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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Part 103

[INS No. 1933-98; AG Order No. 2282-99]

RIN 1115-AF10

Adjustment of Small Volume Application Fees of the Immigration

Examinations Fee Account

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends 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: This final rule is effective January 14, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Schlesinger, Branch Chief, Fee

Policy and Rate Setting Branch, Office of Budget, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, on (202) 616-2754, 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 (Pub. L. 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

(Pub. L. 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 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701

(Pub. L. 82-137), 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), Pub. L. 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).

Did the Service Publish a Proposed Rule To Adjust the Fees?

Yes. On May 17, 1999, the Service published a proposed rule in the

Federal Register at 64 FR 26698, which proposed to adjust the fee

schedule of the IEFA for certain small volume immigration adjudication

and naturalization applications and petitions (Forms I-360, N-300, N-

336, and N-470). The public was provided with a 60-day comment period

which ended on July 16, 1999. The Service did not receive any comments

on the proposed rule.

Accordingly, the fees for the following forms will be adjusted as

follows:

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

Form Old Fee New Fee

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

I-360............................................. $80.00 $110.00

N300.............................................. 75.00 50.00

N-336............................................. 110.00 170.00

N-470............................................. 115.00 80.00

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

The following is a discussion of the standards and guidelines that

were used to determine the fee adjustments.

[[Page 69884]]

What Federal Cost Accounting and Fee Setting Standards and

Guidelines Were 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 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. 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

imputed rents on land, buildings, and equipment;

* 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 consume resources.

Table 1 provides the small volume applications that are the subject of

this final 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

Because 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.

[[Page 69885]]

Table 2.--Small Volume Application Resources Deducted From the Phase I

IEFA Cost Model

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

Phase I

projected Projected

Form number FY 1998 Current fee resources

volume

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

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

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

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 assigning resources to the program

areas.

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 Applications

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

projected

Small volume form Description 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

[[Page 69886]]

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'' 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, a contact

person was obtained 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 his or her

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

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

[[Page 69887]]

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.

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.................................................. 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66

Input Application Data...................................... 7.00 1.02 .00 ...........

Manage Records.............................................. 6.78 20.42 8.83 8.17

Adjudicate Applications..................................... 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 volume 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 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 increasing two and decreasing two of the small

volume fees associated with this study. Table 6 identifies the fees to

be increased as well as the fees to be decreased. The fee has been

rounded to the nearest whole $5 amount.

Table 6.--Small Volume Application Fee Schedule Adjustments

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

Proposed

Form Description Total cost Current fee fee

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

I-360............................. Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or $109.86 $80.00 $110.00

Special Immigrant.

N-300............................. Application to File Declaration of 50.77 75.00 50.00

Intention.

N-336............................. Request for Hearing on a Decision in 169.26 110.00 170.00

Naturalization Procedures.

N-470............................. Application to Preserve Residence for 79.07 115.00 80.00

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 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, or $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-

[[Page 69888]]

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 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 fee adjustments, the Service

will collect approximately $1.8 million. The implementation of this

rule will provide the Service with an additional $.5 million in revenue

over the revenue that would be collected under the old fee structure.

This revenue increase is a recovery of costs based on workload volumes

required to process these applications.

Executive Order 13132

This regulation 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 section 6

of Executive Order 13132, the Department of Justice has determined that

this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant

the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

This 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 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, 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 a 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: December 8, 1999.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 99-32485 Filed 12-14-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-10-M