[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 94 (Monday, May 17, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26698-26703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12375]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 94 / Monday, May 17, 1999 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 26698]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Part 103

[INS No. 1933-98; AG Order No. 2223-99]
RIN 1115-AE42


Adjustment of Small Volume Application Fees of the Immigration 
Examinations Fee Account

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to adjust the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service's (Service) fee schedule of the Immigration 
Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) for certain small volume immigration 
adjudication and naturalization applications and petitions (Forms I-
360, N-300, N-336, and N-470). 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 
applications and petitions and associated support services. The Service 
has determined that the current fees for these four small volume 
applications and petitions need to be adjusted. Of the four small 
volume applications and petitions, the fees for two are being increased 
and two are being decreased. This rule is necessary to ensure that the 
fees charged accurately reflect the cost of processing immigration 
adjudication and naturalization applications and petitions.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before July 16, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments, in triplicate, to the 
Director, Policy Directives and Instructions Branch, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, 425 I Street, NW., Room 5307, Washington, DC 
20536. To ensure proper handling, please reference INS Number 1933-98 
on your correspondence. Comments are available for public inspection at 
the above address by calling (202) 514-3291 to arrange for an 
appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles J. Yaple, Senior Staff 
Accountant, Fee Policy and Rate Setting Branch, Office of Budget, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, on (202) 616-2754, or in 
writing at 425 I Street, NW., Room 6240, Washington, DC 20536.
    Detailed documentation of the rate-setting process is available 
upon request by calling (202) 616-2754.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Legal Authority Does the Service Have To Charge Fees?

1. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
Related Agencies Appropriation Acts of 1989 and 1991

    The Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1989 (Public Law 100-459) 
authorized the Service to prescribe and collect fees to recover the 
cost of providing certain immigration adjudication and naturalization 
services. Public Law 100-459 also authorized the establishment of the 
IEFA in the Treasury of the United States. All revenue from fees 
collected for the provision of immigration adjudication and 
naturalization services are deposited in the IEFA and ``remain 
available until expended to the Attorney General to reimburse any 
appropriation the amount paid out of such appropriation for expenses in 
providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services and the 
collection, safeguarding and accounting for fees * * *.'' 8 U.S.C. 
1356(n).
    In subsequent legislation, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Acts, 
1991, (Public Law 101-515), Congress further provided 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).

2. The Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952

    The Service also employs the authority granted through the 
Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952, Pub. L. 82-137 (IOAA) 31 
U.S.C. 9701, commonly referred to as the ``user fee statute,'' to 
develop its fees. The user fee statute directs Federal agencies to 
identify services provided to unique segments of the population and to 
charge fees for those services, rather than supporting such services 
through general tax revenues. The IOAA states that ``[i]t is the sense 
of Congress that each service or thing of value provided by an agency * 
* * to a person * * * is to be self-sustaining to the extent 
possible.'' 31 U.S.C. 9701(a). The IOAA further provides that charges 
for such services or things of value should be based on ``the costs to 
the Government; the value of the service or thing to the recipient; the 
public policy or interest served; and other relevant facts.'' 31 U.S.C. 
9701(b).

3. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990

    The Service must also conform to the requirements of the Chief 
Financial Officers Act of 1990 (``CFO Act''), Public Law 101-576. 
Section 205(a)(8) of the CFO Act requires each agency's Chief Financial 
Officer to ``review, on a biennial basis, the fee, royalties, rents, 
and other charges imposed by the agency for services and things of 
value it provides, and make recommendations on revising those charges 
to reflect costs incurred by it in providing those services and things 
of value.'' 31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8).

What Federal Cost Accounting and Fee Setting Standards and 
Guidelines Are Being Used?

1. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-25, User 
Charges

    When developing fees for services, the Service adheres to the 
principles contained in OMB Circular Number A-25, User Charges. OMB 
Circular A-25 states that, as a general policy, a ``user charge * * * 
will be assessed against each identifiable recipient for special 
benefits derived from Federal activities beyond those received by the 
general public.''
    The guidance contained in OMB Circular A-25 is applicable to the 
extent that it is not inconsistent with any

[[Page 26699]]

Federal statute. Specific legislative authority to charge fees for 
services takes precedence over OMB Circular A-25 when the statute 
expressly designates ``who pays the charge; how much is the charge; 
[or] where collections are deposited.'' When a statute does not address 
issues of how to calculate fees or what costs to include in the fee 
calculation, Federal agencies must follow the principles and guidance 
contained in OMB Circular A-25 to the fullest extent allowable. The 
guidance directs Federal agencies to charge the ``full cost'' of 
providing services when calculating fees that provide a specific 
benefit to recipients. The OMB Circular A-25 defines full cost as ``all 
direct and indirect costs to any part of the Federal Government of 
providing a good, resource, or service.'' These costs include, but are 
not limited to, an appropriate share of:
     Direct and indirect personnel costs, including salaries 
and fringe benefits such as medical insurance and retirement;
     Physical overhead, consulting, and other indirect costs 
including material and supply costs, utilities, insurance, travel and 
rents or inputed rents on land, buildings, and equipment;
     The management and supervisory costs; and
     The costs of enforcement, collection, research, 
establishment of standards, and regulation.

2. Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement of Federal 
Financial Accounting Standards No. 4: Managerial Cost Accounting 
Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government

    When developing fees for services, the Service also adheres to the 
cost accounting concepts and standards recommended by the Federal 
Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). The FASAB was established 
in 1990, and its purpose is to recommend accounting standards for the 
Federal Government. In developing its recommendations, the FASAB 
considers the financial and budgetary information requirements of the 
Congress, executive agencies, and other users of Federal financial 
information.

How Did the Service Determine the Full Cost of Processing 
Immigration Adjudication and Naturalization Applications?

1. Phase I--Large Volume Applications/Petitions

    The Service conducted a review of the IEFA in two phases to 
determine the full cost of processing immigration adjudication and 
naturalization applications. Phase I sought to develop a more 
consistent and reliable cost accounting methodology focusing on 30 
large volume applications and petitions (volumes in excess of 10,000 
per year). This resulted in a proposed rule, which detailed the 
Activity Based Costing (ABC) approach and methodology used, and 
proposed adjusted fees for 30 immigration adjudication and 
naturalization petitions based on the determination of the full cost to 
the Service to perform the required activities. The proposed rule was 
published in the Federal Register on January 12, 1998, at 63 FR 1775. 
The final rule was published in the Federal Register on August 14, 
1998, at 63 FR 43604.

2. Phase II--Small Volume Applications/Petitions

    In a continuing effort to refine and build upon the methodology and 
results of the first study, the Service implemented Phase II of the 
IEFA fee study. The primary objective was to add more precision to the 
cost model for certain small volume applications. For the purposes of 
the IEFA studies, small volume applications were defined as those 
applications and petitions that have annual volumes of less than 10,000 
application and petition receipts. The Service selected the ABC 
approach because it is an operationally-based technique that focuses on 
work activities performed that produce an output and consumes 
resources. Table 1 provides the small volume applications that are the 
subject of this proposed rule.

                   Table 1.--Small Volume Applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Form                              Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-360...............................  Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er),
                                       or Special Immigrant.
N-300...............................  Application to File Declaration of
                                       Intention.
N-336...............................  Request for Hearing on a Decision
                                       in Naturalization Procedures.
N-470...............................  Application to Preserve Residence
                                       for Naturalization Purposes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Processes Were Used To Determine the Adjustment of Fees?

1. Scope of Small Volume Application Review

    One of the primary objectives of the IEFA Study was to evaluate the 
small volume applications and include the applications in the IEFA cost 
model. The small volume application evaluation and analysis included: 
(1) incorporating small volume application expenses deducted from the 
IEFA budget base; and (2) assigning activity processing model 
activities to the small volume applications.

2. Small Volume Applications Resources

    Since small volume applications were not included in the Phase I 
IEFA Study, amounts representing the imputed cost of the small volume 
applications were deducted from the budget base. For the purposes of 
the Phase I IEFA Study, it was assumed that the cost of processing a 
small volume application was equal to the fee in effect at the time. As 
a result, the small volume application fees were multiplied by the 
projected FY 1998 small volume application workload volume to identify 
the projected revenue to deduct from the budget base. Table 2 provides 
the small volume application resources deducted from the Phase I IEFA 
Study cost model.

             Table 2.--Small Volume Application Resources Deducted From the Phase I IEFA Cost Model
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Phase I
                            Form No.                               projected FY     Current fee      Projected
                                                                    1998 volume                      resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-360...........................................................           8,196          $80.00        $655,680
N-300...........................................................             991           75.00          74,325
N-336...........................................................           3,956          110.00         435,160
N-470...........................................................             423          115.00          48,645
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total of small volume applications..........................  ..............  ..............       1,213,810
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26700]]

    The $1.2 million in projected resources for processing small volume 
applications was deducted from the budget base of each IEFA funded 
program involved in processing these applications. The amount deducted 
from each program was based on the percentage of full time equivalents 
(FTEs) represented by the program in proportion to the total FTEs of 
the programs combined. The inclusion of small volume applications in 
the Phase II IEFA Study required incorporating the $1.2 million small 
volume application resources deducted during the Phase I IEFA Study.
    The small volume application resources were assigned to the program 
areas from which the resources were deducted in the Phase I IEFA Study. 
After the small volume application resources were assigned to the 
respective program areas, the resources were assigned to the 
Application Processing Model (APM) activities based on the results of 
the Phase I IEFA Study FTE surveys for each program area. The APM is a 
narrative and graphical representation (i.e., a map or flowchart of the 
activities, worksteps, or tasks) of an application process. The APM was 
developed to show the activities involved in processing applications 
and to serve as the primary basis for associating resources with cost 
objects (applications). The APM enabled the study team to link the 
resources required by the Service to perform its processing activities 
with the applications.

3. Assigning Activities to Small Volume Applications

    With the small volume expenses included in the Phase II cost model, 
the next step was to assign the activities to these applications. Small 
volume applications are processed in the same manner as other IEFA 
funded applications. Therefore, the activities identified in the Phase 
I IEFA Study APM were used to evaluate the small volume applications. 
To ensure consistency with the Phase I study, the same methodology and 
approach was used to assign activities to applications.
    In the Phase I study, the nine primary activities were assigned to 
the immigration adjudication and naturalization applications and 
petitions based on the percentage of projected workload volume for the 
application or petition. These assignments were then weighted by the 
time required to perform each activity (cycle time) for each 
application or petition. The percentage of weighted volume represented 
by an application determines the percentage of activity cost assigned 
to the application. Including the small volume applications in the 
Phase II IEFA cost model required identifying the FY 1998 workload 
projections, and determining the time required to perform each small 
volume application activity. Once these data elements were identified, 
the percentage of activity costs applicable to the small volume 
applications was calculated.

4. Small Volume Application Volumes

    The first step in assigning the APM activities to small volume 
applications was to identify the projected FY 1998 workload volumes for 
the applications. The volumes in Table 3 represent the most recent 
workload projections developed by the Service and used in the fee 
study.

         Table 3.--Projected Annual Application Workload Volumes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Phase II
    Small volume form             Description           projected annual
                                                             volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-360...................  Petition for Amerasian,                  8,919
                           Widow(er), or Special
                           Immigrant.
N-300...................  Application to File                      1,015
                           Declaration of Intention.
N-336...................  Request for Hearing on a                 4,500
                           Decision in Naturalization
                           Procedures.
N-470...................  Application to Preserve                    382
                           Residence for
                           Naturalization Purpose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Small Volume Application Data Gathering Approach

    Once the small volume application business volumes were identified, 
the next step was to determine the activity cycle times for each 
application. In the Phase I IEFA Study, applications and petitions 
activity cycle times were identified by performing statistical sampling 
and observation at various service centers and district offices. The 
Phase I study cycle time collection relied on observing enough 
application activity combinations to ensure statistical validity.
    Small volume applications by definition are not processed in the 
same volume as other IEFA applications. The service centers and 
district offices do not process enough small volume applications to 
ensure that personal observations could be performed during site 
visits. As a result, the Phase II study determined that observing 
enough small volume application and activity combinations to ensure 
statistical validity could not be performed in a timely or cost 
effective manner.
    The study determined that the best approach to identify small 
volume application activity cycle times would be to conduct telephone 
interviews with highly experienced Service personnel involved in 
processing small volume applications. The highly experienced Service 
personnel identified were from different geographical locations. The 
objective of each telephone interview was to identify the activities 
and tasks required to process each small volume application and to 
identify the estimated time required to perform the activity or task.

6. Telephone Interview Preparation

    Prior to conducting each telephone interview, procedures were 
developed for conducting the interview. The following steps were 
performed prior to the interview:
    Step 1. In this step, the contact person was provided with a 
description of the fee study and the APM definitions, and asked to 
review the APM, identifying the areas of the APM that applied to their 
application. The contact person was requested to identify any questions 
they had on the activities and tasks listed on the APM.
    Step 2. This step consisted of a discussion, after the initial 
review by the contact person, of any questions that he/she had on the 
APM. It was important that the contact person and the interviewer have 
the same understanding of the APM prior to asking timing questions. The 
contact person was asked to determine if there were any activities or 
tasks for the application not listed in the APM.
    Step 3. Preparation for this step involved a discussion of the 
application processing activities, including the ``unique'' and 
``common'' activities. A determination was made on whether the small 
volume application was processed the same as other applications for 
``common'' activities. It was made clear that the interviewee had to 
understand the terms ``unique'' and ``common''

[[Page 26701]]

before discussing application cycle times.
    Step 4. This phase involved determining whether an activity was 
``unique,'' and making a listing of all tasks the contact person 
completes in the processing of the application. If the contact person 
does not list a particular task under an activity, the person must 
ascertain whether the task is either not done for that activity, or 
processed by another person. If processed by another person, obtain a 
contact person for that particular activity.
    Step 5. This step was performed after the first four initial steps 
and involved the timing interview, which consisted of the following 
steps:
    (1) For each task listed, ask the contact person how long it takes 
on average to complete the task;
    (2) Ask the contact person how long they have worked for the 
Service, and how much experience the contact person has with their 
application;
    (3) Determine when the contact person last worked on adjudicating 
the application;
    (4) Ask the contact person if there are any circumstances that 
would make processing of the application different at other Service 
offices;
    (5) Determine the volume of applications processed at the contact 
person's location; and
    (6) Determine if the contact person is aware of any changes to the 
form that may affect its processing time.

7. Cycle Time Collection

    After the telephone interview procedures were conducted, the 
Service collected cycle time estimates from the small volume 
application interviewees. Cycle time estimates were provided by the 
interviewee for each ``unique'' task performed in processing the small 
volume application. The interviewee also identified each ``common'' 
task performed in processing the small volume application. Common 
activity and task cycle times were collected in the Phase I IEFA Study, 
and represent the time required to perform an activity or task 
regardless of the type of application. For example, opening the mail is 
one of the tasks performed within the common activity ``Receive 
Application or Petition.'' The activity and task are common because 
they require the same amount of time to perform regardless of the type 
of application in the envelope.
    The results of the telephone interviews were compiled to determine 
the cycle time required to perform each activity and task for an 
application. Each small volume application cycle time estimate 
identified in the telephone interview was weighted by the volume of the 
application processed at the location of the interviewee. As a result, 
the response of interviewees at locations processing higher quantities 
of an application were weighted more than the results from locations 
that process fewer volumes. The weighted cycle times for each location 
were then summed and divided by the total applications processed at all 
locations. The result was the normalized cycle time to perform each 
small volume activity.
    In addition to performing interviews, the study team collected Form 
I-360 adjudication cycle times at the Nebraska Service Center (NSC). 
The study team collected cycle times by making personal observations of 
the time required to adjudicate the Form I-360. These procedures 
consisted of the following data collection assumptions:
    (1) Selection of persons to be observed would be on a random basis;
    (2) All applications received by the Service are in random order, 
therefore, the observation of applications processing on a first-in, 
first-out basis would maintain this randomness;
    (3) Site visit team members would not be restricted in their 
observations by site personnel; and
    (4) All site visit team members would have similar equipment and 
training.
    The Form I-360 adjudication cycle times were weighted by the volume 
of the applications processed at the NSC. These results were combined 
with the Vermont Service Center Form I-360 telephone interview 
estimates to determine the cycle time to process each activity and task 
for the Form I-360. The cycle time estimates to perform each small 
volume application activity in minutes and fractions are provided in 
Table 4.

                            Table 4.--Small Volume Application Cycle Times (Minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Activity                               I-360        N-300        N-336        N-470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receive.....................................................         4.71         2.24          .89          .89
Record Fee..................................................         1.40         1.40         1.40         1.40
Input Application Data......................................         4.68          .95          N/A          N/A
Manage Records..............................................         5.65        13.93         6.02         5.57
Adjudicate Applications.....................................        49.06         7.90        77.48        26.16
Prepare Outgoing............................................         1.67          .65         1.83         3.35
Issue End Product...........................................          N/A         9.25         7.42          N/A
Respond to Inquiry..........................................         7.68          N/A         2.73         9.87
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................        74.85        36.32        97.77        47.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Small Volume Application Costs

    The final step in performing the small volume application analysis 
was to calculate the cost to process each application. With the APM 
activities assigned to small volume applications based on projected FY 
1998 workload volumes weighted by application activity cycle times, the 
study team determined the total annual cost to process each small 
volume application. The total small volume application activity costs 
were divided by the projected FY 1998 workload volumes to determine a 
unit cost for each small volume application activity. The sum of the 
small volume application activity costs is the total unit cost to 
process the small volume application. (The unit cost per application 
identifies the cost required to produce one unit, e.g., one 
application, based on the activities consumed in producing that unit/
application.) Table 5 provides the FY 1998 activity unit cost and total 
unit cost to process each small volume application.

[[Page 26702]]



                              Table 5.--Small Volume Application FY 1998 Unit Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Activity                           I-360           N-300           N-336           N-470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receive.........................................           $3.78           $1.10            $.44            $.44
Record Fee......................................            1.69            1.66            1.66            1.66
Input Application Data..........................            7.00            1.02             .00             .00
Manage Records..................................            6.75           20.42            8.83            8.17
Adjudicate Application..........................           75.34           14.02          137.50           46.42
Prepare Outgoing................................            4.35            1.61            4.54            8.31
Issue End Product...............................             .00           10.94           12.40             .00
Respond to Inquiry..............................           10.95             .00            3.89           14.07
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total FY 1998 Unit Cost.....................          109.86           50.77          169.26           79.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Service is authorized to set the immigration and naturalization 
fees at a level that will recover the costs of providing all 
immigration adjudication and naturalization services ``including the 
costs of similar services provided without charge to asylum applicants 
or other immigrants.'' 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). In addition, the fees must be 
set sufficiently high enough to recover the costs of fee waivers that 
are granted. However, because of the small volumes associated with 
these applications, the amount derived from the calculation to 
determine waiver/exempt costs and the asylum and refugee surcharge was 
so insignificant that it has not been included as part of the costs for 
these applications.

What Are Our Conclusions and Proposed Fee Adjustments?

    The objectives of the small volume application analysis were to 
determine the full cost of processing the applications and to include 
the applications in the IEFA cost model. The small volume application 
analysis was performed in accordance with the methodology implemented 
in the Phase I IEFA Study. The analysis required incorporating small 
volume application revenues into the IEFA cost model that were deducted 
during the Phase I IEFA Study, and identifying and quantifying drivers 
to assign the APM activities to the small volume applications. The unit 
costs identified in Table 5 represent the Service's cost to process 
each small volume application.
    The Service is proposing to increase two and decrease two of the 
small volume fees associated with this study. Table 6 identifies the 
proposed fees to be increased as well as the fees to be decreased. The 
proposed fee has been rounded to the nearest whole $5 amount.

                      Table 6.--Small Volume Application Proposed Fee Schedule Adjustments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Form                         Description               Total cost      Current fee    Proposed fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-360........................  Petition for Amerasian,                   $109.86          $80.00         $110.00
                                Widow(er), or Special Immigrant.
N-300........................  Application to File Declaration             50.77           75.00           50.00
                                of Intention.
N-336........................  Request for Hearing on a Decision          169.26          110.00          170.00
                                in Naturalization Procedures.
N-470........................  Application to Preserve Residence           79.07          115.00           80.00
                                for Naturalization Purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Attorney General, in accordance with 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. Of the four applications or petitions covered under 
this proposed rule, only two of the fees are being increased and the 
other two fees are being decreased. In addition, small volume 
applications refer to fewer than 10,000 applications per year. Total 
projected revenues for all four applications or petitions for FY 1998 
amounts to $1,827,400. Normally, these applications and petitions would 
generally be filed by individuals as opposed to small businesses.

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. This rule will only affect persons 
who file certain applications or petitions for immigration benefits. 
Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 
804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based 
companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and 
export markets.

Executive Order 12866

    This rule is not considered by the Department of Justice to be a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 
3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, because it will have an annual 
effect on the economy of less than $100 million. Without the proposed 
increases/decreases, the Service estimates that it will collect $1.3 
million in fees for immigration and adjudication services for these 
four small volume applications in FY 1998. With the proposed fee 
adjustments, the Service will collect approximately $1.8 million. The 
implementation of this proposed rule will provide the Service with an 
additional $.5 million in revenue over the revenue that would be 
collected under the current fee structure. This revenue increase is a 
recovery of costs based on workload volumes required to process these 
applications.

[[Page 26703]]

Executive Order 12612

    The regulations proposed 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: Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

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 proposed to be 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 revising the 
entries for the following forms listed, to read as follows:


Sec. 103.7  Fees.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
* * * * *
    Form I-360. For filing a petition for an Amerasian, Widow(er), or 
Special Immigrant--$110.00, except there is no fee for a petition 
seeking classification as an Amerasian.
* * * * *
    Form N-300. For filing an application for declaration of 
intention--$50.00.
    Form N-336. For filing request for hearing on a decision in 
naturalization proceedings under section 336 of the Act--$170.00.
* * * * *
    Form N-470. For filing an application for section 316(b) or 317 
of the Act benefits--$80.00.
* * * * *
    Dated: May 11, 1999.
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 99-12375 Filed 5-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P