Adjustment of Certain Fees of the Immigration Examinations Fee Account

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