[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
