28188 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day 

of May 2010. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12027 Filed 5–19–10; 7:25 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27687; Directorate 

Identifier 2000–NE–42–AD; Amendment 39– 

16144; AD 2009–26–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; General 

Electric Company CF34–1A, –3A, –3A1, 

–3A2, –3B, and –3B1 Turbofan 

Engines; Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2009–26– 

09, which published in the Federal 

Register. That AD applies to General 

Electric Company (GE) CF34–1A, –3A, 

–3A1, –3A2, –3B, and –3B1 turbofan 

engines. The GE alert service bulletin 

(ASB) numbers CF34–AL S/B 72 A0212, 

CF34–AL S/B 72 A0234, and CF34–AL 

S/B 72 A0235 in the regulatory section 

are incorrect. This document corrects 

those ASB numbers. In all other 

respects, the original document remains 

the same. 

DATES: This correction is May 20, 2010. 

The compliance date of AD 2009–26–09 

remains February 11, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine 

Certification Office, FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

e-mail: john.frost@faa.gov; phone: (781) 

238–7756; fax: (781) 238–7199. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 7, 2010 (75 FR 910), we 

published a final rule AD, FR Doc, E9– 

30471, in the Federal Register. That AD 

applies to (GE) CF34–1A, –3A, –3A1, 

–3A2, –3B, and –3B1 turbofan engines. 

We need to make the following 

corrections: 

§ 39.13 [Corrected] 

1. On page 914, in the second column, 

in paragraph (k)(1)(i), in the fifth and 

eighth lines, ‘‘CF34–AL’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘CF34–BJ’’. 

2. On page 914, in the second column, 

in paragraph (k)(2)(iii), in the fifth line, 

‘‘CF34–AL’’ is corrected to read ‘‘CF34– 

BJ’’. 

3. On page 914, in the second column, 

in paragraph (l), in the seventh line, 

‘‘CF34–AL’’ is corrected to read ‘‘CF34– 

BJ’’. 

4. On page 914, in the second column, 

in paragraph (l)(1), in the second line, 

‘‘CF34–AL’’ is corrected to read ‘‘CF34– 

BJ’’. 

5. On page 914, in the third column, 

in paragraph (l)(1)(i), in the seventh and 

tenth lines, ‘‘CF34–AL’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘CF34–BJ’’. 

6. On page 914, in the third column, 

in paragraph (m)(1), in the second, 

ninth, and twelfth lines, ‘‘CF34–AL’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘CF34–BJ’’. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

May 10, 2010. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11642 Filed 5–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 22 

[Public Notice: 7018] 

RIN 1400–AC57 

Schedule of Fees for Consular 

Services, Department of State and 

Overseas Embassies and Consulates 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consular Affairs, 

State. 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: Further to the Department’s 

proposed rule to amend the Schedule of 

Fees for Consular Services (Schedule) 

for nonimmigrant visa and border 

crossing card application processing 

fees, this rule raises from $131 to $140 

the fee charged for the processing of an 

application for most non-petition-based 

nonimmigrant visas (Machine-Readable 

Visas or MRVs) and adult Border 

Crossing Cards (BCCs). The rule also 

provides new tiers of the application fee 

for certain categories of petition-based 

nonimmigrant visas and treaty trader 

and investor visas (all of which are also 

MRVs). Finally, the rule increases the 

$13 BCC fee charged to Mexican citizen 

minors who apply in Mexico, and 

whose parent or guardian already has a 

BCC or is applying for one, by raising 

that fee to $14 by virtue of a 

congressionally mandated surcharge 

that went into effect in 2009. The 

Department of State is adjusting the fees 

to ensure that sufficient resources are 

available to meet the costs of providing 

consular services in light of an 

independent cost of service study’s 

findings that the U.S. Government is not 

fully covering its costs for the 

processing of these visas under the 

current cost structure. Eighty-one 

comments were received during the 

period for public comment, and this 

rule also addresses a comment received 

about a prior change to the MRV fee 

implemented on January 1, 2008. This 

rule addresses comments received thus 

far, and reopens the comment period on 

these fees for an additional 60 days. 

DATES: Effective Date: This interim final 

rule becomes effective June 4, 2010. 

Comment date: Written comments must 

be received on or before July 19, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

contact the Department by any of the 

following methods: 

• Persons with access to the Internet 

may view this notice and submit 

comments by going to the 

regulations.gov Web site at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/index.cfm. 

• Mail (paper, disk, or CD–ROM): U.S. 

Department of State, Office of the 

Executive Director, Bureau of Consular 

Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Suite 

H1001, 2401 E Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20520. 

• E-mail: fees@state.gov. You must 

include the RIN (1400–AC57) in the 

subject line of your message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amber Baskette, Office of the Executive 

Director, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 

Department of State; phone: 202–663– 

3923, telefax: 202–663–2599; e-mail: 

fees@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register, 74 FR 

66076, on December 14, 2009, proposing 

to amend 22 CFR 22.1. Specifically, the 

rule proposed changes to the Schedule 

of Fees for Consular Services for 

nonimmigrant visa and border crossing 

card application processing fees, and 

provided 60 days for comments from the 

public. In response to requests by the 

public for more information and a 

further opportunity to submit 

comments, the Department 

subsequently published a 

supplementary notice in the Federal 

Register, 75 FR 14111, on March 24, 

2010 (Public Notice 6928). The 

supplementary notice provided a more 

detailed explanation of the Cost of 

Survey Study (CoSS), the activity-based 

costing model that the Department used 

to determine the proposed fees for 

consular services, and reopened the 

comment period for an additional 15 

days. During this and the previous 60- 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28189 

day comment period, 81 comments were 

received, either by e-mail or through the 

submission process at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. The current notice 

reflects responses by the Department to 

the comments received in the 75 days 

during which the comment period for 

this proposed rule was open. While the 

Department will implement the 

proposed changes to the Schedule of 

Fees contained in this notice and begin 

collecting the new fees 15 days after 

publication of this rule, on that same 

date it will also post additional 

information regarding the CoSS model 

and fee-setting exercise on its Web site 

(travel.state.gov) and will accept further 

public comments for an additional 60 

days. The Department will consider 

these further comments, and whether to 

make any changes to the rule in 

response to them, prior to publishing a 

final rule. 

What Is the Authority for This Action? 

As explained when the revised 

Schedule of Fees was published as a 

proposed rule, the Department of State 

derives the statutory authority to set the 

amount of fees for the consular services 

it provides, and to charge those fees, 

from the general user charges statute, 31 

U.S.C. 9701. See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. 

9701(b)(2)(A) (‘‘The head of each agency 

* * * may prescribe regulations 

establishing the charge for a service or 

thing of value provided by the agency 

* * * based on * * * the costs to the 

Government.’’). As implemented 

through Executive Order 10718 of June 

27, 1957, 22 U.S.C. 4219 further 

authorizes the Department to establish 

fees to be charged for official services 

provided by U.S. embassies and 

consulates. When a service provided by 

the Department ‘‘provides special 

benefits to an identifiable recipient 

beyond those that accrue to the general 

public,’’ guidance issued by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) directs 

that charges for the good or service in 

question shall be ‘‘sufficient to recover 

the full cost to the Federal Government 

* * * of providing the service * * * or 

good * * * .’’ OMB Circular A–25, 

¶ 6(a)(1), (a)(2)(a). 

Other authorities allow the 

Department to charge fees for consular 

services, but not to determine the 

amount of such fees, as the amount is 

statutorily determined, such as the $13 

fee, discussed below, for machinereadable BCCs for certain Mexican 

citizen minors. Omnibus Consolidated 

and Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act of 1999, Public Law 

105–277, 112 Stat. 2681–50, Div. A, 

Title IV, § 410(a), (reproduced at 8 

U.S.C. 1351 note). 

A number of other statutes address 

specific fees and surcharges related to 

nonimmigrant visas. A cost-based, 

nonimmigrant visa processing fee for 

MRVs and BCCs is authorized by 

section 140(a) of the Foreign Relations 

Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 

and 1995, Public Law 103–236, 108 Stat. 

382, as amended, and such fees remain 

available to the Department until 

expended. See, e.g., Enhanced Border 

Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–173, 116 Stat. 

543; see also 8 U.S.C. 1351 note 

(reproducing amended law allowing for 

retention of MRV and BCC fees). 

Furthermore, section 239(a) of the 

William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims 

Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 

(‘‘Wilberforce Act’’) requires the 

Secretary of State to collect a $1 

surcharge on all MRVs and BCCs in 

addition to the processing fee, including 

on BCCs issued to Mexican citizen 

minors qualifying for a statutorily 

mandated $13 processing fee; this 

surcharge must be deposited into the 

Treasury. See Public Law 110–457, 122 

Stat. 5044, Title II, § 239 (reproduced at 

8 U.S.C. 1351 note). 

The Department last changed MRV 

and BCC fees in an interim final rule 

dated December 20, 2007 and effective 

January 1, 2008. 72 FR 72243. See 

Department of State Schedule for Fees 

and Funds, 22 CFR 22.1–22.5. This rule 

changed the MRV fee from $100 to $131. 

Why Is the Department Raising the 

Nonimmigrant Visa Fees at This Time? 

Consistent with OMB Circular A–25 

guidelines, the Department contracted 

for an independent cost of service study 

(CoSS), which used an activity-based 

costing model from August 2007 

through June 2009 to provide the basis 

for updating the Schedule. The results 

of that study are the foundation of the 

current changes to the Schedule. 

The CoSS concluded that the average 

cost to the U.S. Government of 

accepting, processing, adjudicating, and 

issuing a non-petition-based MRV 

application, including an application for 

a BCC, is approximately $136.93 for 

Fiscal Year 2010. (The only exception is 

the non-petition-based E category visa, 

discussed below, for which costs are 

greater than $136.93.) The CoSS arrived 

at the $136.93 figure taking into account 

actual and projected costs of worldwide 

nonimmigrant visa operations, visa 

workload, and other related costs. 

Please note that in the proposed rule 

published December 14, 2009, the 

Department used a figure of $136.37, 

which was calculated using a weighted 

average of Fiscal Year 2009 and Fiscal 

Year 2010 costs; the $136.93 figure now 

included is based exclusively on Fiscal 

Year 2010 costs—as are all other costs 

presented in this Interim Final Rule. 

This cost also includes the unrecovered 

costs of processing BCCs for certain 

Mexican citizen minors. That processing 

fee is statutorily frozen at $13, even 

though such BCCs cost the Department 

the same amount to process as all other 

MRVs and BCCs—that is, significantly 

more than $13. (As discussed below, a 

statutorily imposed $1 surcharge brings 

the total fee for Mexican citizen minor 

BCCs to $14.) The Department’s costs 

beyond $13 must, by statute, be 

recovered by charging more for all 

MRVs, as well as all BCCs not meeting 

the requirements for the reduced fee. 

See Omnibus Consolidated and 

Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act of 1999, Public Law 

105–277, Div. A, Title IV, § 410(a)(3) 

(reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 1351 note) 

(Department ‘‘shall set the amount of the 

fee [for processing MRVs and all other 

BCCs] at a level that will ensure the full 

recovery by the Department * * * of the 

costs of processing’’ all MRVs and BCCs, 

including reduced cost BCCs for 

qualifying Mexican citizen minors). 

Subsequent to the completion of datagathering for the CoSS, the Department’s 

Bureau of Consular Affairs decided to 

consolidate visa operations support 

services through an initiative called the 

Global Support Strategy (GSS) in Fiscal 

Year 2010. GSS consolidates in one 

contract costs of services currently being 

paid by MRV and BCC applicants 

directly to various private vendors in 

addition to the application processing 

fee paid to the Department, including 

appointment setting, fee collection, 

offsite data collection services, and 

document delivery. The GSS contract 

was initiated due to concerns that total 

application fees for visa services varied 

from country to country because, 

although the Department charges the 

same application processing fee for the 

same category of visa across all 

countries, the private vendors providing 

the necessary ancillary services charged 

fees that were different from one 

another. The Department’s intent is to 

charge a consistent fee worldwide to 

applicants for the same category of visa 

that is comprehensive of the services the 

Department performs to process the 

visa, including any support services 

performed by companies contracted by 

the Department. The Department 

awarded the GSS contract on February 

26, 2010, but total costs are not yet 

known. According to Department 

estimates, the costs of GSS services 

performed in Fiscal Year 2010 will be at 

least $2 per application. Future costs 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES
28190 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

related to GSS will be significantly 

higher and will impact fee revenue for 

the Department. When this additional 

cost is factored in along with the costs 

of recovering losses from the Mexican 

citizen minor BCC, the estimated cost to 

the U.S. Government of accepting, 

processing, and adjudicating nonpetition-based MRV (except E category) 

applications, and BCC applications for 

all Mexican citizens not qualifying for a 

reduced-fee minor BCC, becomes 

$138.93. 

Moreover, section 239(a) of the 

Wilberforce Act requires the Department 

to collect a fee or surcharge of $1 

(‘‘Wilberforce surcharge’’) in addition to 

cost-based fees charged for MRVs and 

BCCs, to support anti-trafficking 

programs. See Wilberforce Act, Public 

Law 110–457,Title II, § 239. 

Combining the $138.93 cost to the 

U.S. Government with the $1 

Wilberforce surcharge, the Department 

has determined that the fee for nonpetition-based MRV (except E category) 

and BCC applications, with the 

exception of certain Mexican citizen 

minors’ BCCs statutorily set at $13, will 

be $140. (The BCC fee is being set at the 

same level as the MRV fee—$140— 

because its processing procedures, and 

attendant production costs, are almost 

identical to those of the MRV.) This 

$140 fee will allow the Government to 

recover the full cost of processing these 

visa applications during the anticipated 

period of the current Schedule, and to 

comply with its statutory obligation to 

collect from applicants the $1 

Wilberforce surcharge. The Department 

rounded up to $140 to make it easier for 

U.S. embassies and consulates to 

convert to foreign currencies, which are 

most often used to pay the fee. 

As noted above, for Mexican citizens 

under 15 years of age who apply for a 

BCC in Mexico, and have at least one 

parent or guardian who has a BCC or is 

also applying for one, the BCC fee is 

statutorily set at $13. See Consolidated 

and Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act of 1999, Public Law 

105–277, Div. A, Title IV, § 410(a)(1)(A) 

(reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 1351 note). 

Nevertheless, the $1 Wilberforce 

surcharge applies to this fee by the 

terms of law establishing the surcharge, 

which postdates Public Law 105–277, 

Division A, Title IV, § 410(a)(1)(A), and 

does not exempt it from its application. 

See Wilberforce Act, Public Law 110– 

457, Title II, § 239(a). Therefore, the 

Department must now charge $14 for 

this category of BCC. 

As discussed in the supplementary 

notice of March 24, 2010, the 

Department has used detailed activitybased costing models in past years to set 

fees in Consular Schedules of Fees. 

However, in previous iterations of the 

CoSS, the Department was not able to 

review the activity-based costs of its 

services, including the production of 

MRVs and BCCs, with the same degree 

of accuracy that the most recent CoSS 

now allows. 

The most recent CoSS found that the 

cost of accepting, adjudicating, and 

issuing MRV applications for the 

following categories of visas is 

appreciably higher than for other 

categories: E (treaty-trader or treatyinvestor); H (temporary workers and 

trainees); K (fiance ́(e)s and certain 

spouses of U.S. citizens); L 

(intracompany transferee); O (aliens 

with extraordinary ability); P (athletes, 

artists, and entertainers); Q 

(international cultural exchange 

visitors); and R (aliens in religious 

occupations). Each of these visa 

categories requires the Department to 

perform a number of additional tasks 

and processes beyond those that are 

necessary for producing a BCC or other 

MRV, including review of extensive 

documentation and a more in-depth 

interview of the applicant. Some of the 

specific additional tasks and processes 

required to process the K-category 

fiance ́(e) visa, for example, are 

described below in the ‘‘Analysis of 

Comments’’ section. 

The CoSS determined that for FY 

2010, the average cost of processing 

applications for H, L, O, P, Q, and R 

visas is $148.16; the average cost of 

processing applications for K visas is 

$348.39; and the average cost of 

processing applications for E visas is 

$390.58. These totals do not include the 

Wilberforce surcharge or any funding 

for GSS. Rather than setting a single 

MRV fee applicable to all MRVs 

regardless of category as was done in the 

past, the Department has concluded that 

it will be more equitable to set the fee 

for each MRV category at a level 

commensurate with the average cost of 

producing that particular product. 

Accordingly, since applications for 

BCCs and non-petition-based MRVs 

(except E-category) require less review 

and have unit costs lower than E, H, K, 

L, O, P, Q, or R visa applications, the 

applicant should pay a lower fee. By the 

same token, those applying for an H, L, 

O, P, Q, or R visa should pay a lower 

fee than those applying for an E or K 

visa, as the latter two categories require 

an even more extensive review. 

Therefore, this rule establishes the 

following fees for these categories 

corresponding to projected cost figures 

for the visa category as determined by 

the CoSS. These fees incorporate the $1 

Wilberforce surcharge that must be 

added to all nonimmigrant MRVs, see 

Public Law 110–457, Title II, § 239(a): 

—H, L, O, P, Q, and R: $150; 

—E: $390; and 

—K: $350. 

The Department rounded these fees to 

the nearest $10 for the ease of 

converting to foreign currencies, which 

are most often used to pay the fee. The 

additional revenue resulting from this 

rounding will be used for GSS services. 

Analysis of Comments 

As noted, the proposed rule was 

published for comment on December 14, 

2009. During the comment period, 

which initially closed February 12, 2010 

and was subsequently extended until 

April 8, 2010, the Department received 

81 comments. With the publication of 

this interim final version of the rule, the 

Department is reopening the comment 

period for an additional 60 days, and 

will consider any further comments 

received before publishing a final rule. 

The majority of comments received— 

48 out of 81—criticized the increase in 

the application fee for K-category 

fiance ́(e) visas. The Department of State 

is adjusting the fee for K-category 

fiance ́(e) visas from $131 to $350 

specifically because adjudicating a K 

visa requires a review of extensive 

documentation and a more in-depth 

interview of the applicant than other 

categories MRVs. As noted in the 

supplementary notice, for example, a K 

visa requires pre-processing of the case 

at the National Visa Center, where the 

petition is received from the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS), packaged, 

and assigned to the appropriate embassy 

or consulate. K visa processing also 

requires intake and review of materials 

not required by some other categories of 

nonimmigrant visas, such as the I–134 

affidavit of support and the DS–2054 

medical examination report. See 75 FR 

14111, 14113. The higher incidence of 

fraud in K visa applications also 

requires, in many cases, a more 

extensive fraud investigation than is 

necessary for some other types of visa. 

Indeed, Department of State processing 

of a K visa is almost identical to that 

required for a family-based immigrant 

visa, so it follows that the costs of K visa 

processing are similar to those for 

immigrant visas. (Spouses, children, 

and parents applying for immigrant 

visas to the United States currently pay 

the Department of State a $355 

application processing fee as well as a 

$45 immigrant visa security surcharge, 

items 32 and 36 on the Schedule of 

Fees.) 

Several authors commented on the 

overall price of a K visa, which includes 

fees paid by the U.S. citizen fiance ́(e) to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28191 

DHS. It is important to note, however, 

that DHS fees are not received by and 

do not cover the costs of Department of 

State processing. While the Department 

of State is aware of the financial impact 

this fee increase will have on 

individuals seeking to bring their 

fiance ́(e)s to the United States, the 

Department has concluded that it would 

be more equitable to those applying for 

other categories of MRVs, for which 

such extensive review is not necessary, 

to establish separate fees that more 

accurately reflect the cost of processing 

these visas, rather than set a single 

average fee for all MRV categories that 

is necessarily higher due to the 

inclusion of K visas in the calculation. 

The Department received one 

comment that supported the fee increase 

for K visas, but argued that these fees 

should be based not on the cost of 

maintaining the current level of visa 

processing services, but rather should 

assess the quality of those services and 

seek to determine if there would be a 

public preference for higher fees if they 

resulted in higher quality expedited visa 

services. This proposal offers an 

alternative to the current fee structure, 

which is based on cost. See, e.g., 31 

U.S.C. 9701(b)(2); OMB Circular A–25, 

¶ 6(a)(2). Furthermore, while the 

Department does not as a policy offer 

expedited visa service in exchange for a 

higher fee, it appreciates the 

recommendation and will examine it for 

future fee-setting exercises. 

One commenter argued that 

Australian applicants for E–3 ‘‘treaty 

alien in a specialty occupation’’ visas, 

which are not petition-based, should be 

charged the same fee as applicants for 

H visas, which are petition-based, rather 

than the proposed higher E rate—that is, 

$150 instead of $390. However, because 

E–3 visas are not petition-based when 

issued overseas, they require the 

Department of State visa adjudicator to 

both determine whether the 

employment falls under the E–3 

program (similar to the work DHS 

performs in adjudicating the petition), 

and assess the eligibility of the 

applicant; this process is more similar to 

other E visas than to H visas, for which 

DHS has already adjudicated a petition. 

One comment requested that the 

Department allow exchange visitors in 

the United States on a J–1 visa to renew 

their visas by mail in order to save costs. 

Current policies and procedures do 

allow a consular officer to waive the 

physical appearance of an applicant in 

the J–1 visa class, but only if he or she 

meets a number of specific criteria. 9 

Foreign Affairs Manual 41.102 N3. 

The Department of State received 

seven comments endorsing the fee 

increases or asking that the fees be 

increased further. As described above, 

the Department has set the current 

proposed fees at cost, and it may not set 

its fees above cost. See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. 

§ 9701(b)(2)(A). The Department 

received one request for clarification as 

to whether these fee increases will 

eliminate all visa reciprocity fees. They 

will not eliminate such fees. 

A number of other comments 

proposed alternatives to cost-based fees, 

or expressed other concerns over 

charging fees commensurate with the 

Department’s cost to produce the visa in 

question. For instance, the Department 

received six comments arguing that 

increasing MRV fees would be 

disadvantageous to applicants in less 

wealthy nations, and one comment 

arguing that fees should be based on the 

ability of the applicant to pay, rather 

than the cost to the U.S. Government of 

providing the service. The Department 

received four comments questioning 

whether increasing these fees will result 

in higher visa fees charged to U.S. 

citizens by foreign governments, two of 

which referenced China in particular. 

Two additional comments argued 

against the fee increases in general, 

suggesting that these fee changes were 

based not on cost but only on a desire 

to get more money from applicants. The 

Department is sympathetic to those with 

less means to cover the costs of a visa 

application, and acknowledges that the 

higher fees may result in some countries 

reciprocally raising visa fees charged to 

U.S. applicants. Nevertheless, as noted 

above, the Department of State is 

required to recover the costs of visa 

processing through user fees, and the 

Department has accordingly set these 

fees at a level that will allow full cost 

recovery. 

The Department received two 

comments regarding U.S. nationality 

law, which is not affected in any way by 

this rule. 

The Department received five 

comments, including one submitted 

jointly by United Air Lines, Inc. and the 

U.S. Travel Association on January 29, 

2010, that expressed concern that 

raising MRV fees would result in a 

decline in travel to the United States 

and harm the U.S. economy. While the 

Department appreciates the concerns 

expressed, it reiterates that it is required 

to set its visa processing user fees at an 

amount that allows full cost recovery, so 

that these services are not subsidized by 

U.S. taxpayers. See, e.g., OMB Circular 

A–25, ¶ 6(a)(2). The Department also 

points out that 92 percent of MRV 

applicants will see an increase of less 

than ten dollars. In addition, demand 

for U.S. nonimmigrant visas did not 

decline as a result of the last MRV fee 

increase, which took effect January 1, 

2008. In fact, workload in the final three 

quarters of Fiscal Year 2008 was greater 

than the same period in Fiscal Year 

2007. 

Three comments, including the 

previously referenced joint comment 

from United Air Lines and the U.S. 

Travel Association, one from the 

American Immigration Lawyers 

Association, and one from the Air 

Transport Association of America, Inc., 

requested that the Cost of Service Study 

be made publicly available. In response, 

the Department published the 

supplementary notice of March 24, 

2010, see 75 FR 14111, and allowed an 

additional 15 days for public comment. 

The Department received one further 

comment from United Airlines and the 

U.S. Travel Association, on April 8, 

2010, within the 15-day period. That 

comment made an additional request for 

actual cost and related data and 

specifically requested: Specific inputs 

used to determine cost for the U.S. 

passport book and passport card; that 

the Department confirm how the CoSS 

ensured that administrative support 

costs were correctly attributed to 

individual consular services and that 

these costs for positions not dedicated 

to fee-based consular activities were 

excluded from the CoSS; and that the 

Department confirm whether the CoSS 

accounted for the transition to the DS– 

160 electronic nonimmigrant visa 

application. The comment also 

requested that the Department suspend 

final publication of the rules, release 

additional data supporting its proposed 

fee increases, and hold a public meeting 

to address questions from the public. 

Concerning the request for specific 

inputs used to determine the cost for the 

U.S. passport book and card, the 

Department will address that request in 

the separate interim final rule governing 

fees for those and other consular 

services, RIN 1400–AC58. 

With regard to the question of 

administrative support costs, the 

International Cooperative 

Administrative Support Services 

(ICASS) system is the means by which 

the Department shares with other 

agencies the costs of shared 

administrative support at embassies and 

consulates overseas. The CoSS includes 

not all Department of State ICASS costs, 

but rather only the share of those costs 

equal to the share of consular ‘‘desks’’ at 

all embassies and consulates. The 

consular share of ICASS costs—which 

represent an ‘‘allocated cost’’, a concept 

described in more detail in the 

supplementary notice of March 24, 

2010—was then assigned equally within 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES
28192 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the model to all overseas services. 

Because the Department aims to use the 

most accurate and complete cost data in 

its cost calculations, beginning in Fiscal 

Year 2011 the Bureau of Consular 

Affairs will be considered its own 

separate entity for ICASS purposes, 

which the Department believes will 

result in a more precise accounting of 

ICASS costs than calculating consular 

ICASS costs based on the proportion of 

consular staff. We anticipate that this 

adjustment will actually increase the 

ICASS costs attributed to consular 

services. 

With regard to the DS–160, United 

and the U.S. Travel Association suggest 

that the DS–160 will ‘‘presumably 

reduce the space, personnel, storage and 

other costs associated with previous 

paper based nonimmigrant visa 

applications.’’ The most recent CoSS, 

upon which the proposed fees are 

based, were calculated using Fiscal 

Years 2006, 2007, and 2008 as ‘‘base 

years’’ and Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 

as ‘‘predictive years.’’ The DS–160 was 

still only a pilot program through Fiscal 

Year 2009, and has not yet been rolled 

out worldwide. Once changes in costs 

are known, they will of course be 

incorporated into future Cost of Service 

Studies. Further, while the DS–160 

presents great advantages in making 

more applicant data available 

electronically and allowing advance 

review of such data, it has not thus far 

resulted in any significant time savings 

for consular staff. Even storage space 

and labor required to box and ship 

applications will continue until all 

previous paper applications are retired 

from embassies and consulates, which 

we anticipate will be sometime in Fiscal 

Year 2011. 

Based on review of all the comments, 

including those of United and the U.S. 

Travel Association, the Department has 

determined that it is unnecessary to 

suspend publication of this interim final 

rule pending release of additional data 

or a public meeting. As explained 

above, the Department has provided 

information regarding the basis for the 

MRV and BCC fee increases in an initial 

notice of proposed rulemaking on 

December 14, 2009, and provided 

additional qualitative information in 

response to the requests of United, the 

U.S. Travel Association, and others in a 

supplemental notice dated March 24, 

2010. The Department provided the 

public a total of 75 days in which to 

make comments and pose questions to 

the Department about the proposed 

MRV and BCC fee changes. The 

Department determined that a 

supplemental written notice would 

provide more useful information and 

reach a broader public audience, than a 

public meeting or other action. The 

Department has also decided to post 

additional quantitative information 

regarding its CoSS model and fee-setting 

exercise on its Web site 

(travel.state.gov), which will be 

available on the date this rule is 

published. It will accept public 

comments for an additional 60 days and 

consider them in advance of publishing 

a final rule. 

The American Immigration Lawyers 

Association argued that the Department 

did not provide evidence to support 

what it termed a ‘‘substantial’’ increase 

for petition-based employment visas, 

and stated that adjudication of these 

petition-based visa applications should 

require less time than for non-petition 

cases. The Department has provided 

cost data for those cases: The average 

cost of processing applications for H, L, 

O, P, Q, and R visas is $148.16 in Fiscal 

Year 2010, versus $136.93 for most nonpetition-based visas. (Neither cost figure 

includes the Wilberforce surcharge or 

GSS costs.) As discussed above, the unit 

cost for petition-based cases includes 

the costs of activities that are not 

required for non-petition cases, such as 

receiving petition information from 

DHS, conducting reviews of government 

and commercial databases to confirm 

the existence of the petitioning 

business, and entering that data into the 

Petition Information Management 

Service (PIMS) database. The single 

exception to the greater expense of 

producing petition-based visas is the 

non-petition-based E-category visa 

which, for reasons described above, is 

even more costly to produce than the 

various categories of petition-based visa. 

The Department received a comment 

from the Microsoft Corporation 

regarding the January 2008 MRV fee 

increase resulting from the interim final 

rule dated December 20, 2007. See 72 

FR 72243. That comment argued that 

the Department should give the public 

an opportunity to comment on proposed 

MRV fee changes before they are put 

into effect, and that it should make 

available a more detailed analysis of 

overall cost. The Department has made 

this information available, and has 

given the public a total of 75 days to 

comment on it and the proposed fees, in 

the proposed rule of December 14, 2009, 

and the supplementary notice of March 

24, 2010. See 74 FR 66076, 75 FR 14111. 

The comment also touched upon the 

cost of FBI fingerprint and name checks, 

suggesting that such checks may not be 

effective or necessary. The U.S. 

Government has determined that 

checking the fingerprints of visa 

applicants against the FBI’s Integrated 

Automated Fingerprint Identification 

System database is a critical tool for 

identifying applicants with criminal 

ineligibilities. Further, FBI name checks 

are an important piece of the 

interagency clearance process for 

applicants subject to security advisory 

opinions. Microsoft also argued that the 

December 20, 2007 interim final rule 

did not provide assurance that the fee 

increases would lead to improvements 

in customer service. However, as noted 

repeatedly above, these fees must be 

based on actual cost. See, e.g., OMB 

Circular A–25, ¶ 6(a)(2). While customer 

service is extremely important to the 

Department and it strives constantly to 

improve the quality of its service, 

changing process or altering customer 

service standards do not figure strictly 

into the calculus of setting user fees. 

Finally, in their joint comment of 

January 29, 2010, United Airlines and 

the U.S. Travel Association protested 

the incorporation of a $2 startup cost 

per MRV or BCC application for GSS, 

since as of the date of the proposed rule 

on MRV and BCC fees, final costs of 

GSS were not yet known and the 

contract had not yet been awarded, and 

thus the Department had not yet 

incurred any GSS startup costs. The 

Department awarded the GSS contract 

on February 26, 2010, with a 10-year 

ceiling of $2.8 billion. The costs of the 

three-to-five task orders the Department 

will award under this contract in Fiscal 

Year 2010 will be at least $2 per 

application. 

Regulatory Findings 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Department is issuing this 

interim final rule, with an effective date 

15 days from the date of publication. 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

permits a final rule to become effective 

fewer than 30 days after publication if 

the issuing agency finds good cause. 5 

U.S.C. § 553(d)(3). The Department finds 

that good cause exists for an early 

effective date in this instance for the 

following reasons. 

As stated in the supplementary 

information above, the Department’s 

mandate is to align as closely as 

possible its user fees for consular 

services with the actual, measured costs 

of those services. This enables better 

cost recovery and ensures that U.S. 

taxpayers do not subsidize consular 

services. 31 U.S.C. 9701; OMB Circular 

A–25. See also GAO–08–386SP, Federal 

User Fees: A Design Guide. The CoSS, 

which supports the fees set by this rule, 

used data from past years, as well as 

predictive data for Fiscal Years 2010 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28193 

and 2011, to determine the amount of 

the fees set by this rule. 

The fees currently charged by the 

Department cover less than 94 percent 

of the underlying services’ true cost. On 

a monthly basis, taxpayers are paying 

$5.4 million in unmet costs for consular 

services that should be borne by those 

who actually benefit from those 

services. In the current economic 

climate, this shortfall is unusually 

grave, exacerbating budgetary pressures 

and threatening other critical 

Department priorities. It is thus in the 

public’s interest to make the 

appropriated funds currently used to fill 

this gap available as soon as possible. 

For these reasons, and because the 

public’s level of preparation for this fee 

increase is unlikely to be meaningfully 

improved by 15 additional days of 

advance warning, the Department finds 

that good cause exists for making this 

rule effective 15 days after its 

publication as an interim final rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department, in accordance with 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), has reviewed this rule and, by 

approving it, certifies that it will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities as 

defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). This rule 

raises the application processing fee for 

nonimmigrant visas. Although the 

issuance of some of these visas is 

contingent upon approval by DHS of a 

petition filed by a U.S. company with 

DHS, and these companies pay a fee to 

DHS to cover the processing of the 

petition, the visa itself is sought and 

paid for by an individual foreign 

national overseas who seeks to come to 

the United States for a temporary stay. 

The amount of the petition fees that are 

paid by small entities to DHS is not 

controlled by the amount of the visa fees 

paid by individuals to the Department 

of State. While small entities may be 

required to cover or reimburse 

employees for application fees, the exact 

number of such entities that does so is 

unknown. Given that the increase in 

petition fees accounts for only 7 percent 

of the total percentage of visa fee 

increases, the modest 15 percent 

increase in the application fee for 

employment-based nonimmigrant visas 

is not likely to have a significant 

economic impact on the small entities 

that choose to reimburse the applicant 

for the visa fee. 

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

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, 2 U.S.C. Chapter 25. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. See 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This rule will not result in an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more; a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, federal, state, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; or significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or on the ability of United 

States-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises in 

domestic and export markets. 

Executive Order 12866 

OMB considers this rule to be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 

September. 30, 1993. Accordingly, this 

rule was submitted to OMB for review. 

This rule is necessary in light of the 

Department of State’s CoSS finding that 

the cost of processing nonimmigrant 

visas has increased since the fee was 

last set in 2007. The Department is 

setting the nonimmigrant visa fees in 

accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 and 

other applicable legal authority, as 

described in detail above. See, e.g., 31 

U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(A) (‘‘The head of each 

agency * * * may prescribe regulations 

establishing the charge for a service or 

thing of value provided by the agency 

* * * based on * * * the costs to the 

Government.’’). This regulation sets the 

fees for nonimmigrant visas at the 

amount required to recover the costs 

associated with providing this service to 

foreign nationals. 

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. 

Executive Order 13175 

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 

preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the 

requirements of section 5 of Executive 

Order 13175 do not apply to this 

rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose any new or 

modify any existing reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 22 

Consular services, fees, passports and 

visas. 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, 22 CFR part 22 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 22—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 22 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 note, 1153 note, 

1183a note, 1351, 1351 note, 1714, 1714 note; 

10 U.S.C. 2602(c); 11 U.S.C. 1157 note; 22 

U.S.C. 214, 214 note, 1475e, 2504(a), 4201, 

4206, 4215, 4219, 6551; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Exec. 

Order 10,718, 22 FR 4632 (1957); Exec. Order 

11,295, 31 FR 10603 (1966). 

■ 2. Revise § 22.1 Item 21 to read as 

follows: 

§ 22.1 Schedule of fees. 

* * * * * 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES
28194 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 97 / Thursday, May 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Item No. Fee 

SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR CONSULAR SERVICES 

* * * * * * * 

Nonimmigrant Visa Services 

21. Nonimmigrant visa and border crossing card application processing fees (per person): 

(a) Non-petition-based nonimmigrant visa (except E category) ................................................................................................... $140 

(b) H, L, O, P, Q and R category nonimmigrant visa .................................................................................................................. $150 

(c) E category nonimmigrant visa ................................................................................................................................................ $390 

(d) K category nonimmigrant visa ................................................................................................................................................ $350 

(e) Border crossing card—age 15 and over (valid 10 years) ...................................................................................................... $140 

(f) Border crossing card—under age 15; for Mexican citizens if parent or guardian has or is applying for a border crossing 

card (valid 10 years or until the applicant reaches age 15, whichever is sooner) .................................................................. $14 

* * * * * * * 

Dated: May 14, 2010. 

Patrick Kennedy, 

Under Secretary of State for Management, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12125 Filed 5–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0277] 

RIN 1625-AA00 

Safety Zone; San Clemente 3 NM 

Safety Zone, San Clemente Island, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a safety zone around San 

Clemente Island in support of 

potentially hazardous military training 

and testing exercises. The existing zones 

do not sufficiently overlap potential 

danger zones and testing areas used by 

the Navy during live-fire and ocean 

research operations resulting in a delay 

or cancellation of these operations. The 

new safety zone will protect the public 

from hazardous, live-fire and testing 

operations and ensure operations 

proceed as scheduled. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 21, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2009–0277 and are 

available online by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2009–0277 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and 

then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ This material is 

also available for inspection or copying 

at the Docket Management Facility (M– 

30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Petty Officer Corey McDonald, 

Waterways Management, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; 

telephone 619–278–7262, e-mail 

Corey.R.McDonald@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On August 7, 2009, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled Safety Zone; San Clemente 

Island, CA in the Federal Register (74 

FR 39584). We received one comment 

on the proposed rule. 

Basis and Purpose 

As part of the Southern California 

Range Complex, San Clemente Island 

(SCI) and the surrounding littoral waters 

support the training requirements for 

the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Fleet Marine 

Forces Pacific, Naval Special Warfare 

Command, Naval Expeditionary Combat 

Command and other military training 

and research units. In 1934, Executive 

Order 6897 transferred full ownership of 

SCI from the Department of Commerce 

to the Department of the Navy for ‘‘naval 

purposes’’. The San Clemente Island 

Range Complex (SCIRC) has the 

capability to support training in all 

warfare areas including Undersea 

Warfare, Surface Warfare, Mine Warfare, 

Strike Warfare, Air Warfare, 

Amphibious Warfare, Command and 

Control, and Naval Special Warfare. It is 

the only location in the United States 

that supports Naval Special Warfare 

full-mission training profiles. The Shore 

Bombardment Area (SHOBA) is the only 

range in the United States where 

expeditionary fire support exercises 

utilizing ship to shore naval gunfire can 

be conducted. SCI’s unique coastal 

topography, proximity to the major Fleet 

and Marine concentration areas in San 

Diego County, supporting infrastructure, 

and exclusive Navy ownership make the 

island and surrounding waters vitally 

important for fleet training, weapon and 

electronic systems testing, and research 

and development activities. 

Background 

In the 2009 NPRM, the Coast Guard 

proposed to establish a permanent 

safety zone in the area of San Clemente 

Island in order to conduct training 

essential to successful accomplishments 

of U.S. Navy missions relating to 

military operations and national 

security. We proposed to establish a 

safety zone consisting of 8 segments, 

which were described in the NPRM as 

Sections (A) through (G) and Wilson 

Cove. We believe that a safety zone is 

necessary to protect the public from 

hazardous, live-fire and testing 

operations and ensure operations 

proceed as scheduled. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The Coast Guard received one 

comment in response to the NPRM. This 

was a joint statement from three 

commercial fishing organizations: the 

Sea Urchin Commission (CSUC), the 

California Lobster and Trap Fishermen’s 

Association (CLTFA), and the Point 

Conception Ground Fishermen’s 

Association (PCGA), and is available in 

the docket. The commenters joined 

together to express their support for the 

Navy training missions associated with 

San Clemente Island, including the use 

of safety zones and permanent closures 

at Special Warfare Training Area 1 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES