[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