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

55683 

Vol. 73, No. 188 

Friday, September 26, 2008 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

8 CFR Parts 103 and 214 

[DHS Docket No. ICEB–2008–0004] 

RIN 1653–AA54 

Adjusting Program Fees and 

Establishing Procedures for Out-ofCycle Review and Recertification of 

Schools Certified by the Student and 

Exchange Visitor Program To Enroll F 

and/or M Nonimmigrant Students 

AGENCY: U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule adjusts the Student 

and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) 

school certification petition fees and the 

application fees for nonimmigrants 

seeking to become academic (F visa) or 

vocational (M visa) students, or 

exchange visitors (J visa). The rule sets 

the following fees: $1,700 for a school 

certification petition and $655 for each 

site visit for certification; and $200 for 

each F or M student. This rule also sets 

a $180 fee for most J exchange visitors; 

however, the $35 fee for each J exchange 

visitor seeking admission as an au pair, 

camp counselor, or summer work/travel 

program participant will remain the 

same. All fee payments addressed in 

this final rule must be made in the 

amounts established by this rule 

beginning October 27, 2008. 

The rule also establishes procedures 

for the oversight and recertification of 

schools attended by F and/or M 

students, establishes procedures for 

schools to submit recertification 

petitions, adds a provision allowing a 

school to voluntarily withdraw from its 

certification, and clarifies procedures 

for school operation with regard to F 

and M students during recertification 

and following a denial of recertification 

or a withdrawal of certification. Finally, 

the rule removes obsolete provisions 

used prior to implementation of the 

Student and Exchange Visitor 

Information System (SEVIS). 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 27, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Louis Farrell, Director, Student and 

Exchange Visitor Program; U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Department of Homeland Security; 

Chester Arthur Building, 425 I St., NW., 

Suite 6034, Washington, DC 20536; 

telephone number (202) 305–2346. 

Program information can be found at 

http://www.ice.gov/sevis. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule 

A. General Comments 

1. Support for the Rule 

2. Opposition to the Rule 

3. Technical Corrections to the Proposed 

Rule 

B. Adjustment of SEVP Fees 

1. Frequency of fee review and scale of fee 

increase 

2. Economies in efficiency 

3. Fee increase for F, M and J 

nonimmigrants 

C. Enhancements 

1. Issues/Concerns before SEVIS II 

2. SEVIS II 

3. Improved SEVIS and SEVIS II 

Capabilities 

4. SEVIS II and Biometrics 

5. Additional CEU personnel 

6. School liaison activity 

D. Full Cost Information 

1. Further reduced fee of $35 for au pairs, 

camp counselors, and summer work 

travel 

2. Impacts on applicant groups 

3. Certification fee 

4. Site-visit fee 

5. Inclusion of enforcement costs 

E. Certification, Out-of-Cycle Review, and 

Recertification Requirements 

1. Form I–17 

2. Notices and communications 

3. Recordkeeping, retention, and reporting 

requirements—Student Record 

Requirements 

4. SEVIS data integrity 

5. Certification 

6. Recertification 

7. Out-of-cycle review 

8. Designated school officials 

9. Denial or withdrawal of SEVP 

certification or recertification procedures 

10. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

III. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Review 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

List of Subjects 

PART 103—POWERS AND DUTIES; 

AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS PART 

214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES 

Table of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

ADIS Arrival and Departure Information 

System 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CCD Consular Consolidated Database 

CEU Compliance Enforcement Unit 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CLAIMS Computer Linked Application 

Information Management System 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DMV Department of motor vehicles 

DoS Department of State 

DSO Designated school official 

EBSVERA Enhanced Border Security and 

Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Public Law 

107–173; May 14, 2002 

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards 

Advisory Board 

FDMS Federal Docket Management System 

FIN Functional identification number 

FR Federal Register 

FTTTF Foreign Terrorist Task Tracking 

Force 

HSPD–2 Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive—2 

IBIS Interagency Border Inspection System 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

IEFA Immigration Examinations Fee 

Account 

IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 

INA Immigration and Nationality Act of 

1952 

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service 

IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

NAFSA Association of International 

Educators 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NIV Nonimmigrant Visa 

NOIW Notice of Intent to Withdraw 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NSEERS National Security Entry Exit 

Registration System 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPT Optional practical training 

PDSO Principal designated school official 

PIA Privacy Information Assessment 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RO Responsible officer 

RTI Real-time interface 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55684 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

SAVE Systematic Alien Verification for 

Entitlements 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCB School Certification Branch 

SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor 

Information System 

SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor 

Program 

SFFAS FASAB Statement of Federal 

Financial Accounting Standard No. 4: 

Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and 

Standards for the Federal Government 

UAM User Application Model 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

USA PATRIOT Act Uniting and 

Strengthening America by Providing 

Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept 

and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

US–VISIT United States Visitor and 

Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 

VIS Verification Information System 

I. Background 

On April 21, 2008, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), through U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE), Student and Exchange Visitor 

Program (SEVP), published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 

the fees charged by SEVP and to 

establish a school certification program. 

73 FR 21260. This final rule implements 

those changes and other legal 

requirements by amending DHS 

regulations governing certification, 

oversight and recertification of schools 

by SEVP for attendance by F and/or M 

students. The rule establishes 

procedures for schools to submit 

recertification petitions, adds a 

provision allowing a school to 

voluntarily withdraw from its existing 

certification, clarifies procedures for 

school operations with regard to F and 

M visa students during recertification 

and following a withdrawal of 

certification, and removes obsolete 

provisions used prior to implementation 

of the Student and Exchange Visitor 

Information System (SEVIS). SEVP 

administers SEVIS as a Web-enabled 

database that provides current 

information on F, M and J 

nonimmigrants in the United States. 

The rule also adjusts the SEVP school 

certification fee and student application 

fees (Form I–901 SEVIS fee) to reflect 

existing program operating costs, 

program requirements, and planned 

program enhancements. These fee 

adjustments are driven by two factors: 

(1) The need to comply with statutory 

and regulatory requirements that SEVP 

review its fee structure every two years 

to ensure that the cost of the services 

that are provided are fully captured by 

fees assessed on those receiving the 

services; and (2) the need to enhance 

SEVP capability to meet current 

program requirements and to achieve its 

mission goals in support of homeland 

security and countering immigration 

fraud. 

Once promulgated, the rule will allow 

SEVP to fully fund activities and 

institute critical near-term program and 

system enhancements in a manner that 

fairly allocates cost among the F, M and 

J visa categories, and acknowledges 

defined performance goals. These 

enhancements include implementation 

of the next generation SEVIS (i.e., SEVIS 

II), increased enforcement capability, 

expansion of school liaison activity, and 

establishment of a school recertification 

process. 

SEVP makes these changes under a 

series of statutory authorities, including, 

but not limited to the following 

immigration and homeland security 

laws: sections 101(a)(15)(F)(i), 

101(a)(15)(M)(i) and 101(a)(15)(J) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 

(INA), as amended; section 641 of the 

Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 

(IIRIRA), Public Law 104–208, Div. C, 

110 Stat. 3009–546 (September 30, 

1996); the Uniting and Strengthening 

America by Providing Appropriate 

Tools Required to Intercept and 

Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public 

Law 107–56, 115 Stat. 272 (October 26, 

2001; USA PATRIOT Act); and the 

Enhanced Border Security and Visa 

Entry Reform Act of 2002 (EBSVERA), 

Public Law 107–173, 116 Stat. 543 (May 

14, 2002), codified at 8 U.S.C. 1762. 

These laws govern the admission of 

foreign nationals into the United States 

in nonimmigrant status to attend 

academic, language and vocational 

schools, and to participate in foreign 

exchange visitor programs. They require 

that DHS collect certain information 

about F and M students and J exchange 

visitors at ports of entry. They also 

establish certification and recertification 

requirements for schools seeking 

approval for school attendance by F 

and/or M students. 

DHS’s authority to assess fees arises 

under IIRIRA sections 641(e)(1), 

641(e)(4)(A) and 641(g)(2), as amended. 

In addition, section 286(m) of the INA 

permits the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to collect fees at a level that 

ensures recovery of the full costs of 

providing adjudication services, 

including the costs of providing similar 

services without charge to asylum 

applicants and certain other immigrants. 

All fees collected by ICE pursuant to 

this final rule are deposited as offsetting 

receipts into the Immigration 

Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) and 

remain available to the Secretary until 

expended for the purposes of the 

program. IIRIRA section 641(e)(4)(B). 

The fee assessments and collections 

implemented under this final rule are 

consistent with Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Circular A–25, User 

Charges (revised). See 58 FR 38142 (July 

15, 1993). Section 6 of OMB Circular A– 

25 defines ‘‘full cost’’ to include all 

direct and indirect cost to any part of 

the federal government for providing a 

good, resource, or service. The fees 

implemented under this final rule also 

are consistent with OMB Circular A–11, 

Preparation, Submission and Execution 

of the Budget, section 31.12 (July 2, 

2007), which directs agencies to develop 

user charge estimates based on the full 

cost recovery policy set forth in OMB 

Circular A–25. 

Further, this rule complies with the 

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory 

Board (FASAB) Statement of Federal 

Financial Accounting Standards 

(SFFAS) No 4: Managerial Cost 

Accounting Concepts and Standards for 

the Federal Government (July 31, 1995), 

which provides federal government 

standards regarding managerial cost 

accounting and full cost recovery. The 

Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 

(CFO Act), 31 U.S.C. 901–903, requires 

each agency’s Chief Financial Officer 

(CFO) to ‘‘review, on a biennial basis, 

the fees, royalties, rents and other 

charges imposed by the agency for 

services and things of value it provides, 

and make recommendations on revising 

those charges to reflect cost incurred by 

it in providing those services and things 

of value.’’ 31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8). This final 

rule is consistent with these federal 

sector financial and accounting laws, 

rules and standards, and reflects fee 

collection recommendations made by 

the CFO. As such, the rule increases 

funding that supports current SEVP 

operations; provides funding for new 

initiatives critical to improving the 

program; funds operations to comply 

with statutory requirements to 

implement school recertification; and 

reflects the implementation of specific 

cost allocation methods to segment 

program costs to the appropriate fee, 

either F and M students, J exchange 

visitors, or schools, to ensure 

compliance with the federal sector legal 

framework for fee setting. 

This final rule amends the SEVP 

school certification petition fees and the 

application fees for nonimmigrants 

seeking to become academic (F visa) or 

vocational (M visa) students, or 

exchange visitors (J visa). The rule also 

implements mandatory review of fees 

collected by SEVP. It sets the fee for 

submitting a school certification 

petition at $1,700 and the fee for each 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55685 

site visit at $655. It sets the fee for each 

F or M student at $200. The rule sets the 

fee for certain J exchange visitors at 

$180 and maintains the fee for exchange 

visitors seeking admission as au pairs, 

camp counselors, and summer work/ 

travel program participants at $35. All 

fee payments addressed in this final rule 

must be made in the amounts 

established by this rule beginning 

October 27, 2008. 

The rule also establishes procedures 

for oversight and recertification of 

schools with F and/or M students. This 

includes procedures for schools to 

submit recertification petitions as well 

as procedures to allow a school to 

voluntarily withdraw from an existing 

certification. The rule further clarifies 

procedures for school operation with 

regard to F and M students during 

recertification and following a denial of 

recertification or a withdrawal of 

certification. Finally, the rule removes 

obsolete provisions used prior to 

implementation of SEVIS. 

II. Public Comments on the Proposed 

Rule 

The 60-day comment period for this 

rulemaking action concluded on June 

20, 2008; although SEVP allowed 

posting of late-filed comments through 

June 27, 2008. The proposed rule 

identified several alternative means for 

submitting comments. SEVP converted 

all comments submitted, regardless of 

means chosen for submission, to 

electronic format where they may be 

viewed electronically through the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov 

(use DHS docket number ICEB–2008– 

0004 when searching). SEVP received 

61 written comments to FDMS. 

In addition, in the weeks following 

the publication of the proposed rule, the 

SEVP Director and key staff, led in 

several instances by the Assistant 

Secretary for U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, launched a 

nationwide tour of educational 

institutions to engage the public in a 

‘‘town hall’’ format to encourage open 

dialogue, public comments and 

understanding about the proposed rule. 

SEVP opened the forums to the public 

at large, and specifically invited officials 

from every SEVP-certified school and 

exchange visitor program sponsors from 

a listing provided to SEVP by the 

Department of State (DoS). SEVP posted 

the transcripts of those forums on the 

public docket for this rulemaking at 

www.regulations.gov. 

SEVP further extended outreach to the 

public through the home page of the 

SEVP Web site, http://www.ice.gov/ 

sevis. The site included related press 

releases, ‘‘frequently asked questions’’ 

(FAQs), links to documents and access 

to FDMS for comment submission. 

Although not an official method of 

comment submission, SEVP received 

some rule-related input through its 

policy guidance ‘‘help’’ e-mail address, 

SEVIS.Source@dhs.gov. In these 

instances, SEVP asked submitters to 

comply with docket submission criteria, 

but also added all substantive issues 

related to the proposed rule raised in 

those e-mails to the FDMS docket. 

This final rule considered all 

comments received during the comment 

period and has responded to those 

comments in this final rule. Below is a 

summary of changes to the final rule 

text made in response to public 

comment: 

1. The proposed text for 8 CFR 

103.7(b)(1) related to the Form I–290B 

has been removed. 

2. The proposed text for 8 CFR 

103.7(b)(1) related to the Form I–901 has 

been amended slightly to clarify fees for 

J visa holders by listing the J-visa 

categories first and then the fees, and by 

specifically listing the government 

sponsored program visa categories 

exempt from these fees. 

3. The proposed text for 8 CFR 

214.3(g)(1) Student Records is amended 

by adding after the first sentence the 

following text: ‘‘Student information not 

required for entry in SEVIS may be kept 

in the school’s student system of 

records, but must be accessible to 

DSOs.’’ 

4. The proposed text for 8 CFR 

214.3(g)(1)(ii) is amended by adding a 

parenthetical clarification regarding the 

recordation of legal name changes as 

follows: ‘‘Identification of the student, 

to include name while in attendance 

(record any legal name change), date 

and place of birth, country of 

citizenship, school’s student 

identification number.’’ 

5. The proposed text for 8 CFR 

214.3(g)(1)(xi), requiring schools to 

maintain record of nonimmigrant 

students’ ‘‘date of last entry into the 

United States; most recent Form I–94 

number and date of issue,’’ has been 

deleted. 

6. The proposed text for 8 CFR 

214.3(g)(2)(iii)(D) Adjustment to the 

program completion date is amended by 

adding examples in parenthesis to read: 

‘‘Any factors that influence the student’s 

progress toward program completion 

(e.g., deferred attendance, authorized 

drop below, program extension) must be 

reflected by making an adjustment 

updating the program completion date.’’ 

7. The proposed text for 8 CFR 

214.3(h)(2) Recertification is amended 

by adding after the first sentence, 

‘‘There is no recertification petition 

fee.’’ 

8. The proposed text for 8 CFR 

214.4(a)(1) is amended to add the 

sentence, ‘‘No fee is required with 

appeals related to SEVP certification.’’ 

9. The proposed text for 8 CFR 

214.4(a)(2)(xix) is amended to include 

only those changes that represent a 

‘‘material change to the scope of the 

institution offerings’’ as follows: 

‘‘Failure of a DSO to notify SEVP of 

material changes, such as changes to the 

school’s name, address, or curricular 

changes that represent material change 

to the scope of institution offerings (e.g., 

addition of a program, class or course 

for which the school is issuing Forms I– 

20, but which does not have Form I–17 

approval), as required by 8 CFR 

214.3(f)(1).’’ 

10. The proposed text of 8 CFR 

214.4(h) is amended by adding the last 

sentence, ‘‘No fee is required with 

appeals related to denial of SEVP 

recertification or withdrawal of SEVP 

certification.’’ 

11. The proposed text of 8 CFR 214.13 

is expanded to include paragraph (b)(1). 

This allows a slight technical 

correction—the addition of the G–7 

category. 

A. General Comments 

Comments submitted to the docket for 

this rulemaking were distributed 

relatively evenly among various issues, 

with concerns about the potential 

impact of the increased I–901 SEVIS fee 

on student and exchange visitor 

participation in F, M and J programs 

and questions about adjustments to 

student reporting requirements 

receiving the greatest number of 

comments. 

1. Support for the Rule 

Some comments affirmed the purpose 

and scope of the rule, acknowledging 

the need to remove DHS authorization 

to enroll F and/or M students from 

noncompliant schools, and supporting 

increased interaction and 

communication among federal agencies 

through the development of SEVIS II 

and expanded SEVP liaison activity. 

One commenter, in particular, 

applauded U.S. government policy 

related to assessing fees for the cost of 

government programs and opined that 

all costs associated with international 

students’ presence in the United States 

should be paid by students rather than 

by U.S. taxpayers. SEVP agrees with and 

appreciates these expressions of support 

for the program and, in this final rule, 

seeks to fulfill its legal requirements to 

fully capture the costs associated with 

carrying out government responsibilities 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55686 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of 

the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon 

the United States (2004) (9/11 Commission Report). 

under the SEVP program through 

appropriate fee assessments. 

2. Opposition to the Rule 

A number of comments were not 

relevant to the substance of the 

proposed rule; in particular those 

questioning the government’s basis for 

establishing and continuing SEVP 

overall and criticizing the rule for not 

addressing or solving immigration 

issues in general. One comment, in 

particular, questions the logic of 

focusing U.S. government attention and 

public resources on foreign students and 

researchers as opposed to other 

immigrant and nonimmigrant groups. 

Other comments noted recent 

increases in fees for nonimmigrants by 

the Department of State (DoS) for visa 

processing and by U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) for 

benefit applications, and asked if the 

fees could be better coordinated and 

phased-in. These comments suggested 

changes in substantive federal laws, 

USCIS regulations and processes for 

implementing the immigration laws by 

USCIS, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) and other agencies. 

Several comments criticized the 

Department’s law enforcement programs 

for lack of collection of adequate law 

enforcement data related to criminal 

behavior. One comment, in particular, 

asked that SEVP further illuminate the 

scale of the problems that this 

regulation purports to address and 

provide additional information as to 

how many uninvestigated leads related 

to nonimmigrant student and exchange 

visitor activities resulted in criminal 

conduct, how many institutions are 

complying with SEVP requirements, 

and what percentage of foreign students 

are represented by these institutions. 

Finally, an advocacy group, endorsed 

by four commenters, questioned the 

efficacy of U.S. international education 

policy and its intersection with national 

immigration policy; concluding that 

SEVIS is an example of government 

regulation ‘‘for extraneous purposes,’’ 

developed in the absence of 

comprehensive U.S. international 

education policy. 

All of these comments are beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. The final rule 

does not address comments seeking 

changes in statutes, regulations, policy 

or processes unrelated to or not 

addressed by the proposed rule. It also 

does not respond to requests for changes 

in procedures of other DHS components 

or other agencies, or the resolution of 

any other issues not within the scope of 

the rulemaking. 

Several individual commenters 

observed that the language in the 

preamble to the proposed rule regarding 

terrorist threats to the United States 

overstated the actual terrorist threat of a 

relatively small segment of the total 

population that visits the United States. 

They believe that such language has 

been a deterrent to foreign 

nonimmigrant participation with 

schools and exchange visitor programs. 

Some commenters, including two 

advocacy groups, feel that the 

‘‘message’’ that foreign nationals will 

perceive from the rule will be that the 

United States is ‘‘unwelcoming.’’ 

SEVP strongly supports international 

education. Most non-immigrant 

students have positive experiences 

while in the United States, and the 

goodwill engendered by all that the 

United States has to offer will encourage 

mutually beneficial international 

relations. SEVP, by ensuring students’ 

legitimacy, both reduces potential 

terrorist threats and decreases the risk of 

discrimination in the larger community, 

contributing to a safe environment for 

students and exchange visitors when 

they attend programs in the United 

States. 

As discussed in the proposed rule, 

and in sources such as The 9/11 

Commission Report, a strong 

immigration policy, including the 

ability of the U.S. government to know 

whether nonimmigrant visitors have 

overstayed the term of their admission 

to the United States, is critical to 

safeguarding the homeland. See 72 FR at 

21266. The National Commission on 

Terrorist Attacks upon the United States 

(the 9/11 Commission), in its seminal 

report, noted: 

Looking back, we can see that the routine 

operations of our immigration laws—that is, 

aspects of those laws not specifically aimed 

at protecting against terrorism—inevitably 

shaped al Qaeda planning and opportunities 

* * * had the immigration system set a 

higher bar for determining whether 

individuals are who or what they claim to 

be—and ensur[ed] routine consequences for 

violations—it could potentially have 

excluded, removed, or come into further 

contact with several hijackers who did not 

appear to meet the terms for admitting shortterm visitors. 1

SEVP strives to administer SEVIS and 

the information collection and reporting 

requirements mandated by statute for F 

and M students and J exchange visitors 

in a manner that best serves the 

requirements of the law, supports the 

missions of DHS and the Department of 

State, and facilitates the ability of 

foreign students and exchange visitors 

to come to the United States. The fees 

implemented under this final rule will 

support SEVP’s efforts in continuing to 

improve all of these purposes. 

3. Technical Corrections to the Proposed 

Rule 

SEVP identified three required 

technical corrections to the proposed 

rule. SEVP discovered that Table 1: 

Summary of Requirements by 

Organization and Program Category, in 

the section addressing Program 

Expenses, the expenses for SEVIS II for 

2009 and reflecting the change of 

$25,100 are in error (carried over from 

a previous calculation). The entry of 

$25,100 is corrected to $25,600. The 

correct entry was used for determining 

the totals of the Program Expenses 

section, so the totals remain unchanged. 

Also, SEVP discovered that Table 12: 

FY 2009 SEVP Program Fees, line 4, in 

the proposed rule preamble, contained a 

typographical error by stating ‘‘190’’ for 

the I–901 SEVIS fee for most J–1 

exchange visitors. The proposed rule 

included and discussed the correct 

‘‘180’’ figure at several points in the 

document, including the proposed rule 

text, and no commenter expressed 

confusion over this proposed dollar 

amount. 

The proposed text of 8 CFR 214.13 

did not include the G–7 visa category, 

as required by law. SEVP expanded the 

final rule text to include paragraph 

(b)(1), which corrects this oversight by 

adding the G–7 category. This inclusion 

does not substantially change the intent 

of the proposed rule but reflects a wellestablished and nondiscretionary legal 

requirement. 

B. Adjustment of SEVP Fees 

1. Frequency of Fee Review and Scale 

of Fee Increase 

An individual commenter asked how 

frequently the SEVP community should 

expect future fee adjustments. In the 

same vein, an advocacy group 

commented that the rule asserts DHS 

authority to revisit the fee every two 

years, describing this authority and the 

possible frequency of fee review as 

‘‘drastic and sweeping.’’ Another 

comment suggested that a more 

business-like approach, sensitive to 

consumers, would have been to raise 

fees incrementally. 

As stated in the NPRM, this is the first 

adjustment of fees based upon actual 

operational costs to the program 

implemented by SEVP since 2002. Due 

to the lapse in time and significant 

increase in operating costs for the 

program, SEVP had to propose, and now 

implement, a substantial fee increase to 

cover the actual operating costs of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55687 

2http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/page/113974. 

3SEVP has placed these research materials in the 

FDMS docket for this rulemaking. 

4On January 30, 2008, the Home Office of the 

United Kingdom (UK), the UK equivalent to DHS, 

announced a new SEVP-like program for students 

and exchange visitors that will likely include 

additional fees. See http:// 

www.ukba.homeoffice.gov/managing borders/ 

managing immigration/a points-based system. 

program. ICE is required by law and 

Executive Order to review these fees on 

a biennial basis. 31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8). 

SEVP will continue to review its fees 

every two years and make future fee 

adjustments, as necessary, at more 

regular intervals consistent with the 

biennial review and in line with the 

commenters’ suggestions. 

2. Economies in Efficiency 

Two individuals commented, without 

providing specific examples, that 

efficiencies in SEVP and DHS 

operations, as well as at DoS, could 

eliminate the need for fee increases. 

Similarly, one commenter observed that 

the Departments have not yet delivered 

promised efficiencies and should do so 

before raising fees. 

SEVP is unable to respond to these 

comments because they are vague and 

fail to identify a means of achieving the 

supposed efficiencies. They also do not 

identify the Departments’ alleged 

promised efficiencies. SEVP endorses 

streamlining and promoting efficiencies 

in its operations. This is one reason for 

creating the SEVIS II system, which will 

provide for more efficient processing 

and sharing of student data. SEVP 

disagrees that there remain significant 

unrecognized efficiencies attainable 

under the current program with the 

current fee levels. As described in the 

proposed rule, these adjusted fees are 

based on expanding program operating 

needs; including a need for the SEVIS 

II system and additional enforcement 

and liaison personnel to address the 

existing and expanding SEVP caseload. 

They are based on legal requirements, 

including the recertification program 

required by EBSVERA (8 U.S.C. 1762) 

and Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive-2 (HSPD–2) and are not 

susceptible to overall reduction or 

elimination by the program through 

leveraging additional efficiencies. 

3. Fee Increase for F, M, and J 

Nonimmigrants 

The largest volume of comments on 

the proposed rule voiced concern that 

the increase in the I–901 SEVIS fee 

would adversely affect U.S. 

competitiveness in the international 

market for foreign student enrollment 

and exchange visitor participation. 

Some commenters expanded this 

concern to emphasize the importance of 

foreign student enrollment and 

exchange visitor participation to the 

U.S. culture and economy. These 

comments, including a comment from a 

major advocacy group, suggested that 

SEVP seek alternative public funding 

sources. Some of the comments in this 

area asked if SEVP could decrease the 

burden on students by having the 

student fee paid incrementally, part 

before and part after visa issuance, to 

minimize the loss to those that do not 

receive visas. 

SEVP fully appreciates the 

importance of foreign student and 

exchange visitor enrollment to the U.S. 

culture and economy, and is firmly 

committed to lawful visitation of foreign 

nationals for this purpose. This is 

reflected in recent enrollment data, 

which indicate that enrollment of F, M 

and J nonimmigrants at higher 

education institutions is at a historic 

high and does not indicate any 

demonstrable variance in overall U.S. 

market share in relation to other 

countries.2

SEVP also observes that the comments 

neither cited to nor provided a 

published study or other data 

supporting the suggestion that an 

increase in government fees charged to 

international students adversely affects 

their decision to choose the United 

States for academic or vocational study, 

or exchange visits. SEVP, likewise, has 

been unable to locate such a study. The 

program thus has no objective basis for 

concluding that international students 

choose or reject attending education 

institutions in the United States based 

on government fees which, generally, 

are a very small portion of the overall 

costs of attending these programs. 

Rather, SEVP research reveals that the 

fees currently required for all incoming 

F–1 students equates to similar fees 

charged in other countries.3 An analysis 

of twelve countries (Australia, Canada, 

China, France, Germany, India, Japan, 

Russia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, 

South Korea, and the United Kingdom) 

shows that the average student visa fee 

is $126.58. The composite U.S. cost, 

after the effective date of this rule, will 

be $330, which includes a visa 

processing fee of $130 and the $200 I– 

901 SEVIS fee. This fee is neither the 

most expensive nor the least expensive 

when compared with these twelve 

countries. In fact, Australia, cited by 

most commenters as the singular 

competitor of U.S. market share, 

currently charges nonimmigrant 

students a total of $450. The table below 

lists the fees charged by the twelve 

countries researched in the SEVP 

analysis. 

STUDENT FEES IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Country Costs 

Australia .......................................... $450.00 

Canada ............................................ 125.00 

China ............................................... 205.00 

France ............................................. 78.00 

Germany ......................................... 95.00 

India ................................................ 161.00 

Japan .............................................. Free 

Russia ............................................. $131.00 

Saudi Arabia ................................... Free 

South Africa .................................... 37.00 

South Korea .................................... 45.00 

United Kingdom 4 ............................ 192.00 

There is also no objective evidence 

that this fee is the sole, or even the most 

important, criterion that a student might 

consider while weighing educational 

options. The increased I–901 SEVIS fee 

represents less than 1% of the average 

cost of yearly expenses for students in 

a four-year program, an amount that 

could easily be overshadowed by 

changes in international currency 

fluctuations or changes in school tuition 

amounts in foreign countries. 

Perhaps more importantly, the United 

States features types of education, such 

as community colleges and focused 

vocational educational programs of 

study that are unique in the world. The 

United States offers courses of study, 

specializations in content, and programs 

that cannot be found anywhere else. 

Noted research facilities, the majority of 

which continue to be dominated by 

American entities, provide 

opportunities for advanced research and 

collaboration among an increasingly 

international community of scholars. 

Given the many variables that go into a 

decision to study abroad, and the lack 

of validated data on this issue, there is 

no basis to conclude that United States 

government fees ultimately persuade a 

student or exchange visitor not to attend 

a school in this country. SEVP, 

consequently, cannot conclude at this 

time that an increase in the I–901 SEVIS 

fee is directly or even indirectly related 

to a decrease in U.S. competitiveness for 

international students and exchange 

visitors. 

But even if a rise in the cost to F and 

M students and J exchange visitors were 

to cause a reduction in the demand by 

foreign students or exchange visitors for 

U.S. educational or exchange 

opportunities, that point would not alter 

this rulemaking. Current law requires 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55688 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

5See Pub. L. 109–13, 119 Stat. 231, 302 (May 11, 

2005) (codified at 49 U.S.C. 30301 note), also 73 FR 

5271 (Jan. 29, 2008), codified at 6 CFR part 37. 

6The SAVE Program allows Federal, State and 

local government benefit-granting agencies, as well 

as licensing bureaus, to check the immigration 

status of non-citizens and citizen applicants 

requesting benefits or entitlements. 

that DHS and DoS recoup the full costs 

of administering the programs that 

manage F, M and J nonimmigrants from 

those who benefit from it. DHS may not 

reduce its fees based on a desire to 

attract a greater number of aliens to the 

program. 

With respect to the suggestion of some 

commenters that students pay SEVP fees 

incrementally, SEVP cannot implement 

such a payment system at this time due 

to the additional administrative burden 

and development costs such an 

incremental payment system would 

place on the program, but will continue 

to study the idea. 

C. Enhancements 

1. Issues/Concerns Before SEVIS II 

One commenter observed that DHS, 

including SEVP, tends to institute new 

requirements for schools and students 

before either data systems or program 

policy have been sufficiently developed 

to support them and that, subsequently, 

an inordinate amount of effort is 

expended on ‘‘work-around’’ procedures 

and data fixes. The observer sought 

assurance that SEVP will have a 

concrete plan to avoid premature 

deployment of SEVIS II and to augment 

policy and helpdesk staffing to support 

anticipated need for problem resolution. 

Another comment asked how SEVIS 

users will transition from SEVIS I to 

SEVIS II and how new functionalities in 

SEVIS II will be introduced. 

SEVP is committed to providing the 

planning and support necessary to make 

SEVIS II implementation a success. 

SEVP has already started to engage with 

its stakeholders and expects to continue 

to engage in a major outreach initiative 

for the SEVIS II rollout, including but 

not limited to, meetings, brochures, enewsletters, and Web site postings. 

A commenter suggested that, with 

SEVIS II a year and a half from 

activation, it would be very helpful if 

SEVP would establish a Web-based 

ability for students to self-report. SEVP 

acknowledges the value of such an 

innovation and will take the 

consideration under advisement. 

A commenter requested that schools 

be given the ability in SEVIS to printout draft Forms I–17 for review prior to 

submission. It is not likely such an 

enhancement will be made to SEVIS I, 

but SEVP will maintain the request as 

a suggested system requirement for 

SEVIS II. 

A commenter reported instances of 

erroneous data appearing in the CBP 

port of entry data systems when 

compared with SEVIS information on 

the applicable J–1 exchange visitors that 

was verified to be correct. This 

comment is outside the scope of this 

rule. 

A commenter noted instances when 

students’ visa and passport numbers 

were identical in SEVIS. Data fixes were 

requested but were not completed. 

SEVP appreciates comments regarding 

its systems and will note and investigate 

to determine whether a data fix can be 

made to resolve such a problem. 

A commenter noted degraded 

responsiveness in SEVIS during peak 

times during the recent optional 

practical training (OPT) validation. 

SEVP acknowledges that response time 

can be adversely affected by 

circumstances beyond its control. 

2. SEVIS II 

Commenters included SEVP 

stakeholders who had participated in 

SEVIS II development meetings held by 

SEVP in Washington D.C. last summer, 

at which they identified several 

requested system requirements for 

SEVIS II. They commended SEVP on the 

inclusion of all user communities in 

SEVIS II development. 

Two commenters questioned whether 

SEVIS II becoming ‘‘paperless,’’ as 

proposed, is a realistic expectation and 

whether this paperless process is a 

move away from faxing. SEVIS II is 

certainly a move away from faxing. 

SEVP anticipates that, with improved 

access to data systems, and with the 

incorporation of electronic signature 

capability and availability of biometric 

information coming in the near future, 

U.S. government processes related to F, 

M and J nonimmigrants will become 

paperless. For example, in SEVIS II the 

DSO will electronically sign the 

equivalent to the Form I–20, Certificate 

of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student 

Status. SEVIS II will be paperless in 

implementing its processes but will also 

have the ability to generate paper forms. 

As needs are identified by State and 

local governments and the private 

sector, SEVP will consider modifying 

the format and content of paper Forms 

I–20 to better serve their processes. 

Another commenter asked how SEVIS 

II paperless processes will interact with 

the requirements of the Real ID Act of 

2005. We understand that students and 

exchange visitors are likely to need 

paper documentation of their F, M or J 

status in the United States to obtain 

driver’s licenses, establish bank 

accounts and other similar activities. As 

discussed above, SEVIS II will allow for 

the generation of paper forms as needed 

by students and exchange visitors. As 

the States move forward developing 

their processes for verifying documents 

presented by individuals seeking REAL 

ID-compliant driver’s licenses or 

identification cards as required under 

the REAL ID Act 5 and DHS REAL ID 

regulations, DHS will work with the 

States to ensure that DMVs are able to 

verify the immigration status of foreign 

students and exchange visitors through 

DHS’s Systematic Alien Verification for 

Entitlements program (SAVE).6

A commenter asked how a Form I–20 

generated out of SEVIS II for 

identification purposes will meet State 

DMV and/or Social Security 

Administration (SSA) requirements that 

necessitate the form having a port of 

entry stamp. This comment points to a 

training problem and not a SEVIS II data 

system concern. While some port of 

entry officials stamp Forms I–20 as a 

courtesy, there is no requirement for 

them to do so. A related misconception 

is the expectation that Forms I–94, 

Arrival/Departure Record, will be 

stamped. Forms I–94 should be stamped 

when their issuance is related to entry 

into the United States. Forms I–94 

issued in conjunction with approval of 

a benefit are not stamped. SEVP 

continues to conduct outreach among 

government agencies to correct areas of 

misinformation like these that 

negatively impact nonimmigrants. 

Two commenters asked if Form I–290, 

Notice of Appeal or Motion, and USCIS 

Form I–134, Affidavit of Support 

Information, were being incorporated in 

the transition to paperless processes. 

The Form I–290 will be entirely 

paperless. SEVP, with USCIS, is in the 

process of deciding whether the Form I– 

134 will be included in the paperless 

process. 

A commenter asked if the elimination 

of paper Forms I–20 will extend to 

border commuter students. The answer 

is yes, the elimination of paper Forms 

I–20 will extend to border commuter 

students. 

3. Improved SEVIS and SEVIS II 

Capabilities 

A few commenters asked about 

SEVP’s efforts to improve SEVIS 

interface and interoperability with other 

government databases, in general. SEVP 

recognizes that the value of SEVIS to the 

United States, its citizens and the 

nonimmigrants it tracks is multiplied by 

increasing appropriate access to all 

potential, legitimate users. Since the 

inception of SEVP, the program has 

entered into agreements and developed 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55689 

interfaces with several governmental 

agencies. SEVIS currently interfaces 

with: Foreign Terrorist Task Tracking 

Force (FTTTF), U.S. Bank I–901, United 

States Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology (US–VISIT), CBP 

Arrival & Departure Information System 

(ADIS), USCIS Computer Linked 

Application Information Management 

System (CLAIMS), DoS Nonimmigrant 

Visa, and DoS Consular Consolidated 

Database (CCD). SEVP, through the U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, is currently brokering 

agreements for SEVIS II to interface 

with: Pay.gov—I–17, ICE—Business 

Compliance Enforcement—National 

Security Entry Exit Registration System 

(NSEERS), CBP Interagency Border 

Inspection System (IBIS), User 

Application Module (UAM)—single 

sign-on, Non-Immigrant Visa Interface 

(NIV) and the USCIS Verification 

Information System (VIS). The 

developing interface between SEVIS and 

VIS, the database of the SAVE program, 

will be a significant benefit. This 

interface alone will significantly relieve 

problem areas for nonimmigrants 

interacting with SSA and the State 

DMVs, or seeking authorized 

employment. 

Two commenters asked if SEVIS II 

would ameliorate tracking problems 

USCIS seems to have in keeping up with 

student benefit petitions. 

SEVP has an active partnership with 

USCIS and both agencies are strongly 

committed to developing the best 

possible interface between their tracking 

systems, SEVIS and CLAIMS. SEVP 

acknowledges room for improvement, 

but significant progress has been made. 

A commenter observed that a lot of 

unnecessary enforcement actions are 

occurring because DHS and other 

government data systems do not 

adequately share information and 

interfaces do not always send the 

intended data. As discussed above, 

SEVP is fully aware of the importance 

of effective interfacing and places a high 

priority on improving and increasing 

interfaces with SEVIS II. The fees 

implemented by this final rule will, in 

part, be used to address these 

interfacing issues. In recognition of the 

current situation, SEVP has a staff 

member that serves as a full-time liaison 

with the ICE Compliance Enforcement 

Unit (CEU). When data anomalies are 

identified or there are indications that a 

student may have violated status, this 

individual is the first responder. 

Through search of the relevant data 

systems and telephone consultations 

with school officials, most of these 

concerns are resolved through a desk 

audit, requiring no further action. CEU 

investigators are assigned to follow up 

with that small number of situations 

that the liaison is unable to explain. Of 

these, greater than 70% result in finding 

substantive issues that warrant 

investigation. Again, SEVP will use a 

portion of the fees collected from this 

final rule to improve this system. 

Commenters asked about their 

capability to extract information from 

SEVIS II, especially to support the Open 

Door census. 

Enhancing the ability of SEVIS users 

to extract and use information from 

SEVIS was one of the biggest reasons 

SEVP sought SEVIS II, and will be a key 

purpose for which SEVP uses fees 

assessed by this rule. The new system 

will provide users additional history 

information on individuals and will 

vastly improve reporting and search 

functionality. 

Several commenters asked about the 

impact of SEVIS II on J exchange visitor 

programs. An advocacy group suggested 

that J program interests have not been 

met in SEVIS development. 

SEVP does not concur. Officials from 

DoS have had an active role in SEVIS 

development. Since the inception of 

SEVIS through SEVIS release 5.10, 

released in August 2008, 99 system 

upgrades (approximately one third of all 

system upgrades in that period) have 

been directed towards meeting exchange 

visitor program needs. Of these, twentyfive percent of the upgrades dealt 

directly with refining the redesignation 

process. Regarding SEVIS II, of the more 

than 1,300 functional requirements that 

were developed from stakeholder input, 

including input from the DoS and 

exchange visitor program sponsors, 

approximately 416 are exclusively for 

use by the exchange visitor community. 

Among the remaining system 

requirements, approximately fifty 

percent are shared commonly by the F, 

M and J visa categories. Academic 

representatives from the exchange 

visitor program sponsors were involved 

from the beginning of SEVIS II 

development and some of these 

individuals made particular note of the 

significant improvements they had 

observed and of the high level of 

interagency cooperation. As is reflected 

in the transcripts on the docket for this 

rulemaking, senior leadership and staff 

from DoS participated both during the 

development meetings that collected 

SEVIS II requirements and during the 

recent town hall meetings. While the 

specific needs of F, M and J schools and 

programs may differ, it has been a 

priority for SEVIS program developers 

to ensure that new capabilities are 

available to all SEVIS users. This rule, 

and the fees collected pursuant to the 

rule, will enhance the exchange visitor 

programs as well as F and M programs. 

One commenter cited the significant 

cost to his school in modifying data 

systems to interface and support batchfeeding of data to SEVIS. He raised 

concern that SEVIS II would pass a 

similar, uncompensated cost on to 

schools and exchange visitor program 

sponsors. 

SEVIS II is being designed to be fully 

compatible with SEVIS I and consistent 

with industry standards. All data 

currently in SEVIS will be migrated by 

SEVP into SEVIS II. Further, while 

changes in data requirements are a 

natural part of program evolution, there 

are very few added fields beyond those 

already in SEVIS. (Adding new fields, 

historically, has been the biggest 

recurring problem with batch 

interfaces.) As discussed in the 

proposed rule, SEVIS II enhancements 

are a key part of these fee increases, 

which are calculated to include 

conversion costs. Consequently, SEVP 

anticipates that any added costs to 

SEVIS users for conversion to SEVIS II 

will be negligible. 

A commenter voiced concern that 

schools which rely on the feeding of 

data to SEVIS by batch do not have the 

flexibility that real-time interface (RTI) 

reliant schools have in responding to 

SEVP changes. The commenter noted 

that batch users must often use RTI 

procedures to be able to meet SEVP 

requirements. The commenter asked 

that SEVP be mindful of this in 

initiating changes. 

SEVP will do so. Batch providers 

were invited to attend SEVIS II 

development workshops, at which they 

voiced concerns and provided insights 

into the amelioration of these concerns. 

4. SEVIS II and Biometrics 

Commenters asked about SEVIS II’s 

use of biometrics. 

SEVIS II, scheduled for deployment in 

October 2009, will include a data field 

to record a biometric identifier (i.e., 

functional identification number: FIN) 

for nonimmigrant records. SEVIS II will, 

however, have no functions related to 

the acquisition or storage of biometric 

information. SEVP will have access to 

biometric information, as needed, and 

will incorporate the use of biometrics in 

its tracking processes. The costs related 

to these processes are included in the 

fees assessed by the rule. 

Commenters also asked for a 

description of how a biometric identifier 

will impact recordkeeping processes 

and management. 

The biometric identifier will be 

‘‘person-centric,’’ meaning that it will 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55690 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

remain with the person for life 

whenever they seek entry into the 

United States or seek immigration 

related benefits. The SEVIS identifier is 

a record of a particular period of time 

that an individual has been in F, M or 

J status. The biometric identifier will tie 

all SEVIS identifiers to an individual. 

This will enable government, school 

officials or exchange visitor program 

sponsors to see all pertinent information 

on a nonimmigrant in deciding whether 

or not to grant benefits or accept that 

individual for enrollment. For example, 

if a student is terminated at one school 

and chooses to seek reinstatement ‘‘by 

travel,’’ the CBP inspector will see the 

previous termination and assess the 

situation in more depth than for a 

normal ‘‘initial’’ student arriving for 

entry into the United States. A biometric 

identification will streamline all 

government systems. Currently these 

systems identify individuals through 

consistencies in personal identification 

information (e.g., name, birth date, 

address). These fields are subject to 

mistakes, such as entry errors and 

variations in spelling, and are often 

difficult to match from one system to 

another. By having access to the 

common biometric identifier, 

government users can bypass less 

reliable search fields and can readily 

identify and correct data mistakes. As 

discussed in the proposed rule, funding 

these types of enhancements are part of 

the purpose of these increased fee 

assessments. 

A commenter asked if the biometric 

identifier and its ability to connect an 

individual’s SEVIS records will have 

any impact on the payment of the I–901 

SEVIS fee when a student decides to 

reinstate by travel. 

The answer is no. If a student is out 

of status and seeks to return to status by 

leaving the United States and reentering, he or she must pay the I–901 

SEVIS fee. 

5. Additional CEU personnel 

A commenter questioned the legal 

authority of using the I–901 SEVIS fee 

to support hiring of enforcement 

officers, suggesting they should be 

funded by appropriated monies. 

As was discussed in the proposed 

rule, 8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A), (g)(2), 8 

U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(B) and 8 U.S.C. 

1356(m) provide the Secretary with 

authority to establish, revise, collect, 

retain and expend fees to operate SEVP. 

This authority provides that fees be set 

at a level that will ensure recovery of 

the full costs of providing all services 

for the program. The full cost concept 

addresses the activities associated with 

the continuum of providing services 

under the program, from accepting 

applications, to developing policy, to 

enforcement of program regulations and 

associated laws. Full cost includes the 

direct and indirect costs to any part of 

the federal government of providing a 

good, resource, or service and 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; the 

management and supervisory costs; and 

the costs of enforcement, collection, 

research, establishment of standards, 

and regulation. See OMB Circular A–25, 

User Charges (revised), section 6(d)(1). 

As such, ‘‘enforcement costs’’ are part of 

a continuum of program services and 

are to be considered as part of the full 

cost of program services chargeable as 

user fees. 

In addition, SEVP currently funds 

only 79 CEU personnel. ICE is spending 

much more than 79 agent full-time 

hours investigating school and student 

issues. There are hundreds of issues and 

cases that arise in SEVIS and in the 

student and academic institution area. 

Those are categorized by high, medium 

and low risk cases. Currently, the 79 

positions SEVP funds do not cover all 

of the cases identified as the high risk 

cases, much less all cases. The 

additional 155 positions funded by this 

rule are meant to close this gap. 

A commenter questioned whether the 

increased funding for CEU personnel 

would result in the hiring of employees 

with greater specialized knowledge and 

training, observing that some 

investigators seem to have very little 

knowledge of school and/or student 

requirements. 

SEVP does intend to use this 

increased funding to hire additional 

CEU personnel and to support 

specialized training for CEU personnel 

related to SEVP-certified schools, DoS 

exchange visitor sponsors and F, M and 

J nonimmigrants. Federal law 

enforcement officers receive extensive, 

standardized training at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Facility (FLETC) 

in Glynco, Georgia. SEVP continues to 

work with the appropriate authorities 

within ICE and at FLETC to provide 

training content for this curriculum. 

SEVP also intends to hire liaisons 

whose duties will include collateral 

support of CEU investigators. This 

should further help CEU personnel 

understand school and exchange visitor 

sponsor, as well as student and 

exchange visitor requirements. 

6. School liaison activity 

One commenter nominated a person 

to become an SEVP liaison. SEVP does 

not accept nominations for SEVP liaison 

positions, but urges interested 

individuals to monitor 

www.usajobs.opm.gov for vacancy 

announcements related to these and 

other SEVP positions. 

More than one commenter noted a 

general lack of knowledge in both DHS 

and DoS about the structure of higher 

education, particularly the unique needs 

of research facilities and the critical 

importance of not impeding foreign 

scholar participation in their programs. 

These commenters cited examples of 

misunderstanding about the 

applicability of accreditation to research 

facilities seeking redesignation or 

recertification and at least one comment 

pointed to a research institute that is 

having difficulty becoming accredited 

because there are no qualified U.S. 

candidates for enrollment and 

accreditation requires that the program 

be previously in operation. 

(Redesignation by DoS requires 

accreditation. SEVP certification 

requires the program to have been 

previously in operation.) Hope was 

raised that the SEVP liaisons would 

overcome this knowledge shortcoming. 

SEVP appreciates these observations 

and will follow-up with the 

commenters. A ‘‘provisional 

certification’’ status is under 

consideration by SEVP but will not be 

implemented with this rule due to the 

additional cost and administrative 

burden related to establishing such a 

program. 

A commenter asked if SEVP liaisons 

would be able to assist schools and 

students in determining the status of 

benefit applications pending with 

USCIS. SEVP is taking this suggestion 

under consideration and will discuss it 

with USCIS representatives. 

An advocacy group and a concurring 

commenter feel the need for liaisons is 

created by SEVIS requirements being 

‘‘cumbersome and complicated.’’ 

SEVP disagrees and notes that no 

such comments were received in the 

nationwide town hall meetings. To the 

contrary, the introduction of liaison 

support was received enthusiastically. 

As discussed in the proposed rule, 

liaison activity will be much more than 

mere troubleshooting, but will also 

provide timely information regarding 

program enhancements, support CEU 

activities and offer greater feedback to 

SEVP on positive and negative user 

comments and suggestions. Simply 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55691 

making SEVIS more user friendly, 

which is a key goal of SEVIS II, would 

not eliminate the need for liaisons. 

D. Full Cost Information 

1. Further reduced fee of $35 for au 

pairs, camp counselors, and summer 

work travel 

One commenter asked why the $35 

fee for au pairs, camp counselors, and 

summer work/travel programs was not 

included in the funding increase. 

Congress established the $35 fee for 

au pairs, camp counselors and summer 

work/travel program participants by law 

and did not provide a similar set fee for 

other categories of the J-visa for 

exchange visitors. 8 U.S.C. 

1372(e)(4)(A). This indicates a strong 

Congressional intent that the fee for au 

pairs, camp counselors and summer 

work/travel programs remain set at $35. 

Thus, SEVP did not adjust that fee. 

2. Impacts on applicant groups 

Several commenters voiced concern 

about the negative impact of the 

increased fee on all F, M and J 

nonimmigrants, but particularly on 

students and exchange visitors in shortterm status or individuals with limited 

means (e.g., teachers and high school 

students; those from poor countries; 

language study). Commenters asked if 

SEVP could establish a lower fee for 

particular groups through regulation 

suggesting, for example, a tiered fee of 

$35 for exchange visitor programs 

currently identified and for F/M 

programs of study six months or less in 

duration; $200 fee for F/M programs 

more than six months; $180 for 

exchange visitor programs other than 

government sponsored. In a similar 

request other comments, including 

those from two major advocacy groups, 

expressed support for the SEVP 

initiative furthering the institution of a 

short-term visa category. In fact, over 

250 participants at a May 28, 2008, town 

hall forum at the NAFSA national 

conference were supportive of this idea. 

SEVP cannot establish a lower fee as 

requested. As discussed above and in 

the proposed rule in relation to OMB 

Circular A–25, User Charges (revised), 

applicable laws, regulations and 

directives prohibit SEVP from 

establishing fees below program costs. 

Any preference given by SEVP to a 

select group would result in a penalty 

to the participants at large. By allowing 

a select group the same benefit as others 

in the population at a fee below cost, the 

fee for the majority of the population 

must increase in order to fully cover 

program costs. SEVP has reviewed its 

program costs for processing students in 

short-term status versus those in longterm status and can find no basis for 

charging a lower fee for students on 

short-term status. The government 

would also incur additional 

administrative costs associated with 

separate processing of these fees. 

Accordingly, and as was discussed in 

the town hall meetings, SEVP is 

constrained at this time to charge a 

single set fee for each individual group. 

A commenter noted that most 

scholarships and assistance given to 

students of limited means is directed to 

costs after the student enters the United 

States and that, consequently, the 

various government fees can pose an 

insurmountable burden on a student 

since they are levied before entry and, 

generally, not compensated. 

Although SEVP appreciates 

identification of this problem, 

government agencies must collect fees at 

the time services are provided. We 

welcome further input from students 

and schools at SEVIS.Source@dhs.gov as 

to how they handle this situation. 

One commenter questioned the timing 

for implementation of the rule. 

SEVP timed implementation of the 

final rule for October 1, 2008, the 

beginning of fiscal year 2009. This is the 

date when the student enrollment is 

completed for the largest population; 

therefore, the fewest number of students 

will be involved in initiation of the new 

fee levels. By implementing the fee for 

the beginning of the government fiscal 

year, SEVP is able to better simplify and 

reduce costs related to government 

accounting. Further, as noted in the 

NPRM and this final rule, SEVP has 

been underfunded for many years since 

the program has not implemented a fee 

increase for several years. By 

implementing the fees at the start of 

SEVP’s fiscal year, the program funding 

will be better aligned with its budgetary 

and operational needs for the full fiscal 

year and thus allow SEVP to better serve 

its constituents. 

3. Certification fee 

A commenter noted that it was 

unclear in the proposed text for 8 CFR 

214.3(h)(2) whether or not schools must 

submit a fee for recertification. 

SEVP appreciates the observation and 

has clarified the text accordingly, 

inserting final rule text at 8 CFR 

214.4(a)(1) and 8 CFR 214.4(h) that 

expressly provides that no fee is 

required with appeals related to SEVP 

certification, recertification or 

withdrawal of SEVP certification. 

Two commenters, including a high 

school administrator, suggested that the 

increased SEVP certification fee may be 

a disincentive to small schools to seek 

certification and cited the cultural value 

of international students in these 

settings. SEVP appreciates and agrees 

with the observation of the cultural 

value of having international students in 

all settings. SEVP does not have the 

authority, however, to identify and 

designate specific groups of schools for 

a lower fee because its costs are not 

lower for small schools. SEVP welcomes 

any additional suggestions for 

potentially decreasing burdens on small 

businesses. 

4. Site-visit fee 

A commenter from an SEVP-certified 

school observed that the $655 site visit 

fee would cut into its programming 

funds. 

The site-visit fee pertains only to 

initial SEVP certification (or initial 

events, such as approving a new 

location or campus). Should a school 

require an on-site review as a part of an 

out-of-cycle review or recertification, 

the expense of that visit will be borne 

by SEVP as part of its compliance 

funding. Accordingly, SEVP anticipates 

that the site visit fee will have minimal 

impact on programming funds for 

certified schools. 

5. Inclusion of enforcement costs 

A professional association and an 

advocacy group comment that fee 

assessments should be limited to visa 

application costs, and that costs related 

to national security and anti-fraud are 

benefits to the public that should be 

borne by appropriated, taxpayer funds. 

Another advocacy group commented 

that, beyond visa application costs, 

SEVP legal authorities allow for data 

collection, but not for assessment of 

enforcement costs. 

SEVP agrees in part and disagrees in 

part with these comments. SEVP agrees 

that agency fees cannot be charged 

based upon perceived furthering of 

public policy goals if those fees are 

unrelated to a specific service provided 

by the agency to an identifiable 

recipient. If, however, the agency does 

confer a specific benefit upon an 

identifiable beneficiary, then the fact 

that the service may incidentally confer 

a benefit upon the general public as well 

does not preclude assessing a user fee. 

See, e.g., Seafarers International Union 

of North America v. United States Coast 

Guard, 81 F.3d 179, 184 (DC Cir. 1996) 

(interpreting Coast Guard user fees 

established under the Independent 

Offices Appropriations Act); quoting 

Engine Manufacturers Ass’n v. EPA, 20 

F.3d 1177, 1180 (DC Cir. 1994). 

The direct benefits of the SEVP 

program inure to F and M students and 

J exchange visitors. The benefit 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55692 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

conferred is admission into and lawful 

presence in the United States, which 

permits F and M students, and J 

exchange visitors to receive academic, 

vocational and exchange opportunities 

and experiences not enjoyed by the 

public-at-large. SEVP enforcement 

activities create public confidence and 

consistency within the program which 

perpetuates and enables these visa 

categories for the direct benefit of F and 

M students, and J exchange visitors. 

Homeland security and anti-fraud 

benefits are incidental public benefits of 

the program. These incidental public 

benefits do not diminish SEVP’s 

authority to assess fees against 

identifiable beneficiaries. 

In addition, as discussed above, 8 

U.S.C. 1372 and 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), 

authorize a full range of SEVP program 

activities and collection of fees related 

thereto, and not merely data collection. 

Use of the I–901 SEVIS fee to fund the 

activities of additional enforcement 

officers to perform these activities is 

thus authorized under 8 U.S.C. 

1372(e)(4)(A), (g)(2), 8 U.S.C. 

1372(e)(4)(B) and 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). 

Pursuant to OMB Circular A–25, User 

Fees (revised), Section 6(d)(1), 

‘‘enforcement costs’’ are part of a 

continuum of program services that 

must be included as part of the full cost 

of program services when assessing user 

fees. Accordingly, inclusion of these 

costs within the full cost of the program 

is appropriate and congruent with the 

full cost concept as outlined in federal 

cost accounting guidance, federal policy 

for user charges and legal precedent. 

Another advocacy group commented 

that charging J visa holders for 

enforcement costs of DHS is redundant, 

since DoS has its own compliance unit, 

and ‘‘beyond the mandate of the rule.’’ 

SEVP does not concur. DHS is 

mandated by the INA to enforce 

immigration law for all nonimmigrants 

and has done so historically for all 

nonimmigrant populations, including 

the J visa category. The compliance unit 

at DoS reviews DoS designated sponsors 

for their statutory and regulatory 

compliance—not the immigrationrelated violations of exchange visitors. 

The law enforcement programs of DHS 

and DoS are separate and distinct, not 

redundant. 

E. Certification, Out-of-Cycle Review, 

and Recertification Requirements 

1. Form I–17 

A few participants in the town hall 

meetings had questions about 

submitting updates to school 

information. Individuals should address 

additional questions about submitting 

these updates to SEVIS.source@dhs.gov. 

As stated at the forums and as presented 

at numerous conferences over the last 

several months, it is important that 

school updates be timely. Updates to 

this information are the single most 

beneficial step most schools can take to 

prepare for recertification. 

2. Notices and communications 

Two comments, respectively, 

questioned whether electronic notices 

and communications meet due process 

requirements and whether schools 

would need to obtain software to 

transmit electronic signatures. 

Various laws, rules and regulations 

govern the use of electronic systems in 

relation to the provision of government 

services, and permit and encourage 

government agencies to use electronic 

notices. As such, these processes have 

been found to satisfy due process 

requirements. SEVP, as a program, and 

SEVIS, as a Web-based data platform, 

are inherently reliant on electronic 

communication. For this reason, notices 

and alerts are sent to multiple 

addressees, as listed on the school’s 

Form I–17. Capability to submit 

electronic signatures will be a SEVIS II 

design feature. 

3. Recordkeeping, retention and 

reporting requirements—Student Record 

Requirements 

Several commenters, including three 

advocacy groups, opposed the proposed 

text on recordkeeping, retention and 

reporting as establishing new and 

unnecessary requirements. 

SEVP has deleted rule text in 

response to these comments. 

Specifically, SEVP proposed a new 

requirement at 8 CFR 214.3(g)(1)(xi) that 

the DSOs enter ‘‘date of last entry into 

the United States; most recent Form 

I–94 number and date of issue,’’ into 

SEVIS, items which are normally 

entered through SEVIS interface with 

the CBP ADIS database. This interface is 

not yet fully reliable and many DSOs 

have found that inputting this arrival 

information, like keeping copies of 

Forms I–20, can be useful in helping 

students expedite benefit applications. 

Keeping this information is not 

required, however, and the final rule 

deletes proposed 8 CFR 214.3(g)(1)(xi). 

Other SEVIS entries in the regulatory 

text are not new, but have been clarified 

with this rule. 

One commenter suggested that, 

because SEVIS is the only tracking 

system of its kind, it is subject to misuse 

and overuse. 

SEVP does not concur and views the 

proper use of SEVIS very differently. 

SEVP is obligated to U.S. taxpayers to 

maximize the effective utilization of the 

data it collects. SEVP thus seeks every 

opportunity to share SEVIS data with 

appropriate, authorized users not only 

for law enforcement purposes, but also 

to facilitate validation of benefit 

eligibility. This sharing benefits F, M 

and J nonimmigrants by providing more 

efficient delivery of benefits from 

various agencies of the federal 

government. 

An individual commented that SEVP 

needs to make better use of the data it 

has in SEVIS. 

While the comment did not provide 

sufficient detail to prompt a response, 

SEVP concurs and is committed to 

developing data-driven management 

and compliance processes. 

A commenter asked whether records 

review procedures require hard copy. 

Not necessarily; records review will be 

of the system that is in place at the 

school, electronic or hard copy. 

A commenter asked for clarification 

that the ‘‘unabridged academic history 

of the student at the institution’’ refers 

to the institution’s primary student 

recordkeeping system, not a duplication 

of that system. Several commenters 

presumed that SEVP was proposing 

duplication of records. SEVP has edited 

the final rule text in response to these 

comments. The proposed text for 8 CFR 

214.3(g)(1) Student Records is amended 

by adding, after the first sentence: 

‘‘Student information not required for 

entry in SEVIS may be kept in the 

school’s student system of records, but 

must be accessible to DSOs.’’ This 

clarification should eliminate any 

unintended presumption about 

duplication of records. 

Several commenters also questioned 

why DHS needed the information 

introduced in 8 CFR 214.3(g)(1)(iv) and 

thought SEVP was trying to do the job 

of the schools. As many commenters 

noted, the items introduced in 8 CFR 

214.3(g)(1)(iv) are already included in 

the recordkeeping processes and 

systems of most bona fide institutions, 

and many institutions go well beyond 

these requirements. SEVP has identified 

these as minimums that a bona fide 

school should maintain in order to set 

a standard for compliance. The absence 

of effective recordkeeping is a strong 

indicator that an institution is not suited 

for SEVP certification (i.e., DSOs must 

be able to explain how they obtain this 

information, which is essential to 

determining that a student is 

maintaining status). 

A commenter noted that their school 

records policy did not require 

transcripts with as much information as 

required by this rule for transcripts 

received from a transfer-out school (e.g., 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55693 

course numbers and credits are required 

but grades are not). 

SEVP responds that the institution 

must be able to demonstrate how it 

determined that the student was eligible 

and met its requirements for transfer to 

their institution. This may not be as 

extensive as the records required by the 

institution that conferred the credits. 

One privacy advocate voiced privacy 

concerns with respect to DHS access to 

student records. 

SEVP is diligent in its compliance 

with individual privacy protections. 

Examination of student records as part 

of an institution’s audit is done solely 

in support of that audit. Record access 

is strictly limited to appropriate 

authorized users. SEVP policy on 

privacy issues is codified in the SEVP 

Privacy Information Assessment (PIA), 

available on its Web site. 

Several comments questioned the 

need for extending the student records 

retention requirement from one to three 

years. 

SEVP responds that this is necessary 

to support the two-year recertification 

cycle and is consistent with the current 

exchange visitor program standard. 

Most schools and many states have 

much more stringent records retention 

schedules. 

Similarly, a commenter asked how the 

extended records retention requirement 

will be implemented. 

The requirement begins with 

implementation of this rule and is not 

retroactive (i.e., if a school’s records 

were reviewed on that day, the reviewer 

could not require records from further 

back than the current requirement of 

one year). 

A comment noted the need for 

improved entry and exit data in SEVIS 

and observed that the rule makes no 

mention of this in the recordkeeping 

section. 

SEVP strongly concurs on the 

importance of this information. This 

information is received from other DHS 

agencies and points to a recognized 

need to improve the SEVIS interface 

with their systems, which is a key goal 

of SEVIS II, as funded by this final rule. 

An advocacy group suggested that the 

rule unnecessarily broadens records 

access beyond SEVP to include DHS. 

The statutes authorizing this rule and 

establishing DHS, including 8 U.S.C. 

1372 and the Homeland Security Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–296 (November 

25, 2002), section 102(b), permit the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, in his 

discretion, to exercise these authorities 

utilizing the various DHS resources at 

his disposal. Moreover, blocking records 

access to other components of DHS 

would run directly counter to the 

lessons our Nation learned after 9/11. 

See, e.g., The 9/11 Commission Report 

at pp. 416–19. 

An advocacy group and a commenter 

stated that the proposed text at 8 CFR 

214.3(g)(2)(ii)(E), requiring a school to 

respond to a notification request by 

DHS, is overly broad and that the 

existing regulation limits such a request 

to SEVIS. 

SEVP does not concur. The 

replacement of ‘‘SEVIS’’ in this text 

updates the context of the existing 

regulation. Since the current text was 

approved (67 FR 76256, December 11, 

2002), DHS instituted SEVP to 

administer SEVIS. SEVIS, being a 

database, can only distribute 

notification requests from SEVP. 

However, SEVP exists to support the 

DHS enforcement agencies in tracking F, 

M and J nonimmigrants. SEVP 

investigatory activities are limited and, 

as warranted, result in a hand-off to 

more extensive investigation by other 

DHS agencies, highlighting the 

transition from internal compliance 

related activities to law enforcement 

activities that can only be rendered by 

those immigration officers so 

authorized. The text, consistent also 

with 8 CFR 214.3(g)(1), facilitates 

cooperation between SEVP-certified 

schools and DHS. Notification requests 

from these agencies may come outside 

of SEVIS. Just as SEVP is limited in its 

information collection by law, these 

enforcement agencies have laws 

restricting their information collection. 

Any request for information from these 

agencies will be governed by the laws 

that apply to them respectively. 

An advocacy group commented that 

the use of the term ‘‘student,’’ rather 

than ‘‘students,’’ to describe reporting 

requirements limits DHS to requiring 

reports on just individuals, not groups. 

SEVP does not concur. As is 

consistent with SEVP past practice, the 

term ‘‘student’’ is expansive of 

individual students and/or larger 

populations of students depending on 

the nature of the reporting request. 

An advocacy group questions DHS 

and SEVP authority to conduct 

validation studies. 

SEVP does not concur. On-going 

validation of certified schools is 

inherent in the out-of-cycle and 

recertification processes. Validation 

studies are one of many administrative 

tools that SEVP uses to ensure that 

issues are identified and corrected 

before they become problems. SEVIS 

data are examined through a variety of 

filters to determine whether issues exist 

across and among schools. Only when 

data cannot be verified through existing 

information does SEVP ask schools to 

validate information, reducing the 

burden on their reporting. SEVIS II will 

enhance this capability for SEVP, 

further eliminating the burden on 

schools. 

A commenter asked for clarification of 

proposed text in 214.3(g)(2)(iii)(D), 

regarding factors impacting the 

adjustment of program completion 

dates. 

SEVP has changed the rule text in 

response to this comment by adding 

examples in parentheses. The proposed 

text for 8 CFR 214.3(g)(2)(iii)(D) 

Adjustment to the program completion 

date is amended and clarified to read: 

‘‘Any factors that influence the student’s 

progress toward program completion 

(e.g., deferred attendance, authorized 

drop below, program extension) must be 

reflected by making an adjustment 

updating the program completion date.’’ 

This clarification should resolve any 

misunderstanding regarding factors 

impacting the adjustment of program 

completion dates. 

A commenter suggested that CFR text 

giving records and information access to 

DHS representatives be limited to ICE 

representatives, since they are 

specifically tasked with student tracking 

and compliance. 

SEVP disagrees. While this reflects 

the current practice, agencies and 

tasking within DHS are subject to 

realignment at the Secretary’s 

discretion. SEVP appreciates the 

suggestion, but concludes that ‘‘DHS’’ 

appropriately encompasses all 

possibilities and reflects the legal 

authorities underpinning the program 

and the operation of the DHS. 

4. SEVIS Data Integrity 

A few commenters asked about 

possible future innovations enabling F, 

M and J nonimmigrants to access SEVIS 

data. 

SEVP appreciates the comment and 

will explore these possibilities. 

Several commenters asked if, as 

interfaces with other data systems and 

SEVIS increase and become more 

reliable, mistakes from other systems 

couldn’t be corrected electronically by 

DSOs (e.g., Form I–94 errors with CBP 

and SAVE errors, as they affect Social 

Security and DMV applications). The 

current priority with systems interfaces 

is on accurate and complete data 

sharing. It is reasonable to assume that 

upgrading data integrity along the lines 

of the comments will be considered and 

is one of the reasons for the fee 

increases implemented by this rule. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55694 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

5. Certification 

An advocacy group and a commenter 

supported the requirement of 

accreditation for SEVP certification. 

SEVP acknowledges the value of 

accreditation as an indicator of 

institution bona fides and compliance, 

but also has excellent experience with 

many non-accredited schools. For nonaccredited schools, the SEVP School 

Certification Branch has instituted and 

continually refines measures of school 

bona fides ‘‘in lieu’’ of accreditation. 

A commenter requested amplification 

of the ‘‘basic competencies for DSOs’’ 

that the site visit seeks to promote. 

SEVP responds that unlike the 

majority of schools already certified in 

SEVIS that have extensive experience 

and knowledge with enrolling F and/or 

M nonimmigrants, schools seeking 

initial SEVP certification today lack a 

similar background. In compliance with 

SEVP requirements and support of these 

students, however, these schools must 

be held to the same standard as all other 

SEVP-certified schools. In recognition of 

this, SEVP views the on-site visit for 

initial certification as an outreach 

instrument, an opportunity for intensive 

training and familiarization. While 

details of this outreach are evolving, 

they include but are not limited to the 

following topics: maneuvering in SEVIS; 

becoming aware of pertinent regulations 

and where to find them; complying with 

recordkeeping, retention and reporting 

requirements; Internet resources; and 

contingency planning. These are 

potential uses for the fees generated by 

this rule. 

Three comments requested that SEVP 

better define what a campus is and what 

is required of schools when a campus is 

added (e.g., when is a fee required). 

SEVP agrees with the comments but 

does not intend to make this 

clarification in this rule. SEVP, in the 

meantime, provides individualized 

guidance to schools on this issue. SEVP 

intends to propose a rule amending 8 

CFR 214.3 to be in place when 

recertification begins and anticipates 

addressing this issue in more detail in 

that rulemaking. 

6. Recertification 

A commenter asked how SEVP will 

determine the order in which schools 

will become eligible for recertification. 

A few factors that come into 

consideration in determining the order 

in which schools will become eligible 

for recertification include, but are not 

limited to: the amount of time since the 

school’s previous certification; the 

anticipated processing time for the 

school (e.g., non-accredited schools take 

longer than accredited schools); whether 

the school is of special interest, either 

by type of school or compliance 

questions; and the anticipated School 

Certification Branch (SCB) workload. 

The order of processing will be chosen 

to create a balanced workload. 

A commenter asked if recertification 

could be every five years, instead of 

every two years. 

SEVP cannot implement this proposal 

because two-year certification is 

mandated under EBSVERA and HSPD– 

2. With out-of-cycle review on-going 

and continuous from the time of initial 

certification forward, the frequency of 

recertification should be less of a 

concern to schools. SEVP intends that 

noncompliance be identified as soon as 

possible after its occurrence and 

appropriate action be taken 

immediately. As the proposed rule 

describes, recertification is an 

affirmation of performance, not the 

reopening of a school’s file for the first 

time. 

An advocacy group commented that 

institutions should not be charged for 

enforcement costs related to 

certification and recertification. SEVP 

notes, as was presented in the proposed 

rule, fees charged to institutions for 

certification and certification site visits 

are not used for enforcement costs. As 

described in the NPRM, these costs are 

covered by other fees. 

One comment asked about the 

reasoning for reviewing DSO 

compliance even when a DSO is no 

longer employed by the school. SEVP 

responds that an employer (i.e., school) 

is responsible for oversight of all of its 

employees and the consequences of 

their actions. Termination of 

employment, in and of itself, does not 

absolve the employer of that 

responsibility. 

A commenter asked for more detail 

about text stating that institutions must 

have adequate qualified personnel to 

perform DSO responsibilities. 

SEVP has decided to leave this as an 

area of institutional discretion for the 

moment. Larger schools have asked if 

the limit of ten DSOs at a campus could 

be increased and/or if an associate DSO 

position, with no advisory role but 

ability to enter data, couldn’t be 

established. SEVP is actively 

considering both of these 

recommendations. Some schools have 

appointed senior management, whose 

primary functions do not relate to 

providing service to students, as DSOs. 

SEVP discourages this practice. Smaller 

schools have, on occasion, appointed 

only one DSO. This makes full-time and 

continuous adequate service of foreign 

students nearly impossible. 

A commenter asked what will be the 

focus of recertification. 

Recertification will focus primarily on 

how well a school updates records on 

school information and student records. 

For schools that are not accredited, bona 

fides will need to be reconfirmed with 

documentation ‘‘in lieu of 

accreditation.’’ SEVP will develop and 

send schools guidance on the 

submission of petitions along with their 

notification that entering the six-month 

period of eligibility to submit a 

recertification petition. 

A commenter asked if SEVP-certified 

schools for public school (grades 9–12) 

and private school (grades 

kindergarten–12) in a district or system 

could file for recertification with a 

single petition. 

SEVP responds that, yes, these 

schools may file for recertification with 

a single petition. 

A commenter asked if an institution 

with more than one SEVIS identifier 

(i.e., a number for the main campus and 

each other campus) could file for 

recertification with a single petition. 

SEVP responds that, yes, this is 

permitted. 

Commenters were unclear about the 

distinction between on-site visits and 

on-site reviews. 

As stated during the town hall 

meetings, few schools would receive an 

on-site review during SEVP 

recertification. On-site review in 

recertification is distinguished from an 

on-site visit given during initial 

certification. The purposes of an on-site 

visit include confirmation of a school’s 

eligibility for SEVP certification, 

promoting basic competencies for DSOs, 

and providing outreach to better 

familiarize the school with the roles and 

responsibilities that come with the 

benefit of SEVP certification. The 

purpose of an on-site review is, 

generally, to address compliance. While 

a few random on-site reviews may be 

conducted to maintain a performance 

baseline for all schools and to explore 

potential performance benchmarks, the 

primary reason an on-site review is 

conducted is to resolve questions or 

concerns about school performance. 

Optional visits to schools by SEVP 

personnel prior to the implementation 

of the liaison program will be available 

within SEVP resource constraints and 

by invitation from the school. To offset 

operational limitations in providing 

these visits, comprehensive resources 

on recertification will be provided on 

the SEVP Web site. 

A few comments included questions 

on fees related to on-site visits and onsite reviews. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55695 

For initial SEVP certification 

petitions, a petition fee ($1,700) is 

required for each institution and an onsite visit fee ($655) is required for each 

campus. School systems (limited to 

public schools grades 9–12, private 

schools grades K–12) require a petition 

fee and a single on-site visit fee. SEVPcertified institutions that have a change 

of ownership must pay a petition fee. 

SEVP-certified institutions seeking 

approval for change of location must 

pay an on-site visit fee. SEVP-certified 

institutions seeking approval for a new 

campus must pay an on-site visit fee. No 

fee is charged of institutions either 

petitioning for recertification or selected 

to receive an on-site review. 

One comment asked how 

accreditation might be a factor in 

determining selection of a school for onsite review. To the extent that 

accreditation provides an impartial 

affirmation of school bona fides and 

performance, it is less likely that an 

accredited school will receive an on-site 

review. 

7. Out-of-Cycle Review 

A few individual commenters and an 

advocacy group felt out-of-cycle review, 

as presented in the proposed rule, is too 

broad. 

SEVP disagrees. At the simplest level, 

out-of-cycle review is nothing more than 

maintaining the data integrity of SEVIS, 

and describes a process that exists with 

all data systems. Changes are reviewed 

for accuracy and reasonableness. Most 

out-of-cycle reviews constitute nothing 

more than a desk audit conducted from 

the SEVP offices. For example, a routine 

update changing a zip code may result 

in SEVP asking other schools impacted 

by the change to update their 

information. This sort of audit is not 

invasive; rather, it is responsible. 

An advocacy group commented that 

audits of schools for other than changes 

to SEVIS information identified as 

material should be delayed until 

recertification. 

SEVP, again, does not concur. 

Compliance management requires 

resolution of anomalies in performance 

when they are identified and before 

potential problems escalate. 

A commenter voiced concern about 

unscheduled and large data requests of 

schools from SEVP (e.g., the validation 

study and OPT updating). 

SEVP regrets the difficulties placed on 

schools by these requests and 

appreciates the patience and 

understanding of SEVIS users in 

explaining the obstacles they impose. 

As a maturing program, SEVP is 

committed to improving the 

administration of future requests and 

minimizing their frequency. SEVIS 

users should realize that their 

outstanding responsiveness on these 

requests is noted by key decision 

makers. Additionally, as SEVIS II is 

developed and implemented, SEVP 

looks forward to improved capability to 

validate SEVIS information through 

alternative means. 

An individual commented that out-ofcycle review is a waste of SEVP and 

school time for compliant schools. SEVP 

is required to perform these out-of-cycle 

reviews for due diligence. SEVP’s 

review also allows the program to 

monitor changes outside of the control 

of SEVP or the schools (for example, the 

zip code change referenced above). 

One comment suggested that text 

describing the events that trigger out-ofcycle review should be qualified with 

‘‘may.’’ 

SEVP does not occur with this 

comment. Introduction of this text into 

the CFR only formalizes what has been 

published in the SEVIS User Manual 

and reviewed by SEVP for years. It 

clarifies language currently found at 8 

CFR 214.3(e)(3) and parallels the 

explicitness that has to date only been 

found in operational instructions. 

Specifically, it identifies that SEVP 

conducts a desk review of each of these 

changes, determines what additional 

information is required, requests that 

information and then adjudicates the 

petition update. This is not an elective 

process that could be characterized by 

‘‘may,’’ but a prescriptive process 

directed by current regulation. With 

many of these changes, a cursory review 

is adequate and little or no direct 

follow-up with the school is needed; the 

out-of-cycle review has been transparent 

to the school. 

An individual commented that the 

time period should be extended from 10 

to 30 days. 

SEVP does not agree. Schools are 

required to keep school information in 

SEVIS current at all times. A request for 

an update of this information should 

require nothing more than a few 

moments of review and submission. 

Because this relates to SEVP-certified 

schools, supporting documentation 

requested pertains only to changes since 

certification. Presuming changes are 

submitted to SEVP timely, authorizing 

documentation for the changes should 

be readily available. 

8. Designated School Officials 

A commenter questioned whether all 

DSOs must be knowledgeable of 

regulations. 

Yes, the individual certifies to 

knowledge of SEVP regulations when 

they sign the Form I–17 accepting 

appointment to become a DSO. SEVP is 

considering future personnel alignment 

(e.g., positions with limited data entry 

access to accommodate school 

administrative processes) and will likely 

adjust knowledge and training needs 

accordingly to sustain role-related 

SEVIS responsibilities. 

A commenter questioned the 

expectation that an individual be 

knowledgeable of regulatory 

requirements and SEVIS operation 

when first appointed as a DSO. 

When first appointed as DSOs, 

individuals should have a basic 

knowledge of SEVP regulatory 

requirements and SEVIS operations. As 

a practical matter SEVP does not expect 

an entry level DSO to have detailed 

regulatory knowledge but the individual 

should be able to identify pertinent 

regulations and demonstrate where they 

can be found. SEVP has and is 

developing resources to assist new 

DSOs in getting up to speed as quickly 

as possible. PDSOs should anticipate 

the need for mentoring newly appointed 

DSOs to assist in bringing them up to an 

acceptable standard as quickly as 

possible. 

A commenter asked what 

documentation must be submitted when 

a new DSO is appointed and who must 

sign the documentation. 

SEVP responds that in addition to 

submitting the identification of newly 

appointed DSOs in SEVIS, the principal 

designated school official (PDSO) of an 

SEVP-certified institution must submit 

copies of the school’s Form I–17 with 

the PDSO and new appointee 

signatures, as well as be able to provide 

documentation certifying that the new 

individual is a U.S. citizen or lawful 

permanent resident to SEVP. 

A commenter recommended 

establishment of an alternate PDSO 

position. 

SEVP appreciates this 

recommendation and is considering it as 

one of many recommendations in the 

realignment of personnel with SEVIS 

roles and SEVP responsibilities. 

A commenter asked for clarification of 

the need for DSOs at locations other 

than the main campus. 

If students can complete a program of 

study solely at the alternate location, 

that location is a campus and must meet 

DSO requirements. If students receive 

part of their program of study at an 

alternate location, but must receive the 

remainder at another campus that meets 

DSO requirements, this alternate 

location is a satellite facility and does 

not require DSOs. The underlying 

purpose of this regulation is to ensure 

proper monitoring of student activity 

and to provide counsel to students. If a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55696 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

7According to the RFA, a small entity may be (1) 

a small business, defined as any independently 

owned and operated business not dominant in its 

field; (2) a small not-for-profit organization; or (3) 

a small governmental jurisdiction, defined as a 

locality with a population of less than 50,000 

persons. 

8 ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis: Impact on 

Small Schools of the Change in Fees for 

Certification and Institution of Recertification by 

the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.’’ 

9As mandated by 31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8); OMB 

Circular A–25. 

school is uncertain of their need for 

DSOs, they should contact SEVP. Note 

that DSOs can serve on multiple 

campuses, as long as the institution can 

assure that DSO responsibilities are 

being met at each campus. 

9. Denial or Withdrawal of SEVP 

Certification or Recertification 

Procedures 

A commenter suggested that the text 

citing reasons for withdrawal of SEVP 

certification be expanded to include a 

‘‘pattern’’ of such behavior, not limited 

to a single violation. 

It is unclear, based on the comment, 

what would constitute a pattern and 

what threshold of violation would be 

permissible. SEVP believes the 

suggestion opens the regulation to 

ambiguity, and chooses to retain the 

proposed text. 

A commenter noted that, as used in 

the proposed rule at 8 CFR 

214.4(a)(2)(xix), the term ‘‘curriculum’’ 

was too broad and did not convey the 

intended meaning. 

SEVP appreciates the 

recommendation and has modified the 

text accordingly with an explanatory 

parenthetical. Specifically, the proposed 

text for 8 CFR 214.4(a)(2)(xix) is 

amended to read as follows: ‘‘Failure of 

a DSO to notify SEVP of material 

changes, such as changes to the school’s 

name, address, or curricular changes 

that represent material change to the 

scope of institution offerings (e.g., 

addition of a program, class or course 

for which the school is issuing Forms I– 

20, but which does not have Form I–17 

approval), as required by 8 CFR 

214.3(f)(1).’’ Addition of this text 

clarifies the aspects of curriculum 

change that must be reported. 

10. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

An individual commented that the I– 

901 SEVIS fee will be a deterrent to 

foreign student/exchange visitor 

participation and, subsequently, will 

place a strain on small to mid-sized 

educational institutions. 

As is discussed above and in more 

detail in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

section below, SEVP does not concur 

that the I–901 SEVIS fee will be a 

deterrent to foreign student/exchange 

visitor participation, nor does SEVP see 

a disproportionate impact on smaller 

schools. 

III. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DHS is amending regulations 

governing SEVP found in 8 CFR parts 

103 and 214 to adjust the school 

certification fee and the application fee 

for nonimmigrants seeking to become 

academic (F visa) or vocational (M visa) 

students, or exchange visitors (J visa). 

The final rule will increase the fees for 

submitting a SEVP school certification 

petition to $1,700, plus $655 for each 

site visit; set the fee for each F or M 

student at $200; set the fee for most J 

exchange visitors at $180; and maintains 

the fee for J exchange visitors seeking 

admission as au pairs, camp counselors, 

and summer work/travel program 

participants at $35. In addition, this 

final rule will establish procedures for 

recertification of schools with F and/or 

M students. The rule will become 

effective October 1, 2008. 

DHS recognizes that the final rule will 

result in economic impacts on F, M, and 

J nonimmigrants, as well as programs 

and schools seeking to become SEVPcertified or recertified. In this section of 

the final rule we will focus only on the 

economic impact of the regulation on 

small entities, as defined and required 

by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.7 In 

addition, we will address significant 

comments submitted by the public on 

the economic analysis and the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 8

which accompanied the proposed rule. 

DHS has determined that the final rule 

amending the initial SEVP school 

certification fee and establishing 

procedures for recertification of schools 

with F and/or M students will not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; therefore, a 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

was not necessary. The factual basis for 

certification is presented in the 

following analysis of the economic 

effects of the final rule. 

Currently, the fee for schools seeking 

initial certification is $230, plus a $350 

fee for each campus receiving a site 

visit. These fees have not changed since 

2002, prior to the reorganization of the 

INS into DHS. Both the processes and 

costs for adjudicating school petitions 

for initial certification have changed 

substantially since that time. SEVP is 

statutorily required to regularly review 

the fee level to ensure that the cost of 

services provided by the program are 

fully captured by fees assessed on those 

receiving the services.9 The increased 

fee schedule set by this rule will recover 

the full cost of SEVP operations with 

fee-generated revenue, and align fees 

with currently planned costs and 

processes that have been redesigned and 

refined as the program has expanded 

over the years. Moreover, SEVP 

examined three alternatives to the rule, 

which are detailed in the economic 

analysis to the proposed rule, all of 

which were rejected because they did 

not accomplish stated goals of the 

regulation. 

Accordingly, the final rule will 

increase the initial certification fee for 

schools seeking to admit F and/or M 

students to $1700, plus an additional fee 

of $655 per site visit. In addition, the 

final rule will set procedures by which 

SEVP-certified schools are recertified 

every two years. The cost burden to the 

schools associated with recertification 

entail the time and effort associated 

with filing the petition rather than 

direct monetary outlays. It is important 

to note that schools applying for SEVP 

certification and recertification are 

making a voluntary decision based on 

their desire to admit nonimmigrant 

students into their program. Likewise, 

schools that have already been SEVPcertified, but have no F and/or M 

students and no concrete plans to enroll 

any have little incentive to recertify. As 

such, the compliance requirements of 

this rule only affect those schools 

wishing to become SEVP-certified, or 

those that wish to maintain their 

approval to admit nonimmigrant 

students, by undergoing recertification. 

SEVP conducted an analysis of the 

potential impact of the increased 

certification fee using data drawn from 

SEVIS in May 2007. All SEVP-certified 

schools self-report average enrollment 

and average tuition costs for students. 

Therefore, SEVP did not need to use 

publicly available information or use 

sampling to gather data on the finances 

of the type of schools applying for 

certification. The reported number of F 

and/or M students and the tuition costs 

per F and/or M student were used to 

estimate annual total tuition income. 

The tuition cost per student was 

determined by the data in the school’s 

Form I–17, Petition for Approval of 

School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant 

Student, available in SEVIS. 

While tuition revenue may 

underestimate the actual school 

revenue, this is the best information 

available. It is the most significant 

source of income for most schools and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55697 

10SBA’s small business size standards are 

matched to industries described in the North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

All types of SEVP-certified schools are described in 

the NAICS codes for the Educational Sector (611). 

is a reasonable approach to measuring 

the impact of this fee rule. 

As detailed in the economic analysis 

and IRFA to the proposed rule, SEVP 

developed a profile of schools applying 

for certification for the last three years 

using current SEVIS enrollment data. 

Based on this developed profile, SEVP 

projects that 700 new schools will 

certify annually. Of these, we expect 

about 575, or approximately 82% of the 

schools seeking certification in the 

future to be small schools by U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA) 

standards.10 SBA’s size standard for all 

schools, except flight schools and public 

high schools, is $6 million or less in 

annual receipts. The SBA small 

business definition for flight schools is 

$21.5 million or less in annual receipts. 

The analysis uses the definition of a 

small government jurisdiction as 

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (RFA) to determine the small 

entity threshold of public high schools. 

Size classifications of SEVP-certified 

public school districts were determined 

using the figures from the National 

Center for Education Statistics on the 

Department of Education Web site. 

Schools in districts serving populations 

of 50,000 or less were designated as 

small schools for the purposes of this 

analysis. 

Of the 575 small schools expected to 

apply for certification, only 47 are 

expected to have a compliance impact 

of 1% or more. That is, the certification 

fee is 1% or more of the total earnings 

of the school, as calculated by the 

tuition collected from F and/or M 

students. The 47 small schools comprise 

about 7% of all schools expected to 

certify annually, and about 8% of all 

small schools expected to certify 

annually. Table 1 provides the projected 

number of small schools at each level of 

impact. 

TABLE 1—PROJECTED NUMBER OF

SMALL SCHOOLS EXPECTED TO

CERTIFY BY LEVEL OF IMPACT

Level of impact 

Projected 

number of 

small schools 

Under 0.5% ......................... 469 

0.5% to under 1% ............... 59 

1% to under 2% .................. 29 

2% to under 3% .................. 7 

3% to under 4% .................. 1 

4% to under 5% .................. 5 

5% to under 6% .................. 1 

6% to under 7% .................. 2 

TABLE 1—PROJECTED NUMBER OF

SMALL SCHOOLS EXPECTED TO

CERTIFY BY LEVEL OF IMPACT— 

Continued 

Level of impact 

Projected 

number of 

small schools 

7% to under 8% .................. 0 

10% to under 11% .............. 0 

12% to under 13% .............. 1 

23% to under 24% .............. 1 

As evidenced from the table above, 

the overwhelming majority, 

approximately 91.8%, of small schools 

expected to apply for certification will 

have compliance costs of less than 1% 

of their annual earnings. Furthermore, 

only 18 schools (about 3% of small 

school certification applicants) will 

have impact costs of 2% or more, and 

only 11 schools (about 2%) will have 

impact costs of 3% or more. Only 5 

small schools (about 0.9%) are expected 

to have compliance impacts of 5% or 

more of their annual earnings. 

Public Comments on the Economic 

Analysis and IRFA to the Proposed Rule 

The RFA requires agencies to address 

all significant public comments raised 

in regard to the expected economic 

impact of the regulation. SEVP received 

two comments directly referencing the 

economic impacts of the rule. One 

commenter expressed concern over the 

increase in the I–901 SEVIS fee, stating 

that the increased fee coupled with 

immigration laws would result in 

decreased enrollment among small to 

mid-sized educational institutions in 

the United States. While SEVP 

recognizes that the increased 

nonimmigrant student application fee 

will place an additional cost burden on 

those students wishing to study in the 

United States, we do not believe it will 

result in significant decreases in 

enrollment among U.S. small to midsize educational institutions. Prior to 

implementing this rule, SEVP compared 

the new fee schedule for nonimmigrant 

students with that of our top 12 global 

competitors and discovered that the 

new fees would place the United States 

firmly in the upper-middle of this 

group. Furthermore, SEVP is under 

statutory requirement to regularly 

review and adjust fees collected so as to 

capture the true operating costs of the 

program. Another commenter expressed 

concern over the increase in the 

certification fee, and stated the increase 

is a disincentive for schools, especially 

small schools, to seek certification. 

Based on our review of current SEVPcertification schools, especially those 

classified as small entities, we have 

found that a significantly larger number 

of the schools certified since 2004 were 

small schools. In addition, we anticipate 

that the overwhelming majority (over 

90%) of potential small schools 

applying for certification in the future 

will have compliance costs of 1% or less 

of the annual tuition earnings collected 

from nonimmigrant students. As such, 

we believe the increased school 

certification fee will not prove to be a 

major disincentive for those schools 

wishing to admit nonimmigrant 

students. 

We did not receive public comments 

in opposition of our belief that the rule 

will not cause a significant economic 

impact to a substantial number of 

affected businesses, as stated in the 

analysis accompanying the proposed 

rule. In light of public comments 

received, combined with our analysis of 

the expected compliance costs impacts 

of certification, DHS certifies that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA) requires certain actions 

to be taken by an agency before 

‘‘promulgation of any rule that includes 

any federal mandate that may result in 

the expenditure by State, Local and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or 

more (adjusted annually for inflation) in 

any 1 year.’’ 2 U.S.C. 1532(a). This 

rulemaking is not a ‘‘Federal mandate,’’ 

as defined for UMRA purposes, 2 U.S.C. 

658(6), as the payment of an SEVP 

certification fee by individuals, Local 

governments or other private sector 

entities is (to the extent it could be 

termed an enforceable duty) one that 

arises from participation in a voluntary 

federal program (i.e., applying for status 

as F–1, F–3, M–1, or M–3 students or as 

J–1 exchange visitor in the United States 

or seeking approval from the United 

States for attendance by certain aliens 

seeking status as F–1, F–3, M–1 

students). 2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A)(ii). 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

UMRA. 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

This rulemaking is not a major rule, 

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

of Congressional review of agency 

rulemaking under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, 

Public Law 104–121. This rulemaking 

would not result in an annual effect on 

the economy of more than $100 million; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55698 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

a major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of U.S.-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based companies 

in domestic and export markets. 

D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Review 

This proposed rule is not considered 

by DHS to be an economically 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review, since 

it would not have an annual effect on 

the U.S. economy of $100 million. The 

implementation of this proposed rule 

would provide ICE with additional fee 

revenue of $58.538 million in FY 2009 

and $62.581 million in FY 2010. It is, 

however, a significant rulemaking under 

the Executive order and therefore has 

been reviewed by OMB. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This rulemaking would not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

or on the relationship between the 

federal government and the States, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Consequently, 

DHS has determined that this 

rulemaking does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement, in accordance with 

section 6 of Executive Order 13132. 

F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 3(a) 

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

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

All Departments are required to 

submit to OMB for review and approval, 

any reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements inherent in a rule under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat. 163 

(1995), 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Schools 

will be using SEVIS to petition for 

recertification. The recertification 

process requires schools to input data 

into SEVIS, print the Form I–17 and 

sign the form. The electronic data 

captured for the Form I–17 have been 

previously approved for use by OMB as 

one component of the data captured in 

SEVIS. The OMB Control Number for 

this collection is 1615–0066 (changed to 

1653–0038). With the implementation of 

SEVIS under 67 FR 60107 (September 

25, 2002), most schools enrolled in 

SEVIS were petitioning for DHS 

recertification, rather than initial 

certification (i.e., enrolling F or M 

nonimmigrant students for the first 

time). The workload for both 

certification and recertification was 

included under OMB 1615–0066. 

The changes to the fees require 

changes to SEVIS and the I–901 

software to reflect the updated fee 

amounts, as these systems generate the 

pertinent petition and application 

forms. SEVP would submit a revision to 

OMB with respect to any changes to 

existing information collection 

approvals. 

List of Subjects 

8 CFR Part 103 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Authority delegations 

(Government agencies), Freedom of 

Information, Privacy, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Surety 

bonds. 

8 CFR Part 214 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Employment, 

Foreign officials, Health professions, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Students. 

■ Accordingly, Chapter I of Title 8 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 103—POWERS AND DUTIES; 

AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 103 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1101, 1103, 1304, 1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 

Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 

1 et seq. ); E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 15557, 

3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR part 2. 

■ 2. Section 103.7(b)(1) is amended by 

revising the entries for Forms I–17, 

I–290B, and I–901 in the listing of fees, 

to read as follows: 

§ 103.7 Fees. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * 

Form I–17. For filing a petition for 

school certification—$1,700, plus a site 

visit fee of $655 for each location listed 

on the form. 

* * * * * 

Form I–901. For remittance of the 

I–901 SEVIS fee for F and M students— 

$200. For remittance of the I–901 SEVIS 

fee for certain J exchange visitors—$180. 

For remittance of the I–901 SEVIS fee 

for J–1 au pairs, camp counselors, and 

participants in a summer work/travel 

program—$35. There is no I–901 SEVIS 

fee remittance obligation for J exchange 

visitors in federally-funded programs 

with a program identifier designation 

prefix that begins with G–1, G–2, G–3 or 

G–7. 

* * * * * 

PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 214 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 

1184, 1185 (pursuant to E.O. 13323, 69 FR 

241, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 278), 1186a, 

1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301–1305, 1356, 

1372, 1379, 1731–32; section 643, Public Law 

104–208, 110 Stat. 3009–708; section 141 of 

the Compacts of Free Association with the 

Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with 

the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 

note, and 1931 note, respectively, 8 CFR part 

2. 

■ 4. Section 214.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); 

■ c. Revising the first sentence in 

paragraph (b) introductory text; 

■ d. Revising the first sentence in 

paragraph (c); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (d), (e), and (f); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (g)(1); 

■ g. Removing paragraph (g)(2); 

■ h. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(3) and 

(g)(4) as paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) 

respectively; 

■ i. Revising newly designated 

paragraph (g)(2) heading, and by 

revising newly designated paragraphs 

(g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii) introductory text, 

(g)(2)(ii)(E), and (g)(2)(iii)(C); 

■ j. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(D); 

■ k. Revising paragraph (h); 

■ l. Revising paragraph (i); 

■ m. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (k); 

■ n. Revising paragraph (l)(1)(ii); 

■ o. Revising paragraph (l)(2). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 214.3 Approval of schools for enrollment 

of F and M nonimmigrants. 

(a) * * * 

(1) General. A school or school system 

seeking initial or continued 

authorization for attendance by 

nonimmigrant students under sections 

101(a)(15)(F)(i) or 101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the 

Act, or both, must file a petition for 

certification or recertification with 

SEVP, using the Student and Exchange 

Visitor Information System (SEVIS), in 

accordance with the procedures at 

paragraph (h) of this section. The 

petition must state whether the school 

or school system is seeking certification 

or recertification for attendance of 

nonimmigrant students under section 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55699 

101(a)(15)(F)(i) or 101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the 

Act or both. The petition must identify 

by name and address each location of 

the school that is included in the 

petition for certification or 

recertification, specifically including 

any physical location in which a 

nonimmigrant can attend classes 

through the school (i.e., campus, 

extension campuses, satellite campuses, 

etc.). 

(i) School systems. A school system, 

as used in this section, means public 

school (grades 9–12) or private school 

(grades kindergarten–12). A petition by 

a school system must include a list of 

the names and addresses of those 

schools included in the petition with 

the supporting documents. 

(ii) Submission requirements. 

Certification and recertification 

petitions require that a complete Form 

I–17, Petition for Approval of School for 

Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student, 

including supplements A and B and 

bearing original signatures, be included 

with the school’s submission of 

supporting documentation. In 

submitting the Form I–17, a school 

certifies that the designated school 

officials (DSOs) signing the form have 

read and understand DHS regulations 

relating to: Nonimmigrant students at 8 

CFR 214.1, 214.2(f), and/or 214.2(m); 

change of nonimmigrant classification 

for students at 8 CFR 248; school 

certification and recertification under 

this section; withdrawal of school 

certification under this section and 8 

CFR 214.4; that both the school and its 

DSOs intend to comply with these 

regulations at all times; and that, to the 

best of its knowledge, the school is 

eligible for SEVP certification. Willful 

misstatements may constitute perjury 

(18 U.S.C. 1621). 

* * * * * 

(3) Eligibility. (i) The petitioner, to be 

eligible for certification, must establish 

at the time of filing that it: 

(A) Is a bona fide school; 

(B) Is an established institution of 

learning or other recognized place of 

study; 

(C) Possesses the necessary facilities, 

personnel, and finances to conduct 

instruction in recognized courses; and 

(D) Is, in fact, engaged in instruction 

in those courses. 

(ii) The petitioner, to be eligible for 

recertification, must establish at the 

time of filing that it: 

(A) Remains eligible for certification 

in accordance with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 

this section; 

(B) Has complied during its previous 

period of certification or recertification 

with recordkeeping, retention, and 

reporting requirements and all other 

requirements of paragraphs (g), (j), (k), 

and (l) of this section. 

(b) * * * Institutions petitioning for 

certification or recertification must 

submit certain supporting documents as 

follows, pursuant to sections 

101(a)(15)(F) and (M) of the Act. * * * 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * If the petitioner is a 

vocational, business, or language school, 

or American institution of research 

recognized as such by the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, it must submit 

evidence that its courses of study are 

accepted as fulfilling the requirements 

for the attainment of an educational, 

professional, or vocational objective, 

and are not avocational or recreational 

in character. * * * 

(d) Interview of petitioner. The 

petitioner or an authorized 

representative of the petitioner may be 

required to appear in person before or 

be interviewed by telephone by a DHS 

representative prior to the adjudication 

of a petition for certification or 

recertification. The interview will be 

conducted under oath. 

(e) Notices to schools related to 

certification or recertification petitions 

or to out-of-cycle review—(1) General. 

All notices from SEVP to schools or 

school systems related to school 

certification, recertification, or out-ofcycle review (including, but not limited 

to, notices related to the collection of 

evidence, testimony, and appearance 

pertaining to petitions for recertification 

encompassing compliance with the 

recordkeeping, retention and reporting, 

and other requirements of paragraphs 

(f), (g), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, as 

well as to eligibility) will be served in 

accordance with the procedures at 8 

CFR 103.2(b)(1), (4)–(16), (18) and (19), 

with the exception that all procedures 

will be conducted by SEVP, the SEVP 

Director, and the Assistant Secretary, 

ICE, as appropriate, and except as 

provided in this section. All such 

notices will be served (i.e., generated 

and transmitted) through SEVIS and/or 

by e-mail. The date of service is the date 

of transmission of the e-mail notice. 

DSOs must maintain current contact 

information, including current e-mail 

addresses, at all times. Failure of a 

school to receive SEVP notices due to 

inaccurate DSO e-mail addresses in 

SEVIS or blockages of the school’s 

e-mail system caused by spam filters is 

not grounds for appeal of a denial or 

withdrawal. The term ‘‘in writing’’ 

means either a paper copy bearing 

original signatures or an electronic copy 

bearing electronic signatures. 

(2) SEVP approval notification and 

SEVIS updating by certified schools. 

SEVP will notify the petitioner by 

updating SEVIS to reflect approval of 

the petition and by e-mail upon 

approval of a certification or 

recertification petition. The certification 

or recertification is valid only for the 

type of program and nonimmigrant 

classification specified in the 

certification or recertification approval 

notice. The certification must be 

recertified every two years and may be 

subject to out-of-cycle review at any 

time. Approval may be withdrawn in 

accordance with 8 CFR 214.4. 

(3) Modifications to Form I–17 while 

a school is SEVP-certified. Any 

modification made by an SEVP-certified 

school on the Form I–17 at any time 

after certification and for the duration of 

a school’s authorization to enroll F and/ 

or M students must be reported to SEVP 

and will be processed by SEVP in 

accordance with the provisions of 

paragraphs (f)(1), (g)(2) and (h)(3)(i) of 

this section. 

(4) Notice of Intent to Withdraw 

(NOIW) SEVP certification—(i) 

Automatic withdrawal. SEVP will serve 

the school with an NOIW 30 days prior 

to a school’s SEVP certification 

expiration date if the school has not 

submitted to SEVP a completed 

recertification petition, in accordance 

with paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 

The school will be automatically 

withdrawn immediately, in accordance 

with 8 CFR 214.4(a)(3), if it has not 

submitted a completed recertification 

petition by the school’s certification 

expiration date. 

(ii) Withdrawal on notice. SEVP will 

serve a Withdrawal on Notice, in 

accordance with 8 CFR 214.4(b), if SEVP 

determines that a school reviewed outof-cycle has failed to sustain eligibility 

or has failed to comply with the 

recordkeeping, retention, reporting and 

other requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), 

(j), (k), and (l) of this section. When a 

school fails to file an answer to an 

NOIW within the 30-day period, SEVP 

will withdraw the school’s certification 

and notify the DSOs of the decision, in 

accordance with 8 CFR 214.4(d). Such 

withdrawal of certification may not be 

appealed. 

(5) Notice of Denial. A Notice of 

Denial will be served to a school when 

SEVP denies a petition for initial 

certification or recertification. The 

notice will address appeals options. 

Schools denied recertification must 

comply with 8 CFR 214.4(i). 

(6) Notice of Automatic Withdrawal. 

Schools that relinquish SEVP 

certification for any of the reasons cited 

in 8 CFR 214.4(a)(3) will be served a 

Notice of Automatic Withdrawal. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55700 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(7) Notice of Withdrawal. A school 

found to be ineligible for continued 

SEVP certification as a result of an outof-cycle review will receive a Notice of 

Withdrawal. Schools withdrawn must 

comply with 8 CFR 214.4(i). 

(8) Notice of SEVIS Access 

Termination Date. The Notice of SEVIS 

Access Termination Date gives the 

official date for the school’s denial or 

withdrawal to be final and SEVIS access 

to be terminated. In most situations, 

SEVP will not determine a SEVIS access 

termination date for that school until 

the appeals process has concluded and 

the initial denial or withdrawal has 

been upheld, in accordance with 8 CFR 

214.4(i)(3). The school will no longer be 

able to access SEVIS and SEVP will 

automatically terminate any remaining 

Active SEVIS records for that school on 

that date. 

(f) Adjudication of a petition for SEVP 

certification or recertification—(1) 

Approval. The school is required to 

immediately report through SEVIS any 

change to its school information upon 

approval of a petition for SEVP 

certification or recertification. 

Modification to school information 

listed in paragraph (h)(3) of this section 

will require a determination of 

continued eligibility for certification. 

The certification or recertification is 

valid only for the type of program and 

student specified in the approval notice. 

The certification may be withdrawn in 

accordance with the provisions of 8 CFR 

214.4, is subject to review at any time, 

and will be reviewed every two years. 

(2) Denial. The petitioner will be 

notified of the reasons for the denial and 

appeal rights, in accordance with the 

provisions of 8 CFR part 103 and 8 CFR 

214.4, if SEVP denies a petition for 

certification or recertification. 

(g) * * * 

(1) Student records. An SEVPcertified school must keep records 

containing certain specific information 

and documents relating to each F–1 or 

M–1 student to whom it has issued a 

Form I–20, while the student is 

attending the school and until the 

school notifies SEVP, in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraphs 

(g)(1) and (2) of this section, that the 

student is not pursuing a full course of 

study. Student information not required 

for entry in SEVIS may be kept in the 

school’s student system of records, but 

must be accessible to DSOs. The school 

must keep a record of having complied 

with the reporting requirements for at 

least three years after the student is no 

longer pursuing a full course of study. 

The school must maintain records on 

the student in accordance with 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section 

if a school recommends reinstatement 

for a student who is out of status. The 

school must maintain records on the 

student for three years from the date of 

the denial if the reinstatement is denied. 

The DSO must make the information 

and documents required by this 

paragraph available, including academic 

transcripts, and must furnish them to 

DHS representatives upon request. 

Schools must maintain and be able to 

provide an academic transcript or other 

routinely maintained student records 

that reflect the total, unabridged 

academic history of the student at the 

institution, in accordance with 

paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section. All 

courses must be recorded in the 

academic period in which the course 

was taken and graded. The information 

and documents that the school must 

keep on each student are as follows: 

(i) Identification of the school, to 

include name and full address. 

(ii) Identification of the student, to 

include name while in attendance 

(record any legal name change), date 

and place of birth, country of 

citizenship, and school’s student 

identification number. 

(iii) Current address where the 

student and his or her dependents 

physically reside. In the event the 

student or his or her dependents cannot 

receive mail at such physical residence, 

the school must provide a mailing 

address in SEVIS. If the mailing address 

and the physical address are not the 

same, the school must maintain a record 

of both mailing and physical addresses 

and provide the physical location of 

residence of the student and his or her 

dependents to DHS upon request. 

(iv) Record of coursework. Identify 

the student’s degree program and field 

of study. For each course, give the 

periods of enrollment, course 

identification code and course title; the 

number of credits or contact hours, and 

the grade; the number of credits or clock 

hours, and for credit hour courses the 

credit unit; the term unit (semester 

hour, quarter hour, etc.). Include the 

date of withdrawal if the student 

withdrew from a course. Show the grade 

point average for each session or term. 

Show the cumulative credits or clock 

hours and cumulative grade point 

average. Narrative evaluation will be 

accepted in lieu of grades when the 

school uses no other type of grading. 

(v) Record of transfer credit or clock 

hours accepted. Type of hours, course 

identification, grades. 

(vi) Academic status. Include the 

effective date or period if suspended, 

dismissed, placed on probation, or 

withdrawn. 

(vii) Whether the student has been 

certified for practical training, and the 

beginning and end dates of certification. 

(viii) Statement of graduation (if 

applicable). Title of degree or credential 

received, date conferred, program of 

study or major. 

(ix) Termination date and reason. 

(x) The documents referred to in 

paragraph (k) of this section. 

Note to paragraph (g)(1): A DHS officer 

may request any or all of the data in 

paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (x) of this section 

on any individual student or class of students 

upon notice. This notice will be in writing 

if requested by the school. The school will 

have three work days to respond to any 

request for information concerning an 

individual student, and ten work days to 

respond to any request for information 

concerning a class of students. The school 

will respond orally on the same day the 

request for information is made if DHS 

requests information on a student who is 

being held in custody, and DHS will provide 

a written notification that the request was 

made after the fact, if the school so desires. 

DHS will first attempt to gain information 

concerning a class of students from DHS 

record systems. 

(2) Reporting changes in student and 

school information. (i) Schools must 

update SEVIS with the current 

information within 21 days of a change 

in any of the information contained in 

paragraphs (f)(1) and (h)(3) of this 

section. 

(ii) Schools are also required to report 

within 21 days any change of the 

information contained in paragraph 

(g)(1) or the occurrence of the following 

events: 

* * * * * 

(E) Any other notification request not 

covered by paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section made by DHS with respect to the 

current status of the student. 

(iii) * * * 

(C) The start date of the student’s next 

session, term, semester, trimester, or 

quarter. For initial students, the start 

date is the ‘‘program start date’’ or 

‘‘report date.’’ (These terms are used 

interchangeably.) The DSO may choose 

a reasonable date to accommodate a 

student’s need to be in attendance for 

required activities at the school prior to 

the actual start of classes when 

determining the report date on the Form 

I–20. Such required activities may 

include, but are not limited to, research 

projects and orientation sessions. The 

DSO may not, however, indicate a 

report date more than 30 days prior to 

the start of classes. The next session 

start date is the start of classes for 

continuing students. 

(D) Adjustment to the program 

completion date. Any factors that 

influence the student’s progress toward 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55701 

program completion (e.g., deferred 

attendance, authorized drop below, 

program extension) must be reflected by 

making an adjustment updating the 

program completion date. 

* * * * * 

(h) SEVP certification, recertification, 

out-of-cycle review, and oversight of 

schools. 

(1) Certification. A school seeking 

SEVP certification for attendance by 

nonimmigrants under section 

101(a)(15)(F)(i) or 101(a)(15)(m)(i) of the 

Act must use SEVIS to file an electronic 

petition (which compiles the data for 

the Form I–17) and must submit the 

nonrefundable certification petition fee 

on-line. 

(i) Filing a petition. The school must 

access the SEVP Web site at http:// 

www.ice.gov/sevis to file a certification 

petition in SEVIS. The school will be 

issued a temporary ID and password in 

order to access SEVIS to complete and 

submit an electronic Form I–17. The 

school must submit the proper 

nonrefundable certification petition fee 

as provided in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1). 

(ii) Site visit, petition adjudication 

and school notification. SEVP will 

conduct a site visit for each petitioning 

school and its additional schools or 

campuses. SEVP will contact the school 

to arrange the site visit. The school must 

comply with and complete the visit 

within 30 days after the date SEVP 

contacts the school to arrange the visit, 

or the petition for certification will be 

denied as abandoned. DSOs and school 

officials that have signed the school’s 

Form I–17 petition must be able to 

demonstrate to DHS representatives 

how they obtain access to the 

regulations cited in the certification as 

part of the site visit. Paper or electronic 

access is acceptable. DSOs must be able 

to extract pertinent citations within the 

regulations related to their requirements 

and responsibilities. SEVP will serve a 

notice of approval and SEVIS will be 

updated to reflect the school’s 

certification if SEVP approves the 

school’s certification petition. 

(iii) Certification denial. SEVP will 

serve a notice of denial in accordance 

with paragraph (f)(2) of this section if a 

school’s petition for certification is 

denied. 

(2) Recertification. Schools are 

required to file a completed petition for 

SEVP recertification before the school’s 

certification expiration date, which is 

two years from the date of their previous 

SEVP certification or recertification 

expiration date, except for the first 

recertification cycle after publication of 

the recertification rule. There is no 

recertification petition fee. SEVP will 

review a petitioning school’s 

compliance with the recordkeeping, 

retention and reporting, and other 

requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), (j), 

(k), and (l) of this section, as well as 

continued eligibility for certification, 

pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section. 

(i) Filing of petition for recertification. 

Schools must submit a completed Form 

I–17 (including supplements A and B) 

using SEVIS, and submit a paper copy 

of the Form I–17 bearing original 

signatures of all officials. SEVP will 

notify all DSOs of a previously certified 

school 180 days prior to the school’s 

certification expiration date that the 

school may submit a petition for 

recertification. A school may file its 

recertification petition at any time after 

receipt of this notification. A school 

must submit a complete recertification 

petition package, as outlined in the 

submission guidelines, by its 

certification expiration date. SEVP will 

send a notice of confirmation of 

complete filing or rejection to the school 

upon receipt of any filing of a petition 

for recertification. 

(A) Notice of confirmation assures a 

school of uninterrupted access to SEVIS 

while SEVP adjudicates the school’s 

petition for recertification. A school that 

has complied with the petition 

submission requirements will continue 

to have SEVIS access after its 

certification expiration date while the 

adjudication for recertification is 

pending. The school is required to 

comply with all regulatory 

recordkeeping, retention and reporting, 

and other requirements of paragraphs 

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

during the period the petition is 

pending. 

(B) Notice of rejection informs a 

school that it must take prompt 

corrective action in regard to its 

recertification petition prior to its 

certification expiration date to ensure 

that its SEVIS access will not be 

terminated and its petition for 

recertification will be accepted for 

adjudication. 

(ii) Consequence of failure to petition. 

SEVP will serve an NOIW to the school 

30 days prior to a school’s certification 

expiration date. SEVP will no longer 

accept a petition for recertification from 

the school and will immediately 

withdraw the school’s certification if the 

school does not petition for 

recertification, abandons its petition, or 

does not submit a complete 

recertification petition package by the 

certification expiration date, in 

accordance with the automatic 

withdrawal criteria in 8 CFR 214.4(a)(3). 

The school must comply with 8 CFR 

214.4(i) upon withdrawal. 

(iii) School recertification process— 

(A) General. School recertification 

reaffirms the petitioning school’s 

eligibility for SEVP certification and the 

school’s compliance with 

recordkeeping, retention, reporting and 

other requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), 

(j), (k), and (l) of this section since its 

previous certification. 

(B) Compliance. Assessment by SEVP 

of a school petitioning for recertification 

will focus primarily on overall school 

compliance, but may also include 

examination of individual DSO 

compliance as data and circumstances 

warrant. Past performance of these 

individuals, whether or not they 

continue to serve as principal 

designated school officials (PDSOs) or 

DSOs, will be considered in any petition 

for recertification of the school. 

(C) On-site review for recertification. 

All schools are subject to on-site review, 

at the discretion of SEVP, in 

conjunction with recertification. The 

school must comply with and complete 

an on-site review within 30 days of the 

notification by a DHS representative of 

a school that it has been selected for an 

on-site review for recertification, or the 

petition for recertification will be 

denied as abandoned, resulting in the 

school’s withdrawal from SEVIS. 

(iv) Recertification approval. SEVP 

will serve a notice of approval if a 

school’s petition for recertification is 

approved. The date of the subsequent 

recertification review will be two years 

after the school’s certification expiration 

date from this petition cycle. 

(v) Recertification denial. SEVP will 

serve a notice of denial if a school’s 

petition for recertification is denied, in 

accordance with 8 CFR 103.3(a)(1)(i). 

(vi) Adjustment of certification 

expiration date. Schools eligible for 

recertification before March 25, 2009 

will, at a minimum, have their 

certification expiration date extended to 

March 25, 2009. SEVP may extend the 

certification expiration date beyond this 

date during the first cycle of 

recertification. 

(3) Out-of-cycle review and oversight 

of SEVP-certified schools. (i) SEVP will 

determine if out-of-cycle review is 

required upon receipt in SEVIS of any 

changes from an SEVP-certified school 

to its Form I–17 information. The Form 

I–17 information that requires out-ofcycle review when changed includes: 

(A) Approval for attendance of 

students (F/M/both); 

(B) Name of school system; name of 

main campus; 

(C) Mailing address of the school; 

(D) Location of the school; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55702 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(E) School type; 

(F) Public/private school indicator; 

(G) Private school owner name; 

(H) The school is engaged in; 

(I) The school operates under the 

following Federal, State, Local or other 

authorization; 

(J) The school has been approved by 

the following national, regional, or state 

accrediting association or agency; 

(K) Areas of study; 

(L) Degrees available from the school; 

(M) If the school is engaged in 

elementary or secondary education; 

(N) If the school is engaged in higher 

education; 

(O) If the school is engaged in 

vocational or technical education; 

(P) If the school is engaged in English 

language training; 

(Q) Adding or deleting campuses; 

(R) Campus name; 

(S) Campus mailing address; and 

(T) Campus location address. 

(ii) SEVP may request a school to 

electronically update all Form I–17 

fields in SEVIS and provide SEVP with 

documentation supporting the update. 

The school must complete such updates 

in SEVIS and submit the supporting 

documentation to SEVP within 10 

business days of the request from SEVP. 

(iii) SEVP may review a school’s 

certification at any time to verify the 

school’s compliance with the 

recordkeeping, retention, reporting and 

other requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), 

(j), (k), and (l) of this section to verify 

the school’s continued eligibility for 

SEVP certification pursuant to 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. SEVP 

may initiate remedial action with the 

school, as appropriate, and may initiate 

withdrawal proceedings against the 

school pursuant to 8 CFR 214.4(b) if 

noncompliance or ineligibility of a 

school is identified. 

(iv) On-site review. SEVP-certified 

schools are subject to on-site review at 

any time. SEVP will initiate withdrawal 

proceedings against a certified school, 

pursuant to 8 CFR 214.4(b), if the 

certified school selected for on-site 

review prior to its certification 

expiration date fails to comply with and 

complete the review within 30 days of 

the date SEVP contacted the school to 

arrange the review. 

(v) Notice of Continued Eligibility. 

SEVP will serve the school a notice of 

continued eligibility if, upon 

completion of an out-of-cycle review, 

SEVP determines that the school 

remains eligible for certification. Such 

notice will not change the school’s 

previously-determined certification 

expiration date unless specifically 

notified by SEVP. 

(vi) Withdrawal of certification. SEVP 

will institute withdrawal proceedings in 

accordance with 8 CFR 214.4(b) if, upon 

completion of an out-of-cycle review, 

SEVP determines that a school or its 

programs are no longer eligible for 

certification. 

(vii) Voluntary withdrawal. A school 

can voluntarily withdraw from SEVP 

certification at any time or in lieu of 

complying with an out-of-cycle review 

or request. Failure of a school to comply 

with an out-of-cycle review or request 

by SEVP will be treated as a voluntary 

withdrawal. A school must initiate 

voluntary withdrawal by sending a 

request for withdrawal on official school 

letterhead to SEVP. 

(i) Administration of student 

regulations. DHS officials may conduct 

out-of-cycle, on-site reviews on the 

campuses of SEVP-certified schools to 

determine whether nonimmigrant 

students on those campuses are 

complying with DHS regulations 

pertaining to them, including the 

requirement that each maintains a valid 

passport. DHS officers will take 

appropriate action regarding violations 

of the regulations by nonimmigrant 

students. 

* * * * * 

(k) Issuance of Certificate of 

Eligibility. A DSO of an SEVP-certified 

school must sign any completed Form 

I–20 issued for either a prospective or 

continuing student or a dependent. A 

Form I–20 issued by a certified school 

system must state which school within 

the system the student will attend. Only 

a DSO of an SEVP-certified school may 

issue a Form I–20 to a prospective 

student and his or her dependents, and 

only after the following conditions are 

met: 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Each campus must have one 

PDSO. The PDSO is responsible for 

updating SEVIS to reflect the addition 

or deletion of any DSO on his or her 

associated campus. SEVP will use the 

PDSO as the point of contact on any 

issues that relate to the school’s 

compliance with the regulations, as well 

as any system alerts generated by SEVIS. 

SEVP may also designate certain 

functions in SEVIS for use by the PDSO 

only. The PDSO of the main campus is 

the only DSO authorized to submit a 

Form I–17 for recertification. The PDSO 

and DSO will share the same 

responsibilities in all other respects. 

* * * * * 

(2) Name, title, and sample signature. 

Petitions for SEVP certification, review 

and recertification must include the 

names, titles, and sample signatures of 

designated officials. An SEVP-certified 

school must update SEVIS upon any 

changes to the persons who are 

principal or designated officials, and 

furnish the name, title and e-mail 

address of any new official within 21 

days of the change. Any changes to the 

PDSO or DSO must be made by the 

PDSO within 21 days of the change. 

DHS may, at its discretion, reject the 

submission of any individual as a DSO 

or withdraw a previous submission by 

a school of an individual. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 214.4 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2) and 

(a)(3) as paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) 

respectively; 

■ d. Adding a new paragraph (a)(2); 

■ e. Revising newly designated 

paragraph (a)(3); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (b); 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (g) and (h); and 

by 

■ h. Adding paragraph (i). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 214.4 Denial of certification, denial of 

recertification or withdrawal of SEVP 

certification. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Denial of certification. The 

petitioning school will be notified of the 

reasons and appeal rights if a petition 

for certification is denied, in accordance 

with the provisions of 8 CFR 

103.3(a)(1)(iii). No fee is required with 

appeals related to SEVP certification. A 

petitioning school denied certification 

may file a new petition for certification 

at any time. 

(2) Denial of recertification or 

withdrawal on notice. The school must 

wait at least one calendar year from the 

date of denial of recertification or 

withdrawal on notice before being 

eligible to petition again for SEVP 

certification if a school’s petition for 

recertification is denied by SEVP 

pursuant to 8 CFR 214.3(h)(3)(v), or its 

certification is withdrawn on notice 

pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. 

Eligibility to re-petition will be at the 

discretion of the Director of SEVP. SEVP 

certification of a school or school 

system for the attendance of 

nonimmigrant students, pursuant to 

sections 101(a)(15)(F)(i) and/or 

101(a)(15)(M)(i) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, will be withdrawn on 

notice subsequent to out-of-cycle 

review, or recertification denied, if the 

school or school system is determined 

to no longer be entitled to certification 

for any valid and substantive reason 

including, but not limited to, the 

following: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55703 

(i) Failure to comply with 8 CFR 

214.3(g)(1) without a subpoena. 

(ii) Failure to comply with 8 CFR 

214.3(g)(2). 

(iii) Failure of a DSO to notify SEVP 

of the attendance of an F–1 transfer 

student as required by 8 CFR 

214.2(f)(8)(ii). 

(iv) Failure of a DSO to identify on the 

Form I–20 which school within the 

system the student must attend, in 

compliance with 8 CFR 214.3(k). 

(v) Willful issuance by a DSO of a 

false statement, including wrongful 

certification of a statement by signature, 

in connection with a student’s school 

transfer or application for employment 

or practical training. 

(vi) Conduct on the part of a DSO that 

does not comply with the regulations. 

(vii) The designation as a DSO of an 

individual who does not meet the 

requirements of 8 CFR 214.3(l)(1). 

(viii) Failure to provide SEVP paper 

copies of the school’s Form I–17 bearing 

the names, titles, and signatures of 

DSOs as required by 8 CFR 214.3(l)(2). 

(ix) Failure to submit statements of 

DSOs as required by 8 CFR 214.3(l)(3). 

(x) Issuance of Forms I–20 to students 

without receipt of proof that the 

students have met scholastic, language, 

or financial requirements as required by 

8 CFR 214.3(k)(2). 

(xi) Issuance of Forms I–20 to aliens 

who will not be enrolled in or carry full 

courses of study, as defined in 8 CFR 

214.2(f)(6) or 214.2(m)(9). 

(xii) Failure to operate as a bona fide 

institution of learning. 

(xiii) Failure to employ adequate 

qualified professional personnel. 

(xiv) Failure to limit advertising in the 

manner prescribed in 8 CFR 214.3(j). 

(xv) Failure to maintain proper 

facilities for instruction. 

(xvi) Failure to maintain accreditation 

or licensing necessary to qualify 

graduates as represented in the school’s 

Form I–17. 

(xvii) Failure to maintain the physical 

plant, curriculum, and teaching staff in 

the manner represented in the Form 

I–17. 

(xviii) Failure to comply with the 

procedures for issuance of Forms I–20 

as set forth in 8 CFR 214.3(k). 

(xix) Failure of a DSO to notify SEVP 

of material changes, such as changes to 

the school’s name, address, or curricular 

changes that represent material change 

to the scope of institution offerings (e.g., 

addition of a program, class or course 

for which the school is issuing Forms 

I–20, but which does not have Form I– 

17 approval), as required by 8 CFR 

214.3(f)(1). 

(3) Automatic withdrawal. A school 

that is automatically withdrawn and 

subsequently wishes to enroll 

nonimmigrant students in the future 

may file a new petition for SEVP 

certification at any time. The school 

must use the certification petition 

procedures described in 8 CFR 

214.3(h)(1) to gain access to SEVIS for 

submitting its petition. Past compliance 

with the recordkeeping, retention, 

reporting and other requirements of 8 

CFR 214.3(f), (g), (j), (k), and (l), and 

with the requirements for transition of 

students under paragraph (i) of this 

section will be considered in the 

evaluation of a school’s subsequent 

petition for certification. SEVP 

certification will be automatically 

withdrawn: 

(i) As of the date of termination of 

operations, if an SEVP-certified school 

terminates its operations. 

(ii) As of a school’s certification 

expiration date, if an SEVP-certified 

school does not submit a completed 

recertification petition in the manner 

required by 8 CFR 214.3(h)(2). 

(iii) Sixty days after the change of 

ownership if an SEVP-certified school 

changes ownership, unless the school 

files a new petition for SEVP 

certification, in accordance with the 

procedures at 8 CFR 214.3(h)(1), within 

60 days of the change of ownership. 

SEVP will review the petition if the 

school properly files such petition to 

determine whether the school still 

meets the eligibility requirements of 8 

CFR 214.3(a)(3) and is still in 

compliance with the recordkeeping, 

retention, reporting and other 

requirements of 8 CFR 214.3(f), (g), (j), 

(k), and (l). SEVP will institute 

withdrawal proceedings in accordance 

with paragraph (b) of this section if, 

upon completion of the review, SEVP 

finds that the school is no longer 

eligible for certification, or is not in 

compliance with the recordkeeping, 

retention, reporting and other 

requirements of 8 CFR 214.3(f), (g), (j), 

(k), and (l). 

(iv) If an SEVP-certified school 

voluntarily withdraws from its 

certification. 

* * * * * 

(b) Withdrawal on notice. SEVP will 

initiate an out-of-cycle review and serve 

the school with an NOIW if SEVP has 

information that a school or school 

system may no longer be entitled to 

SEVP certification prior to the school 

being due for its two-year 

recertification. The NOIW will inform 

the school of: 

(1) The grounds for withdrawing 

SEVP certification. 

(2) The 30-day deadline from the date 

of the service of the NOIW for the 

school to submit sworn statements, and 

documentary or other evidence, to rebut 

the grounds for withdrawal of 

certification in the NOIW. An NOIW is 

not a means for the school to submit 

evidence that it should have previously 

submitted as a part of its established 

reporting requirements. 

(3) The school’s right to submit a 

written request (including e-mail) 

within 30 days of the date of service of 

the NOIW for a telephonic interview in 

support of its response to the NOIW. 

* * * * * 

(g) Decision. The decision of SEVP 

will be in accordance with 8 CFR 

103.3(a)(1). 

(h) Appeals. Notices of denial or 

withdrawal of SEVP certification will 

include appeal alternatives and filing 

instructions. Any appeal must be taken 

within 15 days after the service of the 

decision by stating the reasons for the 

appeal in the notice of appeal provided 

with the instructions, and supported by 

a statement or brief specifically setting 

forth the grounds for contesting the 

withdrawal of the approval. No fee is 

required with appeals related to denial 

of SEVP recertification or withdrawal of 

SEVP certification. 

(i) Operations at a school when SEVP 

certification is relinquished or 

withdrawn, or whose recertification is 

denied and on the SEVIS access 

termination date. 

(1) General. A school whose 

certification is relinquished or 

withdrawn, or whose recertification is 

denied may, at SEVP discretion, no 

longer be able to create Initial student 

records or issue new Forms I–20, 

Certificate of Eligibility for 

Nonimmigrant Student, for initial 

attendance. Schools must comply with 

the instructions given in the notice of 

withdrawal or denial with regard to 

management of status for their Initial 

and continuing F and/or M students. All 

other SEVIS functionality, including 

event reporting for students, will remain 

unchanged until the school’s SEVIS 

access termination date. The school 

must continue to comply with the 

recordkeeping, retention, reporting and 

other requirements of 8 CFR 214.3(f), 

(g), (j), (k), and (l) until its SEVIS access 

termination date. 

(2) SEVIS access termination. In 

determining the SEVIS access 

termination date, SEVP will consider 

the impact that such date will have 

upon SEVP, the school, and the school’s 

nonimmigrant students in determining 

the SEVIS access termination date. In 

most situations, SEVP will not 

determine a SEVIS access termination 

date for that school until the appeals 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
55704 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

process has concluded and the initial 

denial or withdrawal has been upheld 

unless a school whose certification is 

withdrawn or whose recertification is 

denied is suspected of criminal activity 

or poses a potential national security 

threat. The school will no longer be able 

to access SEVIS, and SEVP will 

automatically terminate any remaining 

Active SEVIS records for that school on 

the SEVIS access termination date. 

(3) Legal obligations and 

ramifications for a school and its DSOs 

when a school is having SEVP 

certification denied or withdrawn. 

Schools are obligated to their students 

to provide the programs of study to 

which they have committed themselves 

in the students’ application for 

enrollment and acceptance process. 

Schools are obligated to the U.S. 

government to comply with the 

recordkeeping, retention, reporting and 

other requirements contained in 8 CFR 

214.3. With any new petition for SEVP 

certification, SEVP will consider the 

extent to which a school has fulfilled 

these obligations to students and the 

U.S. government during any previous 

period of SEVP certification. 

■ 6. Section 214.13 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1), to 

read as follows: 

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

nonimmigrants. 

(a) Applicability. The following aliens 

are required to submit a payment in the 

amount indicated for their status to the 

Student and Exchange Visitor Program 

(SEVP) in advance of obtaining 

nonimmigrant status as an F or M 

student or J exchange visitor, in 

addition to any other applicable fees, 

except as otherwise provided for in this 

section: 

(1) An alien who applies for F–1 or 

F–3 status in order to enroll in a 

program of study at an SEVP-certified 

institution of higher education, as 

defined in section 101(a) of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended, or 

in a program of study at any other 

SEVP-certified academic or languagetraining institution including private 

elementary and secondary schools and 

public secondary schools, the amount of 

$200; 

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

in order to commence participation in 

an exchange visitor program designated 

by the Department of State (DoS), the 

amount of $180, with a reduced fee for 

certain exchange visitor categories as 

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

this section; and 

(3) An alien who applies for M–1 or 

M–3 status in order to enroll in a 

program of study at an SEVP-certified 

vocational educational institution, 

including a flight school, in the amount 

of $200. 

(b) Aliens not subject to a fee. No 

SEVIS fee is required with respect to: 

(1) A J–1 exchange visitor who is 

coming to the United States as a 

participant in an exchange visitor 

program sponsored by the Federal 

government, identified by a program 

identifier designation prefix of G–1, 

G–2, G–3, or G–7; 

* * * * * 

Michael Chertoff, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–22786 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–28–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

12 CFR Part 3 

[Docket ID OCC–2008–0015] 

RIN 1557–AD15 

Risk-Based Capital Guidelines—Money 

Market Mutual Funds 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, Treasury. 

ACTION: Interim final rule with request 

for public comment. 

SUMMARY: To reduce liquidity and other 

strains being experienced by money 

market mutual funds, the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System adopted on September 19, 2008, 

a special lending facility that enables 

depository institutions and bank 

holding companies to borrow from the 

Federal Reserve Bank of Boston on a 

nonrecourse basis if they use the 

proceeds of the loan to purchase certain 

types of asset-backed commercial paper 

(ABCP) from money market mutual 

funds. This lending facility is referenced 

to as the ABCP Lending Facility. To 

facilitate the ability of national banks to 

participate in the program, the Office of 

the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) 

has adopted, on an interim final basis, 

an exemption from its risk-based capital 

guidelines for ABCP held by a national 

bank as a result of its participation in 

this program. 

DATES: This interim final rule is 

effective on September 19, 2008. 

However, comments must be received 

on or before October 31, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Because paper mail in the 

Washington, DC area and at the OCC is 

subject to delay, commenters are 

encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Please use the title 

‘‘Risk-Based Capital Guidelines—Money 

Market Mutual Funds’’ to facilitate the 

organization and distribution of the 

comments. You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal— 

‘‘Regulations.gov’’: Go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, under the ‘‘More 

Search Options’’ tab click next to the 

‘‘Advanced Docket Search’’ option 

where indicated, select ‘‘Comptroller of 

the Currency’’ from the agency dropdown menu, then click ‘‘Submit.’’ In the 

‘‘Docket ID’’ column, select ‘‘OCC– 

2008–0015’’ to submit or view public 

comments and to view supporting and 

related materials for this interim final 

rule. The ‘‘How to Use This Site’’ link 

on the Regulations.gov home page 

provides information on using 

Regulations.gov, including instructions 

for submitting or viewing public 

comments, viewing other supporting 

and related materials, and viewing the 

docket after the close of the comment 

period. 

• E-mail: 

regs.comments@occ.treas.gov. 

• Mail: Office of the Comptroller of 

the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Mail 

Stop 1–5, Washington, DC 20219. 

• Fax: (202) 874–4448. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: 250 E 

Street, SW., Attn: Public Information 

Room, Mail Stop 1–5, Washington, DC 

20219. 

Instructions: You must include 

‘‘OCC’’ as the agency name and ‘‘Docket 

ID OCC–2008–0015’’ in your comment. 

In general, OCC will enter all comments 

received into the docket and publish 

them on the Regulations.gov Web site 

without change, including any business 

or personal information that you 

provide such as name and address 

information, e-mail addresses, or phone 

numbers. Comments received, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, are part of the public record 

and subject to public disclosure. Do not 

enclose any information in your 

comment or supporting materials that 

you consider confidential or 

inappropriate for public disclosure. 

You may review comments and other 

related materials that pertain to this 

interim final rule by any of the 

following methods: 

• Viewing Comments Electronically: 

Go to http://www.regulations.gov, under 

the ‘‘More Search Options’’ tab click 

next to the ‘‘Advanced Docket Search’’ 

option where indicated, select 

‘‘Comptroller of the Currency’’ from the 

agency drop-down menu, then click 

‘‘Submit.’’ In the ‘‘Docket ID’’ column, 

select ‘‘OCC–2008–0015’’ to view public 

comments for this rulemaking action. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES