Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 28137 

Cape Girardeau, MO, Cape Girardeau Rgnl, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig 

Cape Girardeau, MO, Cape Girardeau Rgnl, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1 

Cape Girardeau, MO, Cape Girardeau Rgnl, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig 

Cape Girardeau, MO, Cape Girardeau Rgnl, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1 

Clinton, MO, Clinton Memorial, NDB RWY 4, 

Amdt 7 

Clinton, MO, Clinton Memorial, NDB RWY 

22, Amdt 8 

Clinton, MO, Clinton Memorial, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 4, Orig 

Clinton, MO, Clinton Memorial, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 22, Orig 

Clinton, MO, Clinton Memorial, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Mountain View, MO, Mountain View, NDB 

OR GPS RWY 28, Amdt 3, CANCELED 

Mountain View, MO, Mountain View, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 10, Orig 

Mountain View, MO, Mountain View, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 28, Orig 

Tecumseh, NE, Tecumseh Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 15, Orig 

Tecumseh, NE, Tecumseh Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 33, Orig 

Tecumseh, NE, Tecumseh Muni, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig 

Gettysburg, SD, Gettysburg Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 2 

Gettysburg, SD, Gettysburg Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 2 

Vermillion, SD, Harold Davidson Field, 

RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1 

Memphis, TN, Memphis Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y 

RWY 18C, Orig-C 

Smithville, TN, Smithville Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 3 

Smithville, TN, Smithville Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 3 

Cleburne, TX, Cleburne Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 15, Amdt 1 

Cleburne, TX, Cleburne Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) 

RWY 33, Amdt 1 

Cleburne, TX, Cleburne Rgnl, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A 

Mineral Wells, TX, Mineral Wells, Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 

San Marcos, TX, San Marcos Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 8, Orig 

San Marcos, TX, San Marcos Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 2 

San Marcos, TX, San Marcos Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 17, Orig 

San Marcos, TX, San Marcos Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 26, Orig 

San Marcos, TX, San Marcos Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 31, Orig 

San Marcos, TX, San Marcos Muni, RNAV 

(GPS) RWY 35, Orig 

[FR Doc. 2013–11327 Filed 5–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 62 

RIN 1400–AD28 

[Public Notice 8322] 

Exchange Visitor Program—Fees and 

Charges 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of State 

(Department) is revising regulations to 

increase the Application Fee for 

Sponsor Designation or Redesignation 

and the Administrative Fee for 

Exchange Visitor (J–1 Visa Holder) 

Benefits assessed for providing 

Exchange Visitor Program services, in 

order to recoup the costs incurred by the 

Department’s Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs associated with 

operating the Exchange Visitor Program. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective June 13, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin J. Lerner, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Private Sector Exchange, 

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

2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC 

20522, 202–632–9290, or email at 

JExchanges@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department published a proposed rule 

on January 30, 2013 (RIN 1400–AD28; 

78 FR 6263), with a request for 

comments, to amend 22 CFR 62.17 

(‘‘Fees and Charges’’) to increase fees to 

recover the costs of administrative 

processing of requests for program 

designation or redesignation, and 

certain services for exchange visitor 

benefits. These costs were calculated by 

an independent, certified public 

accounting firm following the 

guidelines set forth in Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A–25 regarding such fee 

calculation. 

The Department received thirteen 

comments and is now promulgating a 

final rule with no changes from the 

proposed rule. Thus, the application fee 

charged to U.S. corporate entities will 

increase to $3,982.00 for program 

designation and redesignation. The 

individual program services fee paid by 

foreign nationals will increase to 

$367.00 for services such as change of 

program category, program extensions 

and reinstatements. 

Comment Analysis 

The Department received thirteen 

comments. One comment suggested that 

the Exchange Visitor Program be shut 

down and the other, from a foreign 

national, requested assistance on visas 

and travel. These comments were not 

responsive to the proposed rule. 

