Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6263 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– 

2012–1051; Airspace Docket No. 12– 

ASO–39) and be submitted in triplicate 

to the Docket Management System (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number). You may also submit 

comments through the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Persons wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this action must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2012–1051; Airspace 

Docket No. 12–ASO–39.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

All communications received before 

the specified closing date for comments 

will be considered before taking action 

on the proposed rule. The proposal 

contained in this notice may be changed 

in light of the comments received. A 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerned with this rulemaking will be 

filed in the docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded from and 

comments submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Recently 

published rulemaking documents can 

also be accessed through the FAA’s Web 

page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_

airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/

airspace_amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see the 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal Holidays. An informal 

docket may also be examined during 

normal business hours at the office of 

the Eastern Service Center, Federal 

Aviation Administration, room 350, 

1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, 

Georgia 30337. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRM’s should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, to request a copy of 

Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking distribution 

System, which describes the application 

procedure. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is considering an 

amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish 

Class E airspace at Immokalee, FL, 

providing the controlled airspace 

required to support the RNAV GPS 

standard instrument approach 

procedures for Big Cypress Airfield. 

Controlled airspace extending upward 

from 700 feet above the surface would 

be established for the safety and 

management of IFR operations at the 

airport. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, 

and effective September 15, 2012, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this 

proposed rule, when promulgated, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the criteria of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This proposed 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, 

A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This proposed regulation is 

within the scope of that authority as it 

would establish Class E airspace at Big 

Cypress Airfield, Immokalee, FL. 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (Air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9W, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective 

September 15, 2012, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL E5 Immokalee, FL [New] 

Big Cypress Airfield, FL 

(Lat. 26°19′34′′ N., long. 80°59′17′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile 

radius of Big Cypress Airfield. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 

16, 2013. 

Michael Vermuth, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 

Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02047 Filed 1–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 62 

[Public Notice 8163] 

RIN 1400–AD28 

Exchange Visitor Program—Fees and 

Charges 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of State. 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of State 

(Department) is proposing to revise 

regulations to increase the Application 

Fee for Sponsor Designation or 

Redesignation and the Administrative 

Fee for Exchange Visitor (J–1 Visa 

Holder) Benefits assessed for providing 

Exchange Visitor Program (EVP) 

services, in order to recoup the costs 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

6264 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

incurred by the Department’s Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs 

associated with operating aspects of the 

Exchange Visitor Program. 

DATES: The Department will accept 

comments from the public up to April 

1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by any of the following 

methods: 

• Persons with access to the Internet 

will be able to view and comment on 

the rule and supporting documentation, 

including the supporting cost study, by 

going to the Regulations.gov Web site 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/ 

Regs/home.html#home, and searching 

on docket ID DOS–2010–0214. 

• Mail (paper, disk, or CD–ROM 

submissions): U.S. Department of State, 

Office of Designation, SA–5, Floor 5, 

2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC 

20522. 

• Email: JExchanges@state.gov. You 

must include the title and RIN (1400– 

AD28) in the subject line of your 

message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin J. Lerner, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Private Sector Exchange, 

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

2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC 

20522, 202–632–2805, or email at 

JExchanges@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

authority of Section 810 of the United 

States Information and Educational 

Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, 22 

U.S.C. 1475e, and the Independent 

Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 

(IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, and following 

the guidelines set forth in Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular No. A–25, fees for the Exchange 

Visitor Program (EVP) Services were 

adopted for the first time in 2000. The 

Department issued regulations to 

establish sufficient fees to recover the 

cost of administrative processing of 

requests for program designation or 

redesignation, and certain services for 

exchange visitor status changes. OMB 

Circular No. A–25 directs the Agency 

review of fees and services every two 

years. 

The two fees for the Exchange Visitor 

Program under review are those set forth 

in 22 CFR 62.17(b)(1) and (2): the 

Application Fee for Sponsor 

Designation or Redesignation and the 

Administrative Fee for Exchange Visitor 

(J–1 Visa Holder) Benefits. The 

Exchange Visitor Program (EVP) 

provides foreign nationals, utilizing the 

J–1 Exchange Visitor Visa (J–1 Visa), 

opportunities to participate in exchange 

programs in the United States. It is 

administered and overseen by the Office 

of Private Sector Exchange in the 

Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA/EC). ECA/EC is responsible 

for designating eligible U.S. government 

agencies and public and private 

organizations as EVP sponsors. Upon 

designation, ECA/EC is also responsible 

for the oversight of the EVP sponsors. 

ECA/EC is comprised of a Front Office 

and three supporting offices: The Office 

of Private Sector Designation, the Office 

of Exchange Coordination and 

Compliance, the Office of Private Sector 

Exchange Program Administration. 

Three different funding streams fund all 

of the ECA/EC units administering and 

overseeing the EVP, including all of the 

EVP’s program administration activities 

and the ECA/EC personnel conducting 

those activities. 

These funding streams are: 

• Application Fee for Sponsor 

Designation or Redesignation and the 

Administrative Fee for Exchange Visitor 

(J–1 Visa Holder) Benefits: The 

Application Fee is paid by prospective 

and current EVP sponsors for 

Designation and Redesignation, 

respectively. The Administrative Fee is 

paid by EVP sponsors on behalf of J–1 

participants seeking an administrative 

benefit such as reinstatement or other 

request related to their current exchange 

visitor program. Both fees primarily 

fund the Office of Private Sector 

Designation labor (salary) and ancillary 

costs (e.g., staff travel, communications, 

and utilities). Both fees also fund the 

Office of Exchange Coordination and 

Compliance ancillary costs and will 

fund the ancillary costs of the future 

Office of Private Sector Exchange 

Program Administration. 

• SEVIS Fees paid by J–1 Visa 

Applicants and Participants to the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS): These fees, via transfer on a 

reimbursable basis from DHS to the 

Department of State, fund the Office of 

Exchange Coordination and Compliance 

labor (salary) costs; and, in the future, 

will fund the Office of Private Sector 

Exchange Program Administration labor 

(salary) costs. 

• Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA) Budget: Appropriated 

funds support certain ECA/EC 

personnel salaries (or portions of 

salaries) and portions of salaries of 

Bureau of Education and Cultural 

Affairs Support Services personnel who 

assist the administration of the EVP. 

This rulemaking only proposes changes 

to the Application Fee for Sponsor 

Designation or Redesignation, and the 

Administrative Fee for Exchange Visitor 

(J–1 Visa Holder) Benefits. 

The current Application Fee for 

Sponsor Designation or Redesignation is 

$2700 and the Administrative Fee for 

Exchange Visitor (J–1 Visa Holder) 

Benefits is currently $233 per request. 

The Department proposes amendment 

of both fees to: $3,982 (an increase of 

$1,282) and $367 (an increase of $134), 

respectively. The proposed increase in 

the Application and Administrative 

Fees is primarily attributable to three 

initiatives related to ongoing or planned 

process improvements and technology 

implementations. These initiatives are 

expected to increase the efficiency and 

accuracy of the Designation and 

Redesignation Application review 

processes and the level of service 

provided to EVP sponsors by the Office 

of Private Sector Exchange. Costs 

assessments were developed by Deloitte 

Consulting LLP for each initiative and 

added into the total cost basis that must 

be recovered by the two EVP fees. 

The three initiatives are: 

• Development of a Learning 

Management System (an expansion of 

the currently existing Local Coordinator 

Training Certification Module) needed 

to meet EVP local coordinator training 

requirements established in new or 

future EVP regulations. 

• Development and implementation 

of the Designation Processing System, 

which consists of: 

Æ Robust electronic content 

management system for storing and 

reviewing new and historical sponsor 

files; 

Æ Electric file migration of all hard 

copy sponsor files; and 

Æ Complaint Management Workflow 

Module for tracking, managing, and 

reporting on all complaints and 

incidents reported to the Department 

(e.g., serious incidents reported by EVP 

sponsors and complaints reported by 

Exchange Visitors and any interested 

persons on behalf of Exchange Visitors 

or of a general nature). 

• Addition of a new Office of Private 

Sector Exchange Program 

Administration in the Office of Private 

Sector Exchange (ECA/EC) and the 

addition of four Full-time Equivalent 

employees (FTEs) in the ECA/EC Front 

Office, which will increase the ancillary 

costs factored into the cost basis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6265 

Current Proposed Increase/ 

Decrease 

Designation/Redesignation ...................................................................................................................... $2,700 $3,982 $1,282 

Individual Applications ............................................................................................................................. 233 367 134 

History of EVP Fees 

The Department’s Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office 

of Private Sector Exchange, designates 

the U.S. government, academic, and 

private sector entities to conduct 

educational and cultural exchange 

programs pursuant to a broad grant of 

authority provided by the Mutual 

Educational and Cultural Exchange Act 

of 1961, as amended (Fulbright-Hays 

Act), 22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.; the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 

U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J); the Foreign Affairs 

Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 

Public Law 105–277; as well as other 

statutory enactments, Reorganization 

Plans and Executive Orders. Under 

those authorities, over 1,400 sponsor 

organizations facilitate the entry of more 

than 300,000 exchange participants each 

year. 

The Fulbright-Hays Act is the primary 

statutory authority for the Exchange 

Visitor Program. The purpose of the Act, 

set forth in Section 101, is ‘‘to enable 

the Government of the United States to 

increase mutual understanding between 

the people of the United States and the 

people of other countries by means of 

educational and cultural exchange.’’ 

The Act authorizes the President to 

provide for such exchanges when he 

considers that it would strengthen 

international cooperative relations. The 

language of the Act and its legislative 

history make it clear that Congress 

considered international educational 

and cultural exchanges to be a 

significant part of the public diplomacy 

efforts of the President in connection 

with his Constitutional prerogatives in 

conducting foreign affairs. 

In 2006, the Department examined its 

current Exchange Visitor Program fee 

structure (which had been instituted by 

the former USIA, prior to its merger 

with the Department) for compliance 

with applicable laws and policies, and 

to determine the appropriate level of 

fees given the expansion of the offices 

providing services. This analysis was 

grounded on the guiding principle that 

fees should be fair and reflect the full 

cost to perform the service; and that 

services performed on behalf of distinct, 

identifiable beneficiaries (versus the 

public at large) should, to the extent 

possible, be self-sustaining. As a result 

of the review, it was determined that 

additional fee categories and increased 

fees were required, and the Department 

published a final rule on November 1, 

2007 (72 FR 61800), which became 

effective December 3, 2007. 

The 2007 fee rule identified the 

program re-designation process as a 

separate and identifiable service for 

which the cost of such service should be 

recouped. This fee (Application Fee) is 

collected from over 1,400 academic, 

governmental, and private sector 

sponsor organizations. This fee also 

includes the cost of services arising 

from a program sponsor’s requests for 

amendments to programs, allotment 

requests, and updates of information, as 

well as the costs for program 

compliance, regulatory review and 

development, outreach, and general 

program administration. Also 

established in the 2007 fee rule was the 

Administrative Fee paid by sponsors on 

behalf of J–1 foreign national exchange 

participants for services provided on an 

individual basis and for the sole benefit 

of the exchange participant (i.e., 

requests for exchange visitor status 

changes of program category, extension 

beyond maximum duration, requests for 

reinstatement, requests to update the 

Student and Exchange Visitor 

Information System (SEVIS) status, and 

similar requests). The fees received for 

these individual services also include 

an apportioned share of costs for 

regulatory review and development, 

outreach, and general program 

administration. 

In 2009, per guidelines set forth in 

OMB Circular A–25, the Department 

conducted a biennial review of fees 

established in 2007. In accordance with 

the Statement of Federal Finance and 

Accounting Standards No. 4 (SFFAS 4), 

the Department used an ‘‘activity-based 

costing’’ (ABC) approach to develop a 

sustainable model to align the costs of 

the program to the specific services 

performed by Office of Private Sector 

Exchange’s Office of Designation on 

behalf of program sponsors and other 

program stakeholders. ABC is a method 

of identifying the work that is 

performed, how resources are consumed 

by that work, and how that work 

contributes to the production of 

required outputs. The ABC methodology 

enabled the development of a bottom-up 

budget that factored in forecasts for 

expected demand of program services in 

the years when the fees are effective and 

would provide the program with 

adequate resources to meet that future 

program demand. Based on this review, 

the Department established a user 

application fee of $2,700 for designation 

or redesignation, and a fee of $233 to be 

paid by program sponsors on behalf of 

J–1 foreign national exchange 

participants requesting individual 

program services. The Department 

published a final rule on February 25, 

2011 (76 FR 10498), which became 

effective March 28, 2011. 

In 2011, Deloitte Consulting LLP 

(hereafter referred to as Deloitte) began 

its fee study as part of the biennial 

review of the fees charged by the 

Department, consistent with the 

guidelines set forth in OMB Circular A– 

25. In accordance with SFFAS 4, 

Deloitte used an ABC approach to align 

the costs of the program to the 

administration of the Exchange Visitor 

Program and the associated 

administrative activities. The 

methodology and the results of this 

study are examined in the following 

sections. 

Results of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Fee 

Study 

Methodology 

In accordance with the Statement of 

Federal Finance and Accounting 

Standards No. 4 (SFFAS 4), Deloitte 

used an ‘‘activity-based costing’’ (ABC) 

approach to develop a sustainable 

model to align the associated costs of 

the EVP to the specific services 

performed by the Office of Private 

Sector Designation on behalf of EVP 

applicants, sponsors, participants and 

other program stakeholders. ABC is a 

method of identifying the work that is 

performed, how resources are consumed 

by that work, and how that work 

contributes to the production of 

required outputs. This methodology 

enabled the development of a cost 

model that factored in forecasts for 

expected demand of program services in 

the years when the fees are effective 

(FY2013 and FY2014) and would 

provide the program with adequate 

resources to meet that future program 

demand. 

According to legislative and 

regulatory guidance, user charges 

should be based on the full cost to the 

government of providing the services or 

things of value. OMB Circular A–25 

defines full cost as all direct and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

6266 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

indirect costs to any part of the Federal 

government of providing a good, 

resource, or service. These costs 

include, but are not limited to, an 

appropriate share of: 

• Direct and indirect personnel costs, 

including salaries and fringe benefits 

such as medical insurance and 

retirement. 

• Physical overhead, consulting, and 

other indirect costs including material 

and supply costs, utilities, insurance, 

travel, and rents or imputed rents on 

land, buildings, and equipment. 

• Management and supervisory costs. 

• Costs of enforcement, collection, 

research, establishment of standards, 

and regulation, including any required 

environmental impact statements. 

The generally accepted government 

accounting practices for managerial cost 

accounting, published in Federal 

Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

(FASAB) Statement of Federal Financial 

Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 4, 

provide the standards for cost 

definition, recognition, accumulation 

and assignment as they relate to the 

recognition of full cost. These standards 

have been applied to the determination 

of what costs to include in or exclude 

from the Exchange Visitor Program fees. 

To obtain data needed for the cost 

model using the ABC methodology, a 

Labor Survey was conducted to 

determine the time spent by the Office 

of Private Sector Designation personnel 

on EVP activities. The survey results 

were taken into account when 

determining the two fees. 

The results of the Labor Survey were 

analyzed in conjunction with Office of 

Private Sector Designation salary data 

(escalated for benefits) to determine the 

cost basis of activities supporting the 

EVP. Added to the cost basis were 

Office of Private Sector Exchange 

ancillary costs (including the projected 

ancillary costs of a planned, new third 

office and four additional FTEs in the 

ECA/EC Front Office), costs for the 

development of a new Designation 

Processing System and a new Learning 

Management System, and Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs and 

Department of State labor (salary) costs 

that support the EVP. 

The model then assigned direct costs 

and allocated indirect and General and 

Administrative (G&A) costs using 

allocation ratios to isolate direct, 

indirect, and G&A costs. The sum of 

direct, indirect and G&A costs for 

Designation and Redesignation 

Applications were divided by the 

projected number of FY 2013 and FY 

2014 Designation and Redesignation 

Applications to determine the 

Application Fee for Sponsor 

Designation or Redesignation. To 

determine the Administrative Fee for 

Exchange Visitor (J–1 Visa Holder) 

Benefits, the sum of direct, indirect and 

G&A costs for Exchange Visitor Activity 

Counts were divided by the projected 

number of FY 2013 and FY 2014 

Exchange Visitor Activity Counts; i.e., 

the expected number of benefit 

applications. 

The following section describes the 

cost model structure driving the 

proposed fee changes. 

Cost Model Structure 

Model Overview 

In summary, the EVP Cost Accounting 

Model takes cost data from the GS 

Schedule Rates, Baseline ECA Budget, 

Civilian Pay Cost Data, Activity Model 

Cost Pools, FTE Capacity Calculation, 

LCC Cost Assessment, DPS Cost 

Assessment, and Other Cost Pools 

modules, assigns direct costs or 

allocates indirect and General and 

Administrative (G&A) costs using 

allocation ratios, and then uses the 

direct, indirect, and G&A cost pools to 

calculate the two fees for the Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2013–2014 time frame. 

The Cost Accounting Model contains 

twelve modules described in detail in 

the following sections. Most modules 

include an FY 2013 section and an FY 

2014 section, given the need to enter 

separate data for each fiscal year. The 

modules that only have one tab are 

Home, GS Schedule Rates, ECA Baseline 

Budget, FTE Capacity Calculation, LCC 

Cost Assessment, Designation 

Processing System, SEVIS & FTE Data, 

and Final EVP Fees FY 2013–2014. The 

modules are sequenced to follow the 

general flow of calculations performed 

by the model. 

GS Schedule Rates 

The GS Schedule Rates module 

contains the General Schedule (GS) pay 

scale figures for FY 2012–FY 2014. The 

figures for FY 2013 and FY 2014 are 

based on the 2012 General Schedule pay 

scale. These figures inform the Civilian 

Pay Cost Data FY13 and FY14 and the 

Activity Model Cost Pools FY2013 and 

FY2014 modules and are used to 

determine Department labor costs. 

Baseline ECA Budget 

The Baseline ECA Budget module 

contains the actual and projected 

Bureau of Education and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA) budget and budget 

breakdowns for FY 2012–FY 2014. 

These estimates inform the Other Cost 

Pools FY 2013 and FY 2014 modules. 

This module also calculates the 

ancillary costs associated with Office of 

Exchange Coordination and 

Compliance, Office of Private Sector 

Exchange Program Administration, and 

ECA/EC Front Office personnel. The 

results of this calculation are 

documented in the Other Cost Pools FY 

2013 and FY 2014 tabs in the 

‘‘Adjustment to Cost’’ column in the 

ECA/EC Non-Labor Cost Pool table. 

Civilian Pay Cost Data FY 2013 & FY 

2014 

This module pulls Civilian Pay data 

by General Schedule (GS) Level for 

ECA/EC/D personnel from the GS 

Schedule Rates module. The salaries of 

the personnel are escalated for benefits 

according to OMB Circular A–76. This 

calculation is detailed further in the 

Cost Accounting Model Data Sources 

section. 

Activity Model Cost Pools FY 2013 & FY 

2014 

This module displays the results of 

the Labor Survey that was conducted by 

the 2012 Deloitte Fee Study to 

determine the time spent by ECA/EC/D 

personnel performing activities related 

to the administration of the Exchange 

Visitor Program. The results are 

displayed by personnel position in the 

form of percentages. This data is then 

multiplied by the escalated salary 

calculated in the Civilian Pay Cost Data 

module to create Activity Model Cost 

Pools to determine the costs associated 

with the time spent by ECA/EC/D 

personnel performing activities related 

to the administration of the Exchange 

Visitor Program. Finally, this module 

includes a self-check feature to verify 

the completeness and accuracy of user 

entries. 

FTE Capacity Calculation 

This module displays the calculation 

the 2012 Deloitte Fee Study performed 

in order to determine ECA/EC’s current 

staffing needs related to fulfilling its 

mission of administering and overseeing 

the EVP. 

Local Coordinator Certification (LCC) 

Trainings Cost Assessment 

This module displays the costs of 

administering the training certifications 

for EVP sponsors’ field staff (regional 

and/or local coordinators) through the 

development of an in-house Learning 

Management System (LMS). The 

module also contains the total 

expenditures paid to an external LMS 

vendor to administer the trainings while 

the LMS is in development. The results 

of these calculations are documented in 

the Other Cost Pools FY 2013 & FY 2014 

tabs in the ECA/EC Non-Labor Cost Pool 

tables. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6267 

Designation Processing System (DPS) 

Cost Assessment 

This module displays the estimated 

costs of the Designation Processing 

System and Workflow Module designed 

to fully automate the designation and 

redesignation process in order to 

increase the Office of Private Sector 

Exchange’s efficiency required for 

sponsor reviews and to eventually 

integrate with the SEVIS II. The results 

of this cost estimate are documented in 

the ECA/EC Non-Labor Cost Pool tables 

of the Other Cost Pools FY2013 & 

FY2014 modules. 

Other Cost Pools FY 2013 & FY 2014 

This module displays other costs 

associated with the Exchange Visitor 

Program, including the following: 

• Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs, Office of Private Sector 

Exchange (ECA/EC) non-labor costs 

including costs estimates of the Local 

Coordinator Training Certifications, 

Designation Processing System, and the 

value of the JASZ Technology Call 

Center Contract (provides call center 

services for the J–1 Visa Helpline). 

• Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA) labor costs. 

• Department of State labor costs. 

• Department of State non-labor costs. 

Not all of the costs outlined above are 

allocated to the two fees since they 

support the Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs or the entire 

Department. The 2012 Deloitte Fee 

Study allocated appropriate portions of 

these costs to the EVP by FTE ratios. 

The FTE ratios are calculated from data 

provided by SEVIS & FTE Data module. 

SEVIS & FTE Data 

There is only one tab for the SEVIS & 

FTE Data module. It displays historical 

SEVIS and FTE data. It includes 

projected CY 2013 and CY 2014 

Designation and Redesignation 

Applications, and Exchange Visitor 

Activity Counts. Data in this module 

also generate FTE projections for FY 

2013 and FY 2014. This module 

contains the following specific FTE data 

for the following organizational areas: 

• Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs, Office of Private Sector 

Exchange, Office of Private Sector 

Designation (ECA/EC/D) and Office of 

Exchange Coordination and Compliance 

(ECA/EC/ECC). 

• Human Resources. 

• Support Services. 

• IIP Budget Office (Bureau of 

International Information Programs). 

• ECA Budget Office. 

• Program Management Office. 

• Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA). 

• Department of State. 

Cost Assignment & Allocation FY 2013 

& FY 2014 

This module pulls the data from the 

previous modules in order to assign 

direct costs or allocate indirect or G&A 

costs to each fee. The method in which 

costs are assigned or allocated varies by 

cost classification: 

• Direct costs are costs that can be 

specifically identified with an output. 

For direct costs, Deloitte followed the 

Direct Cost Assignment method to 

assign all resource cost to one cost 

object. In this case, the full cost of 

activities is assigned to the fee for which 

it is determined to be a direct cost. 

• Indirect costs are costs of resources 

that are jointly or commonly used to 

produce two or more outputs but are not 

specifically identifiable with any one 

output. For indirect costs, Deloitte 

followed the Prorated Cost Allocation 

method to allocate indirect costs to all 

cost objects based on percentage of total 

direct cost of the destination cost 

objects. In this case, the full cost in each 

indirect cost pool is split and each 

portion is then assigned to the 

appropriate fee. Indirect costs were split 

based on the labor survey allocations to 

each activity type (i.e., Application or 

Administrative). 

• G&A costs are the costs of support 

services that an office or segment 

receives from other segments or entities. 

G&A costs calculated and apportioned 

in Other Cost Pools FY2013 and FY2014 

are allocated to each of the fees in the 

same way indirect costs are allocated. 

This method for allocating indirect 

and general and administrative (G&A) 

cost is fully consistent with cost 

allocation guidance found in Sections 

133 and 134 of Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) 

Statement of Federal Financial 

Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 4 as 

follows: 

‘‘133. Sometimes, it might not be 

economically feasible to directly trace or 

assign costs on a cause-and-effect basis. 

These may include general management 

and support costs, depreciation, rent, 

maintenance, security, and utilities 

associated with facilities that are 

commonly used by various segments.’’ 

‘‘134. These supporting costs can be 

allocated to segments and outputs on a 

prorated basis. The cost allocations may 

involve two steps. The first step 

allocates the costs of support services to 

segments, and the second step allocates 

those costs to the outputs of each 

segment. The cost allocations are 

usually based on a relevant common 

denominator such as the number of 

employees, square footage of office 

space, or the amount of direct costs 

incurred in segments.’’ 

Fee Cost Pools FY 2013 & FY 2014 

This module pulls data from the Cost 

Assignment and Allocation module and 

groups it into total direct, indirect, and 

G&A cost pools. It then divides each of 

those cost pool amounts by the total 

projected SEVIS activity units to 

determine each fee’s direct, indirect, 

and G&A components. It also sums each 

of these cost components to provide the 

total for each fee for FY 2013 and FY 

2014. Finally, this module includes a 

self-check feature to verify the 

completeness and accuracy of user 

entries. 

Final EVP Fees FY 2013–2014 

This module adds the total costs and 

SEVIS Activity Units for FY 2013 and 

FY2014 from the Fee Cost Pool module 

in order to provide fees that are based 

on a two-year fee lifecycle consistent 

with the guidelines set forth in OMB 

Circular A–25 requiring current Program 

Sponsors to apply for Redesignation 

status every two years. It also includes 

a self-check feature to verify the 

completeness and accuracy of user 

entries. 

Cost Accounting Model Data Sources 

GS Schedule Rates 

The 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 

General Schedule Pay Tables and the 

2011 SES Pay Rates for the WashingtonBaltimore-Northern Virginia Locality 

were obtained from the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management. 

Baseline ECA Budget 

Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA) provided the actual 

Educational and Cultural Exchange 

Programs budgetary data for FY 2011, 

and projected budgetary data for FY 

2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014. 

Civilian Pay Cost Data 

For the data in the Civilian Pay Cost 

Data module, ECA provided Deloitte 

with each ECA/EC/D employee’s GS 

level, and then Deloitte used the Step 5 

salary assumption for each level to 

determine the salary to be entered for 

each employee. This figure was then 

escalated by 36.25% to capture benefits. 

This percentage is the guidance given 

for average benefits escalation in OMB 

Circular A–76 Performance of 

Commercial Activities, Attachment C— 

Calculating Public-Private Competition 

Costs. 

Activity Model Cost Pools 

The only data in the Activity Model 

Cost Pools module is the Labor Survey 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

6268 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

results. This input was accomplished by 

converting the hours each respondent 

recorded for their position and for each 

activity they performed during the 

Labor Survey into percentages of FTEs. 

Local Coordinator Certification (LCC) 

Trainings Cost Assessment 

ECA provided the expenditures to 

date spent on external Learning 

Management System (LMS) vendor. The 

cost estimate for the in-house LMS was 

based on Deloitte’s own estimate using 

interviews, training system 

requirements, subject-matter experts, 

and industry standards. 

Designation Processing System (DPS) 

Cost Assessment 

The cost estimates for the 

development of the Designation 

Processing System, Electronic File 

Conversion, and Complaint 

Management Workflow Module were 

based on Deloitte’s own estimate using 

interviews, ECA/EC system 

requirements, subject-matter experts, 

and industry standards. 

Other Cost Pools 

The data from Other Cost Pools is 

derived from the GS Schedule Rates, 

Baseline ECA Budget, LCC Cost 

Assessment, DPS Cost Assessment, and 

SEVIS & FTE Data modules. 

• Deloitte used the following methods 

to derive ECA/EC non-labor cost data: 

—The FY2013 and FY2014 budgetary 

data has been taken from ECA 

projected data found in the Baseline 

ECA Budget module. 

—The Local Coordinator Certification 

Training Cost Assessment and the 

Designation Processing Cost 

Assessment are derived from the 

calculations in LCC Cost 

Assessment and DPS Cost 

Assessment modules, respectively. 

—JASZ Technology Call Center contract 

value was provided by ECA/EC. 

• All ECA labor cost data is derived 

from the FY 2012 Employment 

Compensation and Benefits figure in the 

ECA Budget module. This figure is prorated by the respective ECA 

organizational area’s FTEs, and based on 

the FY 2012 Employment Compensation 

and Benefits figure for FY 2013 and FY 

2014 estimates. 

• For Department non-labor costs, 

Deloitte obtained the Total Departmentwide GSA Rents from the Department of 

State Congressional Budget 

Justification—Fiscal Year 2012. 

SEVIS & FTE Data 

ECA/EC provided Deloitte with 

historical SEVIS activity counts 

associated with each fee for calendar 

years (CY) 2007–2011. ECA/EC also 

provided Deloitte with actual 

Department, ECA, and ECA/EC FTE 

levels for FY 2009 through FY 2011 and 

projected levels for FY 2012. Using 

these figures, Deloitte projected for FY 

2013 and FY 2014 SEVIS and FTE data 

in the following manner: 

D For SEVIS data projections: 

—ECA/EC provided CY 2007 through 

CY 2011 data. 

—ECA/EC directed the use of constant 

CY 2011 counts for CY 2012–CY 2014. 

D For FTE data projections: 

—ECA/EC provided actual FY2009 

through FY2011 data. 

—ECA/EC provided projected FY2012 

data. 

—ECA/EC/D FY 2013 and FY 2014 data 

were projected at FY 2012 levels with 

the additional nine FTEs calculated 

from the FTE Capacity Calculation 

(Section 3.5) and four additional FTEs 

that joined ECA/EC/D after the Labor 

Survey was conducted. 

Regulatory Findings 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Department of State is of the 

opinion that the Exchange Visitor 

Program is a foreign affairs function of 

the U.S. Government and that rules 

implementing this function are exempt 

from Sec 553 (Rulemaking) and Sec 554 

(Adjudications) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). The U.S. 

Government supervises programs that 

invite foreign nationals to come to the 

United States to participate in exchange 

visitor programs, either directly or 

through private sector program sponsors 

or grantees. When problems occur, the 

U.S. Government often has been, and 

likely will be, held accountable by 

foreign governments for the treatment of 

their nationals, regardless of who is 

responsible for the problems. 

The purpose of this rule is to set the 

fees that will fund services provided by 

the Exchange Visitor Program Office of 

Designation to more than 1,400 sponsor 

organizations and 300,000 Exchange 

Visitor Program participants. These 

services include oversight and 

compliance with program requirements 

as well as the monitoring of programs to 

ensure the health, safety and well-being 

of foreign nationals entering the United 

States (many of these exchange 

programs and participants are often 

funded by the U.S. Government) under 

the aegis of the Exchange Visitor 

Program and in furtherance of its foreign 

relations mission. The Department of 

State represents that failure to protect 

the health and well-being of these 

foreign nationals and their appropriate 

placement with reputable organizations 

will have direct and substantial adverse 

effects on the foreign affairs of the 

United States. 

Although the Department is of the 

opinion that this rule is exempt from the 

rulemaking provisions of the APA, the 

Department is publishing this rule as a 

proposed rule, with a 60-day provision 

for public comment and without 

prejudice to its determination that the 

Exchange Visitor Program is a foreign 

affairs function. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive 

Order 13272: Small Business 

As discussed above, the Department 

believes that this proposed rule is 

exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

553, and that no other law requires the 

Department to give notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Accordingly the 

Department believes that this proposed 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C.601, et seq.) or Executive Order 

13272, Sec. 3 (b). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This proposed rule will not result in 

the expenditure by State, local and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million in 

any year and it will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The Department has determined that 

this rulemaking will not have tribal 

implications, will not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments, and will not 

pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the 

provisions of Executive Order 13175 do 

not apply to this rulemaking. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 for the 

purposes of Congressional review of 

agency rulemaking under the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801–808). 

This rule will not result in an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more; a major increase in costs or 

prices; or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6269 

Executive Order 13563 and Executive 

Order 12866 

As discussed above, the Department is 

of the opinion that the Exchange Visitor 

Program is a foreign affairs function of 

the United States Government and that 

rules governing the conduct of this 

function are exempt from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

However, the Department has 

nevertheless reviewed this proposed 

regulation to ensure its consistency with 

the regulatory philosophy and 

principles set forth in that Executive 

Order. 

The Department has examined the 

economic benefits, costs, and transfers 

associated with this proposed rule, and 

declare that educational and cultural 

exchanges are both the cornerstone of 

U.S. public diplomacy and an integral 

component of American foreign policy. 

The benefits of these exchanges to the 

United States and its people are 

invaluable and cannot be monetized; in 

the same way, even one instance of an 

exchange visitor having a bad 

experience or, worse, being mistreated, 

could result in embarrassment and 

incalculable harm to the foreign policy 

of the United States. Therefore, the 

Department is of the opinion that these 

benefits of this rulemaking outweigh its 

costs. 

Executive Order 12988 

The Department has reviewed this 

regulation in light of sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to 

eliminate ambiguity, minimize 

litigation, establish clear legal 

standards, and reduce burden. 

Executive Orders 12372 and Executive 

Order 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, it is determined that this 

rule does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to require consultations or 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. The 

regulations implementing Executive 

Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities do not 

apply to this regulation. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements contained in this 

rulemaking are pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35 and OMB Control Number 

1405–0147, expiring on November 30, 

2013. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 62 

Cultural Exchange Program. 

Accordingly, 22 CFR part 62 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 62—EXCHANGE VISITOR 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), 1182, 

1184, 1258; 22 U.S.C. 1431–1442, 2451 et 

seq.; Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105–277, 

Div. G, 112 Stat. 2681 et seq.; Reorganization 

Plan No. 2 of 1977, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp. p. 

200; E.O. 12048 of March 27, 1978; 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp. p. 168; the Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

(IIRIRA) of 1996, Pub. L. 104–208, Div. C, 110 

Stat. 3009–546, as amended; Uniting and 

Strengthening America by Providing 

Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 

Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA 

PATRIOT ACT), Pub. L. 107–56, Sec. 416, 

115 Stat. 354; and the Enhanced Border 

Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. 107–173, 116 Stat. 543. 

■ 2. Revise § 62.17 to read as follows: 

§ 62.17 Fees and charges. 

(a) Remittances. Fees prescribed 

within the framework of 31 U.S.C. 9701 

must be submitted as directed by the 

Department and must be in the amount 

prescribed by law or regulation. 

(b) Amounts of fees. The following 

fees are prescribed. 

(1) For filing an application for 

program designation and/or 

redesignation (Form DS–3036)— 

$3,982.00. 

(2) For filing an application for 

exchange visitor status changes (i.e., 

extension beyond the maximum 

duration, change of category, 

reinstatement, reinstatement-update 

SEVIS status, ECFMG sponsorship 

authorization, and permission to 

issue)—$367.00. 

Dated: January 22, 2013. 

Robin J. Lerner, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private Sector 

Exchange, Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01555 Filed 1–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Parts 121, 123, 124, 125, and 

129 

[Public Notice 8166] 

RIN 1400–AD18 

Amendment to the International Traffic 

in Arms Regulations: Revision of U.S. 

Munitions List Category XVI 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: As part of the President’s 

Export Control Reform effort, the 

Department of State proposes to amend 

the International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations (ITAR) to revise Category 

XVI (nuclear weapons related articles) 

of the U.S. Munitions List (USML). The 

revisions contained in this rule are part 

of the Department of State’s 

retrospective plan under E.O. 13563 

completed on August 17, 2011. The 

Department of State’s full plan can be 

accessed at http://www.state.gov/ 

documents/organization/181028.pdf. 

DATES: The Department of State will 

accept comments on this proposed rule 

until March 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments within 45 days of the 

date of publication by one of the 

following methods: 

• Email: 

DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov with the 

subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment— 

Category XVI.’’ 

• Internet: At www.regulations.gov, 

search for this notice by using this rule’s 

RIN (1400–AD18). 

Comments received after that date 

will be considered if feasible, but 

consideration cannot be assured. Those 

submitting comments should not 

include any personally identifying 

information they do not desire to be 

made public or information for which a 

claim of confidentiality is asserted 

because those comments and/or 

transmittal emails will be made 

available for public inspection and 

copying after the close of the comment 

period via the Directorate of Defense 

Trade Controls Web site at 

www.pmddtc.state.gov. Parties who 

wish to comment anonymously may do 

so by submitting their comments via 

www.regulations.gov, leaving the fields 

that would identify the commenter 

blank and including no identifying 

information in the comment itself. 

Comments submitted via 

www.regulations.gov are immediately 

available for public inspection. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Candace M. J. Goforth, Director, Office 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with