduce new
fees to ensure that SEVP is able to recover the full costs of the
management and support of its program activities. DHS's objectives and
legal authority for this proposed rule are further discussed throughout
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
The objective of the proposed rule is to prevent an anticipated
funding deficit in operating the SEVP. More specifically, this proposed
rule would increase the SEVP funding stream by adjusting the I-901 F
and M fee, I-901 J-Full fee, and I-17 Certification fee and instituting
the I-17 Recertification fee and a fee for filing a motion or appeal.
This proposed rule would also announce the collection of a site visit
fee when an SEVP-certified school adds a new physical location or
campus, at which it provides educational services to nonimmigrant
students. The funding supports continuing operations and new
initiatives critical to SEVP oversight of schools and the monitoring of
nonimmigrant students in the F, M, and J visa classifications for
national security purposes.
The legal basis for this proposed rule increasing the SEVP funding
stream is grounded in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created
DHS and imparted upon DHS the responsibility for SEVIS. DHS uses SEVIS
to meet the monitoring and verification requirements under EBSVERA,
Public Law 107-173, secs. 501-502, 116 Stat. 543, 560-63 (2002)
(codified at 8 U.S.C. 1761-1762), and to conduct a recertification of
schools every 2 years following the date of EBSVERA's enactment. The
Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to collect fees for SEVP
from prospective F and M students and J exchange visitors. IIRIRA
section 641(e)(1), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(1). Initially, fees for
most groups of F, M, and J classes of prospective nonimmigrants were
statutorily limited to not exceed $100, except in the case of the fee
for special J visa categories--au pairs, camp counselors, and
participants in summer work travel programs--which was set at $35
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A). This fee level has been maintained
consistent with Congressional intent. The Secretary is authorized to
revise nonimmigrant fees on a periodic basis to account for changes in
the cost of executing SEVP. IIRIRA section 641(g)(2), 8 U.S.C.
1372(g)(2). In addition, INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), provides
that DHS may set fees ``at a level that will ensure recovery of the
full costs of providing [adjudication] services.''
[[Page 33784]]
3. A Description--and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number--of
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
This analysis does not apply to increases in the I-901 F and M fees
because these fees are paid by individuals who are not, for purposes of
the RFA, within the definition of small entities established by 5
U.S.C. 601(6). DHS believes that J fees are also paid by individuals
and requests comment on this assumption.
As of May 2017, there were a total of 8,746 SEVP-certified schools
that would be subject to the I-17 recertification fee, site visit fee,
and fee to file a motion or an appeal. New schools applying for SEVP
certification would be subject to the proposed I-17 initial
certification fee. Of the 8,746 SEVP-certified schools, 2,013 have
identified as public schools on their I-17 form. The remaining 6,733
schools have identified themselves on the Form I-17 as private for-
profit, private nonprofit, or private unspecified entities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Prior to October 1, 2016, schools had two options in SEVIS
to select their school type: Public or private unspecified. With the
recent SEVIS update, schools can only choose one of three options:
Public, private for-profit, or private nonprofit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 2,013 SEVP-certified public schools, DHS conducted a random
sample of 100 \15\ schools to approximate the number of public schools
in a governmental jurisdiction with a population of less than 50,000.
Out of the 100 public schools, 62, or 62 percent, are located in a city
with a population fewer than 50,000. DHS infers 1,248 SEVP-certified
public schools are considered a small entity as defined by SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The random sample helps ensure an accurate representation
of the population with each school having an equal chance of being
included. In determining the sample size DHS utilized a 90 percent
confidence level (z-score), 10 percent margin of error (e), and a 50
percent population proportion ([pi]) used as an unknown input and to
maximize the estimate to overestimate sample size. The sample size
equation used n = z2[pi](1-[pi])/e2 provided
inputs 1.652(.5)(.5)/.01 = 69 and rounded up to 100 to
over sample. DHS identified geographic population data matched to
the school's city address provided in SEVIS, sourced from U.S.
Census Bureau 2010-2016 Cities and Towns (Incorporated Places and
Minor Civil Divisions) at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-cities-and-towns.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS conservatively assumes that all 1,507 private nonprofit schools
certified by SEVP are small entities because they are not dominant in
their fields. DHS also assumes that the 4,755 schools that are private
unspecified are small entities. DHS requests comments on these
assumptions.
To determine which of the remaining 471 private for-profit schools
are considered a small entity, DHS references the Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards represented by business average
annual receipts. Receipts are generally defined as a firm's total
income or gross income. SBA's Table of Small Business Size Standards is
matched to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
for industries.\16\ DHS matches information provided by the schools in
SEVIS regarding what programs of study it is engaged in with an
appropriate NAICS industry description. NAICS is the standard
classification used to categorize business establishments for the
purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data
related to the U.S. economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Tables of Small
Business Size Standards Matched to NAICS Codes (Oct. 1, 2017),
available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table_2017.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS finds that the revenue of 332 of the 471 private, for-profit
schools meet the SBA size standard of a small business according to
their industry. DHS estimates each private school's annual receipts by
multiplying the approximate annual cost of room, board, and tuition by
the average annual number of total students, based on data provided by
the schools on their Forms I-17. Every 2 years, as part of the
recertification process, a school submits the approximate annual cost
of room, board, and tuition per student and the average annual number
of total students, both domestic and international. DHS acknowledges
that this method to estimate receipts may be an incomplete account of a
school's income, which may also include contributions from private
individuals or other endowments. Since these data reflect a snapshot of
all SEVP-certified schools as of May 24, 2017, DHS acknowledges there
may be day-to-day changes in the status of a school's certification and
that a school's revenue may differ from actual revenue due to a 2-year
lag in school self-reporting before a school is required to recertify.
Given these assumptions, DHS estimates that 7,842 schools meet the
SBA definition of a small entity. This is approximately 90 percent of
the 8,746 of SEVP-certified schools included in this analysis.
Table 28 shows a summary by school type of the number of SEVP-
certified schools and estimated small entities.
Table 28--SEVP-Certified Schools by School Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Total Small entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Schools.......................... 2,013 1,248
Private, nonprofit schools.............. 1,507 1,507
Private, unspecified schools............ 4,755 4,755
Private, for-profit schools............. 471 332
-------------------------------
Total Number of SEVP-Certified 8,746 7,842
Schools............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 29 provides a summary of the SEVP-certified schools by
industry. The table also shows the NAICS industry description, the
NAICS code, and the number of small and large schools by industry. Note
that the number of small schools includes all nonprofits and
unspecified private schools. Most industries with SEVP-certified
schools consist of a majority of small schools.
[[Page 33785]]
Table 29--Number of SEVP-Certified Schools by Industry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total SEVP-
School industry NAICS industry description NAICS codes Number of Number of non- certified Percent small
small schools small schools schools schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary and Secondary Schools....... Industry primarily engaged in 611110 3,472 18 3,490 99
providing academic courses and
related course work that
contain a basic preparatory
education. A basic preparatory
education generally starts
kindergarten through 12th
grade.
Junior Colleges........................ Industry primarily engaged in 611210 11 2 13 85
providing academic or
technical courses and granting
associate degrees,
certificates, or diplomas
below the baccalaureate level.
Colleges, Universities, and Industry primarily engaged in 611310 2,150 57 2,207 97
Professional Schools. providing academic courses and
granting degrees at
baccalaureate or graduate
levels. The requirement for
admission is at least a high
school diploma or equivalent
general academic training.
Computer Training...................... Industry primarily engaged in 611420 13 0 13 100
providing computer training
(except computer repair), such
as computer programming,
software packages,
computerized business systems,
computer electronics
technology, computer
operations, and local area
network management.
Professional and Management Development Industry primarily engaged in 611430 18 0 18 100
Training. providing a collection of
short interval courses and
sessions for management and
professional development.
Training for career
development may be provided
directly to individuals or
through employers' training
programs, and courses may be
customized or modified to meet
the special needs of customers.
Cosmetology and Barber Schools......... Industry primarily engaged in 611511 91 3 94 97
providing training in hair
styling, barbering, or
cosmetic arts, such as makeup
or skin care.
Flight Training........................ Industry primarily engaged in 611512 199 1 200 100
providing aviation and flight
training.
Apprenticeship Training................ Industry primarily engaged in 611513 39 1 40 98
providing apprenticeship
training programs.
Other Technical and Trade Schools...... Industry primarily engaged in 611519 183 6 189 97
providing job or career
vocational or technical
courses (except cosmetology
and barber training, aviation
and flight training, and
apprenticeship training).
Fine Arts Schools...................... Establishments primarily 611610 79 3 82 96
engaged in offering
instruction in the arts,
including dance, art, drama,
and music.
Sports and Recreation Instruction...... Industry primarily contains 611620 10 0 10 100
institutions such as camps and
schools, primarily engaged in
providing instruction in
athletic activities to groups
of individuals.
Language Schools....................... Industry primarily engaged in 611630 286 44 330 87
providing foreign language
instruction (including sign
language).
Exam Preparation and Tutoring.......... Industry primarily engaged in 611691 8 4 12 67
providing training for
standardized examinations and/
or educational tutoring
services.
All Other Misc. Schools and Instruction Industry primarily engaged in 611699 32 0 32 100
providing instruction (except
academic schools, colleges and
universities, business,
computer, management,
technical, trade, fine arts,
athletic, language
instruction, tutoring, and
automobile driving
instruction).
Educational Support Services........... Industry primarily engaged in 611710 2 0 2 100
providing non-instructional
services that support
educational processes or
systems.
Public Schools (Elementary, Secondary, Industry primarily engaged in N/A 1,248 765 2,013 62
and High School). providing academic courses and
related course work that
contain a basic public
education.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. ............................... .............. 7,842 904 8,746 90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 30 presents the type of schools with active F and M students
and the percent of students enrolled in small schools. Most F and M
students are enrolled at small schools. Of the 8,746 SEVP-certified
schools, DHS identified 1,728 with no active F or M students and
determined that 1,296 of these are considered small entities as defined
by SBA. Note that although there are two SEVP-certified schools in the
education support services industry (shown in Table 29), there are no
active F and M students in these schools. DHS applies the results of
the sample of SEVP-certified public schools to the number of students
in SEVP-certified public schools (619,295) to estimate that the number
of students in small SEVP-certified public schools is 383,963.
[[Page 33786]]
Table 30--Total Number of Active F and M Students by Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total active F
and M students Total active F Percent of
School industry in small and M students students at
schools small schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary and Secondary Schools................................ 60,990 63,491 96
Junior Colleges................................................. 409 418 98
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools................ 419,593 429,784 98
Computer Training............................................... 404 404 100
Professional and Management Development Training................ 217 217 100
Cosmetology and Barber Schools.................................. 91 93 98
Flight Training................................................. 6,598 6,605 100
Apprenticeship Training......................................... 71 75 95
Other Technical and Trade Schools............................... 1,108 1,111 100
Fine Arts Schools............................................... 1,736 2,030 86
Sports and Recreation Instruction............................... 13 13 100
Language Schools................................................ 33,500 41,867 80
Exam Preparation and Tutoring................................... 1,469 1,984 74
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction................. 218 218 100
Educational Support Services.................................... .............. .............. 0
Public Schools.................................................. 383,963 619,295 62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS estimated SEVP-certified public schools' revenue to examine the
impact of the proposed fee adjustments on small public schools. The
tuition provided by public schools in SEVIS may not represent a public
school's total revenue because most of the U.S. students would
generally not pay the tuition provided to attend public schools.
Instead, DHS assumes that a public school's county or city's tax
revenue is the best revenue source against which to assess the impact
of the proposed fee adjustments. DHS collected local government
revenue, expenditure, debt, and assets from the U.S. Census Bureau 2015
State and Local Government Survey \17\ to examine the impact of the
increased fees on the public schools included in the sample. A county
or city's revenue may be an overestimation of a public school's
capability to pay the fees related to SEVP-certification, appeals, or
site visits for new locations. This revenue approximation may minimize
the impact of the fee adjustments for public schools. DHS requests
comments on these assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Available at https://www.census.gov/govs/local/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 31 displays the range of annual revenue by each school
industry and for public schools, from the small school with the lowest
revenue to the median revenue of all the small schools to the small
school with the largest revenue. It also shows the average revenue of
all the small schools in that industry. The Colleges, Universities, and
Professional Schools industry has the widest range from maximum to
minimum revenue due to the assumption that all private, unspecified
schools are small entities, while the Educational Support Services
industry that only has two schools included has the smallest range of
maximum to minimum revenue for any one industry.
Table 31--Range of Annual Revenue by School Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowest annual Median annual Largest annual Average annual
School industry revenue revenue revenue revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary and Secondary Schools.............. $28,800 $5,116,550 $1,680,000,000 $13,194,355
Junior Colleges............................... 44,400 2,560,000 15,255,000 4,271,901
Colleges, Universities, and Professional 26,400 28,432,500 5,002,524,120 96,761,518
Schools......................................
Computer Training............................. 425,000 3,000,000 14,000,000 3,881,631
Professional and Management Development 129,600 717,500 2,904,625 1,000,423
Training.....................................