Three comments represented the 

academic community and supported the 

proposed rule. One commenter stated 

that the fees should be adopted and 

believes that the Department cannot 

prevent abuses to the program if the 

Office of Designation limits itself, as it 

does now, to some 13 staff members 

monitoring more than 1,400 separate 

and distinct sponsors. Two comments 

did not object to the increases, but 

requested that sufficient time be 

allowed so that academic institutions 

could properly budget for the 47% 

increase in the application fee. The 

Department’s fee schedule is reviewed 

and implemented on a two-year cycle. 

Delaying the fee increases for all 

sponsors is not feasible. 

In addition, one of the three 

commenters who expressed support for 

the proposed rule requested clarification 

as to whether designation fees paid by 

private sector program sponsors were 

also meant to cover the cost of 

administering U.S. Government 

exchange programs. Designation fees 

paid by private sector program sponsors 

do not currently fund the administration 

of U.S. Government exchange programs, 

and the Department does not anticipate 

that private sector programs would 

cover the cost of administering such 

exchange programs in the future. 

A total of eight comments oppose the 

proposed increase in fees. One comment 

inquired about the purpose of increasing 

the application fee since the Department 

has imposed a moratorium on new 

sponsor applications for the Summer 

Work Travel category of the Exchange 

Visitor Program. Once the Department 

has completed the comprehensive 

review of the Summer Work Travel 

category, it is anticipated that the 

moratorium will be lifted. 

Another comment opposed the 

increase and stated that the opposition 

was ‘‘due to the Department’s failure to 

adequately demonstrate its best use of 

resources and lack of timely and 

knowledgeable response time to 

questions and application requests.’’ 

According to this commenter, the 

requirement to provide increased 

oversight of the Exchange Visitor 

Program over the last two years has 

diverted resources away from the 

administrative processing of stakeholder 

requests. The increase in fees is 

designed to facilitate the hiring of 

additional staff to manage the 

administrative workload in a timely 

fashion, increase the Office of 

Designation’s efficiency and enhance 

the office’s customer service. Five 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
28138 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

commenters opposed the proposed 

administrative fee and noted the impact 

it will have on au pair participants 

wishing to extend their program beyond 

the twelve-month maximum duration. 

The Department designed the 

administrative fee to recoup the cost to 

the Department of processing the action 

for the participant, regardless of 

category. 

Finally, one commenter opposed the 

fee structure and questioned whether 

applications for designation and 

redesignation undergo the same level of 

review. The commenting party also 

noted that both large and small sponsors 

are charged the same application fee, 

and suggested that the fee structure be 

based on program size. The Department 

recognizes that, in general, processing 

designation and redesignation 

applications does not require the same 

level of review. The Department also 

recognizes that there is an on-going 

relationship between the parties once a 

sponsor becomes designated. This 

relationship involves program 

monitoring, responding to sponsor 

inquiries, processing of requests whose 

costs are not recouped through 

administrative fees, and other activities, 

all of which must be funded. 

Program size has minimal impact on 

the level of effort associated with 

processing redesignation applications, 

since the Office of Designation has to 

review and assess the same factors and 

the same documents. 

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 rulemaking is to 

set the fees that will fund services 

provided by the Exchange Visitor 

Program Office of Designation to more 

than 1,400 sponsor organizations and 

300,000 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 

participants are 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 rulemaking is exempt 

from the rulemaking provisions of the 

APA, the Department published this 

rulemaking as an NPRM and solicited 

comments, without prejudice to its 

determination that this rulemaking 

concerns a foreign affairs function of the 

Department. 

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. 

This final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) or 

Executive Order 13272. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rulemaking 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 

provisions of Executive Order 13175 do 

not apply to this rulemaking. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

Based on the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 

804(2), the Department does not believe 

this rulemaking will have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100,000,000 

or more. The Department estimates that 

approximately 60 government, academic 

and private sector programs apply for 

designation annually, and 

approximately 700 of the currentlydesignated sponsors apply for 

redesignation annually. Therefore, 760 

organizations will be required to pay the 

application fee, which amounts to a 

total of $3,026,320, an increase of 

$974,320 from the current application 

fee of $2700 ($3,026,320–$2,052,000). 

This is the only monetary effect on the 

economy that the Department is able to 

identify. 

A rule is also considered ‘‘major’’ if it 

will result in a major increase in costs 

or prices for consumers, individual 

industries, Federal, state or local 

government agencies, or geographic 

regions. The Department does not 

anticipate that this rule will have any 

effect at all on those categories. Finally, 

a rule is considered major if it will have 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

foreign markets. The Department knows 

of no adverse effects, much less 

significant adverse effects, on any of 

those categories. 

This rulemaking has been found not 

to be a major rule within the meaning 

of 5 U.S.C. 804. 

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 generally exempt from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

However, the Department has 

nevertheless reviewed this final rule 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 rule, and declares 

that educational and cultural exchanges 

are both cornerstones of U.S. public 

diplomacy and an integral component of 

U.S. foreign policy. The benefits of these 

exchanges to the United States and its 

people are invaluable and cannot be 

monetized; in the same way, even one 

exchange visitor having a bad 

experience or, worse, being mistreated, 

will result in embarrassment and 

incalculable harm to the foreign policy 

of the United States. Therefore, the 

Department is of the opinion that the 

benefits of this rulemaking outweigh its 

costs. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 28139 

Executive Order 12988 

The Department has reviewed this 

rulemaking in light of Executive Order 

12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize 

litigation, establish clear legal 

standards, and reduce burden. 

Executive Orders 12372 and Executive 

Order 13132 

This rulemaking 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 Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this rulemaking 

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 rulemaking. 

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 

continues 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, Sec. 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 Fees and charges. 

(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)— 

$3,982.00. 

(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)—$367.00. 

Dated: May 8, 2013. 

Robin J. Lerner, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private Sector 

Exchange, Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11484 Filed 5–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0308] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Tuckahoe River, Between Corbin City 

and Upper Township, NJ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the draw of the 

State Highway Bridge across the 

Tuckahoe River, mile 8.0, between 

Corbin City and Upper Township, NJ. 

The deviation is necessary to facilitate 

mechanical repair work for excessive 

corrosion within working assemblies on 

the State Highway Bridge. This 

deviation allows the drawbridge to 

remain in the closed to navigation 

position during the deviation period. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

May 14, 2013 to 7 a.m. on October 24, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, [USCG–2013–0308] is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Type the docket number in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated with this deviation. You may 

also visit the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the Department of 

Transportation West Building, 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 temporary 

deviation, call or email Mr. Jim 

Rousseau, Bridge Administration 

Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; 

telephone 757–398–6557, email 

James.L.Rousseau2@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New 

Jersey Department of Transportation, 

who owns and operates this swing 

bridge, has requested a temporary 

deviation from the current operating 

regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.758, 

to facilitate emergency repair work on 

the structure. 

Under the regular operating schedule, 

the State Highway Bridge, mile 8.0, 

between Corbin City and Upper 

Township, NJ shall open on signal if at 

least 24 hours notice is given. The State 

Highway Bridge has vertical clearance 

in the closed position of 8 feet above 

mean high water. 

Under this temporary deviation, the 

drawbridge will be closed to navigation 

from May 14, 2013 to 7 a.m. on 

Thursday October 24, 2013. Emergency 

openings cannot be provided. There are 

no alternate routes for vessels transiting 

this section of the Tuckahoe River. 

The Tuckahoe River in this area is 

used by small recreational vessels. 

There have been no documented 

navigational requests for openings in 28 

years. The Coast Guard will inform 

users of the waterway through our Local 

and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the 

closure periods for the bridge so that 

vessels can arrange their transits to 

minimize any impacts caused by the 

temporary deviation. Mariners able to 

pass under the bridge in the closed 

position may do so at any time. 

Mariners are advised to proceed with 

caution. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: May 1, 2013. 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., 

Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11365 Filed 5–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES