Comment on DOS-2026-0496-0001

Mason PerryOpposeIndividual
Summary: M Perry, an individual who travels frequently for business and lives overseas, opposes the move to a single-sized passport book. They argue that eliminating the larger book option creates unnecessary burdens, costs, and logistical challenges for frequent travelers and overseas residents.
Eliminating the larger passport book option would place a disproportionate burden on a specific group of American citizens, and on the consular officers who support them abroad. Every unnecessary renewal means another appointment, another payment, more processing time, and added pressure on already busy embassy facilities. For Americans living overseas, renewing a passport is rarely a simple errand. It requires an in-person visit, time away from work, and often waiting days for an available appointment slot. Those costs fall on the whole family, not just the passport holder. I can speak to this from personal experience. Years of frequent international business travel while still living in the U.S. led me to fill a standard passport book and run through added pages back when that was an available option. After relocating overseas, I have been working through a 52-page book over the past five years and expect to need renewal within the next year or so, through entirely routine use. Large visa stickers, entry and exit stamps, residency slips, and pages accidentally skipped by border officers all eat through pages faster than most people anticipate. Improvements to online renewal are worthwhile and appreciated. However, they do not resolve the scheduling conflicts that arise when work and family obligations and passport expiration timelines collide. Maintaining a high-capacity option requires minimal effort on the Department's part and provides significant relief to a smaller but genuinely affected population of Americans. I respectfully urge the Department to keep an expanded-capacity passport book available for overseas residents and frequent international travelers. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, M Perry

View on Regulations.gov