Removal of Obsolete Procedures and Requirements Related to F, J, and M Nonimmigrants
| Published date | 03 April 2024 |
| Record Number | 2024-06657 |
| Citation | 89 FR 22903 |
| Court | Immigration And Customs Enforcement |
| Section | Rules and Regulations |
Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 2024)
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22903-22912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06657]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 3, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 22903]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
8 CFR Part 214
[DHS Docket No. ICEB-2021-0016]
RIN 1653-AA87
Removal of Obsolete Procedures and Requirements Related to F, J,
and M Nonimmigrants
AGENCY: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 12, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) issued an interim final rule, which amended regulations to update
information that was no longer accurate since the creation of the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), the Web-based
system DHS uses to collect and maintain current and ongoing information
on Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified schools, F-1
and M-1 nonimmigrant students, and J-1 Exchange Visitor Program
participants and their sponsors. DHS is now issuing this final rule
that introduces no substantive changes from the interim final rule.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is May 3, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public are
available in DHS Docket No. ICEB-2021-0016. For access to the online
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter ``DHS Docket No.
ICEB-2021-0016'' in the ``Search'' box.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Snyder, Policy and Response
Unit Chief, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW, Stop 5600, Washington, DC
20536-5600; or by email at [email protected] or telephone at 703-603-
3400 (this is not a toll-free number). Find program information at
http://www.ice.gov/sevis/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abbreviations
Abbreviation Amplification
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOJ Department of Justice
DOS Department of State
DSO Designated School Official
EBSVERA Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002
HSPD-2 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-2
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996
INA Immigration and Nationality Act
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
MD Management Directive
OMB Office of Management and Budget
SEVIS Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
SEVP Student and Exchange Visitor Program
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
II. Background
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This rule responds to public comments on the interim final rule and
finalizes the removal of obsolete procedures and requirements presented
in the interim final rule. This final rule introduces no substantive
changes and does not raise existing costs. There are no significant
changes between the interim final rule and the final rule. In alignment
with the Interim Final Rule, the Final Rule places no additional
burdens on F, J, and M nonimmigrants, or on sponsoring academic
institutions and programs.
B. Legal Authority
Section 102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296,
116 Stat. 2135), 6 U.S.C. 112, section 103(a)(1) and (3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (3),
charge the Secretary with the administration and enforcement of the
immigration and naturalization laws of the United States, to include
the issuance of regulations. Section 214(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1184(a), gives the Secretary the authority to prescribe the time and
conditions of admission of any noncitizen as a nonimmigrant.
On March 1, 2003, when the responsibilities of the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) transferred from the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to DHS pursuant to the Homeland Security
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002), SEVP
and the SEVIS functions transferred to DHS. Within DHS, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) administers SEVP by ensuring
that government agencies have essential information related to
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors to preserve national
security. For the sake of simplicity in this preamble, in rules
promulgated prior to March 1, 2003, any reference to the INS, or ``the
Service'' as it was referred to in the past, is now referred to as DHS,
and any reference to the Attorney General is now referred to as the
Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary).
The INA established who may be admitted as F, J, or M
nonimmigrants. Specifically, section 101(a)(15)(F) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(F), established the F classification for nonimmigrants who
wish to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose
of pursuing a full course of study at an academic or accredited
language training school certified by SEVP, as well as for the spouses
and minor children of such noncitizens.
Section 101(a)(15)(J) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J),
established the J classification for nonimmigrants who wish to come to
the United States temporarily to participate in exchange visitor
programs designated by the Department of State (DOS), as well as for
the spouses and minor children of such noncitizens.
Section 101(a)(15)(M) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(M),
established the M classification for nonimmigrants who wish to enter
the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing a
full course of study at an established vocational or other recognized
nonacademic institution (other than a language training program)
certified by SEVP, as well as for the spouses and minor children of
such noncitizens.
SEVP collects information related to nonimmigrant students and
exchange visitors under various statutory
[[Page 22904]]
authorities. Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Public Law 104-208, 110
Stat. 3009-704 (Sep. 30, 1996) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. 1372),
authorized the creation of a program to collect current and ongoing
information from schools and exchange visitor programs regarding
nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors during the course of their
stay in the United States and stipulated that such information is to be
collected electronically, where practicable. Section 641(e) of IIRIRA
further directed that this information collection system be self-funded
by the nonimmigrant foreign students and exchange visitors. To meet
these requirements, DHS promulgated separate rulemakings that
established the framework for SEVIS; required mandatory compliance for
all schools to use SEVIS for the admission of new F, J, and M
nonimmigrant students; \1\ and provided for the collection of a fee to
be paid by certain nonimmigrants seeking status as F-1, F-3, M-1, or M-
3 nonimmigrant students or as J-1 nonimmigrant exchange visitors.\2\
The DOS placed similar mandatory SEVIS compliance requirements on DOS-
designated Exchange Visitor Program sponsors regarding J
nonimmigrants.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Retention and Reporting of Information for F, J, and M
Nonimmigrants; Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS), 67 FR 76256 (Dec. 11, 2002).
\2\ Authorizing Collection of the Fee Levied on F, J, and M
Nonimmigrant Classifications Under Public Law 104-208; SEVIS, 69 FR
39814 (July 1, 2004).
\3\ Exchange Visitor Program: SEVIS Regulations, 67 FR 76307
(Dec. 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVP is managed in accordance with Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-2 (HSPD-2), Combating Terrorism Through Immigration Policies
(Oct. 29, 2001), as amended, and section 502 of the Enhanced Border
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 Public Law 107-173, 116
Stat. 543, 563 (May 14, 2002) (EBSVERA). HSPD-2 requires the Secretary
to conduct periodic, ongoing reviews of institutions certified to
accept F nonimmigrants, and to include checks for compliance with
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. EBSVERA directs the Secretary
to review the compliance with recordkeeping and reporting requirements
under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F) and 1372 of all schools approved for
attendance by F students within two years of enactment, and every two
years thereafter. These additional requirements have also been
promulgated in rulemakings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Allowing Eligible Schools to Apply for Preliminary
Enrollment in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS), 67 FR 44344 (July 1, 2002); Requiring Certification of all
Service Approved Schools for Enrollment in the Student and Exchange
Visitor Information System (SEVIS), 67 FR 60107 (Sept. 25, 2002);
Adjusting Program Fees and Establishing Procedures for Out-of-Cycle
Review and Recertification of Schools Certified by the Student and
Exchange Visitor Program to Enroll F and/or M Nonimmigrant Students,
73 FR 55683 (Sept. 26, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
SEVP uses SEVIS to maintain information about:
SEVP-certified schools;
F-1 students enrolled in academic programs in the United
States (and their F-2 dependents);
M-1 students enrolled in vocational programs in the United
States (and their M-2 dependents);
DOS-designated Exchange Visitor Program sponsors; and
J-1 Exchange Visitor Program participants (and their J-2
dependents).
SEVIS provides authorized users access to reliable information on
F, J, and M nonimmigrants and their dependents. Schools use SEVIS to
petition SEVP for certification, which allows the school to offer
programs of study to nonimmigrant students. Designated school officials
(DSOs) of SEVP-certified schools use SEVIS to:
Update school information and apply for recertification of
the school for the continued ability to issue the Form I-20,
Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student Status or successor
form, to nonimmigrant students and their dependents;
Issue the Form I-20 or successor form to specific
individuals to obtain F or M status while enrolled at the school;
Fulfill the school's reporting responsibility regarding
student addresses, courses of study, enrollment, employment, and
compliance with the terms of student status; and
Transfer student SEVIS records to other institutions.
Exchange Visitor programs use SEVIS to petition DOS for designation
as a sponsor so they can offer educational and cultural exchange
programs to exchange visitors. Responsible officers of designated
Exchange Visitor programs use SEVIS to:
Update sponsor information and apply for re-designation
every two years;
Issue the Form DS-2019, Certificate of Eligibility for
Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status, to specific individuals to obtain J
status;
Fulfill the sponsor's reporting responsibility regarding
exchange visitor addresses, sites of activity, program participation,
employment, and compliance with the terms of the J status; and
Transfer the exchange visitor SEVIS records to other
institutions.
Noncitizens must apply to an SEVP-certified school and be accepted
for enrollment as a student. SEVP-certified schools enter the
prospective student's information into SEVIS and issue a Form I-20 or
successor form. The prospective student then presents that endorsed
form when applying for an F or M visa with DOS abroad. Similarly, a
noncitizen must apply to a DOS-designated Exchange Visitor program and
be accepted for enrollment as a basis for applying for a J exchange
visitor visa. The Exchange Visitor program enters the prospective
exchange visitor's information into SEVIS and issues a Form DS-2019.
The prospective exchange visitor then submits that endorsed form when
applying for a J visa with DOS abroad.
At the time of admission into the United States, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection inspection officers will enter information into DHS
systems related to the F, J, or M nonimmigrant's admission. These
systems interface with SEVIS to provide SEVP and DOS with entry
information about nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors.
After admission and during the nonimmigrant student or exchange
visitor's stay in the United States, SEVP-certified schools and
Exchange Visitor programs are required to update information about
approved F, J, and M nonimmigrants. SEVIS allows schools and Exchange
Visitor programs to transmit required information electronically about
F, J, and M nonimmigrants throughout the nonimmigrant student or
exchange visitor's stay in the United States.
SEVIS enables DHS and DOS to monitor and ensure proper
recordkeeping and reporting by SEVP-certified schools and Exchange
Visitor programs. Further, SEVIS provides a mechanism for nonimmigrant
student and exchange visitor status violators to be identified so that
appropriate action may be taken (i.e., denial of admission, denial of
benefits, or removal from the United States). Prior to the creation of
SEVIS in January 2003, enrollment of nonimmigrant students was an
entirely manual and paper-based process, which meant that schools
maintained their own paper records about nonimmigrant students that
were only produced upon request.
D. Interim Final Rule
On December 12, 2022, DHS published an interim final rule which
removed obsolete procedures and
[[Page 22905]]
requirements in 8 CFR 214.1, 214.2, 214.3, 214.4, 214.12, and 214.13
governing F, J, and M nonimmigrants that no longer apply since the
implementation of SEVIS in 2003. The rule also removed language
requiring original signatures on Form I-17 or successor form and
clarified the regulatory language that implies the requirement for
original signatures on Form I-20 or successor form, and made technical
changes to correct typographical errors, update references, and reflect
the transfer of responsibilities to DHS from DOJ.\5\ See Removal of
Obsolete Procedures and Requirements Related to F, J, and M
Nonimmigrants, 87 FR 75891 (Dec. 12, 2022) (2022 Interim Final Rule),
amended by; Removal of Obsolete Procedures and Requirements Related to
F, J, and M Nonimmigrants; Correcting Amendments, 88 FR 53761 (Aug. 11,
2023) (correction to 2022 Interim Final Rule). DHS received four
comments on the 2022 Interim Final Rule. DHS considered all public
comments before issuing this final rule. DHS is finalizing these
changes to eliminate confusion and provide clarity to the public. A
discussion of the public comments and responses follows later in this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Regulatory Changes From Interim Final Rule to Final Rule
The interim final rule made general wording, capitalization, and
style changes. Some examples of these changes include, replacing
numeric symbols under 10 with the corresponding word; inserting
indefinite articles where appropriate; and replacing phrases such as
``not pursuing'' with ``no longer pursuing.'' Additionally, the interim
final rule removed references to ``approval'' and its derivatives and
replaced them with ``certify'' and its derivatives to mean
authorization for schools to enroll foreign students.\6\ Further, the
interim final rule updated terminology to reflect the transfer of
certain functions and responsibilities of the former INS to DHS.
Technical amendments of this nature apply throughout the amended
sections. As discussed in the III. Discussion of Public Comments on the
Interim Final Rule section below of this final rule, DHS has considered
the input provided by commenters in response to the interim final rule.
The majority of commenters supported the proposed changes, and DHS is
finalizing the changes in the interim final rule, with some non-
significant modifications. This final rule amends 8 CFR 214 to clarify
who can provide medical evidence, removes and reserves obsolete
language related to transfers, and adopts some of the commenters'
suggestions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ SEVP previously used both ``certified'' and ``approved''
interchangeably. To eliminate confusion, SEVP now uses only
``certify'' and its derivatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of Public Comments on the Interim Final Rule
A. Summary of Public Comments
In response to the interim final rule, DHS received four public
comments from stakeholders, including two institutions of higher
education, an association of international educators, and a member of
the public. DHS reviewed all the comments and addresses them in this
final rule.
Three of the four commenters expressed support for the interim
final rule. Two commenters thanked DHS and SEVP for their continued
engagement and willingness to modernize. Another commenter said that
they welcomed the opportunity to review (the interim final rule)
because it helps clarify and streamline the workflow, ``which benefits
our international students and scholars as well.'' One commenter
suggested clarifying one of the changes, and the other three offered
suggestions for additional regulatory changes. All of the comments were
reviewed and considered, but some of the suggestions were out of scope
for this final rule and adopting them would require notice and comment;
for that reason, those out-of-scope comments were not adopted in this
final rule. However, DHS may consider those suggestions when
contemplating future enhancements to SEVP and SEVIS.
B. Comments Expressing General Support
Comment: Some commenters described how the interim final rule helps
to clarify, streamline, and modernize processes.
Response: DHS appreciates this observation and believes that this
rulemaking places no additional burden on F, J, and M nonimmigrants, or
on sponsoring academic institutions and programs. Further, DHS observes
that eliminating original signatures on the Form I-17 or successor form
will further streamline processes because it eliminates the requirement
for DSOs to obtain original signatures.
C. Comments Expressing Opposition
DHS received no comments expressing opposition to the interim final
rule.
D. Comments Providing Additional Suggestions
Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS clarify the language
about who may provide the medical documentation that a DSO must see
before authorizing a reduced course load for a nonimmigrant student.
The commenter specifically suggests removing ``psychiatrist'' from the
approved provider list. The commenter states that because a
psychiatrist is a medical doctor there is no need to parse
psychiatrists out from other medical doctors.
Response: DHS agrees with the commenter that medical doctor
includes psychiatrist and that the wording about who may provide the
medical documentation could be clarified further; therefore, DHS is
adopting this suggestion by amending the regulatory text to read: ``In
order to authorize a reduced course load based upon a medical
condition, the student must provide medical documentation from a
licensed medical doctor, a licensed doctor of osteopathy, a licensed
psychologist, or a licensed clinical psychologist to the DSO to
substantiate the illness or medical condition.''
Comment: Some commenters suggested that DHS expand the list of
medical providers qualified to provide the medical documentation that a
DSO must see before authorizing a reduced course load. For instance,
they stated that ``these days, many U.S. citizens are likelier to be
seen by a nurse practitioner. . ., or a social worker or mental health
counselor.''
Response: DHS acknowledges that many health care services can be
delivered by a variety of providers, such as the ones suggested by
commenters. However, the scope and purpose of this interim final rule
and final rule are not to add more medical professionals to the list of
accepted medical providers, (see 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(iii)(B)), but to
clarify the language of the regulation to indicate that a licensed
psychologist or psychiatrist could provide the evidence for the
student's mental health diagnoses; Expanding the list of medical
providers is a significant change that would require public review and
comment and is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, DHS
cannot adopt this suggestion at this time, but may consider this
suggestion in the event of a future rulemaking.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that DHS should eliminate
obsolete wording about transfer procedures.
Response: DHS agrees with this suggestion because the transfer
procedures outlined in 8 CFR
[[Page 22906]]
214.2(f)(8)(iii) no longer apply since the implementation of SEVIS.
DSOs no longer note ``transfer completed on (date)'' on a student's
Form I-20 (or successor form), return the Form I-20 (or successor form)
to the student, and send a copy elsewhere. Therefore, DHS is removing
and reserving that paragraph.
Comment: One commenter suggested DHS make additional changes to
remove other obsolete procedures and requirements, including:
``Item (2) of Table 2 to Paragraph (f), the paragraph
contents of 8 CFR 214.2(f), should be revised by changing `(2) I-20 ID'
to `(2) Student maintenance of Form I-20 or successor form.'
``Remove 8 CFR 214.2(f)(8)(iii), a pre-SEVIS provision.''
``Remove 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(ii)(F)(2), a pre-SEVIS
provision.''
``In 8 CFR 214.2(f)(9)(i), remove the three asterisks (* *
*) that appear between the third and fourth sentences.''
``In 8 CFR 214.2(m)(l)(i)(B), remove the word ``SEVIS''
that precedes the term `Form 1-20.' ''
``In 8 CFR 214.2(j)(l)(i), the term `SEVIS Form DS-2019'
appears four times. The word `SEVIS' should be removed in those
instances.''
``In 8 CFR 214.2(j)(l)(vii), the term `SEVIS Form DS-2019'
appears one time. The word `SEVIS' should be removed in that
instance.''
``To retain parity with the F and M regulations, DHS
should consider using the term `Form DS-2019 or successor form'
wherever the term `Form DS-2019' appears in 8 CFR 214.1.''
Response: DHS appreciates these suggestions for additional changes
and has made some of the suggested corrections already (see ICEB-2021-
0016, Correcting amendments, published August 9, 2023). DHS will adopt
the suggestions to amend paragraphs 8 CFR 214.2(f) and (m) related to
the Form I-20 and pre-SEVIS provisions. However, 8 CFR 214.2(j) falls
under the authority of DOS, so DHS cannot adopt the suggestions related
to the Form DS-2019.
E. Comments Out of Scope
Comment: One commenter suggested that to meet the student demand
for online, hybrid, and in-person courses, and to give schools the
ability to offer instruction using these preferred learning styles, DHS
should eliminate or reduce the physical presence requirement for
nonimmigrant students.
Response: DHS acknowledges that hybrid and online instruction
methods are becoming increasingly common. However, changing the
regulatory requirement for nonimmigrant students to take no more than
the equivalent of one online or distance education course \7\ is a
significant change that would require public review and comment and is
outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this
suggestion at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Only one class or three credits per session, term, semester,
trimester, or quarter may be counted toward the full course of study
requirement if the class is taken online or through distance
education and does not require the student's physical attendance for
classes, examination, or other purposes integral to completion of
the class. If the F-1 student's course of study is in a language
training program, no online or distance education classes may be
considered to count toward the student's full course of study
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters suggested DHS should allow additional
reduced course load authorizations beyond what is currently allowed.
Response: Changing regulations to allow nonimmigrant students to
engage in less than a full course of study \8\ with more frequency than
is currently allowed under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(iii) is a significant
regulatory change that would require public review and comment and is
outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this
suggestion at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A full course of study is described in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS should allow DSOs to make
exceptions for nonimmigrant students who have not applied for an
extension of their program of study.
Response: Allowing DSOs to grant exceptions to nonimmigrant
students who did not apply for an extension until after the program end
date noted on the Form I-20 or successor form is a significant
regulatory change that would require public review and comment and is
outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this
suggestion at this time.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that DHS should clarify the
meaning of ``initial'' in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(iii)(A), which states,
``The DSO may authorize a reduced course load on account of a student's
initial difficulty with the English language or reading requirements,
unfamiliarity with U.S. teaching methods, or improper course level
placement,'' noting ``it would be helpful to clarify which reasons can
(or cannot) be used.'' In addition, commenters suggested expanding when
the list of reasons may be used to include times beyond the initial
period.
Response: DHS interprets the term ``initial'' as it is used in 8
CFR 214.2(f)(6)(iii)(A) to refer to a new student at the beginning of
their studies in the United States. Expanding when the reasons to drop
below a full course of study for academic reasons may be used is a
significant regulatory change that would require public review and
comment and is outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot
adopt this suggestion at this time.
Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS allow practical training
to be authorized once per educational level instead of only allowing an
additional 12 months of practical training when a student changes to a
higher educational level.
Response: DHS appreciates that practical training is useful to
students. However, changing practical training requirements is a
significant regulatory change that would require public review and
comment and is outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot
adopt this suggestion at this time.
Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS should allow for
``continued authorization of a medical reduced course load beyond 12
months for chronic and/or serious conditions.'' The commenter stated
that the current policy is discriminatory to students with
disabilities.
