33762 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

8 CFR Parts 103 and 214 

[DHS No. ICEB–2017–0003] 

RIN 1653–AA74 

Adjusting Program Fees for the 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program 

AGENCY: U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), Department of 

Homeland Security. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) proposes to adjust fees 

charged by the Student and Exchange 

Visitor Program (SEVP) to individuals 

and organizations. DHS proposes to 

raise the fee for Student and Exchange 

Visitor Information System (SEVIS) 

Form I–901, Fee Remittance for Certain 

F, J, and M Nonimmigrants, for 

nonimmigrants seeking to become 

academic (F visa) or vocational (M visa) 

students from $200 to $350. For most 

categories of individuals seeking to 

become exchange (J visa) visitors, DHS 

proposes to increase the fee from $180 

to $220. For those seeking admission as 

J exchange visitors in the au pair, camp 

counselor, and summer work or travel 

program participant categories, DHS 

proposes to maintain the fee at $35. In 

addition to raising the student and 

exchange visitor fees, DHS proposes to 

increase the fee for submitting a school 

certification petition from $1,700 to 

$3,000. DHS proposes to maintain the 

fee for an initial school site visit at the 

current level of $655, but clarify that, 

with the effective date of the rule, DHS 

would exercise its current regulatory 

authority to charge the site visit fee not 

only when a certified school changes its 

physical location, but also when it adds 

a new physical location or campus. DHS 

proposes to establish and clarify two 

new fees: a $1,250 fee to submit a school 

recertification petition and a $675 fee to 

submit an appeal or motion following a 

denial or withdrawal of a school 

petition. Adjusting fees would ensure 

fee levels are sufficient to recover the 

full cost of activities of the program and 

would establish a fairer balance of the 

recovery of SEVP operational costs 

between beneficiary classes. 

DATES: Send comments by September 

17, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket No. ICEB–2017– 

0003, to the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS), a 

government-wide, electronic docket 

management system, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for sending comments. 

• Mail: Address all comments to 

Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Student and 

Exchange Visitor Program, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Department of Homeland Security, 500 

12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536. 

DHS docket staff, who maintain and 

process ICE’s official regulatory dockets, 

will scan the submission and post it to 

FDMS. 

Collection of information. You must 

submit comments on the collection of 

information discussed in this notice of 

proposed rulemaking to both DHS’s 

docket and the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB) Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA). OIRA submissions can be sent 

using any of the following methods. 

• Email (preferred): OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov (include the 

docket number and ‘‘Attention: Desk 

Officer for U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, DHS’’ in the 

subject line of the email). 

• Fax: 202–395–6566. 

• Mail: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; 

Attention: Desk Officer, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

DHS. 

For additional instructions on sending 

comments, see the ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Student and 

Exchange Visitor Program; U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Department of Homeland Security; 500 

12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536; 

703–603–3400, sevp@ice.dhs.gov. This 

is not a toll-free number. Program 

information can be found at http://

www.ice.gov/sevis/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

C. Costs and Benefits 

II. Abbreviations and Acronyms 

III. Public Participation 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

IV. Program Background 

A. SEVP Legal Authorities 

B. SEVP and Development of SEVIS 

C. Authority To Collect Fees 

D. Full Cost Recovery 

V. Proposed Adjustment of SEVP Fees 

A. Activities Funded Under the 2008 Fee 

Rule 

1. Improved SEVIS Functionality 

2. Oversight and Enforcement 

3. Recertification 

4. School Liaisons 

B. Continuing SEVP Activities Funded 

With Proposed Fees 

1. SEVIS Modernization 

2. Increased SEVP Adjudication Personnel 

3. Additional Investigatory Support 

C. Basis for Fee Schedule 

D. SEVP Baseline Costs and Fees 

E. Methodology 

1. ABC Approach 

2. Full Cost 

3. Cost Basis for SEVP Fees Based on 

Current Services 

F. Summary of the Full Cost Information 

1. Fee Allocation 

2. SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 Cost Model 

Results 

3. Fee Calculations 

4. Proposed Fee Levels 

VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

13771: Regulatory Review 

1. Background and Purpose of the 

Proposed Rule 

2. Impacts of Regulatory Change 

3. Alternatives 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

D. Congressional Review Act 

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

H. Energy Effects 

I. Environment 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

List of Subjects 

The Proposed Amendments 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

DHS proposes to adjust its fee 

schedule for students and exchange 

visitors as well as for petitioning and 

certified schools. These fees are 

associated with SEVP and SEVIS. They 

were last adjusted in 2008. See 73 FR 

55683 (Sept. 26, 2008). 

SEVP, an ICE component, is funded 

entirely by fees charged to individual 

applicants and organizational 

petitioners. Fees collected from 

individuals and organizations are 

deposited into the Immigration 

Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) and 

used to fund the operational costs 

associated with SEVP and its 

management of SEVIS. See Immigration 

and Nationality Act (INA) section 

286(m), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), 

and Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 

as amended, (IIRIRA) section 641(e), (g), 

8 U.S.C. 1372(e), (g). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33763 

In accordance with the requirements 

and principles of the Chief Financial 

Officers Act of 1990, 31 U.S.C. 901–03 

(CFO Act), and OMB Circular A–25, 

SEVP reviews its associated fees that are 

deposited into the IEFA biennially and, 

if necessary, proposes adjustments to 

ensure recovery of costs necessary to 

meet national security, customer 

service, and adjudicative processing 

goals. SEVP completed a biennial fee 

review for fiscal year (FY) 2016 and FY 

2017 in 2017. The projected results 

indicate that current fee levels are 

insufficient to recover the full cost of 

current and planned program activities. 

Section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1356(m), provides that DHS may set fees 

for adjudication and naturalization 

services at a level that would ensure 

recovery of the full costs of providing 

such services, including the costs of 

providing similar services without 

charge to asylum applicants and certain 

other immigrants. Additionally, section 

641 of IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. 1372, authorizes 

DHS to periodically revise fees that 

cover the cost of carrying out SEVP and 

maintenance of SEVIS. Pursuant to 

these laws, DHS proposes the 

adjustments contained in this rule. 

SEVP calculates the totality of its fees 

to recover the full cost of its overall 

operations. Following its biennial fee 

review, SEVP anticipates that if it 

continues to operate at current fee 

levels, it will experience a shortfall of 

approximately $68.9 million beginning 

in 2019. At current fee levels, SEVP’s 

current expenditures exceed current 

revenues, without any service upgrades. 

The deficit is covered by surplus 

revenue that was previously 

accumulated from 2009 to 2015. This 

surplus will be exhausted in FY 2019 

even without any service upgrades. This 

projected shortfall poses a risk of 

degrading operations and services 

funded by fee revenue. The proposed 

fee increases would allow SEVP to cover 

the current deficit between revenue and 

expenditures plus make the necessary 

service upgrades. The proposed fee 

levels thus eliminate the risk of 

degrading operations, while also 

ensuring full cost recovery by providing 

fees for each specific benefit that will 

more adequately recover the cost 

associated with administering the 

benefit. 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

The proposed rule would adjust, 

institute, and clarify the application of 

fees pertaining to services SEVP 

provides to reflect existing and 

projected operating costs, program 

requirements, and continued planned 

program improvements, in the following 

manner: 

• Increase the two types of individual 

student and exchange visitor 

application fees, specifically the F and 

M I–901 SEVIS fee from $200 to $350 

and the full J–1 I–901 SEVIS fee from 

$180 to $220; 

• Increase the SEVP school 

certification petition fee for initial 

certification from $1,700 to $3,000; 

• Institute a stand-alone fee of $1,250 

when a school files a petition for 

recertification of its existing SEVP 

certification; 

• Revise regulations to ensure 

collection of a $675 fee to accompany 

the filing of a Form I–290B, Notice of 

Appeal or Motion, when a school 

appeals or files a motion to reconsider 

or reopen a denial or withdrawal of its 

SEVP certification; and 

• Maintain the $655 fee for a site visit 

at its current level, but clarify that, with 

the effective date of the rule, SEVP 

would exercise its current regulatory 

authority to charge the site visit fee 

when a certified school changes its 

physical location or adds a new 

physical location or campus on its Form 

I–17, ‘‘Petition for Approval of School 

for Attendance by Nonimmigrant 

Student.’’ 

In making these changes, the 

proposed rule would allow SEVP to 

fully fund activities and institute critical 

near-term program and system 

enhancements in a more equitable 

manner through a fairer balance of the 

recovery of SEVP operational costs 

between beneficiary classes. A summary 

of the current and future fee structures 

is provided in Table 1 below. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

SEVP proposes to adjust fees to the 

amounts listed in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—CURRENT AND PROPOSED FEE AMOUNTS

Fee type Current fee Proposed fee 

Incremental 

fee 

adjustment 

I–901 F/M ..................................................................................................................................... $200 $350 $150 

I–901 J-Full .................................................................................................................................. 180 220 40 

I–901 J-Partial .............................................................................................................................. 35 35 0 

I–17 Initial Certification ................................................................................................................ 1,700 3,000 1,300 

I–17 Recertification ...................................................................................................................... 0 1,250 1,250 

Site Visit—initial ........................................................................................................................... 655 655 0 

Site Visit—new location ............................................................................................................... 0 655 655 

Appeal Fee .................................................................................................................................. 0 675 675 

SEVP expects to have a total annual 

increase in fees of $75.2 million in FY 

2019 transferred from individuals and 

entities for the services they receive. 

Table 2 shows the summary of the total 

annual number of payments, 

incremental fee amounts, and total fees 

transferred in FY 2019. This increase in 

fees would allow SEVP to not only 

maintain its current level of service but 

also enhance SEVP’s capability to 

support national security and counter 

immigration fraud through the 

continued development and 

implementation of critical system and 

programmatic enhancements. 

Enhancements to SEVIS, including the 

establishment of a student portal, will 

assist designated school officials (DSOs) 

in their regulatory obligation to provide 

accurate and timely information and 

will also rebalance this reporting 

requirement by providing students an 

automated means to update their 

information. Increased numbers of 

adjudication personnel will assist in 

reducing the processing times for initial 

petitions, updates, and recertifications, 

while enhanced vetting protocols will 

ensure that only those nonimmigrant 

students who are eligible to enter and 

remain in the country do so. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33764 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—ANNUAL PROPOSED INCREMENTAL FEE AMOUNTS, FY 2019 

Projected 

number of 

payments 

Proposed 

incremental 

fee amounts 

Annual fees 

transfer to 

government 

I–901 F and M ............................................................................................................................. 418,393 $150 $62,758,950 

I–901 J-Full .................................................................................................................................. 157,550 40 6,302,000 

I–17 Initial Certification ................................................................................................................ 426 1,300 553,800 

I–17 Recertification ...................................................................................................................... 4,373 1,250 3,279,750 

Site Visits—initial ......................................................................................................................... 426 0 0 

Site Visits—new location ............................................................................................................. 174 655 113,970 

Appeals ........................................................................................................................................ 54 675 36,450 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 75,231,420 

II. Abbreviations and Acronyms 

ABC Activity-Based Costing 

ARO alternate responsible officer 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CEU Compliance Enforcement Unit 

CTCEU Counterterrorism and Criminal 

Exploitation Unit 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DoS Department of State 

DSO designated school official 

EBSVERA Enhanced Border Security and 

Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Public Law 

107–173; May 14, 2002 

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards 

Advisory Board 

FY Fiscal Year 

HSPD–2 Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive–2 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

IEFA Immigration Examinations Fee 

Account 

IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as 

amended 

INA Immigration and Nationality Act of 

1952, as amended 

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service 

IT information technology 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PDSO principal designated school official 

RO responsible officer 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RFE request for evidence 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor 

Information System 

SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor 

Program 

SFFAS FASAB Statement of Federal 

Financial Accounting Standard 

SSA Social Security Administration 

TSA Transportation Security 

Administration 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

III. Public Participation 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you provide 

unless you request that your personally 

identifiable information be redacted. We 

also invite comments relating to the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism impacts that might result 

from this rulemaking action. See the 

ADDRESSES section for information on 

how to submit comments. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit comments, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking, indicate the specific section 

of this document to which each 

comment applies, and provide reasons 

supporting each suggestion or 

recommendation. You may submit your 

comments and materials online or by 

mail, but please use only one of these 

means. We recommend that you include 

your name and a mailing address, an 

email address, or a phone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. ICE will file 

all comments sent to our docket 

address, as well as items sent to the 

address or email address listed in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section, in the public docket, except for 

comments containing marked 

confidential information. If you submit 

a comment, it will be considered 

received by ICE when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. 

To submit your comments online, go 

to http://www.regulations.gov and insert 

the complete docket number starting 

with ‘‘ICEB’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ box. Click 

on the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ box and enter 

your comment in the text box provided. 

Click the ‘‘Continue’’ box, and if you are 

satisfied with your comment, follow the 

prompts to submit it. If you submit your 

comments by mail, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic scanning and filing. Mailed 

submissions may be on paper or CD– 

ROM. If you would like ICE to 

acknowledge receipt of comments 

submitted by mail, include with your 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard or envelope on which the 

docket number appears. We will stamp 

the date of receipt on the postcard and 

mail it to you. 

We will consider all comments and 

materials received during the comment 

period and may change this proposed 

rule based on your comments. The 

docket is available for public inspection 

before and after the comment closing 

date. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and insert 

the complete docket number starting 

with ‘‘ICEB’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ box. Click 

on the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ and then 

click on ‘‘View Comment’’ or ‘‘View 

All’’ under the ‘‘Comments’’ section of 

the page. Individuals without internet 

access can make alternate arrangements 

for viewing comments and documents 

related to this rulemaking by contacting 

ICE through the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section previously 

listed. Note: Because the software used 

in computing these fees proposed in this 

rule is a commercial product licensed to 

ICE, it may be accessed on-site by 

appointment by calling the SEVP 

Response Center at (800) 892–4829. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received in any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may wish to consider limiting the 

amount of personal information that you 

provide in any voluntary public 

comment submission you make to DHS. 

DHS may withhold information from 

public viewing that it determines may 

affect the privacy of an individual or is 

offensive. For additional information, 

please read the Privacy and Security 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33765 

1Under INA section 101(a)(15)(F)(i), 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(F)(i), a foreign student may be admitted 

into the United States in nonimmigrant status to 

attend an academic or accredited language training 

school (F nonimmigrant students). Under INA 

section 101(a)(15)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(M)(i), 

a foreign student may be admitted into the United 

States in nonimmigrant status to attend a vocational 

education school (M nonimmigrant students). An F 

or M nonimmigrant student may enroll in a 

particular school only if the Secretary of Homeland 

Security has certified the school for the attendance 

of such students. Under INA section 101(a)(15)(j), 

8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(j), a foreign citizen may be 

admitted into the United States in nonimmigrant 

status as an exchange visitor (J visa) in an exchange 

program sponsored by the Department of State 

(DoS). 

2An individual seeking F or M nonimmigrant 

student status must apply to an SEVP-certified 

school and be accepted for enrollment. From the 

enrollment information provided by the 

nonimmigrant, the school enters student 

information into SEVIS and issues a Form I–20, 

‘‘Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student 

Status.’’ The individual must submit a valid Form 

I–20 when applying for an F or M visa. Similarly, 

an individual seeking J–1 nonimmigrant status must 

apply to a DoS-designated exchange visitor program 

and be accepted for enrollment as a basis to apply 

for a J exchange visitor visa. From the information 

provided by the accepted individual, the exchange 

visitor program enters exchange visitor information 

into SEVIS and issues a Form DS–2019, ‘‘Certificate 

of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J–1) Status.’’ The 

applicant must submit a valid Form DS–2019 when 

applying for a J visa. 

3The USA PATRIOT Act refers to the Attorney 

General, but the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as 

amended, transferred the functions of the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to 

DHS. Public Law 107–296, tit. IV, subtits. D, E, F, 

116 Stat. 2135, 2192 (Nov. 25, 2002), as amended. 

Notice posted on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

IV. Program Background 

A. SEVP Legal Authorities 

IIRIRA (Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, 110 

Stat. 3009–546 (1996)) established the 

requirement for the monitoring and 

reporting of the activities of foreign 

students and exchange visitors while 

they reside in the United States (U.S.). 

Section 641 of IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. 1372, 

mandated that the Attorney General 

develop and conduct a program for the 

electronic collection of data by U.S.- 

approved (i.e., certified) institutions of 

higher education, other approved 

educational institutions, and designated 

exchange visitor programs, to monitor 

nonimmigrants possessing or applying 

for F, M, and J class visas with a 

Certificate of Eligibility.1

In addition, President George W. Bush 

issued Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive 2 (HSPD–2) in October 2001, 

which requires DHS to conduct 

periodic, ongoing recertification of all 

schools certified to accept F or M 

students. Combating Terrorism Through 

Immigration Policies, Oct. 29, 2001, as 

amended by HSPD—5 (Management of 

Domestic Incidents, Feb. 28, 2003, 

Compilation of HSPDs (updated through 

Dec. 31, 2007), available at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT110HPRT39618/pdf/CPRT110HPRT39618.pdf. 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 

created DHS, transferred a broad range 

of immigration authorities from the 

Attorney General and the Commissioner 

of Immigration and Naturalization to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, and 

vested ICE with responsibility for 

administration of the electronic data 

collection system, also known as SEVIS. 

See Public Law 107–296, sec. 442(a)(4), 

116 Stat. 2136, 2193–94 (codified at 6 

U.S.C. 252(a)(4) (vesting SEVIS-related 

authority in ‘‘Bureau of Border 

Security’’); Reorganization Plan 

Modification for the Department of 

Homeland Security, H.R. Doc. No. 108– 

32, at 3–4 (2003) (set forth as a note to 

6 U.S.C.A. 542 (West 2018)) (renaming 

‘‘Bureau of Border Security’’ as ‘‘Bureau 

of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement’’); DHS Delegation 

7030.2(2)(Z) (2004) (affirming delegation 

of such authority from Secretary of 

Homeland Security to ICE). ICE 

assumed responsibility for SEVIS and 

established SEVP. DHS has issued 

regulations that address data collection 

requirements for SEVP certification, 

oversight, and recertification of schools 

authorized to enroll F or M students. 8 

CFR 214.3, 214.4. 

B. SEVP and Development of SEVIS 

SEVP is responsible for developing, 

maintaining, and improving SEVIS, 

which is an internet-based application 

that facilitates timely electronic 

reporting and monitoring of 

nonimmigrant students, exchange 

visitors, and their dependents in the 

United States. SEVIS enables schools 

and program sponsors to transmit 

electronic information to DHS and the 

Department of State (DoS) throughout a 

student’s or exchange visitor’s program 

in the United States. SEVIS is intended 

to improve customer service by 

streamlining the application and 

adjudication processes. Through 

continuing modernization efforts, it 

addresses issues in student and school 

system processes by providing 

information technology (IT) solutions 

and modifying business processes. 

Schools and exchange visitor 

programs have been required to enter F, 

M, and J nonimmigrant data into SEVIS 

since August 1, 2003. As of April 1, 

2017, SEVIS contained 1.4 million 

active F, M, and J student and exchange 

visitor records. Approximately 8,700 

schools are SEVP-certified and 

approximately 1,500 exchange visitor 

programs are DoS-designated. 

SEVIS enables DHS and DoS to 

efficiently administer their approval 

(i.e., certification and designation, 

respectively) and oversight processes of 

schools and programs that wish to 

benefit from enrolling nonimmigrants. 

SEVIS assists law enforcement agencies 

in tracking and monitoring F, M, and J 

nonimmigrant status and apprehending 

violators before they can potentially 

endanger the national security of the 

United States. SEVIS also assists other 

federal agencies such as DoS, and other 

DHS components such as U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) and U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) in better serving F, M, 

and J nonimmigrant applicants. Finally, 

SEVIS enables schools and exchange 

visitor programs to instantaneously 

transmit electronic information and 

changes in required information on F, 

M, and J nonimmigrants to ICE and DoS 

throughout their stays in the United 

States.2 These include required 

notifications, reports, and updates to 

personal data. SEVIS allows schools to 

submit school certification applications, 

update certification information, submit 

updates to DHS that require 

adjudication, and also create and update 

F visa (academic) and M visa 

(vocational) student and dependent 

records. SEVP managers and 

adjudicators have the capability to 

adjudicate updates made to school 

records using SEVIS, and principal 

designated school officials (PDSOs) and 

designated school officials (DSOs) are 

notified through SEVIS of the 

adjudication results. SEVIS also allows 

program sponsors to submit designation 

forms for the J–1 visa program, create 

program designations, and update 

program designation information. DoS 

personnel have the capability to 

adjudicate information submitted by 

responsible officers (ROs) and alternate 

responsible officers (AROs). ROs and 

AROs are notified through SEVIS of any 

adjudication results. 

SEVIS shares information with other 

agencies’ and components’ systems— 

DoS, USCIS, CBP, Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA), and 

others—to better monitor the status of 

student or exchange visitors throughout 

their stays in the United States. This 

allows DHS to meet the aims of the USA 

PATRIOT Act. See Public Law 107–56, 

sec. 416, 115 Stat. 272, 354–55 (2001). 

In addition, that Act mandates that the 

Secretary of Homeland Security,3 in 

consultation with the Secretary of State, 

collect information on the date of entry 

and port of entry for each nonimmigrant 

for whom information is collected under 

IIRIRA section 641. Id. at sec. 416(b). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33766 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

4The longstanding interpretation of DHS is that 

the ‘‘including’’ clause in section 286(m) does not 

constrain DHS’s fee authority under the statute. The 

‘‘including’’’ clause offers only a non-exhaustive list 

of some of the costs that DHS may consider part of 

the full costs of providing adjudication and 

naturalization services. See 8 U.S.C. 1356(m); 81 FR 

26903, 26906 n.10 (May 4, 2016). 

5See FASAB, Statement of Federal Financial 

Accounting Standards 4: Managerial Cost 

Accounting Standards and Concepts 26 (June 2017), 

available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/ 

handbook_sffas_4.pdf (last visited Feb. 20, 2018). 

C. Authority To Collect Fees 

The Secretary is specifically 

authorized to collect fees for SEVP from 

prospective F and M students and J 

exchange visitors, subject to certain 

limits for certain J–1 nonimmigrants. 8 

U.S.C. 1372(e)(1). The Secretary is 

authorized to periodically revise those 

fees, with certain exceptions, to take 

into account changes in the overall cost 

of carrying out the program. IIRIRA 

section 641(e)(4)(A), (g)(2), 8 U.S.C. 

1372(e)(4)(A), (g)(2). Similarly, section 

286(m) of the INA authorizes the 

Secretary to collect fees for adjudication 

and naturalization services at a level 

that would ensure recovery of the full 

costs of providing such services, 

including the costs of providing similar 

services without charge to asylum 

applicants and certain other immigrants. 

Additionally, pursuant to INA section 

286(m), the level that is set may include 

recovery of any additional costs 

associated with the administration of 

the fees themselves. Under this 

authority, user fees are employed not 

only for the benefit of the payer of the 

fee and any collateral benefit resulting 

to the public, but also to provide a 

benefit to certain others.4

All fees collected under these 

authorities are deposited as offsetting 

receipts into the IEFA and are available 

to the Secretary until expended for 

authorized purposes. See IIRIRA section 

641(e)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(B); INA 

section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS 

proposes the revised fee schedule 

contained in this rule in accordance 

with the above-referenced authorities. 

As a general matter, in developing 

fees and fee rules, DHS looks to a range 

of governmental accounting provisions. 

OMB Circular A–25, User Charges 

(Revised), para. 6, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 

1993), defines ‘‘full cost’’ to include all 

direct and indirect costs to any part of 

the Federal government for providing a 

good, resource, or service. These costs 

include, but are not limited to, an 

appropriate share of the following: 

Direct and indirect personnel cost, 

physical overhead, consulting and other 

indirect cost, management and 

supervisory cost, enforcement, 

information collection and research, and 

establishment of standards and 

regulation, including any required 

environmental review. 

Section 31.5 of OMB Circular A–11, 

Preparation, Submission and Execution 

of the Budget, July 1, 2016, directs 

agencies to develop user charge 

estimates based on the full cost recovery 

policy set forth in OMB Circular A–25, 

User Charges (budget formulation and 

execution policy regarding user fees). 

The Federal Accounting Standards 

Advisory Board (FASAB) Statement of 

Federal Financial Accounting Standards 

(SFFAS) No. 4: Managerial Cost 

Accounting Concepts and Standards for 

the Federal Government, July 31, 1995, 

updated June 2017, provides the 

standards for managerial cost 

accounting and full cost. SFFAS No. 4 

defines ‘‘full cost’’ to include ‘‘direct 

and indirect costs that contribute to the 

output, regardless of funding sources.’’ 5

FASAB identifies various classifications 

of costs to be included and recommends 

various methods of cost assignment to 

identify full cost. Activity-based costing 

(ABC) is highlighted as a costing 

methodology useful to determine full 

cost within an agency. 

The Chief Financial Officers Act of 

1990, 31 U.S.C. 901–903, requires each 

agency’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) 

to ‘‘review, on a biennial basis, the fees, 

royalties, rents and other charges 

imposed by the agency for services and 

things of value it provides, and make 

recommendations on revising those 

charges to reflect cost incurred by it in 

providing those services and things of 

value.’’ 31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8). 

This proposed rule would eliminate 

the risk of a projected shortfall for SEVP 

operations and services funded by fee 

revenue. It proposes increased funding 

that supports continuing and new 

initiatives critical to improving the 

program and reflects the 

implementation of specific costallocation methods to segment program 

costs to the appropriate fee—F and M 

students, J exchange visitors, or schools. 

D. Full Cost Recovery 

Consistent with these authorities and 

sources, this proposed rule would 

ensure that SEVP recovers the full costs 

for the services it provides and 

maintains a projected level of service 

necessary to fulfill its mission. The 

proposed rule would do this in two 

ways. First, where possible, the 

proposed rule sets fees at levels 

sufficient to cover the full cost of the 

corresponding services and assigns 

these fees to those who are the primary 

beneficiaries. DHS works with OMB and 

generally follows OMB Circular A–25, 

which ‘‘establishes federal policy 

regarding fees assessed for Government 

services and for sale or use of 

Government goods or resources.’’ See 

OMB Circular A–25, User Charges 

(Revised), para. 6, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 

1993). A primary objective of OMB 

Circular A–25 is to ensure that federal 

agencies recover the full cost of 

providing specific services to users and 

associated costs. 

This proposed rule would set fees at 

a level sufficient to fund the full cost of 

conducting the program and general 

operations for FY 2019. See INA sec. 

286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS has 

interpreted this statutory fee-setting 

authority, including the authorization 

for DHS to collect ‘‘full costs’’ for 

providing, in pertinent part, 

‘‘adjudication . . . services,’’ as granting 

DHS broad discretion to charge fees at 

a level that will ensure recovery of all 

direct and indirect costs associated with 

providing pertinent immigration 

adjudication services. This approach is 

also consistent with the SEVP-specific 

fee authority referenced above, which 

authorizes DHS to set fees at a level that 

funds the full cost of conducting the 

program. See IIRIRA section 641(e), 8 

U.S.C. 1372(e). 

In following OMB Circular A–25 to 

the extent appropriate, including its 

direction that fees should be set to 

recover the costs of an agency’s services 

in their entirety and that full costs are 

determined based on the best available 

records of the agency, DHS accounts for 

the reality that costs of all SEVP 

operations cannot always be directly 

correlated to certain specific fees. DHS 

therefore applies the discretion 

provided in the above authorities, in 

taking the following actions: (1) 

Employing ABC to establish a model for 

assigning costs to specific benefit 

requests in a manner reasonably 

consistent with OMB Circular A–25; (2) 

distributing costs that are not attributed 

to or driven by specific adjudication 

services; and (3) making additional 

adjustments to effectuate specific policy 

objectives. 

V. Proposed Adjustment of SEVP Fees 

This proposed rule would amend the 

current fee structure governing the 

collection of fees from individuals by 

increasing the individual student and 

exchange visitor application fee (I–901 

SEVIS fee). In addition, the rule 

proposes to amend the fee structure 

paid by schools by increasing the SEVP 

school certification petition costs for 

initial certification, instituting a fee to 

address school recertification costs for 

the ongoing recertification process, and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33767 

6See Sentencing Memorandum, Docket Item No. 

195 (Oct. 24, 2014), United States v. Su, Case No.11- 

cr-00288 (N.D. Cal.), 2, 8, available at https://

www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178123/195/ 

united-states-v-su/; see also Jury Verdict, Docket 

Item No. 119 (Mar. 24, 2014), United States v. Su, 

supra, available at https://www.courtlistener.com/ 

docket/4178123/119/united-states-v-su/. 

requiring a fee to accompany the filing 

of an appeal, a motion to reconsider, or 

a motion to reopen filed by a school 

organization. SEVP proposes no change 

to the current fee for site visits. The 

proposed fees for recertification 

petitions and appeals and motions 

would better recover a reasonable 

portion of related existing and projected 

operating costs, program requirements, 

and planned program improvements. 

Fees were last adjusted in 2008. 73 FR 

55683. Refined and expanded SEVP 

operations, SEVIS modifications, as well 

as inflation, have increased SEVP 

operating costs and are the basis for the 

proposed increases to the I–901 SEVIS 

fee and the school certification petition 

fee. 

A. Activities Funded Under the 2008 

Fee Rule 

In the 2008 rulemaking that resulted 

in the most recent agency adjustment, 

‘‘Adjusting Program Fees and 

Establishing Procedures for Out-ofCycle Review and Recertification of 

Schools Certified by the Student and 

Exchange Visitor Program To Enroll F 

and/or M Nonimmigrant Students’’ 

(2008 Fee Rule), DHS outlined its 

rationale for a fee increase by 

identifying a set of organizational 

initiatives essential to its mission: 

Improving SEVIS functionality, 

improving oversight and enforcement, 

implementing recertification 

procedures, and developing school 

liaison activity. 73 FR 55683. SEVP, in 

accordance with its commitment to the 

goals prescribed in that rule, has 

implemented the following actions 

since then: 

1. Improved SEVIS Functionality 

SEVP’s original plan to roll out a 

comprehensive overhaul of SEVIS 

(known as SEVIS II) was replaced by an 

approach that focused on a series of 

smaller and more targeted SEVIS 

enhancements—now termed SEVIS 

Modernization. New technologies have 

become available since the 

comprehensive SEVIS overhaul was first 

envisioned. The use of these 

technologies enables SEVP to apply 

many of the functionalities that were 

planned for SEVIS II to the current 

system. At the same time, this approach 

eliminates potential risks and 

complications that result from migrating 

mass quantities of critical data from one 

system to the next, which would have 

been necessary if the SEVIS II approach 

had been fully implemented. Building 

on the experience, knowledge, and 

stakeholder feedback acquired during 

the planning process, SEVP has 

launched hundreds of smaller-scale 

SEVIS enhancements. These efforts have 

addressed the majority of national 

security vulnerabilities previously 

identified, by improving critical system 

functionalities that support data 

integrity in SEVIS, including 

establishing system functions that 

support standardization of student and 

exchange visitor name and address data 

entry. The enhancements have also 

improved system performance for end 

users. With the introduction of more 

detailed SEVIS event history and new 

abilities for DSOs to create student data 

reports, these enhancements enable 

action on multiple student records 

simultaneously. 

As an example, SEVP, in 

collaboration with CBP, developed and 

implemented an admissibility indicator 

tool that links to real-time SEVIS data to 

assist CBP officers at ports of entry in 

determining whether F, M, and J 

nonimmigrants may enter the United 

States based on their SEVIS record 

status. Prior to the availability of the 

admissibility indicator, first-line CBP 

officers relied on paper documentation 

that the nonimmigrant student or 

exchange visitor presented. Today, the 

admissibility indicator gives CBP 

officers a quick assessment of the most 

pertinent and current SEVIS data that 

are necessary in determining whether 

nonimmigrant students, exchange 

visitors, and their dependents are 

eligible to enter the United States or 

require further investigation. As a result, 

CBP officers are able to use the 

admissibility indicator at points of 

inspection to quickly verify the 

information contained on the paper 

documentation that is also required for 

entry. This assists in reducing long wait 

times, aids with detecting and 

preventing visa fraud, and otherwise 

enhances compliance efforts and 

national security. 

2. Oversight and Enforcement 

A dedicated compliance enforcement 

program that includes criminal 

investigative efforts is an integral part of 

ensuring the operational effectiveness of 

SEVP. By analyzing SEVIS data, SEVP 

identifies indicators of potential misuse 

or abuse of nonimmigrant status and 

provides leads to Counterterrorism and 

Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU) law 

enforcement personnel for further 

investigation. At the time the 2008 Fee 

Rule was published, the Compliance 

Enforcement Unit (CEU), the 

predecessor of CTCEU, was not 

sufficiently staffed to address all leads 

generated from SEVIS. As a result, only 

the highest priority leads were 

investigated, which left open 

unaddressed vulnerabilities. With the 

increased I–901 SEVIS fee revenue, DHS 

has hired additional personnel and 

currently funds 234 Homeland Security 

Investigations (HSI) positions with 

primary responsibility for nonimmigrant 

violator investigations. The increased 

number of HSI personnel assigned to 

support CTCEU investigations has 

enabled more robust coordination 

between SEVP and CTCEU and has 

successfully reduced the exploitation of 

the laws and programs relating to 

nonimmigrant students and exchange 

visitors. An example of the result of 

such close and extensive crosscoordination was the conviction of the 

founder and president of Tri-Valley 

University (TVU) on 31 counts in March 

2014, ranging from conspiracy to 

commit visa fraud and alien harboring 

to money laundering.6 SEVP will 

continue to support cooperation and 

coordination with CTCEU to maintain 

the viability of F, M, and J student and 

exchange visitor programs within the 

United States. 

3. Recertification 

SEVP implemented the recertification 

procedure prescribed in the 2008 Fee 

Rule beginning with its first 

recertification cycle in 2010. Institutions 

that participated in the first cycle have 

been reviewed several times and will 

continue to undergo the recertification 

process every two years. Because there 

are thousands of schools, recertification 

is a rolling process allowing 

adjudicators to address issues with one 

school before moving on to the next. 

Each school is notified 2 years to the 

month following the date of its last 

recertification or certification about its 

need to file for recertification in order 

to maintain its certification. From that 

date, the school has 180 days to file for 

recertification. 8 CFR 214.3(h)(2)(i). This 

cycle helps ensure that only schools that 

operate in accordance with the law 

remain certified by SEVP. 

4. School Liaisons 

SEVP deployed the first group of field 

representatives in April 2014, followed 

by three additional groups later in 2014 

and 2015, bringing the national total to 

60 field representatives distributed 

among three geographically determined 

units. The field representatives serve as 

liaisons between SEVP and SEVPcertified schools that enroll F and M 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33768 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

nonimmigrant students and have 

conducted more than 32,500 school 

visits since the unit launch. Field 

representatives serve as a key resource 

for schools by providing individualized 

instruction on the SEVP certification 

and recertification processes. They also 

educate DSOs on Federal statutes, 

regulations, and guidance pertinent to F 

and M students studying in the United 

States. Because DSOs are responsible for 

entering F and M nonimmigrant data 

into SEVIS, the data integrity of the 

system depends heavily on the DSOs’ 

understanding the importance of 

accurate and timely reporting of the 

required information. By providing 

individualized assistance to DSOs, the 

field representatives enhance national 

security by maintaining and improving 

the data integrity of SEVIS. 

B. Continuing SEVP Activities Funded 

With Proposed Fees 

In developing this proposed rule, 

SEVP reviewed its current and projected 

costs, identified goals for services, 

analyzed projected future workload, and 

allocated costs to specific services. In 

addition to the full SEVP operating costs 

described in the following sections, the 

proposed fees would fund the 

continuing efforts identified in the 2008 

rule, now updated to reflect 

technological refinements and 

operational enhancements. These 

updated activities include SEVIS 

modernization and increases in 

adjudication support and investigatory 

and compliance personnel. 

1. SEVIS Modernization 

SEVIS is a web-based system that 

schools and program sponsors use to 

transmit information about their 

programs and participating F, M, and J 

nonimmigrants. It became fully 

operational in February of 2003, 

replacing a paper-based F, M, and J 

nonimmigrant process. 

Since its inception, SEVIS has 

evolved well beyond its original 

purpose as a data collection tool. Today, 

approximately 35,000 officials from 

approved schools and program sponsors 

use SEVIS data to manage 1.4 million F, 

M, and J nonimmigrants and their 

dependents during their stays in the 

United States. SEVIS provides real-time 

administrative and enforcement 

information to DHS components, 

including CBP and USCIS, as well as 

DoS. SEVIS also receives information 

about F, M, and J nonimmigrant visa 

applications, entry and exit records, and 

benefit applications from these entities 

through various interfaces. This makes 

SEVIS a critical national security 

component and a primary resource for 

law enforcement and intelligence 

communities to extract the data 

necessary to conduct counterterrorism 

and counterintelligence threat analysis. 

The threat of new forms of terrorism 

and other criminal activity exploiting 

the Nation’s immigration laws continues 

to be a public safety and national 

security concern in the United States. 

As a result, there is an increasing need 

for sophisticated SEVIS data analysis to 

detect individuals who engage in 

immigration fraud or otherwise pose a 

risk to national security through willful 

misrepresentation. In addition, end 

users from schools and program 

sponsors have expressed concerns and 

provided feedback reflecting the 

necessity to create SEVIS functionalities 

that enable the accurate reporting of 

new and innovative educational 

program models. While SEVIS has been 

modified to meet the most critical needs 

through hundreds of upgrades and 

patches, including adding abilities for 

the system to preemptively address data 

input errors, system functionality 

concerns (due to time lags, system 

constraints, and other system design 

limitations) continue to affect all SEVIS 

users and necessitate continuous 

development of SEVIS design. In 

response, SEVP has begun an effort— 

known as SEVIS Modernization—that 

involves redesigning the entire system 

over time in prioritized increments. 

Continued Modernization will increase 

security by providing real-time, personcentric data. This data will reduce fraud 

and increase awareness by providing 

government officials with actionable 

intelligence with which to make 

decisions and initiate immigration 

actions. Informed decisions and 

efficient investigations allow for better 

management of F, M, and J 

nonimmigrant data and preventing highrisk individuals from entering the 

United States. 

To address critical system limitations 

and improve the SEVIS user experience, 

SEVP has identified the following list of 

key SEVIS modernization priorities for 

continued funding through the 

increased I–901 SEVIS Fee revenue: 

• Student Portal. F–1 students 

engaged in authorized optional practical 

training are required to report their 

contact and employer information to 

DHS. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(12), (f)(17). At 

present, students report the required 

information to their DSOs, who then 

report the information in SEVIS. By 

regulation, students must report any 

new required information to their DSOs 

within 10 days of the change, and the 

DSOs must report such information in 

SEVIS within 21 days. 8 CFR 

214.2(f)(17). 

This external SEVIS student portal 

will enable students to directly add or 

edit the required contact and employer 

information so that their SEVIS record 

would be updated in real time. This will 

reduce processing redundancies and 

lessen the potential for data entry errors 

by eliminating the need for the student 

to first report such information to the 

DSO who will then enter the reported 

data into SEVIS. The portal will also 

consequently reduce the workload of 

DSOs and make the reported data 

available to DHS sooner. With future 

expansion, the portal will address 

SEVIS vulnerabilities related to accurate 

monitoring of F, M, and J nonimmigrant 

status and location of nonimmigrant 

students and exchange visitors by 

closing national security vulnerabilities 

related to person-centric, paperless, 

people-matching capabilities. In 

establishing a portal for student use in 

this manner, DHS will encourage 

students to assume responsibility for 

maintaining their immigration status, 

reduce the system’s reliance on paperdriven processes, and reinforce the 

operational premise and security 

advantages of ‘‘one person, one record.’’ 

Through use of a record-matching 

protocol, all SEVIS records will be 

collated and presented as a unified, 

person-centric statement of information 

and activity. These summaries will be 

available to all operational entities, 

including school officials, who will 

have access in the SEVIS record to the 

same up-to-date information, including 

all student history. 

• Support of the Adjudication 

Process. As part of maintaining their 

SEVP certification, schools are required 

to update certain information in SEVIS 

about their operations and programs any 

time such information changes. See 8 

CFR 214.3(g)(2). SEVP is required to 

adjudicate such changes. SEVP 

currently receives, on average, 350 

weekly updates from schools; each 

update may contain several subparts, 

including school contact information 

changes and additions of new programs. 

At present, system constraints require 

SEVP adjudicators to adjudicate all 

parts of the update simultaneously and 

to deny the entire update if even one 

part of the update cannot be approved. 

This causes additional workload and 

delays for schools and adjudicators due 

to resubmissions of updates. The new 

SEVIS functionality that supports 

adjudication will provide SEVP and 

DoS with enhanced flexibility to 

adjudicate school certification and 

exchange visitor sponsor designation 

updates and applications and 

consequently enable SEVP and DoS to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33769 

adjudicate updates and applications 

more efficiently. 

• Automated Data Tracking. 

Currently, SEVP and DoS manually 

monitor SEVIS data for potential 

noncompliance indicators with regard 

to schools, students, and exchange 

visitor program participants and 

sponsors. In FY 2016, manual 

monitoring yielded 75 compliance 

investigations, which resulted in 

withdrawal of certification for 21 

noncompliant schools. Automated 

SEVIS data tracking functionality would 

provide SEVP and DoS with enhanced 

abilities to track and monitor 

compliance. This additional capability 

would allow SEVP and DoS to more 

quickly detect data trends that are 

potential indicators of fraudulent 

activities. With the use of automation, 

SEVP anticipates a 100 percent increase 

in fraudulent activity flags (from 75 to 

150 per year), which is estimated to 

significantly increase the detection rate 

of noncompliant schools and 

subsequent withdrawals of SEVP 

certification due to noncompliance. 

Such functionality would play an 

important role in ensuring the integrity 

of the Nation’s immigration system. 

SEVIS Access Approval Tracking 

System (SAATS). School officials 

(PDSOs and DSOs) and program 

officials (AROs and ROs) constitute the 

largest and most critical component of 

SEVIS users as they are responsible for 

entering the initial student and 

exchange visitor data into SEVIS. Their 

need to access the system is confirmed 

by petition through their sponsoring 

school or program. Once granted access, 

designated school and program officials 

confirm their ongoing need for access in 

a yearly validation exercise in which a 

delayed response or no response results 

in automatic system access denial. 

