This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

65811

Vol. 66, No. 246

Friday, December 21, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Part 103

INS No. 2072–00; AG Order No. 2540–

2001

RIN 1115–AF61

Adjustment of Certain Fees of the

Immigration Examinations Fee

Account

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule adjusts the fee

schedule of the Immigration

Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) for

certain immigration and naturalization

applications and petitions, as well as

the fee for the fingerprinting of

applicants who apply for certain

immigration and naturalization benefits.

Fees collected from persons filing these

applications and petitions are deposited

into the IEFA and used to fund the full

cost of processing immigration and

naturalization applications and

petitions and associated support

benefits; the full cost of providing

similar benefits to asylum and refugee

applicants; and the full cost of similar

benefits provided to other immigrants,

as specified in the regulation, at no

charge. This rule ensures that the fees

will allow the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (Service) to

process applications and petitions that

it expects to receive in fiscal year (FY)

2002 and FY 2003 and to provide

funding to other programs that receive

IEFA funds.

DATES: This final rule is effective

February 19, 2002. Applications or

petitions mailed, postmarked, or

otherwise filed, on or after this date

require the new fee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Schlesinger, Chief, Immigration Services

Branch, Office of Budget, Immigration

and Naturalization Service, 425 I Street

NW., Room 5307, Washington, DC

20536, telephone (202) 314–3410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

The Service published a proposed

rule in the Federal Register on August

8, 2001, at 66 FR 41456, to adjust certain

fees of the IEFA. The fee adjustments

are necessary to comply with specific

federal immigration laws and the federal

user fee statute and corresponding

regulations and guidance, which require

federal agencies to charge a fee for

services when such services provide

special benefits to recipients that do not

accrue to the public at large. The revised

fees are calculated to recover the full

costs of providing these special benefits.

The proposed rule was published with

a 60-day comment period, which closed

on October 9, 2001. The Service

received 467 comments pertaining to

the increases to the fees of the IEFA.

The final rule implements the fee

structure as outlined in the proposed

rule, without change. Any applications

or petitions mailed, postmarked, or

otherwise filed, on or after February 19,

2002 will require the new fee.

Comments were received from a broad

spectrum of individuals and

organizations, including 5 refugee and

immigrant service organizations, 17

public policy and advocacy groups, 5

attorney organizations, 129 past and

present adopting parents, and 311

concerned citizens 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/Application for Advance

Processing of Orphan Petitions

One hundred and thirty comments

were received 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. All 130 comments received

were similar in nature. The commenters

indicated that these fees discriminated

against United States citizens who

wished to adopt abandoned children

living in orphanages around the world.

For the Service, adjudication of the I–

600 and I–600A ‘‘orphan petitions’’ has

been a priority. This commitment is

established in the regulations at 8 CFR

204.3(a)(2). Specifically, orphan

petitions are filed at District Offices and

adjudicated by senior District

Adjudication Officers. This is due to

both the complexity of the international

adoption process in general and the

process of adjudication required by law

and regulation. In addition, because of

the sensitivity of international

adoptions, handling these cases in

District Offices by experienced officers

allows for personalized customer

service.

The Service may be in constant

contact with the petitioner throughout

the process of a U.S. citizen’s effort to

adopt a child from abroad. The earliest

contact may be a request for information

and forms, followed by the filing of the

I–600A and the home study. The

adjudication of the I–600A petition

requires knowledge of state law

requirements regarding adoptions,

including pre-adoption requirements in

certain states, such as counseling. Each

petition must be accompanied by a

home study, for which there are state

requirements as well as federal

requirements. Since there is no single

national standard, it makes sense to

handle these in District Offices that are

better able to stay on top of everchanging state requirements and

establish effective local liaisons.

The home study process is complex

and often the adjudicator needs to

request that additional information be

provided in the home study. When the

child to be adopted is identified, further

information and contact may ensue.

Documentation is usually added to the

petition as the adoption process

progresses. It is not unusual for a case

to be with the Service for many months,

demanding an intense and protracted

level of customer service. There is a

great deal of communication in person,

telephonically, and in writing, between

the Service, adoption agencies, social

workers, prospective adoptive parents,

and, often, congressional offices on

these cases.

The home study review makes this

petition particularly labor-intensive.

65812 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

The adjudicator is tasked with the

careful review of the home study,

perhaps 10–20 pages long, addressing a

number of issues including, any history

of abuse and history of arrests. This

information is carefully compared

against Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) fingerprint checks. If necessary,

the officer must request and review the

arrest dispositions of petitioners with

criminal records. When there are

discrepancies, the home study must be

revised or supplemented to include the

new information and consider the

impact it has on the placement.

The I–600 petition establishes

eligibility of a child as an orphan.

Adjudication of these petitions requires

the Service to determine if the child

meets the regulatory definition of an

orphan. Accordingly, the adjudicator

must develop and maintain a level of

expertise in the laws and processes

governing adoption in countries from

which children are adopted. This

assessment may require working with

the Department of State or Service

offices to verify the validity of

documents and interpretation of laws

regarding international adoptions in

countries other than the United States.

Finally, the I–600 adjudication also

includes an I–604 investigation. The I–

604, Request for and Report on Overseas

Orphan Investigation, is used to

document the investigations that must

be completed in every orphan case

before the I–600 can be approved. This

includes: the child’s birth name, and

date/place of birth; where the child

lives, and if the child lives at an

orphanage or with someone other than

the biological parent(s), how and why

that placement occurred; the child’s

physical and mental condition, and

information about any known physical

or mental illnesses (e.g. is the child a

special needs child); if the child has

siblings and, if so, if the child lives with

the brothers or sisters; information

concerning the child’s biological parents

and the determination that the child is

an orphan because he/she has a

‘‘remaining parent’’, ‘‘sole parent’’ or

‘‘surviving parent’’ (as defined in the

regulations); and any other pertinent

facts that the investigation uncovers.

The purpose of the investigation is to

verify that the child is an orphan,

address specific concerns articulated by

the adjudicating officer or consular

officer that can only be resolved by an

investigation, and resolve significant

differences between the facts presented

in the advanced processing application

(Form I–600A or an I–600 approved by

an INS office in the United States). The

investigation is conducted at the

overseas visa-issuing post by INS, or by

the Department of State if there is no

INS office at that U.S. Embassy or

Consulate. An I–604 investigation often

entails travel to a remote location to

establish whether or not a child is

actually an orphan. In many countries,

a field investigation may require 2 or 3

days away from the office. Not every

case requires a field investigation,

however, a certain percentage of cases

must have one, if only as an auditing

tool.

Since the Service relies on fees to

recover the full cost of processing

immigration and naturalization benefits,

the increase in fees for the I–600 and I–

600A to $460 is necessary to recover the

full costs associated with processing

orphan petitions. Accordingly, the

Service will charge a fee of $460 for

processing Forms I–600 and I–600A.

B. How Will INS Improve Service?

One hundred and twenty-three

comments were received opposing the

increase in the fees given the current

level of services provided by the

Service. Many people noted the lengthy

waiting times to process their benefit

applications as well as the need to

improve overall customer service.

Although the Service has made

significant progress in improving

productivity in the areas of

naturalization and adjustment of status

applications over the last few years, the

Service continues to work toward

improving efficiencies in all aspects of

its service. At his confirmation hearing

before the Senate Judiciary Committee,

Commissioner James W. Ziglar clearly

stated his commitment to improving

customer service:

If I am confirmed for this position, my

primary goal will be to insure that every

person who comes into contact with the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(INS), regardless of their citizenship, the

circumstances of their birth or any other

distinguishing characteristic, and regardless

of the circumstances under which they find

themselves within the ambit of the INS, will

be treated with respect and dignity, and

without any hint of bias or discrimination.

The first impression is a lasting impression

and we have only one opportunity to make

a first impression—the first impression of

America should be that of a compassionate,

caring, and open nation of opportunity.

The Service is committed to building

and maintaining an immigration

services system that provides

immigration information and benefits in

a timely, accurate, consistent, courteous,

and professional manner. To support

this commitment, the Service has

developed a plan to eliminate backlogs

and obtain a 6-month processing time

standard for all applications and

petitions. The plan outlines an

aggressive 5-year strategy to reduce the

backlogs. By the end of FY 2003, the

Service expects to reach a national

average processing time of 6 months or

less for all applications and petitions.

By the end of FY 2004, the Service

intends to reduce the processing times

to 6 months or less at every Service

office. The Service will use the

remaining 2 years to continue

improving the infrastructure to ensure

that backlogs do not recur in the future.

The Service is committed to improve

the current information technology and

business processes to eliminate all

backlogs.

To achieve these results, the Service

will: (1) Set backlog reduction

milestones by application for every

office, (2) assign staffing resources to

offices based on a comprehensive

workload analysis, (3) monitor office

accomplishments of the backlog

reduction milestones, and (4) establish

performance incentives for individual

offices to meet and exceed the backlog

reduction milestones.

The Service is applying a $5

surcharge to each application and

petition to recover information

technology and quality assurance costs

associated with application processing.

These costs were not included

previously. The Service believes that

this approach will ensure the resources

necessary to support streamlined

business processes, including on-line

filing and case status inquiry via

telephone or on-line; and expand

quality assurance efforts to ensure the

accurate and consistent adjudication of

benefits.

It is also important to note that

restructuring of the Service will result

in improved services by clearly

separating its conflicting missions of

service and enforcement, clarifying its

priorities, and ensuring adequate

resources to carry out its mission.

C. Why INS Believes the Fee Increases

Are Reasonable

One hundred and forty-nine

comments stated that the fee increase

was either too high or too burdensome

on those applying for immigration and

naturalization benefits. Many

commenters noted that the Service only

recently increased the majority of fees.

The Service is increasing fees by an

average of $20 per application/petition,

or 17 percent. The current fees, which

were most recently increased in 1998,

were based on a fee review that began

in 1996 and was completed in 1997.

Those fee levels reflected costs in 1997.

Other than the $5 per application

surcharge for quality assurance and

information technology, the fee

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 65813

schedule is based solely on the recovery

of costs for general cost-of-living

increases since 1997, not from the

period in which the fees were

implemented. Bearing this in mind, the

increase in fees on an annual basis

equates to a less than 4 percent average

increase. In this context, the Service

believes the fee increases are reasonable.

With regard to the fingerprint fee, this

is the first time the fee was ever

reviewed for the purpose of full cost

recovery. As stated in the proposed rule,

Congress directed the Service to

implement changes to its fingerprint

process in a short timeframe. To the

extent that the revised fee may be

viewed by some as a significant increase

over the current fee, such an increase is

both necessary and justified in an effort

to recover the full cost of providing the

service in accordance with applicable

fee setting laws, regulations, and

guidance.

The Service does have the ability to

waive fees on a case-by-case basis. Any

applicant or petitioner who has an

inability to pay the fees may request a

fee waiver from either a District or

Service Center Director depending on

where the petition/application is to be

filed. Service regulations at 8 CFR

103.7(c) concerning the granting of fee

waivers is posted on the Service Web

site at www.ins.usdoj.gov.

D. Why INS Is Raising the Fees Instead

of Seeking Additional Sources of

Funding

Thirty-eight of the commenters

encouraged the Service to seek

additional sources of funding from

Congress instead of relying solely on

fees. From FY 1989 to FY 1998, the fees

collected and deposited into the IEFA

have been the sole source of funding for

immigration and naturalization benefits.

In creating the IEFA, Congress intended

that the activities supported by this

account be self-sustaining, and not be

funded by tax dollars (P.L. 100–459).

The Service has been managing this

account consistent with federal law and

congressional direction. In the past,

however, fees did not recover the full

costs of processing applications and

petitions. In an effort to eliminate the

backlog this created, Congress provided

additional appropriated resources. With

this support, the Service dramatically

improved productivity for

naturalization and adjustment of status

benefit applications.

The President included $100 million

in the FY 2002 budget request as the

first installment of a multi-year effort to

support elimination of backlogs and

overall improvements in service. The

funding sources for the $100 million

installment are $20 million from the

Premium Processing fee and $80 million

in appropriations. In contrast to the new

fees that will recover the full costs of

processing newly filed immigration

benefit applications, the $100 million

budget request will provide funding for

reduction and elimination of the current

backlog of immigration benefit

applications. The Service will use this

supplemental funding for the backlog

elimination plan primarily to finance

the costs of term staffing increases.

Without this additional staff, the Service

cannot process enough immigration

benefit applications to meet the

processing time goals and backlog

reduction milestones. The Service will

also use this supplemental funding to

recover the costs to develop a

performance incentives program for all

Service offices.

E. How Will INS Provide Consistent

Service?

Five of the commenters opposed

increasing fees when service varies so

greatly from office to office. The Service

recognizes the need for a consistent

level of service among offices. As

previously stated, the Service’s backlog

elimination plan includes a two-step

effort to achieve processing time goals

for all immigration benefit applications.

In the first step, the Service will reduce

national average processing times to 6

months or less by the end of FY 2003.

In the second step, the Service will

achieve the processing time goals of 6

months or less in every Service office by

the end of FY 2004. This fee schedule

will begin to bring consistency of

processing at all field offices, as well as

ensure that backlogs do not recur in the

future.

F. Why INS Believes the Fee

Methodology Captures Full Costs

Two of the commenters objected to

the methodology used to calculate the

proposed fees. Some of the commenters

felt that the activity-based costing

methodology calculated fees based upon

inefficient practices.

The fee review 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 full cost of

processing immigration and

naturalization benefits. The review was

conducted consistent with the

requirements of subsection 205(a)(8) of

the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990,

Pub. L. 101–576, 104 Stat. 2838 (1990)

(31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8)), which requires a

biennial review of user fees to ensure

that full costs are being recovered.

G. Why Do the Fees Pay for Unrelated

Expenses?

Two of the commenters opposed the

use of the applicant fees to pay for

expenses that they perceived to be for

unrelated services, such as the running

of the asylum, refugee, parole, and the

Cuban-Haitian Entrant programs. In the

Departments of Commerce, Justice, and

State, the Judiciary, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991,

Pub. L. 101–515, 104 Stat. 2101 (1990),

Congress authorized the Service to

provide certain immigration and

naturalization services at no cost to the

applicants. Subsection 210(d)(2) of

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. See H.R. Conf.

Rep. No. 104–378, at 83 (1995). 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. See Pub. L.

104–208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). 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 and naturalization benefits.

All expenses being included for cost

65814 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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.

H. Fee Increases Are Necessary

Seventeen comments were received in

favor of the fee increases. Commenters

noted several reasons for this:

(1) Current fees are too low given the

benefit received;

(2) taxpayers should not pay for the

increasing costs of providing

immigration and naturalization benefits;

(3) fee increases are justified given the

increasing demand for immigration and

naturalization benefits over the last

several years; and (4) fee increases are

necessary in order to increase the

current level of services.

I. Separate Versus Blended Fee

Schedule

In the proposed rule, the Service

requested comments on whether it

should set separate fee schedules for FY

2002 and FY 2003 versus the proposed

single, blended schedule effective for

both years. The Service also noted that

commenters might want to consider

whether changing fee schedules would

unduly confuse applicants and

petitioners.

The Service received one comment on

this subject. The commenter was in

favor of a separate year fee schedule.

The commenter noted that a separate,

single year fee schedule will allow

applicants to follow fee increases in

relation to yearly inflation figures,

making it easier to understand why fees

increased more in one year versus

another. The Service respectfully

disagrees. Upon consideration of the

issue, the Service has decided that

changing fees every year will create

unnecessary confusion with applicants

and practitioners. Therefore, the Service

will proceed with the single, blended

fee schedule.

J. Review of the Fee for LIFE Act

Adjustment of Status Applications (I–

485)

In the proposed rule, the Service

questioned whether it should change

the established $330 fee for filing

legalization applications under section

1104 of the Legal Immigration Family

Equity Act, Pub. L. 106–553, 114 Stat.

2762 (2000) (LIFE Act). In establishing

the fee, on an interim final basis on June

1, 2001, the Service first identified the

adjustment of status application (Form

I–485) process as most similar to the

new legalization application process. 66

FR 29661, 29667 (June 1, 2001). The

Service then referred to the 1999 fee

review, which identified an estimated

full cost of the Form I–485 to be $330.

Id. at 29,668.

The Service questioned the

methodology and limited nature of the

1999 fee review and proposed that the

Form I–485 fee be $255. Id. The Service

then said it would review the $330 fee

established for filing legalization

applications. Id.

Although no comments were received

on this subject, the Service has reviewed

the Form I–485 fee for legalization

applications and has deemed it fair and

reasonable to reduce the fee from $330

to $255, and refund the difference to

those who have already paid the $330

fee. The Service will undertake a

separate rulemaking to notify the public

of the timing for this action.

III. Fee Adjustments

The fee adjustments, as adopted in

this rule, are shown as follows:

IMMIGRATION EXAMINATIONS FEE ACCOUNT/FEE SCHEDULE

Form No. Description Fee

I–17 ............................ Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Non-Immigrant Students .............................................. $230

I–90 ............................ Application to Replace Alien Registration Card .......................................................................................... 130

I–102 .......................... Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival/Departure Document ......................................... 100

I–129 .......................... Petitions for Nonimmigrant Worker ............................................................................................................. 130

I–129F ....................... Petition to Classify Nonimmigrant as Fiance ́ .............................................................................................. 110

I–130 .......................... Petition to Classify Status of Alien Relative for Issuance of Immigrant Visa ............................................. 130

I–131 .......................... Application for Travel Document ................................................................................................................. 110

I–140 .......................... Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker ............................................................................................................ 135

I–191 .......................... Application for Advance Permission to Return to Unrelinquished Domicile ............................................... 195

I–192 .......................... Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant .............................................................. 195

I–193 .......................... Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa .......................................................................................... 195

I–212 .......................... Application to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. After Deportation ........................................................ 195

I–360 .......................... Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant ........................................................................... 130

I–485 .......................... Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status ................................................................. 255

I–506 .......................... Application for Change of Nonimmigrant Classification .............................................................................. 85

I–526 .......................... Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur ................................................................................................... 400

I–539 .......................... Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status .................................................................................. 140

I–600/600A ................ Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative/Application for Advance Processing of Orphan

Petition.

460

I–601 .......................... Application for Waiver on Grounds of Excludability .................................................................................... 195

I–612 .......................... Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement .................................................................. 195

I–751 .......................... Petition to Remove the Conditions on Residence ...................................................................................... 145

I–765 .......................... Application for Employment Authorization ................................................................................................... 120

I–817 .......................... Application for Voluntary Departure under the Family Unity Program ........................................................ 140

I–824 .......................... Application for Action on an Approved Application ..................................................................................... 140

I–829 .......................... Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions ......................................................................................... 395

N–300 ........................ Application to File Declaration of Intention .................................................................................................. 60

N–336 ........................ Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Procedures .............................................................. 195

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 65815

IMMIGRATION EXAMINATIONS FEE ACCOUNT/FEE SCHEDULE—Continued

Form No. Description Fee

N–400 ........................ Application for Naturalization ....................................................................................................................... 260

N–470 ........................ Application to Preserve Residence for ........................................................................................................ 95

N–565 ........................ Application for Replacement of Naturalization/Citizenship Document ........................................................ 155

N–600 ........................ Application for Certification of Citizenship ................................................................................................... 185

N–643 ........................ Application for Certification of Citizenship in Behalf of an Adopted Child .................................................. 145

For Fingerprinting by the Service ................................................................................................................ 50

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Attorney General, in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this

regulation and by approving it has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The majority of applications and

petitions are submitted by individuals

and not small entities as that term is

defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The Service

acknowledges, however, that a number

of small entities, particularly those

filing business-related applications and

petitions, such as Forms I–140,

Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker; I–

526, Immigrant Petition by Alien

Entrepreneur; and I–829, Petition by

Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions

may be affected by this rule. For FY

2001, the Service projects

approximately 130,000 Forms I–140,

400 Forms I–526, and 400 Forms I–829

will be filed. However, this volume

represents petitions filed by a variety of

businesses, ranging from large multinational corporations to small domestic

businesses. The Service does not collect

data on the size of the businesses filing

petitions, and therefore does not know

the number of small businesses that may

be affected by this rule. Even if all of the

employers applying for benefits met the

definition of small businesses, the

resulting degree of economic impact

would not require a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis to be performed.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not impose a mandate

of enforceable duty on State, local, and

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

on the private sector, and it will not

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Accordingly, 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, Public Law

104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). Based on

the data included in the proposed rule,

this rule will result in an annual effect

on the economy of $169 million, in

order to generate the revenue necessary

to fund the increased expenses of

processing the Service’s immigration

and naturalization applications and

petitions. The increased fees will be

paid by persons who file applications or

petitions to obtain immigration benefits.

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 over $100

million. Without the fee adjustments,

the Service estimates that it will collect

approximately $815 million in fees for

immigration and naturalization benefits

in FY 2002. If the fee adjustments

become effective on January 1, 2002, the

Service anticipates collecting

approximately $942 million in FY

2002—$127 million in additional

revenue.

The projected increase in revenues

may overstate the actual receipt of

applications and petitions since fewer

applications and petitions may be filed

due to the implementation of the higher

fees. The decrease in volume due to the

higher fees has a real economic effect in

that there may be fewer people applying

for and receiving benefits paid for by the

Service’s user fees.

This increase in revenue will be used

to fund the processing of immigration

and naturalization applications and

petitions. The revenue increase is based

on the Service’s costs and workload

volumes. 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 6.6 million individuals

and businesses filing immigration and

naturalization applications and

petitions. Accordingly, this regulation

has been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

Executive Order 13132

This rule 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 has

determined that this rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a federalism

summary impact statement.

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

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995, Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat.

163 (1995), all Departments are required

to submit to OMB, for review and

approval, any reporting or

recordkeeping requirements inherent in

a final rule. This rule does not impose

any new reporting or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

However, it should be noted that the

Service solicited public comments on

the change of fees in the proposed rule

which was published in the Federal

Register on August 8, 2001. It should

also be noted that the changes to the

fees will require changes to the

application/petition forms to reflect the

new fees. As a result of the changes to

the forms, the Service will be submitting

the forms to OMB for its approval.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 103

Administrative practice and

procedure, Authority delegations

(Government agencies), 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:

65816 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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, 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 § 103.7, paragraph (b)(1) is

amended by revising the entry ‘‘For

fingerprinting by the Service’’ and by

revising the entries for the following

forms. The revisions read as follows:

§ 103.7 Fees.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

* * * * *

For fingerprinting by the Service. A service

fee of $50 will be charged by the Service for

any individual who is required to be

fingerprinted in connection with an

application or petition for certain

immigration and naturalization benefits

(other than asylum), and whose residence is

in the United States as defined in section

101(a)(38) of the Act.

* * * * *

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—$230.00.

* * * * *

Form I–90. For filing an application for a

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—$130.00.

* * * * *

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—$100.00.

Form I–129. For filing a petition for a

nonimmigrant worker, a base fee of $130. For

filing an H–1B petition, a base fee of $130

plus an additional $1,000 fee in a single

remittance of $1,130. The remittance may be

in the form of one or two checks (one in the

amount of $1,000 and the other in the

amount of $130). Payment of this additional

$1,000 fee is not waivable under

§ 103.7(c)(1). Payment of this additional

$1,000 fee is not required if an organization

is exempt under § 214.2(h)(19)(iii) of this

chapter, and this additional $1,000 fee also

does not apply to certain filings by any

employer as provided in § 214.2(h)(19)(v) of

this chapter.

Form I–129F. For filing a petition to

classify nonimmigrant as fiance ́e or fiance ́

under section 214(d) of the Act—$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—$130.00.

Form I–131. For filing an application for

travel documents—$110.00.

Form I–140. For filing a petition to classify

preference status of an alien on the basis of

profession or occupation under section

204(a) of the Act—$135.00.

* * * * *

Form I–191. For filing applications for

discretionary relief under section 212(c) of

the Act—$195.00.

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—$195.00.

Form I–193. For filing an application for

waiver of passport and/or visa—$195.00.

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—$195.00.

* * * * *

Form I–360. For filing a petition for an

Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special

Immigrant—$130.00, except there is no fee

for a petition seeking classification as an

Amerasian.

Form I–485. For filing an application for

permanent resident status or creation of a

record of lawful permanent residence—

$255.00 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–506. For filing an application for

change of nonimmigrant classification under

section 248 of the Act—$85.00.

Form I–526. For filing a petition for an

alien entrepreneur—$400.00.

* * * * *

Form I–539. For filing an application to

extend or change nonimmigrant status—

$140.00.

* * * * *

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.)—$460.00.

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.)—$460.00.

Form I–601. For filing an application for

waiver of ground of inadmissibility 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.)—

$195.00.

Form I–612. For filing an application for

waiver of the foreign-residence requirement

under section 212(e) of the Act—$195.00.

* * * * *

Form I–751. For filing a petition to remove

the conditions on residence, based on

marriage—$145.00.

Form I–765. For filing an application for

employment authorization pursuant to 8 CFR

274a.13—$120.00.

* * * * *

Form I–817. For filing an application for

voluntary departure under the Family Unity

Program—$140.00.

* * * * *

Form I–824. For filing for action on an

approved application or petition—$140.00.

Form I–829. For filing a petition by

entrepreneur to remove conditions—$395.00.

* * * * *

Form N–300. For filing an application for

declaration of intention—$60.00.

Form N–336. For filing a request for

hearing on a decision in naturalization

proceedings under section 366 of the Act—

$195.00.

Form N–400. For filing an application for

naturalization—$260.00.

* * * * *

Form N–470. For filing an application for

section 316(b) or 317 of the Act benefits—

$95.00.

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(c) 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(b) of the Act—$155.00.

Form N–600. For filing an application for

a certificate of citizenship under section

309(c) or section 341 of the Act—$185.00.

Form N–643. For filing an application for

a certificate of citizenship on behalf of an

adopted child—$145.00.

* * * * *

Dated: December 17, 2001.

John Ashcroft,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 01–31452 Filed 12–18–01; 12:09

pm]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 201

[Regulation A]

Extensions of Credit by Federal

Reserve Banks; Change in Discount

Rate

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors has

amended its Regulation A, Extensions of

Credit by Federal Reserve Banks to

reflect its approval of a decrease in the

basic discount rate at each Federal