Response: DHS appreciates that nonimmigrant students with health
challenges may require additional time to complete a course of study
and is considering how to better address this reality. However,
changing the requirements for how long a DSO may authorize a reduced
course load (or, if necessary, no course load) due to a chronic or
serious illness or a disability is a significant regulatory change that
would require public review and comment and is outside the scope of
this rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this suggestion at this time.
Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS remove the requirement
that an optional practical training application must be filed with
USCIS within a certain number of days from the date when the DSO
recommends it in SEVIS.
Response: Changing practical training requirements is a significant
regulatory change that would require public review and comment and is
outside the scope of this rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this
suggestion at this time.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that DHS eliminate the
requirement for a travel endorsement signature on the Form I-20 for
students returning to the United States from a temporary absence of
five months or less.
Response: Eliminating the requirement for returning students to
present a properly endorsed Form I-20
[[Page 22907]]
(or successor form) is a significant regulatory change that would
require public review and comment and is outside the scope of this
rule; therefore, DHS cannot adopt this suggestion at this time.
Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS clarify what the term
``continues'' means in 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii) and that DHS clarify that
the transfer from one educational level to another can be downward as
well as upward.
Response: DHS interprets the term ``continues'' as it is used in 8
CFR 214.2(f)(5)(ii) to mean that a student is maintaining status when
they continue to be enrolled, even when transferring from one
educational level to another. The term as used here underscores the
importance of continued enrollment to maintain status. Adding a
description of what ``continues'' means within the context of 8 CFR
214.2(f)(5)(ii) is a significant regulatory change that would require
public review and comment and is outside the scope of this rule;
therefore, DHS cannot adopt this suggestion at this time.
V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
DHS developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. The below sections
summarize the analyses based on a number of these statutes or Executive
orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) as amended
by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is deemed to be necessary, to select regulatory approaches
that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts;
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules,
and promoting flexibility.
This final rule has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, this final rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This final rule removes unnecessary procedures and requirements in
8 CFR 214.1, 214.2, 214.3, 214.4, 214.12, and 214.13 that govern F, J,
and M nonimmigrants. These changes are necessary to improve clarity and
remove obsolete or unnecessary information that no longer applies since
the implementation of SEVIS. This final rule introduces no substantive
changes; does not raise existing costs; and places no additional burden
on F, J, and M nonimmigrants or their sponsoring academic institutions
and programs.
Summary of the Analysis
DHS estimates that this final rule will have no costs and will
result in quantifiable cost savings and additional unquantifiable
benefits. As shown in Table 1, DHS estimates this final rule will have
a 10-year annualized monetized cost savings of $27,568 in 2022 dollars
(for both 3 and 7 percent discount rates) and unquantified benefits
with regard to convenience, time savings, and improvements to the
environment from reduced paper use. Table 1 summarizes the findings of
this regulatory impact analysis (RIA).
Table 1--OMB Circular A-4 Accounting Statement
[In millions 2022 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Impact Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Benefits
($ Mil):
(3%)..................... $0.03................ RIA.
(7%)..................... $0.03................ RIA.
Annualized Quantified, but
Unmonetized, Benefits.
Unquantified Benefits........ Convenience and time RIA.
savings in signature
collection.
Reduced paper use....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Costs ($
Mil):
(3%)..................... No Cost.............. RIA.
(7%)..................... No Cost.............. RIA.
Annualized Quantified, but No Cost.............. RIA.
Unmonetized, Costs.
Qualitative (Un-quantified) No Cost.............. RIA.
Costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized
Transfers.
From Whom to Whom............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on State, Local, and/ No Impact............ FR.
or Tribal Governments.
Effects on Small Business.... No Impact............ FR.
Effects on Wages.............
Effects on Growth............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22908]]
Baseline
This section details the regulatory baseline for this final rule.
Table 2 below provides a summary of the anticipated changes to baseline
conditions.
Table 2--Baseline Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost impact to Benefit impact to
Provision Description of Affected population affected affected
change population population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Signatures for Form I-17 Removing original SEVP-certified None............. Cost savings for
signature schools. schools in
requirement to reducing the
allow for time needed for
greater freedom school officials
in adopting to physically
electronic sign forms for
signature and electronic
transmission of filing.
documents.
All Other Technical Revisions.... Changing the School officials, None............. The benefit of
wording in the students, and the rule's
rule to promote others who need to greater clarity,
clarity and understand and accuracy, and
consistency, follow the currency and the
remove obsolete requirements of the promotion of an
language, and rule, including overall better
codify legal practitioners understanding of
procedures and and school the rule.
practices. administrators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The baseline is the state of the world prior to the Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in which all signatures on Form I-17
documents were required to be original, rather than electronic. It also
includes all of the previous wording in SEVP regulations that would
remain unchanged if this final rule does not take effect.
Background and Purpose
SEVP certifies qualifying schools and grants them access to SEVIS.
DSOs at these SEVP-certified schools are their primary respondents in
terms of reporting data. DSOs collect and enter the required
information in SEVIS. That data is used to populate a school's Form I-
17 and a student's Form I-20. DSOs carry nearly all of their school's
reporting burden.
This final rule removes obsolete procedures and requirements and
clarifies regulatory language associated with SEVP. The only
quantifiable economic impact is from DHS allowing electronic signatures
to replace original signatures on Form I-17 documents, which DSOs must
prepare and send electronically to ICE. This change has been in place
since 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 allowances that DHS
implemented. However, prior to those allowances, DSOs were required to
prepare their own paper copies of the Form I-17 documents, with the
original signatures of each DSO who was required to sign the form, as
well as that of the president, owner, or head of the school.
Furthermore, many of those original signatures on any given Form I-17
document had to be made on the same piece of paper (on any pages in the
document having space for more than one signature), thus requiring that
piece of paper to be physically delivered to each individual who needed
to sign their name on the same page. These individuals may be located
in different buildings on the same campus, or even on different
campuses for schools with more than one campus location. Consequently,
the signing of the Form I-17 often required the transport of the same
paper document among individuals in different locations and required
coordination among them and other school officials to complete the
process.
To prevent circulation of paper documents during the pandemic, DHS
allowed DSOs to use electronic signature software to sign the Form I-
17, rather than requiring original signatures among the various school
officials. DSOs can also generate completed Form I-17 documents
electronically, without needing to scan the signed paper documents
before sending them electronically to ICE. In this final rule, DHS is
allowing these cost savings and conveniences to continue permanently
after the pandemic is sufficiently mitigated and the COVID-19-related
allowances are no longer in effect.
The other changes proposed in this final rule are changes in
wording that have largely become obsolete and irrelevant, such as
references to ``INS'' or references to procedures that are no longer
implemented. These revisions will improve the clarity, accuracy, and
currency of the regulations for school officials, students and others
who need to read and understand them.
Analytical Considerations
DHS divided the analysis into two general categories: (1) the
effects of DHS allowing Form I-17 documents to be signed and
transmitted electronically after the COVID-19-related allowances no
longer apply; and (2) the effects of revisions in language, references,
and stated procedures to improve the accuracy and clarity of SEVP-
related regulations and to codify practices that have already been
adopted. Of these two areas of the analysis, DHS determined that only
the first (involving electronic signing and transmission of the Form I-
17) is amenable to quantitative analysis and to the estimation of
benefits and costs. DHS determined that the second area (textual
changes to improve the accuracy, clarity, and understanding of the
regulations) is not amenable to quantitative measures. DHS made this
determination based on the many ambiguities that would exist in any
efforts to define and measure such concepts as ``clarity,'' or to
define and measure the extent to which individuals
[[Page 22909]]
would benefit from such improvements in clarity (such as in time
savings or levels of comprehension). Nevertheless, DHS determined that
qualitative descriptions of this second area would be sufficient to
justify the changes.
DHS identified one effect of this final rule, with regard to
electronic signatures for the Form I-17, that could provide an
additional benefit. As stated, one of the advantages of electronic
signatures is that paper documents no longer need to be physically
transported to each person who signs the form. DHS allowance of
electronic signatures avoids resources being spent by the school to
transport these documents from one place to another for the required
school officials to sign them. It also avoids resources being spent to
place the documents in envelopes and address them and then for other
individuals to open the envelopes and sign the documents.
However, DHS is unable to quantify this potential cost savings. DHS
does not have data on how many people on average need to sign the form
and how far away they are from each other (such as whether they have
offices adjacent to each other or they are at campuses in different
cities). Adding to the uncertainty would be whether the transport of
these documents occurred along with other documents between the
offices, so that no separate delivery was required to transport them
individually. The burden of these original signatures would depend on
whether school employees needed to take extra time to transport the
documents separately from other documents delivered via intra-campus
mail. DHS also does not have data on the time needed to produce
electronic signatures, which would then need to be subtracted from the
time needed to sign the paper documents for DHS to estimate the cost
savings of electronic signatures. For example, if the mechanisms for
officials to electronically sign documents are easily accomplished on
their computers, it might not take very long to sign. However, if
officials must follow complicated procedures on their computer to
provide those electronic signatures, then it might take more time to
sign.
Time Horizon for the Analysis
DHS estimates the economic effects of this final rule will be
sustained indefinitely. ICE used a 10-year timeframe (from 2023 through
2032) to outline, quantify, and monetize the costs and benefits of this
final rule, and to demonstrate its net effects.
Affected Population
This final rule affects two types of entities: (1) SEVP-certified
schools (and the DSOs who work for those SEVP-certified schools), and
(2) any individuals and organizations that might benefit from
improvements in the way the regulations are written, including offices
within DHS that interact with the affected SEVP-certified schools, and
various U.S.-based and international organizations that may assist or
represent F and M nonimmigrant students. In 2022, SEVP-certified
schools submitted in SEVIS a total of 8,535 distinct Form I-17
documents to ICE.
Costs of the Rule
DHS determined that there are no costs associated with this final
rule. When considering the cost of this final rule, DHS determined that
there are no costs for SEVP-certified schools to develop information-
technology capabilities to electronically sign and transmit documents.
DHS assumes that SEVP-certified schools already have the necessary
information technology capabilities in place to electronically sign and
transmit the Form I-17 documents.
Cost Savings
DHS estimated the cost savings to SEVP-certified schools if paper
copies and original signatures are no longer needed for the Form I-17
documents in accordance with this final rule. Table 3 displays these
cost savings, estimated at $27,568 per year, in 2022 dollars. This cost
savings estimate is based on 8,535 Form I-17 documents submitted to ICE
in 2022. Without this final rule in place, DSOs would have to provide
their original signatures on the Form I-17, as they did before the
COVID-19 pandemic. DSOs would then need to scan these documents and
send an electronic copy of them to ICE. DHS estimated that each
document would require approximately 3 minutes of labor to be scanned.
As shown in Table 3, this results in total labor costs of $19,033. DHS
estimated the average number of pages per Form I-17 document to be 10
pages, which, at an estimated cost of $0.10 per page for paper and
printing, contributes to an additional cost savings of $8,535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Total DSO compensation of $44.68 is based on the mean hourly
national wage estimates for Educational, Guidance, and Career
Counselors and Advisors multiplied by the benefits-to-wage
multiplier for civilian workers, calculated as $30.87 * 1.45. The
benefits-to-wage multiplier represents the employee wages and
benefits costs paid by employers, as calculated by BLS for civilian
workers, and is calculated as follows: ($43.93 Total Employee
Compensation per hour)/($30.35 Wages and Salaries per hour) =
1.44744 = 1.45 (rounded). See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics: 21-1012 Educational,
Guidance, and Career Counselors and Advisors, May 2022, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2022/may/oes211012.htm; and U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Economic News Release, Employer Cost for Employee
Compensation (September 2023), Table 1, Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation by ownership (dated December 15, 2023), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12152023.htm. Last accessed
January 30, 2024.
Table 3--Cost Savings From Original Signatures Not Required for Form I-
17
[In 2022 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor in the analysis Measures Costs savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Number of Forms I-17 Scanned in 2022. 8,535 ..............
B. Number of Minutes to Scan Each 3 ..............
Document...............................
C. Hourly Labor Rate for DSO \9\........ $44.68 ..............
D. Estimated Labor Cost Per Document $2.23 ..............
Scanned [(B/60) x C]...................
-------------------------------
E. Total Labor Costs (A x D)............ .............. $19,033
F. Estimated Pages Per Scan............. 10 ..............
G. Estimated Cost Per Page (for Paper $0.10 ..............
and Printing)..........................
H. Estimated Paper Costs Per Mailing (H $1.00 ..............
x I)...................................
-------------------------------
I. Total Paper Costs (A x H)............ .............. 8,535
-------------------------------
Total Cost Savings for Not Preparing .............. 27,568
and Scanning the Forms I-17 (E+I)..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22910]]
Table 4 summarizes the impact of this final rule over the 10-year
period, starting in 2023. The 10-year discounted cost-savings of this
final rule in 2022 dollars would range from $193,626 to $235,161 (with
7 percent and 3 percent discount rates, respectively).
Table 4--Total Estimated Cost Savings
[In 2022 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Undiscounted Discounted at 3% Discounted at 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... $27,568 $26,765 $25,765
2................................................... 27,568 25,986 24,079
3................................................... 27,568 25,229 22,504
4................................................... 27,568 24,494 21,032
5................................................... 27,568 23,780 19,656
6................................................... 27,568 23,088 18,370
7................................................... 27,568 22,415 17,168
8................................................... 27,568 21,762 16,045
9................................................... 27,568 21,129 14,995
10.................................................. 27,568 20,513 14,014
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 275,681 235,161 193,626
Annualized.......................................... .................. 27,568 27,568
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative Cost Savings
As previously described, the qualitative benefits of this final
rule include benefits to those who may need to understand and follow
the regulations, including school officials and organizations that
assist or represent F and M students. Specifically, the technical
revisions increase clarity, accuracy, and currency, and promote a
better understanding of the regulation.
Analysis of Alternatives
Because this final rule does not pose any costs to the public or to
the government, DHS is not able to find any alternative that could have
any lower costs. In principle, even when the costs of a new rule are
zero, an alternative rule could still be preferable if that rule could
offer higher benefits, and thus higher net benefits. However, this too
would not be possible in this case, because the benefits of any
comparable rule could only be in the same form as the benefits of this
final rule--those benefits being cost savings (for SEVP-certified
schools). For any alternative to offer greater benefits, it would need
to reduce the costs that SEVP-certified schools incur in processing and
delivering Form I-17 documents. Because this final rule already allows
for electronic signatures and submission of the forms by email, there
are no less-expensive alternatives to preparing and distributing the
forms.
DHS considered the no-action alternative for this final rule. Table
5 summarizes the effects of this alternative. The no-action alternative
would result in continued costs to SEVP-certified schools for original
signatures and would maintain obsolete language. As a result, DHS
rejected this alternative.
Table 5--Summary of Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Benefits Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take No-Action..................... None................................. 1. Annual costs to SEVP-certified
schools of $27,568 due to the
preparation and scanning of Form I-
17 documents (reverting to the pre-
COVID signature requirement).
2. Cost associated with the greater
difficulty imposed on school
officials, students, and others who
need to understand and follow
requirements governing F and M
nonimmigrant students due to the
obsolescence of certain language in
the current regulatory text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. However, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice-
and-comment rulemaking; therefore, since this action is exempt under
the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility analysis requirements. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a).
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This is not a major rule, as defined by section 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This final rule will not
result in an annual effect on the United States economy of $100 million
or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete
with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This final rule 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 final rule does
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement.
[[Page 22911]]
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final 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 1995 dollars) or more in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no
actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
F. Congressional Review Act
This final rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804,
also known as the ``Congressional Review Act,'' as enacted in section
251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 868 et seq. This final 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 the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic and export markets. See 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
rule will be submitted to Congress and GAO consistent with the
Congressional Review Act's requirements no later than its effective
date.
G. Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform
This final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all
departments are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any
reporting requirements inherent in a rule. This final rule does not
impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
I. National Environmental Policy Act
DHS Management Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 and Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01 Rev. 01 establishes the policy and procedures that DHS and
its Components use to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375, and the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500
through 1508.
The CEQ regulations enable Federal agencies to establish categories
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. 40 CFR
1508.4. The DHS Categorical Exclusions are listed in IM 023-01-001-01
Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1.
For an action to be categorically excluded, the action must satisfy
each of the following three conditions:
1. The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the
Categorical Exclusions;
2. The action is not a piece of a larger action; and
3. No extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential
for a significant environmental effect. IM 023-01-001-01 Rev. 01
section V(B)(2)(a)-(c).
If the action does not clearly meet all three conditions, DHS or
the Component prepares an Environmental Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement, according to CEQ requirements, MD 023-01, and IM 023-
01-001-01 Rev. 01.
DHS has analyzed this action under MD 023-01 Rev. 01 and IM 023-01-
001-01 Rev.01. DHS has made a determination that this rulemaking action
is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
action clearly fits within the Categorical Exclusion found in IM 023-
01-001-01 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1, number A3(d): ``Promulgation of
rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the development and
publication of policies, orders, directives, notices, procedures,
manuals, advisory circulars, and other guidance documents of the
following nature: (d) Those that interpret or amend an existing
regulation without changing its environmental effect.'' This final rule
is not part of a larger action and presents no extraordinary
circumstances creating the potential for significant environmental
effects. Therefore, a more detailed NEPA review is not necessary. DHS
seeks any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of any
significant environmental effects from this final rule.
J. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
DHS reviewed this final rule and has determined that under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
K. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
DHS reviewed this final rule and has determined that it will not
cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking
implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
L. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
DHS reviewed this final rule and has determined that it does not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
M. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
DHS reviewed this final rule and determined that it does not use
technical standards.
N. Family Assessment
DHS has determined that this action would not affect family well-
being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999
(Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 214
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange
program, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Students.
Amendments to the Regulations
DHS amends part 214 of chapter I, of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 214--NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES
0
1. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182,
1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305, 1357, and 1372; sec.
643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat.
1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and
1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2;
[[Page 22912]]
Pub. L. 115-218, 132 Stat. 1547 (48 U.S.C. 1806).
0
2. Amend Sec. 214.2 as follows:
0
a. In Table 2 to Paragraph (f)--Paragraph Contents, item (2), remove
``I-20 ID'' and add in its place ``Form I-20 or successor form''.
0
b. Paragraph (f)(6)(iii)(B) is revised.
0
c. Paragraph (f)(8)(iii) is removed and reserved.
0
d. Paragraph (f)(9)(ii)(F)(2) is removed and reserved.
0
e. In paragraph (m)(l)(i)(B), remove ``SEVIS Form I-20'' and add in its
place ``Form 1-20''.
0
f. The introductory text of paragraph (m)(9)(vi) is revised.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 214.2 Special requirements for admission, extension, and
maintenance of status.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(6) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) Medical conditions. The DSO may authorize a reduced course load
(or, if necessary, no course load) due to a student's temporary illness
or medical condition for a period of time not to exceed an aggregate of
12 months while the student is pursuing a course of study at a
particular program level. In order to authorize a reduced course load
based upon a medical condition, the student must provide medical
documentation from a licensed medical doctor, a licensed doctor of
osteopathy, a licensed psychologist, or a licensed clinical
psychologist to the DSO to substantiate the illness or medical
condition. The student must provide current medical documentation and
the DSO must reauthorize the drop below full course of study each new
term, session, or semester. A student previously authorized to drop
below a full course of study due to illness or medical condition for an
aggregate of 12 months may not be authorized by a DSO to reduce their
course load on subsequent occasions while pursuing a course of study at
the same program level. A student may be authorized to reduce course
load for a reason of illness or medical condition on more than one
occasion while pursuing a course of study, so long as the aggregate
period of that authorization does not exceed 12 months.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(9) * * *
(vi) Reduced course load. The designated school official may
authorize an M-1 student to engage in less than a full course of study
only where the student has been compelled by illness or a medical
condition that has been documented by a licensed medical doctor, a
licensed doctor of osteopathy, a licensed psychologist, or a licensed
clinical psychologist to interrupt or reduce their course of study. A
DSO may not authorize a reduced course load for more than an aggregate
of 5 months per course of study. An M-1 student previously authorized
to drop below a full course of study due to illness or medical
condition for an aggregate of 5 months, may not be authorized by the
DSO to reduce their course load on subsequent occasions during their
particular course of study.
Alejandro N. Mayorkas,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2024-06657 Filed 4-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-CB-P
