Removal of Automatic Extensions for Certain Employment Authorization Documents

Comment: A commenter said that eliminating the automatic extension directly affects two OMB-approved information collections: Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification (OMB Control No. 1615-0047) and Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization (OMB Control No. 1615-0040/0016). The commenter said the rule does not appear to include Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) notices proposing revisions to these collections or revised burden estimates and DHS must either (a) publish PRA notices with revised burden and cost estimates aligned to the rule's effects, or (b) explain why no change occurs and provide data supporting that assertion. Proceeding without PRA compliance is a defect.

Response: DHS has considered the comment asserting that this rule triggers new information collection requirements under the PRA for Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification (OMB Control No. 1615-0047), and Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (OMB Control No. 1615-0040).

Under the PRA, an agency must obtain OMB approval when it seeks to “collect information” from 10 or more persons, or when it revises an existing collection in a way that changes the information requested, who must respond, how often they must respond, or the estimated burden of responding. This rule does none of those things.

The rule does not change the Form I-765 itself, the data elements on the form, the categories of individuals who file it, or the circumstances under which it must be filed. Aliens who seek initial or renewal employment authorization and/or EAD in the affected categories will continue to use the same form, with the same instructions, to request the same benefit. The rule changes only the regulatory consequence that previously flowed automatically from the filing of certain renewal applications, not the information collected on Form I- 765 or the obligation to file the form in the first place.

This rule also does not amend the requirements that govern employers' use of Form I-9. Employers are required under section 274A of the INA and 8 CFR 274a.2 to complete Form I-9 for each new hire and to reverify employment authorization when previously presented documentation expires. Those obligations exist independent of this rule. While the elimination of automatic extensions may result in some employers conducting reverification at different times than they would have under the prior automatic-extension framework, the scope and content of the information collected on Form I-9 are unchanged. The rule does not add any new fields to Form I-9, does not create a new reverification requirement, and does not expand the universe of employers subject to the Form I-9 provisions. Accordingly, it does not revise the underlying information collection approved under OMB Control No. 1615-0047.

This rule does not require DHS or employers to collect new categories of information, does not increase the frequency with which individuals must submit information to DHS beyond what is already required to seek or renew an EAD, and does not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on employers beyond existing Form I-9 obligations.

Consistent with the IFR's PRA discussion and the PRA section of this final rule, DHS concludes that this rule does not introduce a new collection of information or revise an existing collection within the meaning of the PRA and that no new or amended OMB approval is required. 15. General Comments on Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

Comment: A commenter stated that DHS must provide more evidence for why the rule's implementation is needed despite its likely negative impact on families and must include a Family Policymaking Assessment as required by Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999, 5 U.S.C. 601. The commenter said DHS's rationale does not comprehensively consider how the loss of discretionary income will impact families and fails to consider that EADs are strongly tied to obtaining forms of identification. Without the ability to drive, many families may be limited or prevented from attending church, medical appointments, buying groceries, or taking children to school. They may also have more difficulty accessing utilities and their bank accounts. The commenter said the rule cannot move forward without an adequate rationale that properly considers these dynamics, which DHS failed to consider.

Another commenter stated that USCIS should prepare and publish a written statement as required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. The commenter said even conservative scenarios imply private sector costs approaching or exceeding the threshold for a required UMRA analysis based on lost wages, productivity, and turnover.

A commenter that supports the rule said DHS should add a categorical exclusion to its NEPA procedures to strengthen its position that this rule does not require a NEPA analysis. The commenter stated that, in this IFR, DHS's NEPA implementation process was lacking though the commenter agreed that this rule does not have a significant environmental impact. The commenter went on to expand on DHS's conclusion that the rule is “strictly administrative and procedural” and the appropriate use of categorical exclusion A3. The commenter recommended that DHS strengthen the final version of this rule by adopting NEPA procedures that draw a distinction between rules that increase immigration (and therefore do have environmental impacts) and rules that do not (and where the invocation of such categorical exclusions are appropriate).

Response: DHS recognizes that this rule has the potential to impact families, as described above and in the Interim Final Rule.\174\ DHS is charged with protecting the national security and public safety of the American people, and so is finalizing this regulation to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public safety and national security by prioritizing the proper vetting and screening of aliens and ensuring continued eligibility before granting a new period of employment authorization and/or a new EAD. DHS urges eligible aliens to timely file renewal EAD applications to mitigate the risk that the applicant may experience a temporary lapse in

employment authorization and/or EAD validity. Regarding the commenters' concern that the rule inadequately considered impacts on aliens' ability to obtain driver's licenses or other identification cards, DHS emphasizes that the IFR explicitly explained that security concerns outweigh granting automatic extensions of EADs in this context.\175\ Nevertheless, this rule does not prevent the use of properly issued EADs for identification.

\174\ See 90 FR 48818-19.

\175\ 87 FR 48809. See 90 FR 48809, footnote 112.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments.\176\ Title I of UMRA provides certain exceptions to its requirements and definitions. For example, UMRA does not apply to rules issued with no notice of proposed rulemaking, such as the IFR and this final rule.\177\ Further, this rule does not impose an enforceable duty on EAD renewal applicants or their employers and is thus not a federal mandate. Accordingly, there is nothing further required for DHS to comply with UMRA.

\176\ The term “Federal mandate” means a Federal intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector mandate. See 2 U.S.C. 1502(1) and 658(5) and (6).

\177\ See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a).

DHS appreciates the recommendation to reconsider how it approaches NEPA and its categorical exclusions, specifically by differentiating between regulations that would increase immigration or not. However, this suggestion of adding an additional appropriate CATEX goes beyond the scope of this rule.

Please see Section V.J. below for our discussion of this rule's implementation and NEPA. As stated in the IFR, and below in this final rule, DHS finds that this action falls strictly within CATEX A3 of the DHS Instructions Manual 023-01-001-1, relating to the promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the development and publication of policies, orders, directives and notices procedures, manuals and advisory circulars and other guidance documents that are administrative or procedural in nature, and that interpret or amend and existing regulation without changing its environmental effect. See DHS Instructions Manual 023-01-001-1, CATEX A3.

Comment: A commenter stated that the rule was not listed on the Unified Agenda or the regulatory information dashboard until October 30, 2025. According to RegInfo.gov, the IFR was submitted to the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on October 29 and posted for public inspection the same day. The commenter stated that this timeline not only deprived the regulated public of both notice and an opportunity to comment, but it also marked a “radical departure” from the traditional process of careful OIRA review and deliberation. The commenter stated that it is impossible to envision meaningful OIRA review, a step that is not only conceptually essential but required under Executive Order 12866, in a single day.

Response: First, Executive Order 12866 establishes procedures for OIRA review of significant regulatory actions, but “does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States” or an agency.\178\ Accordingly while commenters are correct that there was not advance notice of the rule's consideration at OIRA prior to publication of the rule, and that commenters accordingly did not have an opportunity for a listening session before OIRA prior to publication, DHS followed all legally required procedures for publication of the rule. Further, DHS emphasizes that commenters had the opportunity to comment under the APA on the IFR, as explained above in previous responses addressing notice and comment procedures.

\178\ See E.O. 12866 at sec. 10; 58 FR 51384.

Second, the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, issued under E.O. 12866, is a planning tool published semiannually to inform the public about upcoming regulatory actions. See, generally, Section 4 of E.O. 12866 (Planning Mechanism); see also OIRA, OMB, “About the Unified Agenda.” There is not a legal requirement that agencies announce rules in the Unified Agenda prior to publication in the Federal Register or taking effect. Accordingly, the omission of a rule in the United Agenda does not invalidate or otherwise render procedurally defective a rule properly promulgated in accordance with applicable law and the APA. Instead, the APA requires agencies to provide notice of a rulemaking via the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).\179\

\179\ Alternatively, the APA also allows for the provision of notice in other ways if the people subject to the rule “are named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice”. 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

Finally, the procedures for review by OIRA at the OMB are not within the purview of DHS. Accordingly, comments regarding actions taken by OIRA during their review are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

A. Administrative Procedure Act: Delayed Effective Date

This final rule is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)'s delayed effective date requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) because DHS has for good cause found that it is unnecessary to delay implementation of this final rule.

Although the good cause exception for the 30-day effective date in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) mirrors the “good cause” language of 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the good cause exception from the 30-day effective date requirement is easier to meet because these provisions have different purposes. See Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479, 1485 (9th Cir. 1992); see also U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA, 605 F.2d 283, 289-90 (7th Cir. 1979) (good cause more easily found as to 30-day waiting period). Unlike the notice-and-comment requirement, which is designed to ensure public participation in rulemaking, the 30-day waiting period is intended to give affected parties time to

adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect. See Riverbend Farms, 958 F.2d at 1485.

It is unnecessary to delay this final rule's effective date because in this final rule, DHS is addressing public comments solicited as part of the IFR that has been in effect since October 30, 2025. In this final rule, DHS is not making any substantive or non-substantive changes to the IFR published in October 2025. There is no need to give affected parties additional time to adjust their behavior before this final rule takes effect. Therefore, a delayed effective date serves no purpose, and this final rule is effective immediately.

B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. E.O. 14192 directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that “any new incremental costs associated with the new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”

This final rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” and economically significant as defined under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, because its annual effects on the economy may exceed $100 million in any year of the analysis. Accordingly, this rule has been reviewed by the OMB.

This final rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in INA sec. 101(a)(17), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) or any other function performed by the U.S. Federal Government with respect to aliens. See OMB Memorandum M-25-20, “Guidance Implementing Section 3 of E.O. 14192, titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation' ” (Mar. 26, 2025).

This final rule reaffirms and finalizes changes made by the IFR to DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization documents (Forms I-766 or EADs) for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their EAD in certain employment authorization categories. The purpose of this change is to prioritize the proper vetting and screening of aliens and ensure continued eligibility before granting a new period of employment authorization and/or a new EAD. This final rule does not affect the validity of EADs that were automatically extended prior to the IFR. In previous rules providing for the automatic extension of EADs based on the timely filing of a renewal EAD application, DHS attempted to stabilize aliens' earnings and avoid labor turnover costs of employers. However, as explained in the IFR, the Department has shifted focus to prioritizing public safety and national security, and ensuring that aliens continue to be eligible and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable, before being granted continued employment authorization. See 90 FR 48799, 48816 (Oct. 30, 2025).

DHS has prepared two types of quantified estimates of the impacts that could be generated by this final rule. For a single 18-month window (starting in May 2027) from about 20,000 and 33,000 EADs are estimated to lapse, based on several assumptions. This rule may result in some EAD holders incurring a loss of earnings (“reduced earnings”) because of USCIS process delays for renewal EAD applications, as under this rule there could be disruption to their earnings due to a lapsed EAD. Such earnings loss to aliens could comprise beneficial transfers to other U.S. workers if the substitution of the latter for the former is relatively frictionless. Additionally, to the extent this rule affects EAD holders' jobs going unfilled, there will be impacts to tax transfers from businesses and employees to the Federal Government.\181\ This rule will also generate labor turnover costs to businesses that employ the affected-lapsed EAD holders, as under this rule there would be a disruption to the EAD holders' employment authorization and/or document validity. In conducting these estimates DHS emphasizes that variation in factors involved in the impact, including impact processing times, filing volumes, the timing of renewal filings, and underlying benefit requests, will cause variation in the impacts.

\181\ This rule could also result in a reduction in State and local tax revenue, but this impact is not quantified in this analysis due to variations in state and local tax laws and individual's tax scenarios.

Due to variation in future populations and process times, there is likely to be substantial variation in the impact estimates. For this reason, DHS develops wide ranges capturing a high and low bound for the estimates, in terms of the means (expected value). This rule is estimated to result in $138.1 million in lost productivity costs to employers that are not able to easily replace aliens with lapsed EADs, costs of $312.1 million to U.S. employers from potential labor turnover, transfers due to earnings changes worth $138.1 million from employment-authorized aliens to replacement workers and is expected to generate tax reduction impacts of $14.5 million over an 18-month period. Approximately 1,700 and 2,800 employers are estimated to be impacted.

Consistent with OMB Circular A-4, Table 2 presents the prepared A-4 accounting statement showing the costs and transfers associated with this rule. BILLING CODE 9111-97-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC26.001

BILLING CODE 9111-97-C

Details concerning the impacts are developed in the following analysis. 1. Affected Population

Due to factors contributing to uncertainty and changing trends, it is not possible to make a precise estimate of the population who will be affected by this rule. Since previous extension actions were meant to prevent lapses, an expected impact of this final rule will be

that some EADs will lapse while the renewal EAD application is pending with USCIS. Therefore, DHS will focus on estimating this impacted population (aliens with pending renewal EAD applications in categories previously eligible for automatic extension who may experience a lapse in their employment authorization and/or documentation), which will also factor into the estimation of labor turnover costs. A complicating factor is that the impacted population is likely to change over time, due to a number of factors related to processing times, backlogs, filing behavior, and resources. DHS cannot take dynamic effects into account and therefore focuses on a static, 18-month window, chosen to capture the time in which the initial impacts will first be realized, which will be May 2027 (the time in which the initials filed after the end of 540-day extension \182\ would come up for renewal).

\182\ See DHS, USCIS, Policy Alert, Subject: Updating Certain Employment Authorization Document Validity Periods (December 4, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20251204-EmploymentAuthorizationValidity.pdf.

In order to ascertain the primary-impact population, DHS utilized initial receipt volumes applicable to the C8 and C9 EADs (Table 1), extended through June 2026. These categories are the largest categories affected by the rule. DHS forecasted monthly values and summed them for the period December 2025 through May 2027 (thereby incorporating eleven forecasted months), and DHS applies a range of 25% to account for variation.\183\ The forecasted monthly time series point value estimate aggregated over 18 months and ranges are shown in Table 3, along with other relevant population components. To account for the non-C8 and C9 populations affected by the rule, DHS added a 22% factor to the broad population.

\183\ DHS utilized the SAS JMP PRO 17 software. The “State Space Smoothing” suite utilizes machine learning algorithms to offer the best model information criterion to assess fit and forecasting technique for queued time series data, given dozens of potential model specifications. Based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) DHS forecasted the data via a multiplicative error- multiplicative (undamped) trend, non-seasonal component (MMN) setup. The MMN model fits five parameters, but these are not reported here since the goal is limited to forecasting and not hypothesis testing. The fit results are very good according to the diagnostics: R- squared = .932, AIC = 405.6, and the residuals display no discernable pattern and are purged of serial correlation (at any lag, as all p-values of the Ljung-Box statistic are far greater than .05). In principal DHS could rely on each prediction interval around a monthly forecast to develop an aggregate range. In practice, the intervals applicable to the data are not plausible, for the following reasons. The standard error is large to begin with due to some sharp movements in the underlying data; and with a downward trending time series, the standard error takes on increasing relative weigh as the forecast values decline. The result is a “division by zero” issue in which the lower bound is pulled towards zero. But the increased relative weight of standard error does not discriminate between the upper and lower bounds, and it therefore enacts a proportional effect to the upper level, causing it to diverge on an unstable path. For this reason, the forecast prediction interval at a 95% confidence level is not reliable.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC26.002

Table 3 employs a stepwise procedure for thoroughness and transparency, starting with initial receipts (c8 and c9, A) which are scaled for the other categories and the generalized approval rate for initial filings to yield a broad initial approval population (C); after which the scaling proceeds downward such that shares are applied to the immediately preceding population level (not the broad population). Population (F) is designated as the “baseline” since it is the largest population component that could sustain the impact. Population G depends on the timeframe--from when the renewal is filed to the end of the existent EAD validity period--based on a recommended renewal filing date. DHS currently benchmarks the time to 90 days, which is important because a different level will change the population. The final row (H) constitutes the population of interest--filers that are estimated to incur a lapse. As is reported in Table 3, based on imposition of 90 days as the recommended filing time, between about 20,000 and 33,000 EADs are estimated to lapse, with a midpoint estimate of about 27,000. It is noted that Pop. H is not the entire population that

would lapse; DHS makes impacts estimates on individuals filing their renewal within a recommended amount of time, which is 90 days.

\184\ The approval rate for initials and renewals was obtained from filing data for Form I-765 C8 and C9 for the period FY 2012 through FY 2016. This period was chosen as it is the more recent period in which automatic extension was generally not in place. The percentages shown are averages for both forms taken together (a weighted average) and display very little variation. The renewal (filing) rate was conceptually and practically more difficult. The average renewal filing rate over the same period was high for the C8 (77.6%) but low for the C9 (13.1%). The existence of a large difference in filing rates is not problematic per se, but the composition of the two filings has changed substantially over time, meaning that relying on the past averages in inadequate. For example, in the period of analysis the C8 comprised 15.2% of the two forms in terms of approvals. But, due to a surge in C8 filings, one can glean from the data in Table 1 that that form has taken on a much larger share. Therefore, DHS proceeded by developing a weighted average based on what is possible in the near future. Specifically, workflow projections estimated by OPQ place the shares of the two forms at 41.9 percent and 58.1 percent, in order, for FY 2026 through FY 2028. Multiplying these shares by the afore reported renewal rates yields weight factors of .325 and .076, in order, which sum to the relied upon 40.1 percent. Table populations in rows E-H were derived from DHS analysis of forensic data applicable to a 3,000 randomly sampled initial renewal filings for the same period. in addition to the data reported in Figure 3, some other key findings of the analysis are as follows. Of the 3,000-record random sample, DHS was able to extract 2,638 viable records on approved renewals. The median filing time for the renewal was 64 days prior to the initial EAD expiration date. To put into perspective on the filing behavior, DHS observed 20.2 percent filed within 30 days, and 46.9 percent filed within 60 days of the initial EAD expiration.

This section is divided into three modules. Module A is a discussion of certain aspects of the related rulemakings and factors involved in the future trends are provided. Module B provides mainly a descriptive assessment of the impacts. Module C is the self-contained quantitative section that estimates and monetizes a primary impact (also reported in the A-4 statement, Table 2). Module A

When DHS adjudicates and approves renewal EAD applications before the applicant's current EAD expiration date, this final rule results in no quantifiable impacts to aliens and their employers. DHS anticipates that due to other DHS actions affecting populations that might otherwise have applied for EADs, the number of initial and renewal EAD applications will be lower than in recent years.\185\ For more information on these actions, see Section IV. B. of the IFR. DHS assumes this reduced workload on USCIS could potentially eliminate the EAD backlog. Accordingly, under this scenario, this final rule would be less likely to result in lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity. If USCIS continues to have a backlog and is unable to adjudicate renewal EAD applications before an applicant's current EAD expires, then this final rule, by ending automatic extensions for certain EAD categories based on timely renewal filings, would result in temporary lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity.

\185\ As an example of the potential reduction in the number of EAD applications from external DHS actions, DHS estimated that approximately 532,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans that were part of the Parole Processes are no longer eligible for employment authorization. Many of these aliens may have applied for an EAD, but will no longer be eligible, alleviating demands on USCIS EAD adjudication resources. See 90 FR 13611 (March 25, 2025).

Precisely determining the population that is expected to experience a lapse in employment authorization and/or an EAD as a result of this final rule is extremely difficult. A key factor is the backlog and whether recent external actions do not eliminate the backlog. In the following analysis DHS will provide analysis of potential lapses based on granular data. In this section DHS describes the impacted EAD renewal population that would have been subject to automatic extensions from prior, recent backlogs. As detailed earlier in the preamble,\186\ DHS has previously published two temporary final rules (2022, 2024) and a final rule (2024). DHS previously estimated a population that would have lapsed in the hypothetical absence of the 2024 final rule and the two temporary final rules. In the 2024 final rule, DHS projected that between July 2023 and March 2026, 293,000 to 449,000 pending renewal EAD applicants in the categories eligible for automatic extension would have experienced a lapse in employment.\187\ Additionally, in the 2024 final rule, DHS anticipated that starting around April 2026 through March 2027, fewer than 500 EADs would lapse each month, even without the up to 540-day extension.\188\ This projection was based on the five-year EAD validity period in effect at that time and the pre- existing up to 180-day extension.

\186\ See Section III.C. Background & Purpose: Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization and Documentation.

\187\ See Table 8 (Summary of Impacts), 89 FR 101246 (Dec. 13, 2024).

\188\ See Table 12 (Population Projections by Month, Rounded to Thousands), 89 FR 101251 (Dec. 13, 2024).

In December 2025, USCIS reduced the validity period to a maximum of 18 months for certain EAD categories, which could increase the frequency of renewal filings.\189\ The IFR also eliminated the up to 180-day automatic extension, which was factored into the 2024 final rule Table 12 projection. Both recent changes may lead to more renewal filings; however, as stated in the IFR and in this preamble, other external factors have contributed to decreased filings.

\189\ See https://www.uscis.gov/save/current-user-agencies/news-alerts/reduced-validity-periods-for-newly-issued-employment-authorization-documents (last updated Jan. 12, 2026).

DHS noted uncertainty in the 2024 final rule projections, cautioning that various factors make it difficult to accurately estimate the impact of the up to 540-day extension.\190\ While more reliable estimates were possible for the 2022 and 2024 temporary final rules, uncertainty regarding the number and duration of EAD lapses has increased since the 2024 final rule and IFR.

\190\ See Summary of Costs and Benefits, 89 FR 101208, 101210 (Dec. 13, 2024).

DHS observes that the population affected by the IFR and this rule may have declined, as EAD filings began decreasing before the IFR was issued. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble. At the same time, shorter EAD validity periods could increase renewal filings. These opposing trends complicate estimates of lapses and their duration but do not preclude DHS from making estimates.

DHS reviewed recently available EAD renewal data. DHS queried data on EAD automatic extension category expirations from October 30, 2025, through June 28, 2026.\191\ The number of EAD renewal applicants in categories previously eligible for the automatic extension who did not receive an automatic extension was 1,541 from February, through June 2026. The number of EAD renewal applicants in categories previously eligible for the automatic extension who did receive an automatic extension based on a timely-filed renewal EAD application (before October 30, 2025), and who would have experienced a lapse in the absence of the automatic extension was 12,547 for the same timeframe. DHS emphasizes that these figures do not represent the likely population that could lapse starting in May 2027.

\191\ This data was until June 28, 2026, the most recent data available at the time of the query.

Additionally, it is difficult to accurately project future processing times. As stated in the 2024 final rule, processing times for EAD applications have fluctuated over the years. DHS cannot predict future fluctuations because they are dependent on variables that may change or are unanticipated, such as changes in application filing rates and processing efficiencies.\192\ However, to evaluate recent data, DHS retrieved data on the median processing times for EAD categories previously eligible for automatic extensions renewals. The processing time slightly increased from November 2025 through March 2026, ranging from a median of 3.7 to 4.4 months.\193\ This median data presented here differs from the 80th percentile estimates posted on the USCIS website. This data also shows a per month median rather than an 80th percentile estimate over a 6-month timeframe. Processing times also depend on available adjudicative resources, and while USCIS aims to minimize backlogs, it must ensure thorough review of applications. DHS understands that there are evolving circumstances and unknown factors that contribute to backlogs. Given recent data limitations, shifting trends, and external policy effects, the population estimated for this final rule is likely to vary in level and across time.

\192\ See Preamble, Section III.D. for reasons the processing times and backlogs have increased resulting in the 2024 TFR and 2024 Final rules.

\193\ Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CDAO (formerly called Office of Performance and Quality), CLAIMS3 & ELIS, queried 04/2026, PAER0021133.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to prioritize benefits integrity and the proper vetting and screening of aliens before granting a new period of employment authorization and/or a new EAD by ending the practice of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization and/or EADs for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their EAD in certain employment authorization categories. While prior automatic extensions reduced the risk of employers employing aliens with lapsed employment authorization and/or EAD validity, this final rule will also reduce the risk that affected employers will continue to employ an alien who is no longer authorized to work. For example, within their automatic extension period, an alien's application could have been adjudicated and denied. The obligation is on the alien employee to notify his or her employer that he or she is no longer work authorized, which puts employers at risk of unknowingly employing an unauthorized alien. Absent the IFR and this final rule, employers assess the applicability of the automatic extension based in part on a non-secure document (such as Form I-797C, Notice of Action, which is printed on plain paper). With this final rule ending the practice of providing automatic extensions based on the timely filing of a renewal EAD application, DHS is reducing the potential for fraud and instances where employers unknowingly employ aliens beyond their employment authorization and/or EAD validity.

This rule reverses some of the impacts described in the prior automatic extension rules. Employment lapses could result in cost and transfer impacts such as lost compensation to workers, transfers between workers losing their employment authorizations to replacement workers, employers' lost productivity when they are not able to quickly replace employees with lapses, and turnover costs for employers to find replacement employees. In the following section, DHS discusses impacts but cannot reliably quantify these impacts due to uncertainty.

As was described earlier in the Affected Population section, DHS determined that an expected impact of this final rule is that some EADs will lapse while the alien's renewal EAD application is pending with USCIS. In this section, the estimated lapse is developed into a quantified impact, which will constitute an earnings change to aliens. The employment lapse impacts, a loss of income to aliens, could result in either transfers of compensation to other workers or costs to employers, depending on employers' ability to replace workers with lapsed employment authorization and/or EAD validity. In cases where, in the absence of an automatic extension period, businesses would have been able to easily find reasonable labor substitutes for aliens with a lapsed employment authorization and/or EAD validity, this rule results in transfers of the earnings of affected aliens to others, who might fill in for or replace the renewal EAD applicants during their earnings lapse. In cases where, absent the automatic extension period, businesses may not easily find reasonable labor substitutes, employers may incur lost productivity and turnover costs or other disruptions. This could result in losses to native-owned businesses and their native employees. DHS assumes the value of lost productivity is at least as high as the compensation the employer would have paid the affected alien.

The employer turnover cost is generally reported as a share of annual wages.\194\ DHS would calculate the turnover costs by multiplying the number of impacted lapsed employees by the hourly wage rate, hours worked per year, and the share of annual wages.

\194\ In the 2024 Automatic Extension Temporary Final Rule, DHS estimated the turnover costs as a percentage of annual wages, using a mean of 23 percent (Table 11). Temporary Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Employment Authorization Document Renewal Applicants, 89 FR 24669 (April 8, 2024).

Finally, if employers are unable to replace affected workers, there could be changes in transfers from taxes that would have been paid by affected aliens and their employers. It is challenging to quantify Federal and State income tax impacts of employment lapses because individual and household tax situations vary widely as do the various State income tax rates. To calculate the potential transfers impact on employment taxes, DHS would estimate the decrease in Medicare and Social Security taxes, which have a combined tax rate of 7.65 percent (6.2 percent and 1.45 percent, respectively).\195\

\195\ The various employment taxes are discussed in more detail, see Internal Revenue Service, “Understanding Employment Taxes,” https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/understanding-employment-taxes (last updated May 7, 2025). See Internal Revenue Service “Publication 15, (Circular E), Employer's Tax Guide” (June 7, 2024), https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15 (for specific information on employment tax rates. Relevant calculation: (6.2 percent Social Security + 1.45 percent Medicare) x 2 employee and employer losses = 15.3 percent total estimated public tax impact) (last visited on May 26, 2026).

DHS acknowledges that the impact of this final rule is an increased risk of a temporary loss of employment authorization for aliens and employers. To the extent that aliens can file their renewals earlier and DHS is able to reduce the backlog, reductions in this uncertainty are expected.

DHS is aware of the importance of employment authorization and evidence of employment authorization for applicants' and their families' livelihoods, as well as their U.S. employers' continuity of operations and financial health. DHS also is cognizant of the potential detrimental impact that gaps in employment authorization may have on an applicant's eligibility for future immigration benefits should the applicant engage in unauthorized employment during the gap,\196\ and on their U.S. employers who must examine unexpired documents that evidence their employees' employment eligibility and attest that their employees are authorized to work in the United States.\197\ DHS also acknowledges that backlogs and prolonged processing times for renewal EAD applications are not the fault of applicants, but nonetheless could have significant adverse consequences for applicants, their families, and their employers. DHS will continue to work to reduce frivolous, fraudulent or otherwise non-meritorious EAD filings to free up adjudicatory and other resources to better ensure national security and program integrity.

\196\ With certain exceptions, if an alien continues to engage in or accepts unauthorized employment, the individual may be barred from adjusting status to that of a lawful permanent resident under INA 245. See INA secs. 245(c)(2) and (8), 8 U.S.C. 1255(c)(2) and (8).

\197\ See, e.g., INA sec. 274A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)(1); 8 CFR 274a.2(a)(3).

DHS acknowledges there is potential for detrimental impacts to applicants but recognizes the important benefits in ensuring only those eligible and suitable for renewed work authorization are allowed to work. Module C

This module prepares a thorough and transparent quantitative setup incorporating population information from Table 3, factors discussed on Module 2 above, DHS analysis of EAD renewal data, and labor market data. Since the impetus for the previous automatic extensions was to stabilize earrings, it is logical to consider the primary economic impact of this final rule as changes to earnings, which will comprise lost earnings to aliens, but potentially beneficial transfers to others authorized to work in the United States.

Due to uncertainty in future processing times and other factors, DHS

will utilize the population range (H, Table 3) but notes that variation in all of the variables is likely.\198\ The primary impact is earnings change, which is measured in valued work hour-units. The data supporting the lapse share was described in the Population section, for which DHS also fit a distribution to the lapse durations, with a mean of 40.1 days. The mean lapse duration of 40.1 days is lower than DHS estimated in the 2022 and 2024 TFRs, at 52 and 271 days, respectively. There were various reasons and time-specific conditions that led to estimates of higher average lapse duration, primarily historic spikes in pending asylum applications (C08) initial and renewal EAD applications. In the 2024 TFR, DHS acknowledged the significant contributing factor to the severe backlog and increased processing times for renewal EAD applications was the substantial increase in the number of initial C08 EAD applications that began in March 2023. Because USCIS was required to prioritize certain initial EAD applications over other applications renewal EAD processing times increased substantially. However, DHS anticipates a substantial decrease in both initial and renewal filings for EADs, which would allow for a reduction in renewal EAD processing times and consequently lapse durations. Therefore, DHS finds an estimate of 40 days for the average lapse duration is reasonable for this analysis.\199\

\198\ Two inputs that are especially subject to variation are the renewal rate and the lapse rate, because they are influenced directly by actions being taken outside the scope of this rule, and indirectly through process times. For example, DHS has only included the C8 and C9 in the population, which may understate the population, but this factor may be mitigated if the C9 renewals fall even farther from their historically low pace. If the process time for the underlying adjustment of status claim declines, the C9 renewal rate may approach zero in the future. In addition, the decision of when to file a C8--i.e., a shift in behavior--could be driven by declines in the process time of the underlying asylum benefit claim, the EAD, or both.

\199\ The mean of 40.1 days applies to the population estimated to lapse that filed before their initial EAD expiration. The impacted population (Table 3) applies to those that filed more than 90 days prior to the expiration. DHS believes it is appropriate to expand the batch for estimating the lapse duration to ensure we are capturing a broader range of lapses, due to uncertainty. In the 2022 TFR, DHS estimated a mean of 52.5 days for the average lapse duration. See 87 FR 26643 (May 4, 2022). In the 2024 TFR, DHS estimated a mean of 271 days. See Table 10 and footnote 311, 89 FR 24665, 24671 (April 8, 2024). In FY 2023, USCIS received about 3.49 million total EAD applications, a 50 percent increase from FY 2022, including about 2.37 million initial applications, a 77 percent increase, and 1.12 million renewal applications, a 13 percent increase. See 89 FR 24635 (April 8, 2024).

The earnings impact is estimated as an equation incorporating population, wages, lapse durations, and adjustments for labor market indicators, the latter of which makes the estimates more realistic. DHS relies on the uniform distribution bounded at the 10th percentile wage across all occupations ($15.00) and upper bound of $46.07, the latter of which updates the figure from the 2024 TFR.\200\

\200\ See 89 FR 101208, Table 13 and incumbent footnotes for details on the upper bound, based on USCIS analysis of E-Verify data. In this final rule there is only one difference compared to the TFR. The BLS is not reporting an updated wage for NAICS code 518200, for the industry, Internet Service providers, Web Search Portals, & Data Processing. Instead, it encapsulates that industry now into subsector 518, Computing infrastructure providers, data processing, web hosting, and related services.

Further, DHS accounts for worker benefits when estimating the opportunity cost of time by calculating a benefits-to-wage multiplier (BEN) using the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report detailing average total employee compensation for all civilian U.S. workers.\201\ Using the BEN of 1.46, the total rate of compensation for individuals at the low end of the range as $21.90 and high end as $67.26 per hour.\202\

\201\ Table 4 includes source information.

\202\ Low end is calculated based on $15 x 1.46 = $21.90 and high end is $46.07 x 1.46 = $67.26. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC26.003

This yields a SCL value of 6.85 hours of wages earned per day per member of the workforce.\203\

\203\ 6.85 = 1.46 x (1-0.042) x (34.3/7).

\204\ The Maximum-Extreme distribution is the fit recommend by OCB based on the ranking of the Anderson-Darling goodness of fit test for all continuous distributions. This distribution fits two parameters and is highly positively skewed, being similar to the Lognormal and Exponential distributions. While it is continuous in both tails, DHS truncated the bounds to [1, 551] to capture the actual maximum and minimum in the data.

Next, DHS calculates the income component (INC), a measure of range in the wage impacts based on the range of lapsed population and lapse durations. The earnings metric (ERN) integrates the labor market intensity and income components through the product of their ranged values. The tax impact (TAX) is calculated as earnings multiplied by the tax rate, 15.3 percent, and then divided by the benefits factor (BEN), as DHS quantifies tax impacts on unloaded wages. Working with a single value to incorporate realistic labor factors is beneficial because it is not necessary to adjust the variables--such as the benefits burden to wages and the approval rate to the population-- sequentially or even directly; all the inputs interact multiplicatively and can therefore be nested as a single dimensional system. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC26.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC26.005

\205\ See 89 FR 101208, Table 13 and incumbent footnotes for details on the upper bound, based on USCIS analysis of E-Verify data. In this final rule there is only one difference compared to the TFR. The BLS is not reporting an updated wage for NAICS code 518200, for the industry, Internet Service providers, Web Search Portals, & Data Processing. Instead, it encapsulates that industry now into subsector 518, Computing infrastructure providers, data processing, web hosting, and related services.

\206\ The earnings change range reflects a 95% certainty level, which is distribution-specific set of forecast values lying between the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile. Since the range is very wide, DHS also provides a 95% confidence interval for the mean (expected value), obtained from the BC-a (Bias-Corrected and accelerated) bootstrapping procedure.

This final rule is expected to generate labor turnover costs to some employers of affected EAD holders. DHS bases the assessment of these impacts on the assumption that the estimated population of aliens with lapsed EADs because of this final rule would involuntarily separate from an employer, or otherwise cease employment, and that the separation or cessation would not be due to other factors.

Employment separations or cessation can generate labor turnover costs to employers. First are the direct or “hard” costs that involve separation and replacement costs. These include exit interviews, severance pay, and costs of temporarily covering the employee's duties and functions with other employees, which may require overtime or temporary staffing. The replacement costs typically include expenses of advertising positions, search and agency fees, screening applicants, interviews, background verification, employment testing, hiring bonuses, and travel and relocation costs. Once hired, employers face additional training, orientation, and assessment costs.

Second, direct costs involve loss of productivity and possibly profitability due to operational disruptions, which can include errors from employees that may temporally fill the position. A third cost segment is a type of indirect cost that encompasses loss of institutional knowledge, networking, and impacts to work-culture, morale, and interpersonal relationships. This last type of cost is almost impossible to measure quantitatively.\207\

\207\ For additional descriptions of the components of labor turnover costs, see Ghase Charba, “Employee retention: The Real Cost of Losing an Employee,” PeopleKeep, (updated February 2, 2023), https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/employee-retention-the-real-cost-of-losing-an-employee.

There are studies and reports concerning labor turnover costs available from Human Resource entities that are cited across correspondent literature, and turnover cost can be measured in slightly different ways. The turnover cost is generally reported as a share of annual earnings or an actual cost per employee. Usually, these reports measure the more direct, or hard costs associated with turnover and not intangible effects such as worker morale or lost productivity. Many reports cite a 2012 Center for American Progress (CAP) report that surveyed more than 30 studies that considered both direct (e.g., separation and replacement) and indirect (e.g., loss of institutional knowledge) costs.

The CAP and other reports confirm three central aspects of turnover cost: (1) that they vary substantially across industries and jobs; (2) that they tend to grow (in absolute and percentage terms) according to skill level and earnings; and (3) that they are higher for salaried workers compared to hourly wage earners.\208\ The report notes that specialized technical jobs and highly paid jobs in line with senior or executive levels, which involve high levels of education, credentials, and stringent hiring criteria, can generate disproportionately high replacement costs that can reach more than 100 percent of the salary-- compared to jobs with low educational and technical requirements.\209\

\208\ See Heather Boushey and Sarah Jane Glynn, “There Are Significant Business Costs to Replacing Employees,” Center for American Progress, (Nov. 16, 2012), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/11/16/44464/there-are-significant-business-costs-to-replacing-employees/.

\209\ See Shane Mcfeely and Ben Wigert, “This Fixable Problem Costs U.S. Businesses $1 Trillion,” Workplace, (Mar. 13, 2019), https://www.gallup.com/workplace/247391/fixable-problem-costs-businesses-trillion.aspx. See also Kate Heinz, “The True Costs of Employee Turnover,” Built In, https://builtin.com/recruiting/cost-of-turnover (last updated June 23, 2023).

DHS examined a 2020 report by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, which updated the earlier CAP study results to provide information on about thirty-five studies on turnover costs.\210\ We selected data points that captured both the annual earnings salary (which the study benchmarked to 2019 levels) and turnover costs. We then culled the data applicable to salary levels more than the maximum in our earnings bound. We note before making any adjustments, multiplying the maximum wage ($41.07) by 2,080 average annual full-time hours yields a maximum annual earnings figure of $95,825.6. To obtain the annual salary we multiply the (non-burdened) wage bounds ($15.00 and $46.07) by 2,080 average annual full-time hours but make the adjustment to account for average

work hours per week \211\ and employment by scaling by 0.858 and 0.958, in order, as was introduced above.

\210\ See Kate Bahn and Carmen Sanchez Cumming, “Improving U.S. Labor Standards and the Quality of Jobs to Reduce the Costs of Employee Turnover to U.S. Companies,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, (December 2020), https://equitablegrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/122120-turnover-costs-ib.pdf.

\211\ Work hours per week were 34.3, divided by 40 hours gives a 0.858 adjustment. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC26.006

We calibrated the lognormal distribution for the parameters produced and calibrated the estimation program according to the below input values. The lognormal distribution is infinite in the upper tail, and we truncated the cost percentage to 68.7 percent, the highest value in the underlying data. The core inputs are the lapse population, turnover cost percentage, and the wage (unburdened). All the inputs can be abridged into a single equation and nested compactly as a “one- step” routine in the software program. The correlation between cost and earnings is tuned to 0.421. Imputing the correlation essentially means that if a randomly chosen earnings value is high, there is a higher probability that a high turnover cost percentage will be selected as well and vice versa for lower cost percentages. See Table 5 for estimation of turnover cost impacts.

Table 6 presents a summary of the impacts estimated.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC26.007

As is shown in Table 6B, DHS estimates that a maximum of about 2,800 employers could incur turnover costs. This estimate draws on the 2024 TFR in which analysis of E-Verify data revealed that on average, each business employed twelve EAD holders. DHS has no reason to believe that there has been a substantive change to this figure.

Some of the impacts of this rule will depend on whether businesses will be able to find replacement labor for the positions the affected renewal EAD applicants are expected to lose if they experience a lapse in employment authorization and/or employment authorization documentation due to this rule. If businesses can find replacement labor from the pool of the unemployed, the only monetized costs of this rule to society is for costs resulting from labor

turnover. If businesses cannot find replacement labor, the monetized costs of the rule would also include lost productivity due to a lack of available labor.

DHS estimates that reduced earnings to renewal EAD applicants ranges from $17.1 million to $900.8 million with a primary estimate of $276.2 million depending on the wages and other compensation the renewal EAD applicants earn, the number of renewal EAD applicants affected, and the duration of the lapse in employment authorization and/or employment authorization documentation that may occur because of this rule.\212\ DHS uses estimates of the earnings as a measure of either: (1) transfers of this compensation from the affected population to others in the labor market, but are not already employed; or (2) a proxy for businesses' costs from lost productivity, depending on whether businesses would be able to find replacement labor for affected renewal EAD applicants due to this rule.

\212\ Lapse-duration accounted for approximately 86.9 percent of this range, wages accounted for 11.9 percent, and the lapse rate (population) 1.2 percent.

DHS does not know what the next best labor alternative would be for businesses when lapses occur due to this rule. Accordingly, DHS does not know the portion of the overall effects of this rule that are transfers or costs. To begin, DHS describes the two extreme scenarios, which provide the bounds for the range of effects.

Scenario 1: If, under the effect of this rule with potential lapsed EADs, all businesses would have been able to immediately find reasonable labor substitutes for the positions the renewal EAD applicants lost, businesses lose little or no productivity. Accordingly, this rule could result in $276.2 million (primary estimate, undiscounted) being transferred from affected renewal EAD applicants to workers currently in the labor force (whom are not presently employed full time) or induced back into the labor force and this rule would result in $0 costs to businesses for prevented productivity losses.

Scenario 2: Conversely, if all businesses would be unable to, within the period of analysis, find reasonable labor substitutes for the position the EAD holder filled, then businesses would lose productivity. Accordingly, $276.2 million is the estimated monetized costs from this rule for productivity losses and this rule will result in $0 being transferred from affected renewal EAD applicants to replacement labor. Because under this scenario businesses would not have been able to find replacement labor, the rule may also result in additional costs to employers for profit losses; and may result in a reduction in tax transfer payments from businesses and employees to the government. DHS has not estimated all potential tax effects but notes that earnings of $276.2 million would result in employment tax losses to the Federal Government (i.e., Medicare and Social Security) of $29.0 million.

In both scenarios, whether without this rule employers would have been able to find replacement labor or not, DHS assumes that businesses would have incurred labor turnover costs for having to search for a replacement for affected renewal EAD applicants. Accordingly, DHS estimates the rule will also result in additional labor turnover costs to businesses of $312.1 million.

Table 7 below summarizes these two scenarios and the primary estimate of this rule. Because DHS does not know the overall proportion of businesses that would have been able to easily find replacement labor in the absence of this rule, for DHS's primary estimate we assume that replacement labor would have been immediately found for half of all renewal EAD applicants and not found for the other half (i.e., an average of the two extreme scenarios described above). The June 2026 unemployment and job openings data indicate there are as many jobs available as there are people looking for jobs.\213\ Accordingly, we believe the impacts of this rule will likely skew towards Scenario 1, with the rule resulting in mostly transfers of compensation from renewal EAD applicants to other workers and turnover costs for employers.

\213\ Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that, as of June 2026, there were 1.0 unemployed persons per job opening. See U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Number of unemployed persons per job opening, seasonally adjusted,” https://www.bls.gov/charts/job-openings-and-labor-turnover/unemp-per-job-opening.htm (last visited Aug. 19, 2026).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC26.008

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their rules. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, nonprofit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The RFA's regulatory flexibility analysis requirements apply only to those rules for which an agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law.\214\ DHS did not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for this action. Accordingly, DHS is not required to certify either that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities nor conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

\214\ See 5 U.S.C. 604(a).

Further, this final rule directly regulates individuals, and individuals are not defined as “small entities” by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The rule indirectly impacts certain employers if, in the future, processing times exceed the expiration dates of EADs.

DHS is unsure what backlogs may continue in the future; however, DHS anticipates that, due to other DHS actions described in Section IV.C. of this final rule, it is possible that the backlog may end. If the backlogs are eliminated outside of this rule, employers will no longer be indirectly impacted by this final rule.

In the alternate scenario of a backlog in renewal EAD processing, some employers could experience indirect costs or transfer effects. The transfers would be in the form of lost compensation (wages and benefits). A portion of this lost compensation might be transferred from renewal EAD applicants to others who are currently in the U.S. labor force. A portion of the effects of this rule would also be borne by companies that would have continued to employ renewal EAD applicants had they been in the labor market longer; however, they were unable to find available replacement labor. These companies may incur an indirect cost, as they will be losing the productivity and potential profits the EAD applicant would have provided. Companies may also incur opportunity costs by having to choose the next best alternative to the immediate labor the applicant would have provided and by having to pay workers to work overtime hours. DHS does not know what this next best alternative may be for those companies. If companies can find reasonable labor substitutes for the positions the alien occupied, they will bear little or no costs. Conversely, if companies are unable to find reasonable labor substitutes for the position the applicant would have maintained then there would be no transfers and companies may experience turnover costs or other disruptions.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments.\215\ Title I of UMRA provides certain exceptions to its requirements and definitions. UMRA does not apply to rules from independent regulatory agencies or rules issued with no notice of proposed rulemaking. UMRA exempts legislative provisions and rules relating to individual constitutional rights, discrimination, emergency assistance, grant accounting and auditing procedures, national security, treaty obligations, and elements of Social Security legislation.

\215\ The term “Federal mandate” means a Federal intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector mandate. See 2 U.S.C. 1502(1) and 658(5) and (6).

Title II of UMRA requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule, or final rule for which USCIS published a proposed rule, which includes any Federal mandate that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a). This rule is exempt from the written statement requirement because DHS did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. This final rule does not contain a federal mandate as the term is defined under UMRA.\216\ Therefore, the requirements of Title II of UMRA do not apply, thus DHS has not prepared a statement under UMRA.

\216\ See 2 U.S.C. 1502(1), 658(6).

DHS has reviewed this rule in line with the requirements of section 654 of the Treasury and General Appropriations Act, 1999,\217\ enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999.\218\ DHS has systematically reviewed the criteria specified in section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Appropriations Act by evaluating whether this regulatory action: (1) impacts the stability or safety of the family, particularly in terms of marital commitment; (2) impacts the authority of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; (3) helps the family perform its functions or substitutes governmental activity for the function; (4) affects disposable income or poverty of families and children; (5) only financially impacts families, if at all, to the extent such impacts are justified; (6) may be carried out by State or local government or by the family; or (7) establishes a policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth and the norms of society. If the agency determines a regulation may negatively affect family wellbeing, then the agency must provide an adequate rationale for its implementation.

\217\ See 5 U.S.C. 601 note.

\218\ See Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

As articulated in the IFR and this final rule, DHS is discontinuing the practice of providing an automatic extension of the EAD or employment authorization upon the filing of a renewal EAD application because it grants a benefit without an eligibility determination, without completing vetting and screening checks and without resolving the potential hits and derogatory information. DHS has determined that the implementation of this regulation may potentially negatively affect family wellbeing as outlined in section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999. Specifically, the IFR and this final rule has the potential to affect disposable income of families and children, and therefore, also impacts the family financially. However, DHS believes that it has an adequate rationale for its implementation. DHS believes that the consequences of the IFR and this final rule, the possibility that an alien is not authorized to work during the pendency of the alien's renewal EAD application and thus, that families have less disposable income, are justified in light of the national security and public safety risk that automatically issuing immigration benefits, such as an automatic extension of an EAD, poses to the public. Additionally, DHS is not removing the alien's ability to obtain a renewal of their employment authorization and/or EAD. DHS is also not preventing eligible aliens from obtaining an EAD for purposes such as proof of identity. The issuance of a renewal EAD depends in large part on the applicant's timely application for a renewal EAD. The proper planning by the alien, and monitoring of EAD processing times, allows the alien to timely file a renewal EAD application far enough in advance of their EAD expiration date, which may mitigate the risk that the alien could experience a lapse in their employment authorization and/or EAD validity and have to temporarily stop working. For these reasons, DHS believes that the benefit this rule provides by improving the security posture as it relates to the issuance of automatic extensions outweighs the impact, if any, on families and their children. Better

protecting public safety and national security before providing immigration benefits, such as automatic extensions of employment authorizations based on the filing of a renewal EAD application, is paramount.

DHS and its components analyze proposed regulatory actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., applies and, if so, what degree of analysis is required. DHS Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 “Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act” (Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01) and Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01 Rev. 01 (Instruction Manual) \219\ establish the policies and procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA.

\219\ The Instruction Manual contains DHS's procedures for implementing NEPA and was issued on November 6, 2014, https://www.dhs.gov/ocrso/eed/epb/nepa (last updated July 29, 2025).

NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA implementing procedures, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.\220\ The Instruction Manual, Appendix A lists the DHS Categorical Exclusions.\221\

\220\ See 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2), 4336e(1).

\221\ See Instruction Manual, Appendix A, Table 1.

Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.\222\

\222\ See Instruction Manual at V.B(2)(a) through (c).

This final rule responds to public comments provided in response to the IFR and adopts the IFR as final without change. This final rule therefore retains the changes made to the DHS regulations by the IFR, discontinuing the practice of providing an automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EAD validity upon the filing of a renewal EAD application. Through the IFR, and now this final rule, DHS is ending the practice of providing automatic extensions of EADs to prioritize the completion of vetting and eligibility screening of aliens before granting a new period of employment authorization and/or a new EAD.

This final rule is strictly administrative and procedural. DHS has reviewed this final rule and finds that no significant impact on the environment, or any change in environmental effect will result from the amendments being promulgated in this final rule.

Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this final rule's amendments to current regulations clearly fits within categorical exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing procedures as an administrative change with no change in environmental effect, is not part of a larger Federal action, and does not present extraordinary circumstances that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. Therefore, regulatory amendments are categorically excluded from further NEPA review.