Cosmetology and Barber Schools................ 70,000 2,183,000 66,907,200 4,092,673
Flight Training............................... 36,000 3,000,000 60,000,000 5,959,154
Apprenticeship Training....................... 132,000 10,265,875 106,080,000 21,004,563
Other Technical and Trade Schools............. 64,000 2,800,000 82,800,000 7,570,939
Fine Arts Schools............................. 66,000 2,895,000 130,000,000 9,425,304
Sports and Recreation Instruction............. 276,800 1,165,000 9,312,500 2,626,805
Language Schools.............................. 118,500 5,725,000 108,000,000 7,514,433
Exam Preparation and Tutoring................. 3,150,000 5,043,189 27,000,000 6,983,297
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and 83,250 845,000 469,050,000 18,359,767
Instruction..................................
Educational Support Services.................. 340,000 521,750 703,500 521,750
Public Schools................................ 4,389,000 192,353,500 17,833,251,000 1,315,830,548
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33787]]
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the Requirement
and the Types of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the
Report or Record
The proposed rule would increase and establish additional fees for
educational institutions in support of SEVP operations. DHS estimates
the annual impact to small schools based on the school cost of
compliance as represented as a percentage of their annual revenue.
Table 32 displays the proposed fees, the current fees, and the
difference in these amounts. This analysis examines the impact that the
proposed incremental fee for the Form I-17 certification and the
proposed fees for recertification, site visits to add a new physical
location or campus, and the filing of a motion or an appeal would have
on small SEVP-certified schools.
Table 32--Proposed School Fees by Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
Fee type Proposed fee Current fee (proposed- Percent
current) increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 Certification Fee.......................... $3,000 $1,700 $1,300 76
I-17 Recertification Fee........................ 1,250 0 1,250 N/A
Site Visit Fee--initial......................... 655 655 0 0
Site Visit Fee--new location.................... 655 0 655 N/A
Motion or Appeal Fee............................ 675 0 675 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 Certification Fee
A school files a petition and pays a certification fee to become
eligible to issue the Form I-20, ``Certificate of Eligibility for
Nonimmigrant Student Status,'' to prospective international students
after admitting them for a course of study. Certification also
authorizes the school to enroll international students after they enter
the country on an F or M student visa. Schools must initially go
through the vetting process for authorization by DHS to enroll F and/or
M nonimmigrant students and pay the I-17 certification fee, which is
currently $1,700 and proposed to increase to $3,000. The incremental
fee is the difference between the proposed fee ($3,000) and current fee
($1,700), or $1,300. From 2012 to 2016, DHS processed 2,117 I-17
petitions and payments. Out of the 2,117 schools, 1,151, or 54 percent,
were identified as meeting the SBA definition of a small school, or
estimated to be a small public school based on the sample conducted, as
illustrated in Table 33.
Table 33--I-17 Initial Certifications FYs 2012-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Total I-17 Small school I- small school I-
Fiscal year initial 17 initial 17 initial
certifications certifications certifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012............................................................ 457 236 52
2013............................................................ 382 218 57
2014............................................................ 446 270 60
2015............................................................ 469 260 55
2016............................................................ 363 167 46
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 2,117 1,151 54
-----------------------------------------------
2014-2016 3-year annual average......................... 426 232 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP forecasted the total I-17 initial certifications in FY 2019
and FY 2020 to be 426 using the 3-year annual average of FY 2014
through 2016 initial certifications. Using that same methodology, 232
small schools applied for initial I-17 certification on average each
year. DHS assumes the growth of small schools per industry seeking SEVP
certification will remain constant in the future. DHS multiplied the
annual average number of small schools applying for initial
certification by the percent of small schools in each industry, as
presented in Table 29. This calculation yields the number of small
schools expected to petition for initial I-17 certification by
industry. The results are presented in Table 34.
Table 34--Expected Annual Number of Small Schools To Initially Certify
by School Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of
small schools
School industry applying for
initial
certification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary and Secondary Schools...................... 103
Junior Colleges....................................... 0
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools...... 64
Computer Training..................................... 0
Professional and Management Development Training...... 1
[[Page 33788]]
Cosmetology and Barber Schools........................ 3
Flight Training....................................... 6
Apprenticeship Training............................... 1
Other Technical and Trade Schools..................... 5
Fine Arts Schools..................................... 2
Sports and Recreation Instruction..................... 0
Language Schools...................................... 8
Exam Preparation and Tutoring......................... 0
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction....... 1
Educational Support Services.......................... 0
Public Schools........................................ 37
-----------------
Total Small Schools............................... 232
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This analysis examines the impact the $1,300 incremental fee has on
small schools that might seek initial certification after the final
rule is effective. DHS assumes that the range of revenue of the small
schools that will apply for certification is similar to the range of
revenue of current SEVP-certified small schools and uses this range to
show the potential impacts. Table 35 shows the impact as a percentage
for the schools with the lowest annual revenue, median annual revenue,
and largest annual revenue, as well as the average annual revenue for
all schools in that industry. From these results, DHS does not expect
the I-17 certification incremental fee to have an impact greater than 1
percent on the average small school annual revenue. However, there is
an expected impact greater than 1 percent for some small schools with
the lowest annual revenue in their industry. On average the estimated
194 small schools that apply for initial I-17 certification annually
and pay an incremental fee of $1,300 will experience an impact of less
than 1 percent of their estimated annual revenue.
Table 35--Initial Certification Fee Impact for Small Schools by Type of School
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 initial
I-17 initial I-17 initial certification I-17 initial
certification certification incremental certification
incremental incremental fee impact on incremental
Type of school fee impact on fee impact on the school fee impact on
the school the school with the the average
with the with the largest school revenue
lowest revenue median revenue revenue (percent)
(percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elementary and Secondary Schools................ 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.01
Junior Colleges................................. 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.03
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.00
Computer Training............................... 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.03
Professional and Management Development Training 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.13
Cosmetology and Barber Schools.................. 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.03
Flight Training................................. 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.02
Apprenticeship Training......................... 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.01
Other Technical and Trade Schools............... 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.02
Fine Arts Schools............................... 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.01
Sports and Recreation Instruction............... 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.05
Language Schools................................ 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.02
Exam Preparation and Tutoring................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02
All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction. 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.01
Educational Support Services.................... 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.25
Public Schools.................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-17 Recertification Fee
SEVP-certified schools are required to file for recertification
every 2 years to demonstrate that they have complied with all
recordkeeping, retention, reporting, and other requirements when
registering F and M students. There is currently no fee charged to
schools for recertification, but this proposed rule establishes a new
fee for that process.
To measure the impact on small schools, DHS first estimated the
number of small schools that will recertify. DHS assumes 50 percent
(4,373) of the total number of schools in this analysis (8,746) will
recertify each year. DHS multiplies the recertification rate of 50
percent by the total number of small schools to generate the estimation
that 3,921 \18\ small schools will recertify annually. DHS examined all
7,842 small SEVP-certified schools to determine the impact of the
recertification fee, as it is assumed that a significant number of the
schools will pursue recertification within the next 2 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 7,842 x 50 percent = 3,921 small schools recertifying each
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33789]]
DHS assumes that the total number of SEVP-certified schools will
remain static as new schools become certified and other schools
withdraw certification. DHS therefore assumes that the annual increase
of total recertifications will be zero.
As previously discussed, DHS identified 1,296 SBA-defined small
schools with no active F or M international students. DHS included
these schools in this analysis and assumes they will opt to pay the
recertification fee of $1,250 rather than reapplying for initial
certification with a proposed fee of $3,000 at such time in the future
that they enroll F or M students.
Table 36 illustrates the number of small schools that will
recertify by industry and the I-17 recertification incremental fee
impact as a percent of the small school's annual revenue. From these
findings, of the 7,842 small schools expected to apply for
recertification and pay the proposed fee of $1,250, 50 schools, or 0.6
percent, will experience an impact greater than 1 percent but less than
3 percent of the school's annual revenue. For the remaining schools,
DHS does not expect the incremental fee to have an impact of greater
than 1 percent.
Table 36--Recertification Fee Impact for Small Schools by Type of School
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School industry 0%https://www.uscis.gov/i-290b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS processed 215 motions and appeals from schools from 2013 to
2016. Out of the 215 school motions and appeals, DHS determined that
74, or 34.4 percent, were filed by small schools. Among the 74 small
schools, 4 had 2 appeals within the same year or over the 4-year
period. During the 4-year period, there was an average of 19 appeals
and motions filed by small schools annually.
DHS examined all 7,842 small schools to estimate the impact of the
proposed appeal and motion fee on estimated annual revenue. The impact
is calculated by dividing the fee to file a motion or appeal by the
school's estimated annual revenue. Of the 7,842 SEVP-certified small
schools, 7,826, or 99.8 percent, would experience an impact less than
or equal to 1 percent of their estimated annual revenue were the school
to file an appeal or motion. DHS estimates 13 small schools, or 0.2
percent, would realize an impact between 1 percent and 2 percent of
their estimated annual revenue. In addition, three small schools, or
0.04 percent, would experience an impact greater than 2 percent but
less than 3 percent of estimated annual revenue. Table 38 shows the
number of small schools within the range of impact to each school's
estimated annual revenue.
Table 38--Appeal and Motion Fee Impact on Estimated Annual Revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of school 0%