[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 157 (Friday, August 14, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43604-43610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22003]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
8 CFR Part 103
[INS No. 1768-98; AG No. 2173-98]
RIN 1115-AE42
Adjustment of Certain Fees of the Immigration Examinations Fee
Account
AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule adjusts the fees schedule of the Immigration
Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) for certain immigration adjudication
and naturalization applications and petitions. Fees collected from
persons filing these applications and petitions are deposited into the
IEFA and used to fund the cost of processing immigration adjudication
and naturalization
[[Page 43605]]
applications and petitions and associated support services; the cost of
providing similar services to asylum and refugee applicants; and the
cost of similar services provided to other immigrants at no charge.
This rule ensures that the fees that fund the IEFA generate sufficient
revenue to recover the full cost of processing immigration adjudication
and naturalization applications and petitions, and the cost of asylum,
refugee, and other immigrant services provided at no charge to the
applicant.
DATES: This final rule is effective October 13, 1998, except the Form
N-400 (fee increase) contained in the table in Section 103.7(b)(1),
which will take effect on January 15, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Natchuras, Chief, Fee
Policy and Rate Setting Branch, Office of Budget, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, on (202) 616-2754, or Charles J. Yaple, Senior
Staff Accountant, Fee Policy and Rate Setting Branch, Office of Budget,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, on (202) 305-0020, or in
writing at 425 I Street, NW., Room 6240, Washington, DC 20536.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register on January 12, 1998, at 63 FR
1775, to adjust the current Immigration Examinations Fee schedule. The
fee adjustment is needed to comply with specific Federal immigration
laws and the Federal user fee statute and corresponding regulations,
which require Federal agencies to charge a fee for services when such
services provide benefits to recipients that do not accrue to the
public at large. The revised fees are calculated to recover the costs
of providing these special services and benefits. The proposed rule was
published with a 60-day comment period, which closed on March 13, 1998.
The Service received 2,033 comments pertaining to the increases to the
fees of the IEFA.
Comments were received from a broad spectrum of individuals and
organizations, including 26 refugee and immigrant service
organizations, 20 community literacy collaboratives, 45 public policy
and advocacy groups, 49 religious affiliated agencies, 10 attorney
organizations, 717 past and present adopting parents, and 1,127
concerned or prospective citizens. All of the comments were carefully
considered before preparing this final rule. The following is a
discussion of these comments and the Service's response.
II. Summary of Comments
A. Form I-600/600A, Petition to Classify an Orphan as an Immediate
Relative and Form N-643, Application for Certification of Citizenship-
Adopted Child
Seven hundred and seventeen comments were received from prior or
prospective adopting parents expressing dissatisfaction with the fee
increases associated with Forms I-600 and I-600A, Petition to Classify
an Orphan as an Immediate Relative, and the Application for Advance
Processing of Orphan Petition, respectively, and Form N-643,
Application for Certificate of Citizenship-Adopted Child. All 717
comments received were similar in nature. The commenters felt that
these fees discriminated against American citizens who wished to adopt
abandoned children living in orphanages around the world.
The Commissioner has always placed a very high priority on
expediting international adoption applications. Each office must have
at least one designated adjudicator to process international adoption
applications. At most offices, the adjudicator receives the application
directly. The international adoption process is labor intensive and
generates a considerable amount of direct case interaction and
correspondence.
The Fee Study Team documented the process and performed cycle time
analysis for Forms I-600 and N-643, to accurately identify the costs
associated with the processing of these specific petitions. The
observations show that the processing of these petitions was
particularly labor intensive and required the constant attention of
adjudicators and others assigned to these cases.
Eighty percent of the applicants have numerous questions and
contact the adjudicator with inquiries and requests for information
before the initial submission of their application. Ninety percent of
the applications are delivered in person, which leads to an extensive
question and answer period between the applicant and the adjudicator.
For instance, the average time needed for receipt of the other
applications and petitions is slightly less than 5 minutes each.
However, for the Form I-600/I-600A, the receipt cycle time is greater
than 49 minutes because of the questions and concerns of the applicant.
Since the Service does not receive any appropriated funding (tax
dollars) to cover the cost of processing applications and petitions for
any naturalization or immigration benefit, the increase in fees is
necessary to recover the full costs associated with processing
international adoption applications.
B. Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
Twelve hundred and ninety-eight comments were received opposing the
increase in the fee for the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
Most of the comments began by stating that the proposed fee increase
from $95 to $225 would create a hardship for most immigrant families
because their family income is relatively low. One hundred and twenty-
one of the commenters also specifically referenced the Commissioner's
remarks that no fee increases would be implemented until the Service
made progress in improving naturalization processing.
The Service has made significant progress and remains committed to
fulfilling the Commissioner's pledge regarding the naturalization
program. Currently, efforts are underway to address naturalization
processing, with teams assisting field offices in achieving increased
levels of productivity. In addition, the Service has already opened 128
co-located and storefront Application Support Centers (ASC), and
established 35 mobile ASC routes and 41 designated state or local law
enforcement agencies nationwide to facilitate the fingerprinting of
applicants. Further, since April 15, 1998, the Service has fully
implemented the Direct Mail program, with all Form N-400s being filed
by mail at one of the Service's four highly automated service centers.
Finally, the Service has installed the Computer Linked Application
Information Management System 4.0 (CLAIMS) at all four Service Centers,
with scheduled implementation at the larger district offices by the end
of 1998.
Although the Service has made substantial progress in
naturalization processing, the Commissioner has decided to change the
effective date for the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, fee
increase to January 15, 1999, to permit the full implementation of the
Service's plan to address naturalization processing.
C. Applicant Fees Should Not Pay for Unrelated Expenses or Atypical
Costs
Fifty-one of the commenters opposed the use of the applicants fees
to pay for expenses that they perceived to be for unrelated services
such as the running of the asylum, refugee, and parole, and
humanitarian affairs (formerly the Cuban-Haitian Entrant Program)
programs. In the Departments of
[[Page 43606]]
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1991 (Pub. L. 101-515), Congress authorized the
Service to provide certain immigration adjudication and naturalization
services at no cost to the applicants. Public Law 101-515 states that
``fees for providing adjudication and naturalization services may be
set at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing
all such services, including the costs of similar services provided
without charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants. Such fees may
also be set at a level that will recover any additional costs
associated with the administration of the fees collected [8 U.S.C.
1356(m)].'' As a result of this legislation, Congress no longer
provided the Service with an appropriation to cover the costs of asylum
and refugee services, and directed the Service to fund these costs with
revenue from the IEFA.
In FY 1996, Congress also authorized the Service to pay for the
cost of the Cuban-Haitian Entrant Resettlement Program from the IEFA.
In FY 1997, Congress transferred the cost of other asylum and refugee
services that had been paid from the Violent Crime Trust Fund to the
IEFA. Through explicit legislative language and subsequent
appropriation action, Congress has signaled its desire that certain
asylum and refugee services should be provided at no charge to the
recipient. The revenue to pay for these costs must be recovered from
the fees charged to other applicants for immigration adjudication and
naturalization benefits. All expenses being included for cost recovery
are consistent with Federal law and Federal accounting standards.
Many of these commenters also opposed the Service paying for costs
that are unusual or atypical when compared to the usual costs in a
normal processing year. They claimed that the type of organizational
activities that the Service is currently engaged in, such as
infrastructure building, should not be funded by current applications
and must not be included in the fee calculation. Proper accounting
treatment requires inclusion of unusual or atypical costs, such as
improvement of automation activities or upgrading of records
management. These types of costs were assigned a useful life and the
cost of these projects amortized or depreciated over the assigned
useful life. Therefore, a portion of the unusual or atypical cost has
been included in the fee calculation framework for the current year and
treated like any other cost based on the useful life assigned to that
asset.
D. The Service Should Seek Additional Sources for Funding Certain
Adjudications Functions From Congress
Fifty of the commenters encouraged the Service to seek additional
sources of funding from Congress for certain adjudications functions.
Since FY 1989, the fees collected and deposited into the Examinations
Fee Account have been the sole source of funding for immigration
adjudication and naturalization services. In creating the IEFA, the
Congress intended that this account be self-sustaining, and not be
funded by tax dollars. The Service has been managing this account
consistent with Federal law and Congressional direction.
In addition, the commenters felt that the Service should seek
action from Congress that would end the practice of taking 245(i) fee
money out of the IEFA and redirecting it to detention-related
activities. The commenters felt adjudication services were being
provided with respect to 245(i) activities and, thus, fees submitted in
connection with a 245(i) adjustment application should remain in the
IEFA, which is the funding source for immigration adjudication and
naturalization services. Detention-related activities, the commenters
noted, should be funded with appropriated funds. The Service will take
these comments under advisement. However, since the drafting of the
proposed rule, it is noted that Congress has enacted legislation which
has reinforced its intent that 245(i) fee money (Pub. L. 105-119) not
be deposited in the IEFA.
Finally, these commenters addressed the requirement that
Congressional notification is needed whenever a reprogramming of more
than $500,000 or 10 percent of the change in the net total of any
program activity's approved budget is to take place. The Service is
only required to provide notice to Congress; however, the commenters
felt the Service has adopted a policy in which it does not spend the
funds until the change is approved by Congress. The Service, per
Department of Justice policy, only takes action under the protocol that
Congress has established, which requires Congressional approval before
spending authorities can be changed.
E. The Level of Service Provided at Each Office Should Be Consistent
Nationwide
Sixty-six of the commenters opposed increasing fees when service
varies so greatly from office to office. The proposed fees were
developed on a nationwide basis based on the identified resources
needed to produce specific goods or services. The Service matched the
resources needed to receive and to process the new applications/
petitions with the workload expected to be received in FY 1998. The
process was consistently applied for all applications and petitions.
However, the Service is currently reviewing the workloads in the
various district offices in an effort to balance waiting times.
F. The Service Should Consider Gradual or Phased-in Fee Increases
Eighteen commenters recommended that fees be gradually phased in
over a 3-year period. The Service agrees that this may be a useful
approach in the future, and will study this course of action. However,
fees have not been increased since July 14, 1994, and, based upon
projected fee revenues and corresponding cost estimates, the Service
projects a shortfall in revenue. Currently, the Service cannot
gradually increase fees over a 3-year period without jeopardizing the
financial solvency of the entire account. This rule is necessary to
ensure that the fees that fund the IEFA generate sufficient revenue to
recover the full cost of processing immigration adjudication and
naturalization applications and petitions, including the costs of
similar services provided at no charge to asylum applicants or other
immigrants.
G. Fee Calculation Methodology
Thirty-three of the commenters objected to the methodology used to
calculate the proposed fees. More specifically, the cost modeling
convention records events ``as is,'' not ``as should be.'' Some of the
commenters felt that the Activity Based Costing methodology calculated
fees based upon inefficient practices.
The Fee Account Study adhered to the guidance contained in the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25, User Charges,
which requires that user charges imposed recover the full cost to the
Government for providing a special benefit. In addition, the Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) provides additional
guidance on the meaning of full-cost recovery. In FASAB Statement No.
4, full cost is defined as:
The total amount of resources used to produce the output. This
includes direct and indirect costs that contribute to the output
regardless of funding sources. It also includes costs of supporting
services provided by other responsibility segments or entities.
The fees reflect the current cost of processing applications and
petitions at the time of the fee study. The study was conducted
consistent with the requirements of the Chief Financial
[[Page 43607]]
Officers Act of 1990, which requires a biennial review of user fees to
ensure that full costs are being recovered.
H. Form I-539, Application To Extend Status-Change Nonimmigrant Status;
Form I-129H, Petition To Classify Nonimmigrant as a Temporary Worker;
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Foreign Worker; Form I-485,
Application To Register Permanent Status or Adjust Status; Form I-765,
Application for Employment Authorization; Form I-612, Application for
Waiver of Foreign Residence Requirement
Comments were received from two universities opposing the fee
increases for petitions frequently filed by international students,
faculty, and staff. The first commenter opposed the fee increases for
the Form I-539, Form I-129H, Form I-140, Form I-612, and the Form I-765
because they would impose an unacceptable financial burden upon the
recipients. The second commenter objected to the fee increases until
service improved and recommended waiving the fees, specifically the fee
for the Form I-765, because of economic necessity. There are provisions
in 8 CFR 103.7(c) that provide for waiver of fees if certain conditions
are met. The Service often waives fees for this application when the
economic need exists. The proposed rule stated, ``For FY 1998, the
Service estimates that approximately 50 percent of the Form I-765
applications will be processed at no charge to applicants, at a total
cost of $35.9 million.''
The fee increases on which these commenters were voicing opposition
resulted from a comprehensive examination of costs associated with
application and petition processing. As previously stated, the Service
is required to review the fee structure, and to ensure that the full
costs of providing special benefits to identifiable recipients be
recovered by the Federal Government. Accordingly, these fees must be
increased to recover costs.
I. Waiver/Exempt Costs
In the proposed rule, it was indicated that the Service is
currently evaluating under what conditions a waiver of any fee should
be granted. The proposed rule specifically sought comments on setting
standards for application fee waivers. One hundred and nineteen
commenters responded to this solicitation. These commenters agreed that
a waiver policy and a standard waiver form were desirable. Twenty-nine
commenters suggested that a ``means test'' be used to determine if an
applicant qualifies for a fee waiver. The Service will take this
information under advisement during its ongoing review of this matter.
Presently, the Service grants case-specific fee waivers and will
continue to grant case-specific fee waivers in the future. The purpose
of the revision of the existing fee waiver regulation is to remedy the
inconsistent manner in which fee waiver requests are presently being
adjudicated nationwide. To address this situation, the Service is
presently developing interim fee waiver standards that will be
distributed to the field in the form of field guidance. The following
proposals for granting fee waivers are under review: establishment of a
``fee cap'' limiting total costs for families filing multiple
applications, consideration of whether the applicant participates in
certain means-tested public assistance programs, and consideration of
special, humanitarian circumstances. Distribution of the guidance will
coincide with the implementation of this rule. After distribution of
the field guidance, a Financial Impact Assessment will be performed to
develop a fee waiver policy that is equitable to the applicant and
feasible within the financial realities of the reimbursements needed to
fund the program. The Service plans to publish an interim rule on the
new fee waiver policy on July 1, 1999, and a final rule on the subject
on October 1, 1999.
J. Assignment of Waiver/Exempt Costs and Asylum and Refugee
(International Affairs) Surcharge
In the proposed rule, the Service highlighted the methodology used
to assign costs for waiver/exempt costs and an asylum and refugee
surcharge. The Service specifically sought comments on whether a flat
rate or a percentage should be used to assign costs related to the
surcharge applications and petitions for which the fees are waived. No
comments were received on this question. Accordingly, the Service will
continue to assign its waiver/exempt costs and surcharge as a flat
percentage of each application's or petition's processing costs.
III. Fee Adjustments
The fee adjustments, as adopted in this rule, are shown as follows:
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
[[Page 43608]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14AU98.059
BILLING CODE 4410-10-C
[[Page 43609]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving
it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Service does
acknowledge that a number of small entities, particularly those filing
business-related applications and petitions such as the Form I-129,
Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, may be affected by this rule. For FY
1998, the Service projects that approximately 254,000 Forms I-129 will
be filed. However, this volume represents petitions filed by a variety
of businesses, ranging from large multi-national corporations to small
domestic businesses. The Service does not have statistics on the number
of small businesses that may be affected by this rule. The Service
tracks the number of petitions filed; these volume statistics do not
indicate the types of businesses that file petitions, or the size of
the businesses filing the Form I-129.
The Service conducted an exhaustive review of the costs incurred
for processing the various immigration adjudication and naturalization
applications and petitions. The Service believes that, as a result of
this study, these fees reflect, as closely as possible, the full cost
of providing the specific service provided through the filing of an
application or petition. The Service conducted its review and adjusted
its fees in accordance with statutory mandates and Federal cost
accounting standards. These statutes and standards require the Service
to recover the full cost of providing services that confer a benefit
that does not accrue to the public at large. While some of the
increases are notable, it is important to note that the immigration
adjudication and naturalization fees have not been increased since July
1994; during the same period the Service had experienced a significant
increase in its costs.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 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. This rule will only affect persons who file applications or
petitions for immigration benefits. The increase in fees is necessary
to defray the higher costs of adjudicating and granting the benefits
sought. No further actions are necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is a major rule as defined by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. Based on the data included in the
proposed rule, this rule will result in an annual effect on the economy
of $231 million, in order to generate the revenue necessary to fund the
increased expenses of processing the Service's adjudication and
naturalization applications and petitions. The increased fees will be
paid by persons who file applications or petitions to obtain
immigration benefits. Copies of the cost analysis are available upon
written request to the individuals listed in the section of this
document entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
The $230,993,000 projected increase in revenues probably overstates
the actual receipt of applications and petitions because it is likely
that there will be fewer applications and petitions filed because of
the implementation of the higher fees. The decrease in volume due to
the higher fees has a real economic effect in that there will be fewer
people applying for and receiving services paid for by the Service's
user fees.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is considered by the Department of Justice to be an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, because it will
have an annual effect on the economy of $231 million. This increase in
revenue will be used to fund the processing of immigration adjudication
and naturalization applications and petitions. The revenue increase is
based on the Service's costs and workload volumes that were available
at the time of the fee study. The volume of applications and petitions
filed is projected based on a regression analysis of a 5-year history
of actual applications and petitions received by the Service. The
regression analysis is adjusted for any anticipated or actual changes
in laws, policies, or procedures that may affect future filing
patterns. The proposed fees will be paid by an estimated 4.3 million
individuals and businesses filing immigration adjudication and
naturalization applications and petitions. Accordingly, this regulation
has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review.
The $230,993,000 projected increase in revenues probably overstates
the actual receipt of applications and petitions because it is likely
that there will be fewer applications and petitions filed because of
the implementation of the higher fees. The decrease in volume due to
the higher fees has a real economic effect in that there will be fewer
people applying for and receiving services paid for by the Service's
user fees.
Executive Order 12612
The regulation adopted herein 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 Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Executive Order 12988
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements. The information collection requirements contained in this
rule were previously approved for use by OMB. The OMB control numbers
for these collections are contained in 8 CFR 299.5, Display of control
numbers.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 103
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Fees, Forms, Freedom of Information, Privacy,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Accordingly, part 103 of chapter I of title 8 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 103--POWERS AND DUTIES OF SERVICE OFFICERS; AVAILABILITY OF
SERVICE RECORDS
1. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 552(a); 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1201, 1252
note, 1252b, 1304, 1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874,
15557; 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR part 2.
2. In Sec. 103.7, paragraph (b)(1) is amended by:
(a) Removing the entry for ``Form I-485A'' from the listing of
fees; and by
[[Page 43610]]
(b) Revising the entries for the following forms listed, to read as
follows:
Sec. 103.7 Fees.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * *
Form I-17. For filing an application for school approval, except
in the case of a school or school system owned or operated as a
public educational institution or system by the United States or a
state or political subdivision thereof--$200.00.
* * * * *
Form I-90. For filing an application for Permanent Resident Card
(Form I-551) in lieu of an obsolete card or in lieu of one lost,
mutilated, or destroyed, or for a change in name--$110.00.
* * * * *
Form I-102. For filing a petition for an application (Form I-
102) for Arrival-Departure Record (Form I-94) or Crewman's Landing
(Form I-95) , in lieu of one lost, mutilated, or destroyed--$85.00.
Form I-129. For filing a petition for a nonimmigrant worker--
$110.00.
Form I-129F. For filing a petition to classify nonimmigrant as
fiancee or fiance under section 214(d) of the Act--$95.00.
Form I-129H. For filing a petition to classify nonimmigrant as
temporary worker or trainee under section 214(c) of the Act--
$110.00.
Form I-129L. Petition to employ intracompany transferee--
$110.00.
Form I-130. For filing a petition to classify status of alien
relative for issuance of immigrant visa under section 204(a) of the
Act--$110.00.
Form I-131. For filing an application for travel documents--
$95.00.
Form I-140. For filing a petition to classify preference status
of an alien on basis of profession or occupation under section
204(a) of the Act--$115.00.
* * * * *
Form I-191. For filing applications for discretionary relief
under section 212(c) of the Act--$170.00.
Form I-192. For filing an application for discretionary relief
under section 212(d)(3) of the Act, except in an emergency case, or
where the approval of the application is in the interest of the
United States Government--$170.00.
Form I-193. For filing an application for waiver of passport
and/or visa--$170.00.
Form I-212. For filing an application for permission to reapply
for an excluded, deported or removed alien, an alien who has fallen
into distress, an alien who has been removed as an alien enemy, or
an alien who has been removed at Government expense in lieu of
deportation--$170.00.
* * * * *
Form I-485. For filing application for permanent resident status
or creation of a record of lawful permanent residence--$220.00 for
an applicant 14 years of age or older; $160.00 for an applicant
under the age of 14 years; no fee for an applicant filing as a
refugee under section 209(a) of the Act.
* * * * *
Form I-526. For filing a petition for an alien entrepreneur--
$350.00.
* * * * *
Form I-539. For filing an application to extend or change
nonimmigrant status--$120.00.
* * * * *
Form I-600. For filing a petition to classify orphan as an
immediate relative for issuance of immigrant visa under section
204(a) of the Act. (When more than one petition is submitted by the
same petitioner on behalf of orphans who are brothers or sisters,
only one fee will be required.)--$405.00.
Form I-600A. For filing an application for advance processing of
orphan petition. (When more than one petition is submitted by the
same petitioner on behalf of orphans who are brothers or sisters,
only one fee will be required.)--$405.00.
Form I-601. For filing an application for waiver of ground of
inadmissability under section 212 (h) or (i) of the Act. (Only a
single application and fee shall be required when the alien is
applying simultaneously for a waiver under both those
subsections.)--$170.00.
Form I-612. For filing an application for waiver of the foreign-
residence requirement under section 212(e) of the Act--$170.00.
* * * * *
Form I-751. For filing a petition to remove the conditions on
residence, based on marriage--$125.00.
* * * * *
Form I-765. For filing an application for employment
authorization pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.13--$100.00.
* * * * *
Form I-817. For filing an application for voluntary departure
under the Family Unity Program--$120.00.
* * * * *
Form I-824. For filing for action on an approved application or
petition--$120.00.
Form I-829. For filing a petition by entrepreneur to remove
conditions--$345.00.
* * * * *
Form N-400. For filing an application for naturalization--
$225.00.
* * * * *
Form N-565. For filing an application for a certificate of
naturalization or declaration of intention in lieu of a certificate
or declaration alleged to have been lost, mutilated, or destroyed;
for a certificate of citizenship in a changed name under section
343(b) or (d) of the Act; or for a special certificate of
naturalization to obtain recognition as a citizen of the United
States by a foreign state under section 343(c) of the Act--$135.00.
Form N-600. For filing an application for a certificate of
citizenship under section 309(c) or section 341 of the Act--$160.00.
Form N-643. For filing an application for a certificate of
citizenship on behalf of an adopted child--$125.00.
* * * * *
Dated: August 12, 1998.
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 98-22003 Filed 8-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P