```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6263-6269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01555]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

22 CFR Part 62

[Public Notice 8163]
RIN 1400-AD28

Exchange Visitor Program--Fees and Charges

AGENCY: U.S. Department of State.

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of State (Department) is proposing to 
revise 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 (EVP) services, in order to recoup the costs

[[Page 6264]]

incurred by the Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs 
associated with operating aspects of the Exchange Visitor Program.

DATES: The Department will accept comments from the public up to April 
1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by any of the following 
methods:
     Persons with access to the Internet will be able to view 
and comment on the rule and supporting documentation, including the 
supporting cost study, by going to the Regulations.gov Web site http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home, and searching on docket 
ID DOS-2010-0214.
     Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): U.S. Department 
of State, Office of Designation, SA-5, Floor 5, 2200 C Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20522.
     Email: JExchanges@state.gov. You must include the title 
and RIN (1400-AD28) in the subject line of your message.

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, 202-632-2805, or 
email at JExchanges@state.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the authority of Section 810 of the 
United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as 
amended, 22 U.S.C. 1475e, and the Independent Offices Appropriations 
Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, and following the guidelines set 
forth in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-25, fees 
for the Exchange Visitor Program (EVP) Services were adopted for the 
first time in 2000. The Department issued regulations to establish 
sufficient fees to recover the cost of administrative processing of 
requests for program designation or redesignation, and certain services 
for exchange visitor status changes. OMB Circular No. A-25 directs the 
Agency review of fees and services every two years.
    The two fees for the Exchange Visitor Program under review are 
those set forth in 22 CFR 62.17(b)(1) and (2): the Application Fee for 
Sponsor Designation or Redesignation and the Administrative Fee for 
Exchange Visitor (J-1 Visa Holder) Benefits. The Exchange Visitor 
Program (EVP) provides foreign nationals, utilizing the J-1 Exchange 
Visitor Visa (J-1 Visa), opportunities to participate in exchange 
programs in the United States. It is administered and overseen by the 
Office of Private Sector Exchange in the Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs (ECA/EC). ECA/EC is responsible for designating 
eligible U.S. government agencies and public and private organizations 
as EVP sponsors. Upon designation, ECA/EC is also responsible for the 
oversight of the EVP sponsors. ECA/EC is comprised of a Front Office 
and three supporting offices: The Office of Private Sector Designation, 
the Office of Exchange Coordination and Compliance, the Office of 
Private Sector Exchange Program Administration. Three different funding 
streams fund all of the ECA/EC units administering and overseeing the 
EVP, including all of the EVP's program administration activities and 
the ECA/EC personnel conducting those activities.
    These funding streams are:
     Application Fee for Sponsor Designation or Redesignation 
and the Administrative Fee for Exchange Visitor (J-1 Visa Holder) 
Benefits: The Application Fee is paid by prospective and current EVP 
sponsors for Designation and Redesignation, respectively. The 
Administrative Fee is paid by EVP sponsors on behalf of J-1 
participants seeking an administrative benefit such as reinstatement or 
other request related to their current exchange visitor program. Both 
fees primarily fund the Office of Private Sector Designation labor 
(salary) and ancillary costs (e.g., staff travel, communications, and 
utilities). Both fees also fund the Office of Exchange Coordination and 
Compliance ancillary costs and will fund the ancillary costs of the 
future Office of Private Sector Exchange Program Administration.
     SEVIS Fees paid by J-1 Visa Applicants and Participants to 
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS): These fees, via 
transfer on a reimbursable basis from DHS to the Department of State, 
fund the Office of Exchange Coordination and Compliance labor (salary) 
costs; and, in the future, will fund the Office of Private Sector 
Exchange Program Administration labor (salary) costs.
     Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) Budget: 
Appropriated funds support certain ECA/EC personnel salaries (or 
portions of salaries) and portions of salaries of Bureau of Education 
and Cultural Affairs Support Services personnel who assist the 
administration of the EVP.

This rulemaking only proposes changes to the Application Fee for 
Sponsor Designation or Redesignation, and the Administrative Fee for 
Exchange Visitor (J-1 Visa Holder) Benefits.
    The current Application Fee for Sponsor Designation or 
Redesignation is $2700 and the Administrative Fee for Exchange Visitor 
(J-1 Visa Holder) Benefits is currently $233 per request. The 
Department proposes amendment of both fees to: $3,982 (an increase of 
$1,282) and $367 (an increase of $134), respectively. The proposed 
increase in the Application and Administrative Fees is primarily 
attributable to three initiatives related to ongoing or planned process 
improvements and technology implementations. These initiatives are 
expected to increase the efficiency and accuracy of the Designation and 
Redesignation Application review processes and the level of service 
provided to EVP sponsors by the Office of Private Sector Exchange. 
Costs assessments were developed by Deloitte Consulting LLP for each 
initiative and added into the total cost basis that must be recovered 
by the two EVP fees.
    The three initiatives are:
     Development of a Learning Management System (an expansion 
of the currently existing Local Coordinator Training Certification 
Module) needed to meet EVP local coordinator training requirements 
established in new or future EVP regulations.
     Development and implementation of the Designation 
Processing System, which consists of:
    [cir] Robust electronic content management system for storing and 
reviewing new and historical sponsor files;
    [cir] Electric file migration of all hard copy sponsor files; and
    [cir] Complaint Management Workflow Module for tracking, managing, 
and reporting on all complaints and incidents reported to the 
Department (e.g., serious incidents reported by EVP sponsors and 
complaints reported by Exchange Visitors and any interested persons on 
behalf of Exchange Visitors or of a general nature).
     Addition of a new Office of Private Sector Exchange 
Program Administration in the Office of Private Sector Exchange (ECA/
EC) and the addition of four Full-time Equivalent employees (FTEs) in 
the ECA/EC Front Office, which will increase the ancillary costs 
factored into the cost basis.

[[Page 6265]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Increase/
                                     Current      Proposed     Decrease
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation/Redesignation........       $2,700       $3,982       $1,282
Individual Applications..........          233          367          134
------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of EVP Fees

    The Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office 
of Private Sector Exchange, designates the U.S. government, academic, 
and private sector entities to conduct educational and cultural 
exchange programs pursuant to a broad grant of authority provided by 
the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended 
(Fulbright-Hays Act), 22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.; the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J); the Foreign Affairs Reform 
and Restructuring Act of 1998, Public Law 105-277; as well as other 
statutory enactments, Reorganization Plans and Executive Orders. Under 
those authorities, over 1,400 sponsor organizations facilitate the 
entry of more than 300,000 exchange participants each year.
    The Fulbright-Hays Act is the primary statutory authority for the 
Exchange Visitor Program. The purpose of the Act, set forth in Section 
101, is ``to enable the Government of the United States to increase 
mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the 
people of other countries by means of educational and cultural 
exchange.'' The Act authorizes the President to provide for such 
exchanges when he considers that it would strengthen international 
cooperative relations. The language of the Act and its legislative 
history make it clear that Congress considered international 
educational and cultural exchanges to be a significant part of the 
public diplomacy efforts of the President in connection with his 
Constitutional prerogatives in conducting foreign affairs.
    In 2006, the Department examined its current Exchange Visitor 
Program fee structure (which had been instituted by the former USIA, 
prior to its merger with the Department) for compliance with applicable 
laws and policies, and to determine the appropriate level of fees given 
the expansion of the offices providing services. This analysis was 
grounded on the guiding principle that fees should be fair and reflect 
the full cost to perform the service; and that services performed on 
behalf of distinct, identifiable beneficiaries (versus the public at 
large) should, to the extent possible, be self-sustaining. As a result 
of the review, it was determined that additional fee categories and 
increased fees were required, and the Department published a final rule 
on November 1, 2007 (72 FR 61800), which became effective December 3, 
2007.
    The 2007 fee rule identified the program re-designation process as 
a separate and identifiable service for which the cost of such service 
should be recouped. This fee (Application Fee) is collected from over 
1,400 academic, governmental, and private sector sponsor organizations. 
This fee also includes the cost of services arising from a program 
sponsor's requests for amendments to programs, allotment requests, and 
updates of information, as well as the costs for program compliance, 
regulatory review and development, outreach, and general program 
administration. Also established in the 2007 fee rule was the 
Administrative Fee paid by sponsors on behalf of J-1 foreign national 
exchange participants for services provided on an individual basis and 
for the sole benefit of the exchange participant (i.e., requests for 
exchange visitor status changes of program category, extension beyond 
maximum duration, requests for reinstatement, requests to update the 
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) status, and 
similar requests). The fees received for these individual services also 
include an apportioned share of costs for regulatory review and 
development, outreach, and general program administration.
    In 2009, per guidelines set forth in OMB Circular A-25, the 
Department conducted a biennial review of fees established in 2007. In 
accordance with the Statement of Federal Finance and Accounting 
Standards No. 4 (SFFAS 4), the Department used an ``activity-based 
costing'' (ABC) approach to develop a sustainable model to align the 
costs of the program to the specific services performed by Office of 
Private Sector Exchange's Office of Designation on behalf of program 
sponsors and other program stakeholders. ABC is a method of identifying 
the work that is performed, how resources are consumed by that work, 
and how that work contributes to the production of required outputs. 
The ABC methodology enabled the development of a bottom-up budget that 
factored in forecasts for expected demand of program services in the 
years when the fees are effective and would provide the program with 
adequate resources to meet that future program demand. Based on this 
review, the Department established a user application fee of $2,700 for 
designation or redesignation, and a fee of $233 to be paid by program 
sponsors on behalf of J-1 foreign national exchange participants 
requesting individual program services. The Department published a 
final rule on February 25, 2011 (76 FR 10498), which became effective 
March 28, 2011.
    In 2011, Deloitte Consulting LLP (hereafter referred to as 
Deloitte) began its fee study as part of the biennial review of the 
fees charged by the Department, consistent with the guidelines set 
forth in OMB Circular A-25. In accordance with SFFAS 4, Deloitte used 
an ABC approach to align the costs of the program to the administration 
of the Exchange Visitor Program and the associated administrative 
activities. The methodology and the results of this study are examined 
in the following sections.

Results of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Fee Study

Methodology

    In accordance with the Statement of Federal Finance and Accounting 
Standards No. 4 (SFFAS 4), Deloitte used an ``activity-based costing'' 
(ABC) approach to develop a sustainable model to align the associated 
costs of the EVP to the specific services performed by the Office of 
Private Sector Designation on behalf of EVP applicants, sponsors, 
participants and other program stakeholders. ABC is a method of 
identifying the work that is performed, how resources are consumed by 
that work, and how that work contributes to the production of required 
outputs. This methodology enabled the development of a cost model that 
factored in forecasts for expected demand of program services in the 
years when the fees are effective (FY2013 and FY2014) and would provide 
the program with adequate resources to meet that future program demand.
    According to legislative and regulatory guidance, user charges 
should be based on the full cost to the government of providing the 
services or things of value. OMB Circular A-25 defines full cost as all 
direct and

[[Page 6266]]

indirect costs to any part of the Federal government of providing a 
good, resource, or service. These costs include, but are not limited 
to, an appropriate share of:
     Direct and indirect personnel costs, including salaries 
and fringe benefits such as medical insurance and retirement.
     Physical overhead, consulting, and other indirect costs 
including material and supply costs, utilities, insurance, travel, and 
rents or imputed rents on land, buildings, and equipment.
     Management and supervisory costs.
     Costs of enforcement, collection, research, establishment 
of standards, and regulation, including any required environmental 
impact statements.
    The generally accepted government accounting practices for 
managerial cost accounting, published in Federal Accounting Standards 
Advisory Board (FASAB) Statement of Federal Financial Accounting 
Standards (SFFAS) No. 4, provide the standards for cost definition, 
recognition, accumulation and assignment as they relate to the 
recognition of full cost. These standards have been applied to the 
determination of what costs to include in or exclude from the Exchange 
Visitor Program fees.
    To obtain data needed for the cost model using the ABC methodology, 
a Labor Survey was conducted to determine the time spent by the Office 
of Private Sector Designation personnel on EVP activities. The survey 
results were taken into account when determining the two fees.
    The results of the Labor Survey were analyzed in conjunction with 
Office of Private Sector Designation salary data (escalated for 
benefits) to determine the cost basis of activities supporting the EVP. 
Added to the cost basis were Office of Private Sector Exchange 
ancillary costs (including the projected ancillary costs of a planned, 
new third office and four additional FTEs in the ECA/EC Front Office), 
costs for the development of a new Designation Processing System and a 
new Learning Management System, and Bureau of Educational and Cultural 
Affairs and Department of State labor (salary) costs that support the 
EVP.
    The model then assigned direct costs and allocated indirect and 
General and Administrative (G&A) costs using allocation ratios to 
isolate direct, indirect, and G&A costs. The sum of direct, indirect 
and G&A costs for Designation and Redesignation Applications were 
divided by the projected number of FY 2013 and FY 2014 Designation and 
Redesignation Applications to determine the Application Fee for Sponsor 
Designation or Redesignation. To determine the Administrative Fee for 
Exchange Visitor (J-1 Visa Holder) Benefits, the sum of direct, 
indirect and G&A costs for Exchange Visitor Activity Counts were 
divided by the projected number of FY 2013 and FY 2014 Exchange Visitor 
Activity Counts; i.e., the expected number of benefit applications.
    The following section describes the cost model structure driving 
the proposed fee changes.

Cost Model Structure

Model Overview

    In summary, the EVP Cost Accounting Model takes cost data from the 
GS Schedule Rates, Baseline ECA Budget, Civilian Pay Cost Data, 
Activity Model Cost Pools, FTE Capacity Calculation, LCC Cost 
Assessment, DPS Cost Assessment, and Other Cost Pools modules, assigns 
direct costs or allocates indirect and General and Administrative (G&A) 
costs using allocation ratios, and then uses the direct, indirect, and 
G&A cost pools to calculate the two fees for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-
2014 time frame.
    The Cost Accounting Model contains twelve modules described in 
detail in the following sections. Most modules include an FY 2013 
section and an FY 2014 section, given the need to enter separate data 
for each fiscal year. The modules that only have one tab are Home, GS 
Schedule Rates, ECA Baseline Budget, FTE Capacity Calculation, LCC Cost 
Assessment, Designation Processing System, SEVIS & FTE Data, and Final 
EVP Fees FY 2013-2014. The modules are sequenced to follow the general 
flow of calculations performed by the model.

GS Schedule Rates

    The GS Schedule Rates module contains the General Schedule (GS) pay 
scale figures for FY 2012-FY 2014. The figures for FY 2013 and FY 2014 
are based on the 2012 General Schedule pay scale. These figures inform 
the Civilian Pay Cost Data FY13 and FY14 and the Activity Model Cost 
Pools FY2013 and FY2014 modules and are used to determine Department 
labor costs.

Baseline ECA Budget

    The Baseline ECA Budget module contains the actual and projected 
Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs (ECA) budget and budget 
breakdowns for FY 2012-FY 2014. These estimates inform the Other Cost 
Pools FY 2013 and FY 2014 modules.
    This module also calculates the ancillary costs associated with 
Office of Exchange Coordination and Compliance, Office of Private 
Sector Exchange Program Administration, and ECA/EC Front Office 
personnel. The results of this calculation are documented in the Other 
Cost Pools FY 2013 and FY 2014 tabs in the ``Adjustment to Cost'' 
column in the ECA/EC Non-Labor Cost Pool table.

Civilian Pay Cost Data FY 2013 & FY 2014

    This module pulls Civilian Pay data by General Schedule (GS) Level 
for ECA/EC/D personnel from the GS Schedule Rates module. The salaries 
of the personnel are escalated for benefits according to OMB Circular 
A-76. This calculation is detailed further in the Cost Accounting Model 
Data Sources section.

Activity Model Cost Pools FY 2013 & FY 2014

    This module displays the results of the Labor Survey that was 
conducted by the 2012 Deloitte Fee Study to determine the time spent by 
ECA/EC/D personnel performing activities related to the administration 
of the Exchange Visitor Program. The results are displayed by personnel 
position in the form of percentages. This data is then multiplied by 
the escalated salary calculated in the Civilian Pay Cost Data module to 
create Activity Model Cost Pools to determine the costs associated with 
the time spent by ECA/EC/D personnel performing activities related to 
the administration of the Exchange Visitor Program. Finally, this 
module includes a self-check feature to verify the completeness and 
accuracy of user entries.

FTE Capacity Calculation

    This module displays the calculation the 2012 Deloitte Fee Study 
performed in order to determine ECA/EC's current staffing needs related 
to fulfilling its mission of administering and overseeing the EVP.

Local Coordinator Certification (LCC) Trainings Cost Assessment

    This module displays the costs of administering the training 
certifications for EVP sponsors' field staff (regional and/or local 
coordinators) through the development of an in-house Learning 
Management System (LMS). The module also contains the total 
expenditures paid to an external LMS vendor to administer the trainings 
while the LMS is in development. The results of these calculations are 
documented in the Other Cost Pools FY 2013 & FY 2014 tabs in the ECA/EC 
Non-Labor Cost Pool tables.

[[Page 6267]]

Designation Processing System (DPS) Cost Assessment

    This module displays the estimated costs of the Designation 
Processing System and Workflow Module designed to fully automate the 
designation and redesignation process in order to increase the Office 
of Private Sector Exchange's efficiency required for sponsor reviews 
and to eventually integrate with the SEVIS II. The results of this cost 
estimate are documented in the ECA/EC Non-Labor Cost Pool tables of the 
Other Cost Pools FY2013 & FY2014 modules.

Other Cost Pools FY 2013 & FY 2014

    This module displays other costs associated with the Exchange 
Visitor Program, including the following:
     Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of 
Private Sector Exchange (ECA/EC) non-labor costs including costs 
estimates of the Local Coordinator Training Certifications, Designation 
Processing System, and the value of the JASZ Technology Call Center 
Contract (provides call center services for the J-1 Visa Helpline).
     Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) labor 
costs.
     Department of State labor costs.
     Department of State non-labor costs.
    Not all of the costs outlined above are allocated to the two fees 
since they support the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs or 
the entire Department. The 2012 Deloitte Fee Study allocated 
appropriate portions of these costs to the EVP by FTE ratios. The FTE 
ratios are calculated from data provided by SEVIS & FTE Data module.

SEVIS & FTE Data

    There is only one tab for the SEVIS & FTE Data module. It displays 
historical SEVIS and FTE data. It includes projected CY 2013 and CY 
2014 Designation and Redesignation Applications, and Exchange Visitor 
Activity Counts. Data in this module also generate FTE projections for 
FY 2013 and FY 2014. This module contains the following specific FTE 
data for the following organizational areas:
     Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of 
Private Sector Exchange, Office of Private Sector Designation (ECA/EC/
D) and Office of Exchange Coordination and Compliance (ECA/EC/ECC).
     Human Resources.
     Support Services.
     IIP Budget Office (Bureau of International Information 
Programs).
     ECA Budget Office.
     Program Management Office.
     Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA).
     Department of State.

Cost Assignment & Allocation FY 2013 & FY 2014

    This module pulls the data from the previous modules in order to 
assign direct costs or allocate indirect or G&A costs to each fee. The 
method in which costs are assigned or allocated varies by cost 
classification:
     Direct costs are costs that can be specifically identified 
with an output. For direct costs, Deloitte followed the Direct Cost 
Assignment method to assign all resource cost to one cost object. In 
this case, the full cost of activities is assigned to the fee for which 
it is determined to be a direct cost.
     Indirect costs are costs of resources that are jointly or 
commonly used to produce two or more outputs but are not specifically 
identifiable with any one output. For indirect costs, Deloitte followed 
the Prorated Cost Allocation method to allocate indirect costs to all 
cost objects based on percentage of total direct cost of the 
destination cost objects. In this case, the full cost in each indirect 
cost pool is split and each portion is then assigned to the appropriate 
fee. Indirect costs were split based on the labor survey allocations to 
each activity type (i.e., Application or Administrative).
     G&A costs are the costs of support services that an office 
or segment receives from other segments or entities. G&A costs 
calculated and apportioned in Other Cost Pools FY2013 and FY2014 are 
allocated to each of the fees in the same way indirect costs are 
allocated.
    This method for allocating indirect and general and administrative 
(G&A) cost is fully consistent with cost allocation guidance found in 
Sections 133 and 134 of Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 
(FASAB) Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 
4 as follows:
    ``133. Sometimes, it might not be economically feasible to directly 
trace or assign costs on a cause-and-effect basis. These may include 
general management and support costs, depreciation, rent, maintenance, 
security, and utilities associated with facilities that are commonly 
used by various segments.''
    ``134. These supporting costs can be allocated to segments and 
outputs on a prorated basis. The cost allocations may involve two 
steps. The first step allocates the costs of support services to 
segments, and the second step allocates those costs to the outputs of 
each segment. The cost allocations are usually based on a relevant 
common denominator such as the number of employees, square footage of 
office space, or the amount of direct costs incurred in segments.''

Fee Cost Pools FY 2013 & FY 2014

    This module pulls data from the Cost Assignment and Allocation 
module and groups it into total direct, indirect, and G&A cost pools. 
It then divides each of those cost pool amounts by the total projected 
SEVIS activity units to determine each fee's direct, indirect, and G&A 
components. It also sums each of these cost components to provide the 
total for each fee for FY 2013 and FY 2014. Finally, this module 
includes a self-check feature to verify the completeness and accuracy 
of user entries.

Final EVP Fees FY 2013-2014

    This module adds the total costs and SEVIS Activity Units for FY 
2013 and FY2014 from the Fee Cost Pool module in order to provide fees 
that are based on a two-year fee lifecycle consistent with the 
guidelines set forth in OMB Circular A-25 requiring current Program 
Sponsors to apply for Redesignation status every two years. It also 
includes a self-check feature to verify the completeness and accuracy 
of user entries.

Cost Accounting Model Data Sources

GS Schedule Rates

    The 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 General Schedule Pay Tables and the 
2011 SES Pay Rates for the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia 
Locality were obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Baseline ECA Budget

    Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) provided the 
actual Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs budgetary data for FY 
2011, and projected budgetary data for FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014.

Civilian Pay Cost Data

    For the data in the Civilian Pay Cost Data module, ECA provided 
Deloitte with each ECA/EC/D employee's GS level, and then Deloitte used 
the Step 5 salary assumption for each level to determine the salary to 
be entered for each employee. This figure was then escalated by 36.25% 
to capture benefits. This percentage is the guidance given for average 
benefits escalation in OMB Circular A-76 Performance of Commercial 
Activities, Attachment C--Calculating Public-Private Competition Costs.

Activity Model Cost Pools

    The only data in the Activity Model Cost Pools module is the Labor 
Survey

[[Page 6268]]

results. This input was accomplished by converting the hours each 
respondent recorded for their position and for each activity they 
performed during the Labor Survey into percentages of FTEs.

Local Coordinator Certification (LCC) Trainings Cost Assessment

    ECA provided the expenditures to date spent on external Learning 
Management System (LMS) vendor. The cost estimate for the in-house LMS 
was based on Deloitte's own estimate using interviews, training system 
requirements, subject-matter experts, and industry standards.

Designation Processing System (DPS) Cost Assessment

    The cost estimates for the development of the Designation 
Processing System, Electronic File Conversion, and Complaint Management 
Workflow Module were based on Deloitte's own estimate using interviews, 
ECA/EC system requirements, subject-matter experts, and industry 
standards.

Other Cost Pools

    The data from Other Cost Pools is derived from the GS Schedule 
Rates, Baseline ECA Budget, LCC Cost Assessment, DPS Cost Assessment, 
and SEVIS & FTE Data modules.
     Deloitte used the following methods to derive ECA/EC non-
labor cost data:

--The FY2013 and FY2014 budgetary data has been taken from ECA 
projected data found in the Baseline ECA Budget module.
--The Local Coordinator Certification Training Cost Assessment and the 
Designation Processing Cost Assessment are derived from the 
calculations in LCC Cost Assessment and DPS Cost Assessment modules, 
respectively.
--JASZ Technology Call Center contract value was provided by ECA/EC.
     All ECA labor cost data is derived from the FY 2012 
Employment Compensation and Benefits figure in the ECA Budget module. 
This figure is pro-rated by the respective ECA organizational area's 
FTEs, and based on the FY 2012 Employment Compensation and Benefits 
figure for FY 2013 and FY 2014 estimates.
     For Department non-labor costs, Deloitte obtained the 
Total Department-wide GSA Rents from the Department of State 
Congressional Budget Justification--Fiscal Year 2012.

SEVIS & FTE Data

    ECA/EC provided Deloitte with historical SEVIS activity counts 
associated with each fee for calendar years (CY) 2007-2011. ECA/EC also 
provided Deloitte with actual Department, ECA, and ECA/EC FTE levels 
for FY 2009 through FY 2011 and projected levels for FY 2012. Using 
these figures, Deloitte projected for FY 2013 and FY 2014 SEVIS and FTE 
data in the following manner:
    [ssquf] For SEVIS data projections:

--ECA/EC provided CY 2007 through CY 2011 data.
--ECA/EC directed the use of constant CY 2011 counts for CY 2012-CY 
2014.
    [ssquf] For FTE data projections:

--ECA/EC provided actual FY2009 through FY2011 data.
--ECA/EC provided projected FY2012 data.
--ECA/EC/D FY 2013 and FY 2014 data were projected at FY 2012 levels 
with the additional nine FTEs calculated from the FTE Capacity 
Calculation (Section 3.5) and four additional FTEs that joined ECA/EC/D 
after the Labor Survey was conducted.

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 Sec 553 (Rulemaking) 
and Sec 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 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 
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 is publishing 
this rule as a proposed rule, with a 60-day provision for public 
comment and 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 proposed 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 proposed rule is not 
subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C.601, et seq.) or Executive Order 13272, Sec. 3 (b).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed 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 provisions of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to 
this rulemaking.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This proposed 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 foreign-based companies in domestic and 
export markets.

[[Page 6269]]

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 proposed 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 proposed rule, and declare that 
educational and cultural exchanges are both the cornerstone of U.S. 
public diplomacy and an integral component of American 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 instance 
of an exchange visitor having a bad experience or, worse, being 
mistreated, could result in embarrassment and incalculable harm to the 
foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, the Department is of 
the opinion that these benefits of this rulemaking outweigh its costs.

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 litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce 
burden.

Executive Orders 12372 and Executive Order 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 proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 62--EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM

0
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.

0
2. Revise Sec.  62.17 to read as follows:

Sec.  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: January 22, 2013.
Robin J. Lerner,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private Sector Exchange, Bureau of 
Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-01555 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```