Unlike government employees who 

need access to SEVIS to perform official 

functions, school and program officials 

have not had to meet uniform security 

requirements. Recently, SEVP began 

conducting national criminal 

background checks on designated 

school officials (DSOs). SEVP has vetted 

all DSOs at K–12 schools and, since 

May 2017, has vetted all newly 

designated DSOs, helping to ensure the 

safety of nonimmigrant students and 

exchange visitors and preserve the 

integrity of SEVIS data. SEVP is 

considering eventually extending this 

screening and security review to DSOs 

and ROs who were appointed prior to 

May 2017 and other school and program 

officials through regulatory action. 

SEVP will bear the upfront cost of this 

security review. When fully 

implemented, all individuals who 

require access to SEVIS will be vetted 

prior to being granted such access. DHS 

will complete the vetting adjudication 

for the RO or ARO and provide a copy 

of its decision to the DoS Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs. 

This initiative will strengthen the 

mechanism for approving user access to 

SEVIS. DHS and DoS rely on PDSOs, 

DSOs, ROs, and AROs as key links in 

the process to mitigate potential threats 

to national security and ensure 

compliance with immigration law. DHS 

would require that anyone nominated to 

serve as a PDSO, DSO, RO, or ARO 

receive a favorable SEVIS Access 

Approval Process (SAAP) assessment 

prior to their appointment and 

subsequent approval for access to 

SEVIS. 

• Information Sharing. SEVIS 

currently shares information and 

exchanges data with 11 intragovernmental interface partners. The 

modernized Information Sharing 

module will be capable of sharing data 

contained in modernized SEVIS data 

stores with existing interface partners. 

Other interfaces to support modernized 

capabilities in other modules, including 

paperless capabilities, are being 

considered to address SEVIS 

vulnerabilities. The centralization of all 

information-sharing capabilities in a 

single module will allow for efficiencies 

in development efforts, system 

performance, and sustainability. 

• Use of Cloud Technologies. The 

cloud infrastructure effort supports the 

program by providing flexible, efficient, 

and cost-effective cloud services and 

infrastructure to facilitate and enable 

agile development and testing 

processes. While SEVIS actively 

mitigates known security threats, it 

lacks functionalities to proactively 

analyze end user data to detect potential 

misuse. The use of cloud technologies 

will permit increased analysis of SEVIS 

end user data and increase the 

efficiency and security of controlling 

and managing access to SEVIS by users 

not affiliated with DHS, both 

governmental and nongovernmental. In 

addition, it will enable more efficient 

management of user names and 

passwords and allow credentials to be 

safely passed among system 

components. Such analysis is necessary 

to create defined alerts about user 

activity that is indicative of risk factors 

to prompt timely criminal and 

compliance investigations. The cloud 

infrastructure module supports the 

program by providing flexible, efficient, 

and cost-effective cloud services and 

infrastructure to facilitate and enable 

agile development and testing 

processes. 

This planned modernization effort, 

with implementation during FY 2018– 

2021, is expected to greatly enhance the 

capability of DHS to identify and reduce 

national security threats; reduce the 

possibility for reporting errors by 

prospective and approved F, M, and J 

nonimmigrants, as well as their schools 

and programs; and better provide 

updated, correct, real-time information 

to academic, law enforcement, and other 

government users. SEVP projects that 

the cost for developing and deploying 

these SEVIS modifications is $53.19 

million. SEVP would incur $13.15 

million of that cost in FY 2018, $13.75 

million in FY 2019, $13.14 million in 

FY 2020, and $13.15 million in FY 

2021. 

2. Increased SEVP Adjudication 

Personnel 

In 2008, DHS proposed to recertify all 

schools approved for attendance by F 

and M students every 2 years, pursuant 

to title V, section 502 of EBSVERA and 

HSPD–2, and established procedures for 

the review of each SEVP-certified school 

every 2 years, as well as out-of-cycle 

reviews whenever it determines that 

clarification or investigation of school 

performance or eligibility is necessary. 

Recertification is a determination of 

performance and compliance with 

required standards in the period since 

the previous certification. In this 

comprehensive review of an SEVPcertified school by an SEVP adjudicator, 

SEVP affirms that the school remains 

eligible and is complying with 

regulatory recordkeeping, retention, 

reporting, and other requirements. 

Performance is monitored through 

SEVIS, DHS records, submissions from 

the school, and possible onsite reviews. 

If noncompliance is discovered, SEVP 

requires schools, as appropriate, to 

make corrections immediately. SEVP 

reviews the school’s compliance with 

Federal law and regulations. 

In recent years, the scope of work of 

SEVP adjudication has expanded to 

include administrative compliance 

enforcement, support of criminal 

investigations, and adjudication of 

school petitions, including certification 

petitions, recertification petitions, and 

updates to school information. As a 

result, SEVP adjudicators have 

experienced significant workload 

increases, which in turn have resulted 

in longer SEVP adjudication processing 

times of school petitions and student 

compliance issues. 

Since initiating recertification, SEVP 

has determined that the current number 

of SEVP adjudication personnel is 

inadequate to meet the congressional 

requirement for recertifying or 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33770 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

withdrawing all currently certified 

schools every 2 years. At present 

staffing levels, SEVP is able to process 

1,939, or 44 percent, of the required 

annual projected 4,400 recertification 

cases. 

3. Additional Investigatory Support 

Investigations of violations of 

immigration status, as well as criminal 

investigations of F and M students and 

J exchange visitors, are primarily 

coordinated by CTCEU. Information is 

received, collated, and analyzed from a 

number of DHS and other information 

sources, including SEVIS, to generate 

national security leads for field 

personnel and prevent terrorists and 

other criminals from exploiting the 

Nation’s immigration system through 

fraud. In its continuing support of 

compliance efforts, SEVP seeks to fund 

activities in two key areas: Support for 

and integration of technological 

advances and surge support for critical 

incidents. 

New technologies have enabled 

sophisticated methods of extracting and 

analyzing data. To make best use of 

these technology force multipliers, 

personnel would use the available 

technologies to develop investigative 

packages based on SEVIS research and 

use of other designated government 

computer systems, open source 

websites, and other pertinent 

information sources related to 

individual students, exchange visitors, 

and SEVP-certified schools. To the 

extent that adequate resources are 

allocated and employed for this 

purpose, increased support levels would 

reduce the vulnerability of the United 

States to terrorist attacks and reduce the 

potential for exploitation of certified 

schools and designated exchange visitor 

programs. 

Through the fee adjustments proposed 

in this rule, SEVP would continue 

ensuring funding to enable a surge for 

investigatory efforts, including 

increased contract overtime or surge 

staffing, in advance of planned critical 

overstay enforcement operations. SEVP 

would also fund the surge of continuous 

and extended analytic support to HSI 

field operations in the event of a 

terrorist attack or during imminent 

threat situations. This direct operational 

support to field elements during 

heightened threat situations or in the 

aftermath of an attack would enable 

CTCEU to quickly assess subjects of 

investigative interest and to share 

information to further investigations 

with its law enforcement partners, ICE 

legal counsel, and the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office. Such surge support has been 

used successfully and has proven 

critical in furthering investigative efforts 

and providing investigative focus in 

recent threat situations and terrorist 

attacks, including attacks in San 

Bernardino, California; Orlando, 

Florida; Columbus, Ohio; Baltimore, 

Maryland; New York; New Jersey; and 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

C. Basis for Fee Schedule 

As previously noted, the proposed 

amended fees comply with statutory 

and regulatory requirements that SEVP 

review its fee structure every 2 years to 

ensure that the cost of the services 

provided are fully captured by fees 

assessed on those receiving the services. 

The new fees are an estimate of the 

current and projected costs of funding 

needed to continue enhancing SEVP’s 

capability to achieve programmatic 

goals associated with its statutory 

mandate—supporting national security 

and countering immigration fraud 

through the continued development and 

implementation of critical system and 

programmatic enhancements. This 

proposed rule would establish the 

following fee structure detailed in Table 

3. 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE

Fee type Responsible party 

I–901 SEVIS Fee ............................ Student or exchange visitor issued an initial Form I–20 or DS–2019 seeking an F, M, or J visa. 

I–17 Certification Fee ...................... Institutions petitioning for SEVP certification to enroll international students. 

Site Visit Fee ................................... Institutions applying for initial certification or certified schools changing locations or adding a campus/location. 

Recertification Fee .......................... Certified institutions seeking recertification every 2 years. 

Appeal or Motion Fee ..................... Institutions that have had certification or recertification denied by SEVP, including denied I–17 updates, or 

that have had certification withdrawn, and which are filing an appeal or motion regarding the SEVP decision. 

The current fee structure includes the 

I–901 SEVIS fee, I–17 certification fee, 

and the site visit fee. The proposed rule 

would allow SEVP to fully fund 

activities and institute critical near-term 

program and system enhancements in a 

more equitable manner. The proposed 

fee structure would also include the 

addition of a recertification fee and a fee 

for filing a motion or appeal. 

With this rule SEVP proposes to 

impose a fee for a Form I–290B, Notice 

of Appeal or Motion, filed with SEVP at 

a level that is comparable to the fee for 

the Form I–290B when filed with 

USCIS. DHS proposes to eliminate 

regulations that currently state there is 

no fee required for an appeal by a 

school, to maintain consistency with 

this clarification in the motions context 

and to more fairly balance allocation of 

the recovery of SEVP operational costs 

between beneficiary classes. Under this 

proposal, SEVP would charge the fee for 

all appeals and motions. 

The proposed rule would ensure the 

full recovery of SEVP operational costs 

in a manner that fairly allocates costs 

between beneficiary classes and would 

facilitate the development of activities 

designed to achieve defined program 

goals. For example, the proposed rule 

would continue funding for critical 

SEVIS modernization efforts and would 

incorporate the added cost of increased 

analytical support for investigative and 

enforcement operations into the I–901 

SEVIS fee. The proposed fee schedule 

would also allow SEVP to fully fund 

additional SEVP adjudication 

personnel. 

D. SEVP Baseline Costs and Fees 

SEVP fees are paid by individuals and 

organizations. DHS certifies schools that 

enroll F and M students; recertifies 

schools with active certifications; 

conducts site visits; administers, 

maintains, and develops SEVIS; collects 

fees from prospective F and M students 

and J exchange visitors, as well as from 

schools; adjudicates motions and 

appeals in regard to certification 

petitions; undertakes investigatory 

initiatives; and provides overall 

guidance to schools about program 

enrollment and compliance, as well as 

the use of SEVIS. These activities are 

funded solely through the collection of 

fees. 

The I–901 SEVIS fee, collected from 

students and exchange visitors, 

currently underwrites the operation of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33771 

7Form I–290B is managed by USCIS and not ICE. 

USCIS has agreed to the use of the form by ICE for 

SEVP appeals and the use has been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget under control 

number 1615–0095. 

SEVP; the cost of administering, 

maintaining, and developing SEVIS; the 

cost of school recertification; and all 

activities related to individual and 

organizational compliance issues within 

the jurisdiction of SEVP. These 

activities include the cost of 

investigating the compliance of schools 

participating in SEVP and exchange 

visitor programs, as well as 

investigations in which F, M, or J 

nonimmigrants are identified as 

potential threats to national security or 

where it is suspected that an 

immigration violation or fraud may be 

occurring. 

The certification fee is paid by 

schools that petition for the authority to 

issue Certificates of Eligibility (COE), 

commonly referred to as Forms I–20, to 

prospective nonimmigrant students for 

the purpose of their applying for F or M 

visas and admission to the United States 

in those statuses. These monies fund the 

base internal cost for SEVP to process 

and adjudicate the initial school 

certification petition (Form I–17, 

‘‘Petition for Approval of School for 

Attendance by Nonimmigrant 

Student’’). The proposed recertification 

fee paid by schools to remain certified 

would fund the cost of adjudicating the 

recertification petition. 

If SEVP finds that a petitioning or 

certified school does not meet 

regulatory standards, it will deny the 

affected school’s Form I–17 or withdraw 

its SEVP certification. 8 CFR 214.4. 

When SEVP sends a school a notice of 

denial or withdrawal, the notice also 

includes reasons for the unfavorable 

decision(s), an explanation of the 

school’s rights, and the applicable 

appeal and motion filing information 

and deadlines. In many cases, a school 

may file an appeal or motion to reopen 

and/or reconsider unfavorable decisions 

issued by SEVP by filing the Form I– 

290B, ‘‘Notice of Appeal or Motion,’’ 

pursuant to the process set forth in 8 

CFR 103.3(a) or 103.5(a).7 A school may 

initiate a motion to reopen or reconsider 

to request that the original deciding 

body review the unfavorable decision, 

including an appeals decision, pursuant 

to requirements in 8 CFR 103.5(a). A 

school may also initiate an appeal in 

order to request review of the 

unfavorable Notice of Denial, Automatic 

Withdrawal, or Withdrawal on Notice 

by an authority independent of the 

original deciding body. Currently, DHS 

uses I–901 funds to offset the costs of 

SEVP appeals and motions. This offset 

is a result of the DHS determination in 

the 2008 final fee rule to state in 

regulations that no fee would be 

required for appeals relating to SEVP 

certification or recertification or a 

withdrawal of SEVP certification. See 8 

CFR 214.4(a)(1), (h). DHS proposes to 

remove the SEVP-related exceptions to 

the payment of the I–290B fee and add 

regulatory text at proposed 8 CFR 

103.7(b)(1)(ii)(O) providing for the fee of 

$675 when the Form I–290B is filed 

with SEVP. This fee would apply when 

schools or institutions file an appeal or 

motion with regard to a denied petition 

for initial certification or recertification 

or a withdrawal of certification. 

In proposing these regulatory changes 

for the I–290B filing fee, DHS would 

more fairly balance allocation of the 

recovery of SEVP operational costs 

among beneficiary classes. To date, the 

cost of adjudicating appeals and 

motions has never been placed directly 

upon the beneficiaries of those 

adjudications—the schools seeking to 

obtain or maintain SEVP-certification. 

The fee for filing the Form I–290B with 

SEVP is being proposed at a level that 

requires those who file the Form I–290B 

to pay for at least a portion of the 

operating expenses for DHS to 

adjudicate the I–290B, while preventing 

the fee from becoming cost prohibitive. 

The site visit fee is currently paid by 

schools that petition for certification to 

issue Forms I–20 or by a certified school 

when it physically moves to a new 

location. DHS established this fee in the 

2008 Fee Rule and with that rule 

codified SEVP’s authority to charge the 

fee when a school changes its physical 

location or adds a new physical location 

or campus. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(3)(ii)(B), 

8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii). 

Specifically, the 2008 Fee Rule imposed 

a site visit fee of $655 for each location 

listed on the Form I–17, and required 

the Form I–17 to include ‘‘any physical 

location in which a nonimmigrant can 

attend classes through the school (i.e., 

campus, extension campuses, satellite 

campuses, etc.).’’ See 73 FR 55683, 

55698–55699 (amending 8 CFR 

103.7(b)(3)(ii)(B) and 214.3(a)(1), 

respectively). The 2008 Fee Rule also 

imposed a continuing duty on schools 

to update school locations as changes 

arise, i.e., even after initial certification, 

a school must update SEVIS within 21 

days of a change to a range of 

information types, including school 

location and campus location. See 73 FR 

55683, 55700 (amending 8 CFR 

214.3(g)(2), (h)(3)). Consistent with the 

aforementioned regulatory amendments, 

the preamble to the 2008 Fee Rule made 

clear that these provisions require the 

imposition of a site visit fee for each 

location listed on the initial SEVP 

certification, as well as each location 

added as part of an initial event, such 

as a SEVIS update requesting approval 

of a changed or new location or campus. 

73 FR 55683, 55691. 

But SEVP is not currently collecting 

the fee when a certified school adds a 

new physical location or campus. SEVP 

intends to begin imposing the fee 

following the effective date of any final 

rule. The site visit fee would apply 

when a certified school updates its 

Form I–17 in SEVIS to indicate, 

pursuant to 8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)(ii), it is 

changing its physical location or adding 

a new physical location or campus. This 

revenue would assist in recovering the 

costs DHS incurs for site visits of these 

locations, including collecting evidence 

on school eligibility for certification, 

reviewing the facilities, and 

interviewing personnel nominated on 

the petition to become DSOs, including 

the person nominated to be the PDSO. 

E. Methodology 

SEVP captured and allocated cost 

using an ABC approach to define full 

cost, outline the sources of SEVP cost, 

and define the fees. The ABC approach 

also provides detailed information on 

the cost and activities allocated to each 

fee. 

1. ABC Approach 

SEVP used CostPerform ABC 

modeling software, Version 9.3 (0147), 

to determine the full cost associated 

with updating and maintaining SEVIS to 

collect and maintain information on F, 

M, and J nonimmigrants; certifying 

schools; overseeing school compliance; 

recertifying schools; adjudicating 

appeals; investigating suspected 

violations of immigration law and other 

potential threats to national security by 

F, M, or J nonimmigrants; providing 

outreach and education to users; and 

performing regulatory and policy 

analysis. SEVP also used the model to 

identify management and overhead 

costs associated with the program. 

ABC is a business management 

methodology that links inputs (cost) and 

outputs (products and services) by 

quantifying how work is performed in 

an organization (activities). The ABC 

methodology allows fee-funded 

organizations to trace service costs and 

to calculate an appropriate fee for the 

service, based on the cost of activities 

associated with the services for which 

the fee is levied. 

Using the ABC methodology, SEVP 

identified and defined the activities 

needed to support SEVP functions to 

include current and future initiatives. 

SEVP captured the full cost of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33772 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

8These include but are not limited to: Direct and 

indirect personnel cost, including salaries and 

fringe benefits, such as medical insurance and 

retirement; retirement cost, including all (funded or 

unfunded) accrued cost not covered by employee 

contributions, as specified in OMB Circular A–11; 

overhead, consulting, and other indirect cost, 

including material and supply cost, utilities, 

insurance, travel, as well as rents or imputed rents 

on land, buildings, and equipment; management 

and supervisory cost; and cost of enforcement, 

collection, research, establishment of standards, 

and regulation. 

9Full cost includes the costs associated with 

resources that directly or indirectly contribute to 

the output and supporting services within the entity 

and from other entities. 

operations and apportioned that full 

cost to the appropriate program 

activities. The full cost of each activity 

is then assigned to the appropriate fee 

category based on the nature of the 

activity, as described further below. By 

tracking costs to the various fee 

categories, SEVP was able to use 

forecasted payments to determine the 

appropriate fee amount for each fee 

type. SEVP examined historical data 

and performed statistical payment 

analysis to forecast payments in future 

years. 

SEVP used an independent contractor 

and commercially available ABC 

software to compute the fees. The 

structure of the software was tailored to 

SEVP needs for continual and real-time 

fee review and cost management. 

2. Full Cost 

In building the ABC model, it was 

critical for SEVP to identify the sources 

and cost for all elements of the program. 

Consistent with instructive legislative 

and regulatory guidance, SEVP fees 

recoup the full cost of providing the 

agency’s overall resources and services.8

To the extent applicable, SEVP used 

the cost accounting concepts and 

standards recommended in the FASAB 

Handbook, Version 15, ‘‘Statement of 

Financial Accounting Standards 

Number 4, Managerial Cost Accounting 

Concepts and Standards for the Federal 

Government’’ (2016). FASAB Standard 

Number 4 sets the following five 

standards as fundamental elements of 

managerial cost accounting: (1) 

Accumulate and report cost of activities 

on a regular basis for management 

information purposes; (2) establish 

responsibility segments and match the 

cost of each segment with its outputs; 

(3) determine the full cost of 

government goods and services; 9 (4) 

recognize the costs of goods and 

services provided among federal 

entities; and (5) use appropriate costing 

methodologies to accumulate and assign 

costs to outputs. 

SEVP calculates projected fees using 

the full cost of operations, as defined by 

a regularly updated spend plan. The 

projected spend plans for FY 2019 and 

FY 2020 were used in calculation of 

SEVP’s proposed fee structure. Tables 4 

through 7 detail the full cost of SEVP 

operations, consistent with the spend 

plan, from various perspectives: By 

program category, by cost initiative, by 

fee type, and by activity. 

3. Cost Basis for SEVP Fees Based on 

Current Services 

The FY 2019 and FY 2020 budgets 

provide the cost basis for the fees. These 

budgets reflect the required revenue to 

sustain current initiatives. The revenue 

is also assessed to ensure a sufficient 

level of continued funding for program 

enhancements as discussed above, such 

as enhanced vetting and investigative 

analysis to support enforcement 

operations, SEVIS Modernization, and 

increased numbers of adjudication 

personnel. Finally, the past budgets 

provide the cost basis for adjusting 

annualized cost-of-living increases. 

Determining the projected cost for 

continuation of current efforts involved 

routine budget projection processes. The 

budget establishes the current services 

of the program and projects the 

mandatory and cost-of-living 

adjustments necessary to maintain 

current services. The budget adjusts the 

services provided by SEVP to include 

enhancements that reflect program 

policy decisions. Table 4 reflects the FY 

2017 final budget, the FY 2018 

approved budget, and the FY 2019 and 

FY 2020 planned budget requests. 

TABLE 4—STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS BY ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAM

CATEGORY

[Dollars in thousands] 

SEVP expenses 2017 spend 

plan 

2018 spend 

plan 

2019 spend 

plan 

2020 spend 

plan 

SEVP Payroll 

Full-Time Equivalent Personnel ....................................................................... 134 175 221 221 

Executive Office ............................................................................................... $1,735 $1,744 $2,048 $2,084 

Fee Management Section ............................................................................... $1,350 $1,597 $1,775 $1,806 

Field Representative Unit ................................................................................ $6,480 $6,958 $7,641 $7,776 

Policy Section .................................................................................................. $1,178 $969 $1,283 $1,325 

Systems Management Unit ............................................................................. $1,258 $1,299 $1,391 $1,416

SEVP Response Center Section ..................................................................... $652 $652 $931 $941 

School Certification Unit .................................................................................. $2,993 $2,966 $3,291 $3,349 

SEVP Analysis and Operations Section .......................................................... $1,070 $1,226 $1,402 $1,388 

New Required Positions .................................................................................. ........................ $296 $2,357 $5,610 

Office of the Principal Legal Advisor ............................................................... $328 $517 $642 $659 

SEVP Outside Positions .................................................................................. $1,444 $1,776 $2,545 $2,629 

Total SEVP Payroll ................................................................................... $18,488 $20,000 $25,306 $28,983 

Program Expenses 

Advisory and Assistance Services .................................................................. $58,630 $58,108 $52,755 $50,977 

SEVIS (Modernization and O&M) * .................................................................. $8,237 $18,722 $22,241 $21,912 

Interagency Agreements with other agencies ................................................. $8,046 $9,815 $8,360 $8,583 

Travel ............................................................................................................... $1,474 $1,500 $1,100 $1,100 

Service-wide Costs .......................................................................................... $3,222 $4,015 $2,400 $2,400 

Total Program Expenses .......................................................................... $79,609 $92,160 $86,856 $84,972


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33773 

TABLE 4—STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS BY ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAM

CATEGORY—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

SEVP expenses 2017 spend 

plan 

2018 spend 

plan 

2019 spend 

plan 

2020 spend 

plan 

CTCEU ............................................................................................................. $67,200 $74,450 $74,450 $74,450 

Total, SEVP .............................................................................................. $165,297 $186,610 $186,612 $188,405 

* Includes costs for the SEVIS Modernization and SEVIS Operations and Maintenance. 

F. Summary of the Full Cost Information 

The total cost projection for FY 2019 

is $186,612,000 and for FY 2020 is 

$188,405,000. Table 4 sets out the 

projected current services for SEVP and 

supporting CTCEU personnel in FY 

2019 ($74.45 million) and FY 2020 

($74.45 million). These costs are direct 

extensions of the FY 2018 costs that are 

supported by the current fees. Table 5 

summarizes the enhancements and 

other costs, which include investigative 

analysis to support enforcement 

operations, SEVIS Modernization, 

increased numbers of adjudication 

personnel, and annualized inflation. 

TABLE 5—FY 2018, FY 2019 AND FY 2020 SEVP COST BY INITIATIVE

Program cost by initiative 

FY 2018 

budgeted cost 

(thousands) 

FY 2019 

budgeted cost 

(thousands) 

FY 2020 

budgeted cost 

(thousands) 

Program Base: 

SEVP (Current operational costs) ........................................................................................ $95,097 $94,497 $95,106 

CTCEU (Current operational costs) ..................................................................................... 70,200 70,200 70,200 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................... 165,297 164,697 165,306 

Enhancements and Other Costs: 

Investigative Analysis Support ............................................................................................. 4,250 4,250 4,250 

SEVIS Modernization ........................................................................................................... 13,150 13,750 13,141 

Increased Personnel ............................................................................................................. 1,100 1,100 3,500 

Annualized Inflation .............................................................................................................. 2,813 2,813 2,208 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................... 21,313 21,913 23,099 

Total ....................................................................................................................... 186,610 186,610 188,405 

1. Fee Allocation 

The purpose of the ABC methodology 

is to trace costs to organizational 

elements, as well as identify all cost 

components associated with the services 

offered. For fee-based organizations 

such as SEVP, this allows the 

assignment of cost to one or more fees. 

SEVP defined five fee categories: The I– 

901 SEVIS fee, certification fee, 

recertification fee, fee for motions and 

appeals, and site visit fee. 

Historically SEVP has only collected 

fees from students and exchange 

visitors—the I–901 fee—and from 

schools applying for certification, to 

include a separate site visit fee. In this 

analysis, SEVP considered the creation 

of additional fee categories for all the 

distinct services it provides in deciding 

how to apportion fees. For example, 

SEVP considered charging a separate I– 

901 SEVIS fee to F, M, and J 

dependents. SEVP also examined 

various tiered fee structures and 

considered assigning some specific costs 

to separate fees. The ABC fee model 

allowed SEVP to evaluate these 

scenarios. DHS opted for an updated fee 

structure that segments program cost to 

the appropriate fee—F and M students, 

J exchange visitors, or schools. 

The proposed I–901 SEVIS fee would 

recover the systems cost for SEVIS, 

including the remainder of certification, 

recertification, site visits, as well as 

appeals and motions costs that are not 

covered by the respective proposed fees. 

The fee would be apportioned between 

three categories—full fee of $350 for F 

and M students, reduced fee of $220 for 

most J participants, and the further 

reduced fee of $35 for certain J program 

participants. Federal Governmentsponsored J program participants are 

fee-exempt by law, so their costs will be 

funded by other fee payers. 8 U.S.C. 

1372(e)(3). 

The proposed school certification fee 

would recover a portion of the costs 

necessary to process initial school 

certifications. The proposed 

recertification fee would recover a 

portion of the cost to process school 

recertifications and a portion of SEVP 

administrative costs. The site visit fee 

would recover the full cost of 

performing the site visit for initial 

school certification and when a school 

changes its physical location or adds a 

new physical location or campus. The 

proposed fee for an appeal or motion 

would recover a portion of the cost to 

process an appeal or motion. 

2. SEVP FY 2019 and FY 2020 Cost 

Model Results 

Table 6 shows the summary of SEVP 

FY 2019 and FY 2020 cost by source of 

cost. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33774 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6—TOTAL SEVP FY 2019 AND FY 2020 COST BY FEE CATEGORY

SEVP ABC model output category 

FY 2019 

budgeted cost 

(thousands) 

FY 2020 

budgeted cost 

(thousands) 

I–901 SEVIS Fee ..................................................................................................................................................... $159,835 $160,633 

I–17 Certification Fee .............................................................................................................................................. 1,909 1,992 

I–17 Recertification Fee ........................................................................................................................................... 22,522 23,189 

Site Visit Fee ........................................................................................................................................................... 385 389 

Appeals Fee ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,956 2,198 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 186,607 188,401 

Table 7 shows a more detailed cost 

breakdown. The numbers are shown in 

thousands, rather than millions, of 

dollars due to the level of detail. There 

are two levels for the costs: Process and 

activity. Costs are allocated from 

payroll, contracts, and other expenses to 

activities through activity surveys and 

volume based cost allocations. The full 

cost of operations from the spend plans 

is distributed to the activities that best 

describe the work being performed. 

Table 7 details these costs from an 

activity perspective. To simplify the 

presentation, the numbers are rounded 

to the nearest thousand. These numbers 

are not rounded in the cost model. 

TABLE 7—DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN

[FY 19 + FY 20, dollars in thousands] 

Process Activity I–901 I–17 

certification 

I–17 

re-certification 

I–17 

site visit Appeals 

Certify Schools ................ A–01: Certify schools (initial certification) ............... ........................ $3,115 ........................ ........................ ........................

A–02: Recertify schools ........................................... ........................ ........................ $4,614 ........................ ........................ A–03: Notify students if school is withdrawn .......... ........................ ........................ 129 ........................ ........................

A–04: Withdraw schools from SEVIS ...................... ........................ ........................ 1,102 ........................ ........................

A–05: Process appeals/motions .............................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ $3,420 

A–06: Process petition updates .............................. ........................ ........................ 3,036 ........................ ........................

A–07: Monitor school compliance ........................... ........................ ........................ 3,761 ........................ ........................

A–08: Monitor school risk ........................................ ........................ ........................ 3,446 ........................ ........................

Enforce Compliance with 

Regulations and Laws.

A–28: Conduct Student and Exchange Visitor (I– 

901) investigations.

$93,921 ........................ 16,574 ........................ ........................

A–29: Conduct school and sponsor investigations 34,238 ........................ 6,042 ........................ ........................

A–30: Operate CTCEU programs ........................... 4,130 ........................ 729 ........................ ........................

A–31: Provide CTCEU liaison support .................... 417 ........................ 74 ........................ ........................

A–41: Perform I–515 operations duties .................. 1,471 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

A–43: PDSO/DSO background checks ................... 1,038 ........................ 54 ........................ ........................

Formulate Policy ............. A–16: Analyze and develop policy .......................... 3,170 ........................ 600 ........................ ........................

A–17: Develop and review rules and regulations ... 2,476 ........................ 469 ........................ ........................

A–18: Implement policy ........................................... 1,501 ........................ 284 ........................ ........................

A–19: Develop future policy strategy ...................... 816 ........................ 154 ........................ ........................

Provide Stakeholder 

Communications.

A–11: Develop and deliver SEVP communications 

A–12: Respond to stakeholders’ policy and technical inquiries (including Tier III Help Desk).

9,040 

8,218 

118 

........................

1,224 

........................

24 

........................

130 

........................

A–13: Provide Field Representative support .......... 13,731 ........................ 2,598 ........................ ........................

A–14: Prepare and attend conferences/workshops 

related to the SEVIS community.

3,404 62 644 13 68 

A–15: Develop and conduct strategic communications.2,699 49 511 ........................ ........................

Provide Systems Program Management 

Support.

A–20: Modify and enhance functionality of SEVP 

mission systems (e.g., SEVIS, SEVPAMS10).

24,816 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

A–21: Operate and maintain SEVP mission systems (e.g., SEVIS, SEVPAMS).28,491 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

A–22: Provide Tier I and Tier II Help Desk support 12,814 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ A–23: Conduct systems program management ...... 5,291 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ A–24: Analyze and disseminate program data ....... 3,510 46 475 9 50 

A–25: Operate and maintain SEVP inter-office systems.1,735 32 328 ........................ ........................

Support SEVP Operations.A–26: Maintain SEVP systems security ..................

A–27: Maintain SEVP physical security ..................

2,867 

223 

37 

4 

388 

42 

........................1 ........................4 

A–32: Provide Executive Leadership for SEVP ...... 2,539 33 344 7 36 

A–33: Provide SEVP administrative support ........... 1,599 21 217 4 23 

A–34: Develop strategic plan .................................. 1,612 29 305 6 32 

A–35: Manage financial resources .......................... 7,300 95 988 20 105 

A–36: Manage procurement .................................... 1,886 25 256 5 27 

A–37: Manage personnel resources ....................... 2,065 27 280 6 30 

A–38: Manage SEVP records ................................. 3,274 60 619 12 66 

A–39: Manage facility resources ............................. 1,782 23 241 5 25 

A–40: Manage I–901 payment system ................... 7,766 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ A–42: Manage I–901 J program ............................. 15,966 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

A–44: Site Visits ...................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 638 ........................

Train SEVP staff, other 

staff, and DSOs.

A–09: Develop and deliver SEVIS training .............

A–10: Develop and deliver internal training ............

5,936 

2,613 

78 

48 

803 

494 

16 

10 

85 

52 

Total ......................... .................................................................................. 314,355 3,902 51,827 775 4,155 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33775 

10SEVP Automated Management System. 

3. Fee Calculations 

The cost model provides detailed cost 

information by activity and a summary 

cost for each, giving the aggregate fee 

cost by category. Next, SEVP projected 

the total number of fee payments of each 

type for FY 2019 and FY 2020 and 

determined the fee-recoverable budget. 

SEVP selected a forecasting approach to 

determine the total number of expected 

fee payments for each fee. 

a. I–901 SEVIS Fee 

To calculate a fee amount for the I– 

901 SEVIS fee, SEVP estimated the 

number of fee payments expected in FY 

2019 and FY 2020 for each of the three 

fee payment types: Reduced fee for J 

participants (excluding the additional 

cost for initial certification and 

recertification of SEVP-certified 

schools); full fee for J participants 

(excluding the additional cost for initial 

certification and recertification of SEVPcertified schools); and full fee for F and 

M students (including additional costs 

for certification, recertification, and 

appeals). 

Calculations for each of the three fee 

payment types vary because each fee 

type is treated differently in federal 

statutes and regulations. Section 641 of 

IIRIRA exempts Federal Governmentsponsored J–1 exchange visitors from 

the fee payment. All F and M 

nonimmigrant students are currently 

required to pay $200, and nonexempt J 

nonimmigrant exchange visitors 

currently must pay $180. 8 CFR 

103.7(b)(1)(ii)(H); 214.13(a). Congress 

modified the statute in December of 

2000 to establish a reduced fee of $35 

for au pairs, camp counselors, or 

participants in a summer work travel 

program, demonstrating strong 

congressional intent that the fee remain 

at that level. Act of Dec. 21, 2000, Public 

Law 106–553, app. B, sec. 110, 114 Stat. 

2762, 2762A–51, 2762A–68. IIRIRA also 

provided for revising the fee once the 

program to collect information was 

expanded to include information 

collection on all F, M, and J 

nonimmigrants. As a result, the I–901 

fee was revised in 2008 under the 

provisions of IIRIRA to take into 

account the actual cost of carrying out 

the program. See 73 FR 55683. The I– 

901 fee is now being revised a second 

time, through this rule, due to an 

increase in the actual cost of carrying 

out the program. 

SEVP determined the number of 

expected I–901 SEVIS fee payments in 

FY 2019 and FY 2020. SEVP calculated 

the I–901 SEVIS fee over a 2-year period 

to account for potential fluctuation in 

the forecast. SEVP used the change in 

the numbers of payments received to 

provide the trend data used to forecast 

I–901 SEVIS fee payments for each I– 

901 payment type separately. Table 8 

reflects aggregate historical payment 

data for all three I–901 payment types. 

TABLE 8—F, M, AND J VISA ISSUANCE

2007–2017 

Fiscal year Total Growth rate* 

2007 .......... 697,054 ........................

2008 .......... 753,065 8.0 

2009 .......... 644,912 ¥14.4 

2010 .......... 699,983 8.5 

2011 .......... 749,082 7.0 

2012 .......... 744,027 ¥0.7 

2013 .......... 767,805 3.2 

2014 .......... 829,636 8.1 

2015 .......... 885,728 6.8 

2016 .......... 866,623 ¥2.2 

2017 .......... 796,820 ¥8.1 

* Growth rate rounded to nearest tenth of a 

percent. 

As indicated in Table 8, the level of 

payments received varied greatly over 

the past 10 years. This high degree of 

variation in the historical data, 

combined with the variables affecting 

demand for visas, called for a 

forecasting methodology that would 

capture and account for deviations. 

SEVP selected a statistical forecasting 

method that uses trends in historical 

data to forecast future payments. SEVP 

selected ARIMA, an autoregressive 

integrated moving average model to 

forecast payments. An ARIMA model is 

a statistical model that uses historical 

time series data to predict future trends 

and movements. A non-seasonal model 

incorporates two major components: 

Trend and moving average. The 

autoregressive portion of the model, or 

trend, states that past values have an 

effect on current or future values and 

that values are estimated based on the 

weighted sum of past values. The 

second component is moving average 

which helps to smooth out the time 

series to filter out extreme fluctuations 

or outliers. In some cases a third 

component is needed: Seasonality. Visa 

data from 2004 to the present shows 

extreme seasonality in the number of F, 

M, and J visas issued. Seasonality is 

factored into the model to account for 

the U.S. academic calendar. 

SEVP evaluated alternative 

forecasting methods; however, SEVP 

rejected these methods due to 

inaccuracy and poor fit. SEVP’s chosen 

model provided a conservative forecast 

that will allow SEVP to operate with 

stability. The fee payment forecast, 

reflected in Table 9, places a balanced 

mix of emphasis on recent and 

historical data and still contains 

sufficient data points to smooth out 

some variability in the underlying data. 

TABLE 9—I–901 SEVIS FEE PAYMENT FORECAST FY 2019–FY 2020 

I–901 Payment type FY 2019 FY 2020 

Full Payments, F/M .................................................................................................................................................. 418,393 407,933 

Full payment, J-Full ................................................................................................................................................. 157,550 153,611 

Subsidized, J-Partial ................................................................................................................................................ 158,945 158,945 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 734,888 720,490 

b. Certification Cost 

SEVP uses historical data from FY 

2012 to FY 2016 to find a 3-year moving 

average to forecast annual new initial 

certifications. SEVP predicts demand of 

approximately 426 initial certifications 

each year. SEVP assumes that the 

proposed higher fee will not deter 

schools from applying for certification. 

TABLE 10—THREE-YEAR MOVING AVERAGE OF THE NUMBER OF SCHOOL

CERTIFICATION PAYMENTS RECEIVED

Fiscal year Payments 

received 

3-Year moving 

average 

2012 .......... 457 ........................

2013 .......... 382 ........................


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33776 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 10—THREE-YEAR MOVING AVERAGE OF THE NUMBER OF SCHOOL

CERTIFICATION PAYMENTS RECEIVED—Continued 

Fiscal year Payments 

received 

3-Year moving 

average 

2014 .......... 446 428 

2015 .......... 469 432 

2016 .......... 363 426 

The total fee category budget is taken 

directly from the FY 2019 and FY 2020 

SEVP ABC model, reflected in Table 11. 

TABLE 11—FY 2019–FY 2020 CERTIFICATION FEE-RECOVERABLE

BUDGET

Fiscal year 

Certification 

payments 

expected 

Fee-recoverable budget 

2019 .......... 426 $1,909,680 

2020 .......... 426 1,992,878 

Total ... 852 3,902,558 

School certification fees are 

calculated by dividing the feerecoverable budget by the anticipated 

number of payments. This results in a 

fee-recoverable amount from schools of 

$4,580 each. To arrive at the proposed 

fee, rounding was applied to the result 

of the fee algorithm. This results in a 

certification fee of $4,600 per school. 

Setting the certification fee at the $4,600 

figure, however, leads to an increase of 

the current school certification fee by 

$2,900, resulting in a certification fee 

over twice the current fee amount. 

School certification is integral to 

SEVP—F and M nonimmigrant students 

can only attend SEVP-certified schools. 

DHS is concerned that such an increase 

of the school certification fee would 

appear dramatic to schools seeking 

initial certification and could lead to 

fewer schools seeking initial 

certification, so DHS proposes to keep 

the fee increase at a level that will not 

discourage potential new schools from 

seeking certification. At the same time, 

DHS considers that initial certification 

bestows upon the school a valuable 

asset, the ability to enroll F and M 

nonimmigrant students, and an 

increased fee amount is reasonable as 

the initial certification process becomes 

more extensive through the SEVIS 

modernization and other technological 

developments. Weighing these 

concerns, DHS decided to subsidize the 

I–17 certification fee by increasing the 

payment by only $1,300 to $3,000. The 

remainder of the costs for I–17 

certification is subsidized by the I–901 

F and M SEVIS fee, which is addressed 

below. 

c. Recertification Cost 

To identify a fee level that would 

recover the full cost of recertification 

operations, SEVP determined the full 

cost of recertification (including level of 

effort and contract cost) and the 

approximate number of schools willing 

to recertify. Because schools are 

required to recertify every 2 years, SEVP 

anticipates that approximately one-half 

of its certified schools—roughly 4,373 

schools per year, given the current 

certified school population of 8,746— 

would recertify. 

TABLE 12—FY 2019–FY 2020 RECERTIFICATION FEE-RECOVERABLE

BUDGET

Fiscal year 

Recertification 

payments 

expected 

Fee-recoverable budget 

2019 .......... 4,373 $25,368,650 

2020 .......... 4,373 26,457,896 

Total ... 8,746 51,826,546 

To calculate an anticipated school 

recertification fee, DHS divides the feerecoverable budget by the anticipated 

number of payments. This results in a 

fee-recoverable amount from schools of 

$6,000 each. To arrive at the proposed 

fee, rounding was applied to the result 

of the fee algorithm. This would result 

in a recertification fee of $6,000 per 

school. DHS desires to institute a 

recertification fee to more accurately 

assign the costs of recertification 

adjudication to those stakeholders who 

are directly requesting the 

adjudication—the SEVP-certified 

schools—particularly since the costs of 

recertification continue to increase as 

the recertification process becomes 

more robust. DHS considers, however, 

that a recertification fee instituted in 

this rule for the first time should not be 

set at a level that could discourage 

schools from seeking recertification. 

DHS also considers that the 

recertification amount should be less 

than the initial certification amount so 

that schools are encouraged to seek 

recertification instead of allowing their 

SEVP certification to be withdrawn and 

applying for initial certification anew at 

some later date. Withdrawal of SEVPcertification not only leads to the school 

losing a valuable asset, but also leads to 

complications for F and M 

nonimmigrant students enrolled in the 

withdrawn school, who are then forced 

to transfer schools, leave the United 

States, or risk facing immigration law 

penalties for violating the terms of their 

nonimmigrant status. Weighing all these 

factors, DHS proposes that the I–17 

recertification fee be $1,250. DHS 

proposes to eliminate regulations that 

state that no fee is required for the 

school recertification process in order to 

recover part of this cost, as part of an 

effort to establish a more equitable 

distribution of costs and more 

sustainable level of cost recovery 

relative to services provided. The costs 

for I–17 recertification not recovered by 

the proposed fee would be subsidized 

by the I–901 F and M SEVIS fee. The 

explanation for shifting responsibility of 

the fee adjustment to the I–901 fee is 

included below. 

d. Site Visit Cost 

Site visits consist of initial 

certification site visits, change of 

location visits, and new campus or 

location site visits. The anticipated 

workload for these site visits is 600 per 

year, or 1,200 visits over a 2-year period. 

TABLE 13—FY 2019–FY 2020 SITE

VISIT FEE-RECOVERABLE BUDGET

Fiscal year 

Site visit 

payments 

expected 

Fee-recoverable budget 

2019 .......... 600 $385,674 

2020 .......... 600 389,689 

Total ... 1,200 775,363 

The current fee amount is $655 as 

established in the 2008 Fee Rule that 

codified SEVP’s authority to charge the 

fee when a school changes its physical 

location or adds new physical location 

or campus. Following this rule’s 

effective date, SEVP will collect the fee 

when a school adds a new physical 

location or campus. The site visit fee 

would apply when a certified school 

updates its Form I–17 in SEVIS to 

indicate, pursuant to 8 CFR 

214.3(h)(3)(ii), an added physical 

location or campus. The site visit fee is 

based on level of effort for both SEVP 

staff and contracts that cover the cost of 

operations. 

e. Appeals and Motions Cost 

Determining the full cost of 

processing an appeal is essential to 

improving the fee structure. The fee for 

filing a motion or appeal is calculated 

by determining the workload of appeals 

and motions over the FY 2019 and FY 

2020 periods. Over the past 2 years, 

SEVP has processed 54 appeals and 

motions annually. To maintain 

conservative estimates, SEVP 

anticipates that number will remain 

constant over the FY 2019 and FY 2020 

periods. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33777 

11Because the underlying rationale for the 

amount of the I–290B fee differs between SEVP and 

USCIS, the cost for appealing a claim or petition using the I–290B Form could eventually be different 

for SEVP and USCIS 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(S). 

TABLE 14—FY 2019–FY 2020 

APPEALS FEE-RECOVERABLE BUDGET

Fiscal year 

Appeal and 

motion 

payments 

expected 

Fee-recoverable budget 

2019 .......... 54 $1,956,375 

2020 .......... 54 2,198,825 

Total ... 108 4,155,200 

Fees for motions or appeals are 

calculated by dividing the feerecoverable budget by the anticipated 

number of payments over the FY 2019 

and FY 2020 periods. This results in a 

fee-recoverable amount of $38,474 for 

each appeal. To arrive at the proposed 

final cost, rounding was applied to the 

result of the fee algorithm. This results 

in a cost for a motion or appeal of 

$38,500. SEVP believes that this fee, 

while justified, is too high to impose on 

the affected schools as the first fee to be 

established and collected for the subject 

appeals and motions, and that some 

accommodation should be made to keep 

the fee at a more reasonable amount. 

Instead, DHS proposes adding $4.76 to 

the Form I–901 F and M fees to 

counterbalance the unfunded costs of 

adjudicating appeals and motions. This 

will better ensure that cost is not a 

significant obstacle in pursuing an 

administrative appeal or motion. The 

Form I–290B fee when filed with SEVP 

would be set at $675, which is currently 

the same amount charged when the 

form is filed with USCIS. See 8 CFR 

103.7(b)(i)(S).11 The Form I–290B, 

‘‘Notice of Appeal or Motion,’’ filed 

with USCIS is the same form used for 

appeals or motions related to any denial 

of school certification or recertification 

or a withdrawal of such certification. 

Although the appeal fee would not be 

set at the amount necessary to recover 

the full costs of appeals and motions, by 

setting a fee of $675, schools that benefit 

from the appeal process would bear 

some of its costs, and DHS would more 

fairly balance allocation of the recovery 

of SEVP operational costs between 

beneficiary classes. As proposed, DHS 

would charge the fee for all such 

appeals and motions. 

4. Proposed Fee Levels 

Viewing the SEVP fee structure and 

affected parties comprehensively, DHS 

proposes to adjust each fee in its fee 

structure based not only on cost of 

services, but also on the desire to spread 

the impact of fee increases reasonably 

among the various beneficiaries of SEVP 

services. Despite the ABC calculations’ 

determination of the actual cost of each 

service, which is represented by each 

fee, DHS has determined that using the 

I–901 revenue to subsidize the costs of 

the SEVP’s other fees is an appropriate 

course of action for two reasons. First, 

the number of F and M students paying 

the I–901 fee is substantially larger than 

the number of entities paying each of 

the school certification-related fees, 

allowing for SEVP to lessen the impact 

of fee increases in the aggregate. Second, 

the subsidization is reasonable because 

individuals paying the I–901 fee 

necessarily benefit from the continued 

certification of schools for their 

enrollment and prompt and accurate 

adjudication of appeals. 

DHS proposes to increase the I–901 

SEVIS fee for F and M students from 

$200 to $350 and the full I–901 SEVIS 

fee for most J exchange visitors from 

$180 to $220. While these increases may 

seem large, these fees have been 

unchanged since 2008. 73 FR 55683 

(Sept. 26, 2008). In 2008, the first time 

these fees had been updated since 

SEVP’s inception in 2004, the I–901 

SEVIS fee for F and M students 

increased from $100 to $200, and the 

full I–901 SEVIS fee for most J exchange 

visitors increased from $100 to $180. 

See id. The I–901 SEVIS fee for special 

J-visa categories (au pair, camp 

counselor, and summer work travel) 

would remain at the current $35 level, 

consistent with the levels set by 

Congress in 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A). 

IIRIRA also exempts from the I–901 

SEVIS fee J–1 exchange visitors who 

participate in Federal Governmentsponsored J–1 exchange programs, 

consistent with 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(3). 

DHS proposes to increase the initial 

certification fee from $1,700 to $3,000. 

This fee was originally set at $230, 

effective in 2002, prior to the 

reorganization of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) to become 

part of DHS. See 66 FR 65811 (Dec. 21, 

2001). The fee was increased in 2008 to 

$1,700. See 73 FR 55683. This is the 

base fee for certification and does not 

include the site visit fee. 

DHS proposes to establish a 

recertification fee at $1,250, maintain 

the site visit fee of $655, and set the I– 

290B fee at $675. The cost for SEVP 

recertification, site visits, and motions 

and appeals adjudication is determined 

by employing ABC principles, 

previously described in this document, 

balanced with SEVP’s desire to prevent 

recertifications, site visits, appeals, and 

motions filings from becoming cost 

prohibitive. DHS is proposing a 

recertification fee and a Form I–290B fee 

for the first time, and SEVP believes that 

charging recertification and appeals fees 

sufficient to recover, on their own, the 

fee-recoverable amount for such 

services, may result in inordinately high 

fees from the perspective of entities who 

have regularly received the benefits of 

these SEVP services at no additional 

charge. Accordingly, DHS proposes to 

set these fees at amounts below the feerecoverable cost. For the I–290B fee in 

particular, DHS proposes to set the 

amount at $675. DHS believes this 

amount is appropriate because it is less 

than both the fee for initial certification 

and the fee for recertification. Further, 

the amount $675 is already associated 

with the Form I–290B when filing it 

with USCIS. DHS believes $675 is a 

logical starting point, because this is the 

fee currently being charged by USCIS 

for motions and appeals. While the 

difference between the fee-recoverable 

amount (approximately $38,500) and 

the proposed fee of $675 is substantial, 

subsidizing this fee by driving the 

additional costs to the I–901 fee results 

in an increase of only $4.76 to F/M 

students paying that fee. The proposed 

program fee schedule for SEVP 

beginning in FY 2019 is shown in Table 

15. 

TABLE 15—PROPOSED FY 2019 SEVP FEES

Category Amount 

I–901 SEVIS Fees: ........................

• I–901 Primary F/M visa holders (Full) ...................................................................................................................................... $350 

• I–901 Primary J visa holders (Full) ........................................................................................................................................... 220 

• I–901 Special J-visa categories (Subsidized payment) ............................................................................................................ 35 

I–17 School Fee: ........................


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33778 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 15—PROPOSED FY 2019 SEVP FEES—Continued 

Category Amount 

• Certification Fee ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3,000 

• Recertification Fee .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,250 

• Site visit fee for initial certification (base fee to be multiplied by number of locations cited on the Form I–17), and for new

physical locations ...................................................................................................................................................................... 655 

Appeal or Motion Fee: ........................

• Appeal or Motion Fee ............................................................................................................................................................... 675 

These proposed fee amounts, the cost 

model outputs, and cost reallocation 

amounts are shown in Table 16. The 

cost reallocation amounts are negative 

for the fees that are subsidized. The cost 

reallocation amounts that are positive 

are the amounts per fee that subsidize 

the other fee categories. 

TABLE 16—PROPOSED FEE ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTS

Fee Current fee 

Activity based 

cost model 

output 

Cost 

reallocation Final fee Change in fees 

% Change 

in fee 

(a) (b) (c) (d = b + c) (e) (f = (d/a) ¥1) 

Appeal or Motion Fee: I–290B ................. N/A $38,475 ($37,800) $675 $675 N/A 

I–901 F/M ................................................. 200 290 60 350 150 75 

I–901 J-Full .............................................. 180 123 97 220 30 22 

I–901 J-Partial .......................................... 35 123 (88) 35 0 0 

I–17 Initial Certification ............................ 1,700 4,600 (1,600) 3,000 1,300 76 

I–17 Recertification .................................. N/A 6,000 (4,750) 1,250 1,250 N/A 

Site Visit—initial ....................................... 655 650 5 655 0 0 

Site Visit—new location ........................... 0 650 5 655 655 N/A 

Table 17 reflects the break-even 

analysis based on the proposed fee 

schedule and the proportional fee 

volumes (rounded) required to generate 

sufficient revenue to offset projected 

program costs. 

TABLE 17—PROJECTED REVENUE—FY 2019 AND FY 2020 

Fee category Proposed 

fee amount 

Forecasted 

volume 

Forecasted 

revenue 

I–901 F/M Full .............................................................................................................................. $350 826,326 $289,214,144 

I–901 J-Full .................................................................................................................................. 210 311,162 68,455,584 

I–901 J-Partial .............................................................................................................................. 35 317,890 11,126,150 

I–901 Subtotal: 

Certification Fee ................................................................................................................... 3,000 852 2,556,000 

Recertification Fee ................................................................................................................ 1,250 8,746 10,932,500 

Site Visit ................................................................................................................................ 655 1,200 786,000 

I–17 Subtotal: 

Appeals ................................................................................................................................. 675 108 72,900 

Total ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,466,284 383,143,278 

VI. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

13771: Regulatory Review 

Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’) and 13563 

(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’) direct agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health, and safety 

effects; distributive impacts; and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. Executive Order 

13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) directs 

agencies to reduce regulation and 

control regulatory costs and provides 

that ‘‘for every one new regulation 

issued, at least two prior regulations be 

identified for elimination, and that the 

cost of planned regulations be prudently 

managed and controlled through a 

budgeting process.’’ 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has designated this rule a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ although 

not economically significant under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed 

by OMB. This proposed rule would 

impose transfer payments between the 

public and the government. Thus, this 

proposed rule is not expected to be 

subject to the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. An initial regulatory 

analysis follows. 

1. Background and Purpose of the 

Proposed Rule 

SEVP is a fee funded program within 

ICE that provides oversight of schools 

and nonimmigrant students in the F and 

M visa category. SEVP uses SEVIS to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33779 

monitor and track certified schools and 

F, M, and J nonimmigrant students. DoS 

also uses SEVIS in the management of 

the Exchange Visitor Program for 

nonimmigrant exchange visitors in the J 

visa category. SEVIS is a web-based 

system administered by SEVP that 

retains data on international students 

and exchange visitors in the country. 

SEVP uses SEVIS to ensure accurate 

reporting and recordkeeping by schools 

and exchange visitor programs. SEVP 

also uses SEVIS to identify for 

enforcement action student and 

exchange visitors who are out of status. 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to generate the necessary revenue to 

recover the full cost of the FY 2019 and 

FY 2020 budgets. SEVP is authorized to 

recover the full cost of all resources and 

services provided. The costs of SEVP 

activities have increased, and the fees 

collected no longer cover the costs. The 

fee increase is needed to meet long-term 

cash flow needs and achieve solvency. 

SEVP projects an annual budget of 

$186.6 million in FY 2019 and $188.4 

million in FY 2020. SEVP forecasts 

$121.6 million in revenue for FY 2019 

and FY 2020 without a fee change. The 

implementation of this proposed rule 

would provide SEVP with additional fee 

revenue of $75.2 million in FY 2019 and 

$73.5 million in FY 2020. If DHS does 

not adjust the current fees to recover the 

costs of processing the enrollment of F 

and M students, certification and 

recertification of schools, processing 

relating to J exchange visitors, appeals, 

and site visits, it will be forced to make 

reductions in oversight, security, and 

service as compared to current 

projections. 

To determine the full cost associated 

with SEVP and the management of 

SEVIS, SEVP used ABC methodology. 

ABC first identifies activities in an 

organization and then assigns the cost of 

each activity according to the resources 

they consume. SEVP identified the 

following as its primary activities: 

Collecting and retaining information on 

F, M, and J nonimmigrants; certifying 

schools; overseeing school compliance; 

recertifying schools; adjudicating 

appeals; investigating suspected 

violations of immigration law and other 

potential threats to national security by 

F, M, or J nonimmigrants; providing 

outreach and education to users; and 

performing regulatory and policy 

analysis. SEVP also recognizes 

management and overhead costs 

associated with the program. 

SEVP proposes five fees paid by two 

source categories: Individuals will pay 

the I–901 SEVIS fee, and institutions 

will pay the I–17 certification fee, I–17 

recertification fee, the fee for a motion 

or appeal, and the site visit fee. By 

tracing expenditures of the activities 

previously listed to the various fee 

categories, SEVP forecasted fee 

payments to determine the appropriate 

fee amount for each fee type proposed 

in this rule. 

Table 18 presents an accounting 

statement summarizing the annualized 

transfer amounts and qualitative 

benefits of the proposed rule. This rule 

proposes that schools will pay a higher 

fee for initial SEVP certification and 

will incur a fee for recertification, a site 

visit when adding a new physical 

location or campus, and the filing of a 

motion or appeal. In addition, F and M 

students and J visitors will pay higher 

fees. 

TABLE 18—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT FOR FY 2019 

Category Primary estimate 

Qualitative Benefits .............. SEVP will be able to maintain the current level of service. This proposed rule will enhance SEVP’s capability to 

support national security and counter immigration fraud through the continued development and implementation 

of critical system and programmatic enhancements. Enhancements to SEVIS, including the establishment of a 

student portal, will assist DSOs in their regulatory obligation to provide accurate and timely information and rebalance this reporting requirement by providing students an automated means to do so. Increased adjudication 

personnel will assist in reducing recertification processing times, while enhanced vetting protocols will ensure 

that only those eligible to enter and remain in the country do so 

Transfers .............................. 7% Discount Rate $75,231,420 from schools and students to the government 

3% Discount Rate $75,231,420 from schools and students to the government 

Category Effects Source 

Effects on State, local, and/or tribal government.The proposed rule would increase and establish additional fees on state, 

local, and/or tribal government-funded educational institutions for support 

of SEVP operations. This rule proposes to increase the I–17 certification 

fee and creates the I–17 recertification fee and a fee for filing an appeal 

or motion. In addition, this rule announces that following completion of 

this rulemaking, SEVP will collect a site visit fee when an SEVP-certified 

school adds a campus/location.

NPRM, Executive 

Order 12866 analysis 

Effects on small businesses ........................ The proposed rule would increase and establish additional fees for educational institutions in support of SEVP operations. This proposed rule 

would increase the I–17 certification fee and create the I–17 recertification fee and a fee for filing an appeal or motion. In addition, this rule 

announces that following the completion of this rulemaking, SEVP will 

collect a site visit fee when a school certified by SEVP adds a campus/ 

location.

Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

2. Impacts of Regulatory Change 

This proposed rule would amend the 

current fees for the individual student 

and exchange visitor application fee (I– 

901 SEVIS fee) and school certification 

petition for initial certification. It would 

maintain the current fee for site visits 

and extend it to any change of location 

or additional physical location or 

campus reported as an update by a 

certified school. It would also institute 

a new fee for school recertification 

petitions and the filing of appeals and 

motions by schools. The amended fee 

structure reflects existing and projected 

operating costs, program requirements, 

and planned program improvements. 

The current I–901 SEVIS fees are 

based on a fee analysis performed when 

SEVP last increased the fees in 2008. 

See 73 FR 55683. Those cost 

calculations were established on the 

basis of projected workload. Since 2008, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33780 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

12See Department of State, Exchange Visitor 

Program Category Requirements (June 2016), 

available at https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2017/06/Exchange-Visitor-ProgramCategory-Requirements.pdf (last visited Feb. 26, 2018). 

SEVP’s program mission tasks have 

expanded significantly. The expansions 

of certification, recertification, and 

appeals costs and the subsidization of 

excess costs not recovered by fees have 

led to the need for the proposed fee 

increase. Additionally, SEVP now 

provides investigative analysis to 

support enforcement operations, has 

increased numbers of adjudication 

personnel, and is undergoing SEVIS 

Modernization. Concurrently, costs 

associated with these program tasks 

have been affected by increased costs 

due to inflation. This rule proposes fees 

that would result in recovery of the full 

cost of SEVP operations with feegenerated revenue; alignment of the fees 

with current and projected costs and 

processes that have been adjusted as the 

program has gained experience and 

sophistication; and the agency’s 

adoption of more detailed and accurate 

data sources and improved management 

tools to align resources and workload. 

a. I–901 F and M SEVIS Fee 

F nonimmigrants, as defined in INA 

section 101(a)(15)(F), 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(F), are foreign students who 

come to the United States to pursue a 

full course of academic study in SEVPapproved schools and their dependents. 

M nonimmigrants, as defined in INA 

section 101(a)(15)(M), 8 

U.S.C.1101(a)(15)(M), are foreign 

nationals pursuing a full course of study 

at an SEVP-certified vocational or other 

recognized nonacademic program (other 

than language training programs) in the 

United States and their dependents. 

International F and M nonimmigrant 

students seeking temporary admission 

into the United States to attend a U.S. 

educational institution must pay the I– 

901 F and M SEVIS fee. SEVP proposes 

to increase the I–901 F and M SEVIS fee 

from $200 to $350. 

From 2007 through 2017, SEVP 

received an average of 450,581 I–901 F 

and M SEVIS payments per year. Table 

19 shows the volume of I–901 F and M 

SEVIS fee payments received and the 

annual average number of fee payments 

from 2007 to 2017. As previously 

discussed, SEVP has forecasted 418,393 

I–901 F and M payments in FY 2019 

and 407,933 FY 2020, respectively. 

TABLE 19—1–901 F AND M SEVIS 

FEE PAYMENTS FYS 2010–2017 

Fiscal year Fee payments 

2007 ...................................... 358,666 

2008 ...................................... 400,090 

2009 ...................................... 348,815 

2010 ...................................... 389,255 

2011 ...................................... 431,180 

2012 ...................................... 449,029 

2013 ...................................... 469,986 

2014 ...................................... 519,751 

2015 ...................................... 574,158 

2016 ...................................... 545,203 

2017 ...................................... 470,261 

Annual Average (2007–2017) 450,581 

Forecasted 2019 ...................

Forecasted 2020 ................... 418,393 

407,933 

Table 20 illustrates the incremental 

increase DHS is proposing with this rule 

for the I–901 F and M fee. Individuals 

who submit a Form I–901 will pay an 

additional $150 under this proposed 

rule, which is a 75 percent increase. 

TABLE 20—I–901 F AND M INCREMENTAL FEE INCREASE

Type Current fee Proposed fee 

Difference 

(proposed¥ 

current) 

I–901 F and M ............................................................................................................................. $200 $350 $150 

SEVP estimates that the fee increase 

would result in an annual increase of 

transfer payment from students who 

submit an I–901 form to the government 

of approximately $62 million per year 

($150 increase × 418,393 FY 2019 

number of applicants = $62,758,950; 

$150 increase × 407,933 FY2020 number 

of applicants = $61,189,950). 

b. I–901 J-Full SEVIS Fee 

DoS generally oversees the exchange 

visitor program, which includes 

nonimmigrants who are charged the full 

J SEVIS fee. J exchange visitors are 

nonimmigrant individuals approved to 

participate in an exchange visitor 

program in the United States and the 

spouse and dependents of the exchange 

visitors. This SEVIS fee is associated 

with J–1 nonimmigrants participating in 

a designated exchange visitor program. 

Certain other J–1 categories are subject 

to a reduced fee or are exempt from a 

fee in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1372(e). 

SEVP and DoS have a memorandum of 

reimbursable agreement. DoS sends 

SEVP its actual expenditures, and SEVP 

reimburses them quarterly. Each year, 

SEVP and DoS review and update the 

memorandum. Table 21 displays the 

affected Exchange Visitor Program 

categories subject to the full SEVIS fee 

and the purpose of the visit.12

TABLE 21—J–1 EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM CATEGORIES SUBJECT TO FULL SEVIS FEE

Exchange visitor program category Purpose of visit 

Short-term Scholar .......................... Lecture, observe, consult, training, demonstrate special skills. 

Professor and Research Scholar .... Research Scholar: Research, observe, or consult in connection with a research project. 

Professor: Teach or lecture at university, observe, or consult. 

Physician ......................................... Pursue graduate medical education or training at accredited schools of medicine or scientific institutions. 

Intern ............................................... Structured internship program that is in the student’s field of study. 

Trainee ............................................ Structured training program that is in the trainee’s professional field. 

Specialist ......................................... Observing, consulting, or demonstrating special skills. 

Teacher ........................................... Teach full-time in an accredited primary, including pre- kindergarten, or secondary (K–12) public or private 

school. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33781 

TABLE 21—J–1 EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM CATEGORIES SUBJECT TO FULL SEVIS FEE—Continued 

Exchange visitor program category Purpose of visit 

Secondary School Student ............. Study in the U.S. at accredited public or private secondary schools for an academic semester or an academic year, while living with American host families. 

College and University Student ...... Participate in a degree or nondegree program at an accredited postsecondary academic institution, or participate in a student internship program. 

Government visitor (non-Federal) ... Engage in observation tours, discussions, consultations, professional meetings, conferences, workshops 

and travel when selected by a state or local government agency. 

SEVP receives an average of 151,958 

I–901 Full J SEVIS payments per year 

(FYs 2007–2017). Table 22 displays the 

volume of Full I–901 J SEVIS fee 

payments received and the annual 

average number of fee payments. SEVP 

has forecasted 157,550 I–901 J-Full 

payments in FY 2019 and 153,611 in FY 

2020. 

TABLE 22—I–901 J-FULL SEVIS FEE

PAYMENTS FYS 2010–2017 

Fiscal year Fee payments 

2007 ...................................... 132,213 

2008 ...................................... 137,173 

2009 ...................................... 129,979 

2010 ...................................... 139,534 

2011 ...................................... 148,253 

2012 ...................................... 155,008 

2013 ...................................... 160,522 

2014 ...................................... 172,530 

2015 ...................................... 168,967 

2016 ...................................... 164,401 

2017 ...................................... 162,959 

TABLE 22—I–901 J-FULL SEVIS FEE

PAYMENTS FYS 2010–2017—Continued 

Fiscal year Fee payments 

Average (2007–2017) ........... 151,958 

Forecasted 2019 ................... 157,550 

Forecasted 2020 ................... 153,611 

The difference between the proposed 

and current fees for the I–901 J-Full 

applicants is $40, an increase of 

approximately 22 percent, as shown in 

Table 23. 

TABLE 23—I–901 J-FULL INCREMENTAL FEE

Type Current fee Proposed fee 

Difference 

(proposed¥ 

current) 

I–901 J-Full .................................................................................................................................. $180 $220 $40 

The total increase in transfer 

payments from I–901 J-Full applicants 

to the government is expected to be 

$12,446,440 ($40 increase in fee × 

157,550 FY 2019 and 153,611 FY 2020 

forecasted number of applicants). The 

increase in J fees is meant to recover the 

full cost of J program operations for 

SEVP, which includes the 

reimbursement to DoS, SEVIS costs, and 

other adjudication services for J 

exchange visitors. For the purposes of 

calculating fees, SEVP isolates the costs 

specifically incurred by operating the J 

visa program. As it stands, the J visa 

program operates at a greater cost than 

the revenue that J visa fees bring to the 

program; therefore, SEVP proposes an 

increase to the J-Full visa to cover the 

$39.4 million full cost of operating the 

J visa program on an annual basis. 

c. I–17 Certification and Recertification 

Fee 

For a U.S. school to enroll F and M 

nonimmigrant students, it is required to 

be certified by SEVP. A school petitions 

for SEVP certification to enroll these 

students by completing and submitting 

Form I–17, ‘‘Petition for Approval of 

School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant 

Student,’’ online through SEVIS. 

All SEVP-certified schools are 

required to go through the 

recertification process every 2 years to 

ensure they remain qualified for 

certification and adhere to all 

requirements according to the 

regulations. 

From FY 2012 to 2016, there has been 

an annual average of 423 schools 

applying for SEVP certification. As 

previously discussed, DHS calculated 

the 3-year moving average to minimize 

the variation in forecasting the 

population data. The I–17 Initial 

certifications from FYs 2012 through 

2016 are shown in Table 24. 

TABLE 24—FYS 2012–2016 I–17 

INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS

Fiscal year 

I–17 

certification 

petitions 

3-Year 

moving 

average 

2012 .......... 457 ........................

2013 .......... 382 ........................

2014 .......... 446 428 

2015 .......... 469 432 

2016 .......... 363 426 

Total ... 2,117 ........................

SEVP uses the 3-year moving average 

to predict that there will be 426 initial 

certifications in both FY 2019 and FY 

2020, respectively. 

There are currently 8,746 SEVPcertified schools. DHS assumes that 

approximately half, or approximately 

4,373 schools, will recertify each year, 

including the 1,728 schools with no 

active F or M students. DHS assumes 

that a school would prefer to recertify 

for a $1,250 fee instead of allowing 

certification to lapse and thereafter 

having to again pay the proposed initial 

certification fee of $3,000. The proposed 

initial certification fee is a 76 percent 

increase from the current fee. 

The current fee to apply for initial 

certification is $1,700, which has not 

changed since 2008. SEVP does not 

currently charge a recertification fee; the 

proposed fee amount is $1,250. The I– 

17 initial certification and I–17 

recertification incremental fees are 

shown in Table 25. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33782 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

13USCIS I–290B, ‘‘Notice of Appeal or Motion,’’ 

Filing Fee of $675, https://www.uscis.gov/i-290b. 

TABLE 25—I–17 INCREMENTAL FEES

Type Proposed fee Current fee 

Difference 

(proposed¥ 

current) 

I–17 Initial Certification Fee ......................................................................................................... $3,000 $1,700 $1,300 

I–17 Recertification Fee ............................................................................................................... 1,250 0 1,250 

The annual increase in transfer 

payments from schools to the 

government from I–17 initial 

certifications is expected to be $553,800 

($1,300 increase in fee × 426 (FY 19 and 

FY 20 forecasted number of I–17 initial 

certifications)). The annual increase in 

transfer payments from schools to the 

government for I–17 recertification is 

expected to be $5,466,250 ($1,250 

increase in fee × 4,373 (FY 2019 and FY 

2020 forecasted number of 

recertifications)). 

d. Fee for Motion or Appeal 

When a school is denied certification 

or recertification, the school receives a 

denial letter through certified mail. The 

denial letter explains the reason for the 

denial and the steps to appeal. The 

school can appeal by completing the 

Form I–290B, ‘‘Notice of Appeal or 

Motion,’’ within 30 days of receipt. This 

rule proposes that SEVP impose a filing 

fee of $675, which is also the fee 

currently charged by USCIS upon 

submission of the Form I–290B.13 SEVP 

does not currently collect a fee from a 

school that files a motion or appeal. 

DHS proposes to revise its regulations to 

institute this fee for a school filing a 

motion or an appeal in order to establish 

a more equitable distribution of costs, 

improve services by decreasing an 

appeals or motions throughput time and 

a more sustainable level of cost recovery 

relative to the services provided. 

SEVP processed an average of 54 

motions and appeals from schools 

annually from 2013 to 2016. DHS 

assumes that there will be the same 

number of appeals or motions filed in 

FY 2019 and FY 2020. 

The total annual increase in transfer 

payments from schools to the 

government for filing a motion or appeal 

is expected to be $36,450 ($675 fee × 54 

(FY 2019 and FY 2020 forecasted 

number of fee payments)). 

e. Site Visit Fee 

As noted above, current regulations 

provide authority for SEVP to charge a 

site visit fee to schools that apply for 

initial certification or report a change of 

physical location, or addition of a 

physical location or campus. The site 

visit allows SEVP an opportunity to 

gather evidence on the school’s 

eligibility, review school facilities, and 

interview personnel listed on the I–17 

petition as a PDSO or DSO. SEVP 

currently collects the $655 fee when a 

school files a petition for certification to 

issue Forms I–20 or by a certified school 

when it physically moves to a new 

location. This proposed rule notifies the 

public that following completion of this 

rulemaking, SEVP plans to also collect 

the fee from any certified school that 

adds a physical location or campus, by 

updating its Form I–17 in SEVIS, 

consistent with the above authorities 

and the agency’s longstanding 

interpretation. 

SEVP performs 600 site visits 

annually. Of these 600 visits, 426 will 

be at schools that apply for initial 

certification and currently pay the $655 

site visit fee. The remaining 174 site 

visits may include visits when a school 

adds a new physical location or campus. 

DHS proposes that the site visit fee 

amount, $655, remain the same. 

The annual increase in transfer 

payments from schools to the 

government due to site visits is expected 

to be $113,970 ($655 fee × 174 (FY 2019 

and FY 2020 forecasted number of site 

visits)). 

f. Conclusion 

SEVP expects to have a total increase 

in fees of $68.7 million per year, 

discounted at 7 percent, transferred 

from individuals and entities for the 

services they receive, to the government. 

Table 26 shows the summary of the total 

annual number of payments, 

incremental fee amounts, and total fees 

transferred. 

TABLE 26—ANNUAL PROPOSED INCREMENTAL FEE AMOUNTS, FY 2019 

Annual 

number of 

payments 

Proposed 

incremental 

fee amounts 

Annual fee 

transfer to 

government 

I–901 F and M ............................................................................................................................. 418,393 $150 $62,758,950 

I–901 J-Full .................................................................................................................................. 157,550 40 6,302,000 

I–17 Initial Certification ................................................................................................................ 426 1,300 553,800 

I–17 Recertification ...................................................................................................................... 4,373 1,250 5,466,250 

Site Visits—initial ......................................................................................................................... 426 0 0 

Site Visits—new location ............................................................................................................. 174 655 113,970 

Appeals ........................................................................................................................................ 54 675 36,450 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 75,231,420 

3. Alternatives 

SEVP examined several alternatives to 

the proposed fee structure, including no 

increase to any fee, only increasing the 

I–901 SEVIS fee and I–17 fee, and the 

unsubsidized results of the ABC model. 

Without an increase in fees, SEVP 

will be unable to maintain the level of 

service for students and schools that it 

currently provides as well as the 

compliance and national security 

activities discussed above. SEVP 

considered the alternative of 

maintaining fees at the current level but 

with reduced services and increased 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33783 

processing times, but has decided that 

this would not be in the best interest of 

applicants and schools. SEVP seeks to 

minimize the impact on all parties, but 

in particular small entities. If SEVP 

followed this alternative scenario, there 

would be a shortfall of revenue of over 

$65.4 million in FY 2019 to cover 

expenses. SEVP rejected this alternative. 

SEVP must pay for the expenses of 

maintaining and improving SEVIS and 

adjudicating schools applying to be 

certified by SEVP in a timely manner. 

SEVP also considered raising only the 

I–901 and I–17 certification fees instead 

of including a new proposed fee for 

recertification and for filing a motion or 

appeal. If SEVP followed this scenario, 

the I–901 F and M fee would increase 

to $350 to cover the shortfall in revenue, 

but the I–17 Initial Certification fee 

would also increase to $4,200. This 

would triple the existing certification 

fee while allowing schools with zero 

foreign students to remain active SEVP 

schools that require SEVP effort for 

recertification. SEVP rejected this fee 

structure as it would continue to add 

workload to SEVP’s recertification 

branch. Without any disincentive to 

recertify, the list of schools recertifying 

would likely continue to grow. The 

proposed fees, however, would establish 

a more equitable distribution of costs 

and a more sustainable level of cost 

recovery relative to the services 

provided. 

SEVP also considered the 

unsubsidized results of the ABC model 

as an alternative, which allocated the I– 

901 F and M fee, school certification 

fees, and the fee to file an appeal or 

motion as shown in Table 27. 

TABLE 27—UNSUBSIDIZED FEE

AMOUNTS

Fee type Unsubsidized 

fee amounts 

I–901 F and M ...................... $290 

I–901 J-Full ........................... 130 

I–901 J-Partial ...................... 130 

I–17 Initial Certification ......... 4,600 

I–17 Recertification ............... 6,000 

Appeal or Motion .................. 38,475 

Site Visit ................................ 650 

SEVP rejected this alternative for 

several reasons. Most conspicuously, 

the fee to file a motion or appeal filed 

on the USCIS-managed Form I–290B has 

been set at $675. Since a fee of $38,475 

would be significantly higher than any 

other SEVP fee it may improperly 

discourage schools from filing a motion 

or appeal. Similarly, SEVP rejected the 

alternative to set the recertification fee 

at the ABC model output amount of 

$6,000. A recertification fee higher than 

the initial certification fee would 

discourage schools from seeking 

recertification. SEVP instead proposes 

to set the recertification fee at a level is 

less than the initial certification fee. 

When schools can maintain their 

certification, F and M nonimmigrant 

students enrolled in the withdrawn 

school avoid complications such as 

being forced to transfer schools, leave 

the United States, or risk facing 

immigration law penalties for violating 

the terms of their nonimmigrant status. 

SEVP also rejected the initial 

certification fee of $4,600 because it 

finds that an increase of almost three 

times the current fee of $1,700 is 

excessive. In the fee development, DHS 

balanced the challenge of minimizing 

the costs to schools and students while 

recovering funding to support SEVP 

services. The population of I–901 F and 

M students relative to the population of 

I–17 schools allows for a minimal fee 

adjustment to be spread over the student 

population to reduce the cost burden on 

individual institutions seeking 

recertification. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

at 5 U.S.C. 603 requires DHS to consider 

the economic impact its proposed rules 

will have on small entities. In 

accordance with the RFA, DHS has 

prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that 

examines the impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities. The term ‘‘small 

entities’’ encompasses small businesses, 

not-for-profit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of fewer than 50,000. 

DHS requests information and data 

from the public that would assist in 

better understanding the impact of this 

proposed rule on small entities. DHS 

also seeks alternatives that will 

accomplish the same objectives and 

minimize the proposed rule’s economic 

impact on small entities. 

1. A Description of the Reasons Why the 

Action by the Agency Is Being 

Considered 

DHS proposes this rule to adjust 

current fees and introduce new fees to 

ensure that SEVP is able to recover the 

full costs of the management and 

support of its program activities. DHS’s 

objectives and legal authority for this 

proposed rule are further discussed 

throughout this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM). 

2. A Succinct Statement of the 

Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule 

The objective of the proposed rule is 

to prevent an anticipated funding deficit 

in operating the SEVP. More 

specifically, this proposed rule would 

increase the SEVP funding stream by 

adjusting the I–901 F and M fee, I–901 

J-Full fee, and I–17 Certification fee and 

instituting the I–17 Recertification fee 

and a fee for filing a motion or appeal. 

This proposed rule would also 

announce the collection of a site visit 

fee when an SEVP-certified school adds 

a new physical location or campus, at 

which it provides educational services 

to nonimmigrant students. The funding 

supports continuing operations and new 

initiatives critical to SEVP oversight of 

schools and the monitoring of 

nonimmigrant students in the F, M, and 

J visa classifications for national 

security purposes. 

The legal basis for this proposed rule 

increasing the SEVP funding stream is 

grounded in the Homeland Security Act 

of 2002, which created DHS and 

imparted upon DHS the responsibility 

for SEVIS. DHS uses SEVIS to meet the 

monitoring and verification 

requirements under EBSVERA, Public 

Law 107–173, secs. 501–502, 116 Stat. 

543, 560–63 (2002) (codified at 8 U.S.C. 

1761–1762), and to conduct a 

recertification of schools every 2 years 

following the date of EBSVERA’s 

enactment. The Secretary of Homeland 

Security is authorized to collect fees for 

SEVP from prospective F and M 

students and J exchange visitors. IIRIRA 

section 641(e)(1), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 

1372(e)(1). Initially, fees for most groups 

of F, M, and J classes of prospective 

nonimmigrants were statutorily limited 

to not exceed $100, except in the case 

of the fee for special J visa categories— 

au pairs, camp counselors, and 

participants in summer work travel 

programs—which was set at $35 

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A). This 

fee level has been maintained consistent 

with Congressional intent. The 

Secretary is authorized to revise 

nonimmigrant fees on a periodic basis to 

account for changes in the cost of 

executing SEVP. IIRIRA section 

641(g)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1372(g)(2). In 

addition, INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 

1356(m), provides that DHS may set fees 

‘‘at a level that will ensure recovery of 

the full costs of providing [adjudication] 

services.’’ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33784 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

14Prior to October 1, 2016, schools had two 

options in SEVIS to select their school type: Public 

or private unspecified. With the recent SEVIS 

update, schools can only choose one of three 

options: Public, private for-profit, or private 

nonprofit. 

15The random sample helps ensure an accurate 

representation of the population with each school 

having an equal chance of being included. In 

determining the sample size DHS utilized a 90 

percent confidence level (z-score), 10 percent 

margin of error (e), and a 50 percent population 

proportion (p) used as an unknown input and to 

maximize the estimate to overestimate sample size. 

The sample size equation used n = z2p(1¥p)/e2

provided inputs 1.652(.5)(.5)/.01 = 69 and rounded 

up to 100 to over sample. DHS identified 

geographic population data matched to the school’s 

city address provided in SEVIS, sourced from U.S. 

Census Bureau 2010–2016 Cities and Towns 

(Incorporated Places and Minor Civil Divisions) at 

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/ 

popest/total-cities-and-towns.html. 

16U.S. Small Business Administration, Tables of 

Small Business Size Standards Matched to NAICS 

Codes (Oct. 1, 2017), available at https://

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_

Standards_Table_2017.xlsx. 

3. A Description—and, Where Feasible, 

an Estimate of the Number—of Small 

Entities to Which the Proposed Rule 

Will Apply 

This analysis does not apply to 

increases in the I–901 F and M fees 

because these fees are paid by 

individuals who are not, for purposes of 

the RFA, within the definition of small 

entities established by 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

DHS believes that J fees are also paid by 

individuals and requests comment on 

this assumption. 

As of May 2017, there were a total of 

8,746 SEVP-certified schools that would 

be subject to the I–17 recertification fee, 

site visit fee, and fee to file a motion or 

an appeal. New schools applying for 

SEVP certification would be subject to 

the proposed I–17 initial certification 

fee. Of the 8,746 SEVP-certified schools, 

2,013 have identified as public schools 

on their I–17 form. The remaining 6,733 

schools have identified themselves on 

the Form I–17 as private for-profit, 

private nonprofit, or private unspecified 

entities.14

Of the 2,013 SEVP-certified public 

schools, DHS conducted a random 

sample of 100 15 schools to approximate 

the number of public schools in a 

governmental jurisdiction with a 

population of less than 50,000. Out of 

the 100 public schools, 62, or 62 

percent, are located in a city with a 

population fewer than 50,000. DHS 

infers 1,248 SEVP-certified public 

schools are considered a small entity as 

defined by SBA. 

DHS conservatively assumes that all 

1,507 private nonprofit schools certified 

by SEVP are small entities because they 

are not dominant in their fields. DHS 

also assumes that the 4,755 schools that 

are private unspecified are small 

entities. DHS requests comments on 

these assumptions. 

To determine which of the remaining 

471 private for-profit schools are 

considered a small entity, DHS 

references the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards 

represented by business average annual 

receipts. Receipts are generally defined 

as a firm’s total income or gross income. 

SBA’s Table of Small Business Size 

Standards is matched to the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) for industries.16 DHS 

matches information provided by the 

schools in SEVIS regarding what 

programs of study it is engaged in with 

an appropriate NAICS industry 

description. NAICS is the standard 

classification used to categorize 

business establishments for the purpose 

of collecting, analyzing, and publishing 

statistical data related to the U.S. 

economy. 

DHS finds that the revenue of 332 of 

the 471 private, for-profit schools meet 

the SBA size standard of a small 

business according to their industry. 

DHS estimates each private school’s 

annual receipts by multiplying the 

approximate annual cost of room, board, 

and tuition by the average annual 

number of total students, based on data 

provided by the schools on their Forms 

I–17. Every 2 years, as part of the 

recertification process, a school submits 

the approximate annual cost of room, 

board, and tuition per student and the 

average annual number of total students, 

both domestic and international. DHS 

acknowledges that this method to 

estimate receipts may be an incomplete 

account of a school’s income, which 

may also include contributions from 

private individuals or other 

endowments. Since these data reflect a 

snapshot of all SEVP-certified schools as 

of May 24, 2017, DHS acknowledges 

there may be day-to-day changes in the 

status of a school’s certification and that 

a school’s revenue may differ from 

actual revenue due to a 2-year lag in 

school self-reporting before a school is 

required to recertify. 

Given these assumptions, DHS 

estimates that 7,842 schools meet the 

SBA definition of a small entity. This is 

approximately 90 percent of the 8,746 of 

SEVP-certified schools included in this 

analysis. 

Table 28 shows a summary by school 

type of the number of SEVP-certified 

schools and estimated small entities. 

TABLE 28—SEVP-CERTIFIED SCHOOLS BY SCHOOL TYPE

Description Total Small entities 

Public Schools ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,013 1,248 

Private, nonprofit schools ........................................................................................................................................ 1,507 1,507 

Private, unspecified schools .................................................................................................................................... 4,755 4,755 

Private, for-profit schools ......................................................................................................................................... 471 332 

Total Number of SEVP-Certified Schools ........................................................................................................ 8,746 7,842 

Table 29 provides a summary of the 

SEVP-certified schools by industry. The 

table also shows the NAICS industry 

description, the NAICS code, and the 

number of small and large schools by 

industry. Note that the number of small 

schools includes all nonprofits and 

unspecified private schools. Most 

industries with SEVP-certified schools 

consist of a majority of small schools. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33785 

TABLE 29—NUMBER OF SEVP-CERTIFIED SCHOOLS BY INDUSTRY

School industry NAICS industry description NAICS codes Number of 

small schools 

Number of 

non-small 

schools 

Total SEVPcertified 

schools 

Percent 

small 

schools 

Elementary and Secondary Schools.Industry primarily engaged in providing academic 

courses and related course work that contain a 

basic preparatory education. A basic preparatory 

education generally starts kindergarten through 

12th grade.

611110 3,472 18 3,490 99 

Junior Colleges ............... Industry primarily engaged in providing academic 

or technical courses and granting associate degrees, certificates, or diplomas below the baccalaureate level.

611210 11 2 13 85 

Colleges, Universities, 

and Professional 

Schools.

Industry primarily engaged in providing academic 

courses and granting degrees at baccalaureate 

or graduate levels. The requirement for admission is at least a high school diploma or equivalent general academic training.

611310 2,150 57 2,207 97 

Computer Training .......... Industry primarily engaged in providing computer 

training (except computer repair), such as computer programming, software packages, computerized business systems, computer electronics 

technology, computer operations, and local area 

network management.

611420 13 0 13 100 

Professional and Management Development 

Training.

Industry primarily engaged in providing a collection 

of short interval courses and sessions for management and professional development. Training 

for career development may be provided directly 

to individuals or through employers’ training programs, and courses may be customized or 

modified to meet the special needs of customers.

611430 18 0 18 100 

Cosmetology and Barber 

Schools.

Industry primarily engaged in providing training in 

hair styling, barbering, or cosmetic arts, such as 

makeup or skin care.

611511 91 3 94 97 

Flight Training ................. Industry primarily engaged in providing aviation 

and flight training.

611512 199 1 200 100 

Apprenticeship Training .. Industry primarily engaged in providing apprenticeship training programs.611513 39 1 40 98 

Other Technical and 

Trade Schools.

Industry primarily engaged in providing job or career vocational or technical courses (except cosmetology and barber training, aviation and flight 

training, and apprenticeship training).

611519 183 6 189 97 

Fine Arts Schools ............ Establishments primarily engaged in offering instruction in the arts, including dance, art, drama, 

and music.

611610 79 3 82 96 

Sports and Recreation Instruction.Industry primarily contains institutions such as 

camps and schools, primarily engaged in providing instruction in athletic activities to groups 

of individuals.

611620 10 0 10 100 

Language Schools .......... Industry primarily engaged in providing foreign language instruction (including sign language).611630 286 44 330 87 

Exam Preparation and 

Tutoring.

Industry primarily engaged in providing training for 

standardized examinations and/or educational 

tutoring services.

611691 8 4 12 67 

All Other Misc. Schools 

and Instruction.

Industry primarily engaged in providing instruction 

(except academic schools, colleges and universities, business, computer, management, technical, trade, fine arts, athletic, language instruction, tutoring, and automobile driving instruction).

611699 32 0 32 100 

Educational Support 

Services.

Industry primarily engaged in providing non-instructional services that support educational 

processes or systems.

611710 2 0 2 100 

Public Schools (Elementary, Secondary, and 

High School).

Industry primarily engaged in providing academic 

courses and related course work that contain a 

basic public education.

N/A 1,248 765 2,013 62 

Total ......................... .................................................................................. ........................ 7,842 904 8,746 90 

Table 30 presents the type of schools 

with active F and M students and the 

percent of students enrolled in small 

schools. Most F and M students are 

enrolled at small schools. Of the 8,746 

SEVP-certified schools, DHS identified 

1,728 with no active F or M students 

and determined that 1,296 of these are 

considered small entities as defined by 

SBA. Note that although there are two 

SEVP-certified schools in the education 

support services industry (shown in 

Table 29), there are no active F and M 

students in these schools. DHS applies 

the results of the sample of SEVPcertified public schools to the number of 

students in SEVP-certified public 

schools (619,295) to estimate that the 

number of students in small SEVPcertified public schools is 383,963. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33786 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

17Available at https://www.census.gov/govs/ 

local/. 

TABLE 30—TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTIVE F AND M STUDENTS BY INDUSTRY

School industry 

Total active 

F and M 

students in 

small schools 

Total active 

F and M 

students 

Percent of 

students 

at small 

schools 

Elementary and Secondary Schools ........................................................................................... 60,990 63,491 96 

Junior Colleges ............................................................................................................................ 409 418 98 

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools ....................................................................... 419,593 429,784 98 

Computer Training ....................................................................................................................... 404 404 100 

Professional and Management Development Training ............................................................... 217 217 100 

Cosmetology and Barber Schools ............................................................................................... 91 93 98 

Flight Training .............................................................................................................................. 6,598 6,605 100 

Apprenticeship Training ............................................................................................................... 71 75 95 

Other Technical and Trade Schools ............................................................................................ 1,108 1,111 100 

Fine Arts Schools ........................................................................................................................ 1,736 2,030 86 

Sports and Recreation Instruction ............................................................................................... 13 13 100 

Language Schools ....................................................................................................................... 33,500 41,867 80 

Exam Preparation and Tutoring .................................................................................................. 1,469 1,984 74 

All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ........................................................................ 218 218 100 

Educational Support Services ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 0 

Public Schools ............................................................................................................................. 383,963 619,295 62 

DHS estimated SEVP-certified public 

schools’ revenue to examine the impact 

of the proposed fee adjustments on 

small public schools. The tuition 

provided by public schools in SEVIS 

may not represent a public school’s total 

revenue because most of the U.S. 

students would generally not pay the 

tuition provided to attend public 

schools. Instead, DHS assumes that a 

public school’s county or city’s tax 

revenue is the best revenue source 

against which to assess the impact of the 

proposed fee adjustments. DHS 

collected local government revenue, 

expenditure, debt, and assets from the 

U.S. Census Bureau 2015 State and 

Local Government Survey 17 to examine 

the impact of the increased fees on the 

public schools included in the sample. 

A county or city’s revenue may be an 

overestimation of a public school’s 

capability to pay the fees related to 

SEVP-certification, appeals, or site visits 

for new locations. This revenue 

approximation may minimize the 

impact of the fee adjustments for public 

schools. DHS requests comments on 

these assumptions. 

Table 31 displays the range of annual 

revenue by each school industry and for 

public schools, from the small school 

with the lowest revenue to the median 

revenue of all the small schools to the 

small school with the largest revenue. It 

also shows the average revenue of all 

the small schools in that industry. The 

Colleges, Universities, and Professional 

Schools industry has the widest range 

from maximum to minimum revenue 

due to the assumption that all private, 

unspecified schools are small entities, 

while the Educational Support Services 

industry that only has two schools 

included has the smallest range of 

maximum to minimum revenue for any 

one industry. 

TABLE 31—RANGE OF ANNUAL REVENUE BY SCHOOL INDUSTRY

School industry Lowest annual 

revenue 

Median annual 

revenue 

Largest annual 

revenue 

Average 

annual 

revenue 

Elementary and Secondary Schools ........................................................... $28,800 $5,116,550 $1,680,000,000 $13,194,355 

Junior Colleges ............................................................................................ 44,400 2,560,000 15,255,000 4,271,901 

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools ....................................... 26,400 28,432,500 5,002,524,120 96,761,518 

Computer Training ....................................................................................... 425,000 3,000,000 14,000,000 3,881,631 

Professional and Management Development Training ............................... 129,600 717,500 2,904,625 1,000,423 

Cosmetology and Barber Schools ............................................................... 70,000 2,183,000 66,907,200 4,092,673 

Flight Training .............................................................................................. 36,000 3,000,000 60,000,000 5,959,154 

Apprenticeship Training ............................................................................... 132,000 10,265,875 106,080,000 21,004,563 

Other Technical and Trade Schools ............................................................ 64,000 2,800,000 82,800,000 7,570,939 

Fine Arts Schools ........................................................................................ 66,000 2,895,000 130,000,000 9,425,304 

Sports and Recreation Instruction ............................................................... 276,800 1,165,000 9,312,500 2,626,805 

Language Schools ....................................................................................... 118,500 5,725,000 108,000,000 7,514,433 

Exam Preparation and Tutoring .................................................................. 3,150,000 5,043,189 27,000,000 6,983,297 

All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ........................................ 83,250 845,000 469,050,000 18,359,767 

Educational Support Services ..................................................................... 340,000 521,750 703,500 521,750 

Public Schools ............................................................................................. 4,389,000 192,353,500 17,833,251,000 1,315,830,548 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33787 

4. A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of 

the Classes of Small Entities That Will 

Be Subject to the Requirement and the 

Types of Professional Skills Necessary 

for Preparation of the Report or Record 

The proposed rule would increase 

and establish additional fees for 

educational institutions in support of 

SEVP operations. DHS estimates the 

annual impact to small schools based on 

the school cost of compliance as 

represented as a percentage of their 

annual revenue. Table 32 displays the 

proposed fees, the current fees, and the 

difference in these amounts. This 

analysis examines the impact that the 

proposed incremental fee for the Form 

I–17 certification and the proposed fees 

for recertification, site visits to add a 

new physical location or campus, and 

the filing of a motion or an appeal 

would have on small SEVP-certified 

schools. 

TABLE 32—PROPOSED SCHOOL FEES BY TYPE

Fee type Proposed fee Current fee 

Difference 

(proposed¥ 

current) 

Percent 

increase 

I–17 Certification Fee ...................................................................................... $3,000 $1,700 $1,300 76 

I–17 Recertification Fee ................................................................................... 1,250 0 1,250 N/A 

Site Visit Fee—initial ........................................................................................ 655 655 0 0 

Site Visit Fee—new location ............................................................................ 655 0 655 N/A 

Motion or Appeal Fee ...................................................................................... 675 0 675 N/A 

I–17 Certification Fee 

A school files a petition and pays a 

certification fee to become eligible to 

issue the Form I–20, ‘‘Certificate of 

Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student 

Status,’’ to prospective international 

students after admitting them for a 

course of study. Certification also 

authorizes the school to enroll 

international students after they enter 

the country on an F or M student visa. 

Schools must initially go through the 

vetting process for authorization by DHS 

to enroll F and/or M nonimmigrant 

students and pay the I–17 certification 

fee, which is currently $1,700 and 

proposed to increase to $3,000. The 

incremental fee is the difference 

between the proposed fee ($3,000) and 

current fee ($1,700), or $1,300. From 

2012 to 2016, DHS processed 2,117 I–17 

petitions and payments. Out of the 

2,117 schools, 1,151, or 54 percent, were 

identified as meeting the SBA definition 

of a small school, or estimated to be a 

small public school based on the sample 

conducted, as illustrated in Table 33. 

TABLE 33—I–17 INITIAL CERTIFICATIONS FYS 2012–2016 

Fiscal year 

Total I–17 

initial 

certifications 

Small school 

I–17 initial 

certifications 

Percent of 

small school 

I–17 initial 

certifications 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 457 236 52 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 382 218 57 

2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 446 270 60 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 469 260 55 

2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 363 167 46 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 2,117 1,151 54 

2014–2016 3-year annual average ............................................................................... 426 232 55 

SEVP forecasted the total I–17 initial 

certifications in FY 2019 and FY 2020 

to be 426 using the 3-year annual 

average of FY 2014 through 2016 initial 

certifications. Using that same 

methodology, 232 small schools applied 

for initial I–17 certification on average 

each year. DHS assumes the growth of 

small schools per industry seeking 

SEVP certification will remain constant 

in the future. DHS multiplied the 

annual average number of small schools 

applying for initial certification by the 

percent of small schools in each 

industry, as presented in Table 29. This 

calculation yields the number of small 

schools expected to petition for initial I– 

17 certification by industry. The results 

are presented in Table 34. 

TABLE 34—EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF SMALL SCHOOLS TO INITIALLY CERTIFY BY SCHOOL INDUSTRY

School industry 

Annual number 

of small schools 

applying for initial 

certification 

Elementary and Secondary Schools ............................................................................................................................................... 103 

Junior Colleges ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0 

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools ........................................................................................................................... 64 

Computer Training ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

Professional and Management Development Training ................................................................................................................... 1 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33788 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

18 7,842 × 50 percent = 3,921 small schools 

recertifying each year. 

TABLE 34—EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF SMALL SCHOOLS TO INITIALLY CERTIFY BY SCHOOL INDUSTRY—Continued 

School industry 

Annual number 

of small schools 

applying for initial 

certification 

Cosmetology and Barber Schools ................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Flight Training .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 

Apprenticeship Training ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Other Technical and Trade Schools ................................................................................................................................................ 5 

Fine Arts Schools ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 

Sports and Recreation Instruction ................................................................................................................................................... 0 

Language Schools ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 

Exam Preparation and Tutoring ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 

All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ............................................................................................................................ 1 

Educational Support Services ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 

Public Schools ................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 

Total Small Schools .................................................................................................................................................................. 232 

This analysis examines the impact the 

$1,300 incremental fee has on small 

schools that might seek initial 

certification after the final rule is 

effective. DHS assumes that the range of 

revenue of the small schools that will 

apply for certification is similar to the 

range of revenue of current SEVPcertified small schools and uses this 

range to show the potential impacts. 

Table 35 shows the impact as a 

percentage for the schools with the 

lowest annual revenue, median annual 

revenue, and largest annual revenue, as 

well as the average annual revenue for 

all schools in that industry. From these 

results, DHS does not expect the I–17 

certification incremental fee to have an 

impact greater than 1 percent on the 

average small school annual revenue. 

However, there is an expected impact 

greater than 1 percent for some small 

schools with the lowest annual revenue 

in their industry. On average the 

estimated 194 small schools that apply 

for initial I–17 certification annually 

and pay an incremental fee of $1,300 

will experience an impact of less than 

1 percent of their estimated annual 

revenue. 

TABLE 35—INITIAL CERTIFICATION FEE IMPACT FOR SMALL SCHOOLS BY TYPE OF SCHOOL

Type of school 

I–17 initial 

certification 

incremental 

fee impact on 

the school with 

the lowest 

revenue 

(percent) 

I–17 initial 

certification 

incremental 

fee impact on 

the school with 

the median 

revenue 

(percent) 

I–17 initial 

certification 

incremental 

fee impact on 

the school 

with the 

largest 

revenue 

(percent) 

I–17 initial 

certification 

incremental 

fee impact on 

the average 

school 

revenue 

(percent) 

Elementary and Secondary Schools ............................................................... 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.01 

Junior Colleges ................................................................................................ 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.03

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools ........................................... 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 

Computer Training ........................................................................................... 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.03 

Professional and Management Development Training ................................... 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.13 

Cosmetology and Barber Schools ................................................................... 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.03 

Flight Training .................................................................................................. 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.02 

Apprenticeship Training ................................................................................... 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 

Other Technical and Trade Schools ................................................................ 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 

Fine Arts Schools ............................................................................................ 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 

Sports and Recreation Instruction ................................................................... 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.05 

Language Schools ........................................................................................... 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.02 

Exam Preparation and Tutoring ...................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 

All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ............................................ 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.01 

Educational Support Services ......................................................................... 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.25 

Public Schools ................................................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

I–17 Recertification Fee 

SEVP-certified schools are required to 

file for recertification every 2 years to 

demonstrate that they have complied 

with all recordkeeping, retention, 

reporting, and other requirements when 

registering F and M students. There is 

currently no fee charged to schools for 

recertification, but this proposed rule 

establishes a new fee for that process. 

To measure the impact on small 

schools, DHS first estimated the number 

of small schools that will recertify. DHS 

assumes 50 percent (4,373) of the total 

number of schools in this analysis 

(8,746) will recertify each year. DHS 

multiplies the recertification rate of 50 

percent by the total number of small 

schools to generate the estimation that 

3,921 18 small schools will recertify 

annually. DHS examined all 7,842 small 

SEVP-certified schools to determine the 

impact of the recertification fee, as it is 

assumed that a significant number of the 

schools will pursue recertification 

within the next 2 years. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33789 

DHS assumes that the total number of 

SEVP-certified schools will remain 

static as new schools become certified 

and other schools withdraw 

certification. DHS therefore assumes 

that the annual increase of total 

recertifications will be zero. 

As previously discussed, DHS 

identified 1,296 SBA-defined small 

schools with no active F or M 

international students. DHS included 

these schools in this analysis and 

assumes they will opt to pay the 

recertification fee of $1,250 rather than 

reapplying for initial certification with a 

proposed fee of $3,000 at such time in 

the future that they enroll F or M 

students. 

Table 36 illustrates the number of 

small schools that will recertify by 

industry and the I–17 recertification 

incremental fee impact as a percent of 

the small school’s annual revenue. From 

these findings, of the 7,842 small 

schools expected to apply for 

recertification and pay the proposed fee 

of $1,250, 50 schools, or 0.6 percent, 

will experience an impact greater than 

1 percent but less than 3 percent of the 

school’s annual revenue. For the 

remaining schools, DHS does not expect 

the incremental fee to have an impact of 

greater than 1 percent. 

TABLE 36—RECERTIFICATION FEE IMPACT FOR SMALL SCHOOLS BY TYPE OF SCHOOL

School industry 0%<Impact≤1% 1%<Impact≤2% 2%<Impact<3% Total 

Elementary and Secondary Schools ........................................................... 3,458 7 7 3,472 

Junior Colleges ............................................................................................ 10 0 1 11 

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools ....................................... 2,135 12 4 2,150 

Computer Training ....................................................................................... 13 0 0 13 

Professional and Management Development Training ............................... 18 0 0 18 

Cosmetology and Barber Schools ............................................................... 89 2 0 91 

Flight Training .............................................................................................. 196 1 2 199 

Apprenticeship Training ............................................................................... 39 0 0 39 

Other Technical and Trade Schools ............................................................ 175 8 0 183 

Fine Arts Schools ......................................................................................... 76 3 0 79 

Sports and Recreation Instruction ............................................................... 10 0 0 10 

Language Schools ....................................................................................... 285 1 0 286 

Exam Preparation and Tutoring ................................................................... 8 0 0 8 

All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ........................................ 30 2 0 32 

Educational Support Services ...................................................................... 2 0 0 2 

Public Schools ............................................................................................. 1,248 0 0 1,248 

Total Small Schools .............................................................................. 7,792 36 14 7,842 

Site Visit Fee 

Current regulations provide authority 

for SEVP to charge a site visit fee to 

schools that apply for initial 

certification or add a new physical 

location or campus. The site visit allows 

SEVP an opportunity to gather evidence 

on the school’s eligibility, review school 

facilities, and interview personnel listed 

on the I–17 petition as a PDSO or DSO. 

SEVP currently collects the $655 fee 

when a school files a petition for 

certification to issue Forms I–20 or by 

a certified school when it physically 

moves to a new location. This proposed 

rule notifies the public that SEVP plans 

to collect the fee from any certified 

school that adds a new campus or 

physical location by updating its Form 

I–17 in SEVIS, consistent with 8 CFR 

214.3(h)(3) and the agency’s description 

when it established the fee in 2008 that 

such a fee could apply to such an initial 

event. 73 FR 55683, 55691. 

SEVP performs 600 site visits 

annually. Of these site visits, 426 would 

be performed as part of the forecasted 

initial certifications, leaving the 

capacity for 174 site visits to be 

performed when a school adds a 

campus. In order to estimate the impact 

on a school’s revenue of the proposed 

charging of the site visit fee for a new 

instructional campus, DHS assumes that 

any of the currently SEVP-certified 

schools could add a campus and require 

a site visit. Table 37 shows the proposed 

site visit fee impact on estimated annual 

revenue for all 7,842 small schools 

certified by SEVP and the type of 

school. Of the total 7,842 small schools, 

7,827, or 99.8 percent, would have a site 

visit fee impact of less than or equal to 

1 percent of their annual revenue. 

Twelve small schools, or 0.2 percent of 

small schools, would have an impact of 

greater than 1 percent but less than or 

equal to 2 percent of their annual 

revenue. Three small schools would 

have a site visit fee impact greater than 

2 percent but less than 3 percent of their 

annual revenue. 

TABLE 37—SITE VISIT FEE IMPACT ON ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE

Type of school 0%<Impact≤1% 1%<Impact≤2% 2%<Impact<3% Total 

Elementary and Secondary Schools ........................................................... 3,465 5 2 3,472 

Junior Colleges ............................................................................................ 10 1 0 11 

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools ....................................... 2,146 3 1 2,150 

Computer Training ....................................................................................... 13 0 0 13 

Professional and Management Development Training ............................... 18 0 0 18 

Cosmetology and Barber Schools ............................................................... 91 0 0 91 

Flight Training .............................................................................................. 197 2 0 199 

Apprenticeship Training ............................................................................... 39 0 0 39 

Other Technical and Trade Schools ............................................................ 182 1 0 183 

Fine Arts Schools ......................................................................................... 79 0 0 79 

Sports and Recreation Instruction ............................................................... 10 0 0 10 

Language Schools ....................................................................................... 286 0 0 286 

Exam Preparation and Tutoring ................................................................... 8 0 0 8 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33790 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

19USCIS, I–290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 

Filing Fee, https://www.uscis.gov/i-290b. 

TABLE 37—SITE VISIT FEE IMPACT ON ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE—Continued 

Type of school 0%<Impact≤1% 1%<Impact≤2% 2%<Impact<3% Total 

All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ........................................ 32 0 0 32 

Educational Support Services ...................................................................... 2 0 0 2 

Public Schools ............................................................................................. 1,248 0 0 1,248 

Total Small Schools .............................................................................. 7,827 12 3 7,842 

Fee To File an Appeal or Motion 

When a school is denied certification 

or recertification, the school receives a 

denial letter through certified mail. The 

denial letter explains the reason for the 

denial and the steps to appeal. The 

school can appeal by completing the 

Form I–290B, ‘‘Notice of Appeal or 

Motion,’’ within 30 days of receipt. This 

rule proposes that SEVP impose a $675 

filing fee for submission of the Form I– 

290B.19 Currently no fee is imposed 

when a school submits the Form I–290B 

for a motion or appeal. 

DHS processed 215 motions and 

appeals from schools from 2013 to 2016. 

Out of the 215 school motions and 

appeals, DHS determined that 74, or 

34.4 percent, were filed by small 

schools. Among the 74 small schools, 4 

had 2 appeals within the same year or 

over the 4-year period. During the 4-year 

period, there was an average of 19 

appeals and motions filed by small 

schools annually. 

DHS examined all 7,842 small schools 

to estimate the impact of the proposed 

appeal and motion fee on estimated 

annual revenue. The impact is 

calculated by dividing the fee to file a 

motion or appeal by the school’s 

estimated annual revenue. Of the 7,842 

SEVP-certified small schools, 7,826, or 

99.8 percent, would experience an 

impact less than or equal to 1 percent 

of their estimated annual revenue were 

the school to file an appeal or motion. 

DHS estimates 13 small schools, or 0.2 

percent, would realize an impact 

between 1 percent and 2 percent of their 

estimated annual revenue. In addition, 

three small schools, or 0.04 percent, 

would experience an impact greater 

than 2 percent but less than 3 percent 

of estimated annual revenue. Table 38 

shows the number of small schools 

within the range of impact to each 

school’s estimated annual revenue. 

TABLE 38—APPEAL AND MOTION FEE IMPACT ON ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE

Type of school 0%<Impact≤1% 1%<Impact≤2% 2%<Impact<3% Total 

Elementary and Secondary Schools ........................................................... 3,465 5 2 3,472 

Junior Colleges ............................................................................................ 10 1 0 11 

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools ....................................... 2,146 3 1 2,150 

Computer Training ....................................................................................... 13 0 0 13 

Professional and Management Development Training ............................... 18 0 0 18 

Cosmetology and Barber Schools ............................................................... 91 0 0 91 

Flight Training .............................................................................................. 197 2 0 199 

Apprenticeship Training ............................................................................... 39 0 0 39 

Other Technical and Trade Schools ............................................................ 182 1 0 183 

Fine Arts Schools ......................................................................................... 78 1 0 79 

Sports and Recreation Instruction ............................................................... 10 0 0 10 

Language Schools ....................................................................................... 286 0 0 286 

Exam Preparation and Tutoring ................................................................... 8 0 0 8 

All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ........................................ 32 0 0 32 

Educational Support Services ...................................................................... 2 0 0 2 

Public Schools ............................................................................................. 1,248 0 0 1,248 

Total Small Schools .............................................................................. 7,826 13 3 7,842 

The potential total impact on small 

entities in any year can be determined 

by examining scenarios in which a 

school may pay more than one of the 

proposed adjustments in fees in the 

same year. DHS examines the following 

scenarios and determines that the 

impact on any small school’s revenue is 

less than three percent on any school 

industry type: (1) A school appeals an 

initial certification or (2) a school 

appeals a recertification and adds a new 

location requiring a site visit. 

A school may pay the initial 

certification fee and then it may appeal 

the results of the initial certification 

within the same year. DHS proposes 

that this would be an increase of $1,975 

($1,300 incremental fee for I–17 initial 

certification plus $675 fee for an 

appeal). More than 98 percent of schools 

would be impacted less than one 

percent in this scenario, as shown in 

Table 39. The impacts of this scenario 

would be greater than the impacts of 

scenario where a school appeals a 

recertification, which would add to 

$1,925 in increased fees ($1,250 I–17 

recertification fee plus $675 for an 

appeal). 

TABLE 39—IMPACT OF INITIAL CERTIFICATION FEE INCREASE PLUS AN APPEAL FEE

Type of school 0%<Impact≤1% 1%<Impact≤2% 2%<Impact<3% Total 

Elementary and Secondary Schools ........................................................... 3,440 21 11 3,472 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33791 

TABLE 39—IMPACT OF INITIAL CERTIFICATION FEE INCREASE PLUS AN APPEAL FEE—Continued 

Type of school 0%<Impact≤1% 1%<Impact≤2% 2%<Impact<3% Total 

Junior Colleges ............................................................................................ 10 0 1 11 

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools ....................................... 2,126 15 10 2,151 

Computer Training ....................................................................................... 13 0 0 13 

Professional and Management Development Training ............................... 15 3 0 18 

Cosmetology and Barber Schools ............................................................... 89 1 1 91 

Flight Training .............................................................................................. 192 4 3 199 

Apprenticeship Training ............................................................................... 37 2 0 39 

Other Technical and Trade Schools ............................................................ 171 9 3 183 

Fine Arts Schools ......................................................................................... 74 2 3 79 

Sports and Recreation Instruction ............................................................... 10 0 0 10 

Language Schools ....................................................................................... 282 4 0 286 

Exam Preparation and Tutoring ................................................................... 8 0 0 8 

All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ........................................ 26 4 2 32 

Educational Support Services ...................................................................... 2 0 0 2 

Public Schools ............................................................................................. 1,248 0 0 1,248 

Total Small Schools .............................................................................. 7,743 64 35 7,842 

A school may seek recertification in 

the same year it adds a new physical 

location or campus that requires a site 

visit and then it may appeal the findings 

of a recertification. A recertification fee 

would not include a site visit to a new 

location. DHS proposes that this would 

be an increase of $2,580 ($1,250 I–17 

recertification fee plus $655 for a site 

visit at a new location plus $675 for an 

appeal). Under this scenario, the impact 

on small schools’ revenue would be less 

than one percent for all but 139 small 

schools. The impact on these 139 

schools’ revenues would be less than 

three percent as shown in Table 40. 

TABLE 40—IMPACT OF RECERTIFICATION FEE PLUS A SITE VISIT—NEW LOCATION FEE PLUS AN APPEAL FEE

Type of school 0%<Impact≤1% 1%<Impact≤2% 2%<Impact<3% Total 

Elementary and Secondary Schools ........................................................... 3,426 28 18 3,472 

Junior Colleges ............................................................................................ 10 0 1 11 

Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools ....................................... 2,110 24 17 2,151 

Computer Training ....................................................................................... 13 0 0 13 

Professional and Management Development Training ............................... 15 3 0 18 

Cosmetology and Barber Schools ............................................................... 87 2 2 91 

Flight Training .............................................................................................. 191 5 3 199 

Apprenticeship Training ............................................................................... 37 2 0 39 

Other Technical and Trade Schools ............................................................ 167 8 8 183 

Fine Arts Schools ......................................................................................... 74 2 3 79 

Sports and Recreation Instruction ............................................................... 10 0 0 10 

Language Schools ....................................................................................... 279 6 1 286 

Exam Preparation and Tutoring ................................................................... 8 0 0 8 

All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction ........................................ 26 4 2 32 

Educational Support Services ...................................................................... 2 0 0 2 

Public Schools ............................................................................................. 1,248 0 0 1,248 

Total Small Schools .............................................................................. 7,703 84 55 7,842 

5. An Identification, to the Extent 

Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 

Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or 

Conflict With the Proposed Rule 

DHS is unaware of any relevant 

Federal fee rule that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the proposed 

rule. 

6. A Description of Any Significant 

Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

Which Accomplish the Stated 

Objectives of Applicable Statutes and 

Minimize Any Significant Economic 

Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small 

Entities 

SEVP examined several alternatives to 

the proposed fee structure, including no 

increase to any fee, only increasing the 

I–901 SEVIS fee and I–17 fee, and not 

subsidizing the school fees with the I– 

901 F and M fees. 

Without an increase in fees, SEVP 

will be unable to maintain the level of 

service for students and schools that it 

currently provides as well as the 

compliance and national security 

activities discussed above. SEVP 

considered the alternative of 

maintaining fees at the current level but 

with reduced services and increased 

processing times, but has decided that 

this would not be in the best interest of 

applicants and schools. SEVP seeks to 

minimize the impact on all parties, but 

in particular small entities. SEVP must 

pay for the expenses of maintaining and 

improving SEVIS and adjudicating 

schools in a timely manner. If SEVP 

followed this alternative scenario, there 

would be a shortfall of revenue to cover 

the expenses of over $65.4 million in FY 

2019. SEVP rejected this alternative, as 

SEVP must pay for the expenses of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33792 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

maintaining and improving SEVIS and 

certifying and recertifying schools in a 

timely manner. 

SEVP also considered only raising the 

I–901 and I–17 certification fees instead 

of including new proposed fees for 

recertification and for filing a motion or 

appeal. If SEVP followed this scenario, 

the I–901 F and M fee would increase 

to $350 to cover the shortfall in revenue, 

but the I–17 Initial Certification fee 

would also increase to $4,200. This 

would triple the existing certification 

fee while continuing to allow schools 

with no foreign students to remain 

active SEVP schools that require SEVP 

effort for recertification. SEVP rejected 

this fee structure as it would continue 

to add workload to SEVP’s 

recertification branch. Without a 

disincentive to not recertify, the list of 

schools recertifying would never stop 

growing. SEVP rejected this alternative 

because the proposed fees would 

establish a more equitable distribution 

of costs and a more sustainable level of 

cost recovery relative to the services 

provided as compared to this 

alternative. 

SEVP also considered the results of 

the ABC model as an alternative, which 

allocated the I–901 F and M fee, school 

certification fees, and the fee to file an 

appeal or motion as shown in Table 41. 

TABLE 41—UNSUBSIDIZED FEE

AMOUNTS

Fee type Unsubsidized 

fee amounts 

I–901 F and M ...................... $290 

I–901 J-Full ........................... 130 

I–901 J-Partial ...................... 130 

I–17 Initial Certification ......... 4,600 

I–17 Recertification ............... 6,000 

Appeal or Motion .................. 38,475 

Site Visit ................................ 650 

SEVP rejected this alternative for 

several reasons. Setting the fee at 

$38,475 may discourage schools from 

filing a motion or appeal. 

Similarly, SEVP rejected the 

alternative of setting the recertification 

fee at $6,000. A recertification fee higher 

than the initial certification fee would 

discourage schools from seeking 

recertification. 

SEVP instead proposes to set the 

recertification fee at a level is less than 

the initial certification fee. When 

schools can maintain their certification, 

F and M nonimmigrant students 

enrolled in the withdrawn school avoid 

complications such as being forced to 

transfer schools, leave the United States, 

or risk facing immigration law penalties 

for violating the terms of their 

nonimmigrant status. 

SEVP also rejected the initial 

certification fee of $4,600 because it 

finds that an increase of almost three 

times the current fee of $1,700 is 

excessive. In the fee development, DHS 

balanced the challenge of minimizing 

the costs to schools and students while 

recovering funding to support SEVP 

services. The population of I–901 F and 

M students relative to the population of 

I–17 schools allows for a minimal fee 

adjustment to be spread over the student 

population to reduce the cost burden on 

individual institutions seeking 

recertification. DHS requests comment 

on the impacts on small entities of the 

unsubsidized fee amounts, impacts on 

small entities of the proposed fee 

amounts, and other ways in which DHS 

could modify the proposed rule to 

reduce burdens for small entities or 

better ensure that the burdens on small 

entities, individuals, and others subject 

to the rule are appropriately distributed. 

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, 109 

Stat. 48 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), requires federal agencies to assess 

the effects of their discretionary 

regulatory actions. In particular, UMRA 

addresses actions that may result in the 

expenditure by a State, local, or tribal 

government in the aggregate or by the 

private sector of $100 million (adjusted 

for inflation) or more in any 1 year. 2 

U.S.C. 1532(a). Though this rule would 

not result in such an expenditure, DHS 

does discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. In addition, 

DHS maintains that this rulemaking is 

not a ‘‘Federal mandate,’’ as defined for 

UMRA purposes, 2 U.S.C. 658(6), as the 

payment of an SEVP certification fee by 

individuals, local governments, or other 

private sector entities is (to the extent it 

could be termed an enforceable duty) 

one that arises from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program (i.e., 

applying for status as F–1, F–3, M–1, or 

M–3 students or as a J–1 exchange 

visitor in the United States or seeking 

approval from the United States for 

attendance by certain aliens seeking 

status as F–1, F–3, or M–1 students). 2 

U.S.C. 658(7)(A)(ii). For these reasons, 

no additional actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

UMRA. 

D. Congressional Review Act 

This rulemaking is not a major rule, 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes 

of congressional review of agency 

rulemaking pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, Public Law 

104–121, sec. 251, 110 Stat. 868, 873 

(codified at 5 U.S.C. 804). This 

rulemaking would 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 

the ability of U.S.-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based companies 

in domestic and export markets. If 

implemented as proposed, DHS will 

submit to Congress and the Comptroller 

General of the United States a report 

about the issuance of the final rule prior 

to its effective date, as required by 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1). 

E. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

Pursuant to Section 213(a) of the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 

121, 110 Stat. 847, 858–59, DHS wants 

to assist small entities in understanding 

this proposed rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects and participate 

in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule 

would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult ICE using 

the contact information provided in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has 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. DHS has 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and has determined that it does 

not have implications for federalism. 

G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and 

reduce burden. 

H. Energy Effects 

DHS has analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. DHS has 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 but is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 33793 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

I. Environment 

The U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive (MD) 

023–01 Rev. 01 establishes procedures 

that DHS and its Components use to 

comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), Public Law 91–190, 83 Stat. 

852 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321–4375), 

and the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations for 

implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 

through 1508. CEQ regulations allow 

federal agencies to establish categories 

of actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment and, therefore, 

do not require an Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact 

Statement. 40 CFR 1508.4. The MD 023– 

01 Rev. 01 lists the Categorical 

Exclusions that DHS has found to have 

no such effect. MD 023–01 Rev. 01, 

Appendix A, Table 1. 

For an action to be categorically 

excluded, MD 023–01 Rev. 01 requires 

the action to satisfy each of the 

following three conditions: 

(1) The entire action clearly fits 

within one or more of the Categorical 

Exclusions. 

(2) The action is not a piece of a larger 

action. 

(3) No extraordinary circumstances 

exist that create the potential for a 

significant environmental effect. MD 

023–01 Rev. 01 section V.B(1)–(3). 

Where it may be unclear whether the 

action meets these conditions, MD 023– 

01 Rev. 01 requires the administrative 

record to reflect consideration of these 

conditions. MD 023–01 Rev. 01 section 

V.B. 

DHS has analyzed this proposed rule 

under MD 023–01 Rev. 01. DHS has 

made a preliminary determination that 

this action is one of a category of actions 

that do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This proposed rule clearly 

fits within the Categorical Exclusion 

found in MD 023–01 Rev. 01, Appendix 

A, Table 1, number A3(a): 

‘‘Promulgation of rules . . . of a strictly 

administrative or procedural nature’’; 

and A3(d): ‘‘Promulgation of rules . . . 

that interpret or amend an existing 

regulation without changing its 

environmental effect.’’ This proposed 

rule is not part of a larger action. This 

proposed rule presents no extraordinary 

circumstances creating the potential for 

significant environmental effects. 

Therefore, this proposed rule is 

categorically excluded from further 

NEPA review. 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

All Departments are required to 

submit to OMB for review and approval 

any reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements inherent in a rule under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat. 163 

(codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Schools use SEVIS to petition for 

recertification. The recertification 

process requires schools to input data in 

SEVIS, print the Form I–17, and sign the 

form. The electronic data captured for 

the Form I–17 have been previously 

approved for use by OMB as one 

component of the data that are captured 

in SEVIS. The OMB Control Number for 

this collection is 1653–0038 (previously 

1615–0066 before being transferred from 

USCIS to ICE). With the regulatory 

implementation of SEVIS (67 FR 60107, 

Sept. 25, 2002), most schools enrolled in 

SEVIS were petitioning for DHS 

recertification, rather than initial 

certification (i.e., enrolling F or M 

nonimmigrant students for the first 

time). The workload for both 

certification and recertification was 

included under OMB 1615–0066. 

The changes to the certification and 

recertification fees, as well as the I–901 

fees, would require changes to SEVIS 

and the I–901 software to reflect the 

updated fee amounts, as these systems 

generate the pertinent petition and 

application forms. DHS would submit a 

revision to OMB with respect to any 

changes to existing information 

collection approvals. 

DHS’s institution of the fee for a 

motion or appeal with regard to a denial 

of school certification or recertification, 

or a withdrawal of such certification, 

would not require a form amendment to 

reflect the charging of the fee. The 

instructions associated with the Form I– 

290B, which schools can currently use 

for such motions and appeals, contain 

information regarding the use associated 

with Form I–17 decisions and the $675 

fee. 

List of Subjects 

8 CFR Part 103 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Authority delegations 

(Government agencies), Freedom of 

Information, Immigration, Privacy, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Surety bonds. 

8 CFR Part 214 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Employment, 

Foreign officials, Health professions, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Students. 

The Proposed Amendments 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of Homeland 

Security proposes to amend 8 CFR parts 

103 and 214 of Chapter I of Title 8 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 103—IMMIGRATION BENEFITS; 

BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS; 

AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 103 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 

U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 1356, 1365b; 31 

U.S.C. 9701; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 

(6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 

15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR part 

2; Pub. L. 112–54. 

■ 2. Amend § 103.7 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(B) and (H) and 

adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(O) to read as 

follows: 

§ 103.7 Fees. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) Petition for Approval of School for 

Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student 

(Form I–17). For filing a petition for 

school certification: $3,000, plus: 

(1) A site visit fee of $655 for each 

location required to be listed on the 

form,, and 

(2) For filing a petition for school 

recertification: $1,250. 

* * * * * 

(H) Fee Remittance for Certain F, J, 

and M Nonimmigrants (Form I–901). 

The fee for Form I–901 is: 

(1) For F and M students: $350. 

(2) For J–1 au pairs, camp counselors, 

and participants in a summer work or 

travel program: $35. 

(3) For all other J exchange visitors 

(except those participating in a program 

sponsored by the Federal Government): 

$220. 

(4) There is no Form I–901 fee for J 

exchange visitors in federally funded 

programs with a program identifier 

designation prefix that begins with G–1, 

G–2, G–3, or G–7. 

* * * * * 

(O) Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 

I–290B) filed with ICE SEVP. For a Form 

I–290B ‘‘Notice of Appeal or Motion,’’ 

filed with the Student and Exchange 

Visitor Program (SEVP): $675. 

* * * * * 

PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 214 

is revised to read as follows: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4
33794 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 

1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 

1221, 1281, 1282, 1301–1305, and 1372; 

section 643, Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009– 

708; Pub. L. 106–386, 114 Stat. 1477–1480; 

section 141 of the Compacts of Free 

Association with the Federated States of 

Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 

48 U.S.C. 1901 note, and 1931 note, 

respectively, 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2. 

■ 4. Amend § 214.3 by revising 

paragraph (h)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 214.3 Approval of schools for enrollment 

of F and M nonimmigrants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(2) Recertification. Schools are 

required to file a completed petition for 

SEVP recertification before the school’s 

certification expiration date, which is 2 

years from the date of their previous 

SEVP certification or recertification 

expiration date. The school must submit 

the proper nonrefundable recertification 

petition fee as provided in 8 CFR 

103.7(b)(1)(ii)(B). SEVP will review a 

petitioning school’s compliance with 

the recordkeeping, retention, and 

reporting, and other requirements of 

paragraphs (f), (g), (j), (k), and (l) of this 

section, as well as continued eligibility 

for certification, pursuant to paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section. 

■ 5. Amend § 214.4 by revising the 

heading and paragraphs (a)(1) and (h) to 

read as follows: 

§ 214.4 Denial of certification, denial of 

recertification, or withdrawal of SEVP 

certification. 

(a) General—(1) Denial of 

certification. The petitioning school will 

be notified of the reasons and its appeal 

rights if a petition for certification is 

denied, in accordance with the 

provisions of 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(iii). A 

petitioning school denied certification 

may file a new petition for certification 

at any time. 

* * * * * 

(h) Appeals. A school may file an 

appeal of a denial or withdrawal no 

later than 15 days after the service of the 

decision by ICE. The appeal must state 

the reasons and grounds for contesting 

the denial or withdrawal of the 

approval. The appeal must be 

accompanied by the fee as provided in 

8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(ii)(O). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 214.13 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 214.13 SEVIS fee for certain F, J, and M 

nonimmigrants. 

(a) Applicability. The following aliens 

are required to submit a payment in the 

amount indicated for their status to the 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program 

(SEVP) in advance of obtaining 

nonimmigrant status as an F or M 

student or J exchange visitor, in 

addition to any other applicable fees, 

except as otherwise provided for in this 

section: 

(1) An alien who applies for F–1 or F– 

3 status in order to enroll in a program 

of study at an SEVP-certified institution 

of higher education, as defined in 

section 101(a) of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965, as amended, or in a 

program of study at any other SEVPcertified academic or language training 

institution, including private 

elementary and secondary schools and 

public secondary schools, the amount of 

$350; 

(2) An alien who applies for J–1 status 

in order to commence participation in 

an exchange visitor program designated 

by the Department of State (DoS), the 

amount of $210, with a reduced fee for 

certain exchange visitor categories as 

provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of 

this section; and 

(3) An alien who applies for M–1 or 

M–3 status in order to enroll in a 

program of study at an SEVP-certified 

vocational educational institution, 

including a flight school, in the amount 

of $350. 

* * * * * 

Claire M. Grady, 

Deputy Secretary (Acting). 

[FR Doc. 2018–15140 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–28–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS4