This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

18907 

Vol. 77, No. 61 

Thursday, March 29, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Parts 22 and 42 

[Public Notice 7835] 

RIN 1400–AD06 

Schedule of Fees for Consular 

Services, Department of State and 

Overseas Embassies and Consulates 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consular Affairs, 

Department of State. 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends the 

Schedule of Fees for consular services 

(Schedule) for nonimmigrant visa 

application processing fees, border 

crossing card application processing 

fees and immigrant visa application 

processing fees. The rule increases from 

$140 to $160 the fee charged for the 

processing of an application for most 

non-petition-based nonimmigrant visas 

(Machine-Readable Visas or MRVs) and 

Border Crossing Cards (BCCs) for 

Mexican citizens age 15 and over. The 

rule also provides amended application 

processing fees for certain categories of 

petition-based nonimmigrant visas and 

treaty trader and investor visas (all of 

which are also MRVs), as well as 

amended tiered application processing 

fees for immigrant visas. Finally, the 

rule increases from $14 to $15 the BCC 

fee charged to Mexican citizen minors 

who apply in Mexico, and whose parent 

or guardian already has a BCC or is 

applying for one, based on a 

Congressionally mandated surcharge 

that took effect since the last adjustment 

to the Schedule of Fees. The Department 

of State is adjusting the fees to ensure 

that sufficient resources are available to 

meet the costs of providing consular 

services in light of the recent fee 

review’s findings that the U.S. 

government is not fully covering its 

costs for the processing of these visas 

under the current fee structure. 

DATES: This interim final rule becomes 

effective April 13, 2012. Written 

comments must be received on or before 

May 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

contact the Department by any of the 

following methods: 

• Persons with access to the Internet 

may view this notice and submit 

comments by going to the 

regulations.gov Web site at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov and searching on 

the RIN number, 1400–AD06. 

• Mail (paper, disk, or CD–ROM): 

U.S. Department of State, Office of the 

Comptroller, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 

Suite H1004, 2401 E Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20520. 

• Email: fees@state.gov. You must 

include the RIN (1400–AD06) in the 

subject line of your message. 

• All comments should include the 

commenter’s name, the organization the 

commenter represents, if applicable, 

and the commenter’s address. If the 

Department is unable to read your 

comment for any reason, and cannot 

contact you for clarification, the 

Department may not be able to consider 

your comment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Special Assistant, Office of the 

Comptroller, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 

Department of State; phone: 202–663– 

1576, telefax: 202–663–2526; email: 

fees@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The interim final rule makes changes 

to the Schedule of Fees for consular 

services of the Department of State’s 

Bureau of Consular Affairs. The 

Department sets and collects its fees 

based on the concept of full cost 

recovery. The Department completed its 

most recent review of current consular 

fees and will implement several changes 

to the Schedule of Fees based on the 

new fees calculated by the Cost of 

Service Model (CoSM). Please note that 

certain ‘‘no fee’’ consular services are 

included in the Schedule of Fees so that 

members of the public will be aware of 

significant consular services provided 

by the Department at no charge to the 

recipient of the service. 

What is the authority for this action? 

The Department of State derives the 

general authority to set fees based on the 

cost of the consular services it provides, 

and to charge those fees, from the 

general user charges statute, 31 U.S.C. 

9701. See, e.g., 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(A) 

(‘‘The head of each agency * * * may 

prescribe regulations establishing the 

charge for a service or thing of value 

provided by the agency * * * based on 

* * * the costs to the government.’’). As 

implemented through Executive Order 

10718 of June 27, 1957, 22 U.S.C. 4219 

further authorizes the Department to 

establish fees to be charged for official 

services provided by U.S. embassies and 

consulates. Other authorities allow the 

Department to charge fees for consular 

services, but not to determine the 

amount of such fees, as the amount is 

statutorily determined. 

Several statutes address specific fees 

relating to nonimmigrant visas. For 

instance, 8 U.S.C. 1351 establishes 

reciprocity as the basic principle for 

setting the nonimmigrant visa issuance 

fee. In addition to the reciprocity 

issuance fee, section 140(a) of the 

Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 

Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Public Law 

103–236, 108 Stat. 382, as amended, 

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

establishes a cost-based application 

processing fee for MRVs and BCCs. 

Such fees remain available to the 

Department until expended. 8 U.S.C. 

1351 (note), 1713(d). Furthermore, 

section 239 of the William Wilberforce 

Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act of 2008 requires the 

Secretary of State to collect a $1 

surcharge (the ‘‘Wilberforce surcharge’’) 

on all MRVs and BCCs in addition to the 

application processing fee; this 

surcharge must be deposited into the 

general fund of the Treasury and goes to 

support anti-trafficking programs. See 

Public Law 110–457, 122 Stat. 5044, 

Title II, section 239, reproduced at 8 

U.S.C. 1351 (note). In addition to the $1 

Wilberforce surcharge already included 

in all nonimmigrant visa application 

processing fees for MRVs and BCCs, 

section 501 of the Tom Lantos and 

Henry J. Hyde United States Global 

Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, 

Tuberculosis, and Malaria 

Reauthorization Act of 2008, requires 

the Secretary of State to collect an 

additional $1 surcharge (the ‘‘HIV/ 

AIDS/TB/Malaria surcharge’’) on all 

MRVs and BCCs in addition to the 

application processing fee; this 

surcharge must be deposited into the 

Treasury and goes to support programs 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

18908 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and 

malaria. See Public Law 110–293, 122 

Stat. 2968, Title V, section 501, 

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

Additionally, several statutes address 

fees for immigrant visa processing. For 

example, section 636 of the Omnibus 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

1997 authorizes the Secretary of State to 

collect and retain a ‘‘Diversity 

Immigrant Lottery Fee.’’ See Public Law 

104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–703, div. C, 

Title VI, section 636, reproduced at 8 

U.S.C. 1153 (note). Under this fee 

authority, the Secretary of State may 

establish and retain a fee to recover the 

costs of ‘‘allocating visas’’ described in 

section 203(c) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA) [8 U.S.C. 1153], 

i.e., running the diversity visa lottery 

pursuant to INA section 204(a)(1)(I) [8 

U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(I)], and to recover the 

costs of ‘‘processing applications’’ for 

diversity immigrant visas submitted by 

selectees of the lottery. See Public Law 

104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–703, div. C, 

Title VI, section 636, reproduced at 8 

U.S.C. 1153 (note). Accordingly, the 

‘‘diversity visa lottery fee,’’ charged to 

those persons selected by the lottery 

who subsequently apply for a diversity 

immigrant visa, incorporates all the 

costs to the Department of administering 

the diversity visa lottery program and 

processing the resulting diversity 

immigrant visa applications. 

Another statute authorizes the 

Department to collect and retain a 

surcharge on immigrant visas to help 

pay for efforts to enhance border 

security. See 8 U.S.C. 1714. While this 

immigrant visa surcharge was originally 

frozen statutorily at $45, subsequent 

legislation authorized the Department to 

amend these amounts administratively, 

provided the resulting surcharge is 

‘‘reasonably related to the costs of 

providing services in connection with 

the activity or item for which the 

surcharges are charged.’’ Department of 

State Authorities Act of 2006, Public 

Law 109–472, 120 Stat. 3554, section 6, 

reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 1714 (note). 

Certain people are exempted by law 

or regulation from paying specific fees 

or are expressly made subject to special 

fee charges by law. These are noted in 

the text below. They include, for 

instance, several exemptions from the 

nonimmigrant visa application 

processing fee for certain individuals 

who engage in charitable activities or 

who qualify for diplomatic visas. See 8 

U.S.C. 1351; 22 CFR 41.107(c). The costs 

for these no-fee nonimmigrant visas are 

currently being recouped in the MRV 

fee which is based on the costs and 

volumes for all nonimmigrant visas, 

both fee and no-fee. Certain Iraqi and 

Afghan nationals are similarly exempt 

from paying an immigrant visa 

application processing fee. See National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008, Public Law 110–181, 122 

Stat. 3, div. A, Title XII, section 1244(d), 

reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 1157 (note); 

Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, 

Public Law 111–8, 123 Stat. 524, div. F, 

Title VI, section 602(b)(4), reproduced at 

8 U.S.C. 1101 (note). The cost of 

immigrant visas for Iraqi and Afghan 

nationals is currently not recouped 

anywhere in the present fee schedule. 

While for most consular fees, the 

funds collected must be deposited into 

the Treasury, various statutes permit the 

Department to retain the fee revenue it 

collects. Among these are the following: 

(1) The MRV and BCC fees, see Foreign 

Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 

Years 1994 and 1995, Public Law 103– 

236, 112 Stat. 2681–50, Title I, section 

140(a)(2), reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 1351 

(note); (2) the immigrant visa security 

surcharge, see 8 U.S.C. 1714; (3) the 

diversity visa lottery fee, see Omnibus 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, 

Public Law 104–208, div. C, Title VI, 

section 636, reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 1153 

(note); (4) the fee for an affidavit of 

support, see Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2000, Public Law 

106–113, 113 Stat. 1501, div. A, Title II, 

section 232(a), reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 

1183a (note); and (5) the fee to process 

requests from participants in the 

Department’s Exchange Visitor Program 

for a waiver of the two-year homeresidence requirement, see 22 U.S.C. 

1475e. The Department also has 

available one-third of total annual 

revenue collected from fraud prevention 

and detection fees charged to applicants 

for H- and L-category visas to pay for H 

and L visa fraud prevention and 

detection related activities. 8 U.S.C. 

1184(c)(12), 1356(v)(2)(A). 

The Department last changed MRV 

and BCC fees in an interim final rule 

dated May 20, 2010. See Department of 

State Schedule of Fees for Consular 

Services, Department of State and 

Overseas Embassies and Consulates, 22 

CFR part 22 [75 FR 28188 (Public Notice 

7018)]. This rule changed the nonpetition-based nonimmigrant visa 

(MRV) fee and BCC fee for Mexican 

citizens age 15 and over from $131 to 

$140, the BCC fee for BCCs issued to 

certain Mexican citizen minors from $13 

to $14, the E visa fee from $131 to $390, 

the K visa fee from $131 to $350 and the 

H, L, O, P, Q and R visa fee from $131 

to $150. Those changes to the Schedule 

went into effect June 4, 2010. The final 

rule was published on December 6, 2011 

(76 FR 76032). 

The Department last changed 

immigrant visa fees in an interim final 

rule dated June 28, 2010. See 

Department of State Schedule of Fees 

for Consular Services, Department of 

State and Overseas Embassies and 

Consulates, 22 CFR part 22 [75 FR 

36522 (Public Notice 7068)]. A final rule 

regarding those fees was published on 

February 2, 2012. See 77 FR 5177. This 

rule established a tiered application 

processing fee for immigrant visas, 

based on the cost to the U.S. 

government of processing that particular 

category of visa. Those changes to the 

Schedule went into effect July 13, 2010. 

Some fees in the Schedule, including 

Items 20(a) and (b), 31(a) and (b) and 

35(c), are set by the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). These DHS 

fees were most recently updated by that 

agency on November 23, 2010, and are 

subject to change in the future. See 75 

FR 58962. The Department lists these 

DHS fees in the Department Schedule of 

Fees for cashiering purposes only. The 

Department has no authority to set DHS 

fees, which are listed at 8 CFR 

103.7(b)(1). 

Why is the department raising the 

nonimmigrant visa and immigrant visa 

fees at this time? 

Consistent with OMB Circular A–25 

guidelines, the Department recently 

completed a fee review using its 

activity-based Cost of Service Model. 

This review was conducted from August 

2010 through December 2011 and 

provides the basis for updating the 

Schedule. The results of that review are 

outlined in this rule. 

Similar to the 2009 fee review, upon 

which the current Schedule is based, 

costs are generated by an activity-based 

cost model that takes into account all 

costs to the U.S. government. Unlike a 

typical accounting system, which 

accounts for only traditional generalledger-type costs such as salaries, 

supplies, travel and other business 

expenses, activity-based cost models 

measure the costs of activities, or 

processes, and then provide an 

additional view of costs by the products 

and services produced by an 

organization through the identification 

of the key cost drivers of the activities. 

Below is a description of Activity-Based 

Costing from the Supplemental Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking published on 

March 24, 2010, 75 FR 14111. 

Activity-Based Costing Generally 

OMB Circular A–25 states that it is 

the objective of the United States 

Government to ‘‘(a) ensure that each 

service, sale, or use of Government 

goods or resources provided by an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 18909 

agency to specific recipients be selfsustaining; [and] (b) promote efficient 

allocation of the Nation’s resources by 

establishing charges for special benefits 

provided to the recipient that are at least 

as great as costs to the Government of 

providing the special benefits * * *.’’ 

OMB Circular A–25, ] 5(a)–(b); see also 

31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(A) (agency ‘‘may 

prescribe regulations establishing the 

charge for a service or thing of value 

provided by the agency * * * based on 

* * * the costs to the Government 

* * *.’’). To set prices that are ‘‘selfsustaining,’’ the Department must 

determine the true cost of providing 

consular services. Following guidance 

provided in Statement 4 of OMB’s 

Statement of Federal Accounting 

Standards (SFFAS), available at http:// 

www.fasab.gov/pdffiles/sffas-4.pdf, the 

Department chose to develop and use an 

activity-based costing (ABC) model to 

determine the true cost of the services 

listed in its Schedule of Fees, both those 

whose fee the Department proposes to 

change, as well as those whose fee will 

remain unchanged from prior years. The 

Department refers to the specific ABC 

model that underpins the proposed fees 

in the above-referenced rules as the 

‘‘Cost of Service Model’’ or ‘‘CoSM.’’ 

The Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) defines activity-based 

costing as a ‘‘set of accounting methods 

used to identify and describe costs and 

required resources for activities within 

processes.’’ Because an organization can 

use the same staff and resources 

(computer equipment, production 

facilities, etc.) to produce multiple 

products or services, ABC models seek 

to precisely identify and assign costs to 

processes and activities and then to 

individual products and services 

through the identification of key cost 

drivers referred to as ‘‘resource drivers’’ 

and ‘‘activity drivers.’’ 

Example: Imagine a government agency 

that has a single facility it uses to prepare 

and issue a single product—a driver’s 

license. In this simple scenario, every cost 

associated with that facility (the salaries of 

employees, the electricity to power the 

computer terminals, the cost of a blank 

driver’s license, etc.) can be attributed 

directly to the cost of producing that single 

item. If that agency wants to ensure that it 

is charging a ‘‘self-sustaining’’ price for 

driver’s licenses, it only has to divide its total 

costs for a given time period by an estimate 

of the number of driver’s licenses to be 

produced during that same time period. 

However, if that agency issues multiple 

products (driver’s licenses, non-driver ID 

cards, etc.), has employees that work on other 

activities besides licenses (for example, 

accepting payment for traffic tickets), and 

operates out of multiple facilities it shares 

with other agencies, it becomes much more 

complex for the agency to determine exactly 

how much it costs to produce any single 

product. In those instances, the agency 

would need to know what percent of time its 

employees spend on each service and how 

much of its overhead (rent, utilities, facilities 

maintenance, etc.) are consumed in 

delivering each service to determine the cost 

of producing each of its various products— 

the driver’s license, the non-driver ID card, 

etc. Using an ABC model would allow the 

agency to develop those costs. 

Components of Activity-Based Costing 

As noted in SFFAS Statement 4, 

‘‘activity-based costing has gained broad 

acceptance by manufacturing and 

service industries as an effective 

managerial tool.’’ SSFAS Statement 4,] 

147. There are no ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ ABC 

models that allow the Department (or 

any other entity) to simply populate a 

few data points and generate an answer. 

ABC models require financial and 

accounting analysis and modeling skills 

combined with a detailed understanding 

of all the organization’s business 

processes, which, in an entity the size 

of the Department’s Bureau of Consular 

Affairs, are exceedingly complex. More 

specifically, ABC models require an 

organization to: 

• Identify all of the activities that are 

required to produce a particular product 

or service (‘‘activities’’); 

• Identify all of the resources 

consumed (costs) in the course of 

producing that product or service 

(‘‘resources’’); 

• Measure the quantity of resources 

consumed (‘‘resource driver’’); and 

• Measure the frequency and 

intensity of demand placed on activities 

to produce services (‘‘activity driver’’). 

• For more information, SFFAS 

Statement 4 provides a detailed 

discussion of the use of cost accounting 

by the U.S. Government. 

Although the Department has used a 

sophisticated and detailed ABC model 

to set fees for a number of years, in its 

October 10, 2007, report ‘‘Transparent 

Cost Estimates Needed to Support 

Passport Execution Fee Decisions,’’ 

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

products/GAO-08-63, the GAO asked 

the Department to expand the 

sophistication of its cost model by 

identifying even more discrete activities 

and modeling a broader array of 

products and services. To provide this 

additional detail, the Department 

launched a multi-year plan to refine the 

CoSM with the help of a team of 

experienced outside consultants led by 

The QED Group, LLC, and including 

Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. as a 

subcontractor. The consultant team was 

made up of experts in cost modeling 

capable of providing an objective, 

outside assessment of costs. 

For additional details on an activitybased cost model, see the Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

published on March 24, 2010, 75 FR 

14111. 

Although much of the modeling 

methodology has remained the same 

between fee reviews, the methodology 

for capturing Department historical 

support costs and projected costs has 

been updated to reflect the change in 

the Department’s workload. In order to 

accurately account for the costs 

associated with rapidly growing 

demand in locations such as China and 

Brazil, the current fee review also 

incorporates five years of projected costs 

rather than only two years, included in 

the 2009 fee review. By using five years 

of projected costs, the Department better 

captures the long-term costs of large 

investments. The new fees represent a 

weighted average of the annual costs by 

service for fiscal years 2012–2015. Costs 

for individual fiscal years were 

weighted by the projected workload 

volume for that year. These weighted 

costs by fiscal year were then added 

together to generate a single cost per 

service upon which the fees are 

determined. 

Some of the long-term costs 

mentioned above include, but are not 

limited to, Consular Adjudicator 

Limited Non-career Appointment 

(LNAs) program costs, consular Locally 

Employed Staff costs, overseas facilityrelated costs, better-defined Global 

Support Strategy (GSS) costs, and more 

transparent consular-related 

International Cooperative 

Administrative Support Services 

(ICASS) costs. The Department will also 

add approximately 100 new American 

consular positions to increase visaadjudication capacity in China and 

Brazil in 2012–13. Included in that 

number will be Mandarin and 

Portuguese-speaking adjudicators hired 

in the Consular Adjudicator LNA 

Program. The Consular Adjudicator 

LNA Program is a new program to 

increase the number of visa adjudicators 

by hiring persons who already have 

foreign language skills. The first group 

of 19 LNAs will arrive in China and 

Brazil in early spring 2012, with a 

second group to follow in summer 2012. 

Additional Locally Employed Staff will 

be hired at posts in China and Brazil to 

support the additional adjudicators. 

These new personnel add to the 

Department’s salary, benefits, and 

overseas support services (e.g. office 

space, housing, security, and 

information technology) costs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

18910 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

In addition to adding personnel in 

these countries, the Department will 

also be improving the physical plant for 

visa applicants and staff. To improve 

operational efficiency in Missions China 

and Brazil, the Department plans to 

expand or remodel existing consular 

facilities in China and Brazil. 

Better defined and increased costs are 

reflected in the CoSM for the worldwide 

deployment of both the GSS and ICASS. 

GSS is a consolidated global contract for 

purchasing services associated with visa 

processing such as appointment 

scheduling, fee collection, offsite data 

collection, and delivery services. The 

GSS contract replaces, over a three-year 

period and through multiple task orders, 

the current patchwork of user-pays 

service agreements with a consistent, 

transparent, and more secure approach 

to facilitating applicants through the 

visa process. ICASS is the system by 

which administrative costs are allocated 

and paid by various U.S. government 

agencies to support their U.S. personnel 

stationed at embassies and consulates 

around the world. ICASS services 

include, but are not limited to, such 

items as computer support, security 

screening, medical assistance, and 

accounting services. In addition to the 

change in support cost and projected 

cost methodology, the CoSM now breaks 

out services performed on behalf of 

other government agencies to provide 

greater transparency into Department 

costs. All of the components referenced 

above have been updated and included 

in the CoSM to ensure the Department 

is fully covering its costs. The fees 

amended in this rule will cover the 

Department’s costs associated with 

processing the estimated 10.5 million 

nonimmigrant visas and one million 

immigrant visas projected for Fiscal 

Year 2012. 

Nonimmigrant Visa Application and 

Border Crossing Card Processing Fees 

The Department has determined, 

based on the CoSM, that the fee for nonpetition-based MRV (except E category) 

and BCC applications, with the 

exception of the statutorily set $15 BCC 

fee for certain Mexican citizen minors, 

is going from $140 to $160. This fee 

adequately accounts for the average cost 

to the U.S. government of accepting, 

processing, adjudicating, and issuing a 

non-petition-based MRV application. 

The CoSM arrived at the $160 figure by 

taking into account historical and five 

years of projected costs of worldwide 

nonimmigrant visa operations, visa 

workload, and other related costs. This 

$160 fee will allow the U.S. government 

to recover the full cost of processing 

these visa applications during the 

anticipated period of this new Schedule, 

and to comply with its statutory 

obligation to collect the $1 Wilberforce 

Act surcharge and $1 HIV/AIDS/TB/ 

Malaria surcharge. Those surcharges do 

not off-set the cost of processing MRVs 

and BCCs and are in addition to the 

cost-based fees charged for MRVs and 

BCCs. The Department rounded to the 

nearest $10 (up and down) to make it 

easier for U.S. embassies and consulates 

to convert to foreign currencies, which 

are commonly used to pay these fees. 

For all applicants other than those 

Mexican citizen minors who qualify for 

the reduced fee BCC, the BCC fee is 

being raised to $160 because the 

document has almost identical 

processing procedures and is the 

functional equivalent of the MRV that 

all other nonimmigrant visa applicants 

receive. 

This cost also includes the 

unrecovered costs of processing BCCs 

for certain Mexican citizen minors. That 

application processing fee is statutorily 

frozen at $13, even though such BCCs 

cost the Department the same amount to 

process as all other MRVs and BCCs— 

that is, significantly more than $13. See 

Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

1999, Public Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 

2681–50, div. A, Title IV, section 410, 

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

Adding the $1 Wilberforce surcharge 

and the $1 HIV/AIDS/TB/Malaria 

surcharge brings the total fee for certain 

Mexican citizen minor BCCs to $15. The 

Department’s costs beyond $13 must, by 

statute, be recovered by charging more 

for all MRVs, as well as all BCCs not 

meeting the requirements for the 

reduced fee. See Omnibus Consolidated 

and Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act of 1999, Public Law 

105–277, 112 Stat. 2681–50, div. A, 

Title IV, section 410(a)(3), reproduced at 

8 U.S.C. 1351 (note) (requiring that the 

Department ‘‘shall set the amount of the 

fee [for processing MRVs and all other 

BCCs] at a level that will ensure the full 

recovery by the Department * * * of the 

costs of processing’’ all MRVs and BCCs, 

including reduced cost BCCs for 

qualifying Mexican citizen minors). 

The cost to the Department to accept, 

adjudicate and issue each of the 

different MRV categories varies. The 

effort related to some categories such as: 

E (treaty-traders or treaty-investors); H 

(temporary workers and trainees); K 

(fiance ́(e)s and certain spouses of U.S. 

citizens); L (intra-company transferee); 

O (aliens with extraordinary ability); P 

(athletes, artists, and entertainers); Q 

(cultural exchange visitors); and R 

(aliens in religious occupations) is 

appreciably higher. Each of those visa 

categories requires a review of extensive 

documentation and a more in-depth 

applicant interview than BCCs and 

other categories of MRVs. As in the 

previous fee rule, the Department has 

again concluded that it is more 

equitable to those applying for BCCs 

and other categories of MRVs, for which 

such extensive review is not necessary, 

to continue collecting separate fees that 

more accurately reflect the cost of 

processing each type of visa. See 74 FR 

66076 (Public Notice 6851). Therefore, 

this rule amends the following fees for 

those categories to correspond to 

projected cost figures for that visa 

category, as determined by the CoSM 

and incorporating the $1 Wilberforce 

surcharge and $1 HIV/AIDS/TB/Malaria 

surcharge (discussed above in greater 

detail): 

H, L, O, P, Q and R: increasing from 

$150 to $190 

E: decreasing from $390 to $270 

K: decreasing from $350 to $240 

Again, the Department rounded these 

fees to the nearest $10 for the ease of 

converting to foreign currencies, which 

are most often used to pay the fee. 

Immigrant Visa Application Processing 

Fees 

In addition to the nonimmigrant fee 

modifications referenced above, the 

Department is adjusting the four-tiered 

immigrant visa application processing 

fees based on CoSM calculation for each 

discrete category of immigrant visa, as 

applications for certain categories cost 

more to process than others. 

Accordingly, the application processing 

fee for a Family-Based Visa (immediate 

relative and family preference, 

processed on the basis of an I–130, I– 

600 or I–800 petition) will be decreasing 

from $330 to $230. The application 

processing fee for an Employment-Based 

Visa (processed on the basis of an I–140 

petition) will be decreasing from $720 to 

$405. Other Immigrant Visa applications 

(including for I–360 self-petitioners, 

special immigrant visa applicants and 

all others) will have a fee of $220, 

formerly $305. As noted above, certain 

qualifying Iraqi and Afghan Special 

Immigrant Visa applicants are 

statutorily exempt from paying an 

application processing fee. National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008, Public Law 110–181, div. A, 

Title XII, section 1244(d), reproduced at 

8 U.S.C. 1157 (note); Omnibus 

Appropriations Act, 2009, Public Law 

111–8, div. F, Title VI, section 602(b)(4), 

reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 1101 (note). 

Please note that the Immigrant Visa 

Security Surcharge of $75 is embedded 

in the immigrant visa application 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 18911 

processing fee and will no longer be 

charged as a standalone fee or set forth 

as a separate fee on the Schedule. 

Immigrant Visa Security Surcharge 

The Department is increasing the 

Immigrant Visa Security Surcharge, 

which is applicable to all applicants 

except those persons who are statutorily 

exempted from paying fees, from $74 to 

$75 for ease of converting to foreign 

currencies. The Immigrant Visa Security 

Surcharge covers security costs as 

determined by the CoSM to be 

associated with providing enhanced 

border security. See 8 U.S.C. 1714 and 

Department of State Authorities Act of 

2006, Public Law 109–472, 120 Stat. 

3554, section 6, reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 

1714 (note). Please note that the 

Immigrant Visa Security Surcharge of 

$75 is embedded in the aforementioned 

immigrant visa application processing 

fee and will no longer be charged as a 

standalone fee or set forth as a separate 

fee on the Schedule. 

Diversity Visa Lottery Fee 

The Department is decreasing the fee 

paid by Diversity Visa Lottery selectees 

who apply for immigrant visas from 

$440 to $330 based on CoSM 

calculations for a FY 2012 workload 

projection of approximately 100,000 

applications. The Department has 

authority to collect and retain a fee, 

known as the ‘‘Diversity Visa Lottery 

fee,’’ to recover (a) the costs of allocating 

diversity immigrant visas described in 

INA section 203(c) [8 U.S.C. 1153], 

through the diversity visa lottery 

program, set forth in INA § 204(a)(1)(I) 

[8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(I)], and (b) the costs 

of processing all applications for 

diversity immigrant visas (i.e., 

‘‘Diversity Visas’’) submitted by 

selectees of the diversity visa lottery. 

Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 1997, Public Law 104–208, 110 

Stat. 3009–703, div. C, Title VI, section 

636, reproduced at 8 U.S.C. 1153 (note). 

The Department collects this fee only 

from those persons who, having been 

selected through the lottery process, are 

applying for a Diversity Visa. The 

Diversity Visa Lottery fee encompasses 

the costs of processing the immigrant 

visa application and the embedded 

immigrant visa security surcharge. 

Accordingly, the Department does not 

charge the separate Other Immigrant 

Visa Application Processing Fee or 

Immigrant Visa Security Surcharge to 

Diversity Visa applicants. 

Thus, 22 CFR 42.33(i) is amended to 

provide that the consular officer must 

collect from each person who is selected 

by the Diversity Visa Lottery program 

and who applies for a Diversity Visa the 

Diversity Visa Lottery fee as prescribed 

by the Secretary of State and set forth in 

the Schedule of Fees found at 22 CFR 

22.1. 

Determining Returning Resident Status 

The CoSM found that determining the 

status of people who claim to be lawful 

permanent residents of the United 

States, but do not have documentation 

to prove this fact, has become less costly 

due to advances in automation making 

it easier to verify U.S. immigration 

status. As such, the Department will 

lower the fee from $380 to $275. 

Transportation Letter for Lawful 

Permanent Residents of the United 

States 

The Department is removing the 

issuance of Transportation Letters for 

Lawful Permanent Residents from the 

Schedule. The Department is working 

with DHS on procedures and fees 

relating to this service. 

When will the Department of State 

implement this interim final rule? 

The Department intends to implement 

this interim final rule, and initiate 

collection of the fees set forth herein, 

effective April 13, 2012. 

Regulatory Findings 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Department is publishing this 

rule as an interim final rule, with a 60- 

day provision for post-promulgation 

comments and with an effective date 

less than 30 days from the date of 

publication, based on the ‘‘good cause’’ 

exceptions set forth at 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3). Delaying 

implementation of this rule would be 

contrary to the public interest because 

the fees in this rule fund consular 

services that are critical to national 

security, including screening visa 

applicants. In addition, the Department 

will not be able to sustain the 

anticipated growth in consular overseas 

operations if these fees are not effective 

within 15 days of publication. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department has reviewed this 

rule and, by approving it, certifies that 

it will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

This rule adjusts the application 

processing fees for nonimmigrant and 

immigrant visas. Although the issuance 

of some of these visas is contingent 

upon approval by DHS of a petition 

filed by a United States company with 

DHS, and these companies pay a fee to 

DHS to cover the processing of the 

petition, the visa itself is sought and 

paid for by an individual foreign 

national overseas who seeks to come to 

the United States. The amount of the 

petition fees that are paid by small 

entities to DHS is not controlled by the 

amount of the visa fees paid by 

individuals to the Department of State. 

While small entities may cover or 

reimburse employees for application 

processing fees, the exact number of 

such entities that do so is unknown. The 

adjustment in petition fees accounts for 

only seven percent of the total 

nonimmigrant workload expected in FY 

2012; therefore, the $40 increase in the 

application processing fee for 

Employment-Based nonimmigrant visas 

is not likely to have a significant 

economic impact on the small entities 

that choose to reimburse the applicant 

for the visa fee. 

Additionally, the Department of State 

does not track applications for 

Employment-Based visas by the size and 

nature of the petitioning businesses, and 

therefore cannot identify the share of 

this impact on the small businesses 

versus large businesses. However, the 

estimated impact of the decrease in the 

application processing fee for the 27,149 

total Employment-Based visa 

applications expected to be processed 

by the Department of State annually in 

FY 2012 is approximately $8.5 million 

dollars. (Note: DHS processes domestic 

adjustment of status applications for 

approximately 90 percent of all 

Employment-Based immigrants; cases 

processed domestically do not pay 

Department of State fees.) Since this 

impact is well below the $100 million 

threshold and only a portion of these 

27,179 applications would impact small 

businesses, the State Department 

believes this rule does not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any year, and it will not significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501–1504. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is a major rule as defined by 

section 804 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996. See 5 U.S.C. 804(2) Pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 808(2), it is effective 15 days after 

the date of publication. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

18912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule is considered by the 

Department of State to be an 

economically significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, 

section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and 

Review. Accordingly, this rule has been 

submitted to OMB for review. 

This rule is necessary in light of the 

Department of State’s CoSM finding that 

the cost of processing nonimmigrant 

visas has increased since the fee was 

last amended in 2010. The Department 

is setting the nonimmigrant visa fees in 

accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 and 

other applicable legal authority, as 

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

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

agency * * * may prescribe regulations 

establishing the charge for a service or 

thing of value provided by the agency 

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

government.’’). This regulation sets the 

fees for nonimmigrant visas at the 

amount required to recover the costs 

associated with providing this service to 

foreign nationals. 

Details of the proposed fee changes 

are as follows: 

Item No. Proposed fee Current fee Change in fee Percentage 

increase 

Estimated 

annual 

number of 

applications 1

Estimated 

change in 

annual fees 

collected 2

Schedule of Fees for Consular Services 

*******

Nonimmigrant Visa Services 

21. Nonimmigrant Visa Application and Border Crossing Card Processing Fees (per person): 

(a) Non-petition-based nonimmigrant visa (except E category) ........................................... $160 $140 $20 14 8,844,709 $176,894,180 

(b) H, L, O, P, Q and R category 

nonimmigrant visa ........................ 190 150 40 27 757,954 30,318,160 

(c) E category nonimmigrant visa ... 270 390 (120 ) ¥31 50,954 ¥6,114,480 

(d) K category nonimmigrant visa ... 240 350 (110 ) ¥31 53,418 ¥5,875,980 

(e) Border crossing card—age 15 

and over (10-year validity) ........... 160 140 20 14 585,065 11,701,294 

(f) Border crossing card—under age 

15; for Mexican citizens if parent 

or guardian has or is applying for 

a border crossing card (valid for 

10 years or until the applicant 

reaches age 15, whichever is 

earlier) .......................................... 15 14 1 7 238,971 238,971 

Immigrant and Special Visa Services 

32. Immigrant Visa Application Processing Fee (per person) 

(a) Immediate relative and family 

preference applications ................ 230 330 (100 ) ¥30 925,450 ¥92,545,000 

(b) Employment-based applications 405 720 (315 ) ¥44 27,149 ¥8,551,935 

(c) Other immigrant visa applications (including I–360 self-petitioners and special immigrant 

visa applicants) ............................ 220 305 (85 ) ¥28 139 ¥11,815 

33. Diversity Visa Lottery fee (per person applying as a result of the lottery 

program) .............................................. 330 440 (110 ) ¥25 100,173 ¥11,019,030 

35. Special Visa Services: 

(a) Determining Returning Resident 

Status ........................................... 275 380 (105 ) ¥28 2,099 ¥220,395 

Total .......................................... ........................ ........................ .......................... ........................ ........................ 948,139,701 

*******

1Based on projected FY 2012 workload. 

2 Using projected FY 2012 workload to generate projections. 

Historically, nonimmigrant visa 

workload has increased year to year at 

approximately 11 percent. The 

Department anticipates that with the 

current state of the global economy, 

demand will be approximately 10.5 

million in Fiscal Year 2012. With regard 

to the economic impact as a whole, the 

more than 93 percent of nonimmigrant 

visa applications that are not petitionbased are sought by and paid for 

entirely by foreign national applicants. 

The revenue increases resulting from 

those fees should not be considered to 

have a direct cost impact on the 

domestic economy. 

With regard to immigrant visas, many 

categories are numerically capped by 

law; these caps limit workload and keep 

current demand fairly stable. In FY 

2011, the Department issued 10.8 

percent of all available immigrant visas 

in Employment-Based categories 

(capped at 140,000 including 

adjustments of status processed 

domestically by the DHS). In FY 2011, 

the Department issued 96.8 percent of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 18913 

the immigrant visas available under the 

Diversity Visa program (capped at 

50,000 including adjustments of status 

processed domestically by DHS). Also 

in FY 2011, the Department issued 87.3 

percent of the immigrant visas available 

for Family-Preference categories 

(capped at 226,000 including 

adjustments of status processed 

domestically by DHS). When fewer visas 

were issued than were available under 

the numerical cap, it was generally due 

to administrative processing issues 

rather than lack of demand. There are 

nearly 4.7 million applicants currently 

awaiting numerically controlled visas, 

sufficient to fill more than 12 years’ 

workload at the current annual caps and 

this does not take into account 

applicants who would be adjusting 

status in the United States. It is 

reasonable to expect that the immigrant 

visa workload for FY 2012 and FY 2013 

will remain about the same as FY 2011. 

Please note that these estimates do not 

take into account variables that the 

Department cannot predict at this time, 

such as legislative changes. 

Executive Order 13563 

The Department of State has 

considered this rule in light of 

Executive Order 13563, dated January 

18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation 

is consistent with the guidance therein. 

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, it is determined that this 

rule does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to require consultations or 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. The 

regulations implementing Executive 

Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

federal programs and activities do not 

apply to this regulation. 

Executive Order 13175 

The Department has determined that 

this rulemaking will not have tribal 

implications, will not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments, and will not 

preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the 

requirements of section 5 of Executive 

Order 13175 do not apply to this 

rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose any new 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. 

List of Subjects 

22 CFR Part 22 

Passports and visas. 

22 CFR Part 42 

Immigration, Passports and visas. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, 22 CFR parts 22 and 42 

are amended as follows: 

PART 22—SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR 

CONSULAR SERVICES— 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND 

FOREIGN SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 22 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

11,295, 31 FR 10603 (1966). 

■ 2. Section 22.1 is amended in the table 

by: 

■ a. Adding entry 20 and revising 

entries 21 through 25 under 

‘‘Nonimmigrant Visa Services; and 

■ b. Revising entries 31 through 35 

under ‘‘Immigrant and Special Visa 

Services.’’ 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 22.1 Schedule of Fees. 

SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR CONSULAR SERVICES

Item No. Fee 

*******

Nonimmigrant Visa Services 

20. Filing Nonimmigrant Visa Petition Based on Blanket L Petition (collected for USCIS and subject to 

change).

For fee amount, see 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1). 

(a) Petition for a nonimmigrant worker (Form I–129) ........................................................................ For fee amount, see 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1). 

(b) Nonimmigrant petition based on blanket L petition ...................................................................... For fee amount, see 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1). 

21. Nonimmigrant Visa Application and Border Crossing Card Processing Fees (per person): 

(a) Non-petition-based nonimmigrant visa (except E category) ........................................................ $160. 

(b) H, L, O, P, Q and R category nonimmigrant visa ........................................................................ $190.

(c) E category nonimmigrant visa ...................................................................................................... $270. 

(d) K category (fiance ́) nonimmigrant visa ......................................................................................... $240. 

(e) Border crossing card—age 15 and over (10 year validity) .......................................................... $160. 

(f) Border crossing card—under age 15; for Mexican citizens if parent or guardian has or is applying for a border crossing card (valid 10 years or until the applicant reaches age 15, whichever is sooner).$15. 

22. EXEMPTIONS from Nonimmigrant Visa Application Processing Fee: 

(a) Applicants for A, G, C–3, NATO and diplomatic visas as defined in 22 C.F.R. 41.26 ............... NO FEE. 

(b) Applicants for J visas participating in official U.S. Government sponsored educational and cultural exchanges.NO FEE. 

(c) Replacement machine-readable visa when the original visa was not properly affixed or needs 

to be reissued through no fault of the applicant.

NO FEE. 

(d) Applicants exempted by international agreement as determined by the Department, including 

members and staff of an observer mission to United Nations Headquarters recognized by the 

UN General Assembly, and their immediate families.

NO FEE. 

(e) Applicants traveling to provide charitable services as determined by the Department ............... NO FEE. 

(f) U.S. government employees traveling on official business .......................................................... NO FEE. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

18914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR CONSULAR SERVICES—Continued 

Item No. Fee 

(g) A parent, sibling, spouse, or child of a U.S. government employee killed in the line of duty 

who is traveling to attend the employee’s funeral and/or burial; or a parent, sibling, spouse, 

son, or daughter of a U.S. government employee critically injured in the line of duty for visitation during emergency treatment and convalescence.

NO FEE. 

23. Nonimmigrant Visa Issuance Fee, including Border-Crossing Cards (Reciprocity Fee) ................... RECIPROCAL. 

24. EXEMPTIONS from Nonimmigrant Visa Issuance Fee: 

(a) An official representative of a foreign government or an international or regional organization 

of which the U.S. is a member; members and staff of an observer mission to United Nations 

Headquarters recognized by the UN General Assembly; and applicants for diplomatic visas as 

defined under item 22(a); and their immediate families.

NO FEE. 

(b) An applicant transiting to and from the United Nations Headquarters ........................................ NO FEE. 

(c) An applicant participating in a U.S. government sponsored program ......................................... NO FEE. 

(d) An applicant traveling to provide charitable services as determined by the Department ........... NO FEE. 

25. Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee for Visa Applicant included in L Blanket Petition (principal 

applicant only).

$500. 

* * * * * * * 

Immigrant and Special Visa Services 

31. Filing Immigrant Visa Petition (collected for USCIS and subject to change): 

(a) Petition to classify status of alien relative for issuance of immigrant Visa .................................. For fee amount, see 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1). 

(b) Petition to classify orphan as an immediate relative ................................................................... For fee amount, see 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1). 

32. Immigrant Visa Application Processing Fee (per person): 

(a) Immediate relative and family preference applications ................................................................ $230. 

(b) Employment-based applications ................................................................................................... $405. 

(c) Other immigrant visa applications (including I–360 self-petitioners and special immigrant visa 

applicants).

$220. 

(d) Certain Iraqi and Afghan special immigrant visa applications ..................................................... NO FEE. 

33. Diversity Visa Lottery Fee (per person applying as a result of the lottery program) ......................... $330. 

34. Affidavit of Support Review (only when reviewed domestically) ........................................................ $88. 

35. Special Visa Services: 

(a) Determining Returning Resident Status ....................................................................................... $275. 

(b) Waiver of two year residency requirement .................................................................................. $215. 

(c) Waiver of immigrant visa ineligibility (collected for USCIS and subject to change) .................... For fee amount, see 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1). 

(d) Refugee or significant public benefit parole case processing ..................................................... NO FEE. 

* * * * * * * 

PART 42—VISAS: DOCUMENTATION 

OF IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE 

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY 

ACT, AS AMENDED 

■ 3. The authority citation continues to 

read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104 and 1182; Pub. L. 

105–277; Pub. L. 108–449; 112 Stat. 2681– 

795 through 2681–801; The Convention on 

Protection of Children and Co-operation in 

Respect of Intercountry Adoption (done at 

the Hague, May 29, 1993), S. Treaty Doc. 

105–51 (1998), 1870 U.N.T.S. 167 (Reg. No. 

31922 (1993)); The Intercountry Adoption 

Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 14901–14954, Pub. L. 

106–279. 

■ 4. Revise § 42.33(i) to read as follows: 

§ 42.33 Diversity immigrants. 

* * * * * 

(i) Diversity Visa Lottery fee. Consular 

officers shall collect, or ensure the 

collection of, the Diversity Visa Lottery 

fee from those persons who apply for a 

diversity immigrant visa, described in 

INA 203(c), after being selected by the 

diversity visa lottery program. The 

Diversity Visa Lottery fee, as prescribed 

by the Secretary of State, is set forth in 

the Schedule of Fees, 22 CFR 22.1. 

Dated: March 22, 2012. 

Patrick F. Kennedy, 

Under Secretary of State for Management, 

U.S. Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7569 Filed 3–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

28 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. OJP (BJA) 1577] 

RIN 1121–AA79 

National Motor Vehicle Title 

Information System (NMVTIS): 

Technical Corrections 

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, 

Justice. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP) is promulgating this direct final 

rule for its National Motor Vehicle Title 

Information System Program (NMVTIS) 

in order to make two technical 

corrections to the NMVTIS regulations. 

DATES: Effective date: This direct final 

rule is effective June 27, 2012 without 

further action, unless adverse comments 

are received by the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA) by May 29, 2012. If 

adverse comment is received, BJA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the rule 

in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Please address all 

comments regarding this rule by U.S. 

mail, to: Todd Brighton, Bureau of 

Justice Assistance, 810 7th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20531; or by 

telefacsimile to (202) 354–4135. To 

ensure proper handling, please 

reference OJP Docket No. 1577 on your 

correspondence. Comments may also be 

sent electronically through http:// 

regulations.gov using the electronic 

comment form provided on that site. An 

electronic copy of this document is also 

available at the http://regulations.gov 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES