60674 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Commission action, the public interest, 

and bonding by the respondents for 

purposes of an initial determination on 

temporary relief, see §§ 210.61, 210.62, 

and 210.66(a). For purposes of the 

recommended determination required 

by § 210.42(a)(1)(ii), an administrative 

law judge shall take evidence or other 

information and hear arguments from 

the parties and other interested persons 

on the issues of appropriate 

Commission action and bonding by the 

respondents. Unless the Commission 

orders otherwise, an administrative law 

judge shall not take evidence on the 

issue of the public interest for purposes 

of the recommended determination 

under § 210.42(a)(1)(ii). If the 

Commission orders the administrative 

law judge to take evidence with respect 

to the public interest, the extent of the 

taking of discovery by the parties shall 

be at the discretion of the presiding 

administrative law judge. 

* * * * * 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 27, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24563 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 62 

[Public Notice: 7077] 

RIN 1400–AC67 

Exchange Visitor Program—Fees and 

Charges 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of State. 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of State 

(Department) is proposing to revise its 

Fees and Charges assessed for providing 

Exchange Visitor Program (EVP) 

services to recoup the Department’s 

costs associated with operating all 

aspects of the Exchange Visitor Program. 

DATES: The Department will accept 

comments from the public through 

November 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by any of the following 

methods: 

• Persons with access to the Internet 

will be able to view and comment on 

the rule and supporting documentation, 

including the supporting cost study, by 

going to the Regulations.gov Web site 

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

Regs/home.html#home, and searching 

on docket ID DOS–2010–0214. 

• Mail (paper, disk, or CD–ROM 

submissions): U.S. Department of State, 

Office of Designation, SA–5, Floor 5, 

2200 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20522 

• E-mail: JExchanges@state.gov. You 

must include the title and RIN (1400– 

AC67) in the subject line of your 

message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley S. Colvin, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Private Sector Exchange, 

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

2200 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20522, 202–632–2805, or email at 

jexchanges@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

authority of Section 810 of the United 

States Information and Educational 

Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, 22 

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

Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 

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

the guidelines set forth in Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular No. A–25, user fees for 

Exchange Visitor Program Services were 

adopted for the first time in 2000. 

Regulations adopting sufficient fees to 

recover the full cost of its administrative 

processing of requests for designation, 

redesignation, and for requests by 

program participants for certain services 

for which application is required were 

adopted. OMB Circular No. A–25 directs 

the Agency review of fees and services 

every two years. 

The current fee for an application for 

designation or an application for 

redesignation is $1,748.00 and the fee 

for foreign national exchange 

participants requesting individual 

program services, including a change of 

program category, program extension, 

reinstatement, etc. is currently $246.00 

per request. The Department proposes 

amendment of both fees to: $2,700 and 

$233.00 respectively. The new proposed 

fee for either program designation or 

redesignation will increase by $952 

(redesignation is required every two 

years) while the fee assessed program 

participants will decrease by $13.00. 

The increase in program designation 

and redesigantion requests is necessary 

to recoup the costs of application 

reviews, requests for amendments to 

program designations, and allotment 

requests, as well as the cost for 

enhanced compliance programs, 

regulatory review and development, 

outreach and general program 

administration, as explained below. 

These changes are necessary because the 

current fee for program designation and 

redesignation applications was 

calculated on a unit cost basis that 

assumed and projected a larger number 

of such applications than has proven to 

be received. 

Current Proposed Increase/Decrease 

Designation/Redesignation ...................................................................... $1,748.00 $2,700.00 $952 

Individual Applications ............................................................................. 246.00 233.00 ¥$13 

The U.S. Department of State designates 

U.S. government, academic, and private 

sector entities to conduct educational 

and cultural exchange programs 

pursuant to a broad grant of authority 

provided by the Mutual Educational and 

Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as 

amended (Fulbright-Hays Act), 22 

U.S.C. 2451 et seq.; the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J); 

the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998, Public Law 

105–277; as well as other statutory 

enactments, Reorganization Plans and 

Executive Orders. Under those 

authorities, 1,226 sponsor organizations 

facilitate the entry of more than 300,000 

exchange participants each year. 

The Fulbright-Hays Act is the organic 

legislation underpinning the entire 

Exchange Visitor Program. Section 101 

of that Act sets forth the purpose of the 

Act, viz., ‘‘to enable the Government of 

the United States to increase mutual 

understanding between the people of 

the United States and the people of 

other countries by means of educational 

and cultural exchange * * * .’’ The Act 

authorizes the President to provide for 

such exchanges when he considers that 

it would strengthen international 

cooperative relations. The language of 

the Act and its legislative history make 

it clear that Congress considered 

international educational and cultural 

exchanges to be a significant part of the 

public diplomacy efforts of the 

President in connection with his 

Constitutional prerogatives in 

conducting foreign affairs. 

On September 27, 1999, the United 

States Information Agency (USIA) 

issued an interim final rule on the 

adoption of fees for all requests for an 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60675 

extension, change of category, 

reinstatement, or program designation 

as well as for non-routine requests for 

the then Form IAP–66. This rule was to 

be effective on January 1, 2000. The 

September 27, 1999 interim final rule 

was amended by a rule dated October 7, 

1999 (4 FR 54538), and also by a second 

rule dated January 5, 2000 (65 FR 352). 

Those amendments were required due 

to the consolidation of USIA into the 

Department of State. 

User fees were adopted for the first 

time under the authority of Section 810 

of the United States Information and 

Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as 

amended, 22 U.S.C. 1475e, and the 

Independent Offices Appropriations Act 

of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, and 

following the guidelines set forth in 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular No. A–25. Following the 

consolidation of USIA operations and 

two regulatory amendments, the Interim 

Final Rule and the fees established 

under this rule became Final on April 

14, 2000, 65 FR 20083. 

In 2006, the Department examined its 

current Exchange Visitor Program fee 

structure for compliance with 

applicable laws and policies, and to 

determine the appropriate level of fees 

given the expansion of the offices 

providing services. This analysis was 

grounded on the guiding principles set 

forth in the legislative framework and 

authorities cited above, namely, that 

user fees should be fair and reflect the 

full cost to perform the service; and that 

services performed on behalf of distinct, 

identifiable beneficiaries (versus the 

public at large) should, to the extent 

possible, be self-sustaining. As a result 

of the review, it was determined that 

both additional fee categories and 

increased fees were required, and the 

Department published a final rule on 

November 1, 2007 (72 FR 61800), which 

became effective December 3, 2007. 

The 2007 fee rule identified the 

program redesignation process as a 

separate and identifiable service for 

which the cost of such service should be 

recouped. This fee is collected from 

some 1226 academic, governmental, and 

private sector sponsor organizations. 

This fee also includes the cost of 

services arising from a program 

sponsor’s requests for amendments to 

programs, allotment requests, and 

updates of information, as well as the 

costs for program compliance, 

regulatory review and development, 

outreach, and general program 

administration. Also established in the 

2007 fee rule were fees charged to 

foreign national exchange participants 

for services provided on an individual 

basis and for the sole benefit of the 

exchange participant. (i.e., requests for 

exchange visitor status changes of 

program category, extension beyond 

maximum duration, requests for 

reinstatement, requests to update the 

Student and Exchange Visitor 

Information System (SEVIS) status, and 

similar requests). The fees received for 

these individual services also include 

an apportioned share of costs for 

regulatory review and development, 

outreach, and general program 

administration. 

The Department began its biennial 

review of these established fees in 2009 

by publishing a solicitation for services 

to conduct a fee study. Deloitte and 

Touche was awarded a contract. The 

new proposed fee structure was 

conducted under the guidelines set forth 

in OMB Circular A–25, as well as the 

Statement of Federal Finance and 

Accounting Standards No. 4 (SFFAS 4). 

In accordance with SFFAS 4, the 

Department used an ‘‘activity-based 

costing’’ (ABC) approach to develop a 

sustainable cost model to align the costs 

of the program to the specific services 

performed on behalf of program 

sponsors and other program 

stakeholders. Activity-based costing is a 

method of identifying the work that is 

performed, how resources are consumed 

by that work, and how that work 

contributes to the production of 

required outputs. The ABC methodology 

enabled the development of a bottom-up 

budget that factored in forecasts for 

expected demand of program services in 

the years when the fees are effective and 

would provide the program with 

adequate resources to meet that future 

program demand. This fee study relates 

only to services provided in the 

administration of the Exchange Visitor 

Program. The fee study is available for 

review at http://exchanges.state.gov/ 

jexchanges. 

Results of Fiscal Year 2010 Fee Study 

Full Cost 

One of the most critical elements in 

building the cost models to determine 

user fees is to identify all of the sources 

and the appropriate amounts of costs to 

be included in the analysis. According 

to the legislative and regulatory 

guidance as documented in the legal 

framework, user charges should be 

based on the full cost to the government 

of providing the services or things of 

value. OMB Circular A–25 defines full 

cost as all direct and indirect costs to 

any part of the Federal government of 

providing a good, resource, or service. 

These costs include, but are not limited 

to, an appropriate share of: 

• Direct and indirect personnel costs, 

including salaries and fringe benefits 

such as medical insurance and 

retirement. 

• Physical overhead, consulting, and 

other indirect costs including material 

and supply costs, utilities, insurance, 

travel, and rents or imputed rents on 

land, buildings, and equipment. 

• Management and supervisory costs. 

• Costs of enforcement, collection, 

research, establishment of standards, 

and regulation, including any required 

environmental impact statements. 

The generally accepted government 

accounting practices for managerial cost 

accounting, published in SFFAS 4, 

provide the standards for cost 

definition, recognition, accumulation 

and assignment as they relate to the 

recognition of full cost. These standards 

have been applied to the determination 

of what costs to include in or exclude 

from the Exchange Visitor Program fees. 

Cost Model Structure 

Model Overview 

In summary, the Cost Accounting 

Model takes cost data input into the 

‘‘Civilian Pay Cost Data’’, ‘‘Activity 

Model Cost Pools’’, and ‘‘Other Cost 

Pools’’ modules, assigns direct costs or 

allocates indirect and General and 

Administrative (G&A) costs using ratios 

derived from the ‘‘SEVIS & FTE (Full 

Time Equivalent) Data’’ module, and 

then uses the direct, indirect, and G&A 

cost pools to calculate the two 

recommended user fees for the Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2011–2012 time frame. 

The Cost Accounting Model contains 

eleven modules described in detail in 

the following sections. Most modules 

include an FY 2011 tab and an FY 2012 

tab, given the need to enter separate 

data for each fiscal year. The three 

modules that only have one tab are 

‘‘Home’’, ‘‘SEVIS & FTE Data’’, and ‘‘Final 

EVP Fees FY 2011–2012’’. The modules 

are sequenced to follow the general flow 

of calculations performed by the model. 

Home 

The ‘‘Home’’ module is displayed 

when the user opens the model. This 

module also provides hyperlinks to 

support navigation to the other areas of 

the model. 

Civilian Pay Cost Data FY 2011 & FY 

2012 

This module allows the user to enter 

Civilian Pay data for Private Sector 

Exchange personnel by General 

Schedule (GS) Level. The Civilian Pay 

data entered is then escalated for 

benefits. This calculation is detailed 

further in the Cost Accounting Model 

Data Sources section. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
60676 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Activity Model Cost Pools FY 2011 & FY 

2012 

This module allows the user to enter 

Labor Survey results by personnel 

position in the form of percentages. It 

then multiplies those percentages by the 

escalated salary calculated in the 

‘‘Civilian Pay Cost Data’’ module to 

create Activity Model Cost Pools. 

Finally, this module includes a selfcheck feature to verify the completeness 

and accuracy of user entries. 

Other Cost Pools FY 2011 & FY 2012 

This module allows the user to enter 

all other costs associated with the EVP, 

including the following: 

• Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs, Private Sector Exchange (ECA/ 

EC) non-labor costs 

• Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA) labor costs 

• Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA) non-labor costs 

• Department of State labor costs 

• Department of State non-labor costs 

SEVIS & FTE Data 

There is only one tab for the ‘‘SEVIS 

& FTE Data’’ module. It allows the user 

to input SEVIS historical data for 

Calendar Year (CY) 2007 through CY 

2009, as well as FY 2008 and FY 2009 

FTE historical data for the following 

organizational areas: 

• Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs, Private Sector Exchange, Office 

of Designation (ECA/EC/D) and Office of 

Exchange Coordination and Compliance 

(ECA/EC/ECC) 

• Human Resources 

• Support Services 

• IIP Budget Office (Bureau of 

International Information Programs) 

• ECA Budget Office 

• Program Management Office 

• Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA) 

• Department of State 

It then uses these inputs to calculate 

SEVIS activity projections for 

Applications for Designation, 

Applications for Redesignation, and 

Exchange Visitor Administration 

Applications for CY 2010 through CY 

2012, and FTE projections for FY 2011 

and FY 2012. SEVIS and FTE data 

projections are necessary to create ratios 

for indirect and G&A cost allocation to 

each fee later in the model. 

Cost Assignment & Allocation FY 2011 

& FY 2012 

This module pulls the data from the 

previous modules in order to assign 

direct costs or allocate indirect or G&A 

costs to each fee. The method for 

allocating indirect and general and 

administrative (G&A) cost took into 

account the volume of services 

supported by each user fee in terms of 

SEVIS activity counts. These activity 

counts can also be viewed as the 

services procured by the user fees. The 

method in which the cost is allocated 

varies by cost pool: 

(1) For direct costs, the full cost is 

assigned to the fee for which it is 

determined to be a direct cost. 

(2) For indirect costs, the full cost in 

each indirect cost pool is split and each 

portion is then assigned to the 

appropriate user fee. This splitting and 

assignment process is also referred to as 

cost allocation. This process is 

accomplished by multiplying the total 

indirect cost by the ratio of Total FeeRelated SEVIS Activity Counts to Total 

SEVIS Activity Counts. For example, in 

order to determine the amount of an 

indirect cost to be applied to the 

Application Fee, the full indirect cost 

was multiplied by the ratio of Total 

Application Fee-Related SEVIS Activity 

Counts to Total Activity Counts. This 

allocates the appropriate fraction of the 

total indirect cost to the Application 

Fee. The same would be done with the 

ratio of Total Administrative FeeRelated SEVIS Activity Counts to Total 

Activity Counts to determine the 

complimentary fraction of the indirect 

cost to be allocated to the 

Administrative Fee. In so doing, the full 

indirect cost is appropriately allocated 

to the two user fees. 

For G&A cost, not all G&A cost is 

allocated to the two EVP user fees since 

G&A costs support the entire 

Department not just the cost of the 

activities supporting the EVP. Deloitte 

allocated appropriate portions of total 

G&A cost to the EVP by either FTE 

ratios or manual percentage as follows: 

• For ECA/EC non-labor G&A costs, 

the full cost was multiplied by the ratio 

of ECA/EC/D and ECA/EC/ECC FTEs 

plus the Bureau’s Executive Office FTEs 

to ECA FTEs. 

• For ECA labor G&A costs, two 

separate methods were applied: 

—For ECA Front Office labor G&A costs, 

the ECA provided manual 

percentages, as these costs represent 

specific staff positions that support 

the EVP but not in a full-time 

capacity. 

—For all other ECA labor G&A costs, the 

full G&A labor cost was multiplied by 

the ratio of ECA/EC/D and ECA/EC/ 

ECC FTEs to ECA FTEs minus three. 

The ECA FTE number is subtracted by 

three because the cost for those three 

positions is already accounted for in 

the ECA Front Office labor G&A costs 

detailed above. 

• For ECA non-labor G&A costs, the 

full non-labor G&A cost was multiplied 

by the ratio of ECA/EC/D and ECA/EC/ 

ECC FTEs to ECA FTEs. 

• For Department labor and non-labor 

G&A costs, the full non-labor G&A cost 

was multiplied by the ratio of ECA/EC/ 

D and ECA/EC/ECC FTEs to Department 

FTEs. 

After completing the calculations just 

described, the resulting portions of the 

full G&A costs are allocated to each of 

the fees in the same way indirect costs 

are allocated, using SEVIS activity 

ratios. 

The following information depicts the 

above described assignment and 

allocation of costs. 

User Fee Cost Pools FY 2011 & FY 2012 

This module pulls data from the ‘‘Cost 

Assignment & Allocation’’ module and 

groups it into total direct, indirect, and 

G&A cost pools. It then divides each of 

those cost pool amounts by the total 

projected SEVIS activity units to 

determine each fee’s direct, indirect, 

and G&A components. It also sums each 

of these cost components to provide the 

total for each user fee for FY 2011 and 

FY 2012. Finally, this module includes 

a self-check feature to verify the 

completeness and accuracy of user 

entries. 

Final EVP Fees FY 2011–2012 

This module adds the total costs and 

SEVIS Activity Units for FY 2011 and 

FY2012 from the ‘‘User Fee Cost Pools’’ 

module in order to provide fees that are 

based on a two-year fee lifecycle 

consistent with the EVP regulatory 

framework requiring current Program 

Sponsors to apply for Redesignation 

status every two years. It also includes 

a self-check feature to verify the 

completeness and accuracy of user 

entries. 

Cost Accounting Model Data Sources 

Civilian Pay Cost Data 

For the data input in the ‘‘Civilian Pay 

Cost Data’’ module, ECA provided 

Deloitte with each ECA/EC/D and ECA/ 

EC/ECC employee’s GS level, and then 

Deloitte used the Step 5 salary 

assumption for each level to determine 

the salary to be entered for each 

employee. This figure was then 

escalated by 36.25% to capture benefits. 

This percentage is the guidance given 

for average benefits escalation in OMB 

Circular A–76 Performance of 

Commercial Activities, Attachment C— 

Calculating Public-Private Competition 

Costs. 

Activity Model Cost Pools 

The only data input in the ‘‘Activity 

Model Cost Pools’’ module is the Labor 

Survey results. This input was 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60677 

accomplished by converting the hours 

each respondent recorded for their 

position and for each activity they 

performed during the Labor Survey into 

percentages of FTEs. 

Other Cost Pools 

For the data input in the ‘‘Other Cost 

Pools’’ module, ECA provided Deloitte 

with budgetary data. 

• Deloitte used the following methods 

to derive ECA/EC non-labor costs: 

—Costs associated with the new On-site 

Review and Site Visit travel functions 

were identified in close consultation 

with ECA/EC senior management. 

Appropriate estimates were 

developed for FY 2011 and FY 2012. 

See the On-site Review and Site Visit 

Travel Cost Estimate section below. 

—ECA provided Deloitte with FY 2009 

actual expenses for all other ECA/EC 

Non-Labor costs. The FY 2009 Actuals 

were then escalated by 3% per year to 

determine FY 2011 and FY 2012 cost 

estimates. 

• Deloitte used the following methods 

to derive ECA labor costs: 

—For ECA Front Office costs for the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private 

Sector Exchange, the Senior Advisor 

to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, and 

the Special Assistant to the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary, Deloitte assumed 

CY 2010 SES–II pay for the DAS and 

GS15, Step 5 pay for the Senior 

Advisor and GS13, Step 5 for the 

Special Assistant. These salaries were 

escalated by 36.25% for benefits, and 

then escalated by 3% per year for CY 

2011 and CY 2012 estimates. 

—For all other ECA labor costs, Deloitte 

obtained the 2010 Total Department 

Budget from the Department of State 

Budget in Brief—Fiscal Year 2010 and 

pro-rated that figure by FTEs, and 

escalated by 3% per year for FY 2011 

and FY 2012 estimates. 

• For ECA non-labor costs, ECA/EC 

approved the use of the FY 2010 

estimates projected by Grant Thornton 

in its 2006 Exchange Visitor Program 

Fee Study—Final Report (Draft). This 

figure was then escalated by 3% per 

year for FY 2011 and FY 2012 estimates. 

• For Department labor costs, Deloitte 

assumed GS–15, Step 5 pay with 

36.25% benefits escalation for all 

Categories. These figures were then 

escalated by 3% per year for FY 2011 

and FY 2012 estimates. 

• For Department non-labor costs, 

Deloitte obtained the Total Departmentwide GSA Rents from the Department of 

State Budget in Brief—Fiscal Year 2010. 

This figure was then escalated by 3% 

per year for FY 2011 and FY 2012 

estimates. 

SEVIS & FTE Data 

ECA/EC provided Deloitte with 

historical CY 2007 through CY 2009 

SEVIS activity counts associated with 

each user fee, as well as historical ECA 

and ECA/EC FTE counts. Deloitte 

obtained historical Department FTE 

levels from the Department of State 

Congressional Budget Justification— 

Fiscal Year 2010. Deloitte used this data 

to determine projected SEVIS and FTE 

data in the following manner: 

• For SEVIS data projections, the 

following method was developed and 

approved by ECA/EC: 

—ECA/EC provided CY 2007 through 

CY 2009 data. 

—CY 2009 data cutoff of 16 December 

2009 required data adjustment from 

350 to 365 days. 

—CY 2007 through CY 2009 data was 

averaged and a 2% rate of growth was 

applied to determine CY 2010. 

—CY 2011 and CY 2012 were each 

projected with a 2% growth rate over 

the previous year. 

• For all FTE data projections, 

Deloitte obtained FY 2008–2010 

Department FTE levels from the 

Department of State Congressional 

Budget Justification—Fiscal Year 2010. 

Deloitte calculated a 6.91% average 

growth rate from FY 2008 through FY 

2010 for Department total FTEs. For 

fiscal years in each of the below 

organizational areas where FTE data 

was unavailable, each was projected 

using this 6.91% growth rate year over 

year. ECA/EC approved of this 

projection method. 

—For ECA/EC/D and ECA/EC/ECC 

FTEs, ECA/EC provided FY 2009 

through 2011 data; Deloitte used the 

above method to project FY 2012. 

—For the ECA and International 

Information Programs (IIP) Support 

Offices (ECA–IIP/EX), the ECA–IIP/EX 

Organizational Chart (September 

2009) provided FY 2009 data; Deloitte 

used the above method to project FY 

2010 through FY 2012. 

—For ECA FTEs, ECA provided FY 2009 

data; Deloitte used the above method 

to project FY 2010 through FY 2012. 

—For Department FTEs, the Department 

of State Congressional Budget 

Justification—Fiscal Year 2010 

provided FY 2008 through 2010 data; 

Deloitte used the above method to 

project FY 2011 through FY 2012. 

Travel Cost Estimate 

Deloitte, in close consultation with 

ECA/EC/D and ECA/EC/ECC, developed 

a travel cost estimate for Site Visits and 

On-site Reviews. These two general 

categories of travel by government 

officials to Program Sponsor locations 

will be performed during the FY 2011 

and FY 2012 time frame for which the 

user fees recommended in this report 

are effective. Site Visits are performed 

by government officials with entities 

applying for Designation as an EVP 

Sponsor. On-site Reviews will take the 

form of a Liaison Visit, a Redesignation 

Review, or a Compliance Review. These 

three types of On-site Reviews are 

covered in more detail below. Site Visits 

and On-site Reviews, which will be the 

responsibility of ECA/EC/D and ECA/ 

EC/ECC respectively, require travel to 

the potential sponsor or sponsor’s place 

of business. In addition to travel to the 

sponsors’ offices, pre-planning analysis 

and post-travel reporting will be 

completed. 

Site Visit Travel Cost Estimate 

In developing the Site Visit Travel 

Cost Estimate, Deloitte took the top 25 

states by Program Sponsor activity 

(exchange visitor participant) levels as 

recorded in SEVIS. In addition to using 

the top 25 states, Deloitte also included 

other states to provide an accurate 

picture across the United States. These 

assumptions were made because, unlike 

the On-site Review process, Site Visits 

are planned for entities applying for 

Designation. Since the cities and states 

where the potential Program Sponsors 

will come from are unknown, this 

method was developed to provide an 

accurate estimate for costs, while 

capturing most of the states. 

Deloitte mapped appropriate city and 

state locations based on the above 

analysis and in consultation with ECA/ 

EC for use in determining per diem, 

airfare, car rental, and miscellaneous 

costs in the same manner as the On-site 

Review Travel Cost Estimate. Deloitte 

escalated FY 2011 and FY 2012 by 3% 

to give a more accurate cost for those 

fiscal years. 

Through discussions with ECA/EC, 

Deloitte set the number of Site Visit 

travelers to two per trip and concluded 

that the travelers would range from the 

GS 9 to 14 levels and include Program 

Specialists, Program Coordinators and 

Program Officers. Deloitte also 

concluded that procedures for pre-visit 

preparations would also be developed 

in close coordination with 

knowledgeable Program Officers and 

Compliance Officers. 

On-site Review Travel Cost Estimate 

The On-site Review travel cost 

estimate is based on visiting the top 20 

Private Sector Program Sponsors and 

the top 20 Academic and Government 

Program Sponsors according to Program 

Sponsor activity (exchange visitor 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
60678 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

participant) levels as documented in 

SEVIS. 

Deloitte determined roundtrip airfare, 

per diem, rental car, and miscellaneous 

expense costs for single or multiple 

destination trips. Deloitte used the per 

diem rates for FY 2010 found on the 

GSA Web site. Deloitte also conducted 

research for roundtrip airfare and car 

rental prices using the kayak.com search 

engine. Deloitte added all costs, 

including a set cost for miscellaneous 

items to cover fees for airline tickets, 

copying, business calls, etc., to provide 

a total trip cost. Total trip costs were 

added together to provide a Total Travel 

Cost Estimate. Deloitte escalated FY 

2011 and FY 2012 per diem rates as well 

as airfare and car rental prices by 3% 

each year to provide a more accurate 

cost for those fiscal years. 

The number of travelers for On-site 

Reviews depends largely on the type of 

visit or the Program Sponsor. The three 

types of On-site Reviews that any given 

sponsor could receive are: 

• Liaison Visits 

• Redesignation Reviews 

• Compliance Reviews. 

The primary purpose of a Liaison 

Visit is to provide ECA/EC with an 

opportunity for outreach and 

consultation with Program Sponsors. GS 

levels of staff conducting these types of 

visits can vary depending on the 

purpose of visit and the size of the 

Program Sponsor. Liaison Visits should 

include meeting key Program Sponsor 

staff and touring facilities, and they may 

last from a half day to one full day. Staff 

conducting these visits may range from 

the GS 12 to GS 15 levels, depending on 

the primary purpose. 

The primary purpose of a 

Redesignation Review is to determine 

the Program Sponsor’s continued 

eligibility and/or suitability as a 

designated sponsor. Redesignation 

Reviews may last from one to two days 

and should require the participation of 

both one or more Program Officers and 

one or more Compliance Officers, 

usually at the GS 12 to 13 levels, but 

may also include the GS 9 to 11 levels 

and the GS 14 level. 

The primary purpose of a Compliance 

Review is to visit Program Sponsors 

whose performance and compliance 

with program regulations has come 

under question. Experience shows that 

Compliance Reviews may last from two 

to five days and usually require the 

participation of both one or more 

Program Officers and one or more 

Compliance Officers, with perhaps a 

supporting Program Coordinator or 

Program Specialist. 

Regulatory Findings 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Department of State is of the 

opinion that the Exchange Visitor 

Program is a foreign affairs function of 

the U.S. Government and that rules 

implementing this function are exempt 

from § 553 (Rulemaking) and § 554 

(Adjudications) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). The U.S. 

Government supervises programs that 

invite foreign nationals to come to the 

United States to participate in exchange 

visitor programs, either directly or 

through private sector program sponsors 

or grantees. When problems occur, the 

U.S. Government often has been, and 

likely will be, held accountable by 

foreign governments for the treatment of 

their nationals, regardless of who is 

responsible for the problems. 

The purpose of this rule is to set the 

fees that will fund the office Exchange 

Visitor Program services to 1,226 

sponsor organizations and 350,000 

exchange Visitor Program participants. 

These services include oversight and 

compliance with program requirements 

as well as the monitoring of programs to 

ensure the health, safety and well-being 

of foreign nationals entering the United 

States (these exchange programs and 

participants are often funded by the U.S. 

Government) under the aegis of the 

Exchange Visitor Program and in 

furtherance of its foreign relations 

mission. The Department of State 

represents that failure to protect the 

health and well-being of these foreign 

nationals and their appropriate 

placement with reputable organizations 

will have direct and substantial adverse 

effects on the foreign affairs of the 

United States. 

Although the Department is of the 

opinion that this rule is exempt from the 

rulemaking provisions of the APA, the 

Department is publishing this rule as a 

proposed rule, with a 60-day provision 

for public comment and without 

prejudice to its determination that the 

Exchange Visitor Program is a foreign 

affairs function. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive 

Order 13272: Small Business 

As discussed above, the Department 

believes that this proposed rule is 

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

553, and that no other law requires the 

Department to give notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Accordingly the 

Department believes that this proposed 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

13272, § 3(b). 

Nevertheless, the Department has 

examined the potential impact of this 

proposed rule on small entities. Entities 

conducting student exchange programs 

are classified under code number 

6117.10 of the North American Industry 

Classification System. Some 5,573 forprofit and tax-exempt entities are listed 

as falling within this classification. Of 

this total number of so-classified 

entities, 1,226 are designated by the 

Department of State as sponsors of an 

exchange visitor program, designated as 

such to further the public diplomacy 

mission of the Department and U.S. 

Government through the conduct of 

people to people exchange visitor 

programs. Of these 1,226 Department 

designated entities, 933 are academic 

institutions and 293 are for-profit or taxexempt entities. Of the 933 academic 

institutions designated by the 

Department, none are believed to meet 

the definition of small entity for 

Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis 

purposes. The RFA utilizes the SBA’s 

definition of ‘‘small entities’’ for 

educational institutions, which are forprofit entities that have annual revenues 

of less than $7 million. The RFA defines 

‘‘small organizations’’ as any not-forprofit educational institution that is 

independently owned or operated and 

not dominant in its field. Of the 293 forprofit or tax-exempt entities designated 

by the Department, 131 have annual 

revenues of less than $7 million, thereby 

falling within the analysis purview of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Although, as stated above, the 

Department is of the opinion that the 

Exchange Visitor Program is a foreign 

affairs function of the United States 

Government and, as such, that this 

proposed rule is exempt from the 

rulemaking provisions of section 553 of 

the APA, given the projected costs 

(detailed below) to the approximately 

131 small entities designated to conduct 

exchange visitor programs, the 

Department has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The 

Department asks the public to comment 

on the agency’s estimates of the 

numbers of small entities and/or the 

economic impact of this rule on small 

businesses. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This proposed rule will not result in 

the expenditure by State, local and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million in 

any year and it will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60679 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The Department has determined that 

this rulemaking will not have tribal 

implications, will not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments, and will not 

pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the 

requirements of Section 5 of Executive 

Order 13175 do not apply to this 

rulemaking. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

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

purposes of Congressional review of 

agency rulemaking under the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

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

This rule will not result in an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more; a major increase in costs or 

prices; or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

Executive Order 12866 

As discussed above, the Department is 

of the opinion that the Exchange Visitor 

Program is a foreign affairs function of 

the United States Government and that 

rules governing the conduct of this 

function are exempt from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

However, the Department has 

nevertheless reviewed this proposed 

regulation to ensure its consistency with 

the regulatory philosophy and 

principles set forth in that Executive 

Order. The Department has examined 

the economic benefits, costs, and 

transfers associated with this proposed 

rule, and declares that educational and 

cultural exchanges are both the 

cornerstone of U.S. public diplomacy 

and an integral component of American 

foreign policy. Though the benefits of 

these exchanges to the United States 

and its people cannot be monetized, the 

Department is nonetheless of the 

opinion that these benefits outweigh the 

costs associated with this proposed rule. 

The Department projects the cost to the 

government of providing Exchange 

Visitor Program services to be $3.4 

million annually. This rule will provide 

an estimated $3.4 million annually that 

will support the operations of the Office 

of Designation, including funds for 

designation and redesignation, for 

individual exchange participant 

services, and the appropriate share of 

costs for regulatory review and 

development, outreach, and general 

program administration. These costs are 

divided amongst the 1,226 designated 

sponsors who will account for $2.7 

million of the total $6.8 million over the 

next two years, with foreign national 

exchange participants requesting 

individual-based program services 

accounting for the remaining $4.1 

million. The actual increase in annual 

costs per designated sponsor is $462 

which represents a total annual increase 

of $378,302. The cost to foreign national 

exchange participants requesting 

program services has been decreased by 

$13 per transaction. Though the costs 

are borne by sponsors and exchange 

visitors, a benefit-cost study considers 

these costs to be economic transfers, 

since money is ‘‘transferred’’ from 

sponsors and applicants to the 

Department of State, but society as a 

whole has not gained or lost any 

resources in this transaction. Thus, the 

Department of State has identified $3.4 

million in economic transfers associated 

with this rule. The Department has not 

identified any monetized benefits or 

costs, though it believes that the 

revenue generated by these fees and 

charges will enable the Department to 

administer an effective program and is 

essential to continuing to support and 

strengthen the United States’ foreign 

policy goal of promoting mutual 

understanding between the people of 

the United States and other countries. 

Executive Order 12988 

The Department has reviewed this 

regulation in light of sections 3(a) and 

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

eliminate ambiguity, minimize 

litigation, establish clear legal 

standards, and reduce burden. 

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, it is determined that this 

rule does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to require consultations or 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. The 

regulations implementing Executive 

Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities do not 

apply to this regulation. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rulemaking are pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35 and OMB Control Number 

1405–0147, expiring on September 30, 

2010. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 62 

Cultural Exchange Program. 

Accordingly, 22 CFR part 62 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 62—EXCHANGE VISITOR 

PROGRAM 

1. The authority citation for part 62 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

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

seq.; Foreign Affairs Reform and 

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

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

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

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

1978 Comp. p. 168; the Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

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

Stat. 3009–546, as amended; Uniting and 

Strengthening America by Providing 

Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 

Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA 

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

115 Stat. 354; and the Enhanced Border 

Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. 107–173, 116 Stat. 543. 

2. Section 62.17 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 62.17 Fees and charges. 

(a) Remittances. Fees prescribed 

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

must be submitted as directed by the 

Department and must be in the amount 

prescribed by law or regulation. 

(b) Amounts of fees. The following 

fees are prescribed. 

(1) For filing an application for 

program designation and/or 

redesignation (Form DS–3036)— 

$2,700.00. 

(2) For filing an application for 

exchange visitor status changes (i.e., 

extension beyond the maximum 

duration, change of category, 

reinstatement, reinstatement-update, 

SEVIS status, ECFMG sponsorship 

authorization, and permission to 

issue)—$233.00. 

Stanley S. Colvin, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private Sector 

Exchange, Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24687 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS