10498 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

text of this document is available on 

eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word 

format for viewing, printing, and/or 

downloading. To access this document 

in eLibrary, type ‘‘RM10–13’’ in the 

docket number field. 

50. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s website 

during normal business hours. For 

assistance, please contact FERC Online 

Support at 1–866–208–3676 (toll free) or 

202–502–6652 (e-mail at 

FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov), or the 

Public Reference Room at 202–502– 

8371, TTY 202–502–8659 (e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov). 

V. Effective Date 

51. Changes to Order No. 741 adopted 

in this order on rehearing will become 

effective March 28, 2011. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35 

Electric power rates, Electric utilities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

By the Commission. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Commission amends part 35, subchapter 

B, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 35—FILING OF RATE 

SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 35 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r, 2601– 

2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352. 

■ 2. Section 35.47 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 35.47 Tariff provisions regarding credit 

practices in organized wholesale electric 

markets. 

* * * * * 

(a) Limit the amount of unsecured 

credit extended by an organized 

wholesale electric market to no more 

than $50 million for each market 

participant; where a corporate family 

includes more than one market 

participant participating in the same 

organized wholesale electric market, the 

limit on the amount of unsecured credit 

extended by that organized wholesale 

electric market shall be no more than 

$50 million for the corporate family. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–4088 Filed 2–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 62 

[Public Notice: 7346] 

RIN 1400–AC67 

Exchange Visitor Program—Fees and 

Charges 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State is 

amending its regulations regarding fees 

and charges for Exchange Visitor 

Program services. The fees permit the 

Department to recoup the cost of 

providing such Exchange Visitor 

Program services. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective 30 days from February 25, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley S. Colvin, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Private Sector Exchange, 

U.S. Department of State, SA–5, Floor 5, 

2200 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20522, 202–632–2805, or e-mail at 

jexchanges@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department published a proposed rule, 

Public Notice 7077 at 75 FR 60674– 

60679, October 1, 2010, with a request 

for comments, amending § 62.17 (‘‘Fees 

and Charges’’) containing all of the fees 

and charges for Exchange Visitor 

Program services. As explained in the 

proposed rule, the Department is 

increasing user fees charged for 

Exchange Visitor Program services in 

order to recoup the full cost of such 

services which are requested and 

performed for the benefit of foreign 

nationals or U.S. corporate entities. 

These costs were calculated by an 

independent certified public accounting 

firm in full compliance with the Office 

of Management and Budget directives 

regarding such user fee calculations as 

set forth in OMB Circular A–25. 

The Department received three 

comments and is now promulgating a 

final rule with no changes from the 

proposed rule. Thus, the fee charged to 

foreign nationals for a request for 

individual program services, such as 

change of program category, program 

extensions and reinstatements, will 

decrease to $233.00. The fee charged to 

U.S. corporate entities for requests for 

program designation, redesignation and 

amendments to program designation 

will increase to $2,700.00 in order to 

recoup the full cost of such services. 

Comment Analysis 

The Department received three 

comments. One comment suggested that 

the Exchange Visitor Program be closed 

and that the fees be increased to $10,991 

for application fees and $5,945 for 

individual program services. The 

Department rejected this comment as 

there is no basis or justification for such 

a proposal. The comment was not 

responsive to the proposed rule 

concepts. Another comment was from 

an academic institution and opined that 

a 54% increase in fees was such a 

financial burden on academic 

institutions that the redesignation 

period should also be increased. As no 

other academic institutions presented 

this view, we find that this comment 

does not represent the views of the 

higher academic community or its 

ability to pay this bi-annual 

redesignation fee. A further comment 

was from a private sector organization 

that combined comments to both 

opposition of the final secondary school 

student rule and the proposed fee rule 

and does not believe that the increase in 

fees will help the Department with its 

oversight responsibilities. This 

comment was not responsive to the 

proposed rule which discussed neither 

secondary school student exchanges nor 

oversight initiatives or duties of 

designated program sponsors. 

Regulatory Findings 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Department of State is of the 

opinion that the Exchange Visitor 

Program is a foreign affairs function of 

the U.S. Government and that rules 

implementing this function are exempt 

from section 553 (Rulemaking) and 

section 554 (Adjudications) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

The U.S. Government supervises 

programs that invite foreign nationals to 

come to the United States to participate 

in exchange visitor programs, either 

directly or through private sector 

program sponsors or grantees. When 

problems occur, the U.S. Government 

often has been, and likely will be, held 

accountable by foreign governments for 

the treatment of their nationals, 

regardless of who is responsible for the 

problems. 

The purpose of this rule is to set the 

fees that will fund the services provided 

by the Exchange Visitor Program Office 

of Designation, which provides services 

to 1,226 sponsor organizations and 

350,000 Exchange Visitor Program 

participants. These services include 

oversight and compliance with program 

requirements as well as the monitoring 

of programs to ensure the health, safety 

and well-being of foreign nationals 

entering the United States (many of 

these exchange programs and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10499 

participants are often funded by the U.S. 

Government) under the aegis of the 

Exchange Visitor Program and in 

furtherance of its foreign relations 

mission. The Department of State 

represents that failure to protect the 

health and well-being of these foreign 

nationals and their appropriate 

placement with reputable organizations 

will have direct and substantial adverse 

effects on the foreign affairs of the 

United States. 

Although the Department is of the 

opinion that this rule is exempt from the 

rulemaking provisions of the APA, the 

Department published this rule as a 

proposed rule and solicited comments. 

This was without prejudice to its 

determination that the Exchange Visitor 

Program is a foreign affairs function. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive 

Order 13272: Small Business 

As discussed above, the Department 

believes that this final rule is exempt 

from the provisions of 5 U.S.C 553, and 

that no other law requires the 

Department to give notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Accordingly the 

Department believes that this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq.) or Executive Order 13272, 

section 3(b). 

Nevertheless, the Department has 

examined the potential impact of this 

rule on small entities. Entities 

conducting student exchange programs 

are classified under code number 

6117.10 of the North American Industry 

Classification System. Some 5,573 forprofit and tax-exempt entities are listed 

as falling within this classification. Of 

this total number of so-classified 

entities, 1,226 are designated by the 

Department of State as sponsors of an 

exchange visitor program, designated as 

such to further the public diplomacy 

mission of the Department and U.S. 

Government through the conduct of 

people-to-people exchange visitor 

programs. Of these 1,226 Department 

designated entities, 933 are academic 

institutions and 293 are for-profit or taxexempt entities. Of the 933 academic 

institutions designated by the 

Department, none are believed to meet 

the definition of small entity for 

Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis 

purposes. The RFA utilizes the SBA’s 

definition of ‘‘small entities’’ for 

educational institutions, which are forprofit entities that have annual revenues 

of less than $7 million. The RFA defines 

‘‘small organizations’’ as any not-forprofit educational institution that is 

independently owned or operated and 

not dominant in its field. Of the 293 forprofit or tax-exempt entities designated 

by the Department, 131 have annual 

revenues of less than $7 million, thereby 

falling within the analysis purview of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Although, as stated above, the 

Department is of the opinion that the 

Exchange Visitor Program is a foreign 

affairs function of the United States 

Government and, as such, that this rule 

is exempt from the rulemaking 

provisions of section 553 of the APA, 

given the projected costs (discussed 

below) to the approximately 131 small 

entities designated to conduct exchange 

visitor programs, the Department has 

determined that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The annual additional cost to a small 

entity is $476.00. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This final rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million in any 

year and it will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The Department has determined that 

this rulemaking will not have tribal 

implications, will not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments, and will not 

pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the 

requirements of Section 5 of Executive 

Order 13175 do not apply to this 

rulemaking. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This final rule is not a major rule as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 for the purposes 

of Congressional review of agency 

rulemaking under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 801–808). This rule will 

not result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

Executive Order 13563 and Executive 

Order 12866 

As discussed above, the Department is 

of the opinion that the Exchange Visitor 

Program is a foreign affairs function of 

the United States Government and that 

rules governing the conduct of this 

function are exempt from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

However, the Department has 

nevertheless reviewed this regulation to 

ensure its consistency with the 

regulatory philosophy and principles set 

forth in that Executive Order. The 

Department has examined the economic 

benefits, costs, and transfers associated 

with this final rule, and finds that 

educational and cultural exchanges are 

both the cornerstone of U.S. public 

diplomacy and an integral component of 

American foreign policy. Though the 

benefits of these exchanges to the 

United States and its people cannot be 

monetized, the Department is 

nonetheless of the opinion that these 

benefits outweigh the costs associated 

with this rule. The Department projects 

the cost to the government of providing 

Exchange Visitor Program services to be 

$3.4 million annually. This rule will 

provide an estimated $3.4 million 

annually that will support the 

operations of the Department’s Office of 

Designation, including funds for 

designation and redesignation, for 

individual exchange participant 

services, and the appropriate share of 

costs for regulatory review and 

development, outreach, and general 

program administration. These costs are 

divided among the 1,226 designated 

sponsors who will account for $2.7 

million of the total $6.8 million over the 

next two years, with foreign national 

exchange participants requesting 

individual-based program services 

accounting for the remaining $4.1 

million. The actual increase in annual 

costs per designated sponsor is $462 

which represents a total annual increase 

of $378,302. The cost to foreign national 

exchange participants requesting 

program services has been decreased by 

$13 per transaction. Thus, the 

Department of State has identified $3.4 

million in economic transfers associated 

with this rule. The Department has not 

identified any monetized benefits or 

costs, though it believes that the 

revenue generated by these fees and 

charges will enable the Department to 

administer an effective program and is 

essential to continuing to support and 

strengthen the United States’ foreign 

policy goal of promoting mutual 

understanding between the people of 

the United States and other countries. 

Executive Order 12988 

The Department has reviewed this 

regulation in light of sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to 

eliminate ambiguity, minimize 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
10500 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

litigation, establish clear legal 

standards, and reduce burden. 

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, it is determined that this 

rule does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to require consultations or 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. The 

regulations implementing Executive 

Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities do not 

apply to this regulation. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements contained in this 

rulemaking are pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35 and OMB Control Number 

1405–0147, expiring on November 30, 

2013. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 62 

Cultural exchange program. 

Accordingly, 22 CFR part 62 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 62—EXCHANGE VISITOR 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), 1182, 

1184, 1258; 22 U.S.C. 1431–1442, 2451 et 

seq.; Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105–277, 

Div. G, 112 Stat. 2681 et seq.; Reorganization 

Plan No. 2 of 1977, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 

200; E.O. 12048 of March 27, 1978; 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp. p. 168; the Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

(IIRIRA) of 1996, Pub. L. 104–208, Div. C, 110 

Stat. 3009–546, as amended; Uniting and 

Strengthening America by Providing 

Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 

Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA 

PATRIOT ACT), Pub. L. 107–56, section 416, 

115 Stat. 354; and the Enhanced Border 

Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. 107–173, 116 Stat. 543. 

■ 2. Section 62.17 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 62.17 [Amended] 

(a) Remittances. Fees prescribed 

within the framework of 31 U.S.C. 9701 

must be submitted as directed by the 

Department and must be in the amount 

prescribed by law or regulation. 

(b) Amounts of fees. The following 

fees are prescribed. 

(1) For filing an application for 

program designation and/or 

redesignation (Form DS–3036)— 

$2,700.00. 

(2) For filing an application for 

exchange visitor status changes (i.e., 

extension beyond the maximum 

duration, change of category, 

reinstatement, reinstatement-update 

SEVIS status, ECFMG sponsorship 

authorization, and permission to 

issue)—$233.00. 

Dated: February 22, 2011. 

Stanley S. Colvin, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private Sector 

Exchange, Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4276 Filed 2–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1910 

[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0031] 

Nationally Recognized Testing 

Laboratories Fees 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) is 

adjusting the approach it uses for 

calculating the fees the Agency charges 

Nationally Recognized Testing 

Laboratories (NRTLs), and also is 

requiring prepayment of these fees. This 

adjustment increases the fees; OSHA is 

phasing in the fee increase over three 

years for existing NRTLs and pending 

NRTL applicants. OSHA began charging 

NRTLs fees in 2000, and revised the fee 

schedule only twice since then (in 2002 

and 2007). 

DATES: This final rule becomes effective 

on March 28, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of 

Technical Programs and Coordination 

Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room N–3655, 

Washington, DC 20210, or phone (202) 

693–2110. OSHA’s Web page includes 

information about the NRTL Program 

(see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/ 

nrtl/index.html or see http:// 

www.osha.gov and select ‘‘N’’ in the site 

index). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. Legal Considerations 

IV. Explanation of the Revised Approach for 

Calculating Fees 

V. Basis and Derivation of Fee Amounts 

VI. Revised Fee Schedules 

VII. Description of Fees 

VIII. Major Changes to the Fee Schedule 

IX. Changes to 29 CFR 1910.7(f) 

X. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

XI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

XIII. Federalism 

XIV. State Plan States 

XV. Authority and Signature 

I. Introduction 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) is adjusting the 

approach it uses to calculate the fees 

charged to Nationally Recognized 

Testing Laboratories (NRTLs). This 

adjustment will recoup a larger 

percentage of the cost of administering 

the NRTL Program than the current 

approach. This adjustment allows 

OSHA to continue to charge NRTLs for 

the core application processing and 

audit functions performed under the 

NRTL Program, while also recouping 

the other costs, such as the cost for 

ancillary activities that provide special 

benefits to NRTLs, that currently 

represent a significant portion of 

OSHA’s costs of running the NRTL 

Program. 

Because the revised approach results 

in a large increase in the fees for 

existing NRTLs and pending NRTL 

applicants, OSHA is instituting a threeyear phase-in period for any fee increase 

that is greater than $200. OSHA also is 

revising language in 29 CFR 1910.7(f) 

(the OSHA rule implementing the NRTL 

fee structure) to clarify the cost basis for 

the fees. In addition, OSHA will now 

require advance payment of all NRTL 

fees, which complies with instructions 

to Federal agencies issued by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). 

In this notice, section II describes the 

NRTL Program and the prior fee 

structure for charging NRTLs for 

application processing and audits. In 

section III, OSHA explains the legal 

authority for recovering costs for 

ancillary activities and leave. The 

Agency also explains the basis for 

advance collection of the fees. Section 

IV describes how OSHA will recoup the 

ancillary and leave costs, and section V 

shows the derivation of the fee amounts. 

Sections VI and VII present the revised 

fee schedule and fee descriptions, 

respectively, and address the sole 

comment OSHA received in response to 

the proposal. Finally, in sections VIII 

and IX, respectively, OSHA explains the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES