FR 2021-00644

The document from the Federal Register titled "Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Request for Reduced Fee," details the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) announcement of an extension for public comments on a request for information collection related to immigration fees. This extension of the comment period is necessary due to ongoing legal proceedings that temporarily halted changes to the fee schedule, including the proposed removal of the form used for requesting reduced fees.

General Summary

The USCIS, a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is seeking public input on its information collection process, specifically related to reduced fees for immigration benefits, until February 16, 2021. This extension allows the public more time to review and comment on the necessity and impact of collecting such information. The form in question, I-942, is used to determine eligibility for reduced fees, aiming to assist those who might find the standard fees burdensome.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues stand out within this document. First, the use of legal and technical language may make the notice challenging for the general public to comprehend fully, potentially stifling public engagement. Second, the document lacks a detailed breakdown of the public burden costs, such as the time and expense associated with completing the form, which may limit transparency. Moreover, while there is a caution regarding the risk of public exposure of personal information, the guidance lacks practical advice on how individuals can safeguard their privacy.

The document also misses an opportunity to highlight any changes or actions taken following feedback from a previous 60-day comment period, potentially suggesting a gap in considering or valuing public input. Lastly, the explanation of the legal injunctions that affected the rule may be too complex for those without a legal background, creating confusion about the current situation regarding the fee schedule.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, this document directly affects individuals and households looking to apply for immigration benefits at a reduced fee. The provision of a platform for public comments is a positive step, allowing individuals to voice their views on the necessity and implementation of such information collection. However, the complexity of the notice might deter active participation or understanding, which could affect the robustness of the feedback.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For those specifically applying for immigration benefits, the form provides a crucial means for potentially lowering the financial burden associated with these processes. It is especially significant for lower-income households who might struggle with the costs. However, they may find the lack of clear guidance on protecting personal information and understanding the implications of the ongoing legal challenges disconcerting.

In summary, while the comment extension represents a move towards increased public involvement, the linguistic complexity and lack of detailed financial breakdown could hinder effective engagement and understanding. The implications of this notice are significant for those seeking immigration benefits, as it directly influences the affordability and accessibility of such services.

The document referenced discusses an information collection request associated with a "Request for Reduced Fee" from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It contains a financial reference indicating that the estimated total annual cost burden associated with this information collection is $19,087.

In this context, the financial reference pertains to the public burden costs that are expected to occur as a result of the collection request for reduced fees. The estimated annual cost burden of $19,087 gives a numerical representation of the financial impact on the public participating in this information collection process.

However, there is a lack of detailed explanation regarding how this total cost was calculated or how these funds are utilized. This is particularly significant considering the issues identified in the document. For instance, the absence of a breakdown of these costs may contribute to limitations in transparency and understanding. Explaining the cost components could enhance public clarity about where and how funds derived from the collection of this data are applied.

Furthermore, this document mentions electronic submission as a means to minimize the burden on respondents. While the cost of transition to electronic processing isn't detailed in this financial reference, understanding whether the financial burdens include or offset any digital implementation costs could clarify the financial landscape for this initiative.

Additionally, the financial context is entwined with the complexity stemming from ongoing legal actions concerning this form collection. The uncertainty surrounding the implementation or suspension of related rules due to court injunctions could imply that these estimated burdens are subject to change. It would be beneficial for the document to clarify whether legal proceedings might influence these financial figures or lead to future adjustments.

Overall, providing a more detailed breakdown of costs and addressing how potential legal outcomes might affect financial estimates could help alleviate some of the transparency concerns mentioned in the issues. This would enable the public to engage more comprehensively in the commentary process, as it ensures stakeholders are well-informed about the financial allocations involved.