101208 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Part 274a 

[CIS No. 2785–24; DHS Docket No. USCIS– 

2024–0002] 

RIN 1615–AC78 

Increase of the Automatic Extension 

Period of Employment Authorization 

and Documentation for Certain 

Employment Authorization Document 

Renewal Applicants 

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (‘‘USCIS’’), 

Department of Homeland Security 

(‘‘DHS’’). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends DHS 

regulations to permanently increase the 

automatic extension period for expiring 

employment authorization and/or 

Employment Authorization Documents 

(Forms I–766 or EADs) for certain 

renewal applicants who have timely 

filed Form I–765, Application for 

Employment Authorization, from up to 

180 days to up to 540 days. After two 

temporary rules, DHS is finalizing the 

recent temporary rule and making the 

increase permanent to help prevent 

eligible renewal EAD applicants from 

experiencing a lapse in employment 

authorization and/or the validity of their 

EAD as a result of lengthy USCIS 

processing times. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 13, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Nimick, Chief, Business and 

Foreign Workers Division, Office of 

Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Department 

of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital 

Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 

20746; telephone 240–721–3000 (not a 

toll-free call). U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS, 

5900 Capital Gateway Drive, MD, Camp 

Springs, 20746; telephone (240) 721– 

3000 (this is not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

B. Summary of Legal Authority 

C. Summary of Regulatory Changes 

D. Severability 

E. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

II. Background 

A. Legal Authority 

B. Legal Framework for Employment 

Authorization and Verification 

1. Types of Employment Authorization: 8 

CFR 274a.12(a), (b), and (c) 

2. The Application Process for Obtaining 

Employment Authorization and EADs 

3. Automatic Extensions of EADs for 

Renewal Applicants and Related 

Employment Eligibility Verification 

Requirements for Employers 

i. Renewing Employment Authorization 

and/or EADs 

ii. Minimizing the Risk of Gaps in 

Employment Authorization and/or EAD 

Validity Through Automatic Extensions 

C. 2022 Temporary Final Rule 

1. Overview 

2. Impact of the 2022 Temporary Final 

Rule 

D. 2024 Temporary Final Rule 

1. Overview 

2. Impact of the 2024 Temporary Final 

Rule 

III. Purpose and Discussion of the Final Rule 

A. Circumstances Resulting in the 2022 

Temporary Final Rule 

1. USCIS Enjoined From Increasing Its 

Filing Fees 

2. Public Health Emergency Caused by the 

COVID–19 Pandemic 

3. Unprecedented Increase in EAD 

Application Filings 

4. Combined Impact on Renewal EAD 

Application Processing Times 

B. Circumstances Resulting in the 2024 

Temporary Final Rule 

1. Overview 

2. Surge in Initial EAD Application Filings 

by Pending Asylum Applicants 

3. Significant Increase in Referrals to 

USCIS for Credible Fear Assessments 

4. Impact of Asylum Filing Surges and 

Backlogs on C08 Renewals 

5. Additional Designations for Temporary 

Protected Status 

6. Combined Impact on Renewal EAD 

Application Processing Times 

C. Automatic Extension Period of up to 180 

Days in Current 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1) Is 

Insufficient 

IV. Discussion of Public Comments 

A. Summary of Comments on the 2024 TFR 

B. General Support for the 2024 TFR 

C. General Opposition to the 2024 TFR 

D. Legal Authority 

E. Purpose of the 2024 TFR 

F. Positive Impacts of the 2024 TFR 

G. Impacts on U.S. Employers and the 

Economy 

1. Provide Stability and Decrease Burdens 

for U.S. Employers 

2. Contributions to Local, State, and U.S. 

Economy 

3. Alleviate Shortages in the U.S. Labor 

Market 

H. Impacts on the U.S. Government 

I. Allow a Second 540-Day Automatic 

Extension Period for Noncitizens Who 

Received the 2022 TFR Automatic 

Extension 

J. Make Permanent and Extend the 

Temporary Automatic Extension Period 

Beyond 540 Days 

1. Permanent Increase to the Automatic 

Extension Period 

i. Increase Necessary To Address 

Processing Backlogs 

ii. Benefit to USCIS 

iii. Benefit to Workers 

iv. Benefit to Employers 

2. Increase the Automatic Extension Period 

to 730 Days 

K. Expand EAD Categories Eligible for 

Automatic Extension 

L. EAD Validity Period 

M. Automatic Renewals 

N. Application, Adjudication, and 

Notification Processes 

1. General Comments on Adjudication and 

Application Times and Prioritization of 

Reviews 

i. EAD Processing Resources and Priorities 

ii. Decentralizing of EAD Processing and 

Other Processing Recommendations 

iii. General Processing 

iv. Notification to Applicants 

v. Suggestions To Improve USCIS’ Systems 

or Applicant-USCIS Communication 

2. Transparency, Clarity, and Outreach to 

External Stakeholders 

3. Alternative Actions 

4. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

V. Regulatory Changes: 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(1)(vii), 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1), 

(d)(3) and 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(6); Authority 

Citation 

A. Modifying 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii) 

B. Revising 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1) and (d)(3), 

and Removing (d)(5) and (d)(6) 

C. Revising Authority Citations for 8 CFR 

Part 274a 

VI. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) 

1. No Action Baseline—Effects of This 

Final Rule 

2. Without TFR Baseline—Effects of the 

2022 and 2024 TFRs 

i. Introduction 

ii. Background and Population 

iii. Impact Analysis 

a. Module A. Earnings of Renewal EAD 

Applicants 

b. Module B. Impacts That Could Accrue 

to Labor Earnings 

1. Earnings Impact to EAD holders 

2. Labor Turnover Cost Impacts 

c. Module C. Monetized Impacts for the 

2022 and 2024 TFRs, FY 2023 Through 

FY 2027 

d. Module D. Other Impacts 

3. Alternatives Considered 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional 

Review Act) 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

H. National Environmental Policy Act 

I. Family Assessment 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

VII. List of Subject and Regulatory 

Amendments 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

This final rule amends 8 CFR 

274a.13(d) and the related employment 

eligibility verification provision at 8 

CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii) to permanently 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101209 

1See 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (AC21 Final 

Rule). The final rule was issued after a proposed 

rule was published in the Federal Register. See 80 

FR 81899 (Dec. 31, 2015) (AC21 NPRM). 

2See 87 FR 26614 (May 4, 2022) (2022 TFR); 89 

FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024) (2024 TFR). 

3 89 FR 24628, 24629 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

4See 89 FR 24628, 24629 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

5Employers must verify the identity and 

employment authorization of their new hires by 

examining documentation that evidences such 

employment eligibility and completing Form I–9. 

See INA sec.274A(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)(1)(A). 

increase the automatic extension period 

for employment authorization and the 

validity of certain EADs from up to 180 

days to up to 540 days. This automatic 

extension period is available to certain 

applicants who timely filed a Form I– 

765, Application for Employment 

Authorization, to renew their EADs. 

Since the promulgation of 8 CFR 

274a.13(d) with its 180-day automatic 

extension period in 2016,1 DHS has 

issued two temporary final rules (TFRs) 

temporarily increasing the automatic 

extension period to up to 540 days in 

order to prevent a substantial number of 

renewal EAD applicants from 

experiencing a lapse in their 

employment authorization and/or 

documentation.2 With the 2024 TFR 

that is currently in effect, DHS focused 

on near-term needs of renewal 

applicants, their families, and 

employers by substantially reducing the 

number of applicants who would 

experience harmful effects created by 

gaps in their employment authorization 

and/or documentation.3 The 2024 TFR 

also provided DHS and USCIS with 

additional time to consider long-term 

solutions by soliciting public comments, 

evaluating the effects of policy and 

operational changes, and continuing to 

identify new ways to reduce renewal 

EAD application processing times.4

After careful consideration of the 

public comments submitted in 

connection with the 2024 TFR, as well 

as the operational realities associated 

with the events described in the 2024 

TFR, DHS has determined that the up to 

180-day automatic extension under 8 

CFR 274a.13(d) does not provide USCIS 

enough time to address large spikes in 

EAD filings and other circumstances 

that may occur in the future and 

increase renewal EAD application 

processing times. DHS believes that a 

substantial number of renewal EAD 

applicants may, in the future, continue 

to face uncertainty about the risk of 

losing employment authorization and/or 

EAD validity through no fault of their 

own because of USCIS processing 

delays resulting from sporadic spikes in 

EAD filings or other unanticipated 

circumstances. The potential for gaps in 

employment authorization and EAD 

validity periods also creates uncertainty 

among U.S. employers. 

In addition, lapses in employment 

authorization and EAD validity can 

result in substantial harm to 

noncitizens, their families, their 

employers, and the public at large. To 

help prevent the harmful effects of these 

gaps, DHS is amending its existing 

regulations to permanently increase the 

automatic extension period applicable 

to expiring employment authorization 

and/or EADs for certain renewal 

applicants from up to 180 days to up to 

540 days from the expiration date stated 

on their EADs. This final rule will be 

effective January 13, 2025. USCIS will 

also continue its efforts to reduce 

processing times for renewal EAD 

applications. 

B. Summary of Legal Authority 

The authority for the Secretary of 

Homeland Security (Secretary) to issue 

this final rule is found in section 

274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1324a(h)(3)(B), which recognizes the 

Secretary’s authority to extend 

employment authorization to 

noncitizens in the United States. Under 

section 103(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1103(a), the Secretary is authorized to 

administer the immigration and 

nationality laws and establish such 

regulations as the Secretary deems 

necessary for carrying out such 

authority. Section 101(b)(1)(F) of the 

Homeland Security Act (HSA), 6 U.S.C. 

111(b)(1)(F), establishes as a primary 

mission of DHS the duty to ‘‘ensure that 

the overall economic security of the 

United States is not diminished by 

efforts, activities, and programs aimed at 

securing the homeland.’’ 

C. Summary of Regulatory Changes 

Following careful consideration of the 

public comments received in response 

to the 2024 TFR, DHS is making the 

following changes to its employment 

authorization and verification 

regulations: 

• Amending existing 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(1)(vii): DHS is deleting the 

language ‘‘for up to 180 days,’’ so that 

the paragraph describes the automatic 

extension period simply by referring to 

8 CFR 274a.13(d) only. DHS is not 

changing the current reverification 

requirements an employer must follow 

for Form I–9, Employment Eligibility 

Verification,5 at 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii) 

that apply to automatic extensions. 

Additionally, to simplify the regulatory 

text, DHS is making an editorial change 

by eliminating the section symbol before 

the citation to section 274a.13(d) and 

replacing it with the complete CFR 

citation, i.e., 8 CFR 274a.13(d). 

• Amending existing 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(1): DHS is amending the 

provision by combining the content 

previously contained in 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(1), (d)(5) and (d)(6). The 

amended paragraph provides that the 

automatic extension period under 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(1) (in effect prior to the 

effective date of this final rule) for 

applicants who had their renewal EAD 

applications filed and adjudicated prior 

to May 4, 2022, was 180 days. The 

amended provision also provides that 

the automatic extension period for 

renewal EAD applications pending on, 

or filed on or after May 4, 2022, is up 

to 540-days. Furthermore, DHS is 

clarifying that the up to 540-day EAD 

automatic extension period starts the 

day after the expiration date found on 

the face of the EAD. 

• 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(i): DHS is 

amending paragraph (d)(1)(i) to clarify 

that a renewal EAD application for 

Temporary Protected Status (TPS)- 

related EADs is timely filed under 8 

CFR 274a.13(d)(1) when it is filed 

during the re-registration filing period 

in the applicable Federal Register 

notice. (Previously, the regulations 

contained a reference to the filing 

period; DHS is adding the term ‘‘reregistration for clarity.) 

• Amending existing 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(3): DHS is eliminating the 

reference to the up to 180-day automatic 

extension period and replacing it with 

the up to 540-day period. 

• Removing 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(5) and 

(d)(6): DHS is removing the provisions 

that were added as part of the 2022 TFR 

and the 2024 TFR. DHS has 

incorporated applicable content as part 

of the amendments made to 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(1). 

• Revising the authority citations to 8 

CFR part 274a: DHS is revising the 

authority citation to 8 CFR part 274a by 

adding 8 U.S.C. 1105a, which was 

inadvertently removed by another DHS 

rule. DHS is furthermore amending the 

authority by adding reference to INA 

208, 214, and 244, 8 U.S.C. 1158, 1184, 

and 1254a, that serve as sources of 

statutory authority for employment 

authorization. 

D. Severability 

In issuing this final rule, it is DHS’s 

intention that the rule’s various 

provisions be considered severable from 

one another to the greatest extent 

possible. For example, if a court of 

competent jurisdiction were to hold that 

the automatic extension may not be 

applied to a particular category of 

renewal EAD applicants or in a 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101210 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

6See 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016). 

7See 87 FR 26614, 26617–26 (May 4, 2022) 

(identifying USCIS’ precarious fiscal status, the 

COVID–19 public health emergency, and dramatic 

increases in Form I–765 filings as some of the 

unforeseen events and circumstances); 89 FR 24628, 

24634–40 (Apr. 8, 2024) (identifying, in addition to 

many of the same events and circumstances as the 

2022 TFR, an increase in referrals to USCIS for 

Credible Fear Assessment and an increase in 

affirmative and defensive asylum filings as 

contributing factors to an increase in average 

processing time). 

8See 87 FR 26614 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 24628 

(Apr. 8, 2024). 

9These findings were made as part of the 2022 

and 2024 TFRs. See 87 FR 26614, 26636 (May 4, 

2022), 89 FR 24628, 24655 (Apr. 8, 2024), for 

findings related to potential economic impacts 

caused by lapsed employment authorization and/or 

documentation. 

10See 87 FR 26614, 26618 (May 4, 2022) 

(explaining that the COVID–19 pandemic 

exacerbated USCIS’ precarious financial situation, 

while a sudden and dramatic increase in Form I– 

765 filings further hampered USCIS’ efforts to 

return to a steady pace in adjudications). 

11See 87 FR 26614, 26640 (May 4, 2022). 

12See 87 FR 26614 (May 4, 2022). 

13See 89 FR 24628, 24634 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

14 Id. 

15The continued lengthy processing times was 

primarily due to a substantial increase in the 

number of initial EAD applications based on 

pending asylum applications (C08) that began in 

March 2023 and litigation regarding rules governing 

EAD applications that require USCIS to process 

initial EAD applications for asylum applicants 

within 30 days of filing. Other causes included a 

surge in initial EAD applications filed by 

individuals with pending asylum applications, the 

allocation of USCIS personnel to assist with 

historically high levels of encounters at the 

southwest land border between the ports of entry, 

and additional TPS designations in FY 2022 and FY 

2023. 

particular circumstance, DHS would 

intend for the court to leave the 

remainder of the rule in place with 

respect to all other covered persons and 

circumstances. DHS’s overarching goal 

is to reduce the likelihood of lapses in 

employment authorization and/or EAD 

validity that would result in substantial 

and unnecessary harm to noncitizens 

who timely applied for a renewal EAD 

in certain categories, their families, their 

employers, and the public at large. This 

final rule will provide greater financial 

stability for eligible renewal EAD 

applicants and maintain continuity of 

business operations for their employers. 

E. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

This final rule—which finalizes the 

2024 TFR and permanently increases 

the automatic extension period for 

employment authorization and the 

validity of certain EADs from up to 180 

days to up to 540 days—will provide 

long-term predictability and reduced 

anxiety around job stability for EAD 

renewal applicants. When unforeseen 

future circumstances cause processing 

times to extend beyond 180 days and 

result in large scale lapses in renewal 

EADs, this permanent adjustment of the 

automatic extension period to 540 days 

will result in benefits and cost savings, 

such as stabilized earnings and avoided 

labor turnover costs. 

USCIS examined the benefits of the 

2022 TFR and 2024 TFR and estimates 

that from FY 2023 to FY 2027 these 

rules result in average stabilization of 

earnings worth $10.0 billion to 

employment-authorized noncitizens and 

average cost savings of $3.5 billion to 

U.S. employers from avoided labor 

turnover and are expected to yield an 

average $1.1 billion in employment tax 

transfer payments using a 2 percent 

discount rate (see Table 17 for more 

information). While the EAD end dates 

are known to USCIS and can be used to 

accurately project at what date an EAD 

might lapse if not adjudicated, there is 

uncertainty around the monetized, 

economic impacts due to possible 

changes in the timing of EAD renewal 

filing behavior, adjudication resources 

and completion rates, and the duration 

of lapses experienced by workers of 

varying wages in the absence of any 

changes to the automatic extension 

period. The Regulatory Impact Analysis 

discusses the low and high-end 

estimates that bound the expected 

impacts described above. 

II. Background 

Since the promulgation of 8 CFR 

274a.13(d) in 2016,6 authorizing the up 

to 180-day automatic extension period 

for certain renewal EAD applicants, 

USCIS’ ability to process both initial 

and renewal EAD applications within 

USCIS’ targeted processing times has 

been adversely impacted by a variety of 

unforeseen events and circumstances.7

As a result, DHS has found it necessary 

to take actions to reduce the likelihood 

that applicants for renewal EADs who 

are eligible for an automatic extension 

of their EAD validity under 8 CFR 

274a.13(d) experience lapses in their 

employment authorization and/or proof 

of employment authorization because of 

USCIS processing delays and through 

no fault of their own.8 DHS has found 

that such lapses in employment 

authorization and/or EAD validity could 

result in substantial and unnecessary 

harm to noncitizens who timely filed for 

extensions of employment 

authorization, their families, their 

employers, and the public at large.9

In 2021, a surge in EAD applications, 

coupled with operational challenges 

exacerbated by the COVID–19 

pandemic, resulted in a significant 

increase in renewal EAD application 

processing times.10 The processing 

times increased to such a level that the 

180-day automatic extension for certain 

pending renewal EAD applications 

under 8 CFR 274a.13(d) was insufficient 

to prevent many renewal applicants 

from experiencing a lapse in 

employment authorization and/or 

documentation while their renewal 

applications remained pending with 

USCIS.11

In May 2022, DHS published a 

temporary final rule (‘‘2022 TFR’’) that, 

for certain renewal EAD applications 

filed during a 540-day period that ended 

on October 26, 2023, increased the 

automatic extension period from up to 

180 days to up to 540 days.12 This 

measure helped minimize gaps in 

employment authorization and/or EAD 

validity for eligible renewal EAD 

applicants, while giving USCIS the 

opportunity to address its backlogs 

through operational and sub-regulatory 

measures and work toward its goal of 

returning to regular 3-month processing 

times. 

The 2022 TFR proved to be very 

successful at minimizing disruption to 

renewal EAD applicants and their U.S. 

employers that would have otherwise 

resulted from USCIS processing 

delays.13 Not only did the 2022 TFR 

immediately restore employment 

authorization and/or EAD validity for 

approximately 70,000 renewal EAD 

applicants who were already beyond the 

up to 180-day automatic extension 

period when the 2022 TFR published, 

but the 2022 TFR also helped nearly 

280,000 renewal EAD applicants avoid 

a gap in employment authorization and/ 

or employment authorization 

documentation based on renewal EAD 

applications filed from May 4, 2022 

through October 26, 2023.14

However, for reasons fundamentally 

unrelated to the reasons stated in the 

2022 TFR, the renewal EAD processing 

backlog grew despite USCIS’ best 

efforts. In the middle of FY 2023, EAD 

application filings began to increase 

substantially. The historic 1 million 

application increase in initial and 

renewal EAD filings, compounded by 

the lack of a filing fee increase, the 

adjudicative demands of USCIS’ 

responses to global humanitarian crises, 

and other increases in immigration 

benefit filings and court-ordered 

processing timeframes, created an 

insurmountable operational strain and 

increase in renewal EAD application 

processing times.15 The processing 

times were at such a level that the 180- 

day automatic extension period for 

certain renewal EAD applications 

remained insufficient to prevent a large 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101211 

16See 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024). The 2024 TFR 

increased the automatic extension period from up 

to 180 days to up to 540 days for applicants who 

properly filed their EAD renewals on or after 

October 27, 2023, and that remained pending on 

May 4, 2024, as well as renewal EAD applications 

filed from May 4, 2024, through September 30, 

2025. 

17See 89 FR 24628, 24660 (Table 7) (Apr. 8, 

2024). 

18See 89 FR 24628, 24630 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

19See 89 FR 24628, 24629 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

20Although several provisions of the INA 

discussed in this final rule refer exclusively to the 

‘‘Attorney General,’’ such provisions are now to be 

read as referring to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security by operation of the HSA. See 6 U.S.C. 

202(3), 251, 271(b), 542 note, 557; 8 U.S.C. 

1103(a)(1) and (g), 1551 note; Nielsen v. Preap, 586 

U.S. 392, 397 n.2 (2019). 

21Courts have acknowledged that Congress 

delegated authority to DHS to grant or extend 

employment authorization to certain classes of 

noncitizens. See, e.g., Washington Alliance of 

Technology Workers v. DHS, 50 F.4th 164, 191–192 

(D.C. Cir. 2022) (‘‘What matters is that section 

1324a(h)(3) expressly acknowledges that 

employment authorization need not be specifically 

conferred by statute; it can also be granted by 

regulation.’’). DHS is exercising this discretionary 

authority consistent with all applicable authorities, 

including the referenced authorities in the HSA, 

and sections 103, 208, 214, 244 and 274A(h)(3) of 

the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1184, 1254a and 

1324a(h)(3), as well as the Administrative 

Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553. See Loper Bright 

Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2263 

(2024) (‘‘In a case involving an agency, of course, 

the statute’s meaning may well be that the agency 

is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion. 

Congress has often enacted such statutes. For 

example, some statutes ‘expressly delegate’ to an 

agency the authority to give meaning to a particular 

statutory term. Others empower an agency to 

prescribe rules to ‘fill up the details’ of a statutory 

scheme, or to regulate subject to the limits imposed 

by a term or phrase that ‘leaves agencies with 

flexibility,’ such as ‘appropriate’ or ‘reasonable.’’’) 

(internal citations omitted). 

22There are several employment-eligible 

categories that are not included in DHS regulations, 

but instead are described in the form instructions 

to Form I–765, Application for Employment 

Authorization (EAD application). Employmentauthorized L nonimmigrant spouses are an 

example. See INA sec. 214(c)(2)(E), 8 U.S.C. 

1184(c)(2)(E). 

number of lapses projected to start in 

May 2024. 

Accordingly, DHS again took steps to 

help prevent certain renewal EAD 

applicants from experiencing a lapse in 

their employment authorization and/or 

documentation while their renewal 

applications remain pending while 

continuing to implement other solutions 

to return processing times to target 

levels. In April 2024, DHS published a 

temporary final rule (‘‘2024 TFR’’) that, 

for certain renewal EAD applications 

filed from October 27, 2023, through 

September 30, 2025, again temporarily 

increased the automatic extension 

period from up to 180 days to up to 540 

days.16

USCIS projected that without the 

2024 TFR, approximately 800,000 

renewal applicants would have been in 

danger of losing their employment 

authorization and/or documentation in 

the period beginning May 2024 and 

ending March 2026.17 If faced with a 

disruption of their employment 

authorization and/or documentation, 

these renewal applicants may have lost 

their jobs through no fault of their own, 

and their employers would have been 

faced with finding replacement workers, 

an undue burden that would have been 

exacerbated during a time when the U.S. 

economy has been experiencing more 

job openings than available workers.18

With the 2024 TFR, DHS focused on 

near-term needs of applicants, their 

families, and employers by ensuring 

that, through the 2024 TFR, a 

substantially smaller number of 

applicants would experience near-term 

harmful effects that gaps in employment 

authorization and/or documentation 

could create. The 2024 TFR averted 

many of these imminent adverse 

consequences and provided DHS and 

USCIS with an additional window to 

consider long-term solutions by 

soliciting public comments, evaluating 

the effects of policy and operational 

changes, and continuing to identify new 

strategies and efficiencies in light of 

ongoing developments.19

After carefully considering public 

comments, as well as the operational 

realities associated with the changes 

described in the 2024 TFR, DHS has 

determined that the automatic extension 

period should be permanently increased 

from up to 180 days to up to 540 days. 

This final rule will be effective January 

13, 2025. 

Permanently increasing the automatic 

extension period will help avoid the 

gaps in employment authorization and/ 

or documentation that could otherwise 

affect eligible renewal EAD applicants, 

their families, and their U.S. employers 

in those cases where USCIS is unable to 

process their renewal applications 

within the 180-day automatic extension 

period provided under the current 

regulation because of circumstances that 

are beyond the control of the applicant. 

A. Legal Authority 

The Secretary of Homeland Security’s 

(Secretary) authority for the regulatory 

amendments made in this final rule are 

found in various sections of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA 

or the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(HSA), Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 

2135 (codified in part at 6 U.S.C. 101 et 

seq.). General authority for issuing this 

rule is found in section 103(a) of the 

INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes 

the Secretary to administer and enforce 

the immigration and nationality laws 

and establish such regulations as the 

Secretary deems necessary for carrying 

out such authority, as well as section 

102 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112, which 

vests all of the functions of DHS in the 

Secretary and authorizes the Secretary 

to issue regulations.20 Further authority 

for this rule is found in: 

• Section 208(d)(2) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), which authorizes the 

Secretary to grant employment 

authorization to applicants for asylum if 

180 days have passed since filing an 

application for asylum; 

• Section 214 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1184, including section 214(a)(1) of the 

INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), which 

authorizes the Secretary to prescribe, by 

regulation, the time and conditions of 

the admission of nonimmigrants; 

• Section 244(a)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(B), which states that 

the Secretary shall authorize 

employment and provide evidence of 

employment authorization for 

noncitizens who have been granted 

Temporary Protected Status; 

• Section 274A(b) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1324a(b), which provides for the 

employment verification system and 

outlines employment eligibility 

verification requirements. 

• Section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B), which recognizes 

the Secretary’s authority to extend 

employment authorization to 

noncitizens in the United States; 21 and 

• Section 101(b)(1)(F) of the 

Homeland Security Act, 6 U.S.C. 

111(b)(1)(F), which establishes as a 

primary mission of DHS the duty to 

‘‘ensure that the overall economic 

security of the United States is not 

diminished by efforts, activities, and 

programs aimed at securing the 

homeland.’’ 

B. Legal Framework for Employment 

Authorization and Verification 

1. Types of Employment Authorization: 

8 CFR 274a.12(a), (b), and (c) 

Whether a noncitizen is authorized to 

work in the United States depends on 

the noncitizen’s immigration status or 

other conditions that may permit 

employment authorization (for example, 

having a pending application for asylum 

or a grant of deferred action). DHS 

regulations outline three classes of 

noncitizens who may be eligible for 

employment in the United States, as 

follows: 22

• Noncitizens in the first class, 

described at 8 CFR 274a.12(a), are 

authorized to work ‘‘incident to status’’ 

for any employer, as well as to engage 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101212 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

23See 8 CFR 274a.12(a). 

24See 8 CFR 274a.12(b). 

25See 8 CFR 274a.12(c); Matter of Tong, 16 I&N 

Dec. 593, 595 (BIA 1978) (holding that the term 

‘‘ ‘employment’ is a common one, generally used 

with relation to the most common pursuits,’’ and 

includes ‘‘the act of being employed for one’s self’’). 

26See DHS, USCIS, Form I–765, ‘‘Instructions for 

Application for Employment Authorization,’’ 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/ 

forms/i-765instr.pdf (last visited Feb. 7, 2024). In 

reviewing the EAD application, USCIS ensures that 

the fee was paid, a fee waiver was granted, or a fee 

exemption applies. 

27See 8 CFR 103.2(a) and 8 CFR 274a.13(a). Some 

applicants who are employment authorized 

incident to status (e.g., asylees, refugees, TPS 

beneficiaries) may file an EAD application to obtain 

an EAD. Applicants who are filing within an 

eligibility category listed in 8 CFR 274a.12(c) must, 

by contrast, use the EAD application form to request 

both employment authorization and an EAD. 28See 8 CFR 274a.13(a). For example, the spouse 

of an H–1B worker may file an EAD application at 

the same time as their Form I–539, Application to 

Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status. See DHS, 

USCIS, Employment Authorization for Certain H–4, 

E Dependent Spouses (last reviewed/updated Aug. 

2, 2024), https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-theunited-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialtyoccupations-and-fashion-models/employmentauthorization-for-certain-h-4-dependent-spouses 

(last visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

29See 8 CFR 274.12(a) and (c). 

30See 8 CFR 274a.13(b). But see 8 CFR 274a.14 

(setting forth the bases for termination or revocation 

of employment authorization). 

31See 8 CFR 274a.14(a)(1)(i). 

32The employee must present the employer with 

acceptable documents evidencing identity and 

employment authorization. The lists of acceptable 

documents can be found on Form I–9. See DHS, 

USCIS, Form I–9, ‘‘Employment Eligibility 

Verification,’’ https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/ 

files/document/forms/i-9.pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 

2024). An employer that does not properly 

complete Form I–9, which includes reverifying 

continued employment authorization, or continues 

to employ an individual with knowledge that the 

individual is not authorized to work, may be subject 

to civil money penalties. See DHS, USCIS, M–274, 

Handbook for Employers, 11.8 Penalties for 

Prohibited Practices, https://www.uscis.gov/i-9- 

central/form-i-9-resources/handbook-for-employersm-274/110-unlawful-discrimination-and-penaltiesfor-prohibited-practices/118-penalties-forprohibited-practices (last visited Feb. 7, 2024). In 

addition, an employer who engages in a ‘‘pattern or 

practice’’ of employing unauthorized individuals 

may face criminal penalties under 8 U.S.C. 1324a(f). 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has 

primary enforcement responsibilities for 

enforcement of the civil monetary penalties under 

INA sec. 274A, 8 U.S.C. 1324a. 

33See 8 CFR 103.2, 106.2, and 274a.13(a); see 

DHS, USCIS, Form I–765, Instructions for 

Application for Employment Authorization, https:// 

www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/ 

i-765instr.pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 2024). In 

reviewing the EAD application, USCIS ensures that 

the fee was paid, a fee waiver was granted, or a fee 

exemption applies. 

in self-employment, as a condition of 

their immigration status or 

circumstances. This means that for 

certain eligible noncitizens, 

employment authorization is granted 

with the underlying immigration status 

(called ‘‘incident to status’’ employment 

authorization). Although authorized to 

work as a condition of their status or 

circumstances, certain classes of 

noncitizens must apply to USCIS in 

order to receive a Form I–766 EAD as 

evidence of that employment 

authorization.23

• Noncitizens in the second class, 

described at 8 CFR 274a.12(b), also are 

authorized to work ‘‘incident to status’’ 

as a condition of their immigration 

status or circumstances, but generally 

the authorization is valid only with a 

specific employer.24 These noncitizens 

are issued an Arrival-Departure Record 

(Form I–94) indicating their 

employment-authorized status in the 

United States and in most cases do not 

file separate requests for evidence of 

employment authorization. 

• Noncitizens in the third class, 

described at 8 CFR 274a.12(c), are 

required to apply for employment 

authorization and may work only if 

USCIS, in its discretion, approves their 

application. They are authorized to 

work for any employer or engage in selfemployment upon approval of their 

EAD application, subject to certain 

restrictions, so long as their EAD 

remains valid.25

2. The Application Process for 

Obtaining Employment Authorization 

and EADs 

For certain eligibility categories listed 

in 8 CFR 274a.12(a) (the first class) and 

all eligibility categories listed in 8 CFR 

274a.12(c) (the third class), as well as 

additional categories specified in the 

Form I–765 instructions,26 an EAD 

application must be properly filed with 

USCIS (with fee or fee waiver, as 

applicable) to receive employment 

authorization and/or an EAD.27 EADs 

issued under 8 CFR 274a.12(a) or (c) 

generally allow these noncitizens to 

work for any U.S. employer or engage in 

self-employment, subject to certain 

restrictions, as applicable. If an EAD 

application is approved under CFR 

274a.12(a), the resultant EAD provides 

the noncitizen with proof of 

employment authorization incident to 

status or circumstance. Certain 

noncitizens may file EAD applications 

concurrently with related benefit 

requests if permitted by the applicable 

form instructions or as announced by 

USCIS.28 In such instances, the 

underlying benefit requests, if granted, 

would form the basis for an EAD or 

eligibility to apply for employment 

authorization. For eligibility categories 

listed in 8 CFR 274a.12(a) and (c), 

USCIS has the discretion to establish a 

specific validity period for the EAD.29

3. Automatic Extensions of EADs for 

Renewal Applicants and Related 

Employment Eligibility Verification 

Requirements for Employers 

i. Renewing Employment Authorization 

and/or EADs 

Temporary employment authorization 

and EADs generally are not valid 

indefinitely but instead expire after a 

specified period of time.30 Generally, 

noncitizens within the eligibility 

categories listed in 8 CFR 274a.12(c) 

must obtain a renewal of employment 

authorization and their EADs before the 

expiration date stated on their current 

EADs, or they will lose their eligibility 

to work in the United States (unless, 

since obtaining their current EADs, the 

noncitizens have obtained an 

immigration status or belong to a class 

of individuals with employment 

authorization incident to that status or 

class, or obtain employment 

authorization based on another 

category).31 The same holds true for 

some classes of noncitizens authorized 

to work incident to status whose EAD 

expiration dates coincide with the 

termination or expiration of their 

underlying immigration status. Other 

noncitizens authorized to work incident 

to status, such as asylees, refugees, and 

TPS beneficiaries, may have 

immigration status that confers 

employment authorization that 

continues past the expiration date stated 

on their EADs. Nevertheless, such 

noncitizens may wish to renew their 

EAD to have acceptable evidence of 

their continuous employment 

authorization for various purposes, such 

as presenting evidence of employment 

authorization and identity to their 

employers for completion of Form I–9, 

Employment Eligibility Verification. 

Failure to renew their EADs prior to the 

expiration date may result in job loss if 

such noncitizens do not have or cannot 

present alternate acceptable evidence of 

employment authorization to show their 

employers, as employers who continue 

to employ noncitizens without 

employment authorization may be 

subject to criminal penalties and/or civil 

monetary penalties.32

Those seeking to renew previously 

granted employment authorization or 

obtain new EADs must file renewal EAD 

applications with USCIS in accordance 

with the form instructions.33

ii. Minimizing the Risk of Gaps in 

Employment Authorization and/or EAD 

Validity Through Automatic Extensions 

If an eligible noncitizen is not able to 

obtain renewal of their employment 

authorization and/or EAD before it 

expires, the noncitizen and the 

employer could experience adverse 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101213 

34See DHS, USCIS, M–274, Handbook for 

Employers, 6.1, Reverifying Employment 

Authorization for Current Employees, https://

www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/ 

handbook-for-employers-m-274/60-completingsupplement-b-reverification-and-rehire-of-form-i-9/ 

61-reverifying-employment-authorization-forcurrent-employees (last visited Aug. 2, 2024). 

35See INA sec. 274A(e)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(5). 

36See, e.g., INA sec. 237(a)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 

1227(a)(1)(C); 8 CFR 214.1(e). 

37See INA sec. 245(c), (k); 8 U.S.C. 1255(c), (k). 

38See INA sec. 274A, 8 U.S.C. 1324a. 

39See 8 CFR 274a.13(d) (2016). 

40See 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (‘‘AC21 Final 

Rule’’). The final rule was issued after a proposed 

rule was published in the Federal Register. See 80 

FR 81899 (Dec. 31, 2015) (‘‘AC21 NPRM’’). 

41See 80 FR 81899, 81927 (Dec. 31, 2015) (‘‘DHS 

proposes to amend its regulations to help prevent 

gaps in employment authorization for certain 

employment-authorized individuals who are 

seeking to renew expiring EADs. These provisions 

would significantly mitigate the risk of gaps in 

employment authorization and required 

documentation for eligible individuals, thereby 

benefitting them and their employers.’’). 

42See 80 FR 81899, 81927 (Dec. 31, 2015) (‘‘DHS 

believes that this time period [of up to 180 days] 

is reasonable and provides more than ample time 

for USCIS to complete the adjudication process 

based on USCIS’ current 3-month average 

processing time for Applications for Employment 

Authorization.’’), 81927 n.77 (‘‘Depending on any 

significant surges in filings, however, there may be 

periods in which USCIS takes longer than 2 weeks 

to issue Notices of Action (Forms I–797C).’’). 

43 8 CFR 274a.13(d); see also 81 FR 82398, 82455– 

82463 (Nov. 18, 2016). 

44 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(i). TPS beneficiaries must 

file during the re-registration period in the 

applicable Federal Register notice; see 81 FR 

82398, 82455 (Nov. 18, 2016). 

45See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(ii) (exempting 

individuals approved for TPS with EADs issued 

pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(19) from the 

requirement that the employment authorization 

category on the face of the expiring EAD be the 

same as on the renewal EAD application). 

46See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(iii). 

47See DHS, USCIS, Automatic Employment 

Authorization (EAD) Extension (last reviewed/ 

updated Oct. 9, 2024), https://www.uscis.gov/ 

working-in-the-united-states/information-foremployers-and-employees/automatic-employmentauthorization-document-ead-extension (last visited 

Oct. 23, 2024). 

48See 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(3). 

49See 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(5). 

50See 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(7). 

51See 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(8). 

52See 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(10). 

53See 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(12) or (c)(19). 

54See INA sec. 214(e)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1184(e)(2). 

55See INA sec. 214(c)(2)(E), 8 U.S.C. 

1184(c)(2)(E). 

56See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(8). 

consequences. For the noncitizen, the 

lack of renewal could cause job loss, 

gaps in employment authorization and/ 

or documentation, and loss of income. 

For the noncitizen’s employer, the 

disruption may cause instability with 

business continuity or other financial 

harm. In addition, under 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(1)(vii), if an employee’s 

employment authorization and/or 

documentation expires, their employer 

must reverify or update the employee’s 

Form I–9 to reflect that the employee is 

still authorized to work in the United 

States; otherwise, the employee can no 

longer work. No later than the date 

employment authorization expires, 

employees must present unexpired 

acceptable documentation that 

demonstrates continued authorization to 

work.34 The employer is required to 

reverify or update information on the 

employee’s Form I–9 to record the 

employee’s evidence of continued 

employment authorization. Employers 

who fail to properly complete Forms I– 

9 including reverification are subject to 

civil money penalties for paperwork 

violations.35 Employers must terminate 

employment of employees who have 

gaps in their employment authorization 

documentation and are not able to 

reverify or risk being fined under the 

employer sanctions provisions in 

section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a. 

Beyond the financial and economic 

impact that gaps in employment 

authorization or proof thereof creates for 

the noncitizen and the employer, if the 

noncitizen engages in unauthorized 

employment, such activity may render a 

noncitizen removable,36 render a 

noncitizen ineligible for future benefits 

such as adjustment of status,37 and/or 

subject the employer to civil and/or 

criminal penalties.38

Before 2016, DHS regulations stated 

that USCIS would ‘‘adjudicate an 

application [for an EAD] within 90 

days’’ from the date USCIS received the 

application.39 If USCIS did not 

adjudicate the application within that 

timeframe, the applicant was eligible for 

an interim document evidencing 

employment authorization with a 

validity period not to exceed 240 days. 

On November 18, 2016, as part of DHS’s 

efforts to implement the flexibilities 

provided to noncitizens and employers 

by the American Competitiveness in the 

Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 

(AC21), as amended, and the American 

Competitiveness and Workforce 

Improvement Act of 1998, DHS 

published a final regulation 40 removing 

the provision and replacing it with the 

current 8 CFR 274a.13(d). 

To prevent gaps in employment 

authorization and/or documentation 

and related consequences for certain 

renewal applicants,41 and in light of 

processing times and possible filing 

surges,42 DHS changed its regulations at 

8 CFR 274a.13(d) such that under the 

current provision, and except as 

otherwise provided by law, certain 

categories of renewal applicants receive 

an automatic extension of their EADs 

(and, if applicable, related employment 

authorization) for up to 180 days from 

the expiration date on the EAD.43 To 

receive the automatic extension, an 

eligible renewal applicant must meet 

the following conditions: 

• The renewal applicant timely files 

an application to renew the employment 

authorization and/or EAD before the 

EAD expires; 44

• The renewal EAD application is 

based on the same employment 

authorization category shown on the 

front of the expiring EAD or, for an 

individual approved for TPS, whose 

EAD was issued pursuant to either 8 

CFR 274a.12(a)(12) or (c)(19); 45 and 

• The renewal applicant’s eligibility 

to apply for employment authorization 

continues notwithstanding the 

expiration of the EAD and is based on 

an employment authorization category 

that does not require the adjudication of 

an underlying application or petition 

before the adjudication of the renewal 

application, as may be announced on 

the USCIS website.46

The following classes of noncitizens 

filing to renew an EAD may be eligible 

to receive an automatic extension of 

their employment authorization and/or 

EAD for up to 180 days: 47

• Noncitizens admitted as refugees 

(A03); 48

• Noncitizens granted asylum 

(A05); 49

• Noncitizens admitted as parents or 

dependent children of noncitizens 

granted permanent residence under 

section 101(a)(27)(I) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(27)(I) (A07); 50

• Noncitizens admitted to the United 

States as citizens of the Federated States 

of Micronesia, the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, or the Republic of 

Palau pursuant to agreements between 

the United States and the former trust 

territories (A08); 51

• Noncitizens granted withholding of 

deportation or removal (A10); 52

• Noncitizens granted TPS, if the 

employment authorization category on 

their current EAD is either A12 or C19 

(A12); 53

• Noncitizen spouses of E–1/2/3 

nonimmigrants (Treaty Trader/Investor/ 

Australian Specialty Worker) (A17); 54

• Noncitizen spouses of L–1 

nonimmigrants (Intracompany 

Transferees) (A18); 55

• Noncitizens who have filed 

applications for asylum and 

withholding of deportation or removal 

(C08); 56

• Noncitizens who have filed 

applications for adjustment of status to 

lawful permanent resident under 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101214 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

57See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(9). In certain adjustment 

of status cases, if the applicant seeks an EAD and 

advance parole (by filing Form I–131, Application 

for Travel Document), USCIS may issue an 

employment authorization card combined with an 

Advance Parole Card (Form I–512). This is also 

referred to as a ‘‘combo card.’’ If the EAD card is 

combined with the advance parole authorization 

(the EAD card has an annotation ‘‘SERVES AS I– 

512 ADVANCE PAROLE’’), any automatic extension 

does not apply to the advance parole part of the 

combo card. 

58See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(10). 

59See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(16). 

60See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(19). 

61See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(20). 

62See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(22). 

63See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(24). 

64See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(26). 

65Family-based immigration generally requires 

U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to file 

a petition on behalf of their noncitizen family 

members. Some petitioners may misuse this process 

to further abuse their noncitizen family members by 

threatening to withhold or withdraw sponsorship in 

order to control, coerce, and intimidate them. With 

the passage of VAWA and its subsequent 

reauthorizations, Congress provided noncitizens 

who have been abused by their U.S. citizen or 

lawful permanent resident relative the ability to 

petition for themselves (self-petition) without the 

abuser’s knowledge, consent, or participation in the 

process. The VAWA provisions allow victims to 

seek both safety and independence from their 

abusers. 

66 INA sec. 204(a)(1)(D)(i)(II), (IV), (a)(1)(K), 8 

U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(D)(i)(II), (IV), (a)(1)(K). 

67See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(3). 

68See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(4). 

69See DHS,USCIS, ‘‘Completing Supplement B, 

Reverification and Rehires (formerly Section 3),’’ 

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/complete-correctform-i-9/completing-supplement-b-reverificationand-rehires-formerly-section-3 (last visited Nov. 3, 

2023); see also DHS, USCIS, M–274 Handbook for 

Employers, 5.2 Temporary Increase of Automatic 

Extension of EADs from 180 Days to 540 Days (last 

reviewed/updated Apr. 8, 2024), https://

www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/ 

handbook-for-employers-m-274/50-automaticextensions-of-employment-authorization-andoremployment-authorization-documents-eads-in/52- 

temporary-increase-of-automatic-extension-of-eadsfrom-180-days-to-540-days (last visited Oct. 23, 

2024). 

70See DHS, USCIS, ‘‘I–765, Application for 

Employment Authorization,’’ https://

www.uscis.gov/i-765 (last visited Oct.23, 2024); 

DHS, USCIS, Employment Authorization Document 

(last reviewed/updated June 7, 2024), https://

www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processesand-procedures/employment-authorizationdocument (last visited Oct. 23, 2024); see also 81 

FR 82398, 82456. 

71See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(3). 

72See 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(vii) (reverification 

provision). 

73 87 FR 26614 (May 4, 2022). 

section 245 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255 

(C09); 57

• Noncitizens who have filed 

applications for suspension of 

deportation under section 244 of the 

INA (as it existed prior to April 1, 1997), 

cancellation of removal pursuant to 

section 240A of the INA, or special rule 

cancellation of removal under section 

309(f)(1) of the Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

Act of 1996 (C10); 58

• Noncitizens who have filed 

applications for creation of record of 

lawful admission for permanent 

residence (C16); 59

• Noncitizens who have filed 

applications for TPS and who have been 

deemed prima facie eligible for TPS 

under 8 CFR 244.10(a) and have 

received an EAD as a ‘‘temporary 

treatment benefit’’ under 8 CFR 

244.10(e) and 274a.12(c)(19) (C19); 60

• Noncitizens who have filed 

legalization applications pursuant to 

section 210 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1160 

(C20); 61

• Noncitizens who have filed 

legalization applications pursuant to 

section 245A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255a 

(C22); 62

• Noncitizens who have filed 

applications for adjustment of status 

pursuant to section 1104 of the Legal 

Immigration Family Equity Act (C24); 63

• Certain noncitizen spouses (H–4) of 

H–1B nonimmigrants with an unexpired 

Form I–94 showing H–4 nonimmigrant 

status (C26); 64 and 

• Noncitizens who are the principal 

beneficiaries or derivative children of 

approved Violence Against Women Act 

(VAWA) self-petitioners,65 under the 

employment authorization category 

‘‘(c)(31)’’ in the form instructions to the 

EAD application (C31).66

The extension automatically 

terminates the earlier of up to 180 days 

after the expiration date on the face of 

the EAD, or upon issuance of 

notification of a decision denying the 

renewal request.67 An EAD that is 

expired on its face is considered 

unexpired when combined with a Form 

I–797C receipt notice indicating a 

timely filing of the application to renew 

the EAD when the automatic extension 

requirements are met.68 Therefore, 

when the ‘‘card expires’’ date on the 

front of the EAD is reached, an eligible 

noncitizen who is continuing their U.S. 

employment may present to their 

employer the Form I–797C receipt 

notice for the renewal EAD application 

to show that the validity of their EAD 

has been automatically extended as 

evidence of continued employment 

authorization, and the employer must 

update the previously completed Form 

I–9, Employment Eligibility 

Verification, to reflect the extended EAD 

expiration date based on the automatic 

extension while the renewal is pending. 

For new employment, the automatic 

extension date is recorded on the Form 

I–9 by the employee and the employer 

in the first instance. In either case, 

reverification of employment 

authorization or the EAD must occur 

when the automatic extension period 

terminates.69

USCIS generally recommends the 

filing of a renewal EAD application up 

to 180 days before the current EAD 

expires.70 If the renewal application is 

granted, the employment authorization 

and/or the new EAD generally will be 

valid as of the date of approval of the 

application. If the application is denied, 

the automatically extended employment 

authorization and/or EAD generally is 

terminated on the day of the denial.71 If 

the renewal application was timely and 

properly filed, but remains pending 

beyond the 180-day automatic extension 

period, the applicant must stop working 

upon the expiration of the automatically 

extended validity period and the 

employer must remove the employee 

from the payroll if the applicant/ 

employee cannot provide other 

acceptable evidence of current 

employment authorization.72 As a 

result, both the employee and the 

employer may experience the negative 

consequences of gaps in employment 

authorization and/or EAD validity. 

Since its promulgation in 2016, the 

automatic extension provision at 8 CFR 

274a.13(d) has helped to minimize the 

risk of these negative consequences for 

applicants who are otherwise eligible 

for the automatic extension and their 

employers. 

C. 2022 Temporary Final Rule 

1. Overview 

In 2022, processing times for EAD 

applications had increased due to 

operational challenges that were 

exacerbated by the emergency measures 

USCIS employed to maintain its 

operations through the height of the 

COVID–19 pandemic in 2020, combined 

with a sudden increase in EAD 

application filings. The up to 180-day 

automatic extension period for renewal 

EAD applicants’ employment 

authorization and/or EADs was no 

longer sufficient to prevent lapses in 

employment authorization and/or 

documentation for these applicants. 

To mitigate the impact of these 

operational challenges, on May 4, 2022, 

DHS published a TFR titled ‘‘Temporary 

Increase of the Automatic Extension 

Period of Employment Authorization 

and Documentation for Certain Renewal 

Applicants’’ (2022 TFR) in the Federal 

Register.73 The rule temporarily 

amended DHS regulations at 8 CFR 

274a.13(d) by adding a new paragraph 8 

CFR 274a.13(d)(5), which lengthened 

the automatic extension period 

provided in that section from up to 180 

days to up to 540 days for those 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101215 

74See 8 CFR 274a.13(d); see also 87 FR 26614, 

26651 (May 4, 2022). 

75See 8 CFR 274a.13(d); see also 87 FR 26614, 

26651 (May 4, 2022). 

76See 87 FR 26614, 26631 (May 4, 2022). 

77Source: USCIS analysis of renewal EAD 

automatic extension expirations data, provided by 

DHS, USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality 

(OPQ), Claims 3 database; data provided November 

2023. 

78See 89 FR 24628, 24630 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

79USCIS projections based on data available on 

July 1, 2024, show that this number is now 

approximately 388,000. See section V.A.2., 

Background and Population, Table 12, Population 

Projections by Month, Rounded to Thousands. 

80See 89 FR 24628, 24630 (April 8, 2024). At the 

time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed 

that, as of December 2023, there were 0.7 

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-perjob-opening.htm (last visited Feb. 6, 2024). 

81See 89 FR 24628, 24659, Table 6A. 

82Source: USCIS analysis of renewal EAD 

automatic extension expirations data, provided by 

DHS, USCIS, OPQ, Claims 3 database; data 

provided July 24, 2024. See section VI.A.2, 

Background and Population, for more information. 

83See 89 FR 24628, 24629 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

84See 87 FR 26614 (May 4, 2022), 89 FR 24628 

(Apr. 8, 2024). 

categories described in the 2022 TFR, if 

the renewal applicant timely filed an 

renewal EAD application.74 That 

increase was available to eligible 

renewal applicants whose EAD 

applications were pending as of May 4, 

2022, including those applicants whose 

employment authorization had already 

lapsed following the initial 180-day 

extension period, and to eligible 

applicants who filed a renewal EAD 

application during the 540-day period 

beginning on or after May 4, 2022, and 

ending October 26, 2023.75 On October 

27, 2023, the automatic extension 

renewal period reverted to 180 days (the 

automatic extension period under 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(1)) for eligible renewal EAD 

applications filed on or after October 27, 

2023.76

2. Impact of the 2022 Temporary Final 

Rule 

The 2022 TFR proved to be very 

successful at minimizing disruption to 

renewal EAD applicants and their U.S. 

employers that would have otherwise 

resulted from USCIS processing delays. 

Not only did the 2022 TFR immediately 

restore employment authorization and 

EAD validity for approximately 70,000 

renewal EAD applicants who were 

already beyond the up to 180-day 

automatic extension period when the 

2022 TFR published, but the 2022 TFR 

also helped nearly 280,000 renewal EAD 

applicants avoid a gap in employment 

authorization and/or employment 

authorization documentation based on 

applications filed on or after May 4, 

2022, and on or before October 26, 

2023.77

D. 2024 Temporary Final Rule 

1. Overview 

Although the 2022 TFR prevented a 

substantial number of individuals from 

experiencing a lapse in their 

employment authorization and/or 

documentation, new circumstances 

fundamentally unrelated to the reasons 

that lead up to the 2022 TFR caused the 

processing times for renewal EAD 

applications to remain at such a level 

that the 180-day automatic extension 

period remained insufficient to prevent 

a large number of lapses projected to 

start in May 2024. The continued 

lengthy processing times was primarily 

due to a substantial increase in the 

number of initial EAD applications 

based on pending asylum applications 

(C08) that began in March 2023 and 

litigation regarding rules that require 

USCIS to process initial EAD 

applications for asylum applicants 

within 30 days of filing. Other causes 

included the allocation of USCIS 

personnel to assist with historically 

high levels of encounters at the 

southwest land border between the 

ports of entry, and additional TPS 

designations in FY 2022 and FY 2023. 

Accordingly, DHS again took steps to 

help prevent certain renewal EAD 

applicants from experiencing a lapse in 

their employment authorization and/or 

documentation while their renewal 

applications remain pending while 

continuing to implement other solutions 

to return processing times to target 

levels. On April 8, 2024, DHS published 

a temporary final rule (‘‘2024 TFR’’) 

that, for certain renewal EAD 

applications filed beginning April 8, 

2024, and ending on September 30, 

2025, temporarily increased the 

automatic extension period from up to 

180 days to up to 540 days. The 2024 

TFR also increased the automatic 

extension period from up to 180 days to 

up to 540 days for applicants who 

properly filed their EAD renewals on or 

after October 27, 2023, and whose 

applications remained pending on or 

after April 8, 2024.78

Without the 2024 TFR, USCIS 

projected that approximately 800,000 

renewal applicants would have been in 

danger of losing their employment 

authorization and/or documentation in 

the period beginning May 2024 and 

ending March 2026.79 If faced with a 

disruption of their employment 

authorization and/or documentation, 

these renewal applicants might have 

lost their jobs through no fault of their 

own, and employers may have been 

faced with finding replacement workers, 

an undue burden that is exacerbated 

during a time when the U.S. economy 

has been experiencing more job 

openings than available workers.80

2. Impact of the 2024 Temporary Final 

Rule 

As with the 2022 TFR, the 2024 TFR 

succeeded at minimizing disruption to 

renewal EAD applicants and their U.S. 

employers that would have otherwise 

resulted from USCIS processing delays. 

The 2024 TFR was projected to prevent 

approximately 540,000 applicants from 

experiencing a temporary lapse in 

employment authorization and/or 

employment authorization 

documentation during the 2-year period 

beginning May 2024.81 As of July 1, 

2024, approximately 3,500 renewal 

applicants avoided at least 1 day of 

lapse in employment authorization and/ 

or documentation due to the 2024 

TFR.82 The 2024 TFR also provided 

DHS and USCIS with additional time to 

consider long-term solutions by 

soliciting public comments, evaluating 

the effects of policy and operational 

changes, and continuing to identify new 

strategies and efficiencies in light of 

ongoing developments.83

III. Purpose and Discussion of the Final 

Rule 

From time to time, one or more 

circumstances affecting USCIS 

operations have resulted in a significant 

increase in USCIS processing times for 

certain automatic extension-eligible 

categories of renewal EAD applications. 

Since the promulgation of the 180-day 

automatic extension rule in 2016, DHS 

deemed it necessary to issue TFRs in 

2022 and 2024 to temporarily increase 

the automatic extension period to 540 

days because a variety of circumstances 

resulted in processing times longer than 

the 180-day automatic extension 

period.84 These TFRs were necessary to 

prevent a substantial number of renewal 

EAD applicants from experiencing a 

lapse in their employment authorization 

and/or documentation and to avert the 

significant harmful effect such lapses 

have for applicants, their families, their 

employers, and the public at large. 

Without this rule making permanent 

the increase of the automatic extension 

period from up to 180 days to up to 540 

days provided by the 2024 TFR, the 

longer automatic extension period 

would cease to apply to renewal 

applications filed after September 30, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101216 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

85This final rule incorporates the content of the 

automatic extension provisions at 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(5) (promulgated under the 2022 TFR) 

and (d)(6) (promulgated under the 2024 TFR) into 

8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1) and removes them from the 

CFR. 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(5) was effective until 

October 26, 2023, and, but for this final rule, would 

have remained in the CFR until October 15, 2025. 

But for this final rule, 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(6) would 

have been effective until September 30, 2025, and 

would have remained in the CFR until September 

20, 2027. Thus, in this final rule, DHS is accounting 

for the content of both 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(5) and 

(d)(6) periods and the adoption of a permanent 540- 

day automatic extension period effective going 

forward. To simplify the regulatory text but 

maintain the content of all provisions for Form I– 

9, Employment Eligibility Verification, purposes, 

DHS is consolidating all of the automatic extension 

periods into one provision at 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1). 

Applicants eligible for the up to 540-day automatic 

extension period under 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(5) and 

(d)(6) continue to be eligible under this final rule. 

This final rule, however, does not grant additional 

540-day extension periods to those who were 

previously able to take advantage of a 540-day 

automatic extension period, even if the case 

remains pending at or before the 540-day mark 

under previous DHS rules. 

86 81 FR 82398, 82455 (Nov. 18, 2016). 

87 In both TFRs, DHS sought public comments. As 

provided in Section IV, Discussion of Public 

Comments, as part of the 2024 TFR, DHS not only 

sought comments on the entire rule, but also asked 

commenters specifically to address options for longterm solutions, including whether the solution 

provided in the TFR should be made permanent or 

be subject to modification. See 2024 TFR, at 24628. 

In this final rule, DHS is responding to these 

comments and finalizing the approach by 

permanently codifying in DHS regulations the 

solutions of the prior TFRs. Therefore, this final 

rule complies with the procedural requirements for 

rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, having provided adequate 

notice and an opportunity to comment before 

promulgating this final rule. See Little Sisters of the 

Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 

U.S. 657, 684–687 (2020) (holding that an interim 

final rule’s ‘‘request for comments readily satisfied 

the APA notice requirements’’). 

88USCIS’ Field Operations Directorate (FOD) 

initiated a hiring freeze in December 2019; USCIS’ 

Service Center Operations Directorate (SCOPS) did 

the same starting in February 2020. 

89See 81 FR 73292, 73302 (Oct. 24, 2016). 

90See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other 

Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, 85 FR 

46788 (Aug. 3, 2020) (‘‘2020 Fee Rule’’). The 2020 

Fee Rule, among other things, adjusted certain 

immigration and naturalization benefit request fees 

charged by USCIS, removed certain fee exemptions, 

and changed the fee waiver requirement. 

91On September 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of California in 

Immigration Legal Resource Center, et al. v. Wolf, 

et al., 20–cv–05883–JWS, preliminarily enjoined 

DHS from implementing or enforcing any part of 

the 2020 Fee Rule. 

92See 81 FR 73292 (Oct. 24, 2016). 

93See 85 FR 46788 (Aug. 3, 2020). Additional 

categories exempt from the filing fee include 8 CFR 

274a.12(a)(8) and (10) and (c)(1), (4), (7), and (16). 

94From FY 2015 through FY 2020, USCIS 

received a range of approximately 2.0 to 2.3 million 

Form I–765 filings (seeking both initial EADs and 

renewal of initial EADs) each fiscal year. In FY 

2021, this figure increased to approximately 2.6 

million. This increase in Form I–765 filings, which 

was largely observed in the volume of renewal EAD 

applications sought in categories eligible for 

automatic extension of EADs, contributed to 

increased renewal EAD application processing 

times. 

95On January 31, 2024, DHS promulgated a new 

Fee Rule, which became effective April 1, 2024. See 

89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024). 

2025.85 Given the history of filing surges 

and other unpredictable circumstances 

that have adversely impacted renewal 

EAD application processing times since 

the original automatic extension 

provision was promulgated in 2016,86

DHS has now determined that a 

permanent increase in the automatic 

extension period from up to 180 days to 

up to 540 days is necessary for the longterm protection of applicants from a 

lapse in their employment authorization 

and/or documentation. DHS believes 

that if the automatic extension period is 

not permanently increased from up to 

180 days to up to 540 days, many 

renewal EAD applicants may be in 

danger of experiencing a gap in 

employment authorization and/or EAD 

validity again in the future. Such lapses 

in employment authorization and EAD 

validity would result in substantial and 

unnecessary harm to noncitizens who 

timely filed for extensions of 

employment authorization, their 

families, their employers, and the public 

at large. 

To avert possible gaps in employment 

authorization and/or EAD validity for 

certain renewal EAD applicants and the 

harmful effects caused by such lapses, 

DHS is permanently amending existing 

DHS regulations to increase the 

automatic extension period to up to 540 

days from the expiration date stated on 

their EADs. DHS is taking this step after 

having published two TFRs addressing 

the matter and seeking public comments 

on long-term solutions.87 DHS is 

applying this rule to all renewal EAD 

application categories eligible for 

automatic extension pursuant to 8 CFR 

274a.13(d). 

The following sections in this 

preamble describe the history of a 

variety of unpredictable circumstances, 

such as sudden spikes in EAD 

application filings, and their impacts, 

which resulted in the need for the 2022 

and 2024 TFRs. These examples 

illustrate that, without this rule 

permanently extending the automatic 

extension period from up to 180 days to 

up to 540 days, DHS, renewal EAD 

applicants, their families, and their 

employers would face increased 

uncertainty about the possibility of 

lapsed employment authorization and/ 

or documentation in the future. DHS 

notes that it is not an efficient use of its 

resources to issue TFRs whenever 

circumstances arise resulting in 

significant increases in renewal EAD 

application processing times. DHS 

believes that this action will save 

government resources and provide 

predictability and stability to 

applicants, families, employers, and 

communities. 

DHS is therefore permanently 

extending the automatic extension 

period from up to 180 days to up to 540 

days in order to guard against the effects 

of unpredictable future events such as 

those that led to the two TFRs. 

A. Circumstances Resulting in the 2022 

Temporary Final Rule 

1. USCIS Enjoined From Increasing Its 

Filing Fees 

USCIS is a fee-based agency that relies 

on predictable fee revenue and its 

carryover from the previous year. USCIS 

began experiencing fiscal troubles in 

early December 2019, when at least one 

USCIS directorate initiated a hiring 

freeze.88 These fiscal troubles were due 

in part to the fact that USCIS had not 

been able to update its fee structure 

since the 2016 Fee Rule 89 (including 

fees for Form I–765), meaning that 

USCIS was unable to fully cover the 

costs of administering current and 

projected volumes of immigration 

benefit requests. 

DHS promulgated a new Fee Rule in 

August 2020 to address this disparity 

between its filing fees and the costs of 

adjudicating immigration benefit 

requests.90 In September 2020, however, 

the 2020 Fee Rule was enjoined before 

it took effect.91 As such, the fee for Form 

I–765 remained at $410, which was the 

fee set by the earlier 2016 Fee Rule.92

The 2016 Fee Rule also exempted 

applicants from paying a fee if filing a 

Form I–765 to request a renewal or 

replacement EAD under 8 CFR 

274a.12(c)(9) (pending adjustment of 

status application), as well as some 

additional categories.93

USCIS continued to have to rely on 

the fee schedule established in the 2016 

Fee Rule, which did not fully account 

for costs associated with adjudicating 

benefit requests. This unsustainable 

fiscal situation resulted in the inability 

to fund sufficient new officer positions 

to handle the agency’s adjudication 

workload.94 This meant, in part, that 

USCIS was already in a precarious 

financial position with regard to staffing 

when the COVID–19 pandemic began. 

The litigation enjoining the 

implementation of the 2020 Fee Rule is 

an example of an external event that 

negatively impacted renewal EAD 

application processing times.95


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101217 

96See HHS, Determination that a Public Health 

Emergency Exists (Jan. 31, 2020), https://

aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PHE/Pages/2019-nCoV.aspx (last 

visited Aug. 19, 2024). 

97Notice on the Continuation of the National 

Emergency Concerning the Coronavirus Disease 

2019 (COVID–19) Pandemic, 86 FR 11599 (Feb. 26, 

2021); Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020, 

Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19) Outbreak, 85 FR 

15337 (Mar. 18, 2020). 

98HHS, Renewal of Determination that a Public 

Health Emergency Exists (Oct. 15, 2021), https://

aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PHE/Pages/COVID-15Oct21.aspx 

(last visited Aug. 23, 2024). 

99See HHS, Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Preparedness and Response, Renewal of 

Determination that a Public Health Emergency 

Exists (Jan. 14, 2022), https://aspr.hhs.gov/legal/ 

PHE/Pages/COVID19-14Jan2022.aspx (last visited 

Aug. 19, 2024). 

100See 2020 USCIS Statistical Annual Report, p. 

4: ‘‘[During the onset of the COVID–19 pandemic], 

incoming receipts were 32 percent lower compared 

to the same time period in FY 2019. By the end of 

FY 2020, USCIS received about 5% fewer receipts 

than in FY 2019. Although receipts decreased in 

some of the most frequently submitted form types, 

others such as the N–400 (Application for 

Naturalization) and I–129 (Petition for 

Nonimmigrant Worker) increased slightly from FY 

2019.’’ In addition to the lowest number of receipts 

in the past 5 years, USCIS also completed the 

lowest number of benefit requests in the past 5 

years. The worst rates of completion were observed 

during the beginning of the pandemic when USCIS 

field offices and ASCs were closed to the public. 

While USCIS attempted to recover by shifting 

adjudications to form types not requiring in-person 

appearances, USCIS still completed fewer benefit 

requests than it received in FY 2020. See 2020 

USCIS Statistical Annual Report, p. 4. 

101 During this time period, USCIS had an 

estimated $1.2 billion budget shortfall. 

102For example, in FY 2019, USCIS used $5.52 

million of overtime funds for assigned staff to 

conduct credible and reasonable fear interviews, as 

well as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) nonrefoulement interviews. 

103See DHS, USCIS, News Release, Deputy 

Director for Policy Statement of USCIS’ Fiscal 

Outlook (June 25, 2020), https://www.uscis.gov/ 

news/news-releases/deputy-director-for-policystatement-on-uscis-fiscal-outlook. 

104Form I–765 workload includes requests for 

initial, renewal, and replacement employment 

authorization and/or EADs. 

105A detailee is an employee who is temporarily 

detailed, i.e., temporarily assigned, to a different 

position for a specified period, with the employee 

returning to his or her regular duties at the end of 

the detail. 

106See generally INA secs. 201(d)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. 

1151(d)(2)(C), 

2. Public Health Emergency Caused by 

the COVID–19 Pandemic 

On January 31, 2020, the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) 

declared a public health emergency 

under section 319 of the Public Health 

Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d), in 

response to COVID–19.96 On February 

24, 2021, the President issued a 

continuation of the national emergency 

concerning the COVID–19 pandemic.97

Effective October 15, 2021, HHS 

renewed the public health emergency 

determination.98 On January 14, 2022, 

as a result of the continued impact of 

the COVID–19 pandemic, HHS again 

renewed the determination that a public 

health emergency exists.99

As noted above, USCIS was already in 

a precarious financial situation in 2019. 

This was exacerbated by a significant 

drop in receipts across many of the most 

common benefit types at the beginning 

of the COVID–19 pandemic in spring 

2020.100 The significant drop in revenue 

early in the pandemic led USCIS to plan 

for a sweeping furlough of 

approximately 70 percent of its 

workforce to avoid financial collapse, 

including furloughing immigration 

services officers who adjudicate Form I– 

765.101 In an attempt to avoid these 

furlough measures, USCIS took steps to 

preserve sufficient funds to meet payroll 

and carryover obligations. These 

measures included substantial cuts for 

supplies, facilities, overtime, and 

contractor support services, as well as 

an agency-wide hiring freeze lasting 

from May 1, 2020, through March 31, 

2021. The loss of overtime funds 

hindered USCIS’ ability to address and 

mitigate backlogs with existing staff, 

which has been a strategy used 

successfully in the past to ensure 

processing times remain within goals.102

This option was not available in 2020, 

due to USCIS’ worsening fiscal situation 

beginning in late 2019 and continuing 

into 2020 and part of 2021. 

These fiscal issues had a direct impact 

on staffing, and insufficient staffing 

levels directly impacted the processing 

times for Form I–765. In addition to a 

direct shortage of staff due to hiring 

freezes, USCIS experienced an increase 

in attrition following announcement of 

a potential furlough that could have 

impacted nearly 70 percent of 

employees.103 The hiring freeze also 

meant that the higher-than-normal 

number of vacancies could not be filled. 

Additionally, several initiatives took 

staff away from their normal duties such 

as efforts relating to unaccompanied 

children and processing petitions and 

applications by or on behalf of Afghan 

evacuees. The loss of contractor support 

services also hindered USCIS’ ability to 

intake filings efficiently and prepare 

cases for adjudication by officers. 

All these factors contributed to a 

decrease in Form I–765 completions. 

For example, in FY 2019, the Service 

Center Operations Directorate (SCOPS) 

allocated 343,399 officer hours to its 

Form I–765 workload 104 and completed 

1,443,235 adjudications. By comparison, 

in FY 2020, SCOPS allocated 327,947 

(or approximately 4.5 percent fewer) 

officer hours to the same workload and 

subsequently was only able to complete 

1,379,745 (or approximately 4.4 percent 

fewer) adjudications. These reductions 

were partly attributable to the overall 

decrease in staff. At the start of FY 2020, 

SCOPS had 5,102 employees. This 

diminished to 4,886 at the start of FY 

2021 and 4,731 at the start of FY 2022 

as the effects of attrition and the hiring 

freeze continued. This overall decrease 

of approximately 7.3 percent did not 

include the additional loss of I–765 

adjudication hours that stemmed from 

SCOPS supporting several programs 

requesting detailees.105 The number of 

detailees temporarily missing from the 

SCOPS workforce was not static but 

exceeded 200 employees at points 

during FY 2021, leaving SCOPS staffed 

at levels less than 89 percent of what 

existed going into FY 2020. This data 

does not include contractor hours, 

which also were severely impacted by 

USCIS’ fiscal situation as USCIS was 

forced to reduce the number of 

contractors available to assist with case 

processing. 

USCIS was also unable to surge 

additional resources to increase officer 

hours adjudicating Form I–765 

applications because of USCIS’ limited 

resources and the need to manage other 

competing priorities in FY 2021. For 

example, USCIS surged officers to 

adjudicate employment-based Form I– 

485 applications to minimize the 

number of employment-based 

immigrant visas that would go unused 

at the end of FY 2021, after an 

extraordinary number of such unused 

family-preference visa numbers from FY 

2020 ‘‘fell across’’ to the employmentbased visa allocation for FY 2021,106

due primarily to Department of State 

consular closures caused by the COVID– 

19 pandemic. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101218 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

107Such as initial and renewal Forms I–765 filed 

under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(9) and (10), which 

experienced a dramatic growth in processing times 

in 2021, as detailed in this rule. 108This increase in Form I–765 filings may have 

been driven primarily by litigation and the 

‘‘frontlog’’ of applications at the three USCIS 

lockbox facilities, which receive and process 

applications and payments in Chicago, Illinois; 

Phoenix, Arizona; and Lewisville, Texas. On July 

20, 2020, Casa de Maryland, Inc. filed suit against 

then-Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf and DHS to 

enjoin changes to EAD rules for asylum seekers. On 

September 11, 2021, the U.S. District Court of 

Maryland issued a preliminary injunction of the 

new EAD rules. See Casa de Maryland v. Wolf, 486 

F.Supp.3d 928 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020). 

Consequently, approximately 23,000 applications 

pending at the USCIS lockbox were rejected in late 

October 2020 for a failure to pay the required 

biometrics fee or a failure to provide proof that the 

applicant was a member of the litigation class. 

These applications were refiled and, coupled with 

the prioritization of initial Form I–765 applications 

under category C08 due to the litigation, led to a 

redirection of resources away from renewal EAD 

applications. In addition, as noted above, the 

lockbox was experiencing a ‘‘frontlog’’ of 

applications, which led to a processing delay. 

TABLE 1—IMPACT OF STEADILY DECREASING STAFFING LEVELS ON SCOPS’ FORM I–765 COMPLETIONS (INITIAL AND

RENEWAL APPLICATIONS) 

Fiscal year Officer hours allocated Form I–765 completions 

2019 ................ 343,399 ...................................................................................... 1,443,235. 

2020 ................ 327,947 (approximately 4.5 percent fewer than 2019) ............. 1,379,745 (approximately 4.4 percent fewer than 2019). 

2021 ................ 314,924 (approximately 8.3 percent fewer than 2019 and 4.0 

percent fewer than 2020).

1,249,548 (approximately 13.4 percent fewer than 2019 and 

9.4 percent fewer than 2020). 

Note: This data does not include contractor hours, which also were severely impacted by USCIS’ fiscal situation as USCIS was forced to reduce the number of contractors available to assist with case processing. At the time of the 2022 TFR, SCOPS’ contractor staff had been reduced 

by approximately 8.2% since October 1, 2020. 

The Field Office Directorate’s 

National Benefit Center (NBC), which 

also adjudicates a number of Form I–765 

applications 107 observed a similar 

reduction in staff and completions. 

TABLE 2—IMPACT OF STEADILY DECREASING STAFFING LEVELS ON NBC’S FORM I–765 COMPLETIONS (INITIAL AND

RENEWAL APPLICATIONS) 

Fiscal year Officer hours allocated Form I–765 completions 

2019 ................ 115,510 ...................................................................................... 612,464. 

2020 ................ 112,266 (approximately 2.8 percent fewer than 2019) ............. 605,105 (approximately 1.2 percent fewer than 2019). 

2021 ................ 102,099 (approximately 11.6 percent fewer than 2019 and 9.1 

percent fewer than 2020).

509,973 (approximately 16.7 percent fewer than 2019 and 

15.7 percent fewer than 2020). 

Note: This data does not include contractor hours, which also were severely impacted by USCIS’ fiscal situation as USCIS was forced to reduce the number of contractors available to assist with case processing. 

Although the United States is no 

longer in a pandemic-related health 

emergency, this is an example of an 

unanticipated circumstance that 

adversely impacted USCIS renewal EAD 

processing times and was a significant 

factor in the decision to issue the 2022 

TFR. 

3. Unprecedented Increase in EAD 

Application Filings 

An additional contributing factor to 

the severe backlog and increased 

processing times for Forms I–765 was a 

substantial and unprecedented 2-month 

increase of renewal EAD applications in 

March and April 2021, and a sustained 

increase in filings thereafter. In calendar 

year (CY) 2019, the average number of 

monthly renewal applications filed for 

the C08, C09, and C10 categories 

combined was 46,715. In CY 2020, the 

average number of monthly renewal 

applications filed for these three 

categories was 43,232. In March 2021, 

the renewal receipt numbers for these 

three categories spiked 56 percent over 

the previous month and 76.4 percent 

over the monthly average total for 2020. 

In April 2021, the renewal receipt 

numbers for these three categories 

remained elevated such that they were 

25.6 percent higher than February 2021, 

and 53.6 percent over the monthly 

average total for 2020. The increase in 

renewal EAD applications was 

unexpected based on historical filing 

patterns.108

TABLE 3—SURGE IN RENEWAL FORM I–765 FILINGS

Month C08 category C09 category C10 category Total 

February 2021 ................................................................................................................................... 30,857 14,661 8,367 53,885 

March 2021 ....................................................................................................................................... 52,007 19,589 10,840 82,436 

April 2021 .......................................................................................................................................... 42,101 15,189 9,134 66,424 

In the eight months following April 

2021, the receipt numbers for these 

categories fell to an average of 52,400 

receipts per month but was still 21 

percent above the average monthly total 

for CY 2020. The increase in the number 

and processing time of asylum and 

adjustment of status applications, which 

are the two most populous EAD filing 

categories eligible for the automatic 

extension under 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1), 

may have led to this sustained increase 

in applications for initial and renewal 

employment authorization (in the C08 

and C09 categories, respectively), which 

further compounded the Form I–765 

adjudication backlog. 

Specifically, in the years leading up to 

FY 2022, asylum application receipts 

outpaced available resources, leading to 

an increase in pending asylum cases, 

both in affirmative and defensive filings, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101219 

109See Background, p. 2, in Backlog Reduction of 

Pending Affirmative Asylum Cases: Fiscal Year 

2021 Report to Congress (Oct. 20, 2021), https://

www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/

USCIS%20-%20Backlog%20Reduction%20of

%20Pending%20Affirmative%20Asylum%20

Cases.pdf (last visited Aug.19, 2024) (‘‘The 

affirmative asylum backlog is the result of a 

prolonged, significant increase in affirmative 

asylum application filings and credible fear 

screenings, which are processed by the U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 

asylum offices. Between FY 2013 and FY 2017, 

despite significant staffing increases, receipt growth 

in asylum office workloads outpaced the expansion 

of asylum office staffing and the establishment of 

new or expanded facilities needed to support 

additional staffing growth.’’). 

110See Executive Office of Immigration Review 

Adjudication Statistics, Total Asylum Applications 

(Jan 19, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/ 

file/1106366/download (last visited Aug.19, 2024). 

111 Data reflects affirmatively filed Form I–589 

asylum applications and do not include defensive 

asylum claims before a DOJ EOIR immigration 

court. See USCIS, Number of Service Wide Forms, 

October 1, 2021–December 31, 2021(last updated 

Feb. 2022), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/ 

files/document/reports/Quarterly_All_Forms_

FY2022_Q1.pdf (last visited Aug. 19, 2024). 

112For example, USCIS also encountered large 

increases of filings of Form I–131, Application for 

Travel Document, possibly related to the increase 

in filings of Form I–485, Application to Register 

Permanent Residence. From CY 2020 to CY 2021, 

USCIS observed an overall 25.8 percent increase in 

receipts across form types. Although this represents 

a substantial increase, there was a 29 percent 

increase in renewal EAD applications in the 

automatic extension categories. 

113See 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024). The 2024 TFR 

also increased the automatic extension period from 

up to 180 days to up to 540 days for applicants who 

properly filed their EAD renewals on or after 

October 27, 2023. 

as shown in Table 4.109 The increase in 

pending asylum cases contributed to the 

increase in C08 renewal filings in FY 

2021, which further impacted the 

renewal EAD application backlog. 

TABLE 4—TOTAL ASYLUM CASES PENDING

DOJ 110 USCIS111 Total 

Total Asylum Cases Pending in: 

FY 2017 (Sep 2017) ............................................................................................................. 377,140 289,835 666,975 

FY 2018 (Sep 2018) ............................................................................................................. 473,510 319,202 792,712 

FY 2019 (Sep 2019) ............................................................................................................. 608,976 339,836 948,812 

FY 2020 (Sep 2020) ............................................................................................................. 647,923 386,014 1,033,937 

FY 2022 (Dec 2021) ............................................................................................................. 628,551 432,341 1,060,892 

In addition, the number of 

employment-based adjustment of status 

applications increased significantly in 

FY 2021 due to the number of 

employment-based visas that became 

available as a result of unusually low 

visa usage in other categories in FY 

2020 due to the COVID–19 pandemic. 

At the start of FY 2021, there were 

approximately 126,000 employmentbased adjustment of status applications 

pending with USCIS. Approximately 

313,000 employment-based adjustment 

of status applications were received 

during FY 2021, which likely 

contributed to the increase in C09 initial 

filings in FY 2021, further taxing USCIS’ 

resources to timely process renewal 

applications. USCIS also saw significant 

increases in filings across other benefit 

request types during CY 2021.112

In CY 2021, USCIS received 

approximately 1,290,000 initial Forms 

I–765, which was 23 percent higher 

than the volume received in CY 2020 

(approximately 1,050,000) and 18 

percent higher than the volume received 

in CY2019 (approximately 1,090,000). 

Similarly, in CY 2021, USCIS received 

approximately 1,260,000 renewal EAD 

applications, which was 21 percent 

higher than the volume received in CY 

2020 (approximately 1,040,000) and 13 

percent higher than the volume received 

in CY 2019 (approximately 1,120,000). 

TABLE 5A—INITIAL FORM I–765 

FILINGS

Calendar 

year 

Form 

I–765 

filings 

Surge or difference 

2019 ..... 1,090,000 

2020 ..... 1,050,000 4 percent lower than 2019. 

2021 ..... 1,290,000 18 percent higher than 2019. 

23 percent higher than 2020. 

TABLE 5B—RENEWAL FORM I-765 

FILINGS

Calendar 

year 

Form 

I–765 

filings 

Surge or difference 

2019 ..... 1,120,000 

2020 ..... 1,040,000 7 percent lower than 2019. 

2021 ..... 1,260,000 13 percent higher than 2019. 

21 percent higher than 2020. 

4. Combined Impact on Renewal EAD 

Application Processing Times 

In summary, because of the financial 

strains caused by the combination of the 

litigation resulting in the enjoining of 

the 2020 Fee Rule and the impact of the 

COVID–19 pandemic, USCIS was 

unable to handle the concurrent spike 

and monthly increase in renewal EAD 

filings. The average monthly receipts in 

2021 for the automatic extension 

categories were 60,300, which was 

13,500 per month (or 29 percent) higher 

than 2020 monthly averages. In addition 

to this higher overall receipt volume in 

2021, there was a surge in receipts in 

March 2021 (88,500) and April 2021 

(71,200) that led to a rapid increase in 

pending applications. On top of the 

higher receipt volumes, due to staffing 

issues, the average number of monthly 

completions in 2021 was 33,900 per 

month, which was 10,600 per month (or 

24 percent) lower than 2020 monthly 

averages. The combination of higher 

receipts and lower completions led to 

increased processing times, which 

downstream resulted in higher numbers 

of renewal applications pending past 

the 180-day automatic extension period. 

B. Circumstances Resulting in the 2024 

Temporary Final Rule 

1. Overview 

On April 8, 2024, DHS published the 

2024 TFR that, for certain renewal EAD 

applications filed during a limited 

period that ends on September 30, 2025, 

again temporarily increased the 

automatic extension period from up to 

180 days to up to 540 days.113 The 

multiple circumstances that resulted in 

the 2024 TFR are summarized in the 

following sections. These examples 

illustrate the unpredictable events that 

arise from time to time and render the 

180-day automatic extension period 

insufficient to protect renewal 

applicants and their employers from the 

harms resulting from a lapse in 

employment authorization and/or 

documentation. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101220 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

114Other factors related to EAD processing 

affected USCIS’ workload and personnel, such as 

processing EADs for noncitizens who were paroled 

after scheduling an appointment through CBP One 

or through the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and 

Venezuelan parole processes. However, these 

processes did not significantly compound the 

pressures on EAD renewal processing. 

115Pending asylum applicants may not be granted 

employment authorization until 180 days after the 

filing of the application for asylum. INA sec. 

208(d)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2). These initial C08 

applicants may file their EAD applications once the 

asylum application has been pending for 150 days. 

8 CFR 208.7(a)(1). 

116See 59 FR 62284, 62289 (Dec. 5, 1994). 

117On July 26, 2018, in Rosario v. USCIS, the U.S. 

District Court for the Western District of 

Washington granted summary judgment against the 

government and issued an order requiring USCIS to 

comply with the 30-day regulatory timeline at 8 

CFR 208.7. See 365 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (W.D. Wash. 

2018). 

118See 85 FR 37502 (June 22, 2020). 

119See 85 FR 38532 (June 26, 2020). 

120See CASA de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf, 486 F. 

Supp. 3d 928 (D. Md. 2020). 121Asylumworks v. Mayorkas, 590 F. Supp. 3d 11 

(D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2022). 122See Asylumworks v. Mayorkas, 590 F. Supp. 

3d 11 (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2022) (‘‘Asylumworks 

vacatur’’). The vacatur decision in Asylumworks 

effectively mooted the CASA case. The CASA court 

acknowledged the case had become moot on May 

18, 2023, when it granted the government’s motion 

to dismiss. See CASA de Maryland, Inc. v. 

Mayorkas, No. 8:20–CV–2118–PX, 2023 WL 

3547497 (D. Md. May 18, 2023). 

123See 87 FR 57795 (Sept. 22, 2022). 124Receipts of initial C08 EAD applications for 

the first half of FY 2022 averaged 16,900 per month, 

and for the second half of FY 2022, 27,500 receipts 

per month. Average monthly receipts of initial C08 

EAD applications for the first half of FY 2023 was 

55,000, and it increased to 78,700 in the second half 

of FY 2023. 

125See 88 FR 31314, 31315 (May 16, 2023) 

(discussing the reasons for the highest levels of 

global migration since World War II). 

126USBP is the component of U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) within DHS responsible for 

U.S. border security between ports of entry. USBP’s 

mission is to detect and prevent the illegal entry of 

individuals into the United States. See DHS, CBP, 

Along the U.S. Borders (last modified Sept. 6, 2024), 

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-usborders (last visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

127See 88 FR 31314, 31314 (May 16, 2023). 

128See DHS, Fact Sheet: U.S. Government 

Announces Sweeping New Actions to Manage 

Regional Migration (Apr. 27, 2023), https://

www.dhs.gov/news/2023/04/27/fact-sheet-usgovernment-announces-sweeping-new-actionsmanage-regional-migration (last visited Oct. 23, 

2024). 

129See DHS, CBP, Southwest Land Border 

Encounters (last modified Oct. 22, 2024), https://

www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-landborder-encounters (last visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

130Under the INA, certain noncitizens arriving in 

the United States who are found to be inadmissible 

under either section 212(a)(6)(C) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C) (misrepresentation) or section 

212(a)(7) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7) (for failure 

to meet documentation requirements for 

admission), may be removed from the United States 

without a further hearing or review (expedited 

removal) unless the noncitizen indicates either an 

intention to apply for asylum under section 208 of 

the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, or expresses a fear of 

persecution or torture. See INA sec. 235(b)(1)(A)(i), 

(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), (iii); 8 CFR 

235.3(b)(4). If such a noncitizen indicates an 

intention to apply for asylum or expresses a fear of 

persecution, torture, or of returning to their home 

country, the immigration officer refers the 

noncitizen for an interview with a USCIS asylum 

officer, who will determine if the noncitizen has a 

credible fear of persecution in his or her country of 

nationality or last habitual residence. See INA sec. 

235(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A). If the USCIS 

asylum officer determines the noncitizen has a 

credible fear of persecution or torture, the 

noncitizen may apply for asylum and remain in the 

United States until a final determination is made on 

the asylum application by an immigration judge or, 

2. Surge in Initial EAD Application 

Filings by Pending Asylum Applicants 

In FY 2023, USCIS experienced a 

surge in EAD applications primarily 114

driven by initial EAD applications by 

individuals with pending asylum 

applications (C08).115 The increase in 

initial C08 EAD applications placed a 

substantial strain on USCIS resources 

due to the high volume of cases. 

In addition to increased EAD filings, 

processing of C08 EAD applications was 

also affected by litigation regarding two 

rules, published in 2020, that amended 

the regulations governing EAD 

applications associated with asylum 

applications. 

The regulation at 8 CFR 208.7(a)(1), 

which was originally promulgated in 

1994,116 requires USCIS to adjudicate 

initial C08 EAD applications within 30 

days of filing.117 However, on June 22, 

2020, DHS published a final rule titled 

‘‘Removal of 30-day Processing 

Provision for Asylum Applicant-Related 

Form I–765 Employment Authorization 

Applications’’ (the Timeline Repeal 

Rule), which amended 8 CFR 208.7(a)(1) 

to remove the 30-day processing 

requirement.118 DHS subsequently 

published another final rule titled 

‘‘Asylum Application, Interview, and 

Employment Authorization for 

Applicants’’ (the Broader Asylum EAD 

Rule), which made further changes to 

DHS’s regulations governing eligibility 

for employment authorization based on 

a pending asylum application, including 

extending the time period required for 

asylum applicants to apply for an EAD 

from 180 days to 365 days (not 

including delays caused or requested by 

an applicant) and imposing other 

restrictions and requirements.119

Litigation followed the publication of 

these two rules (‘‘2020 Asylum EAD 

Rules’’), including CASA 120 in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Maryland, and Asylumworks 121 in the 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia. On September 11, 2020, the 

court in CASA imposed a preliminary 

injunction requiring that USCIS not 

apply the 2020 Asylum EAD Rules to 

members of CASA and Asylum Seeker 

Advocacy Project organizations. On 

February 7, 2022, the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia issued an 

order in Asylumworks vacating the 2020 

Asylum EAD Rules in their entirety.122

On September 22, 2022, DHS published 

a final rule titled ‘‘Asylum Application, 

and Employment Authorization for 

Applicants; Implementation of 

Vacatur’’ 123 that removed the changes 

made by the 2020 Asylum EAD Rules, 

restoring the regulatory text that 

predated the 2020 Asylum EAD Rules 

and thus implementing the court order 

in Asylumworks. 

As a result of the Asylumworks court 

order, since February 7, 2022, USCIS 

has been required to process initial EAD 

applications for all asylum applicants 

within 30 days of filing for their EAD. 

While the court ordered a return to a 

regulatory requirement that had existed 

until 2020, the burden created by the 

court’s order was significant and 

impacted overall EAD processing due to 

the surge in C08 EAD applications. 

Following the Asylumworks vacatur, 

at the end of February 2022, there were 

93,639 pending cases to which the 30- 

day timeframe processing requirement 

applied. To address the backlog of cases 

and comply with the court’s order, 

USCIS worked to increase resources for 

the entire initial C08 EAD application 

workload, including adding staff 

(pulling from other workloads as well as 

new hires) and offering overtime.124

3. Significant Increase in Referrals to 

USCIS for Credible Fear Assessments 

For the period leading up to the 2024 

TFR, economic and political instability 

around the world has been fueling high 

levels of global migration, including in 

the Western Hemisphere.125 For 

example, in December 2022, U.S. Border 

Patrol (USBP) 126 encountered 

approximately 222,000 noncitizens 

between ports of entry, then second 

only to May 2022 (approximately 

224,000 encounters). DHS announced 

sweeping new measures to address the 

anticipated further increase in 

migration, including a new rule that 

introduced a rebuttable presumption of 

asylum ineligibility for certain 

noncitizens 127 and a surge in resources 

to expeditiously process and remove 

individuals who arrive at the southwest 

border without a lawful basis to 

remain.128 The number of encounters 

was highly variable. For example, July 

2023 saw 132,642 encounters while 

December 2023 saw 249,735 encounters, 

before falling again in January 2024 

(176,205).129 With this overall increase 

in encounters at the southwest border, 

there was also an increase in referrals to 

USCIS for credible fear screenings 130 of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101221 

in some cases, by an asylum officer. See generally 

INA sec. 235(b), 240, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b), 1229a; see 

also 8 CFR 208.2, 208.30 and 1208.30. The HSA 

grants to DHS the authority to adjudicate 

affirmative asylum applications—i.e., applications 

for asylum filed with DHS for individuals not in 

removal proceedings—and authority to conduct 

credible fear interviews, make credible fear 

determinations in the context of expedited removal, 

and establish procedures for further consideration 

of asylum applications after an individual is found 

to have a credible fear. See 6 U.S.C. 271(b)(3); INA 

sec. 235(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B). 

131See DHS, USCIS, Asylum Division Monthly 

Statistics Report, Fiscal year 2023, October 2022 to 

September 2023, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/ 

default/files/document/data/ 

asylumfiscalyear2023todatestats_230930.xlsx (last 

visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

132See DHS, Fact Sheet: Joint DHS–DOJ Final 

Rule Issued to Restrict Asylum Eligibility for Those 

Who Enter During High Encounters at the Southern 

Border (Sept. 30, 2024), https://www.dhs.gov/news/ 

2024/09/30/fact-sheet-joint-dhs-doj-final-ruleissued-restrict-asylum-eligibility-those-who (last 

visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

133See DHS, Fact Sheet: U.S. Government 

Announces Sweeping New Actions to Manage 

Regional Migration (Apr. 27, 2023), https://

www.dhs.gov/news/2023/04/27/fact-sheet-usgovernment-announces-sweeping-new-actionsmanage-regional-migration (last visited Oct. 23, 

2024) (‘‘DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

are also surging asylum officers and immigration 

judges, respectively, to complete immigration 

proceedings at the border more quickly.’’). 

Approximately 157 immigration officer FTEs 

participated in a credible fear detail in FY 2023, 

and approximately 212 FTEs participated from May 

2023 to January 2024. 

134See INA sec. 235(b)(1)(B)(i) and (b)(1)(e), 8 

U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(i) and (b)(1)(e); 8 CFR 208.1(b). 

As required by law, asylum officers receive special 

training, including training on international human 

rights law, non-adversarial interview techniques, 

and country conditions information. 135On October 20, 2023, the Administration 

requested $755 million in supplemental funding 

from Congress for USCIS to hire additional officers 

to adjudicate an increase in asylum filings and 

address the backlog in processing employment 

authorization applications and immigration benefit 

requests. See White House, Office of Management 

and Budget, Letter regarding critical national 

security funding needs for FY 2024, https://

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ 

Letter-regarding-critical-national-security-fundingneeds-for-FY-2024.pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

136See DHS, USCIS, Asylum Division Monthly 

Statistics Report. Fiscal Year 2022. October 2021 to 

September 2022, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/ 

default/files/document/data/

AsylumFiscalYear2022ToDateStats.xlsx (last 

visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

137See DHS, USCIS, Asylum Division Monthly 

Statistics Report. Fiscal Year 2023. October 2022 to 

September 2023, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/ 

default/files/document/data/asylumfiscalyear2023

todatestats_230930.xlsx (last visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

138See TFR Modeling Methodology. 

139For a list of designated countries, see DHS, 

USCIS, Temporary Protected Status (last reviewed/ 

updated Oct. 17, 2024), 

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporaryprotected-status (last visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

140See INA secs. 244(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1254a(1). 

141See INA secs. 244(b)(1)(A)–(C); 8 U.S.C. 

1254a(b)(1)(A)–(C). 

142See 6 U.S.C. 275. See INA sec. 244(a); 8 U.S.C. 

1254a(a). 

143See INA sec. 244(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(4); 8 

CFR 244.5, 274a.12(c)(19). 

individuals who express an intention to 

apply for asylum or who express a fear 

of persecution, torture, or returning to 

their home country. In FY 2023, USCIS 

received a historic high of 149,700 

credible fear referrals.131 Following 

implementation of a Presidential 

Proclamation and related interim final 

rule in June 2024, crossings between 

ports of entry fell by over 55 percent.132

The Directorate at USCIS that 

processes these claims, the Refugee, 

Asylum and International Operations 

Directorate (‘‘RAIO’’), had insufficient 

staff to accommodate such increased 

volume. To address the impact of these 

high numbers of credible fear referrals 

from the southwest border on existing 

asylum and credible fear procedures, 

USCIS detailed USCIS personnel, 

including officers who adjudicate EAD 

applications, to the USCIS RAIO 

directorate for up to 120 days to conduct 

credible fear screenings.133 However, 

because only an immigration officer 

who is also an ‘‘asylum officer,’’ as 

defined at section 235(b)(1)(E) of the 

Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(E), may conduct 

credible fear screenings, USCIS had to 

ensure that any non-asylum officers 

received the necessary asylum officer 

training before they could begin the 

detail.134 Thus, many USCIS detailees 

were required to take a full-time asylum 

officer training course lasting several 

weeks in addition to the 120 day detail 

period. Diverting adjudicatory resources 

by training and detailing adjudicators to 

conduct credible fear screenings 

significantly strained operational 

resources for renewal EAD 

adjudications, resulting in increased 

processing times.135

Positive credible fear determinations 

also created a downstream increase in 

applications for employment 

authorization, as these individuals may 

apply for asylum before the Executive 

Office for Immigration Review, which 

renders them eligible to apply for 

employment authorization after their 

asylum application has been pending 

for 150 days. 

4. Impact of Asylum Filing Surges and 

Backlogs on C08 Renewals 

USCIS received historic levels of 

affirmative asylum applications in FY 

2022 and FY 2023. In FY 2022, USCIS 

received more than 240,600 affirmative 

asylum applications.136 In FY 2023, 

USCIS received more than 454,300 

affirmative asylum applications.137

Despite efforts to adjudicate these 

pending applications, backlogs for both 

affirmative (filed with USCIS) and 

defensive (filed with the Executive 

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)) 

asylum applications have grown. 

Specifically, as of September 30, 2023, 

over 1.062 million affirmative asylum 

applications were pending with USCIS 

and 937,000 total asylum applications 

were pending before EOIR, respectively. 

Owing to these backlogs, USCIS has 

seen an increase in C08 renewal EAD 

applications. Because initial C08 EADs 

issued prior to September 2023 were 

valid for a period of 2 years, the 

backlogs in asylum applications at 

USCIS and EOIR were projected to 

result in over 770,000 C08 renewal EAD 

application filings during the effective 

period of the 2024 TFR.138

5. Additional Designations for 

Temporary Protected Status 

Over the course of FY 2022 and FY 

2023, the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, following consideration of 

relevant country conditions and other 

appropriate factors and in consultation 

with interagency partners, designated, 

redesignated, and extended the 

designation of several countries for TPS 

under section 244 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1254a. There are currently 16 countries 

with active TPS designations.139 TPS 

provides temporary protection from 

removal and employment authorization 

to eligible nationals of designated 

countries present in the United 

States.140 The Secretary may designate a 

country for TPS if the conditions in a 

country meet certain statutory criteria, 

including preventing the country’s 

nationals from returning safely due to 

ongoing armed conflict or extraordinary 

and temporary conditions or rendering 

the country temporarily unable to 

handle adequately the return of its 

nationals due to an environmental 

disaster that has resulted in a 

substantial but temporary disruption in 

living conditions.141 USCIS is the 

designated entity within DHS to 

administer the TPS program.142

Once a country is designated, eligible 

nationals of that country may apply for 

TPS by filing Form I–821, Application 

for Temporary Protected Status (TPS 

application). Applicants may also 

request an EAD by filing an EAD 

application with their TPS application, 

while their TPS application is pending 

or after their TPS application is 

approved.143 TPS-based EADs fall under 

the A12 (TPS previously granted) and 

C19 (initial TPS application pending) 

categories. Individuals granted TPS 

must re-register for TPS and may apply 

to renew their EADs as part of any 

announced re-registration period if the 

country’s TPS designation is extended 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101222 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

144See INA sec. 244(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 

1254a(a)(1)(B); 8 CFR 244.12, 274a.12(a)(12). 

145 87 FR 30976 (May 20, 2022). 

146 87 FR 34706 (June 7, 2022). 

147 87 FR 76074 (Dec. 12, 2022). 

148 87 FR 23202 (Apr. 19, 2022). 

149 87 FR 23211 (Apr. 19, 2022). 

150 87 FR 58515 (Sept. 27, 2022). 

151 88 FR 5022 (Jan. 26, 2023). 

152 87 FR 46982 (Aug. 1, 2022). 

153 88 FR 15434 (Mar. 13, 2023). 

154 88 FR 60971 (Sept. 6, 2023). 

155 88 FR 94 (Jan. 3, 2023). 

156 88 FR 40282 (June 21, 2023). 

157 88 FR 40304 (June 21, 2023). 

158 88 FR 40294 (June 21, 2023). 

159 88 FR 40317 (June 21, 2023). 

160 87 FR 55024 (Sept. 8, 2022). 

161The 6 countries impacted by the withdrawal 

of TPS Terminations (El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, 

Nepal, Sudan, Nicaragua) accounted for 

approximately 19,000 renewal EAD applications in 

FY2022 and 193,000 renewal applications in 

FY2023. Source: USCIS analysis 10/11/2024. 

162 88 FR 69945 (Oct. 10, 2023). 

163 89 FR 5562 (Jan 29, 2024). 

164For the beginning of FY 2023 until March 

2023, USCIS averaged 160,000 initial EAD 

application receipts per month. In March 2023, 

initial EAD application receipts spiked to over 

250,000. For the remainder of FY 2023, USCIS 

averaged 220,000 initial EAD application receipts 

per month. The EAD category with the largest 

growth of initial receipts in the second half of FY 

2023 was C08 (pending asylum applications). 

by the Secretary pursuant to statutory 

requirements.144

Over the course of FY 2022 and FY 

2023, the Secretary newly designated 

five countries for TPS—Afghanistan,145

Cameroon,146 Ethiopia,147 Sudan,148

and Ukraine.149 These initial 

designations allowed nationals of these 

countries who were already in the 

United States to apply for TPS and 

EADs. During this same period, the 

Secretary extended and redesignated for 

TPS Burma,150 Haiti,151 Syria,152

Somalia,153 South Sudan,154 and 

Yemen,155 which allowed existing TPS 

beneficiaries to re-register for TPS and 

apply for renewal of their EADs and 

allowed additional qualifying nationals 

who arrived in the United States after 

the prior designation to apply for TPS 

EADs. The Secretary also extended the 

TPS designation for El Salvador,156

Honduras,157 Nicaragua,158 Nepal,159

and Venezuela,160 thereby allowing 

existing TPS beneficiaries to re-register 

for TPS and apply for renewal of their 

EADs. 

These additional designations, 

extensions, and redesignations resulted 

in a significant increase in initial and 

renewal EAD filings. In FY 2021, USCIS 

received 148,898 EAD applications filed 

by TPS applicants. Of these, 24,172 

were renewal EAD applications. In FY 

2022, USCIS received 100,484 EAD 

applications filed by TPS applicants. Of 

these, 33,352 were renewal EAD 

applications. In FY 2023, USCIS 

received 329,325 EAD applications filed 

by TPS applicants, which represent an 

over 200 percent increase in TPS-related 

EAD applications from FY 2022 to FY 

2023. Of these, 230,363 were renewal 

EAD applications as a result of the 

withdrawal of the TPS terminations and 

extensions of TPS in that fiscal year.161

As of January 2024, prior to publication 

of the 2024 TFR, the Secretary had 

redesignated and extended TPS for 

Cameroon 162 and Syria.163

The increased number of TPS-based 

EAD filings (particularly in renewal 

EAD applications in the A12 category) 

from FY 2022 to FY 2023 further 

stretched limited USCIS resources and 

contributed to the longer processing 

times for renewal EAD applications 

overall. 

6. Combined Impact on Renewal EAD 

Application Processing Times 

The events described in the previous 

sections resulted in a significant 

increase in USCIS processing times for 

several categories of automatic 

extension-eligible renewal EAD 

applications. For the period leading up 

to the 2024 TFR, the most significant 

contributing factor to these increased 

processing was the substantial surge in 

the number of initial EAD applications 

based on pending asylum applications 

(C08) that began in March 2023. This 

spike in filings, followed by a sustained 

increase in receipts during FY 2023,164

substantially increased processing times 

for renewal EAD applications because 

USCIS was required to prioritize 

adjudication of C08 initial EAD 

applications to comply with courtordered deadlines for processing these 

case types and to address other 

priorities. 

As shown in Tables 6A. through C. 

below, in FY 2023, USCIS received 

approximately 3.49 million EAD 

applications, which was 50 percent 

higher than the volume received in FY 

2022 (approximately 2.33 million). 

USCIS received approximately 2.37 

million initial EAD applications in FY 

2023, which was 77 percent higher than 

the volume of initial EAD applications 

received in FY 2022 (approximately 

1.34 million). USCIS received 

approximately 1.12 million renewal 

EAD applications in FY 2023, which 

was 13 percent higher than the volume 

received in FY 2022 (approximately 

990,000). 

TABLE 6A—INITIAL AND RENEWAL

EAD APPLICATIONS

Fiscal year EAD 

applications Difference 

2022 .......... 2,330,000 

2023 .......... 3,490,000 50 percent higher than 

2022. 

TABLE 6B—INITIAL EAD APPLICATIONS

Fiscal year EAD 

applications Difference 

2022 .......... 1,340,000 

2023 .......... 2,370,000 77 percent higher than 

2022. 

TABLE 6C—RENEWAL EAD 

APPLICATIONS

Fiscal year EAD 

applications Difference 

2022 .......... 990,000 

2023 .......... 1,120,000 13 percent higher than 

2022. 

As shown in Figure 1 below, the 

primary drivers in the growth of EAD 

applications in FY 2023 (both initials 

and renewals) were EAD applications 

based on pending asylum applications 

(C08), followed by TPS (A12/C19) and 

parole (C11). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101223 

165The processing times displayed on the USCIS 

website is the amount of time it took USCIS to 

complete 80 percent of adjudicated cases over the 

last 6 months. ‘‘Processing time is defined as the 

number of days (or months) that have elapsed 

between the date USCIS received an application, 

petition, or request and the date USCIS completed 

the application, petition, or request (that is, 

approved or denied it) in a given six-month 

period.’’ See DHS, USCIS, Case Processing Times, 

https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/more-info 

(last visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

Consequently, the efforts USCIS 

undertook to improve its processing 

times for renewal EAD applications, 

including increasing its staffing levels, 

were insufficient to keep up with the 

substantial and unanticipated increase 

in EAD application filings. 

By February 2024, prior to the 

issuance of the 2024 TFR, the 80th 

percentile processing time 165 for 

renewal C08 EAD applications was 16 

months, well beyond the targeted threemonth processing time. By February 

2024, USCIS was also behind in its 

adjudications of other automatic 

extension categories, including C09 

(pending adjustment of status 

application, 7.5 months), C10 (pending 

application for suspension of 

deportation, 16.3 months), A12 (TPS, 

11.2 months), A05 (asylee, 4.8 months), 

and A10 (granted withholding of 

deportation or removal, 6.6 months). 

Table 7 shows that the number of 

pending EAD applications did not 

materially improve and, by the end of 

February of 2024, was approximately 

1.40 million applications, which posed 

a challenge for USCIS and also impacted 

processing times for renewal EAD 

applications eligible for automatic 

extensions because of the limited 

amount of USCIS resources that can be 

allocated to those case types. The total 

number of pending automatic extension 

renewal EAD applications at the end of 

February 2024 was approximately 

439,000. 

TABLE 7—PENDING EAD APPLICATIONS BY MONTH

Month All EAD 

applications 

Automatic 

extension 

renewals 

Sep 2023 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,490,000 534,000 

Oct 2023 .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,510,000 504,000 

Nov 2023 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,500,000 474,000 

Dec 2023 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,470,000 448,000 

Jan 2024 .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,440,000 457,000 

Feb 2024 .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,400,000 439,000 

Source: DHS, USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), CLAIMS3, ELIS, retrieved March 15, 2024. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2ER13DE24.072</GPH>
101224 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

166See Table 7 (Source: DHS, USCIS, OPQ, 

CLAIMS3, ELIS, retrieved March 15, 2024). The 

vast majority of these renewal applicants eligible for 

automatic extension fell into three filing categories: 

(1) noncitizens who have properly filed 

applications for asylum and withholding of 

deportation or removal (C08); (2) noncitizens who 

have filed applications for adjustment of status to 

lawful permanent resident under section 245 of the 

INA, 8 U.S.C. 1255 (C09); and (3) noncitizens who 

have filed applications for suspension of 

deportation under section 244 of the INA (as it 

existed prior to April 1, 1997), cancellation of 

removal pursuant to section 240A of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1229b, or special rule cancellation of 

removal under section 309(f)(1) of the Illegal 

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

Act of 1996 (C10). In FY 2023, these three filing 

categories made up nearly 61 percent of the renewal 

EAD receipts filed in categories eligible for the 

automatic extension of employment authorization. 

Broken down further among these three categories: 

the C08 category comprised approximately 41 

percent of the renewal EAD receipts filed in 

categories eligible for the automatic extension, 

while the C09 category comprised approximately 10 

percent and the C10 comprised approximately 10 

percent. 

167 In FY 2023, USCIS received a total of 

approximately 633,000 renewal EAD applications 

in the categories eligible for automatic extension, 

which averages to approximately 52,800 filings per 

month. 

168See 89 FR 24628, 24644 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

169With certain exceptions, if a noncitizen 

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 sec. 245. See INA sec. 245(c)(2) 

and (c)(8), 8 U.S.C. 1255(c)(2) and (c)(8). 

170See section IV. Discussion of Public 

Comments, in this preamble. 

171See sections III. A–C. in this preamble. 

172See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022) 

(explaining that a now-vacated regulation in effect 

from August 2020 through February 2022 did not 

allow asylum applicants to apply for employment 

authorization until their asylum applications had 

been pending for at least 365 days, and, even absent 

that regulation, INA 208(d)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2) 

does not allow their employment authorization 

applications to be approved until their asylum 

applications have been pending at least 180 days); 

89 FR 24628, 24644 (Apr. 8, 2024) (same 

explanation). 

173See INA sec. 208(d)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2). 

174See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24644 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

175See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24644 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

176See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24644 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

177See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24644 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

178See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24644 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

179See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24644 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

180See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24644 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

181See 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii). 

As of February 2024, USCIS had 

approximately 439,000 pending renewal 

EAD requests in the categories eligible 

for automatic extension,166 and received 

an average of approximately 52,800 

additional automatic extension-eligible 

renewal EAD applications per month in 

FY 2023.167 These additional renewal 

applications added to the backlog, given 

that USCIS completed approximately 

49,100 automatic extension-eligible 

renewal EAD applications per month at 

that time.168

In FY 2023, the 80th percentile 

processing time for all renewal EAD 

applications was 14.2 months. For those 

automatic extension-eligible renewal 

applicants, as of February 2024, the 80th 

percentile processing time was 14.5 

months. 

In summary, based on a combination 

of factors, DHS projected at the time 

that, between May 2024 to March 2026, 

approximately 800,000 renewal 

applicants eligible for an automatic 

extension would exceed the 180-day 

automatic extension period unless the 

2024 TFR was issued. 

C. Automatic Extension Period of up to 

180 Days in Current 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1) 

Is Insufficient 

DHS is aware of the importance of 

employment authorization and EADs as 

evidence of employment eligibility for 

applicants’ and their families’ 

livelihoods, as well as their U.S. 

employers’ continuity of operations and 

financial health. DHS is also aware 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,169 and on 

the U.S. employer’s responsibilities 

under the INA. DHS also acknowledges 

that the factors that lead to substantial 

increases in backlogs and prolonged 

renewal EAD application processing 

times are not the fault of applicants but 

have had and may continue to have 

significant adverse consequences for 

applicants and employers awaiting a 

USCIS decision on pending renewal 

EAD applications. The public comments 

received in relation to the 2022 and 

2024 TFRs underscore the importance of 

employment authorization and EADs.170

As illustrated by the examples 

elsewhere in this preamble,171 a wide 

variety of often-unpredictable 

circumstances affecting USCIS 

operations have led to significant 

increases in USCIS processing times for 

several categories of renewal EAD 

applications. DHS has determined that 

if the automatic extension period is not 

permanently increased to 540 days, 

many EAD renewal applicants could in 

the future be in danger of experiencing 

a gap in employment authorization and/ 

or EAD validity. Without a permanent 

540-day automatic extension period, 

one or more events in the future, such 

as a surge in EAD application filings, 

may result in hundreds of thousands of 

renewal EAD applications remaining 

pending beyond the 180-day automatic 

extension period, and renewal 

applicants may lose their employment 

authorization and/or EAD validity 

through no fault of their own. DHS has 

also determined that reacting to such 

circumstances by providing temporary 

extensions through the means of TFRs is 

neither an efficient solution nor is it 

sustainable for DHS, USCIS, applicants 

and employers as such rapid 

policymaking exercises occupy scarce 

government resources and do not 

provide long-term stability and 

predictability for applicants, employers’ 

business operations, and the community 

as a whole. 

As DHS has noted before in previous 

rulemakings, the loss of employment 

authorization for asylum applicants is 

especially dire because of the significant 

time that asylum applicants must wait 

to become employment-authorized in 

the first place.172 By statute, asylum 

applicants cannot be approved for 

initial EADs until their asylum 

applications have been pending for at 

least 180 days.173 This initial wait time 

exacerbates the often-precarious 

economic situations asylum seekers may 

be in as a result of fleeing persecution 

in their home countries.174 Many lacked 

substantial resources to support 

themselves before they fled or spent 

much of what they had to escape their 

country and travel to the United 

States.175 Those with resources may 

have been forced to leave what they had 

behind because they lacked the time to 

sell property or otherwise gather what 

they owned.176 When whole families are 

threatened, the primary earner may be 

the first to travel to the United States to 

establish a new home before bringing 

the rest of the family.177 The cost to 

travel to the United States is high, as is 

the relative cost of living.178 In these 

circumstances, if the asylum seeker is 

unable to work for extended periods of 

time, it can not only negatively impact 

that individual, but the whole family as 

well.179 For those who have already 

found jobs to support their needs, the 

potential for their initial EADs to expire 

prior to the approval and issuance of a 

renewed EAD may force them back into 

instability caused by a gap in their 

authorization to work.180

Continuation of employment 

authorization and/or EADs is also a 

requirement for their employers who 

must comply with Form I–9, 

Employment Eligibility Verification, 

requirements in order to continue to 

employ these employees.181 In addition, 

some employers, notwithstanding 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101225 

182See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24645 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

183See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24645 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

184See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24645 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

185See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24645 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

186See 87 FR 26614, 26619 (May 4, 2022); 89 FR 

24628, 24645 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

187 6 CFR 37.11(c). 

188REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109–13, div. 

B, Title II, Sec. 201(3) (May 11, 2005); 6 CFR Part 

37. 

189 6 CFR 37.11(c)(1) lists the identity documents 

applicants of REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses 

and identification cards must provide. 

190 89 FR at 24648, 24674. 

possible violation of section 274B of the 

INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324b (governing unfair 

immigration-related employment 

practices), may be hesitant to hire 

asylum seekers in the first place if it 

appears maintaining their employment 

will be difficult due to potential lapses 

in employment authorization.182

Continuous employment 

authorization and documentation 

during the pendency of an asylum 

application is vital for asylum seekers in 

the United States to access housing, 

food, and other necessities.183 In 

addition, asylum seekers may need 

income from employment to access 

medical care, mental health services, 

and other resources, as well as to access 

legal counsel in order to pursue their 

claims before USCIS or EOIR.184 Access 

to mental health services is particularly 

crucial for asylum seekers due to the 

prevalence of trauma-induced mental 

health concerns, including depression 

and post-traumatic stress disorder.185

The physical harm experienced by 

many asylum seekers frequently 

necessitates continuous medical care for 

extended periods of time.186 Finally, the 

purpose for which asylum seekers came 

to the United States is to seek long-term 

protection by receiving asylum. 

In addition, having unexpired 

employment authorization and EADs is 

necessary for certain noncitizens such 

as asylum applicants and TPS 

beneficiaries when they require proof of 

identity or immigration status. For 

example, the only acceptable document 

available to some noncitizens such as 

asylum applicants and TPS beneficiaries 

to establish identity for other purposes, 

such as obtaining a REAL ID-compliant 

driver’s license or identification card, 

may be an unexpired EAD.187 Following 

full implementation of REAL ID 

requirements, if an individual chooses 

to present a state-issued driver’s license 

or identification card for defined official 

purposes, including access to certain 

Federal facilities and boarding federally 

regulated commercial aircraft, the 

driver’s license or identification card 

must be REAL ID-compliant.188 Without 

an unexpired EAD, certain classes of 

noncitizens would not be able to apply 

for REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses 

or identification cards.189

To reduce the chance of the harmful 

effects caused by such lapses, DHS is 

permanently amending existing DHS 

regulations to increase the automatic 

extension period from up to 180 days to 

up to 540 days for all eligible renewal 

EAD application categories under 8 CFR 

274a.13(d). 

IV. Discussion of Public Comments 

A. Summary of Comments on the 2024 

TFR 

In promulgating the 2024 TFR, DHS 

invited the public to participate in the 

rulemaking by submitting comments 

and written data on any part of the 2024 

TFR. In light of the concern about 

potential future lapses in employment 

authorization and/or the validity of their 

EAD as a result of spikes in application 

filings and other circumstances that 

impact USCIS processing of renewal 

EAD applications, DHS also invited the 

public to comment on the following 

three aspects: 

• Whether DHS regulations should be 

revised to permanently lengthen the 

automatic extension period to up to 540 

days for employment authorization and/ 

or EAD validity for eligible renewal 

applicants; 

• Whether a different extension 

period should be implemented for some 

or all applicants covered by the 

automatic extension provision on either 

a temporary or permanent basis; and 

• Whether other solutions should be 

considered to mitigate the risk of 

expiring employment authorization 

and/or EAD validity for some or all 

applicants covered by automatic 

extension provisions.190

The 2024 TFR provided a 60-day 

period for the public to submit 

comments at http://

www.regulations.gov/ using the DHS 

docket number DHS Docket No. USCIS– 

2024–0002. In response to the request 

for comments, DHS received a total of 

152 public comment submissions. 

Comments were submitted by a range 

of entities and individuals, including 

attorneys and legal service providers, 

applicants, applicant’s family members, 

professional organizations, unions, 

advocacy groups, international 

organizations, religious organizations, 

research and community organizations, 

and state and local government agencies 

or elected officials. 

B. General Support for the 2024 TFR 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed their support for the 2024 

TFR based on the positive impacts and 

benefits the 2024 TFR would have on 

noncitizens, their employers, their 

families, their support systems, their 

communities, and the public. Many 

commented on the devastating effects 

caused by gaps in employment 

authorization and documentation, 

including job loss, gaps in driver’s 

license privileges and other professional 

licensing, and exploitation. Citing 

research, a commenter wrote that gaps 

in employment authorization and the 

concomitant financial instability also 

leave immigrants vulnerable to labor 

trafficking and exploitation. 

Commenters also stated that allowing 

applicants to continue to be able to 

work while waiting for USCIS to 

adjudicate their renewal EAD 

applications provided stability and job 

security for those workers and their 

families. Other commenters remarked 

that employment authorization is a 

critical tool that helps noncitizens 

successfully integrate into the United 

States and promotes self-sufficiency. 

Many commenters stated that noncitizens should not have to fear the loss 

of employment due to lengthy USCIS 

processing times. 

A commenter pointed out that the 

ability to work is especially important 

for marginalized noncitizens. Another 

commenter wrote that asylum seekers 

deserve the same right to work as U.S. 

citizens and expressed support for the 

longer extension period. 

A few commenters noted that the 

automatic EAD extension would give 

relief to legal services providers who are 

already overburdened by high 

caseloads, time-consuming work related 

to EAD delays and renewals, and 

staffing shortages. One commenter 

stated that gaps in employment 

authorization due to USCIS processing 

delays cause applicants relying on pro 

bono legal services significant distress, 

which, in turn creates more work for the 

services’ overburdened staff. 

A few commenters noted the concerns 

that having expired employment 

authorization aggravates the abuse, labor 

violations, and retaliation that 

noncitizens already encounter in the 

workplace, leading these noncitizens to 

take jobs that are underpaid and present 

unsafe working conditions. One 

commenter stated that Black people, 

indigenous people, and other people of 

color are particularly susceptible to 

working in dangerous jobs and the 

informal economy, leading to more 

encounters with law enforcement. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101226 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

191See 5 U.S.C. 552, 553; see also 44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 15 (Federal Register and Code of Federal 

Regulations). 

192See, e.g., 89 FR 24628, 24628–29 (Apr. 8, 

2024). 

193 DHS, USCIS, M–274, Handbook for 

Employers, Section 11.2 Types of Employment 

Discrimination Prohibited Under the INA (last 

reviewed/updated July 25, 2023), https://

www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/ 

handbook-for-employers-m-274/110-unlawfuldiscrimination-and-penalties-for-prohibitedpractices/112-types-of-employment-discriminationprohibited-under-the-ina (last visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

194See 8 U.S.C. 1324b. 

195See DOJ, Civil Rights Division, Immigrant and 

Employee Rights Section, https://www.justice.gov/ 

crt/immigrant-and-employee-rights-section (last 

visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

196See DHS, USCIS, Automatic Employment 

Authorization Document (EAD) Extension (last 

reviewed/updated Oct. 9, 2024), https://

www.uscis.gov/eadautoextend (last visited Oct. 23, 

2024) (including the Automatic Extension 

Eligibility Calculator tab). 

One commenter remarked that many 

workers are disincentivized from 

reporting labor violations and poor 

working conditions due to concerns 

over workplace abuse and retaliation 

from employers taking advantage of 

gaps in work authorization, thereby 

reinforcing the need for timely 

processing of work authorization and 

the commenter’s support for the rule. 

Indicating an understanding of the 

difficulties that gaps in work 

authorizations can cause to both foreignborn workers and business operations, a 

commenter expressed appreciation for 

USCIS’ efforts to improve the harmful 

impacts of backlogs in the adjudication 

of EAD applications. 

Response: As outlined in the 2024 

TFR, DHS is aware that an automatic 

extension period of up to 180 days 

insufficiently addresses the stresses of 

the EAD renewal process on applicants, 

their families, legal services providers, 

and employers, and takes note of the 

consequences for these groups when 

renewal EAD applications are not timely 

processed. DHS is aware of the many 

benefits that the DHS TFRs provided to 

eligible renewal EAD applicants by 

increasing the automatic extension 

period to up to 540 days and DHS 

believes that making the up to 540-day 

automatic extension permanent is 

necessary to mitigate against these 

harms on a long-term basis. 

C. General Opposition to the 2024 TFR 

Comment: A commenter expressed 

opposition to the 2024 TFR, reasoning 

that, by publishing the rule in the 

Federal Register, DHS did not provide 

enough transparency for the public 

because the public does not read the 

Federal Register. The commenter stated 

that no foreigners should be in the 

United States. The commenter alleged 

that the 2024 TFR would allow 

noncitizens to remain in the United 

States, during which time they would 

participate in fraudulent election 

activities and other criminal activities 

that according to the commenter they 

are paid to commit. 

Response: By law, substantive agency 

rules of general applicability are 

published in the Federal Register.191

The Federal Register is the official daily 

publication to notify the public of rules, 

proposed rules, and notices of Federal 

agencies and organizations. Therefore, 

DHS followed the standard method of 

providing notice of the 2024 TFR and an 

opportunity to comment. The 

commenter’s remarks about the 

potential for noncitizens to engage in 

unlawful actions are speculative and 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking, 

and therefore we will not address them. 

The purpose of the 2024 TFR was amply 

laid out in the preamble to that 

document,192 and has nothing to do 

with alleged election fraud or enabling 

criminal activity. 

Comment: A commenter indicated 

that the automatic extension does not 

help because companies generally will 

not employ someone with a facially 

expired EAD. 

Response: DHS notes that an 

employer that rejects acceptable 

documentation for Form I–9, 

Employment Eligibility Verification, 

that appears to be genuine and relates to 

the employee, based on the employee’s 

citizenship status or national origin, 

may violate the INA’s antidiscrimination provision, found in 

Section 274B of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1324b.193 The INA prohibits 

discrimination against employees and 

applicants for employment in hiring, 

firing, and recruitment on the basis of 

citizenship status or national origin, 

unfair documentary practices, as well as 

retaliation for engaging in protected 

activity, such as filing a complaint 

based on these prohibited actions.194

The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil 

Rights Division, Immigrant and 

Employee Rights Section (IER) enforces 

the INA’s anti-discrimination 

provision.195 Employees may seek 

redress through IER, whose jurisdiction 

includes investigating claims that valid 

documentation was rejected during the 

Form I–9 process based on a worker’s 

citizenship status or national origin. To 

address concerns that employers will 

not hire someone with a facially expired 

EAD, USCIS also has clarified guidance 

and tools available on its website to 

help employers understand the 

requirements for eligibility for 

extensions of employment authorization 

and/or EADs.196

D. Legal Authority 

Comment: Some commenters noted 

that DHS was acting within its legal 

authority when it issued the 2024 TFR. 

A commenter supporting the 2024 TFR 

wrote that ‘‘adequate reception 

conditions are a necessary component of 

fair and efficient asylum procedures,’’ 

and that access to work for asylumseekers and other similarly situated 

populations is linked to the quality of 

reception conditions for asylum seekers. 

A commenter expressed support for the 

rule and commended DHS for preparing 

what it called a thorough analysis 

supporting the legal aspects of the 2024 

TFR. 

Response: DHS agrees that it had 

ample legal authority to publish the 

2024 TFR. DHS’s primary goal was to 

help prevent a lapse in employment 

authorization and/or documentation for 

eligible renewal EAD applicants. 

E. Purpose of the 2024 TFR 

Comment: Several commenters 

addressed the purpose of the 2024 TFR. 

One commenter wrote that DHS is 

correct in ‘‘trying to find a path 

forward’’ to process EAD applications 

and renewals, noting that the current 

situation seems ‘‘dire.’’ A commenter 

commended DHS’s proactive efforts 

given the potential uncertainty 

surrounding the projected 260,000 

renewal EAD applicants facing a lapse 

in employment beginning in October 

2025. The same commenter said that the 

imminent and near-term needs of 

applicants and their U.S. employers 

justify the up to 540-day automatic 

extension period provided by the 2024 

TFR to address these needs and 

expressed the need to develop a longerterm solution after soliciting additional 

input and thoroughly assessing the 

effects of USCIS policy and operational 

changes. 

Other commenters noted their support 

of DHS’s efforts to reduce backlogs, 

decrease processing times, streamline 

EAD application processing, and 

increase the maximum validity period 

to 5 years for certain EAD categories. 

Another commenter said that such 

efforts have not only resulted in 

improvements for EAD recipients, but 

also for resettlement case workers and 

legal service program staff who have 

saved time assisting clients to obtain 

these vital documents. A commenter 

indicated that, more broadly, the U.S. 

government’s ongoing efforts around 

backlog reduction of the asylum backlog 

would prevent it from growing further, 

which, in turn, would reduce the need 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101227 

197The United States has not ratified the 

International Covenant on Economic, Social and 

Cultural Rights. 

for asylum seekers to renew EAD 

applications and will help mitigate the 

risks that those who are eligible for 

employment authorization and 

documentation face lapses in access. 

Another commenter remarked that 

DHS’s efforts to decrease processing 

times generally and facilitate the EAD 

application process would alleviate 

burdens for migrant workers and their 

families. 

A commenter wrote that ensuring the 

right to work in fair conditions is 

enshrined in both international law and 

U.S. labor law, that a person is to be 

protected from labor violations and 

labor trafficking regardless of 

immigration status, and that the Refugee 

Convention framework calls upon the 

United States to guarantee labor 

protections to refugees and asylum 

seekers. The commenter asserted that 

the current employment authorization 

framework, with short authorization 

periods that lapse without adequate 

infrastructure to timely process 

renewals, violates these laws and that 

the U.S. government would benefit from 

an up to 540-day extension or longer as 

it retains the authority to withdraw an 

authorization should a benefit be denied 

or revoked. The commenter wrote that 

gaps in employment authorization 

undermine the United States’ 

fulfillment of Article 24(1) of the 1951 

Refugee Convention, and do not 

conform with the standards set forth in 

Article 6(1) of the International 

Covenant on Economic, Social and 

Cultural Rights, which urges states to 

‘‘recognize the right to work[.]’’ 197

Another commenter added that DHS’s 

efforts to ensure continued access to 

work authorization and documentation 

for refugees and asylum seekers as 

reflected in the 2024 TFR are consistent 

with international human rights and 

refugee law. Similarly, one commenter 

wrote that asylum seekers account for 

about 80 percent of the 800,000 work 

permit renewal applicants who might 

lose work authorization without the 

benefit of the 2024 TFR. 

Some commenters wrote that the 

backlog in processing EAD applications 

was not the workers’ fault. While 

referencing an article in which a USCIS 

spokesperson was cited, a commenter 

wrote that preventing noncitizens from 

losing their work authorization would 

align with USCIS’ priorities of 

preventing work authorizations for 

noncitizens from expiring through no 

fault of their own. 

Response: DHS agrees with those 

commenters who point out that the 

needs of EAD renewal applicants can be 

urgent and that addressing the 

imminent expiration of EADs for 

affected individuals is a critical priority. 

DHS also agrees with those commenters 

who note that workers with EADs are 

not at fault for the backlog. 

Correspondingly, DHS is issuing this 

final rule to address these concerns 

long-term and to prevent gaps in 

employment authorization for eligible 

renewal EAD applicants. 

DHS disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that the current employment 

authorization scheme violates or is 

inconsistent with U.S. obligations under 

international law and specifically the 

1951 Refugee Convention. Although the 

United States is a party to the 1967 

Protocol, which incorporates Articles 2 

to 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, 

this treaty is not self-executing; 

consequently, it is not directly 

enforceable in U.S law. It is the 

domestic implementing law that 

governs, and Supreme Court and other 

case law makes clear that the Protocol 

serves only as a useful guide in 

determining congressional intent in 

enacting the Refugee Act of 1980 

because the Act sought to bring U.S. law 

into conformity with the Protocol. See, 

e.g., INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 428 

n.22 (1984); Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 

773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Congress implemented U.S. 

obligations with respect to certain 

provisions of the Refugee Convention in 

the Refugee Act of 1980. The Refugee 

Act, in particular, included provisions 

implementing Article 34 of the 1951 

Convention, which provides that State 

Parties ‘‘shall as far as possible facilitate 

the assimilation and naturalization of 

refugees.’’ Congress implemented 

Article 34 primarily through the INA’s 

discretionary asylum and asylee and 

refugee adjustment of status provisions 

at sections 208 and 209 of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1158, 1159. See INS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 441 (1987). As 

the Supreme Court has recognized, 

Article 34 is ‘‘precatory’’ and ‘‘does not 

require [an] implementing authority 

actually to grant asylum to all’’ 

noncitizens determined to meet the 

definition of a refugee. Id. 

DHS also notes that the INA 

provisions and DHS regulations 

applicable to refugees and asylees fully 

comply with U.S. obligations under 

Articles 17 and 31 of the Refugee 

Convention, as incorporated in the 1967 

Protocol. Note that paragraphs (1) and 

(3) of Article 17 related to wage-earning 

employment state that ‘‘The Contracting 

State shall accord to refugees lawfully 

staying in their territory the most 

favourable treatment accorded to 

nationals of a foreign country in the 

same circumstances, as regards to 

engage in wage-earning employment,’’ 

and that ‘‘The Contracting States shall 

give sympathetic consideration to 

assimilating the rights of all refugees 

with regard to wage-earning 

employment to those of nationals, and 

in particular of those refugees who have 

entered their territory pursuant to 

programmes of labour recruitment or 

under immigration schemes.’’ 

Even if Article 17 imposes any 

binding obligations, nothing in Article 

17 requires DHS to provide employment 

authorization to noncitizens seeking 

refugee status or asylum before DHS or 

an IJ has made a final determination that 

they meet the definition of a refugee 

under 101(a)(42) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(42), and grant the individual’s 

application on that basis. Under the 

INA, DHS is not required to provide 

work authorization for asylum 

applicants, but DHS generally does so 

pursuant to its discretion. See INA 

section 208(d)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2); 8 

CFR 208.7, 274a.12(c)(8). Once DHS or 

an IJ has determined that a noncitizen 

meets the definition of a refugee and has 

been granted status, the noncitizen is 

immediately authorized to work 

pursuant to their status, consistent with 

the statute and regulations governing 

employment authorization for those 

who have been granted refugee status or 

asylum. See INA 208(c)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 

1158(c)(1)(B); 8 U.S.C. 1738; 8 CFR 

274a.12(a)(3), (a)(5). 

DHS also believes that the 

employment authorization framework 

and this rule comply with U.S. 

obligations under Article 31.1 of the 

Refugee Convention, which also is nonself-executing. See Refugee Convention, 

Article 31.1 (‘‘[C]ontracting States shall 

not impose penalties, on account of 

their illegally entry or presence, on 

refugees who, coming directly from a 

territory where their life or freedom was 

threatened . . . enter or are present in 

their territory without authorization, 

provided they present themselves 

without delay to the authorities and 

show good cause for their illegal entry 

or presence.’’). DHS is not imposing a 

penalty on refugees who entered the 

United States without authorization or 

are unlawfully present. 

DHS, however, acknowledges that the 

up-to-180-day automatic extension can 

lead to gaps in employment 

authorization owing to operational 

considerations, and a permanent 540- 

day automatic extension will better 

protect against disruptions to EAD 

applicants, their families, and their 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101228 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

employers. DHS also acknowledges the 

fact that asylum applicants are one of 

the principal populations affected by 

the extension provided by the 2024 

TFR, and that the processing time for 

asylum applications is an important 

consideration in the development of 

EAD renewal policies. 

DHS also agrees with commenters’ 

observations that DHS has made 

important efforts to reduce processing 

times generally; such reductions in 

processing times benefit all EAD 

applicants. 

F. Positive Impacts of the 2024 TFR 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

supported the 2024 TFR, stating that 

longer EAD automatic extensions 

would, as estimated by DHS in the 2024 

TFR, prevent over 800,000 noncitizens 

from losing their employment 

authorization and, as a result, losing 

their jobs. Numerous commenters stated 

that the increased temporary EAD 

automatic extension period would 

provide stability to noncitizens and 

allow them to continue supporting 

themselves and their families while 

awaiting a decision on their renewal 

EAD applications. One commenter 

stated that they frequently hear 

complaints from Oregon’s immigrant 

community that current employment 

authorization renewals were extremely 

onerous for immigrants and their 

employers, and this immigrant 

community had reported pushback from 

employers while periodically seeking to 

renew their EADs. According to this 

commenter, some within this 

community had to take unpaid leave 

while waiting for their reextended EADs 

to arrive due to USCIS processing 

delays. This commenter indicated that 

immigrant households often having 

little or no available safety net when 

these individuals lose their ability to 

work for extended periods of time due 

to USCIS processing delays. According 

to the commenter, the 2024 TFR, while 

not solving the problem, would give the 

Oregon immigrant community members 

more job security, enabling them to 

provide for their families, and bolster 

Oregon’s economy. 

A commenter wrote that the U.S. 

labor and employment laws generally 

protect all employees regardless of their 

immigration status. The commenter 

stated that Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 prohibits employment 

discrimination on the grounds of race, 

color, religion, sex or national origin, 

and that noncitizen employees may also 

bring claims for violations of wage and 

hour protections, occupational health 

and safety violations, and more. The 

commenter stated that the 2024 TFR 

would provide further protections for 

noncitizen employees who are 

vulnerable to labor violations and 

mistreatment. 

Another commenter said that 

refugees, TPS holders, asylum seekers, 

and immigrants with pending green 

card applications or withholding of 

removal need the protection afforded by 

the 2024 TFR in order to be productive 

members of society. A commenter 

remarked that employment 

authorization is a critical tool that helps 

noncitizens in its state successfully 

integrate into the United States. 

Other commenters reasoned that a 

permanent increase would benefit the 

U.S. Government, service providers, 

employers, and workers thanks to less 

paperwork, more continuity and 

stability in business staffing, increased 

worker productivity, and family 

stability. Another commenter said that a 

permanent extension would augment its 

own efforts to place employmentauthorized individuals into the 

workforce by ensuring that those 

individuals can retain employment 

authorization. 

A commenter addressed the stress and 

time demands required of its clients to 

maintain vigilance and valid EADs 

despite ongoing delays in processing 

and EAD expirations, stating that 

increasing the automatic renewal period 

from 180 to 540 days would reduce 

harmful delays. The commenter also 

noted that due to long USCIS processing 

times, even applicants who apply for a 

renewal EAD 180 days prior to 

expiration of their current EAD are at 

risk of losing work authorization, and 

that the 2024 TFR’s extensions are 

necessary due to the lengthy processing 

times. 

Some commenters wrote that asylum 

seekers are fleeing persecution and 

poverty in their home countries and 

lapses in work authorization contribute 

to instability and create anxieties for 

this population. Similarly, some 

commenters wrote that survivors of 

gender-based violence are particularly 

vulnerable and need timely access to 

employment authorization and 

economic opportunities. 

Some commenters reasoned that 

delays in adjudicating asylum 

applications add to the total delays in 

work authorization for many 

noncitizens. A commenter addressed 

the long affirmative asylum backlog, 

writing that some of their LGBTQ+ 

immigrant clients wait years to receive 

decisions and that the automatic 

extension increase would benefit clients 

who otherwise might lose employment, 

health insurance, and housing and may 

experience food insecurity. 

Several commenters expressed 

support for the 2024 TFR on the 

grounds that it would help individuals 

to maintain their licenses for work, such 

as truck drivers, ride-share drivers, and 

delivery service workers. These 

commenters also described the utility of 

EADs as a form of recognized 

identification, including for government 

interactions or travel, writing that such 

documentation is particularly needed 

for noncitizens who may no longer have 

access to passports or foreign birth 

certificates. 

Some commenters opined that the 

automatic extensions are beneficial, but 

that USCIS should do more, with one 

commenter characterizing automatic 

extensions as merely ‘‘a band-aid 

solution for a larger problem.’’ 

Response: DHS believes that the 

positive impact of the 2022 and the 

2024 TFR demonstrates the value in 

having longer automatic extension 

periods. This final rule provides a longterm solution that should result in more 

continuous employment authorization 

and/or EAD validity that is more 

efficient for USCIS to administer and 

more predictable for renewal EAD 

applicants and their employers. DHS 

believes that it will provide stability and 

protection to renewal EAD applicants 

who are already authorized to work, as 

well as their families, their employers, 

the U.S. economy, and the public at 

large. Stability and predictability are 

particularly important given the vital 

role of the EAD that serves not only 

employment eligibility verification 

purposes, but also other purposes such 

as identity and immigration status 

verification for eligible public benefits 

and services. 

G. Impacts on U.S. Employers and the 

Economy 

1. Provide Stability and Decrease 

Burdens for U.S. Employers 

Comment: Multiple commenters said 

that the 2024 TFR and the increased 

automatic extension period would 

provide stability for employers, such as 

by relieving businesses from the impacts 

of losing or changing employees and 

associated hiring and training costs. 

Another commenter wrote that U.S. 

employers would benefit from smoother 

operations with more continuity and 

stability in staffing and that this benefit 

to businesses would support overall 

U.S. economic growth. Commenters, 

citing the 2024 TFR, also stated that the 

rule would protect up to 82,000 

employers and that businesses and 

organizations would incur 

approximately $17.4 billion in labor 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101229 

198See 89 FR 24628, 24652, 24656 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

199 89 FR 24628, 24648 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

200See 89 FR 24628, 24649 (April 82024). See 87 

FR 26614 (May 4, 2022). 

201See DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I–765 Application for 

Employment Authorization Automatic Extension 

Eligible Renewals Pending Beyond 540 Day 

Automatic Extension Pending as of June 30, 2024, 

CLAIMS 3 & ELIS, queried 08/2024 (showing that 

as of June 30, 2024, out of approximately 260,000 

pending renewal EAD applications, under 150 were 

pending for more than 540 days after expiration). 

turnover costs if EAD recipients were to 

lose their work authorizations. 

Response: DHS acknowledges the 

2024 TFR’s benefits for U.S. employers 

and, by extension, the U.S. economy. As 

discussed in the 2024 TFR, the potential 

effects of widespread lapses of EADs 

and employment authorization on U.S. 

employers were a significant reason for 

issuing the rule.198

Comment: Some commenters 

remarked that the 2024 TFR would 

lessen the paperwork demands of 

repeated EAD renewals for U.S. 

employers, with one commenter stating 

that employers, due to high employee 

turnover on account of expiring work 

authorizations, find themselves 

scrambling to verify new-employee 

employment authorization or determine 

when reverification needs to occur, all 

while operating under the risk of civil 

monetary penalties if they do not 

properly maintain employment 

paperwork. 

Some commenters further wrote that 

the 2024 TFR and a permanent increase 

of the automatic extension period would 

increase worker morale and 

productivity by keeping workloads 

consistent. 

Response: DHS acknowledges these 

positive effects of the 2024 TFR on 

employers and their workforce. 

2. Contributions to Local, State, and 

U.S. Economy 

Comment: Several commenters wrote 

in support that the 2024 TFR would 

benefit the U.S. economy, as worker 

retention and reduced turnover would 

stabilize the labor market. Referencing 

research, another commenter similarly 

stated that immigrants make 

significantly more economic 

contributions to the U.S. economy than 

they take away from State benefits or 

other State programs. 

Commenters described programs in 

states and cities that connect arriving 

noncitizens with immigration legal 

services, including employment 

authorization assistance. These 

commenters described the economic 

benefits the immigrant population 

provide to their regions and the critical 

role that continuous access to EADs 

plays in supporting immigrant workers. 

Expressing support for the 2024 TFR, 

a few commenters remarked that 

allowing noncitizens to work in legal 

ways and pay taxes benefits the U.S. 

economy. One commenter further 

reasoned that the 2024 TFR is beneficial 

because when noncitizens are able to 

work, they provide additional tax 

funding for public expenditures such as 

social services, education, 

infrastructure, and national security. 

Response: DHS agrees that the 2024 

TFR has had positive economic effects. 

3. Alleviate Shortages in the U.S. Labor 

Market 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the 2024 TFR would allow 

noncitizens to be a steady work force to 

fill jobs in needed fields, such as 

agriculture, construction, and health 

care, service industries, and 

warehouses. Commenters stated that 

employers and business leaders 

continually express that immigrant 

workers are essential to the U.S. 

economy, and that successful 

organizations consider the immigration 

system a resource for positions that are 

hard to fill, for seasonal or temporary 

workers, and for enriching their 

workforce with new cultures and ideas. 

Similarly, commenters described 

shortages within the U.S. labor market 

and expressed support for the TFR to 

address those shortages. Referencing 

research, commenters stated that the 

U.S. labor market has both acute and 

chronic labor shortages and that 

increased levels of migration into the 

U.S. addresses declines in the U.S. labor 

force due to the aging population. One 

commenting organization recommended 

that USCIS implement administrative 

policies that aid businesses with work 

permit-related processes. 

Response: DHS agrees that 

noncitizens contribute significantly to 

the U.S. economy and that the 2024 TFR 

and this rule help ensure that such 

contributions are not interrupted 

because of USCIS processing delays. 

H. Impacts on the U.S. Government 

Comment: Commenters wrote that the 

540-day extension established in the 

TFR would benefit USCIS by relieving 

the pressure of the backlog. Some noted 

that the current automatic 180-day EAD 

work extension is insufficient, as USCIS 

often takes more than 1 year to process 

an application, and they supported the 

extension so that USCIS would have 

more time to process applications. 

Commenters reasoned that the TFR 

would reduce the need for EAD renewal 

processing and thus would reduce 

USCIS resource challenges, allowing the 

agency to better allocate its staff time. 

Similarly, a commenter stated that the 

automatic extension of EADs would 

allow USCIS to focus resources on casebased analysis in areas other than EAD 

renewals. 

Several commenters stated that the 

TFR would benefit DHS by providing 

more time to consider long-term 

solutions suggested in public comments, 

evaluate policies and operations, and 

identify new strategies to improve 

review of EAD applications. 

Response: While DHS continues to 

emphasize adjudication of pending EAD 

renewals, DHS acknowledges these 

comments and notes that these positive 

effects on the U.S. government were 

among the reasons for the 2024 TFR.199

I. Allow a Second 540-Day Automatic 

Extension Period for Noncitizens who 

Received the 2022 TFR Automatic 

Extension 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the TFR appears to exclude applicants 

who already received an automatic 

extension through the 2022 TFR.200 The 

commenter said that applicants who 

applied in 2022 and are nearing the end 

of their previous extension could be 

ineligible for this new extension despite 

meeting all other criteria and still 

having a pending application due to 

processing delays. The commenter 

inquired about a solution to ensure that 

those described applicants could be 

eligible for the new extension. 

Response: While DHS is committed to 

preventing gaps in employment 

authorization and/or EAD validity in the 

future for applicants, as of June 30, 

2024, about 150, or 0.06 percent, of 

pending renewal EAD applications had 

been pending beyond the end of the 540 

day automatic extension period 

provided in the 2022 TFR, which 

signals that a second automatic 

extension period would have a marginal 

benefit at best.201 Based on a July 2024 

analysis, USCIS projects that upwards of 

46,000 renewal applicants may lose at 

least 1 day of employment authorization 

and/or documentation between July 

2024 and March 2027. This population 

includes approximately 21,000 

noncitizens who filed renewal EAD 

applications covered by the 2022 TFR. 

These 21,000 expirations would occur 

between July 2024 and September 2025, 

with most expirations occurring after 

January 2025. The timing of these 

projected expirations will allow USCIS 

time to address these cases. USCIS has 

taken operational steps, such as training 

more officers to adjudicate C10 renewal 

EAD applications, to further reduce the 

number of EAD renewal applicants who 

may lose at least 1 day of employment 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101230 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

202See 89 FR 24628, 24632 (Apr. 8, 2024). 203See 8 CFR 274a.13(d). 

authorization and/or documentation. 

Therefore, DHS declines to adopt a 

second extension period for those 

individuals who were covered by the 

2022 TFR. 

J. Make Permanent and Extend the 

Temporary Automatic Extension Period 

Beyond 540 Days 

1. Permanent Increase to the Automatic 

Extension Period 

Comment: Many commenters 

endorsed a permanent increase to the 

automatic extension period. 

Commenters remarked that without a 

permanent increase, those who do not 

fall into up-to-5-year EAD categories are 

likely to experience lapses in 

employment starting in April 2026. 

Response: As explained in the 2024 

TFR,202 the up to 180-day automatic 

extension period applies only to EAD 

renewals based on an employment 

authorization category that does not 

require the adjudication of an 

underlying application or petition 

before the adjudication of the renewal 

application.203 For the reasons 

explained in Part III.C of this preamble, 

however, DHS does support making the 

up to 540-day automatic extension 

period permanent, and is implementing 

this change in this rulemaking. 

i. Increase Necessary To Address 

Processing Backlogs 

Comment: Many commenters 

indicated that it is unlikely USCIS can 

eliminate the processing backlog within 

the next 2 years, and that DHS should 

thus make the 540-day automatic 

extension period a permanent inclusion 

in the regulations. These commenters 

argued that this would provide stability 

to immigrant workers and employers 

past the rule’s implementation period. 

Commenters said that the recurrent use 

of temporary rulemaking to increase the 

automatic extension period signals the 

need for more permanent solutions to 

meet current and future needs. One 

commenter said that the uncertainty 

generated by successive temporary fixes 

harms workers by allowing employer 

misconduct and creating worker 

anxiety. Similarly, another commenter 

stated that waiting to issue another rule 

with another extension, which would 

then be subject to another notice-andcomment period, would fail to protect 

against subsequent processing delays. 

Commenters also added that the current 

delays in processing and the ongoing 

need for expanded validity periods are 

unlikely to change, thereby weighing in 

favor of a permanent increase to the 

automatic extension period, but that 

DHS could in a future rulemaking end 

such a permanent increase if processing 

times improve. A commenter said that 

a permanent extension would save 

taxpayer dollars by reducing labor costs 

and overtime hours. 

Response: DHS agrees that the 

automatic extension should be made 

permanent and is making the up to 540- 

day automatic extension period 

permanent with this final rule. 

ii. Benefit to USCIS 

Comment: While supporting DHS’s 

efforts to address existing backlogs, a 

commenter stated that the measures in 

place would not meaningfully reduce 

backlogs enough to account for the 

unprecedented rise in global 

displacement and increased migration. 

Other commenters indicated that a 

permanent extension would provide 

USCIS the opportunity to reallocate 

resources and continue to process 

backlogs more efficiently and result in 

less negative feedback and 

communication, particularly because 

past automatic EAD extensions have 

been successful. A commenter indicated 

that previous up-to 540-day automatic 

extensions coincided with significant 

improvements in EAD processing times, 

without undermining the integrity of the 

immigration system. 

Response: DHS agrees that the 

automatic extension should be made 

permanent and is making the up to 540- 

day automatic extension period 

permanent in this rulemaking. 

iii. Benefit to Workers 

Comment: Many commenters 

remarked on the potential benefits of a 

permanent extension for workers, their 

families, and communities, including 

long-term predictability and reduced 

anxiety around job stability. Some 

commenters stated that a permanent 

extension of the automatic extension 

period would ease burdens on nongovernmental organizations and 

community partners, because the 

individuals would have more clear 

pathways to self-sufficiency with stable 

work. Other commenters said that a 

permanent extension would help 

workers continue to provide for their 

families, while simultaneously 

addressing labor shortages and 

strengthening the economy. Some 

commenters referenced numerous 

examples of individuals who have been 

affected by EAD renewal delays and the 

significant hardships they have faced as 

a result. 

Commenters also stated that 

noncitizens in the workforce are 

particularly vulnerable to workplace 

harassment, exploitation, and violence, 

which would be worsened by gaps in 

employment authorization. One of these 

commenters said that without a 

permanent 540-day automatic extension 

in place, affected workers may be 

unwilling to report labor violations if 

their statuses lapse because of the fear 

of retaliation or deportation. Another 

commenter said that making the change 

permanent would protect against radical 

shifts in policy in the event of a new 

presidential administration, which 

could otherwise affect the continuity of 

EADs. 

Response: DHS agrees that the 

increased automatic extension period of 

up to 540-days should be made 

permanent. For the reasons explained in 

this rulemaking, DHS is making the up 

to 540-day automatic extension period 

permanent in this rulemaking. 

iv. Benefit to Employers 

Comment: Some commenters said that 

a permanent increase of the automatic 

extension period to up to 540 days 

would enhance workforce stability for 

employers, prevent disruptions, and 

limit the resource intensive task of 

finding workers to replace those lost 

because of administrative barriers. 

Other commenters added that a 

permanent extension would simplify 

and clarify oversight for employers. One 

commenter remarked that the current 

Form I–9, Employment Eligibility 

Verification, process is confusing for 

employers and would only become 

more confusing with repeated 

temporary rulemakings, because with 

each subsequent temporary rule, a new 

temporary period would be added to 8 

CFR 274a.13(d), as was done for each of 

the first two TFRs. The commenter 

argued that this constant updating and 

adding of provisions is confusing for 

employers, workers, and the general 

public. Others said that a permanent 

increase of the automatic extension 

period would maintain the continuity of 

business operations, ensure that 

employers would not inadvertently 

allow workers to work with lapsed 

authorizations, and, citing reports on 

the impacts of lapses in work 

authorization on employers, afford 

increased security and clarity to the 

business community. 

A commenter said that employers 

would benefit from the increased 

stability a permanent extension would 

provide, because since 2021, employers 

have regularly lost critical workers due 

to processing delays. Another 

commenter urged USCIS to limit 

disruptions to employment and make 

working with legal authorization more 

accessible and easily attainable. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101231 

204See 89 FR 24628, 24647 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

205See INA secs. 244(a)(2), (b)(2), (d), 8 U.S.C. 

1254a(a)(2), (b)(2), (d); 8 CFR 244.12. 

206Although the duration of TPS designations 

and redesignations is at the Secretary of Homeland 

Security’s discretion, 18 month periods are the 

historical norm. This final rule, however, does not 

create an entitlement to an automatic extension that 

exceeds the period of a TPS designation. 

207See 89 FR 24628, 24648 (Apr.8, 2024). 

208As explained in detail in the 2024 TFR, 

because employers may face civil money penalties 

if they do not properly maintain employment 

eligibility verification paperwork, or employ a 

noncitizen without employment authorization, the 

risk stemming from a mistake stemming from 

different automatic extension periods is not 

insignificant. See 80 FR 24628, 24648 (Apr. 8, 

2024). 

Response: DHS agrees that the 

automatic extension period of up to 540 

days should be made permanent. For 

the reasons explained in this 

rulemaking, DHS is making the 

automatic extension permanent in this 

rulemaking. 

2. Increase the Automatic Extension 

Period to 730 Days 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

requested that DHS implement a 730- 

day automatic extension period instead 

of another 540-day extension period. 

One commenter making this request 

mentioned a 720-day period, but did not 

distinguish this from a 730-day period. 

A commenter stated that DHS’s goal of 

addressing near-term needs would still 

be met by a 730-day extension period, 

and that a longer period would 

ameliorate the anxieties experienced by 

workers, itself a significant near-term 

need. 

A commenter said that during the last 

540-day automatic extension period 

under the 2022 TFR, the commenter 

represented individuals who properly, 

timely filed their EAD renewals and did 

not have their EAD applications 

adjudicated within 540 days. The 

commenter stated that there would be 

no downside in offering a longer 

extension period, only significant 

benefits. Another commenter said that 

increasing the automatic extension 

period to 730 days would preserve and 

enhance immigrant workers’ 

contributions through increased taxes, 

productivity, and entrepreneurship, as 

well as provide more stability for 

businesses at risk of losing employees 

and strengthen hiring prospects for 

immigrants of color whose uncertain 

legal status may otherwise jeopardize 

their job options. 

Many commenters reasoned that a 

730-day extension would be particularly 

important because, under the 540-day 

extension of the 2024 TFR, hundreds of 

thousands of individuals would still be 

susceptible to a lapse in employment 

authorization, which could be harmful 

for workers and businesses alike. A 

commenter said that, while there may 

be operational challenges involved with 

a 730-day extension, the benefits would 

outweigh the burdens, which could be 

mitigated through educational materials 

to reduce confusion and by specifying 

that (a)(12) and (c)(19) EAD categories 

would remain at 540 days. Another 

commenter echoed this view, stating 

that although employers have 

adequately handled changes to validity 

dates before, the agency could minimize 

employer confusion by taking 

reasonable steps to keep them informed. 

Other commenters specified that DHS 

should provide a 730-day work permit 

extension to all eligible applicants, 

including those who previously 

received a 540-day extension under the 

2022 TFR. The commenters said this 

approach would clarify guidance for 

employers while ensuring that 

immigrant workers do not fall out of the 

workforce due to processing delays. A 

few commenters wrote that because 

noncitizens are integral to the 

workplace, industries and the larger 

economy would be hurt by a lapse in 

work authorizations. 

A commenter remarked that a 540-day 

or 730-day automatic extension would 

help individuals maintain stable 

housing and access to healthcare and 

childcare, which would ultimately 

improve mental well-being and reduce 

trauma. Similarly, a commenter said 

that a 730-day extension would better 

protect noncitizens who are already 

navigating complex asylum procedures 

and processing significant trauma while 

caring for their families. A commenter 

said that organizations working on 

behalf of noncitizens experiencing 

processing delays would also benefit, 

thereby allowing legal service providers 

to focus on long-term stability options 

for clients. 

A commenter expressed concerns that 

a 540-day extension would still, as 

estimated by DHS in the 2024 TFR, 

leave 260,000 EAD renewal applicants 

unprotected, which would cause those 

applicants to lose their drivers’ and 

professional licenses and other critical 

benefits and would significantly harm 

the workers, their families, their 

communities, and the national economy 

at large. Further, the commenter said 

that leaving hundreds of thousands of 

workers with lapses in work 

authorization would leave them more 

susceptible to turning to the informal 

labor market, where the alreadyvulnerable workers may face poor 

working conditions, harassment, and 

exploitation. 

A legal services provider agreed with 

DHS that different automatic extension 

periods for separate groups would be 

confusing for noncitizens and 

employers alike, and therefore 

expressed support for a single automatic 

extension length of 730 days. 

A commenter stated that neither 

USCIS nor the Federal Government 

would be negatively impacted by 

extending the automatic extension 

period to up to 730 days. Another 

commenter expressed support for the 

steps that USCIS already took to address 

the backlog but urged USCIS to be 

realistic in its analysis of current needs 

so that renewal applicants do not bear 

the burden of uncertainty. A commenter 

noted that the longer automatic 

extension period would allow USCIS to 

focus its resources on adjudicating 

initial EAD applications, thereby 

reducing USCIS’ workload. Similarly, a 

couple of commenters said that USCIS 

would benefit from a 730-day automatic 

extension period, adding that it would 

eliminate unnecessary administrative 

burdens. 

Response: DHS declines to adopt an 

automatic extension period longer than 

the current up to 540-day period. As 

noted in the 2024 TFR,204 an automatic 

extension period longer than 540 days 

could lead to additional confusion and 

work for employers. By statute, TPS is 

designated for no more than 18 months 

which is about 540 days, and the 

associated employment authorization 

and EAD are limited to the same period 

as the designation.205 The length of the 

automatic EAD extension period thus 

aligns with the maximum incremental 

period of the TPS. If USCIS were to 

create an automatic extension period 

longer than 540 days, it would have to 

also create a separate automatic 

extension period for TPS-based EAD 

renewal applicants.206 This could lead 

to confusion for employers complying 

with Form I–9, Employment Eligibility 

Verification, requirements as employers 

would have to maintain separate 

tracking systems for their employees in 

different EAD categories. Also, as noted 

in the 2024 TFR,207 longer automatic 

extension periods increase the 

likelihood that an employer might 

unwittingly continue to employ a 

worker whose employment 

authorization is in fact no longer valid, 

because the likelihood of an 

adjudication, with the possibility of 

denial, increases as the period is 

lengthened.208 The up to 540-day 

automatic extension period offers a clear 

and uniform approach that employers 

are already familiar with, avoiding 

unnecessary complexities and the risk 

that this final rule will result in 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101232 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

209See 89 FR 24648 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

210See 89 FR 24628, 24645 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

211See DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I–765 Application for 

Employment Authorization Automatic Extension 

Eligible Renewals Pending Beyond 540-Day 

Automatic Extension Pending as of June 30, 2024, 

CLAIMS3 & ELIS, queried 08/2024 (showing that as 

of June 30, 2024, out of approximately 260,000 

renewal EAD applications pending, under 150 were 

pending more than 540 days after expiration). 

212See Administrative Record, Auto Extension 

Analysis—July 2024. 

213SAVE is an electronic service that USCIS 

administers for registered Federal, state, territorial, 

tribal, and local government agencies to verify 

immigration status and naturalized/derived U.S. 

citizenship of applicants seeking benefits or 

licenses. See DHS, USCIS, SAVE, https://

www.uscis.gov/save (last visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

214USCIS administers E-Verify, a voluntary 

program authorized by Title IV, Subtitle A, of the 

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 

Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Public Law 

104–208, 110 Stat. 3009, as amended (8 U.S.C. 

1324a note) that allows enrolled employers to 

electronically confirm the employment eligibility of 

their new employees. See https://www.e-verify.gov/ 

. 

215 In 2023, USCIS extended the validity of 

Permanent Resident Cards (also known as Green 

Cards) for petitioners who properly file Form I–751, 

Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence, or 

Form I–829, Petition by Investor to Remove 

Conditions on Permanent Resident Status for 48 

months beyond the card’s expiration date. See DHS, 

USCIS, USCIS Extends Green Card Validity for 

Conditional Permanent Residents with a Pending 

Form I–751 or Form I–829, https://www.uscis.gov/ 

newsroom/alerts/uscis-extends-green-card-validityfor-conditional-permanent-residents-with-apending-form-i-751-or (last visited Aug. 16, 2024). 

216 In the 2024 TFR, DHS also invoked the 

exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)—to wit, a 

confusion. In addition, DHS also noted 

in the 2024 TFR that because employers 

are assessing 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), the preference of DHS 

is for shorter validity periods for 

temporary, non-secure documents.209

As indicated in the 2024 TFR, the up 

to 540-day automatic extension period 

also appears to be an appropriate 

increase that has been sufficient for the 

majority of applicants to avert gaps in 

employment authorizations and/or EAD 

validity and is better reflective of 

processing times since the 2022 TFR 

was published.210 As one example, as of 

June 30, 2024, about 150, or 0.06 

percent, of pending renewal 

applications had been pending beyond 

the 540-day automatic extension period. 

Therefore, DHS does not believe a 

longer period is needed.211 Based on a 

July 2024 analysis, USCIS projects that 

46,000 renewal applicants may lose at 

least 1 day of employment authorization 

and/or documentation between July 

2024 and March 2027. This population 

includes approximately 21,000 renewal 

EAD applications filed during the 

period covered by the 2022 TFR. These 

21,000 expirations would occur between 

July 2024 and September 2025, with 

most expirations occurring after January 

2025. The timing of these projected 

expirations will allow USCIS time to 

make operational changes to address 

these cases, such as continuing to build 

on and improve automation to reduce 

the manual resources needed to 

complete adjudications. 

As commenters noted, in the analysis 

for the 2024 TFR, DHS projected that 

approximately 260,000 renewal EAD 

applicants may lose at least 1 day of 

employment authorization and/or 

documentation despite the 540-day 

automatic extension period. This 

projection was based on the conditions 

in place at the time of the analysis in 

late 2023. That projection therefore 

could not take into account the 

complete effect of operational and 

policy changes described in the TFR, 

combined with any future changes and 

operational shifts (such as hiring 

additional officers or implementing 

technological improvements for 

processing efficiency). However, a July 

2024 analysis that considers changes 

made through June 30, 2024, yields a 

projection that approximately 46,000 

renewal EAD applicants may lose at 

least 1 day of employment authorization 

under the 2022 and 2024 TFRs, between 

and including July 2024 and March 

2027.212 This population is primarily 

comprised of renewal applicants in the 

C10 EAD category (Suspension of 

Deportation/Cancelation of Removal). 

There are multiple reasons for the 

change in this estimate, which are 

specific to each EAD classification. 

These reasons include: recent changes 

in filing patterns (such as the asylee A05 

category filing their EAD renewal 

request earlier with respect to their 

previous EAD expiration data, allowing 

USCIS more time to adjudicate these 

renewal applications before expiration), 

an increased number of C08 renewal 

EAD application adjudications (in FY 

2023, USCIS averaged 31,700 C08 

adjudications per month, while in the 

first 9 months of FY 2024, USCIS 

increased C08 adjudications by 17.6% 

to 37,300 per month), a reduction in C09 

renewal EAD application receipts 

(partially due to improvements in the 

Form I–485 processing times), and other 

increased efficiencies. In addition, 

USCIS has taken operational steps, such 

as training more officers to adjudicate 

C10 renewal EAD applications, to 

further reduce the number of EAD 

renewal applicants who may lose at 

least 1 day of employment authorization 

and/or documentation. The substantial 

reduction in potential lapses supports 

DHS’s conclusion that up to 540 days is 

a sufficient automatic extension period. 

Finally, multiple automatic extension 

periods also make it more difficult for 

USCIS to ensure the accuracy of 

responses for SAVE 213 and E-Verify,214

programs that USCIS manages that 

verify immigration status and 

naturalized/acquired U.S. citizenship, 

and confirm employment eligibility, 

respectively. SAVE and E-Verify rely on 

information from the record source 

systems, and multiple automatic 

extension periods would require 

additional enhancements to DHS’s 

record source systems to ensure 

accurate information is provided to 

registered benefit granting agencies and 

employers through SAVE and E-Verify, 

respectively. The implementation of 

multiple automatic extension periods 

that vary depending on the category of 

applicant would take USCIS 

information technology resources away 

from other high priority projects to 

include online filing, transitioning to 

person-centric case management from 

form-centric case management, and 

backlog reduction projects. 

Comment: A commenter disagreed 

with the suggestion that a 540-day 

extension would fall more squarely 

within the ‘‘good cause’’ rulemaking 

exception than a longer automatic 

extension period. The commenter 

asserted that 730 days would have also 

been a limited measure and 

appropriately tailored to address the 

imminent lapses. The commenter urged 

DHS to adopt a longer automatic 

extension period of 730 days in the final 

rule. Another commenter also said that 

a 730-day extension would be better 

than a 540-day extension, but argued 

that DHS could extend EADs even 

further, to 48 months, similar to the 

conditional lawful permanent resident 

(LPR) extensions following from the 

submission of Form I–751.215 The 

commenter stated that those extensions, 

which help to protect the LPRs who are 

prevented from obtaining ID cards or 

certain benefits because they lack 

documents from DHS, could be 

similarly applied to the equally 

meritorious noncitizens awaiting EADs. 

Response: By limiting the automatic 

extension to up to 540 days as the 

minimum period necessary to avert the 

imminent near-term harm while USCIS 

was working to improve processing time 

and seeking comments on the TFR, DHS 

did not intend to imply or suggest that 

an up to 540-day extension would fall 

more squarely within the APA good 

cause exceptions at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) 

and (d)(3) than an up to 730-day 

automatic extension period.216 Rather, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101233 

substantive rule which grants or recognizes an 

exemption or relieves a restriction—to the APA’s 

30-day delayed-effective-date requirement 

following publication of a substantive rule. 89 FR 

24628, 246540 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

217See 89 FR 24628, 24648, 24654 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

218See 89 FR 24628, 24653 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

219See 89 FR 24650–54 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

220See The White House, U.S. National Plan to 

End Gender-Based Violence: Strategies for Action, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 

2023/05/National-Plan-to-End-GBV.pdf (last visited 

Aug. 13, 2024). 

DHS appreciated that the 2024 TFR did 

not resolve potential uncertainty with 

respect to all renewal EAD applications 

given the variables that impact data 

projections, and DHS believed it was 

premature to grant an automatic 

extension up to 730 days.217 Thus, given 

the special circumstances, the temporal 

limitation and the narrowly-scoped 

population covered by the 2024 TFR, 

the 540-day extension was appropriate 

and reasonable to avert imminent and 

near-term harm to a specific class of 

applicants and their employers.218 This 

narrowly tailored extension provided 

DHS additional time to pursue long 

term solutions, solicit public input, and 

fully assess the effect of policy and 

operational measures taken to reduce 

the backlog.219

For these same reasons, DHS declines 

to adopt the suggestion to increase the 

automatic extension period to 48 

months (4 years). As discussed above, 

the up to 540-day automatic extension 

period offers a clear and uniform 

approach that employers are already 

familiar with, further reducing 

complexities and the risk that this final 

rule will result in confusion. Finally, 

DHS also notes that conditional lawful 

permanent residents are different from 

the classes of noncitizens affected by 

this rule. In contrast to those 

individuals, who do not have a 

permanent status, and could lose the 

basis for their EADs, conditional LPRs 

have received a final adjudication on 

their eligibility for lawful permanent 

residence on a conditional basis and are 

in fact LPRs even though their LPR 

status is subject to a future condition 

(i.e., filing for and eligibility to remove 

the condition once the LPR has fulfilled 

the requirements of the condition). 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that DHS could apply different 

permanent automatic extension periods 

for dissimilar categories depending on 

what is operationally optimal so that 

businesses would not repeatedly be 

burdened by lapses caused by 

processing backlogs. 

Response: DHS declines to adopt the 

suggestion that different automatic 

extension periods be set for different 

EAD renewal categories. Doing so would 

be burdensome to both employers and 

USCIS. Employers would be required to 

determine the basis for an employee’s 

renewal EAD application as part of the 

employment eligibility verification 

process and would also be forced to 

track the differing automatic extension 

periods for each category of renewal 

applications relevant to their workforce. 

K. Expand EAD Categories Eligible for 

Automatic Extension 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

remarked on the applicability of the 

TFR to certain classes of noncitizens 

currently not eligible for an automatic 

extension, including: DACA recipients; 

U and T nonimmigrants; religious 

workers; those under an order of 

supervision; humanitarian parolees; and 

those with pending renewal EAD 

applications, regardless of whether the 

requested renewal category is the same 

category as their current EAD and 

whether they timely filed their renewal 

EAD applications. 

With respect to DACA recipients, 

commenters noted the adverse 

consequences of leaving those 

individuals without employment 

authorization given the vital roles that 

they play in their families, 

communities, and the U.S. economy. As 

for U and T nonimmigrants, 

commenters stated that access to stable 

and consistent employment could 

reduce vulnerability to abuse and 

exploitation. The commenters reasoned 

that stable income reduces the 

likelihood that survivors would need to 

rely on abusive family members, 

exploitative employers, or landlords. 

The commenters also reasoned that 

improving financial security for 

individuals and families helps to reduce 

and prevent intimate partner violence. 

A commenter who advocated for 

allowing an automatic extension for 

those with pending renewal EAD 

applications for different categories than 

their current EADs reasoned that this 

approach would prevent workers from 

leaving the workforce and avoid the 

economic challenges such workers 

might face if they did so. A commenter 

who suggested a further expansion of 

the rule to include individuals whose 

pending renewal applications were 

received by USCIS after the expiration 

date of their work permits explained 

that there may be reasons beyond an 

applicant’s control that lead to delayed 

receipt of their renewal EAD 

applications, and the consequence of 

not automatically renewing their 

employment authorization owing to 

their late filings is not being able to 

lawfully work for one year or longer. 

Commenters also urged DHS to grant 

consecutive renewal grants for DACA 

and other deferred action recipients, so 

that the new DACA/EAD issuance 

begins on the date the prior issuance 

expired, rather than the date where 

USCIS approved the request. The 

commenters also suggested that DHS 

eliminate the 150-day queue policy, 

which prevents applicants from 

submitting a renewal application earlier 

than 150 days before their current 

DACA expiration. The commenter 

reasoned that this would allow 

applicants to file for a renewal early, 

without concern that the early approval 

would lead to an overlap in coverage. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that 

backdating the date of the renewal 

approval to avoid a gap in work 

authorization would provide applicants 

with stronger arguments to be placed on 

unpaid leave, rather than terminated, 

since their documents would ultimately 

reflect no gaps in work authorization or 

lawful presence. The commenter said 

that such a change could be 

accomplished through sub-regulatory 

guidance and would not be problematic 

in light of existing legal challenges 

concerning DACA. 

A commenter urged DHS to move 

forward with a final rule that is 

consistent with a robust implementation 

of the U.S. National Action Plan to End 

Gender-Based Violence,220 as well as 

ensuring consistency with congressional 

intent to reinforce the progress 

communities have made to protect 

survivors of domestic violence, sexual 

assault, and human trafficking under the 

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). 

The commenter stated that stable 

employment plays a pivotal role in an 

individual’s ability to escape and 

overcome domestic violence and sexual 

assault, and therefore applauded the 

inclusion of VAWA self-petitioners and 

VAWA adjustment of status applicants 

under the 2024 TFR. A commenter 

encouraged DHS to apply the rule to 

others who have sought extensions of 

their employment authorization, 

especially applicants for U 

nonimmigrant status who have received 

deferred action or employment 

authorization pursuant to a bona fide 

determination under INA 214(p)(6), 8 

U.S.C. 1184(p)(6). 

Response: While DHS is sympathetic 

to the hardships that these groups face 

with expiring EADs and the 

circumstances that may lead to delayed 

renewal EAD application filings, DHS 

notes that expanding the categories of 

noncitizens who may receive an 

automatic extension under 8 CFR 

274a.13(d) is beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. Similarly, comments 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101234 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

221See 89 FR 24628, 24632 (Apr. 8, 2024). 222See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(iii). 223See 89 FR 24628, 24632 (Apr. 8, 2024). 224See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1); DHS, USCIS, 

Automatic Employment Authorization (EAD) 

Extension, https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-theunited-states/information-for-employers-andemployees/automatic-employment-authorizationdocument-ead-extension (last visited Aug. 1, 2024). 225See new 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(i). 226See 81 FR 82398, 82455 (Nov. 18, 2016). 

227See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1). 

228See, e.g., 8 CFR 274a.1(a) and 8 CFR 

274a.14(a). 

229For example, a noncitizen may be barred from 

adjusting status to that of a lawful permanent 

resident under INA 245, 8 U.S.C. 1255. See INA 

245(c)(2) and (c)(8), 8 U.S.C. 1255(c)(2) and (c)(8). 230See 8 CFR 274a.3 and 8 CFR 274a.10. 231See INA 274A, 8 U.S.C. 1324a. 232See 81 FR 82398, 82463 (Nov. 18, 2016) 

(explaining that the automatic extension provision 

‘‘helps to ensure that individuals are eligible to 

receive automatic extensions of their EADs under 

this rule only if there is reasonable assurance of 

their continued eligibility for issuance of a full 

duration EAD.’’); 89 FR 24628, 24673 (Apr. 8, 2024) 

(noting that ‘‘[t]his rule extends current 

employment authorization for individuals who are 

at risk of losing it solely because of USCIS 

processing delays.’’). 

233See 81 FR 82398, 82463 (Nov. 18, 2016). 234 DHS, USCIS, Special Immigrant Juvenile 

Classification and Deferred Action (Mar. 7, 2022), 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/ 

policy-manual-updates/20220307- 

SIJAndDeferredAction.pdf. 

regarding the timing of DACA EAD 

approvals and the 150-day queue are 

also beyond the scope of this rule. 

Moreover, as noted in the 2024 TFR221

and as discussed in this final rule, 

eligibility for the existing 180-day 

automatic extension, and for the 

increased automatic extension period, is 

limited to those EAD renewal applicants 

for whom an underlying adjudication 

regarding continued eligibility for an 

EAD is not required. Therefore, DACA 

recipients are ineligible.222 As for TPS 

beneficiaries, as noted in the 2024 TFR, 

the increased automatic extension 

period provided by the 2024 TFR is 

available to many TPS beneficiaries.223

Also, USCIS maintains information on 

its website that clarifies the availability 

of EAD automatic extensions.224

Consistent with what DHS previously 

stated in the AC21 Final Rule, DHS is 

amending 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(i) 225 to 

clarify that, for TPS-related EADs, the 

automatic EAD extension provision 

applies to individuals who file their 

renewal EAD applications during the reregistration period described in the 

Federal Register notice applicable to 

their country’s TPS designation.226 In 

addition, DHS is adding language to 

clarify that the period of the up to 540- 

day automatic EAD extension starts the 

day after the expiration date on the face 

of the EAD.227

Regarding the suggestion that the 

automatic extension period apply to 

pending EAD renewals that were not 

timely filed, DHS declines to adopt this 

suggestion. For those noncitizens who 

are required to apply for employment 

authorization, their employment 

authorization generally expires on the 

date displayed on the EAD. Certain 

applicants who timely file a renewal 

application may receive an automatic 

extension of their work authorization 

while the timely filed renewal 

application is pending with USCIS. A 

noncitizen with expired employment 

authorization is, with certain 

exceptions, no longer authorized to 

work.228 With certain exceptions, there 

are adverse consequences for 

noncitizens who continue to engage in 

or accept unauthorized employment, 

including eligibility for future 

immigration benefits.229 Allowing 

noncitizens with an expired EAD to 

seek an automatic extension also creates 

difficulties for employers, who are held 

accountable as part of the Form I–9 

Employment Eligibility Verification 

requirements.230 Thus, in recognition of 

the INA’s approach regarding 

unauthorized employment,231 including 

the accountability of employers and 

related enforcement issues, DHS 

declines to accept the suggestion to 

allow those with expired employment 

authorization and/or EADs to apply for 

an up to 540-day automatic extension 

period. A rule addressing renewal 

applications that were not timely filed 

would go beyond the purpose of the 

automatic extension, which is to reduce 

the risk of a lapse in employment 

authorization due to USCIS processing 

delays for applicants who have already 

been determined to be eligible.232 If the 

renewal application is not timely filed, 

it may raise questions as to whether the 

applicant remains eligible for 

employment authorization under the 

same category, and thus the automatic 

extension might no longer be an 

extension of employment authorization 

where an underlying adjudication is not 

required to determine eligibility. 

Because there would not be a reasonable 

assurance of continued eligibility in 

cases where the renewal application is 

not timely filed, DHS declines to adopt 

the commenter’s suggestion to provide 

for an automatic grant of employment 

authorization based on an untimely 

filed renewal application. 

The remaining requests to expand the 

classes of people eligible for automatic 

extension are also beyond the scope of 

this rule, including allowing for the 

renewal EAD application category to be 

different than the category of the 

currently held EAD. Furthermore, in 

initially codifying the up to 180-day 

automatic extension, DHS explained 

that requiring the same category was 

meant to ensure that only eligible 

noncitizens receive automatic 

extensions of their EADs and to protect 

the employment authorization program 

from abuse. DHS reasoned that the 

resulting Notice of Action (Form I– 

797C) would indicate the employment 

authorization category cited in the 

application, which would help ensure, 

both to DHS and to employers, that such 

a notice was issued in response to a 

timely filed renewal application.233 The 

same reasoning would advise against 

adopting the commenters’ suggestions 

here or in a future rulemaking. 

Comment: A commenter emphasized 

the importance of employment 

authorization and EADs for 

unaccompanied children with pending 

asylum applications, noting that these 

government-issued documents often 

serve as their only form of 

identification. While endorsing the 2024 

TFR on the basis that it would allow 

children to access necessary services, 

safe and lawful employment, and 

eligible legal relief, the commenter also 

expressed concern for those who receive 

EADs through the deferred action policy 

issued by USCIS in March 2022,234

which, the commenter stated provides a 

pathway for deferred action and related 

employment authorization for youth 

with approved Special Immigrant 

Juvenile (SIJ) petitions. The commenter 

elaborated that, unlike SIJ-classified 

youth who receive EADs based on a 

pending adjustment application, youth 

who receive EADs through deferred 

action would not be eligible for 

automatic EAD extensions, which could 

become problematic within the next two 

years when their initial grants of up to 

four years of deferred action 

employment authorization expire. The 

commenter also remarked that EAD 

renewal backlogs could undermine the 

goals of the March 2022 SIJ deferred 

action policy and result in negative 

outcomes for both cohorts of SIJs, such 

as job loss. In light of these concerns, 

the commenter recommended the 

following measures, so that USCIS 

could prevent harm from government 

delays and ensure timely consideration 

of all EAD and humanitarian protection 

applications: (1) increasing the length of 

EAD validity periods to five years for 

additional categories; (2) permitting 

electronic filing for applications 

addressed through the automatic 

extension; (3) providing clearer 

documentation to demonstrate 

automatically-extended employment 

authorization, such as a stand-alone 

document, a paper card similar to the I– 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101235 

235See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(iii). See also DHS, 

USCIS, Automatic Employment Authorization 

Document (EAD) Extension (last reviewed/updated 

Oct. 9, 2024), https://www.uscis.gov/eadautoextend 

(last visited Oct. 23, 2024) (listing ‘‘Categories 

Eligible for Automatic Extensions). 

236 In the AC21 Final Rule, DHS wrote that ‘‘the 

main security and fraud risks underpinning DHS’s 

decision to remove the 90-day EAD adjudication 

timeline and interim EAD requirements flow from 

granting interim EADs to individuals before DHS is 

sufficiently assured of their eligibility and before 

background and security checks have been 

completed.’’ DHS expressed its belief that ‘‘any 

reduction in the level of eligibility and security 

vetting before issuing evidence of employment 

authorization, whether on an interim basis or 

otherwise, would both be contrary to its core 

mission and undermine the security, quality, and 

integrity of the documents issued.’’ See 81 FR 

82398, 82462 (Nov. 18, 2016). 

237See 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii). 

94 card, or a specific receipt notice 

language confirming the automatic 

extension of validity of the EAD and 

stating the date through which the 

renewal applicant would remain 

authorized to work; and (4) prioritizing 

the timely adjudication of humanitarian 

protection applications that form the 

bases for employment authorization and 

lawful status to support the stability, 

independence, and wellbeing of 

unaccompanied children and others 

who are seeking protection. 

Response: DHS notes that under the 

current regulations governing EAD 

renewals and the 180-day automatic 

extension, individuals who have 

received deferred action are not eligible 

for the automatic extension.235

Moreover, as part of this rulemaking, 

DHS is focused on issues related to 

categories currently covered by the 

automatic extension provision and does 

not address adding other employment 

categories. This rulemaking also does 

not address prioritizing the adjudication 

of humanitarian protection applications. 

Therefore, these concerns are beyond 

the scope of the 2024 TFR and will not 

be addressed in this rulemaking. 

With respect to permitting electronic 

filing for applications addressed 

through the automatic extension, 

expanding the categories that would be 

eligible for electronic filing is also 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

That being said, USCIS is committed to 

employing technological solutions and 

efficiencies to reduce processing times. 

Offering the option to file Form I–765 

online makes the process of applying for 

immigration benefits efficient, secure, 

and convenient for more applicants and 

increases operational efficiencies for 

USCIS. Therefore, separate from this 

rulemaking, USCIS will continue to 

track this issue and work to increase the 

number of categories eligible for online 

filing. 

As for providing clearer 

documentation to demonstrate 

automatically extended employment 

authorization and/or EADs, DHS is 

revising receipt notice language to be 

more clear and is looking for ways to do 

more, but is unable to tailor receipt 

notices at this time. Tailoring would 

require significant development work to 

program the USCIS Lockbox and its 

electronic counterpart, the Electronic 

Immigration System (ELIS), to produce 

Form I–797C, Notices of Action, that are 

more individualized to a given filing. 

This development work would also 

compete with or delay other USCIS 

development priorities. DHS will 

continue to explore technological 

improvements such as this one while 

considering the impact of such an effort 

on other priorities. 

L. EAD Validity Period 

Comment: Commenters shared quotes 

from clients of legal service providers 

urging DHS to make EAD validity 

permanent or indefinite, or increase 

validity periods until asylum cases are 

processed, or previous work permits are 

renewed. 

Some commenters expressed support 

for the recent increase of the EAD 

validity period for certain categories and 

urged DHS to similarly increase the 

validity period for other EAD categories, 

reasoning that such an increase would 

reduce the number of renewal requests 

USCIS receives, help address existing 

backlogs and allow USCIS to direct 

resources to other vital areas. 

A commenter urged DHS to revise 

EAD validity periods to ensure that 

EADs remain valid for the entire period 

it takes to adjudicate cases before USCIS 

and in immigration court. The 

commenter said that such increased 

validity periods would support 

immigrant workers and their families, 

while also providing employers with 

stability and assurance that their 

workers’ employment authorization will 

not lapse. The commenter said that the 

change would decrease the likelihood 

that DHS would need to repeatedly 

issue temporary rules to address 

administrative delays. 

Another commenter recommended 

that DHS align the validity period of an 

EAD with the duration of the visa 

holder’s underlying immigration status, 

allowing the EAD authorization to 

continue for as long as the holder acts 

in good faith to extend their underlying 

status. A commenter suggested that DHS 

set the duration of the work permit for 

a fixed period, such as 5 years, and 

establish conditions for renewing the 

EAD with ease, including by allowing 

noncitizens to file renewal applications 

1 year before expiration. 

A commenter stated that some 

noncitizens seek EADs as a valid form 

of identification necessary for 

employment and suggested that those 

individuals with an indefinite status 

should be issued an EAD with no 

expiration date, or with a validity 

period of at least 10 years. 

A commenter suggested that USCIS 

allow EADs to remain in effect 

indefinitely unless the noncitizen 

receives a removal order from a 

component of DHS. The commenter 

suggested that USCIS administer a 

database that employers can consult for 

noncitizens who have been issued a 

removal order. 

Response: DHS will not adopt the 

commenters’ suggestion to issue EADs 

that are permanently or indefinitely 

valid. To do so would undermine the 

integrity of EADs. Individuals whose 

employment authorization is temporary 

would be in possession of an acceptable 

Form I–9, Employment Eligibility 

Verification, document that would not 

expire, even when the individual no 

longer has authorization to work. 

Having an expiration date on documents 

that show temporary employment 

authorization provides stability and 

certainty to employment-authorized 

individuals and their employers and 

promotes the ability of employers to 

fulfill their Form I–9 responsibilities. 

Without an expiration date, employers 

would not know when to reverify an 

employee with temporary employment 

authorization and could end up 

continuing to employ an unauthorized 

worker. Providing an expiration date for 

the EAD also reduces opportunities for 

fraud and allows USCIS to refresh the 

background checks and other security 

related processes that USCIS undertakes 

with each EAD application, in addition 

to verifying continuing eligibility for the 

EAD. These measures are consistent 

with reasoning from the AC21 Final 

Rule.236

The EAD renewal requirement thus 

allows DHS to ensure that continued 

employment authorization is merited by 

the noncitizen’s circumstances. In 

addition, if the EAD of an employee 

with temporary employment 

authorization does not have an 

expiration date, there would be no 

reverification date for the employer to 

check whether the employee continues 

to be employment authorized.237 The 

temporary validity of an EAD prompts 

employers to periodically verify that 

their employees with temporary 

employment authorization continue to 

be authorized to work since it is 

unlawful to employ unauthorized 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101236 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

238See INA 274A(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1). 

239See INA 274A(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(2). 

240See DHS, USCIS, USCIS Increases 

Employment Authorization Document Validity 

Period for Certain Categories (Sept. 27, 2023), 

https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscisincreases-employment-authorization-documentvalidity-period-for-certain-categories (last visited 

Oct. 23, 2024). 

241See, e.g., the explanation in the 2022 TFR. 87 

FR 26630 (‘‘However, in recognition of Congress’ 

clear intent in the INA regarding unauthorized 

employment, including the accountability of 

employers that employ noncitizens who are not 

authorized to work in the United States, this TFR 

does not address periods of unauthorized 

employment.’’). 

242See 89 FR 24628, 24640–24644 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

243See 2024 TFR, 89 FR at 24643. 

workers.238 Furthermore, it is unlawful 

for employers to continue to employ a 

noncitizen who is or has become 

unauthorized to work.239

Permanent or indefinite EAD validity 

would also place a burden on USCIS to 

periodically affirm that the noncitizen 

remains eligible for the EAD, and, if 

they do not, initiate contact with the 

noncitizen, who may have moved 

without informing USCIS. This would 

further strain USCIS resources and 

potentially have an adverse effect on 

general EAD processing. 

The suggestion that EAD validity 

periods correlate with the duration of an 

asylum adjudication or immigration 

court proceedings is beyond the scope 

of the rule. Moreover, the length of such 

proceedings for any individual case is 

highly variable, making it challenging to 

set a specific validity period. For similar 

reasons, DHS also declines to adopt the 

recommendation that all EAD validity 

periods be aligned with underlying 

status or be made valid for 10 years for 

those with indefinite status seeking to 

use their EADs for identification 

purposes—individual circumstances 

vary such that an across-the-board 

indefinite or 10-year validity period is 

inappropriate. DHS further notes that 

there are other forms of state-issued 

identification that may better serve as 

identification. 

DHS also declines to adopt the 

suggestion that EAD validity periods be 

increased for additional populations 

beyond those for which USCIS now 

issues EADs with an up-to-five-year 

validity period,240 as this comment is 

beyond the scope of this rule, which 

addresses the renewal EADs for those 

applicants covered by the automatic 

extension provision at 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(1). 

M. Automatic Renewals 

Comment: A commenter urged DHS to 

consider implementing an automatic 

EAD renewal process for noncitizens 

with pending asylum applications, 

wherein their EADs would be 

automatically renewed if the asylum 

application is still pending after a 730- 

day automatic extension. The 

commenter said that such an automatic 

process would reduce the processing 

burden for USCIS, while not necessarily 

requiring DHS to forgo fee collection. 

The commenter stated that automatic 

renewals would not pose a risk that 

ineligible asylum seekers would be 

incorrectly granted renewals, citing 

reports that 96.8 percent of asylum 

seekers were approved for work permit 

renewals in 2020. 

Response: DHS declines to adopt 

these suggestions. If an EAD were to be 

automatically renewed, under current 

technological processes and systems, 

USCIS could not issue additional 

notices because notices are associated 

with the unique receipt number 

assigned to an individual application. 

An automatic renewal would essentially 

function as a new application without a 

unique receipt number. Without 

additional documentation from USCIS 

stating that a renewal EAD application 

was still pending and that the EAD is 

further extended, it would be 

burdensome and potentially confusing 

for employers to determine if the EAD’s 

validity continued to be extended. 

Consecutive renewals could also 

potentially require what is referred to as 

backdating of an approval such that any 

gaps in employment authorization are 

erased, which would run counter to 

Congressional measures regarding 

unauthorized employment, including 

the accountability of employers that 

employ noncitizens who are not 

authorized to work in the United States. 

Also, neither the TFRs nor this final rule 

intend to address periods of 

unauthorized employment.241

N. Application, Adjudication, and 

Notification Processes 

1. General Comments on Adjudication 

and Application Times and 

Prioritization of Reviews 

i. EAD Processing Resources and 

Priorities 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that USCIS’ processing times should be 

more efficient, suggesting that USCIS 

assign more resources and staff to 

processing work permit applications. 

Some of these commenters remarked 

that work permit issuance should be 

‘‘first come, first serve’’ and prioritize 

individuals whose permits are close to 

expiration. 

Some commenters suggested that 

USCIS update its data tracking system 

so that it can better track work permit 

expiration dates. One organization 

suggested that DHS: (1) immediately 

create a mechanism for noncitizen 

workers to identify themselves to USCIS 

if their EAD will expire in less than 30 

days; and (2) build technology to 

identify and adjudicate applications 

based on their expiration date. The 

organization reasoned that 

implementing these systems would lead 

to fewer employees losing their work 

authorization, thereby reducing 

disruptions to the labor force and 

business operations. 

Response: DHS appreciates the 

commenter’s suggestions on processing 

improvements. As discussed in the 2024 

TFR, DHS has allocated additional 

resources to EAD processing, and it is 

continually seeking to improve 

efficiency in EAD adjudications across 

categories.242 Generally, I–765 

applications are processed on a ‘‘first-infirst-out’’ basis, but certain applications 

may require additional time for review. 

DHS does have capability to track 

work permit expirations. DHS 

understands the commenter’s intent in 

this regard, consistent with suggestions 

from other commenters, is to use such 

data to prioritize applications for those 

with expiring EADs on that basis. 

Diverging from general FIFO processing 

poses substantial technological 

challenges and could lead to 

unintended consequences such as 

benefiting filers who wait to submit I– 

765 applications until close to the 

expiration of their underlying EADs at 

the expense of others who have planned 

ahead. Significant information 

technology resources required to modify 

USCIS systems in this manner would 

have to be pulled away from other high 

priority projects. As noted in the 2024 

TFR’s discussion of alternatives,243 this 

option is not operationally feasible. 

Operating on a first-in-first-out basis 

also improves workflow predictability 

and parity across product lines to allow 

for efficient pre-processing of cases, the 

application of systemic checks, and 

assignment of work to officers. Although 

renewal applications are managed 

electronically, in the same system that 

assigns work to officers, systems 

currently do not have the ability to use 

the expected expiration of a previous 

benefit in order to queue to work on that 

basis. Thus, adjudicating cases based on 

expiration dates would require that they 

be manually assigned to the adjudicator. 

Pivoting to a manual assignment and 

dynamic, expiration-date-based case 

management model would reduce 

adjudicative efficiency as well as 

unintentionally grant preference and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101237 

244See new 8 CFR 274a.13(d). 

245See 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii). 

246See 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii). 

247See 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(ii)(A). 

248See DOJ, Civil Rights Division, Immigrant and 

Employee Rights Section, https://www.justice.gov/ 

crt/immigrant-and-employee-rights-section (last 

visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

249See 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii) and 8 CFR 

274a.13(d). 

priority to late filers who would then 

require manual pre-processing review 

and assessment. 

In summary, the TFRs were intended 

to help prevent applicants with timely 

filed renewals from losing employment 

authorization. DHS will also continue to 

explore avenues to decreasing EADs 

adjudication times as described in the 

preamble of the 2024 TFR. 

ii. Decentralizing of EAD Processing and 

Other Processing Recommendations 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that USCIS decentralize 

work permit review offices and allow 

offices to work on applications within 

their State or area. The legal services 

provider also suggested that high-skilled 

noncitizens should have access to 

expedited processing and remarked that 

a premium processing service fee could 

generate revenue for USCIS. 

Response: DHS declines to adopt the 

suggestion that EAD processing be 

decentralized. EAD renewals are 

primarily processed at USCIS Service 

Centers, which are designed and 

organized and have the resources to 

adjudicate higher volume applications 

and petitions that do not require inperson interaction with the public. 

Local offices such as districts and field 

offices typically handle smaller volume 

filings and are geared towards public 

interaction rather than large-scale 

processing and handling of files. 

iii. General Processing 

Comment: A commenter expressed 

concern that renewal applications filed 

between the expiration of the 2022 TFR 

and the effective date of the 2024 TFR 

would receive only the 180-day 

automatic extension provided for in the 

current regulations and would not 

benefit from a longer automatic 

extension provided by the 2024 TFR. 

A commenter expressed concern that 

first-time work permit applications are 

processed more quickly than renewals. 

The commenter generally requested 

more transparency with regard to 

adjudication timelines. 

A commenter recommended that 

USCIS follow the plain language of 

regulations such as 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1) 

and allow noncitizens with TPS to stack 

their Federal Register Notice and 540- 

day EAD extensions. 

Several commenters asked clarifying 

questions related to their EADs. For 

example, applicants requested more 

information about what to do if their 

extension expires or if they qualify for 

the 2024 TFR extension but are not 

allowed to return to work. A commenter 

asked if their employer could deny the 

extension of their EAD. Others 

requested more information about how 

to obtain a letter confirming that their 

permit had been revalidated. 

Response: Regarding the suggestion 

that renewal applications filed between 

the expiration of the 2022 TFR and the 

effective date of the 2024 TFR 

retroactively receive a 540-day 

automatic extension, DHS notes that the 

2024 TFR and this Final Rule provide 

an automatic extension of up to 540 

days to eligible renewal EAD 

applications, including those filed 

between the end of the filing period 

under the 2022 TFR (October 27, 2023) 

and the effective date of the 2024 TFR 

(April 8, 2024), if the renewal EAD 

application was still pending with 

USCIS on the date the 2024 TFR took 

effect. 

Furthermore, the validity of TPSbased EADs does not get stacked with 

each different type of EAD automatic 

extensions. DHS is clarifying that the 

automatic extension of TPS-based EADs 

under 8 CFR 274a.13(d) starts from the 

expiration date on the face of the 

EAD.244 This is so, even if the EAD was 

also automatically extended under a 

blanket provision in a relevant Federal 

Register notice. Federal Register notices 

that automatically extend TPS-related 

EADs identify the EADs that get 

automatically extended by listing the 

‘‘Card Expires’’ date on the face of the 

EAD. The notice also provides the new 

validity end date of that EAD so that 

stakeholders do not have to calculate 

the EAD’s new expiration date. If the 

Secretary extends a TPS designation, the 

Federal Register notice announcing the 

extension will provide the specific dates 

of the re-registration period within 

which TPS beneficiaries must file their 

Form I–821, Application for Temporary 

Protected Status, to maintain TPS. If a 

TPS beneficiary files their renewal EAD 

application during their applicable reregistration period, their TPS-based 

EAD is automatically extended under 

new 8 CFR 274a.13(d) for up to 540 days 

from the expiration date on the face of 

the EAD. When completing Form I–9, 

Employment Eligibility Verification, 

employees who present a TPS-related 

EAD that has been automatically 

extended may choose either the 

extended validity period provided by a 

Federal Register notice, if applicable, or 

the new EAD expiration date under this 

regulation but, as noted above, this final 

rule does not create an entitlement to an 

automatic extension that exceeds the 

period of a TPS designation. An up to 

540-day extension under 8 CFR 

274a.13(d) does not start from the EAD 

extension date provided by a Federal 

Register notice. 

Regarding what an individual must do 

if the automatic extension expires before 

they receive their new EAD, employers 

must reverify their employee’s 

employment authorization when their 

employment authorization or 

documentation expires.245 To reverify, 

employees must present any acceptable 

documentation that shows evidence of 

continued employment authorization. 

Employees who do not present 

acceptable documentation can no longer 

be employed.246 Regarding comments 

asking whether an employer could deny 

the extension of their EAD, employers 

cannot reject unexpired acceptable 

documentation that appear to be 

genuine and relate to the employee.247

Employees whose unexpired and 

acceptable documentation—which 

includes an EAD that has been 

automatically extended by a Form I– 

797, Notice of Action, indicating receipt 

of a timely-filed renewal EAD 

application—is rejected by their 

employers may seek redress through 

IER, which handles claims of unfair 

documentary practices during the Form 

I–9 process.248 For commenters who 

requested information about obtaining a 

letter confirming their permit was 

revalidated, Form I–797C, Notice of 

Action, indicating receipt of a renewal 

EAD application is the document that 

USCIS sends out to show that an eligible 

EAD has been automatically 

extended.249

iv. Notification to Applicants 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that USCIS reissue 540- 

day receipt notices to all eligible 

applicants who received a 180-day 

receipt notice between October 27, 

2023, and April 8, 2024, but who are 

currently eligible for the 540-day 

extension. Alternatively, these 

commenters proposed that USCIS 

provide a mechanism for individuals to 

request new receipts as evidence of the 

longer automatic extension period. 

Similarly, another commenter 

recommended that USCIS issue interim 

EADs alongside these proposed receipt 

notices. One of these commenters 

further added that the receipt notices 

should provide clear indication of the 

dates for which it remains valid. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101238 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

250See DHS, USCIS, Automatic Employment 

Authorization Document (EAD) Extension (last 

reviewed/updated Oct. 9, 2024), https://

www.uscis.gov/eadautoextend (last visited Oct. 23, 

2024); DHS, USCIS, M–274 Handbook for 

Employers, Section 5 Temporary Increase of 

Automatic Extension of EADs from 180 Days to 540 

Days (last reviewed/updated Apr. 8, 2024), https:// 

www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/ 

handbook-for-employers-m-274/50-automaticextensions-of-employment-authorization-andoremployment-authorization-documents-eads-in (last 

visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

251 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(C)(7) and DHS, USCIS, 

M–274 Handbook for Employers, Section 13.3 List 

C Documents That Establish Employment 

Authorization (last reviewed/updated Mar. 8, 2024), 

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9- 

resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/130- 

acceptable-documents-for-verifying-employmentauthorization-and-identity/133-list-c-documentsthat-establish-employment-authorization (last 

visited Oct. 23, 2024). 

252See DHS, USCIS, Case Status Online, https:// 

egov.uscis.gov (last visited Aug. 1, 2024). 

Several commenters recommended 

that USCIS provide workers with receipt 

notices (I–797C) to function as proof of 

employment, or that USCIS better 

enforce acceptance of I–797Cs as 

employment authorization among 

employers. One of the commenters 

proposed specific language for DHS to 

include in the rulemaking regarding 

Form I–797C: 

In the event that the agency fails to 

adjudicate this application within 90 days of 

the receipt notice date, this Form I–797C will 

constitute proof of interim employment 

authorization for an additional period of 90 

days. For the purposes of I–9 verification, the 

applicant may present this Form I–797C, 

together with their expired Employment 

Authorization Document showing the same 

employment authorization eligibility code, as 

evidence of continued work authorization. 

Several organizational commenters 

commenting on behalf of their 

individual members requested that 

USCIS provide standardized 

documentation or some type of written 

confirmation to noncitizens of their 

work authorization extension to present 

to employers or government agencies. 

One commenter urged USCIS to send 

written letters of automatic extension to 

applicants, and to send work 

authorization cards within 180 days of 

receipt of applications. 

Another commenter requested that 

USCIS issue Form I–94 and allow the 

form to be used as evidence of 

employment authorization by 

noncitizens. The commenter clarified 

that it should be permissible to use 

Form I–94 to prove work authorization 

under List C #7 from the List of 

Acceptable Documents, ‘‘even if their I– 

94 could also be considered a List A 

receipt.’’ The commenter stated that this 

change would reduce delays caused by 

human error or mail delays that prevent 

noncitizens from receiving an EAD. 

Response: Given the high volumes of 

Form I–765 applications, DHS is not 

currently considering redirecting 

resources to developing new processes 

and documents but will continue to 

focus efforts on increasing efficiency in 

adjudications and backlog reduction. 

Further, DHS already provides that a 

Form I–797C, Notice of Action, 

indicating receipt of a Form I–765 that 

demonstrates the requirements of 8 CFR 

274a.13(d) have been met automatically 

extends an EAD that is expired on its 

face.250 For eligible renewal EAD 

applicants, under the 2024 TFR the 

automatic increase is up to 540 days if 

(1) the renewal application was timely 

filed on or after October 27, 2023 and 

was pending on or after April 8, 2024 

or (2) if the renewal application was 

filed during the 540-day period 

beginning on or after April 8, 2024, and 

ending September 30, 2025. This final 

rule is permanently extending that 

automatic extension period to up to 540 

days for eligible EAD renewal 

applicants. 

Forms I–797C (receipt notices) for 

EAD renewal applicants have 

standardized language regarding the 

automatic extension, and when 

combined with the facially expired 

EAD, is acceptable documentation for 

Form I–9, Employment Eligibility 

Verification, purposes that can be 

presented to employers or government 

agencies showing employment 

authorization. DHS is revising language 

on the Forms I–797C to more clearly 

describe the eligibility requirements for 

this automatic EAD extension. The 

changes DHS is making in this rule to 

permanently increase employment 

authorization and/or EAD validity for 

up to 540 days is greater than the 90 

days the commenter is suggesting, so it 

provides employers and employees with 

more stability and reduces the need for 

employers to reverify or update their 

Forms I–9. 

Some Forms I–94, Arrival-Departure 

Record, which are documents issued by 

DHS, are already acceptable as a List C 

document that shows employment 

authorization.251 However, for various 

reasons depending on the classification, 

not all Forms I–94 are acceptable for 

Form I–9 purposes and DHS is not 

currently considering revising the lists 

of documents that are acceptable for 

Form I–9 completion. 

v. Suggestions To Improve USCIS’ 

Systems or Applicant-USCIS 

Communication 

Comment: Commenters recommended 

that an automated system be created to 

process and issue work permit 

applications or renewal requests. Some 

commenters urged USCIS to expand 

categories eligible for electronic filing of 

applications, to allow electronic filing of 

fee waiver requests; another commenter 

specifically requested that USCIS accept 

electronic filings for applications 

submitted with fee waivers. 

In response to a question in the 

preamble to the 2024 TFR (‘‘Should 

DHS consider other solutions to mitigate 

the risk of expiring employment 

authorization and/or EAD validity for 

some or all applicants covered by the 

automatic extension provision?’’), a 

commenter urged DHS to modernize its 

systems and automate processes such 

that noncitizens can have insight into 

their application or case statuses and 

can review actions needed on their part. 

Likewise, another commenter 

encouraged USCIS to streamline its 

processing of EAD renewals by 

digitizing Form I–765 and beginning 

adjudication for noncitizens as soon as 

they are admitted into the United States 

and allowing noncitizens to access their 

status via an online portal. 

Similarly, a few commenters urged 

USCIS to implement a mechanism by 

which individuals with potential gaps 

in work authorization can alert USCIS 

and request expedited processing. A 

commenter added that USCIS could also 

consider a system for employers, 

applicants, and agencies to look up 

authorization confirmation for 

noncitizen employees. 

Response: DHS declines to adopt the 

suggestion that an automated system be 

created to adjudicate EAD categories for 

which applicants are regulatorily 

mandated to apply. Each application 

must be reviewed to ensure that the 

basis for an EAD continues to exist. 

While USCIS does use electronic 

systems to streamline adjudicative 

processes to the maximum extent 

possible, applications that are 

incomplete or contain discrepancies 

require additional officer review and 

consideration to determine if a request 

for evidence or other action is required 

irrespective of the application’s intake 

via paper or electronic means. Efforts to 

allow online filing of fee waivers are 

being considered. 

Regarding the suggestion that DHS 

systems be modernized and automated 

so that applicants can review any action 

that is required of them, USCIS 

maintains a system that allows 

noncitizens to check the status of their 

application via its Case Status Online 

web page.252 While the system will 

display whether action from the 

applicant is required such as when 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101239 

253See DHS, USCIS, Expedite Requests, https://

www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/expediterequests (last visited Aug. 1, 2024). 

254See DHS, USCIS, Forms Available to File 

Online, https://www.uscis.gov/file-online/formsavailable-to-file-online (last visited Aug. 1, 2024). 

255See DHS, USCIS, E-Verify (last updated June 

2, 2023), https://www.e-verify.gov (last visited Oct. 

23, 2024). 

USCIS issues a Request for Evidence, 

the system does not have the capacity to 

list specific items or information that 

might be needed to complete the 

adjudication. 

DHS notes that noncitizens who wish 

to request that an application be 

expedited may do so online through the 

USCIS website.253 Also, USCIS already 

allows electronic filing of certain 

categories of Form I–765, Application 

for employment Authorization through 

myUSCIS to include most student 

categories, initial and renewal (c)(8) 

applicants, and TPS applicants seeking 

employment authorization.254

Additionally, USCIS recently launched 

PDF intake for a number of EAD 

categories, which allows applicants to 

upload a completed Form I–765 and 

supporting evidence in PDF format. 

This process makes online filing 

simpler, is available to more filing 

categories, and is particularly beneficial 

for representatives who use external 

software to enter and manage client 

cases. DHS also manages and 

administers E-Verify, which allows 

participating employers to electronically 

confirm the employment eligibility of 

their newly hired employees.255

2. Transparency, Clarity, and Outreach 

to External Stakeholders 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed support for the rulemaking 

but encouraged USCIS to expand its 

outreach. For instance, an advocacy 

group expressed support for the 2024 

TFR and urged USCIS to make it 

permanent but recommend that USCIS 

conduct outreach initiatives to ensure 

state employees are thoroughly 

educated on the TFR and its 

implications for providing state benefits. 

The commenter expressed that State 

employees’ lack of familiarity with the 

TFR could result in unnecessary delays 

in processing requests for state-issued 

documents, stating that for example 

most DMV locations are unfamiliar with 

immigration processes and visa 

categories and staff often do not have 

the time to learn these procedures ‘‘on 

the spot’’ while a customer is standing 

at the counter. The commenter further 

stated that noncitizens rely heavily on 

Federal documents, including valid 

EADs, to access State identification 

cards, driver’s licenses, and other State 

benefits. The commenter added that 

employees might need additional time 

to verify USCIS EAD policies online, 

consult with supervisors, or seek 

clarifications, prolonging processes and 

creating bureaucratic hurdles for 

applicants. The commenter 

recommended that USCIS issue a 

memorandum to state agencies 

explaining the automatic extension and 

its relevance to state operations in the 

DMV context. The comment further 

recommended that USCIS provide a 

letter addressed to each beneficiary of 

the automatic extension stating that 

their facially expired EAD card has been 

automatically extended for a specified 

period while their renewal application 

is being adjudicated. The commenter 

stated that this information could be 

included in the I–765 Receipt Notice to 

enhance efficiency, and that the 

individualized letter or Notice having 

this declaration coupled with the 

expired EAD card may reduce the 

confusion and delays noncitizens may 

face at the DMV. 

This commenter and other 

commenters proposed the following 

suggestions to improve clarity and avoid 

confusion among DMVs, employers, and 

noncitizens: 

• Conduct outreach initiatives to 

ensure State Department of Motor 

Vehicles (DMVs) and all State 

employees are educated on the TFR and 

its implications for providing State 

benefits; 

• Ensure any blanket extensions of 

EAD status are immediately reflected in 

the SAVE system so that States may 

ensure eligibility and legal services 

determinations are made appropriately 

and based on valid verification 

methods; 

• Implement a robust public 

awareness campaign to educate 

employers about the TFRs, including 

the prohibitions against any 

employment discrimination that may 

result from confusion around EAD 

extensions; 

• Provide robust guidance for 

employers to ensure that automatic 

extension periods are honored, 

including physical copies of guidance as 

well as a regularly updated website 

where employers can seek answers; 

• Conduct public engagements with 

associations of human resources staff, as 

well as professional employment 

organizations, concerning the up to 540- 

day automatic extension; 

• Amend Form I–9, Employment 

Eligibility Verification, and provide 

detailed guidelines regarding the TFRs 

in the I–9 process; 

• Continue DHS’s ‘‘Stakeholder 

Invitations’’ and ‘‘Stakeholder 

Messages;’’ 

• Update the USCIS Calculator and 

USCIS website; and 

• Simplify and improve USCIS 

resources about the automatic 

extension. 

Response: DHS is aware of the 

ongoing challenges for DMVs, other 

benefit granting/license issuing 

agencies, and employers recognizing 

that a facially expired EAD has been 

automatically extended if all of the 

requirements are met. DHS has made 

changes in this rule to even more clearly 

explain when the automatic extension 

applies, and how to count the days 

associated with that extension. 

SAVE verifies EAD expiration dates 

that are automatically extended under 

this rule and encourages user agencies, 

including DMVs, to continue to submit 

verification requests to obtain this 

information. USCIS continues to review 

ways to improve the process to verify 

the immigration status and employment 

eligibility of applicants whose 

automatically extended EADs are 

facially expired, when appropriate. This 

includes making any necessary updates 

to USCIS source systems to better track 

the automatic extension dates, 

providing revised receipt notices 

regarding eligibility for automatic 

extensions, and ensuring updated 

information is available to both SAVE 

and E-Verify which are not source 

systems. 

As noted above, USCIS is also 

revising receipt notice language to more 

clearly describe the eligibility 

requirements for this automatic EAD 

extension. USCIS is also considering 

ways to tailor the Form I–797C with 

existing source system information, 

such that only individuals who may be 

eligible for an automatic EAD extension 

based on the category of their renewal 

application receive a notice that 

describes eligibility requirements for the 

automatic extension. 

USCIS also intends to provide robust 

communications and engagements to 

address these concerns. SAVE and EVerify continue to engage with benefitgranting agencies and employers on 

updates to USCIS policies and 

procedures as they are published, 

including web page updates, 

stakeholder engagements and 

communications sent via email. On July 

24, 2024, USCIS significantly expanded 

one of its web pages to clearly delineate 

the requirements and eligibility for an 

automatic EAD extension at https://

www.uscis.gov/eadautoextend, which 

includes an extensive 540-day 

automatic extension calculator. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101240 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

256The REAL ID Act and regulations require 

States to verify documents and information 

presented by applicant for a REAL ID compliant 

driver’s license or identification card. REAL ID Act 

of 2005, as amended, Public Law 109–13, div. B, 

Title II, Sec. 202(c)(4)(A) (May 11, 2005) and 6 CFR 

37.13(b). States must verify documents issued by 

DHS through SAVE or alternate methods approved 

by DHS, except that if two DHS-issued documents 

are presented, a SAVE verification of one document 

that confirms lawful status does not need to be 

repeated for the second document. 6 CFR 

37.13(b)(1). In the event of a non-match, the DMV 

must not issue a REAL ID driver’s license or 

identification card to an applicant and must refer 

the individual to USCIS for resolution. § 37.13(b)(1). 257REAL ID Act 202(c)(2)(C) and 6 CFR 37.21. 

While the Form I–9, Employment 

Eligibility Verification, and its 

instructions will not require revision 

because of this rulemaking, USCIS 

intends to make corresponding updates 

clarifying existing TFR guidance in the 

M–274, Handbook for Employers, and 

on I–9 Central, as needed, to help 

employers determine whether an 

employee is eligible for the automatic 

extension of up to 540 days provided in 

this rulemaking. USCIS may also clarify 

existing guidance in the M–274 on how 

employers should complete the current 

Form I–9 for those employees whose 

EADs have been automatically extended 

for up to 540 days through this 

rulemaking. USCIS has already 

published updates to the calculator at 

https://www.uscis.gov/eadautoextend to 

provide clearer guidance and 

information about eligibility for 

automatic extensions of employment 

authorization and/or the EAD. 

Comment: While commending USCIS 

for its efforts to reduce the backlog in 

caseload and improve the timeliness of 

the legal presence verification requests 

associated with driver’s license 

transactions, a commenter expressed 

general concern regarding the SAVE 

system that state driver’s license 

agencies use to verify a noncitizen’s 

legal presence prior to conferring the 

benefit of a REAL ID-compliant driver’s 

license.256 The commenter stated that 

although USCIS is making 

improvements to the SAVE system, 

many cases presented to front-line 

motor vehicle service clerks require 

additional verifications that cannot be 

verified at the time of transaction. 

Manual verification by SAVE (also 

called ‘‘additional verification’’) can 

require applicants to revisit service 

locations to repeat transactions and 

disrupt the ability of the states to serve 

other customers as they explain the 

need for additional verification. 

With respect to the 2024 TFR in 

particular, the commenter stated that 

automatic extensions pose difficulties 

for state driver’s license agencies. The 

commenter stated that blanket 

extensions of documents displaying an 

expiration date that has already passed 

confuses the legitimacy of the 

documentation that driver’s license 

applicants must present to show they 

meet the federal requirements for 

issuance of REAL ID-compliant driver’s 

licenses. The commenter explained that 

for temporary driver’s licenses, states 

must tie the validity period to the 

applicant’s authorized period of stay in 

the United States.257 The commenter 

stated that if the EAD document is 

expired on its face and the SAVE 

response does not verify the automatic 

extension of immigration status in real 

time, it becomes difficult for a state 

agency to issue the driver’s license 

because the agency does not have the 

proper expiration date information. The 

commenter stated that the resulting 

inability to verify a driver’s license 

applicant’s legal status causes states to 

turn away otherwise eligible 

constituents and results in processing 

delays for customers of state driver’s 

license agencies. The commenter also 

stated that reliance on paper products, 

including EADs, presents a security risk 

as they are easily manipulated or faked, 

and may present unverifiable data. The 

commenter stated that unless SAVE 

returns present, real-time verifiable data 

on all EADs, the proliferation of security 

risks to the states remains a possibility. 

The commenter further expressed that 

the increase in the automatic extension 

period from up to 180 days to up to 540 

days was significant and that an 

extension of this magnitude makes 

tracking documentation associated with 

case files more laborious and 

widespread with a greater potential 

impact to a larger demographic. The 

commenter also stated that the increase 

may amount to an increased workload 

for USCIS and dilute the availability of 

good data at an individual case level. 

The commenter asked that USCIS 

ensure that any blanket extension of 

legal status eligibility is immediately 

reflected in the SAVE system so that 

states may ensure eligibility and legal 

service determinations are made 

appropriately and based on valid 

verification methods. 

Response: Although general concerns 

about SAVE are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking, USCIS acknowledges the 

importance of SAVE returning accurate 

information in real time, without 

requiring additional verification. SAVE 

verifies EAD expiration dates that are 

automatically extended under this rule 

at initial verification or additional 

verification when an automated 

response is not available. SAVE 

encourages user agencies, including 

DMVs, to continue to submit 

verification requests to obtain this 

information. In FY 2024, SAVE 

provided a citizenship or immigration 

status response in 87% of the requests 

submitted at initial verification without 

requiring manual verification. In the 

limited situations where SAVE is unable 

to provide a response at initial 

verification, including where 

confirmation of an EAD automatic 

extension is not passed to SAVE by 

source systems, SAVE may not provide 

this information at initial verification in 

automated response. In situations where 

additional verification is required, user 

agencies must submit a request for 

additional verification so that SAVE can 

manually review the individual’s 

immigration record and provide 

confirmation of any EAD automatic 

extension. 

USCIS will continue to review ways 

to improve the process to verify the 

immigration status and employment 

eligibility of applicants whose 

automatically extended EADs are 

facially expired, when appropriate. 

Solutions may include making updates 

to USCIS source systems to better 

ensure accuracy of SAVE responses 

using information from an automatically 

extended EAD. Updates to USCIS source 

systems would help support SAVE’s 

ability to accurately verify a benefit 

applicant’s immigration status and 

employment authorization expiration 

date during the initial step, potentially 

reducing the need for user agencies such 

as state driver’s license agencies to 

submit a request for additional 

verification. As noted above, USCIS is 

also revising receipt notice language to 

more clearly describe the eligibility 

requirements for this automatic EAD 

extension and considering the feasibility 

of tailoring the Form I–797C with 

existing source system information. 

As it relates to the effects of this rule 

in particular, this rule does not require 

state driver’s license agencies to engage 

in additional SAVE queries. In fact, 

because this rule opts for an up-to-540- 

day automatic extension instead of an 

up-to-180-day automatic extension, the 

rule could reduce the frequency with 

which certain driver’s licenses expire 

and reduce the frequency with which 

states must run SAVE queries to verify 

legal presence information. The rule 

could also reduce confusion about the 

length of automatic extensions: instead 

of having a baseline automatic extension 

of 180 days and then periodic TFRs 

with longer extensions, this rule takes a 

more uniform approach. In addition, 

this rule also does not result in an 

increase in the need for additional 

verification in SAVE. To whatever 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101241 

258See DHS, USCIS, USCIS Redesigns Green Card 

and Employment Authorization Document (Jan. 30, 

2023), https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/newsreleases/uscis-redesigns-green-card-andemployment-authorization-document (last reviewed 

Nov. 6, 2024). 

259 6 CFR 37.13(b)(1). 

260See 2024 TFR, 89 FR at 24628. 

261See INA sec. 208(d)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2). 

extent SAVE queries require additional 

verification in cases involving automatic 

EAD extensions, they would occur 

under the up-to-180-day automatic 

extension as well. 

Regarding the comment that there are 

security risks associated with reliance 

on easily manipulated or faked data, or 

data that is unverifiable, DHS notes that 

the EAD remains the document that 

benefit-granting agencies may accept to 

verify immigration status using SAVE. 

The EAD is a secure document with 

state-of-the-art technology and security 

features.258 The Form I–797C, Notice of 

Action, indicating receipt of a renewal 

EAD application, has sufficient 

identifying information including the 

applicant’s name and eligibility 

category, to tie it to the eligible EAD that 

is being automatically extended. This 

Form I–797C is the mechanism that 

automatically extends the validity of the 

secure EAD. In addition, as noted, DHS 

is not introducing a new automatic 

extension; rather, DHS is increasing the 

duration of the codified automatic 

extension, which already calls for the 

use of an expired EAD with a timelyfiled renewal EAD application Form I– 

797C notice as evidence that an eligible 

EAD has been automatically extended. 

States use SAVE to verify the validity 

period of an EAD to meet REAL ID 

requirements.259

USCIS agrees that clarity regarding 

the length and applicability of 

automatic extensions is important. DHS 

is aware of the ongoing difficulties in 

determining when a facially expired 

EAD has been automatically extended 

and has ensured that this final rule 

clearly delineates these requirements. In 

addition, this rule may reduce 

confusion about the length of automatic 

extensions: instead of having a baseline 

automatic extension of 180 days and 

then periodic TFRs with longer 

extensions, this rule takes a more 

uniform approach. USCIS is also 

revising receipt notice language to 

provide more clarity to individuals who 

are eligible for an automatic extension, 

their employers, and benefit-granting 

agencies who review their 

documentation. 

On July 24, 2024, USCIS updated its 

website to more clearly outline the 

requirements for an automatic EAD 

extension. As part of these changes, 

USCIS updated the automatic extension 

eligibility calculator. USCIS believes the 

clarification made available on its 

website and to the calculator at https:// 

www.uscis.gov/eadautoextend may help 

individuals with an automatically 

extended EAD and a Form I–797C 

demonstrate this extension to agencies 

and employers tasked with verifying 

immigration status and employment 

eligibility if there is confusion when the 

individual presents a facially expired 

EAD. The EAD calculator is not a 

substitute for a registered agency’s use 

of SAVE. 

DHS disagrees with the commenter’s 

concern that it will become more 

laborious for USCIS to track 

employment authorization or that this 

rule will dilute good data at the case 

level. While DHS acknowledges that 

there is work to do to improve the 

ability of DHS processes and systems to 

verify and provide accurate immigration 

status information, DHS is working on 

those improvements, which will reduce 

the number of applications that remain 

pending and eligible for automatic 

extensions. It remains DHS’s goal to 

eliminate the adjudicative backlog for 

the EAD categories eligible for the upto 540-day automatic extension, and 

DHS will continue to work toward that 

goal. Making the increase to the 

automatic extension period permanent 

is not an attempt to carry a permanent 

backlog; rather, it reflects DHS’s 

recognition that unforeseeable 

circumstances may arise that 

periodically and temporarily cause 

backlogs. As for data at an individual 

case level, the commenter’s concern is 

unclear, but DHS believes data will 

remain available and sufficient for 

tracking purposes. DHS will remain able 

to track the total number of applications 

filed, the EAD categories under which 

they are filed, and the number of 

applications that remain pending, 

among other metrics. 

3. Alternative Actions 

Comment: Multiple submissions 

recommended actions to pursue as 

alternatives to, or in conjunction with, 

the 2024 TFR. Commenters suggested 

that DHS consider all options to 

eliminate barriers to obtaining and 

retaining employment authorization for 

noncitizens; conduct a ‘‘root cause 

analysis’’ for work authorization delays; 

and consider expanding the categories 

for which work authorization could be 

granted incident to status. 

Another commenter expressed 

support for measures that would allow 

noncitizens to apply for an EAD based 

on a pending asylum application earlier 

than currently allowed under 8 CFR 

208.7(a). Another commenter 

recommended that DHS eliminate the 

asylum clock entirely and grant (c)(8) 

EADs 180 days after receipt of the 

asylum application. The commenter 

remarked that the asylum clock is unfair 

to noncitizens, as well as an 

unnecessary use of USCIS resources, 

which would be better spent on 

substantive adjudications rather than on 

administering the EAD clock. 

Another commenter emphasized that 

if Congress were to transition USCIS 

from an agency that is primarily feefunded to one that supplements its 

revenue via appropriations, USCIS 

could increase and improve its 

resources and operate under better 

conditions, which would enable USCIS 

to timely process pending renewal EAD 

applications. 

Response: Although some of these 

proposals may further or be related to 

the overarching goals identified in the 

2024 TFR, many of them are far afield 

from the specific proposals DHS 

included in the 2024 TFR. Consistent 

with the 2024 TFR, DHS has decided to 

‘‘permanently lengthen the period of the 

automatic extension period to up to 540 

days for employment authorization and/ 

or EAD validity for eligible renewal 

applicants.’’ 260 DHS has nonetheless 

reviewed comments suggesting 

additional further actions, and may 

pursue such changes on a regulatory or 

subregulatory basis in the future. 

DHS notes that the 180-day waiting 

period for the asylum clock is 

statutory,261 and would require 

Congressional action to eliminate it 

entirely. Similarly, changes to funding 

mechanisms for USCIS would be in the 

province of Congress. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that DHS streamline 

Form I–765, Application for 

Employment Authorization, to reduce 

confusion and delays for applicants and 

increase review efficiency for USCIS. 

The commenter suggested accepting the 

shorter 2017 version of the form. The 

legal services provider added that some 

questions on the current iteration of the 

form are not necessary to adjudicate 

work permit eligibility. 

Response: USCIS periodically reviews 

all its forms, including the Form I–765, 

for legal sufficiency, accuracy, and to 

ensure that only the information 

necessary for adjudicating the form is 

being collected. All of USCIS’ forms are 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to ensure compliance 

with these factors. The Form I–765 was 

most recently modified by USCIS and 

approved by OMB on August 23, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101242 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

262See Executive Office of the President, Office 

of Management and Budget, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Information Collection 

Review—OIRA Conclusion Ref. No. 202408–1615– 

005, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202408-1615-005 (last visited 

on Oct. 23, 2024). 

263 DHS, USCIS, Mission and Core Values, 

https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/mission-and-corevalues (last visited on Oct. 28, 2024). 

264 DHS, Language Access Plan (Nov. 2023), 

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/23_

1115_dhs_updated-language-access-plan.pdf (last 

visited on Oct. 28, 2024). 

265 DHS, USCIS, USCIS Language Access Plan, 

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/multilingual-resourcecenter/uscis-language-access-plan (last updated 

Apr. 14, 2024). 

266 DHS, USCIS, Multilingual Resource Center 

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/multilingual-resourcecenter (last visited Oct. 28, 2024). 

267See Table 3—Summary of Impacts, 2024 TFR, 

89 FR at 24655–24656. 

268 DHS, USCIS, M–274, Handbook for 

Employers, 5.2 Temporary Increase of Automatic 

Extension of EADs from 180 Days to 540 Days (last 

reviewed/updated Apr. 8, 2024), https://

www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/ 

handbook-for-employers-m-274/50-automaticextensions-of-employment-authorization-andoremployment-authorization-documents-eads-in/52- 

temporary-increase-of-automatic-extension-of-eadsfrom-180-days-to-540-days (last visited Aug. 4, 

2024). 

269See new 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1). 

270See current 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(i). 

2024.262 While it is possible that not all 

of the questions on Form I–765 apply to 

every applicant, every question on the 

form is necessary. 

Regarding the possibility of 

confusion, USCIS publishes detailed 

guidance on Form I–765 on its website 

at www.uscis.gov/i-765. This includes 

resources such as filing tips, checklists, 

a fee calculator, and other useful 

information. 

Comment: A legal services provider 

suggested ways DHS and USCIS may 

make the public comment process for 

future rules more accessible, including 

by translating requests for comment into 

multiple languages and accepting 

comments in languages other than 

English. The commenter stated that this 

would be consistent with USCIS’ 

mission statement of ‘‘uphold[ing] 

America’s promise as a nation of 

welcome and possibility with fairness, 

integrity, and respect for all we 

serve’’ 263 and DHS’s Language Access 

Plan.264

Response: The process of submitting 

comments to future Federal Register 

documents is beyond the scope of this 

rule. Information about language access 

efforts at USCIS can be found at the 

USCIS Language Access Plan web 

page 265 and at the USCIS Multilingual 

Resource Center.266

4. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Comment: A commenter provided 

remarks on the economic impacts of the 

TFR, in line with the impacts described 

in the TFR’s Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA), stating that the TFR would 

stabilize labor income for affected 

renewal EAD applications while 

creating opportunities.267 The 

commenter said that the TFR would 

serve as a ‘‘proxy’’ for preventing 

transfers from EAD holders to others in 

the workforce or yielding cost savings 

for employers as a result of preserved 

productivity and continuity of business 

operations. The commenter additionally 

remarked on the ‘‘significant’’ potential 

financial benefits of the rule, including 

DHS’s estimate of $3.1 billion in 

potential preserved employment taxes. 

The commenter added that the ability 

to maintain employment authorization 

without disruption would benefit 

individuals, with estimated savings 

based on recently lapsed EADs and 

labor earnings. The commenter wrote 

that impacted individuals would benefit 

from cost savings related to job search 

and acquisition, and stabilized earnings 

would prevent burdens on support 

networks. 

Finally, the commenter concluded 

that the TFR would not cause adverse 

labor market disruptions and would 

prevent adverse impacts from widescale lapses in employment 

authorization. The commenter said that 

while the TFR’s RIA did not include 

estimates for stabilized earnings beyond 

the EAD lapse duration, they expressed 

confidence that they would show 

increased saved earnings estimates. 

Response: The estimated EAD lapse 

duration was based on an expectation of 

conditions should the EAD renewal 

automatic extension not be extended to 

up to 540 days. The TFR’s RIA 

estimated costs in absence of the rule, 

which is why it did not include 

estimates for stabilized earnings beyond 

the estimated EAD lapse duration. 

V. Regulatory Changes: 8 CFR 

274a.2(b)(1)(vii), 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1), 

(d)(3) and 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(6); 

Authority Citation 

A. Modifying 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii) 

With this final rule, DHS is amending 

8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii) by removing the 

numerical reference to the up to 180-day 

period and replacing it with language 

that simply refers to the automatically 

extended validity period under 8 CFR 

274a.13(d). This rule does not modify 

the current reverification requirements 

an employer must follow for Form I–9, 

Employment Eligibility Verification, at 8 

CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(vii) that apply to 

automatic extensions. Therefore, to 

complete Form I–9 for new 

employment, the employee and 

employer should use the extended 

expiration date to complete Sections 1 

and 2 of the Form I–9 and reverify once 

the automatic extension period expires. 

For current employment, the employer 

should update the previously completed 

Form I–9 to reflect the extended 

expiration date based on the automatic 

EAD extension while the renewal is 

pending and reverify once the automatic 

extension expires.268

DHS is also modifying the cross 

references to 8 CFR 274a.13(d) in this 

section by eliminating the section 

symbol before 274a.13(d) in that 

paragraph, and replacing the citation 

with the full citation, i.e., 8 CFR 

274a.13(d). DHS believes that using full 

citations in regulatory text clarifies the 

regulatory text for the public. 

B. Revising 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1) and 

(d)(3), and Removing (d)(5) and (d)(6) 

With this final rule, DHS is 

permanently increasing the automatic 

extension period for employment 

authorization and/or EAD validity, 

which is up to 180 days in the current 

8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1), to a period of up 

to 540 days. The extension will be 

available to renewal applicants who are 

eligible to receive an automatic 

extension and who properly file a 

renewal EAD application on or after 

January 13, 2025 and otherwise meet the 

requirements of 8 CFR 274a.13(d). 

DHS also acknowledges that the 

requirements under this provision are 

complicated and have caused confusion 

among some employees, employers, and 

benefit-granting agencies in the years 

since these provisions have been in 

effect as to whether the automatic 

extension only applies to documents 

about to expire or also to expired 

documents. To address this concern, 

DHS is amending 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1) to 

specify that for eligible renewal EAD 

applications, both EADs with validity 

periods that are about to expire 

(‘‘expiring’’) and those with validity 

periods that have already passed 

(‘‘expired’’) can be automatically 

extended 269 as long as all the 

requirements of 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1) are 

met. Under the current 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(1), one of the requirements is 

having a properly filed renewal EAD 

application that USCIS received before 

the expiration date on the face of the 

EAD, or for TPS-related renewal EAD 

applications, during the filing period 

described in the applicable Federal 

Register notice regarding procedures for 

obtaining TPS-related EADs.270 DHS is 

amending 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(i) to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101243 

271See 81 FR 82398, 82455 (Nov. 18, 2016). 

272See new 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(i). 

273See INA 274B(a)(6), 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(6). 

274See new 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1). 

275See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(5). 

276See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(5); 87 FR 26614, 26631 

(May 4, 2022). 

277See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(5); 2022 TFR, at 87 FR 

26614, 26631 (May 4, 2022). 

278 DHS estimated at the time that without the 

2024 TFR, approximately 800,000 renewal EAD 

applicants would have been in danger of having 

their applications remain pending beyond the 180- 

day automatic extension period, resulting in 

applicants losing employment authorization and/or 

EAD validity in the approximately 2-year period 

beginning May 2024 because of USCIS processing 

delays and through no fault of their own. See 89 

FR 24628, 26828 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

279See 89 FR 24628, 24649 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

280See 87 FR 26614, 26631 (May 4, 2022). 

281See 89 FR 24628, 24649 (May 4, 2022). 

clarify that for renewal of TPS-related 

EADs, the automatic EAD extension 

provision applies to individuals who 

file their renewal EAD application 

during the re-registration period 

described in the applicable Federal 

Register notice. As explained in the 

preamble to the AC21 Final Rule,271 this 

means that the TPS-related renewal 

EAD application can be filed after the 

facial expiration date of the EAD 

because the re-registration period may 

extend beyond the validity period of the 

EAD as indicated on the face of the 

document.272

DHS anticipates that this clarification 

in the regulatory text will better guard 

against a circumstance where an 

employer or benefit-granting agency 

rejects an EAD that is the subject of a 

valid automatic extension, if presented 

with an eligible Form I–797C receipt 

notice. This should help employers 

avoid rejecting acceptable documents 

and possibly violating the antidiscrimination provisions under 274B of 

the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324b.273

In conjunction with this change, DHS 

is making another clarifying change, by 

further amending 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1) to 

state exactly when the automatic 

extension begins. Specifically, the 

amendment clarifies that the first day of 

the up to 540-day automatic extension 

is the day after the expiration date on 

the face of the EAD. This change will 

help stakeholders know where to find 

the expiration date information and 

when to begin calculating the new EAD 

validity end date.274 As indicated in 

comments to the 2024 TFR, some 

stakeholders have expressed confusion 

regarding multiple possible automatic 

EAD extensions. This amendment 

clarifies that the up to 540-day 

extension begins on the day after the 

expiration date indicated on the face of 

the EAD. To accommodate the new 

wording, DHS is also moving 

information related to filing the renewal 

request into 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(i). 

Finally, to avoid confusion, and to 

ensure continued availability of the 

temporary extension granted in the 2022 

and 2024 TFRs, DHS is incorporating 

and consolidating the content of 

temporary paragraphs (d)(5) and (d)(6) 

into (d)(1) and removing paragraphs 

(d)(5) and (d)(6). 

Eligible applicants who had a 

properly filed and adjudicated renewal 

EAD application before May 4, 2022, 

had their employment authorization 

and/or EAD automatically extended for 

a period not to exceed 180 days. DHS 

amended the regulatory text so that 

paragraph (d)(1) continues to reflect this 

period, and to ensure clarity for Form I– 

9, Employment Eligibility Verification, 

purposes.275

As described in the 2022 TFR, 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(5) provided an increased 

extension period of up to 540 days to 

eligible renewal applicants who had a 

timely filed EAD application pending 

during an 18-month period beginning 

on or after May 4, 2022, and ending at 

the end of October 26, 2023. The 

increased automatic extension period 

applied to eligible renewal EAD 

applicants who timely filed their EAD 

applications on or before the last day of 

the 18-month period.276 Additionally, 

for eligible renewal EAD applicants who 

had timely filed their renewal EAD 

applications on or before May 4, 2022, 

but who were no longer within their 

180-day automatic extension period, 8 

CFR 274a.13(d)(5) provided, in the 

interest of fairness, that such renewal 

applicants automatically resumed 

employment authorization and/or the 

validity of their EADs beginning on the 

effective date of the 2022 TFR, May 4, 

2022, and up to 540 days from the 

expiration of their employment 

authorization and/or EAD.277 For 

renewal applications filed on or after 

October 27, 2023, the automatic 

extension period reverted to 180-days. 

Because of continuing delays in 

adjudication, DHS published another 

temporary final rule on April 8, 2024, to 

avert possible and imminent harm to a 

large number of renewal EAD 

applicants.278 Rather than extending the 

automatic extension provision of 

paragraph (d)(5), DHS created new 8 

CFR 274a.13(d)(6). Under this provision, 

DHS increased the automatic extension 

period for employment authorization 

and/or EAD validity of up to 180 days 

to a period of up to 540 days for renewal 

applicants eligible to receive an 

automatic extension who properly filed 

a renewal EAD application on or after 

October 27, 2023, and pending on or 

after April 8, 2024 and any eligible 

applicant who files a renewal EAD 

application during the 540-day period 

beginning on or after April 8, 2024 and 

ending September 30, 2025. As 

described in the 2024 TFR, and absent 

this rulemaking, the automatic 

extension of employment authorization 

and/or EAD validity would have 

reverted to the up to 180-day period for 

those eligible applicants who would 

have timely filed renewal EAD 

applications after September 30, 

2025.279

Because DHS has determined that 

there is a need to permanently increase 

the automatic extension period to up to 

540 days going forward, and because 

maintaining multiple overlapping 

automatic extension periods in the 

regulations is confusing to the public, 

DHS believes it is best to simplify the 

regulatory text. DHS has determined 

that it would be best to incorporate the 

content of paragraphs (d)(5) and (d)(6) 

into paragraph (d)(1), and that 

paragraphs (d)(5) and (d)(6) should be 

removed from the CFR. This approach 

reduces, and thus, simplifies the 

regulatory text while maintaining the 

2022 and 2024 TFR principles 

applicable to the automatic extension 

for certain renewal EADs for the public 

and for purposes of Form I–9 

requirements. Correspondingly, new 8 

CFR 274a.13(d)(1) incorporates the 

automatic extensions provided by the 

2022 TFR in 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(5) and 

the 2024 TFR in 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(6) by 

clearly outlining that for renewal 

applications pending on May 4, 2022 or 

properly filed on or after May 4, 2022, 

the validity period of an expiring 

employment authorization and/or EAD 

is automatically extended for an 

additional period not to exceed 540 

days from the expiration date on the 

face of the EAD. The amendments are 

effective on January 13, 2025. 

In the 2022 and 2024 TFRs, DHS 

provided that 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(5) and 

(d)(6) would remain in the CFR for an 

additional 720 days after the 540-day 

period. Therefore, 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(5) 

was scheduled to remain in the CFR 

until October 15, 2025,280 and 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(6) was scheduled to remain 

in the CFR until September 20, 2027.281

DHS previously decided to retain the 

provisions for that length to ensure that 

renewal applicants who are already 

within their up to 540-day extension 

period as of the end of the effective date 

of the provisions, would not get cut off 

from any remaining employment 

authorization and/or EAD validity that 

is over 180 days, but instead, would be 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101244 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

282See 87 FR 26614, 26631 (May 4, 2022); see 89 

FR 24628, 24649 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

283See 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (‘‘2024 Fee 

Rule’’) (effective April 1, 2024). 

284See 89 FR 6194, 6399 revising the authority 

citation for part 274a). This resulted in the removal 

of 8 U.S.C. 1105a, Public Law 110–229, 122 Stat. 

854, as well as Public Law 115–218, 132 Stat. 1547 

from the authority citation for 8 CFR part 274a. 

285 DHS removed the references to Public Law 

110–229, 122 Stat. 854, as amended by Public Law 

115–218, 132 Stat. 1547, because the affected 

sections are codified at 48 U.S.C. 1806. Therefore, 

as part of the 2024 Fee Rule, DHS revised the 

authority citation for 8 CFR part 274a to only 

reference 48 U.S.C. 1806. See 89 FR at 6399. 

286See section II.A of this preamble, Legal 

Authority; see also 89 FR 24628, 24630 (Apr. 8, 

2024). 

287See section III. Purpose and Discussion of the 

Final Rule. 

288https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-cardprocesses-and-procedures/employmentauthorization-document. Forms I–766 or EADs. 

able to take full advantage of the 540- 

day period.282 By incorporating the 

content of paragraphs (d)(5) and (d)(6) 

into (d)(1), there is no longer a need for 

the provisions to be in the CFR for that 

length of time. In fact, DHS believes that 

having multiple overlapping provisions 

likely will create additional confusion. 

Therefore, 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(5) and 

(d)(6) will be removed as of January 13, 

2025. DHS is also clarifying the 

abbreviation EAD used in (d)(1)(i). 

Notwithstanding the decision to 

consolidate these three provisions for 

clarity, as discussed in Part I.D of this 

preamble, DHS intends that the 

provisions remain severable from each 

other to the maximum extent possible. 

The three automatic extension 

provisions consolidated in this rule—(1) 

the temporary automatic extension 

originally promulgated in the 2022 TFR, 

(2) the temporary automatic extension 

originally promulgated in the 2024 TFR 

and then finalized in this rule, and (3) 

the permanent automatic extension 

promulgated in this rule—relate to 

different populations, arise from 

different factual circumstances, and 

serve different purposes. Accordingly, 

DHS intends that if a court were to hold, 

for instance, that the consolidated 

provision is invalid as to the population 

covered by the permanent automatic 

extension, DHS would nonetheless 

intend for the rule to remain in effect as 

to those covered by the 2022 TFR and 

the 2024 TFR. By the same token, if a 

court were to hold that any aspect of the 

automatic extension is invalid as to a 

particular person or circumstance (such 

as a particular class of EAD renewal 

applicants), DHS would intend that the 

automatic extension still be available to 

the remaining persons and 

circumstances covered by this 

provision. 

Finally, DHS is also amending 8 CFR 

274a.13(d)(3) by making conforming 

edits and by replacing the up to 180-day 

reference with a reference to the up to 

540 days automatic extension period. To 

avoid confusion, DHS is amending the 

provision by clearly distinguishing 

between EAD renewal requests filed and 

adjudicated before May 4, 2022, and 

renewal requests pending on or properly 

filed on or after May 4, 2022. Therefore, 

similar to the 180-day automatic 

extension period, the increased 

automatic extension period of up to 540 

days established in 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1) 

for EAD renewal requests pending on, or 

properly filed on or after May 4, 2022 

by this final rule generally will 

automatically terminate the earlier of up 

to 540 days after the expiration date of 

the EAD or upon issuance of 

notification of a denial on the renewal 

EAD request. DHS is also amending the 

provision by adding clarifying text that 

eligible applicants who received an up 

to 180-day automatic extension period 

because they properly filed and USCIS 

adjudicated the renewal EAD 

application before May 4, 2022, had the 

period terminated the earlier of up to 

180 days after the expiration date of the 

Employment Authorization Document 

(Form I–766) or upon issuance of 

notification of a decision denying the 

renewal request. The changes are 

effective on January 13, 2025. This rule 

will not make any other changes to 8 

CFR 274a.13(d)(3). 

C. Revising Authority Citations for 8 

CFR Part 274a 

On January 31, 2024, DHS published 

the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Fee Schedule and Changes to 

Certain Other Immigration Benefit 

Request Requirements final rule 

adjusting certain immigration and 

naturalization benefit request fees.283 As 

part of that rule, DHS revised the 

authority citations for 8 CFR part 

274a.284 In doing so, DHS inadvertently 

removed the reference to 8 U.S.C. 

1105a.285 In this final rule, DHS is 

amending the authority citation for 8 

CFR part 274a by adding the reference 

to 8 U.S.C. 1105a again. Additionally, as 

outlined elsewhere in this final rule,286

sections 208, 214, and 244 of the INA, 

8 U.S.C. 1158, 1184, and 1254a, also 

serve as sources of statutory authority 

for employment authorization. DHS is 

therefore further amending the authority 

citation by adding these provisions. 

These revisions are technical in nature 

and do not substantively affect 

noncitizens seeking employment 

authorization. 

VI. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) 

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), as amended by 

Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing 

Regulatory Review), and 13563 

(Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review) 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 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying costs and benefits, reducing 

costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting 

flexibility. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has designated this rule a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 

12866, as amended by Executive Order 

14094, because its annual effects on the 

economy relative to a without-TFR 

baseline are estimated to exceed $200 

million in any year of the analysis. 

Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this 

rule. 

As is detailed earlier in the 

preamble,287 DHS has previously issued 

two temporary final rules to help protect 

certain applicants from suffering a lapse 

of employment authorization and/or 

documentation and related 

consequences solely because of USCIS 

processing delays. 

This final rule amends existing DHS 

regulations to permanently increase the 

automatic extension period applicable 

to such expired or expiring EADs 288

and, for noncitizens who are not 

employment authorized incident to 

status, also the attendant employment 

authorization, for certain applicants 

who have timely filed their renewal 

EAD applications from up to 180 days 

to up to 540 days. This final rule will 

be effective January 13, 2025. 

In the below analysis, DHS evaluates 

the effects of (1) permanently changing 

the up to 180 days automatic extension 

to an up to 540 days automatic 

extension period as measured against a 

no-action baseline (i.e., the effects of the 

rule as measured against a baseline that 

assumes the existence of the 2022 and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101245 

289OMB Circular A–4, states ‘‘the benefits and 

costs of a regulation are generally measured against 

a no-action baseline: an analytically reasonable 

forecast of the way the world would look absent the 

regulatory action being assessed.’’ Nov. 9, 2023, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 

2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf (last visited September 26, 

2024). 290See Part III. Purpose and Discussion of the 

Final Rule, of this preamble. 291See Section III.A. Circumstances Resulting in 

the 2022 Temporary Final Rule, of this preamble. 292See Section III.B. Circumstances Resulting in 

the 2024 Temporary Final Rule, of this preamble. 293See Section III.B. Circumstances Resulting in 

the 2024 Temporary Final Rule, of this preamble. 

294As stated earlier in the preamble, DHS is 

applying this rule to all renewal EAD application 

categories eligible for automatic extension pursuant 

to 8 CFR 274a.13(d), even though some of these 

categories currently experience processing times 

that do not raise a risk of the applicant experiencing 

a lapse in employment authorization or 

documentation. Ninety percent of current pending 

EAD automatic extension applications fall within 

the C08, C09, and C10 categories. DHS has made 

this decision because it has determined that it 

would not be operationally practical for USCIS to 

implement a different approach; making 

distinctions among categories would cause 

confusion among employers and employees; and 

backlogs and processing times may yet increase for 

these other categories. 

295 Individuals would benefit from being able to 

maintain their employment authorization and, by 

extension, their employment, without disruption. 

There would be cost savings to employers in terms 

of continuity of business operations due to the 

worker not being separated. 

296With the 2024 TFR being effective for some 

applicants until September 2027, approximately 1.8 

million approved EADs with an eligibility category 

in the automatic extension classifications (all 

classifications, including TPS) are facing expiration 

between October 2027 and June 2029 (data as of 

July 1, 2024). About 89% of the 1.8 million are the 

C08 (60%) and the C09 (29%) classifications. 

297As noted earlier in this preamble, in the 2024 

TFR, DHS projected that approximately 260,000 

renewal EAD applicants may lose at least 1 day of 

employment authorization and/or documentation 

despite the 540-day automatic extension period. 89 

FR 24628, 24647 (Apr. 8, 2024). This projection was 

based on the conditions in place at the time of the 

analysis in late 2023. That projection therefore 

could not take into account the complete effect of 

operational and policy changes described in the 

TFR, combined with any future changes and 

operational shifts (such as hiring additional officers 

or implementing technological improvements for 

processing efficiency). However, based on a July 

2024 analysis, DHS now projects that 

approximately 46,000 renewal EAD applicants may 

lose at least 1 day of employment authorization 

under the 2022 and 2024 TFRs, between and 

including July 2024 and March 2027. The decrease 

in projection is primarily attributed to an increase 

in completions during the time period between the 

2024 TFR analysis (October 2023) and this analysis 

(July 2024), specifically for C08 and C09 renewal 

EAD filings. 

298Based on the positive impacts to the 

populations affected by the 2022 and 2024 TFRs, 

we can deduce that this final rule will have the 

same or similar effect on the future population in 

terms of reducing potential renewal EAD lapses. In 

other words, without this final rule, we would 

expect that any future population expirations 

would have impacts on earnings and labor turnover 

costs relative to those avoided by the 2022 and 2024 

TFRs. 

2024 TFRs) 289 and (2) changing the up 

to 180 days automatic extension to an 

up to 540 days automatic extension 

period (i.e., the effects of the rule as 

measured against a baseline condition 

that assumes the 2022 and 2024 TFRs 

had not been issued). 

1. No Action Baseline—Effects of This 

Final Rule 

Currently, under the 2022 and 2024 

TFRs, applicants who properly file their 

EAD renewals by September 30, 2025, 

will receive an automatic extension 

period of up to 540 days instead of up 

to 180 days. Without any further action, 

the automatic extension period for 

applications properly filed on or after 

October 1, 2025, would revert to 180 

days. Accordingly, the effects of this 

final rule—which makes permanent the 

up to 540-day automatic extension 

period—would begin when the filing 

period for the 2024 TFR is scheduled to 

expire on October 1, 2025. 

Part III of this preamble discusses the 

multiple unpredictable circumstances, 

which resulted in the need for the 2022 

and 2024 TFRs.290 For the 2022 TFR, 

processing times for EAD applications 

had increased due to operational 

challenges that were exacerbated by the 

emergency measures USCIS had to 

employ to maintain its operations 

throughout the COVID–19 public health 

emergency, combined with a sudden 

increase in EAD application filings and 

litigation resulting in the enjoining of 

the 2020 Fee Rule.291 In 2024, the 

lengthy EAD processing times were 

primarily due to a substantial increase 

in the number of initial EAD 

applications based on pending asylum 

applications (C08) and litigation that 

resulted in USCIS being required to 

process initial EAD applications for 

asylum applicants within 30 days of 

filing.292 In addition, the allocation of 

USCIS personnel to assist with 

historically high levels of encounters at 

the southwest land border between the 

ports of entry also contributed to long 

EAD processing times.293

While the purpose of the 2022 TFR 

and the 2024 TFR was to address 

imminent large-scale lapses in 

employment authorization and/or 

documentation, the purpose of this final 

rule is to provide a long-term solution 

to mitigate the potential for 

unpredictable circumstances to 

significantly increase renewal EAD 

application processing times that would 

require future urgent action to avoid 

such large-scale lapses in employment 

authorization and/or documentation 

solely because of USCIS processing 

delays. Based on the recent history 

described in detail in Part III of this 

preamble, DHS anticipates that this rule 

is warranted to reduce the probability 

that large numbers of applicants eligible 

for automatic extensions of their expired 

or expiring EADs will experience gaps 

in employment authorization and/or 

EAD validity.294 This final rule may 

therefore provide for greater earnings 

stability for individuals and maintain 

continuity of business operations for 

their employers. 

When there is not a significant 

backlog and processing times are 180 

days or less, then this rule has no 

quantifiable impacts as the EAD renewal 

applications would be adjudicated 

within the existing 180-day automatic 

extension period. Instead, it would 

simply serve to reduce uncertainty for 

noncitizens and employers, without 

which there would be an unknown risk 

of loss of work authorization. It also 

reduces uncertainty about a need for 

future temporary rules to address 

unforeseen circumstances. 

In the scenario an unforeseen 

circumstance causes processing times to 

extend beyond the current 180-day 

automatic extension period and the 

potential for lapses in renewal EADs, 

the rule results in benefits and cost 

savings, relative to those who without 

such action would realize a cost.295

To quantify the potential benefit and 

cost savings impacts of this final rule, 

DHS would need a basis for estimating 

how many cases would lapse due to 

future unknown backlogs, which could 

occur at unknown time intervals. While 

in the short-run, DHS has data about 

EADs that are expiring through June 

2029, it lacks data to accurately assess 

evolving circumstances and unknown 

factors that could cause potential 

backlogs.296 These factors vary and 

include allocation constraints on 

adjudication resources and unexpected 

fluctuation in the volume of EAD 

filings. Evidence of the difficulty in 

producing these forecasts can be found 

in the changes in the number of EADs 

that USCIS estimated would lapse 

without the 2024 TFR based on 

circumstances in an October 2023 

analysis as compared to the more recent 

July 2024 analysis.297 Therefore, DHS is 

unable to forecast with certainty 

whether, how often, and with respect to 

how many applications processing 

times may extend beyond 180 days and 

how severe the backlogs may become. 

Accordingly, given the large amount of 

uncertainty around these factors, DHS is 

unable to produce a tenable population 

estimate for the future population— 

beyond the 2024 TFR—that may benefit 

from this permanent change to the 

automatic extension period.298


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101246 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

299Extensions beyond 540 days would likely 

reduce the number of EADs that would still lapse; 

however, this final rule opts for an up to 540-day 

extension, as discussed in the preamble and later 

in ‘‘Alternatives Considered.’’ 

300The estimate of 46,000 renewal EAD 

applicants that may still experience a lapse is based 

on assumptions that renewal applicants will 

maintain the same filing behavior, operational 

efficiency and productivity will not change, and 

staffing levels and adjudication hours for EAD 

renewals will remain unchanged. Please see 

‘‘Background and Population’’ for more 

information. These 46,000 applicants filed include 

applicants affected by both the 2022 TFR and 2024 

TFR: 21,000 covered by the 2022 TFR but have been 

pending at least 540 days after their EAD expiration 

date as well as an estimated 25,000 who received 

a 540-day automatic extension period under the 

2024 TFR but who USCIS estimates will remain 

pending more than 540 days after their EAD 

expiration date absent any changes. Please see DHS 

public comment responses in ‘‘Allow a Second 540- 

Day Automatic Extension Period for Noncitizens 

who Received the 2022 TFR Automatic Extension’’ 

and ‘‘Increase the Automatic Extension Period to 

730 Days’’ in this preamble for more information. 

301Calculations: 306,016¥(306,016 × 4.1%) = 

293,469; 468,104¥(468,104 × 4.1%) = 448,912. 

302This rule will also prevent a reduction in State 

and local tax revenue but that is not quantified in 

this analysis. Please see Table 10 for more 

information. 

2. Without TFR Baseline—Effects of the 

2022 and 2024 TFRs 

i. Introduction 

In the absence of this rule, and the 

hypothetical absence of the 2022 TFR 

and the 2024 TFR, USCIS estimates that 

between approximately 306,000 and 

468,000 renewal EAD applicants would 

experience a lapse in employment 

authorization and/or employment 

authorization documentation between 

this rule’s July 2023 and March 2026 

period of analysis. 

As of the current data analysis (data 

as of July 1, 2024), despite the 

temporary extension up to 540 days 

under the 2022 TFR and 2024 TFR and 

the permanent extension up to 540 days 

in this final rule, about 46,000 renewal 

EAD applicants during the period 

analyzed may still experience a lapse 299

beginning in July 2024 assuming status 

quo conditions.300 However, as 

discussed in Part IV.K.2 of this 

preamble, Increase the Automatic 

Extension Period to 730 Days, USCIS 

has taken steps to address this 

population of 46,000 applicants 

operationally. 

Because USCIS cannot forecast the 

future population with precision, we 

present a baseline population that could 

range from 306,000 to 468,000. After 

applying an adjustment for current 

unemployment conditions in the 

economy (described in detail in the 

ensuing analysis section), we arrive at 

an adjusted population that could range 

from 293,000 to 449,000.301

DHS has prepared two types of 

quantified estimates of the impacts that 

could be generated by this final rule 

applicable to the adjusted population. 

This rule will prevent the majority of 

EAD holders from incurring a loss of 

earnings (‘‘stabilized earnings’’) because 

of USCIS processing delays for renewal 

EAD applications, as under this rule 

there will be no disruption to their 

earnings due to a lapsed EAD. This rule 

will also generate labor turnover costsavings to businesses that employ the 

EAD holders, as under this rule there 

would not be a disruption to the 

majority of EAD holders’ employment 

authorization and/or document validity. 

Additionally, to the extent this rule 

prevents affected EAD holders’ jobs 

from going unfilled, there will be fewer 

reductions in tax transfers from 

businesses and employees to the Federal 

Government.302

Due to substantial variation in the 

inputs utilized to estimate the impacts, 

there is a very wide range in which they 

could fluctuate. These impacts are 

summarized in Table 8, where the 

monetized figures represent the forecast 

expected value (which is the mean of 

trial-based simulations) discounted at 2 

percent. 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

[$2023 Dollars, FY 2023 through FY 2027] 

EAD Holder Earnings Preserved (‘‘Stabilized Earnings’’): 

• Entities directly affected: Individual EAD holders. 

• Population: maximum 293,000 to 449,000 individuals with renewal EADs. 

• Monetized present value estimate (2 percent): $10.0 billion. 

• Type: Stabilized labor income to affected renewal EAD applications; this labor income is a proxy for either prevented transfers from EAD holders to others in 

the workforce or cost savings to employers for preserved productivity, depending on if employers would have been able to easily find replacement labor if the 

affected EAD holders’ employment authorization had lapsed. 

• Summary: Individuals would benefit from being able to maintain their employment authorization and, by extension, their employment, without disruption; DHS 

estimated these savings based on projected EAD lapse durations and labor earnings, both of which vary within a range. 

• Potential preserved employment taxes: $1.1 billion (Present Value, 2-percent discount rate); actual amount will depend on how easily businesses would have 

been able to find replacement labor if the affected EAD holders’ employment authorization had lapsed. 

Employer Labor Turnover Cost Savings: 

• Entities directly affected: businesses that employ the EAD holders. 

• Population: Possibly 25,500 to 39,000 employers. 

• Monetized present value estimate (2 percent): $3.5 billion. 

• Type: Cost-savings. 

• Summary: There would be cost savings to employers in terms of continuity of business operations due to the worker not being separated; DHS estimated 

these savings based on information applicable to turnover costs relevant to employee annual earnings, both of which vary within a range. 

Other Impacts Considered: 

• Individuals impacted would likely benefit from cost-savings accruing to not having to incur the direct costs and some related costs associated with searching 

for and obtaining a new job once their renewal EAD that lapsed is eventually approved. 

• To the extent that individuals’ earnings will be maintained, burdens to their support network would be prevented. 

• DHS does not expect adverse disruptions to the labor market, as the longer automatic extension period is intended to avoid disruptions to employment. 

• DHS did not include estimates for stabilized earnings for any duration of continued unemployment that, without the longer automatic extension period, EAD 

holders might have experienced beyond their EAD lapse duration. Inclusion of such additional time would increase the estimates of saved earnings. 

• Avoid opportunity costs to businesses for having to choose the next best alternative to employment of the affected renewal EAD applicant. USCIS does not 

know if the replacement hire in a next best alternative scenario would have been a comparable substitute (i.e., a productivity or profit charge to employers). 

• Prevent adverse impacts on businesses and individuals resulting from the uncertainty associated with widescale lapses in employment authorization. 

Some of the impacts of the longer 

automatic extension period depend on 

whether businesses would have been 

able to find replacement labor for the 

positions the affected renewal EAD 

applicants would have lost if they had 

experienced a gap in employment 

authorization and/or employment 

authorization documentation. If 

businesses would have been able to find 

replacement labor from the pool of the 

unemployed, the only monetized cost 

savings to society is for preventing costs 

resulting from labor turnover. If 

businesses would not have been able to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101247 

303Lapse-duration accounted for approximately 

77.0 percent of this range, wages accounted for 21.4 

percent, and the population 1.6 percent. For more 

information, please see ‘‘Earnings impact to EAD 

holders.’’ 

304Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that, as 

of May 2024, there were 0.8 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,’’ 

www.bls.gov/charts/job-openings-and-laborturnover/unemp-per-job-opening.htm (last visited 

July 29, 2024). 

find replacement labor, the monetized 

cost savings would also include 

prevented lost productivity due to a lack 

of available labor. However, the impacts 

to the affected renewal EAD applicants 

do not depend on whether their 

employer can find replacement labor. 

The longer automatic extension period 

will prevent affected renewal EAD 

applicants from incurring a loss of 

earnings. 

DHS estimates that stabilized earnings 

to renewal EAD applicants affected by 

the 2022 and 2024 TFRs over the FY 

2023 through FY 2027 period of analysis 

ranges from $0.5 billion to $5.7 billion 

with a primary estimate of $2.1 billion 

(annualized, 2 percent), depending on 

the wages and other compensation the 

renewal EAD applicants earn, the 

number of renewal EAD applicants 

affected, and the duration of the gap in 

employment authorization and/or 

employment authorization 

documentation that would occur 

without those rules.303 DHS uses 

estimates of the stabilized earnings as a 

measure of either: (1) prevented 

transfers of this compensation from the 

affected population to others in the 

labor market; or (2) a proxy for 

businesses’ cost savings from prevented 

lost productivity, depending on whether 

businesses would have been able to find 

replacement labor if employment 

authorization for affected renewal EAD 

applicants had lapsed. 

DHS does not know what the next 

best labor alternative would have been 

for businesses had employment 

authorization lapsed for affected EAD 

holders. Accordingly, DHS does not 

know the portion of the overall effects 

of this rule that are transfers or costs 

savings. To begin, DHS describes the 

two extreme scenarios, which provide 

the bounds for the range of effects. 

Scenario 1: If, in the absence of an 

increase in the automatic extension 

period, all businesses would have been 

able to immediately find reasonable 

labor substitutes for the positions the 

renewal EAD applicants would have 

lost, businesses would have lost little or 

no productivity. Accordingly, over the 

period of analysis the TFRs prevent $2.1 

billion (primary estimate annualized, 2 

percent) from 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 

cost savings to businesses for prevented 

productivity losses. 

Scenario 2: Conversely, if all 

businesses would have been unable to 

within the period of analysis find 

reasonable labor substitutes for the 

position the EAD holder filled, then 

businesses would have lost 

productivity. Accordingly, $2.1 billion 

is the estimated monetized cost savings 

for prevented productivity losses and $0 

is prevented from 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 

action may also result in additional cost 

savings to employers for prevented 

profit losses; and further, may also 

prevent a reduction in tax transfer 

payments from businesses and 

employees to the government. DHS has 

not estimated all potential tax effects 

but notes that stabilized earnings of $2.1 

billion would have resulted in 

employment tax losses to the Federal 

Government (i.e., Medicare and Social 

Security) of $0.2 billion (annualized, 2 

percent). 

In both scenarios, whether without an 

increase in the automatic extension 

period employers would have been able 

to find replacement labor for affected 

renewal EAD applicants 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 preventing EAD lapses 

will also result in additional labor 

turnover cost savings to businesses 

ranging from $0.06 billion to $2.4 

billion, with a primary estimate of $0.7 

billion (annualized, 2 percent) 

depending on the wages and other 

compensation the renewal EAD 

applicants earn, the number of renewal 

EAD applicants affected, and the 

replacement cost to employers. 

Table 9 below summarizes these two 

scenarios and the primary estimate at a 

2-percent discount rate. Because DHS 

does not know the overall proportion of 

businesses that would have been able to 

easily find replacement labor in the 

absence of the 2022 and 2024 TFRs, 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). 

However, May 2024 unemployment and 

job openings data indicate there are 

more jobs available than people looking 

for jobs.304 Accordingly, we believe the 

impacts of the longer automatic 

extension period provided by the 2022 

and 2024 TFRs will most likely skew 

towards Scenario 2, resulting in mostly 

cost savings for employers who would 

have been unable to fill the jobs of 

affected renewal EAD applicants 

without this change. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101248 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

305Caseload changes can be the result of 

workforce hiring and/or officer re-assignments to 

other non-renewal EAD application workloads, as 

well as policy changes such as increasing certain 

EAD validity periods and improving processing 

efficiency through increased use of technological 

advancements. 

306Boardman et al., Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Concepts and Practice (2018), p.152. 

307For regulatory analysis purposes, DHS 

generally assumes the value of time for unemployed 

individuals is at least the value of the Federal 

minimum wage. 

308OMB Circular A–4 (November 9, 2023) is 

available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf (last 

viewed on July 29, 2024). 

TABLE 9—PRIMARY ESTIMATE—MONETIZED ANNUALIZED IMPACTS AT 2% 

[Millions] 

Category Description 

Scenario 1: 

immediate 

replacement 

labor found for 

all affected 

EAD 

Scenario 2: 

no replacement 

labor found for 

affected EAD 

over the period 

of analysis 

Primary estimate: 

replacement 

labor found 

for half of 

affected EAD 

holders 

Transfers 

Stabilized Earnings ............. Prevented compensation transfers from renewal EAD 

applicants to other workers.

$2,114.1 $0 $1,057.1 

Employment Taxes ............. Prevented reduction in employment taxes paid to the 

Federal Government.

0 223.1 111.6 

Cost Savings 

Labor Turnover ................... Prevented labor turnover costs to businesses ............... 734.8 734.8 734.8 

Productivity ......................... Prevented lost productivity to businesses (stabilized 

earnings used as a proxy).

0 2,114.1 1,057.1 

Total Cost Savings ...... 734.8 2,848.9 1,791.9 

There are two important caveats to the 

monetized estimates. First, as the 

pending caseload evolves over the 

course of time that the 2022 and 2024 

TFRs apply to, the pending count and 

therefore the total number of renewal 

EAD applications and individuals 

associated with them will change.305 A 

resultant effect of the caseload changes 

is that as USCIS works through this 

backlog, the number of affected renewal 

EAD applicants and the durations for 

which renewal EAD applicants may 

experience a lapse in employment 

absent a change in the automatic 

extension period will likely vary from 

the durations modeled. As a result, DHS 

acknowledges the uncertainty in the 

above monetized impacts. 

Second, DHS recognizes that nonwork time performed in the absence of 

employment authorization has a 

positive value, which is not accounted 

for in the above monetized estimates.306

For example, if someone performs 

childcare, housework, home 

improvement, or other productive or 

non-work activities that do not require 

employment authorization, that time 

still has value. In assessing the burden 

of regulations to unemployed 

populations, DHS routinely assumes the 

time of unemployed individuals has 

some value.307 The monetized estimates 

of the compensation an increase in the 

automatic extension period preserves 

are measured relative to a baseline in 

which individuals lose employment 

authorization and the associated income 

as a result of the problem the action 

seeks to address. The monetary value of 

the compensation an increase in the 

automatic extension period preserves 

are savings to the individual, but DHS 

has considered whether net societal 

savings may be lower than the sum of 

the preserved compensation to the 

individuals and whether a more 

accurate estimate of the net impact to 

society from losing employment 

authorization might take into account 

the value of individuals’ non-work time, 

even though this population has lost 

their authorization to sell their time as 

labor. 

Due to the variety of values placed on 

non-work time, and the additional fact 

that this non-work time is involuntary, 

it is difficult to estimate the appropriate 

adjustment that DHS should make to 

preserved compensation to account for 

the social value of non-work time. 

Accordingly, DHS recognizes that the 

net societal savings may be somewhat 

lower than those reported below, but 

they are a reasonable estimate of the 

impacts to avoiding the costs of lapsed 

employment authorization. 

Pursuant to OMB Circular A–4, DHS 

has prepared an A–4 Accounting 

Statement for the effects of changing the 

up to 180 days automatic extension to 

an up to 540 days automatic extension 

period (i.e., the effects of the rule as 

measured against a baseline condition 

that assumes the 2022 and 2024 TFRs 

had not been issued).308


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101249 

TABLE 10—OMB A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT—WITHOUT TFR BASELINE

[$ Millions, 2023; Period of analysis: FY 2023 through FY 2027] 

Category Primary estimate Minimum 

estimate 

Maximum 

estimate 

Source citation 

(RIA, preamble, etc.) 

Benefits: 

Monetized Benefits .............................................................................. 2% N/A N/A N/A RIA. 

Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, benefits .............................. N/A N/A N/A RIA. 

Qualitative (unquantified) benefits ....................................................... • Avoiding a lapse in employment authorization and/or EAD 

validity for renewal EAD applicants may also prevent any monetary 

or other support that would have been necessary for the support 

network of affected EAD holders to transfer to affected EAD 

holders during such a period of unemployment. 

RIA. 

• Prevent affected individuals from incurring direct and indirect 

costs associated with looking for work. 

RIA. 

Costs: 

Annualized monetized costs ................................................................ 2% ¥$1,791.9 ¥$61.1 ¥$8,172.6 RIA. 

Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, costs .................................. N/A N/A N/A RIA. 

Qualitative (unquantified) costs ........................................................... • Better ensure other cost savings of holding an EAD or 

employment will not be disrupted or subject to significant 

uncertainty because of USCIS processing delays, such as valid 

identity documents, or health insurance obtained through an 

employer. 

RIA. 

• Prevent adverse impacts on businesses that would result from 

required terminations for affected renewal EAD applicants, or the 

uncertainty associated with widescale lapses in employment 

authorization. 

• In cases where, in the absence of a change to the automatic 

extension period, companies cannot find reasonable substitutes for 

the labor the affected renewal EAD applicants have provided, 

affected businesses would also save profits from the productivity 

that would have been lost. In all cases, companies would avoid 

opportunity costs from having to choose the next best alternative 

to employment of the affected renewal EAD applicant. 

Transfers: 

Annualized monetized transfers: ‘‘on budget’’ ..................................... 2% $0 $0 $0 RIA. 

From whom to whom? ......................................................................... N/A N/A. 

Annualized monetized transfers: stabilized earnings .......................... 2% $1,057.1 $0 $5,741.6 RIA. 

From whom to whom? ......................................................................... Prevent compensation from transferring from affected renewal 

EAD applicants to other workers. 

RIA. 

Annualized monetized transfers: taxes ................................................ 2% $111.6 $0 $605.8 RIA. 

From whom to whom? ......................................................................... Prevent a reduction in employment taxes from companies and employees to the Federal Government (quantified). It would also 

prevent a reduction in income taxes from employees to Federal, 

State, and local governments (unquantified). 

RIA. 

Category Effects Source citation 

(RIA, preamble, etc.) 

Effects on State, local, and/or tribal governments ...................................... Prevent a reduction in State and local tax revenue (unquantified). 

Also prevent potential reliance on State or local governmentfunded support services that may have been necessary with a 

gap in employment authorization (unquantified). 

RIA. 

Effects on small businesses ....................................................................... The 2022 and 2024 TFRs and this rule do not directly regulate 

small entities but have indirect cost-saving to small entities that 

may employ affected renewal EAD applicants. Such businesses 

will avoid the costs for labor turnover and loss of productivity 

and profits had they not been able to immediately fill the labor 

performed by the affected renewal EAD applicant. 

RIA, RFA. 

Effects on wages ......................................................................................... Preserve access to wages and other compensation for renewal 

EAD applicants. 

RIA. 

Effects on growth ........................................................................................ None. RIA. 

ii. Background and Population 

As is detailed elsewhere in the 

preamble, DHS has twice temporarily 

increased the current 180-day automatic 

extension period for certain renewal 

EAD applicants’ employment 

authorization and/or EADs from up to 

180 days to up to 540 days. The increase 

granted by the 2022 TFR was available 

to eligible renewal applicants whose 

EAD applications were pending as of 

May 4, 2022, and to eligible applicants 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101250 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

309This baseline population was derived under 

the hypothetical condition that the 2022 and 2024 

TFRs were not implemented, meaning that certain 

renewal EAD filers were subject to an up to 180- 

day automatic extension period instead of an up to 

540-day period. 310We note that the affected population estimates 

in this analysis (i.e., the number of EADs expected 

to lapse without an increase in the automatic 

extension period), were estimated during a period 

between July 2023 and March 2026 while the 2024 

TFR estimated affected populations between May 

2024 and March 2026. For more information, please 

see footnote 353. 

311We note that approximately 135,403 renewal 

EAD applications were filed between October 27, 

2023, and April 7, 2024 (i.e., after the application 

period for the 2022 TFR ended but before the 2024 

TFR published). Some, but not all of the 135,403 

renewal applications are a subset of the broader 

‘‘baseline’’ population of 387,750. As of July 1, 

2024, 131,935 were still within their existing facial 

validity date or within the 180-day automatic 

extension period and have not benefited from the 

2024 TFR yet but may in the near future. The 

remaining 3,468 have been prevented from lapsing 

due to the implementation of the 2024 TFR. 

However, these 3,468 would potentially face a lapse 

by March 2026 because, as detailed later in 

‘‘Earnings impact to EAD holders,’’ as of the current 

date of analysis, they have benefited from a part of 

the 2024 TFR and still have some benefit to accrue 

until their EAD would be adjudicated. Source: 

USCIS analysis of renewal EAD auto extension 

expirations data, provided by DHS, USCIS, OPQ, 

Claims 3 database; data provided July 24, 2024. 

312All other variables remain constant. 

313Certain categories have been excluded from 

this analysis. The A17 (E spouses), A18 (L spouses) 

and C26 (H spouses) potential automatic extensions 

are limited to the duration of their unexpired I–94 

or the automatic extension period, whichever is 

shorter. However, I–94 data is controlled by CBP 

Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS) 

and is currently not available in a batch/systematic 

manner for USCIS to use to calculate this automatic 

extension end date and estimate these populations. 

Moreover, a large cohort of E, L, and H spouses 

concurrently file renewal EAD applications with an 

underlying Form I–129 and Form I–539, and 

therefore the automatic extension end date is 

limited by the current I–94 validity date. But, in 

these circumstances, the E, L, and H spouses do not 

have an unexpired I–94 that extends beyond the 

current expiration date of the existing EAD. While 

a minority of renewal EAD applications filed for 

these spouses are not filed concurrently with the 

Form I–539, and their associated EADs face 

expiration, USCIS projects that H spouses (the 

largest population in the cohort) would mostly be 

processed on time to avoid any lapses in EAD 

validity. Furthermore, with the new ‘‘incident to 

status’’ employment authorization for E and L 

spouses, the relatively low number of A17 and A18 

renewals noticeably decreased during the first six 

months of FY 2024. The A12 and C19 categories 

(TPS categories) often have a separate automatic 

extension related to each country-specific Federal 

Register Notice (FRN). Additionally, each TPS 

designation, redesignation, or extension only 

remains in place for up to 18 months at a time. A07, 

A08, C16, C20, C22, C24, and C31 all have 

relatively low renewal filing rates. As such, these 

categories are excluded from this analysis. 

who filed a renewal EAD application 

during the 540-day period beginning on 

or after May 4, 2022, and ending 

October 26, 2023. The increase granted 

by the 2024 TFR was available to 

eligible renewal applicants who filed a 

renewal EAD application on or after 

October 27, 2023, and on or before 

September 30, 2025. 

DHS has carefully analyzed the 

current backlog of cases (as of a July 1, 

2024 analysis) and has been able to 

estimate a ‘‘baseline’’ population of 

about 388,000 EADs that would 

potentially face a lapse by March 2026 

in the absence of the 2022 and 2024 

TFRs.309 In developing the populations 

examined for this analysis, we focus on 

cases that received the 540-day 

automatic extension under either the 

2022 or 2024 TFR and whose EAD was 

still pending as of the present date of 

analysis (July 1, 2024) and filings 

through September of 2025. This 

methodology is conceptually the same 

as that modeled in the 2024 TFR and we 

are essentially re-estimating the effects 

because the population and certain 

other quantitative inputs, such as 

completions and case processing, have 

changed substantially.310 Our analysis 

considers actual and projected filing 

volumes,311 filing time behavior, case 

processing times, and officer completion 

metrics. However, there is likely to be 

some variation in the officer completion 

metrics that source this figure, and we 

have allowed this input to vary 10- and 

15-percent from status quo conditions to 

account for uncertainty such as in 

USCIS workforce hiring of adjudication 

officers and officer re-assignments to 

other non-renewal EAD application 

workloads.312 The results are captured 

in Table 11, which shows by EAD 

category. As is shown, with a 180-day 

automatic extension period the lapse 

population could range from about 

306,000 to 468,000, and under status 

quo conditions with the 540-day 

automatic extension period granted by 

the 2022 and 2024 TFRs, about 46,000 

could still lapse beginning in July 

2024.313

TABLE 11A—EADS THAT COULD LAPSE WITH A 180-DAY AUTOMATIC EXTENSION PERIOD, BY CLASS AND PERCENT

VARIATION

Variation A03 * A05 A10 C08 C09 C10 ** Total 

+15% ............................................................. 2,535 416 0 244,243 3,535 55,286 306,016 

+10% ............................................................. 2,535 496 0 273,277 5,896 55,286 337,490 

Status quo ..................................................... 2,535 962 0 320,016 8,952 55,286 387,750 

¥10% ............................................................ 2,535 1,533 0 368,346 16,514 55,286 444,214 

¥15% ............................................................ 2,535 1,798 0 383,598 24,887 55,286 468,104 

Table 11B—EADs That Could Still Lapse With a 540-Day Automatic Extension Period, by Class and Percent Variation 

Variation A03 A05 A10 C08 *** C09 C10 Total 

+15% ............................................................. 2,197 0 0 44 0 31,265 33,506 

+10% ............................................................. 2,222 0 0 44 0 34,259 36,525 

Status quo ..................................................... 2,277 0 0 44 0 43,653 45,975 

¥10% ............................................................ 2,324 0 0 44 0 46,900 49,269 

¥15% ............................................................ 2,357 0 0 8,017 0 47,654 58,029 

Source: USCIS analysis of renewal EAD filing data, provided by DHS, USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), Claims 3 database; data provided July 11, 

2024. 

Note: Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. 

* The estimated A03 population size in Table 11A does not change with the changes in variation because of a small number of average adjudications per month. 

The status quo number of average adjudications per month during July 2023 through June 2024 was 47. A plus 15% variation would be 54 and a minus 15% variation would be 40. This small change, coupled with a 180-day automatic extension does not change the population estimates over the variation range (+/¥15%). 

** The estimated C10 population size in Table 11A does not change with the changes in variation with a 180-day automatic extension because at the time of this 

analysis (data as of July 1, 2024) C10s were already beginning to expire due to a backlog. There would need to be a much more significant variation than +/¥15% to 

the status quo average adjudications rate per month of 2,735 for there to be changes in this population. 

*** The C08 population estimated in Table 11B would experience a wave of expirations beginning in October 2026 if the adjudication rate were to decrease 15% 

from the status quo based on the estimated volume. The estimated 44 cases for the other variation scenarios were projected to expire by July 2024. 

In the absence of this rule, and the 

hypothetical absence of the 2022 TFR 

and the 2024 TFR, we estimate that 

between 306,000 and 468,000 renewal 

EAD applicants still pending 

adjudication as of July 1, 2024, would 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101251 

potentially experience a lapse in 

employment authorization and/or 

employment authorization 

documentation. Absent any 

intervention, this population would 

have begun to lapse in July 2023, as 

applicants would have only had the 

option of an automatic extension period 

of up to 180 days. These lapses were 

projected through March 2026, 

approximately 180 days after the 

expiration of the 2024 TFR. The TFRs 

reduced the likelihood that renewal 

EAD applicants will experience gaps in 

employment authorization and/or EAD 

validity with an automatic extension 

period of up to 540 days. Because the 

2022 TFR and 2024 TFRs automatically 

extended the validity of eligible EADs 

for up to an additional 540 days and did 

not on their own reduce incoming 

volumes, it is estimated that the 

adjudication period for some renewal 

EADs is expected to exceed even the 

540 days granted under the TFRs and 

therefore some renewal EAD applicants 

may still experience lapses. Table 12 

provides a granular tabulation of the 

populations without the TFRs and with 

the TFRs and Figure 2 provides a 

monthly expirations of status quo 

condition values from Table 12. 

TABLE 12—POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY MONTH, ROUNDED TO THOUSANDS

180-Day automatic extension period 540-Day automatic extension period 

Low bound: 

EADs facing 

lapse each 

month 

(status quo 

+15%) 

Status quo: 

EADs facing 

lapse each 

month 

Upper bound: 

EADs facing 

lapse each 

month 

(status quo 

¥15%) 

Low bound: 

EADs facing 

lapse each 

month 

(status quo 

+15%) 

Status quo: 

EADs facing 

lapse each 

month 

Upper bound: 

EADs facing 

lapse each 

month 

(status quo 

¥15%) 

Jul-23 ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 ........................ ........................ ........................

Aug-23 ...................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Sep-23 ...................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Oct-23 ....................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Nov-23 ...................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Dec-23 ...................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Jan-24 ....................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Feb-24 ...................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 6,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Mar-24 ...................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Apr-24 ....................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

May-24 ...................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 6,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Jun-24 ....................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Jul-24 ........................................................................................ 12,000 12,000 12,000 0 0 0 

Aug-24 ...................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

Sep-24 ...................................................................................... 12,000 13,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 

Oct-24 ....................................................................................... 10,000 11,000 12,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 

Nov-24 ...................................................................................... 10,000 13,000 16,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

Dec-24 ...................................................................................... 11,000 11,000 14,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 

Jan-25 ....................................................................................... 7,000 9,000 12,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 

Feb-25 ...................................................................................... 14,000 17,000 20,000 2,000 2,000 3,000 

Mar-25 ...................................................................................... 7,000 11,000 14,000 2,000 3,000 3,000 

Apr-25 ....................................................................................... 8,000 12,000 18,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 

May-25 ...................................................................................... 7,000 13,000 18,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 

Jun-25 ....................................................................................... 6,000 11,000 14,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 

Jul-25 ........................................................................................ 11,000 15,000 20,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 

Aug-25 ...................................................................................... 10,000 14,000 21,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 

Sep-25 ...................................................................................... 14,000 18,000 28,000 2,000 2,000 3,000 

Oct-25 ....................................................................................... 14,000 23,000 28,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 

Nov-25 ...................................................................................... 22,000 28,000 35,000 2,000 3,000 3,000 

Dec-25 ...................................................................................... 18,000 23,000 29,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 

Jan-26 ....................................................................................... 19,000 28,000 31,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 

Feb-26 ...................................................................................... 18,000 27,000 30,000 5,000 7,000 8,000 

Mar-26 ...................................................................................... 18,000 21,000 22,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 

Apr-26 ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 0 

May-26 ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 0 

Jun-26 ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 0 

Jul-26 ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 0 

Aug-26 ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 0 

Sep-26 ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 0 

Oct-26 ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 3,000 

Nov-26 ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 3,000 

Dec-26 ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 3,000 

Jan-27 ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 0 

Feb-27 ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 0 

Mar-27 ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................. 306,000 388,000 468,000 34,000 46,000 58,000 

Source: USCIS analysis of renewal EAD filing data, provided by DHS, USCIS, OPQ, Claims 3 database; data provided July 11, 2024.

Note: A projection of 0 is 1 or more EAD but less than 500 due to rounding to thousands; ‘‘......; indicates no data. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101252 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

314See DOL, ‘‘Minimum Wage,’’ https://

www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/minimumwage 

(last accessed July 29, 2024). 

315See DOL, ‘‘State Minimum Wage Laws,’’ 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/ 

state (last accessed July 29, 2024). 

316See BLS, ‘‘May 2023 National Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates,’’ ‘‘United States,’’ 

https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/May/oes_nat.htm#00- 

0000 (last visited Apr. 22, 2024). The 10th, 25th, 

75th and 90th percentile wages are available in the 

downloadable XLS file link. 

An assumption that is implicit in the 

populations developed above is that 

every individual with a lapsed EAD 

would be unauthorized to work. In 

reality, some of the individuals may be 

authorized to work—or become 

authorized to work—incident to status 

and merely relying upon the EAD to 

evidence that employment 

authorization. Others may be relying 

upon the EAD as a government-issued 

identity document and not using it to 

obtain employment. In either instance, 

USCIS does not know, and is unable to 

reasonably estimate, how many 

individuals or what percentages of the 

populations may be separately 

employment authorized or otherwise 

not relying on the EAD to document 

their employment authorization. It is 

possible, therefore, that the lower bound 

estimate of population is overstated. 

USCIS stresses that the population 

over time can vary via changes in 

volumes, processing times, and other 

factors that are very difficult to predict. 

As such, DHS acknowledges the 

uncertainties in these estimates, but 

they represent the potential population 

for the impact estimates using the best 

available information at the time of this 

analysis. To the extent that the 

population can vary, the impacts 

estimated in the following analysis 

would vary as well. 

iii. Impact Analysis 

This section is organized into 

modules as follows: Module A develops 

earnings levels for the renewal EAD 

filers, which is a key component of the 

impacts we estimate. Module B focuses 

on the impact simulations for the 

impacted population’s labor earnings 

impacts and is divided into two 

sections: (1) labor earnings, and (2) labor 

turnover cost. Module C collates the 

monetized impacts and discounts them 

over the course of the five fiscal years 

in which the impacts could accrue. 

Module D concludes with consideration 

of other possible effects. 

a. Module A. Earnings of Renewal EAD 

Applicants 

USCIS expects two broad types of 

impacts from this final rule that are 

estimated and quantified. First, there 

will be impacts to eligible individual 

EAD holders in terms of their ability to 

maintain labor earnings. Second, 

impacts will accrue to businesses that 

employ the EAD holders in maintaining 

continuity of employment and thus 

avoiding labor turnover costs. A core 

component of both impacts is the 

earnings of the renewal EAD filers, 

which figure prominently into the 

monetized estimates. Since there is 

likely to be variation in earnings 

applicable to the population, in this 

module we cover the methodology to 

develop a range for earnings bounded by 

a lower and upper level. 

Because many of the individuals 

renewing EADs would be relatively new 

entrants to the labor force, we would not 

expect most of them to earn very hightier wages. The Federal minimum wage 

is currently $7.25 per hour,314 but many 

States have implemented higher 

minimum wage rates.315 However, the 

Federal Government does not track a 

nationwide population-weighted 

minimum wage estimate. Individuals in 

the population of interest could be 

located anywhere within the United 

States and may be subject to a range of 

minimum wage rates depending on the 

State or city in which they live. 

Consistent with other rules, DHS uses 

the 10th percentile hourly wage from 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

National Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates for all occupations as a 

reasonable proxy for the effective 

minimum wage for individuals who are 

likely to earn an entry-level wage. BLS 

estimates account for changes in wages 

across the United States labor market, 

which is updated annually and will 

thus reflect any changes to State 

minimum wage rates. The 10th 

percentile hourly wage estimate for all 

occupations is currently $13.97, not 

accounting for worker benefits.316

It is likely however, that some 

individuals impacted earn wages above 

the minimum. Because the EADs 

impacted do not include or require, at 

the initial or renewal stage, any data 

regarding wages, DHS has no 

information from the associated forms 

concerning earnings, occupations, 

industries, positions, or businesses that 

may employ such workers. DHS can add 

some robustness to the estimates by 

incorporating actual data concerning the 

employment of the EAD holders to draw 

inference on their earnings. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2ER13DE24.073</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101253 

317 DHS, USCIS, Immigration Records and 

Identity Services Directorate (IRIS), Verification 

Division; (Oct. 12, 2023, for FYs 2021 and 2022 and 

Apr. 11, 2024, for FY 2023). 318BLS, ‘‘Industries at a Glance,’’ ‘‘Industries by 

Supersector and NAICS Code,’’ https://

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag_index_naics.htm (last 

visited Apr. 22, 2024). 319The national average wage is found in the 

‘‘May 2023 National Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates’’ in the BLS Occupational 

Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) portal, 

https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/May/oes_nat.htm#00- 

0000 (last updated Apr. 3, 2024). Relevant 

calculation: ((42.90 ÷ 31.48) ¥1) × 100. 

320There are some technical details applicable to 

Table 13. The title of the activity shown is in a few 

cases abbreviated for space consideration. 

Otherwise, they reflect exactly what was recorded 

in the E-Verify data. For the activities shown 

comprising the upper quartile, from the first level 

analysis one activity, Non-store Retailers, was 

dropped, and ‘‘replaced’’ by Management of 

Companies/Enterprises. The reason this was 

conducted is that in the recent (2022) revision to 

the NAICS codes, Non-store Retailers was 

eliminated. Many such revisions to activities have 

been made, and the BLS will often describe what 

revised activity(ies) in the update ensconce the 

former classification. In this case, the removed 

activity consists of three current industry groups, 

Electronic Shopping and Mail-Order Houses 

(NAICS 4541), Vending Machine Operators (NAICS 

4542), and Direct Selling Establishments (NAICS 

4543). However, the BLS does not provide wage 

data applicable to these industry groups (see 

https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag454.htm). In 

addition, internet Service providers, Web Search 

Portals, & Data Processing appears to apply to a 

dated 2002 NAICS application, and was changed in 

a 2007 revision to ‘‘Data Processing, Hosting, and 

Related Services’’ subsector (see https://

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag518.htm). 

321 July 2023 average hourly wages from the 

following: https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag54.htm; 

https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag519.htm; https://

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag561.htm; https://

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag518.htm; https://

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag61.htm; https://

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag722.htm; https://

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag623.htm; https://

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag511.htm; https://

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag238.htm; https://

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag622.htm; https://

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag55.htm. For Educational 

Services, the average earnings are reported annually 

for five specific occupations, and the hourly wage 

was derived by dividing the annual salary by 2,080 

annual work hours (see https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/ 

iag61.htm) (obtained Apr. 22, 2024). 

322See BLS, Economic News Release, ‘‘Employer 

Costs for Employee Compensation—March 2024,’’ 

Table 1. Employer costs for employer compensation 

by ownership, p. 4, https://www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/archives/ecec_06182024.pdf (last 

visited June 18, 2024). 

323The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated 

as follows: (Total Employee Compensation per 

hour) ÷ (Wages and Salaries per hour) = $46.14 ÷ 

$31.72 = 1.45 (rounded). See BLS, Economic News 

Release, ‘‘Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation—March 2024,’’ Table 1. Employer 

costs for employer compensation by ownership, p. 

4, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_

06182024.pdf (last visited June 18, 2024). 

324The calculation of the benefits-weighted 10th 

percentile hourly wage estimate: $13.97 per hour × 

1.45 benefits-to-wage multiplier = $20.2565 = 

$20.26 (rounded) per hour. 

DHS obtained E-Verify case data for 

FY 2021 through FY 2023 for the EAD 

categories potentially impacted, which 

yielded 14.33 million records.317 These 

data neither distinguish between an EVerify case for an initial EAD, a renewal 

EAD, or the E-Verify case result, but 

they do provide information that we can 

draw from regarding employment. The 

E-Verify data do not provide 

information on job type or occupation, 

but it does provide information about 

the primary business activity of the EAD 

holder’s employer as categorized by the 

North American Classification System 

(NAICS). 

Analysis of the E-Verify case data 

shows that they disproportionately 

accrued to a small subset of activity. Of 

107 represented economic activities, 

only 3 exhibited shares of cases higher 

than 10 percent—Professional, 

Scientific, & Technical Services (25.2 

percent), Other Information Services 

(19.6 percent), and Administrative and 

Support Services (12.4 percent). 

Moreover, the upper quartile (75th 

percentile) is reached with just eleven 

activities. The average individual share 

across these eleven activities was 6.9 

percent, while for the entire remainder 

the individual average was 0.3 percent. 

Given this concentration, we will center 

the analysis on the activities comprising 

the upper quartile. 

In Table 13 we present the activities, 

followed by the level of activity 

applicable to the respective the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code from the BLS. We 

rescaled the shares of the activities 

according to the total number of records 

for the upper quartile (10.52 million) 

and obtained the July 2023 average 

hourly wage for the activities of all 

employees within the relevant NAICS 

codes from BLS.318 We then calculated 

a weighting factor input, which is the 

product of the wage and the rescaled 

share. Summing along the final column 

yields an hourly wage of $42.90, which 

will apply as the upper earnings bound 

for this analysis, noting that it is 36.28 

percent higher than the national average 

wage weighted across all occupations, of 

$31.48.319

TABLE 13—DERIVATION OF UPPER BOUND FOR HOURLY WAGE 320

Economic activity NAICS code Level Share 

(%) 

Cumulative 

(%) Wage 321 Weight factor 

Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services 541000 subsector ................................ 33.3 33.3 $51.21 $17.04 

Other Information Services .............................. 519100 industry ................................... 25.8 59.1 44.14 11.40

Administrative & Support Services .................. 561000 subsector ................................ 16.4 75.5 26.81 4.40 

Internet Service providers, Web Search Portals, & Data Processing.518200 industry ................................... 7.4 82.9 53.78 3.98 

Educational Services ....................................... 611000 subsector ................................ 3.0 86.0 35.00 1.07 

Food Services & Drinking Places .................... 722000 subsector ................................ 2.7 88.7 19.62 0.54 

Nursing & residential Care Facilities ............... 623000 subsector ................................ 2.7 91.4 24.47 0.66 

Publishing Industries (non-internet) ................. 511000 subsector ................................ 2.3 93.7 54.45 1.26 

Specialty Trade Contractors ............................ 238000 subsector ................................ 2.4 96.1 35.50 0.84 

Hospitals .......................................................... 622000 subsector ................................ 2.0 98.1 41.23 0.84 

Management of Companies/Enterprises ......... 550000 sector ...................................... 1.9 100.0 46.38 0.87 

Sum (rounded) .......................................... ........................ ................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 42.90 

DHS accounts for worker benefits 

when estimating the opportunity cost of 

time by calculating a benefits-to-wage 

multiplier using the most recent BLS 

report detailing average total employee 

compensation for all civilian U.S. 

workers.322 DHS estimates the benefitsto-wage multiplier to be 1.45, which 

incorporates employee wages and 

salaries and the full cost of benefits, 

such as paid leave, insurance, and 

retirement.323 Therefore, using the 

benefits-to-wage multiplier, DHS 

calculates the total rate of compensation 

for individuals at the high end of the 

range as $62.21. DHS calculates the total 

rate of compensation for individuals at 

the lower end of the range as $20.26 per 

hour, where the 10th percentile hourly 

wage estimate is $13.97 per hour and 

the average benefits are $6.29 per 

hour.324


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101254 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

325BLS, Economic News Release, ‘‘The 

Employment Situation—June 2024,’’ www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/archives/empsit_07052024.htm (last 

visited July 5, 2024). 

326BLS, Economic News Release, ‘‘The 

Employment Situation—June 2024,’’ www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/archives/empsit_07052024.htm (last 

visited July 5, 2024). 

327Low bound: 33,506 lapses with the rule/ 

306,016 without; Primary: 45,975 lapses with the 

rule/387,750 without; Upper bound: 58,029 lapses 

with the rule/468,104 without. 

328Source: DHS, USCIS, OPQ, Claims 3 database; 

data provided July 11, 2024. 

329These projections were for the A03, A05, A10, 

C08, C09, and C10 classifications. 

330OCB ranks density fit according to internal 

routines that evaluate the appropriateness of several 

tests according to features of the data. In this case, 

the Gamma density function fits the data best based 

on all continuous distributions subject to a scoring 

method applicable to the test statistic of the 

Anderson-Darling (A–D) test, which in this case is 

20.661. The Gamma distribution is a member of the 

exponential distributions and is applicable in 

situations where the data displays considerable 

variance, is restricted to positive values, and is 

skewed to the right (positively skewed). It is 

frequently utilized in analyses to predict durations 

and wait times until future events occur. 

b. Module B. Impacts That Could 

Accrue to Labor Earnings 

1. Earnings Impact to EAD Holders 

There are three core inputs 

(‘‘components’’ or ‘‘variables’’) requisite 

to estimate the impacts that could 

accrue to labor compensation: the lapseduration, earnings, and the impacted 

population. 

All three core inputs require some 

adjustments to make them as salient as 

possible. Foremost, the lapse-durations 

are in calendar days, hence we make an 

adjustment to account for a full-time 8- 

hour workday and 5-day workweek. 

However, not all U.S. workers are 

employed full-time, so we also make an 

adjustment to number of hours worked 

per week. BLS currently reports that 

average weekly hours across all private 

nonfarm industries is 34.3.325 This 

figure is 85.8 percent of a 40-hour 

workweek. 

As it relates to the core variable, 

population, the assessments of possible 

impacts rely on the assumption that 

everyone who was approved for an EAD 

under the relevant categories entered 

the labor force. DHS believes this 

assumption is justifiable because 

applicants, with few exceptions, would 

generally not have expended the direct 

filing (for the pertinent EAD categories 

in which there is a filing fee) and timerelated opportunity costs associated 

with applying for an EAD if they did not 

expect to recoup an economic benefit. 

Realistically, however, individuals 

might not be employed for any number 

of other reasons not specifically relevant 

to this action. The national 

unemployment rate as of June 2024 is 

4.1 percent.326 There is constant and 

considerable job turnover in the labor 

market even when the unemployment 

rate is low. Individuals could be 

unemployed due to this normal 

turnover or from any number of casespecific factors and conditions. As such, 

we believe it is reasonable to scale the 

population to account for current 

unemployment, which is conducted by 

integrating the employment rate, as 

unity minus 0.041, to arrive at 0.959. 

DHS scales the baseline population by 

the unemployment rate and the lapse 

rate—the percentage of the affected 

renewal population that might still 

experience a lapse in EAD even with the 

TFRs—to achieve the population likely 

to avoid a lapsed EAD with those rules. 

The sensitivity analysis discussed in 

Tables 11 and 12 reveals that the 

percentage of EADs that would lapse 

under the 540-day automatic extension 

period varies. As such, the rate that 

would not lapse also varies. For the 

baseline population and lapse rate we 

rely on the triangle distribution. This 

distribution is ideal for these inputs 

because it sets a minimum and 

maximum value around a center point 

(‘‘likeliest’’ value). In our calibration, 

the center point is the baseline value. 

For the population, the approximate 

minimum is 306,000, maximum is 

468,000, and the center point is 388,000. 

For the lapse rate, the minimum is 10.9 

percent, maximum is 12.4 percent, and 

the center point is 11.9 percent.327 See 

Table 11. 

DHS is interested in estimating the 

mean and a range for the impacts that 

are likely to be realized and employs a 

simulation approach. For the earnings 

we rely on the uniform distribution. 

This is a discrete distribution, which 

essentially means that any value in the 

range has the same probability as being 

selected as any other value. This 

structure is chosen because we have no 

evidence or data to suggest that the 

earnings would tend to cluster at either 

the low or high end of the range. 

We analyzed data provided by the 

USCIS Office of Performance and 

Quality to estimate lapse-durations by 

the size of the population that could be 

impacted.328 We began by forecasting 

monthly filing volumes over the period 

of analysis based on historical filing 

patterns and expected EAD expirations 

by month. We also estimated average 

monthly officer completions based on a 

twelve-month period between July 

2023–June 2024. Specifically, for the 

period April 2024 through March 2027, 

OPQ projected the time interval 

between the date an EAD would expire 

and when it would eventually be 

adjudicated (re-approved) based on the 

average monthly officer completion 

rates.329 Because USCIS generally 

adjudicates applications in the order of 

the date received, for each month in the 

analysis we calculated the pending 

inventory by adding forecasted receipts 

and subtracting average officer 

completions. Using this information, we 

are able to estimate the number of 

pending applications that would expire 

each month and the estimated amount 

of time until the expired EADs would be 

adjudicated (i.e., the lapse duration). 

For the entire batch of OPQ-produced 

durations, we utilized the Oracle Crystal 

Ball® Modelling and Simulation 

Software (‘‘OCB’’) to analyze the data. 

The data analysis batch fit tool in OCB 

indicates that the Gamma density 

function provides the best fit.330

DHS operates under the assumption 

that the underlying data structure does 

not change over the period of analysis. 

The benefit of the Gamma distribution 

is that the location parameter is 

generally close to the minimum value, 

which will be consistent (in time), and 

the scale parameter represents the mean, 

which is generally scalable. The key 

shift factor that will change in the future 

is that the average duration will change. 

To obtain a viable mean for this specific 

analysis, we divided the number of 

EADs lapsing by duration into the total 

number that could lapse over the entire 

period to obtain individual weighting 

factors. Multiplying each weight factor 

by the lapse duration and summing over 

all data points yielded a weighted 

average lapse duration of 137 days. 

Above, we have described the 

adjustments made to the population to 

account for unemployment and 

employment lapses that may still 

happen to wages to account for benefits, 

and to the lapse duration to account for 

the work week and hours worked. In 

practice, it is not necessary to make the 

adjustments to the core inputs directly 

or even sequentially. The reason is that 

the inputs (core and incumbent 

adjustment factors) interact in the 

estimation procedure multiplicatively, 

hence they can be abridged into a single 

equation and nested compactly as a 

‘‘one-step’’ routine in the software 

program. 

The inputs and settings for the 

estimates are encapsulated in Table 14. 

In practice there are two modules 

(populations) that will comprise the 

earnings impacts. The Department 

believes the impacts will be beneficial 

to EAD holders as ‘‘preserved’’ or 

‘‘stabilized’’ earnings. For EADs that the 

540-day automatic extension will 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101255 

331The low and high values reflect a 95 percent 

certainty bound, which captures the distribution 

specific values between the 2.5th and 97.5th 

percentiles. 

prevent from lapsing, the duration input 

is the Gamma density tuned to the 

parameters produced by the software 

and truncated at the upper end by a 

value of 360 (days), since the Gamma 

curve is infinite in its upper tail. 

However, individuals with EADs that 

may still lapse would also incur a 

benefit of being able to work exactly 360 

days longer than they otherwise 

would—there is no variation or 

distribution, as the extra days is the 

point value of 360 days. There are any 

number of ways to derive an expression 

capturing the two population modules 

that may still incur stabilized earnings, 

i.e., (a) those that would be prevented 

from lapsing, and (b) those that would 

still lapse. In the technical appendix 

accompanying this rulemaking, we 

develop the system from its long form 

into a compact nested equation, which 

is the product of two terms, as is shown 

in Table 14. The combined employment 

‘‘combined’’ scalar is developed to 

abridge all non-varying inputs common 

to both modules as a single input for 

purpose of brevity. 

TABLE 14—MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF EARNINGS IMPACT

Input Structure Settings 

Baseline Population (P) ............................ Triangle distribution ................................... Min: 306,000. 

Max: 468,000. 

Likeliest: 388,000. 

Lapse rate (L) ........................................... Triangle distribution ................................... Min: 10.9%. 

Max: 12.4%. 

Likeliest: 11.9%. 

Hourly wage (W) ....................................... Uniform distribution ................................... Min: $13.97. 

Max: $42.90. 

Lapse Durations: .......................................

DS: EADs saved from lapse .....................

DL: EADs that lapse .................................

DS: Gamma density ...................................

DL: Point value ..........................................

DS: Gamma density 

Location: 0.96. 

Scale: 137.0. 

Shape: 1.047. 

Max: 360. 

DL: 360. 

Combined scalar ....................................... Point value ................................................. Benefits multiplier (B): 1.45. 

Workweek time (T): 5 ÷ 7 days = 0.714. 

Average hours (H): 34.3 ÷ 40 hours = 0.858. 

Full time day hours (F): 8.0. 

Employment rate (E): 1 ¥ 0.041 = 0.959. 

Scalar (S) = B × T × H × F × E = 6.82. 

Nested equation ........................................ {(W × S × P) × ( DS ¥ (L × (DS ¥ DL)))} 

Results summary ...................................... Forecast values (millions, undiscounted 331) 

Range level Preserved Earnings Impact Taxes = (impact × 0.153) ÷ 

1.45 

low $2,539.2 $267.9 

average $10,739.4 $1,133.2 

high $29,166.2 $3,077.5 

• Impact type: stabilized earnings to individuals 

• Contribution to forecast variance: 

Lapse duration = 77.0% 

Hourly wage = 21.4% 

Lapse rate: negligible 

Population: 1.6% 

Source: USCIS analysis (7–25–2024). 

DHS utilized OCB estimate stabilized 

earnings using the settings encapsulated 

in Table 14. OCB repeatedly calculates 

results using a different set of random 

values from the range of values and 

probability distributions described in 

Table 14 above to build a model of 

possible results. We ran 100,000 

randomized seed trials, which is more 

than sufficient to generate a 95 percent 

level of precision in the results. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101256 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

332The certainty level is based on the entire range 

of forecast values, so the 95 percent certainty range 

is the range between which 95 percent of forecasted 

values are expected to fall, regardless of proximity 

to the mean. Roughly speaking, the 95 percent 

certainty bound would generally capture the 

distribution-specific forecast values lying between 

the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. 333 DHS notes that the estimated earnings impact 

may be slightly understated for the following 

reason. As of the date of the current analysis, about 

0.89 percent of the baseline population (387,750), 

or, about 3,468 cases, have been prevented from 

lapsing. These cases are applicable to filings 

between the end of the 2022 TFR and effective date 

of the 2024 TFR (October 27, 2023-April 7, 2024). 

It is difficult to parse out the true impact because 

as of the present they have benefitted from a part 

of the TFR and still have some benefit to accrue 

(which would be the time between the present and 

the time at which their EAD would be adjudicated). 

It is likely that some of these would have lapsed 

for longer than the average we use for the broad 

population (in the absence of this final rule and the 

2022 and 2024 TFRs). 

334Robert Frank, ‘‘61% of Americans paid no 

federal income taxes in 2020, Tax Policy Center 

says,’’ CNBC (Aug. 18, 2021), https://

www.cnbc.com/2021/08/18/61percent-ofamericans-paid-no-federal-income-taxes-in-2020- 

tax-policy-center-says.html (last updated Aug. 20, 

2021), and for varying State income tax rates, see 

Tonya Moreno, ‘‘Your Guide to State Income Tax 

Rates,’’ The Balance, https://www.thebalance.com/ 

state-income-tax-rates-3193320 (last updated Jan. 3, 

2022). 

335The various employment taxes are discussed 

in more detail, see Internal Revenue Service, 

‘‘Understanding Employment Taxes,’’ https://

www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-selfemployed/understanding-employment-taxes (last 

updated May 30, 2024). See Internal Revenue 

Service ‘‘Publication 15,’’ ‘‘(Circular E), Employer’s 

Tax Guide’’ (June 7, 2024), https://www.irs.gov/pub/ 

irs-pdf/p15.pdf for specific information on 

employment tax rates. Relevant calculation: (6.2 

percent Social Security +1.45 percent Medicare) × 

2 employee and employer losses = 15.3 percent 

total estimated public tax impact. 

336We divide by the 1.45 benefits multiplier to 

account for the fact that employment taxes are 

calculated based upon wages paid, not including 

fringe benefits. 

Based on the simulation, and as 

shown in Figure 3, the expected value 

(which is the mean of probabilisticbased forecast values) for stabilized 

earnings is $10.7 billion.332 We also 

generated a 95 percent certainty range, 

which reports $2.5 billion to $29.2 

billion. A sensitivity analysis that scores 

the inputs in terms of how much 

variation in each contributes to 

fluctuation in the forecasted values 

reveals that the lapse-durations (that 

vary) contributed at the highest rate 

(77.0 percent of the total variation), 

followed by wage (21.4 percent), while 

the population contributed a small 1.6 

percent of the variation (see Table 14 for 

more information). DHS believes that 

the earnings impact, which can be 

thought of as ‘‘stabilized’’ or 

‘‘preserved’’ earnings to renewal EAD 

applicants, will be beneficial to the EAD 

holders, as the 540-day automatic 

extension would prevent a lapse in their 

employment authorization and an 

incumbent interruption of their labor 

compensation.333

If, without the 2022 and 2024 TFRs, 

businesses would not have been able to 

find replacement labor for the positions 

the affected renewal EAD applicants 

would have lost if they had experienced 

a gap in employment authorization and/ 

or employment authorization 

documentation, then the unperformed 

labor would have resulted in a 

reduction in taxes from employers and 

employees to governments. 

Accordingly, the stabilized earnings 

derived from the TFRs, and estimated 

above, will prevent such a reduction in 

taxes. It is challenging to quantify 

Federal and State income tax impacts of 

employment in the labor market 

scenario because individual and 

household tax situations vary widely as 

do the various State income tax rates.334

But DHS is able to estimate the potential 

contributory effects on employment 

taxes, namely Medicare and Social 

Security, which have a combined tax 

rate of 7.65 percent (6.2 percent and 

1.45 percent, respectively).335 With both 

the employee and employer paying their 

respective portion of Medicare and 

Social Security taxes, the total estimated 

level of tax transfer payments from 

employees and employers to Medicare 

and Social Security is 15.3 percent. 

DHS estimates the tax impacts on the 

unburdened earnings basis. This is done 

by multiplying the stabilized earnings 

by the employment tax rate of 15.3 

percent, and dividing the resulting 

product by the benefits burden multiple 

of 1.45.336 If, without the 2022 and 2024 

TFRs, all employers would have been 

unable to find replacement labor for the 

position the renewal EAD applicant 

filled, the TFRs will prevent a reduction 

in employment taxes from employers 

and employees to the Federal 

Government of $1.1 billion, but could 

range from $0.3 billion to $3.1 billion, 

in undiscounted terms. The actual value 

of tax impacts will depend on the 

number of affected EAD holders that 

businesses would have been able to 

easily find reasonable labor substitutes 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2ER13DE24.074</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101257 

337BLS, Economic News Release, ‘‘The 

Employment Situation—June 2024,’’ www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/archives/empsit_07052024.htm (last 

visited July 5, 2024). 

338For additional descriptions of the components 

of labor turnover costs, see Holly Bengfort, 

‘‘Employee retention: The Real Cost of Losing an 

Employee,’’ PeopleKeep, (updated April 16, 2024), 

https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/employeeretention-the-real-cost-of-losing-an-employee (last 

visited Aug. 21, 2024). 

339 DHS requested public comments on how, or 

if, that measure of productivity may overlap with 

the types of productivity covered in the CAP report 

but did not receive comment on this specific 

request in the 2024 TFR. 

340See 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/thereare-significant-business-costs-to-replacingemployees/ (last visited Aug. 21, 2024). 

341See Shane McFeely and Ben Wigert, ‘‘This 

Fixable Problem Costs U.S. Businesses $1 Trillion,’’ 

Workplace, (Mar. 13, 2019), https://

www.gallup.com/workplace/247391/fixableproblem-costs-businesses-trillion.aspx (last visited 

Aug. 21, 2024). See also Kate Heinz, ‘‘The True 

Costs of Employee Turnover,’’ Built In, https://

builtin.com/recruiting/cost-of-turnover (last 

updated July 17, 2024). 

342See ‘‘The Real Cost of Employee Turnover in 

2021,’’ Terra Staffing Group (Nov. 4, 2020), https:// 

www.terrastaffinggroup.com/resources/blog/cost-ofemployee-turnover (last visited Aug. 21, 2024). See 

also Louie Andre, ‘‘112 Employee Turnover 

Statistics: 2021 Causes, Cost & Prevention Data,’’ 

Finances Online, https://financesonline.com/ 

employee-turnover-statistics/#cost (last visited Aug. 

1, 2024). 

for in the absence of any change to the 

automatic extension period. 

There are several caveats to our 

estimates that could cause the true 

impacts to vary higher or lower. In one 

way, the estimates are likely to be 

understated. DHS accounted for the 

duration of the EAD lapse, but this is 

not necessarily the total spell of 

unemployment individuals could face. 

The BLS reports that the median spell 

of unemployment across all economic 

sectors is 9.8 weeks, which would be 

68.6 days (unadjusted).337 We did not 

include this because we do not know if 

some portion of individuals may be able 

to return to their previous employers 

(for example, if the EAD lapse was 

shorter than the median spell of 

unemployment and if the employer has 

difficulty finding a replacement worker) 

or, for those who cannot, if they would 

start the search process until they 

became reauthorized to work. If they did 

not—i.e., they started looking for new 

work during the lapse, double counting 

would be invoked for some portion of 

the duration. It may be useful to think 

of the total unemployment spell as 

being the sum of two parts, the EAD 

lapse and the [job] ‘‘search time.’’ We 

have no data to support a determination 

on when the search process starts, and 

hence if the two parts intersect, and 

therefore we do not include it. However, 

to the extent that it may be reasonable 

to assume that many individuals would 

not start looking for work until after 

they became re-authorized to work, 

incorporating the ‘‘search time’’ 

duration in addition to their lapse 

duration would substantially increase 

the scope of the stabilized earnings 

impacts. 

Second, in addition to the search time 

spell of unemployment outside of the 

lapse alone, there are costs to looking 

for work. There are direct costs involved 

in activities such as resume updating, 

possibly learning new skills, travel to 

interviews, and so on. There are also 

time-related opportunity costs 

applicable to the job search. DHS does 

not have salient data or method to 

allocate the portion of individuals that 

would need to conduct a job search and 

the portion of the search time that could 

be conducted during the EAD lapse, and 

thus they are not monetized. 

2. Labor Turnover Cost Impacts 

The longer automatic extension 

period provided by the 2022 and 2024 

TFRs is expected to generate a labor 

turnover cost savings to employers of 

affected EAD holders. DHS bases the 

assessment of these impacts on the 

assumption that every EAD applicable 

to the adjusted population that would 

have lapsed without the 2022 and 2024 

TFRs would have generated an 

involuntary separation from an 

employer, and that the separation is due 

to no other factors. 

Employment separations can generate 

substantial labor turnover costs to 

employers that can be divided into 

several components. First are the direct 

or ‘‘hard’’ costs that involve separation 

and replacement costs. The separation 

costs 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/or incentives), and 

possible 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 and production 

disruptions, which can include errors 

from other employees that may 

temporally fill the position. Some 

analysts have identified a third cost 

segment, which is a type of indirect 

cost, which 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.338

There are numerous studies and 

reports concerning labor turnover costs 

available from Human Resource entities 

that are cited across correspondent 

literature. Some focus on specific 

occupations, industries, salary levels, 

and often measure turnover cost in 

slightly different ways. Labor 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 report published by the Center for 

American Progress (CAP) that surveyed 

more than 30 studies that considered 

both direct (e.g., separation and 

replacement) and indirect (e.g., loss of 

institutional knowledge) costs. DHS 

captures preserved productivity 

savings—proxied by stabilized earnings 

to applicants—had employers not been 

able to immediately find replacement 

labor for renewal EAD applicants whose 

EAD would lapse without the longer 

automatic extension period.339

The CAP and other reports that we 

reviewed 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.340 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.341 However, the CAP 

survey found that costs tend to range 

within a bound of 10 percent to around 

40 percent of the salary. For example, 

CAP found despite wide variation and 

range, for workers earning on average 

$75,000 per year or less (2012$), 

turnover costs ranged typically from 10 

to 30 percent of the salary, clustering at 

about 21 percent. More recent reports 

indicate that the typical cost is about 

one-third of the salary.342

DHS could nest the information 

provided above into an estimation 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101258 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

343See 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 (last visited Aug. 21, 

2024). The data are found in the methodological 

appendix, located in the Docket for this rulemaking. 

344 DHS used the same data source for the 

turnover costs for the 2024 TFR. 

345OCB indicates that the multiple continuous 

distributions are appropriate for the data but ranks 

the Lognormal distribution highest in terms of 

goodness of fit with an A–D test statistic of t = 

0.1282 and an associated p-value of 0.971. The 

three produced parameters are as follows: location 

= ¥0.03, mean = 0.23, and standard deviation = 

0.19. The fitted parameters affect the shape and 

position of the distribution. 

346The slope coefficient for the regression of costs 

against salary is 5.2E–06. By multiplying this figure 

by 5,000 to obtain 0.026, it can be interpreted that 

a $5,000 increase in salary is associated with a 2.6 

percentage point increase in labor turnover costs, 

on average, within the range of our data. The exact 

probability of committing a type I error (p-value) for 

the slope coefficient is 0.028, such that we can 

reject the hypothesis that salary and turnover costs 

are not systemically related (or such that the 

correlation in the particular data is due to 

randomness) with more than 95 percent confidence. 

procedure, but it would be beneficial to 

examine granular data to hone the 

estimates for two reasons. First, it would 

be valuable to quantify the correlation 

between annual earnings and labor 

turnover costs and incorporate it in the 

ensuing forecast procedure. Second, it is 

desirable to obtain a distribution for the 

data—an average and median could be 

gathered from the referenced reporting, 

but there would be a gap in terms of 

other metrics needed to calibrate a 

certain distribution. 

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.343 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 ($42.90) by 2,080 

average annual hours yields a maximum 

annual earnings figure of $89,232. 

Twenty-seven resulting data points were 

employed for the analysis. While this 

may be relatively few observations, OCB 

nevertheless was able to fit a lognormal 

density function to the data, and we are 

confident in relying on the results.344

Foremost, the mean of 22.4 percent and 

the median of 16.6 percent of annual 

salary are amenable to the metrics 

reported in the studies referenced above 

and fall within a substantial range, from 

2.1 percent to 68.7 percent. Second, on 

qualitative grounds the lognormal 

distribution is well-suited as a setup, as 

it is often utilized in situations where 

there is wide variation and there is a 

discrete lower end minimum, further 

restricted to positive values. First, 

negative values can be ruled out in 

context—there cannot be zero cost to an 

employee separation—and thus a lower 

tail cutoff to bound to the cost 

percentage is appropriate. Second, we 

can reasonably conjecture that the costs 

would tend to cluster near the lower tail 

of the distribution (as outlined in the 

CAP report), which is amenable to the 

positive skew of the distribution, 

reinforced by the data resultant mean 

being larger than the median.345

Additionally, the scatterplots 

presented in Figures 4A and 4B with the 

fitted least squares line clearly reveal 

that turnover cost is an increasing 

function of the annual earnings, with a 

moderately strong correlation coefficient 

of 0.421.346 Figure 4A plots the cost as 

a percentage of salary, as this is how it 

is inputted into the estimation, while 

Figure 4B plots the cost in actual 

dollars, for context (the data points 

utilized are provided in the 

accompanying technical appendix). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2ER13DE24.075</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101259 

347Further, DHS does not have data on the 

number of EAD renewal applicants that have been 

terminated because their employer used an online 

calculator provided by USCIS to assist in the 

determination of an EAD expiration date. 

Presumably an employer would determine an EAD 

expiration well in advance of the date for business 

continuation purposes. Regardless, an employer 

would spend time utilizing this optional online 

calculator with or without this rule and is not 

considered an additional burden for this rule. DHS 

requested public comment on data that could be 

used to make such an adjustment in the 2024 TFR 

but did not receive any response. 

To obtain the annual salary we 

multiply the (non-burdened) wage 

bounds ($13.97 and $42.90) by 2,080 

annual full-time hours but make the 

adjustment to account for average hours 

by scaling by 0.858, as was introduced 

above for stabilized earnings. In 

addition, we scale the baseline 

population to account for 

unemployment and lapses that may still 

occur even with a longer automatic 

extension period; the 2022 and 2024 

TFRs will delay though not prevent 

separations for employees that may still 

experience a lapse. DHS also recognizes 

that a certain number of individuals 

may have been terminated or chosen to 

leave irrespective of any change to the 

automatic extension period and, 

accordingly, the 2022 and 2024 TFRs do 

not prevent such turnover. DHS does 

not have data on the number of renewal 

EAD applicants that would have been 

terminated from or left their jobs had 

they not lost employment 

authorization.347

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 

baseline population, turnover cost 

percentage, and the wage (unburdened). 

In practice, it is not necessary to adjust 

them directly or even sequentially. The 

reason is that all the inputs (core and 

adjustment factors) interact in the 

estimation procedure multiplicatively, 

hence they can be abridged into a single 

equation and nested compactly as a 

‘‘one-step’’ routine in the software 

program as the product of two terms. 

The inputs and settings are collated in 

Table 15, with the nested equation 

shown as well. The correlation between 

turnover 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. The table below 

summarizes the entire system—the 

inputs, their settings, and the resulting 

outputs. 

TABLE 15—MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER COST IMPACT

Input Structure Settings 

Baseline Population (P) ............................. Triangle distribution .............................................. Min: 306,000. 

Max: 468,000. 

Likeliest: 388,000. 

Lapse rate (L) ............................................ Triangle distribution .............................................. Min: 10.9%. 

Max: 12.4%. 

Likeliest: 11.9%. 

Hourly wage (W) ........................................ Uniform distribution .............................................. Min: $13.97. 

Max: $42.90. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2ER13DE24.076</GPH>
101260 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 15—MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER COST IMPACT—Continued 

Input Structure Settings 

Turnover cost % (C) .................................. Lognormal density ................................................ Location: ¥0.03. 

Mean: 0.23. 

S-dev.: 0.19. 

Max: 0.687. 

Employment scalar (S) .............................. Point value ........................................................... Average hour adjustment (H): 0.858. 

Full time annual hours (A): 2,080. 

Employment rate (E): 0.959. 

Scalar = H × A × E = 1,711. 

Correlation .................................................. W, C ..................................................................... 0.421. 

Nested equation ........................................ {(W × C × P × S) × (1¥L) 

Results summary ....................................... Forecast values (millions, undiscounted). 

low average high 

$310.4 $3,732.6 $12,349.2 

• Impact type: Cost-savings to employers. 

• Contribution to forecast variance: 

(a) Turnover cost (%) = 65.3%. 

(b) Hourly wage = 34.1%. 

(c) Population and lapse rate = negligible. 

Number of businesses impacted: 25,500–39,000. 

Source: USCIS analysis, 7–25–2024. 

DHS utilized OCB to estimate labor 

turnover cost impacts using the settings 

encapsulated in Table 15. We ran 

100,000 randomized seed trials, which 

is more than sufficient to generate 95 

percent level of precision in the results. 

The results are displayed in Figure 5. 

Based on the simulation, the expected 

value is $3.7 billion, and the 95 percent 

precision bound results in a range of 

forecasts from $0.3 billion to $12.3 

billion. The sensitivity analysis reveals 

that variation in the turnover cost 

percentage of the salary contributed 

about 65.3 percent of the wide certainty 

range while about 34.1 percent was 

driven by the variance in earnings. The 

other inputs contributed negligibly. 

In addition to the projected costsavings to businesses reported above, 

DHS can make some estimates of the 

number of businesses that could benefit 

from the cost-savings. From the E-Verify 

data utilized to develop an upper wage 

bound, we randomly sampled 451 EAD 

employers, which is more than the 

requisite 384 needed for a 95 percent 

level of confidence and collected the 

number of E-Verify cases per EAD 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2ER13DE24.077</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101261 

348 DHS determined the sample size using a 

standard statistical formula based on the total EAD 

employer population of 95,400 in FY 2023 with a 

95 percent confidence level and a 5 percent 

confidence interval. This means that there is a 95 

percent chance that parameters descriptive of the 

population (e.g., the EAD employer population size) 

are no more than 5 percent different from the 

statistic obtained by the sample. 

349 DHS, USCIS, Immigration Records and 

Identity Services Directorate (IRIS), Verification 

Division, received Apr. 11, 2024. 

350These shares are derived by dividing into a 

total population of EADs that could expire (before 

making any adjustments) across the four-year span 

FY 2023 through FY 2026 of 387,750 by the share 

that could expire in each of those years, in order, 

3,654 (0.9 percent), 79,539 (20.5 percent), 154,375 

(39.8 percent), and 150,182 (38.7 percent). Because 

the average lapse duration of 137 days is 37.5 

percent of a 365-day year, the stabilized earnings 

and employment taxes may be spread over more 

than one fiscal year. To account for the cost savings 

accruing to the next fiscal year (the remaining 62.5 

percent), we then extrapolate this percentage to the 

population for lapses that would begin in the 

second half of a fiscal year. The resulting impacts 

are spread over FY 2023 through FY 2027 in the 

following shares: 0.4 percent (0.9 percent × 37.5 

percent), 8.3 percent (0.9 percent × 62.5 percent + 

20.5 percent × 37.5 percent), 27.8 percent (20.5 

percent × 62.5 percent + 39.8 percent × 37.5 

percent), 39.4 percent (39.8 percent × 62.5 percent 

+ 38.7 percent × 37.5 percent), and 24.2 percent 

(38.7 percent × 62.5 percent). Source: DHS, USCIS, 

OPQ (July 11, 2024). 

351 If, without the TFRs, businesses could not find 

replacement labor for any of the affected EAD 

holders, the tax impacts shown represent the loss 

in employment taxes this rule would prevent. The 

actual amount will depend on how easily 

businesses would have been able to find 

replacement labor in the absence of these rules. 

employer.348 The analysis reveals that 

there were on average twelve cases per 

EAD employer for FY 2023.349 If this 

figure is extrapolated to the baseline 

population, it would indicate that 

between 25,500 and 39,000 EAD 

employers could be impacted over the 

time period covered by the 2022 and 

2024 TFRs. 

c. Module C. Monetized Impacts for the 

2022 and 2024 TFRs, FY 2023 Through 

FY 2027 

In Table 16 we collate the 

undiscounted monetized impacts 

derived from the above sections. 

TABLE 16—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED IMPACTS

[FY 2023 through FY 2027, undiscounted, in $ millions, $2023] 

Stabilized 

earnings 

Labor turnover 

cost Total impacts Employment taxes 

Low end ........................................................................................................... $2,539.2 $310.4 $2,849.6 $267.9 

Average ............................................................................................................ 10,739.4 3,732.6 14,472.0 1,133.2 

High end .......................................................................................................... 29,166.2 12,349.2 41,515.4 3,077.5 

Because the 2022 and 2024 TFRs 

applied to more than one full fiscal year, 

we also apply a discounting framework 

to the impacts. Since there is a one-toone mapping from the population to the 

impacts, we can derive the yearly 

allocations directly from the population 

figures. According to our analysis, based 

on the broad population, the shares of 

impacts allocated to the FYs 2023, 2024, 

2025, 2026, and 2027, in order, are 0.4, 

8.3, 27.8, 39.4, and 24.2 percent.350

Table 17 provides the allocated 

impacts according to the allocation 

derived above, to account for the 

average, and low and high ends of the 

certainty bound in order. The table is 

organized into two sections to account 

for undiscounted terms and those at a 2- 

percent discount rate. We parsed out the 

stabilized earnings and labor turnover 

impacts separately, as they will embody 

different types of impacts. 

TABLE 17—MONETIZED EXPECTED VALUE IMPACTS FOR FY 2023 THROUGH FY 2027 

[$ millions, 2023] 

A. Undiscounted 

1. Low end bound 

FY Stabilized 

earnings 

Labor turnover Total impacts Estimated 

taxes 351

2023 ................................................................................................................. $9.0 $1.1 $10.1 $0.9 

2024 ................................................................................................................. 210.3 25.7 236.0 22.2 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 704.6 86.1 790.8 74.4 

2026 ................................................................................................................. 1,000.6 122.3 1,123.0 105.6 

2027 ................................................................................................................. 614.7 75.1 689.8 64.9 

5-year Total .............................................................................................. 2,539.2 310.4 2,849.6 267.9 

2. Average 

FY Stabilized 

earnings 

Labor turnover Total Taxes 

2023 ................................................................................................................. $38.0 $13.2 $51.1 $4.0 

2024 ................................................................................................................. 889.4 309.1 1,198.5 93.8 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 2,980.2 1,035.8 4,016.0 314.5 

2026 ................................................................................................................. 4,232.1 1,470.9 5,703.1 446.6 

2027 ................................................................................................................. 2,599.7 903.6 3,503.3 274.3 

5-year Total .............................................................................................. 10,739.4 3,732.6 14,472.0 1,133.2 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101262 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

352This analysis was conducted using data as of 

July 1, 2024. USCIS updated the analysis with the 

latest available data, which included operational 

and policy changes since the data used in 

conducting the analysis for the 2024 TFR, such as 

changes in filing behavior, backlogs, and 

adjudicative capacity. In this analysis, USCIS 

evaluates the affected population (i.e., those 

expected to lapse without an increase in the 

automatic extension period) during a period 

between July 2023 and March 2026 and therefore 

it contains effects of some of the population affected 

TABLE 17—MONETIZED EXPECTED VALUE IMPACTS FOR FY 2023 THROUGH FY 2027—Continued 

[$ millions, 2023] 

FY 

3. High end bound 

FY Stabilized 

earnings 

Labor turnover Total Taxes 

2023 ................................................................................................................. $103.1 $43.6 $146.7 $10.9 

2024 ................................................................................................................. 2,415.4 1,022.7 3,438.0 254.9 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 8,093.8 3,427.0 11,520.7 854.0 

2026 ................................................................................................................. 11,493.7 4,866.5 16,360.2 1,212.8 

2027 ................................................................................................................. 7,060.3 2,989.4 10,049.8 745.0 

5-year Total .............................................................................................. 29,166.2 12,349.2 41,515.4 3,077.5 

B. 2% discount 

4. Low end bound 

FY Stabilized 

earnings 

Labor turnover Total impacts Estimated 

taxes 

2023 ................................................................................................................. $8.8 $1.1 $9.9 $0.9 

2024 ................................................................................................................. 202.1 24.7 226.8 21.3 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 664.0 81.2 745.2 70.1 

2026 ................................................................................................................. 924.4 113.0 1,037.4 97.5 

2027 ................................................................................................................. 556.7 68.1 624.8 58.7 

5-year Total .............................................................................................. 2,356.1 288.0 2,644.1 248.6 

Annualized ................................................................................................ 499.9 61.1 561.0 52.7

5. Average 

FY Stabilized 

earnings 

Labor turnover Total impacts Estimated 

taxes 

2023 ................................................................................................................. $37.2 $12.9 $50.1 $3.9 

2024 ................................................................................................................. 854.8 297.1 1,151.9 90.2 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 2,808.3 976.1 3,784.4 296.3 

2026 ................................................................................................................. 3,909.8 1,358.9 5,268.7 412.6 

2027 ................................................................................................................. 2,354.6 818.4 3,173.0 248.5 

5-year Total .............................................................................................. 9,964.9 3,463.4 13,428.3 1,051.5 

Annualized ................................................................................................ 2,114.1 734.8 2,848.9 223.1 

6. High end bound 

FY Stabilized 

earnings 

Labor turnover Total impacts Estimated 

taxes 

2023 ................................................................................................................. $101.0 $42.8 $143.8 $10.7 

2024 ................................................................................................................. 2,321.6 983.0 3,304.5 245.0 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 7,626.9 3,229.3 10,856.2 804.8 

2026 ................................................................................................................. 10,618.4 4,495.9 15,114.3 1,120.4 

2027 ................................................................................................................. 6,394.8 2,707.6 9,102.4 674.8 

5-year Total .............................................................................................. 27,062.7 11,458.6 38,521.2 2,855.6 

Annualized ................................................................................................ 5,741.6 2,431.0 8,172.6 605.8 

Note: Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. 

For the discounted figures, the 

annualized amounts are the average 

annual equivalence basis. 

Table 18 shows a comparison of 

stabilized earnings and labor turnover 

between the 2024 TFR and the updated 

analysis in this final rule at a 2-percent 

discount rate (the figures apply to the 

means, as the lower and upper bounds 

are not compared).352 USCIS projected 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101263 

by the 2022 and 2024 TFRs. In contrast, the 2024 

TFR analysis estimated affected populations 

between May 2024 and March 2026 and contained 

no effects of the populations affected by the 2022 

TFR. Accordingly, the scope of the affected 

population in this analysis is larger than that 

analyzed in the 2024 TFR. 

353 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024) 

354Transfer payments are monetary payments 

from one group to another that do not affect total 

resources available to society. See OMB Regulatory 

Impact Analysis: A Primer pages 7 and 8 for further 

discussion of transfer payments and distributional 

effects. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/ 

circular-a-4_regulatory-impact-analysis-aprimer.pdf (last visited Aug. 21, 2024). 

in the 2024 TFR that, without an 

increase in the automatic extension 

period, approximately 800,000 (mean 

projection) renewal applicants would 

have been in danger of losing their 

employment authorization and/or 

documentation in the period beginning 

May 2024 and ending March 2026. 

Based on an updated analysis as of July 

1, 2024, in the absence of this rule, and 

the hypothetical absence of the 2022 

TFR and the 2024 TFR, USCIS estimates 

that approximately 388,000 (mean 

projection) renewal EAD applicants 

would experience a lapse in 

employment authorization and/or 

employment authorization 

documentation between this rule’s July 

2023 and March 2026 period of analysis. 

The decrease in projection is primarily 

attributed to an increase in officer 

completions during the time period 

between the 2024 TFR analysis (October 

2023) and this analysis (July 2024), 

specifically for C08 and C09 renewal 

EAD filings. The decrease in the 

estimate for renewal EAD applicants 

that would experience a lapse 

subsequently decreased monetized 

estimates for stabilized earnings and 

labor turnover in this analysis. 

TABLE 18—SUMMARY OF 5-YEAR TOTAL STABILIZED EARNINGS AND LABOR TURNOVER AT A 2-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

[$2022–23] 

2024 TFR 

($2022) 353

2024 TFR 

($2023) 

2024 TFR 

Update 

($2023) 

$ Difference % Difference 

Stabilized earnings ............................................................... $29,112.6 $30,044.2 $9,964.9 ¥$20,079.3 ¥66.8 

Labor turnover ...................................................................... 5,177.0 5,342.7 3,463.4 ¥1,879.3 ¥35.2 

Total .............................................................................. 34,289.5 35,386.9 13,428.3 ¥21,958.6 ¥62.1 

Note: The 2024 TFR was indexed to 2023 dollars using the BLS, ‘‘Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U): U.S.

city average, all items, by month,’’ https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202406.pdf (last visited Aug. 6, 2024). July 

2022: 296.276, July 2023: 305.691. Calculations: 305.691/296.276 = 1.032; $29,112.6 × 1.032 = $30,044.2; $5,117.0 × 1.032 = $5,342.7. 

Note: Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. 

d. Module D. Other Impacts 

As explained previously, DHS does 

not know what the next best alternative 

would have been for businesses had 

employment authorization lapsed for 

affected EAD holders. Accordingly, DHS 

does not know the proportion of the 

stabilized labor earnings estimates 

developed above that would represent 

cost savings to businesses for prevented 

lost productivity or are prevented 

transfer payments from affected EAD 

holders to replacement labor.354 These 

effects are very difficult to quantify and 

could be influenced by multiple factors, 

but we will address the possibilities at 

a conceptual level. 

In the cases where, in the absence of 

an increase in the automatic extension 

period, businesses would have been 

able to easily find reasonable labor 

substitutes for the renewal EAD 

applicants, then the impact of these 

rules is preventing a distributional 

impact where the earnings of affected 

EAD holders would be transferred to 

others, who might fill in for (and 

presumably replace) the renewal EAD 

applicants during their earnings lapse. 

The portion of the total estimate of 

stabilized income that would represent 

this prevented transfer payment will 

depend on the ability of businesses to 

have found replacement labor in the 

case of an EAD lapse. 

In the cases where, in the absence of 

an increase in the automatic extension 

period, businesses would not have been 

able to easily find reasonable labor 

substitutes for the renewal EAD 

applicants, then the impact of these 

rules is preventing an associated loss of 

productivity for employers. Therefore, 

the portion of the total estimate of 

stabilized income that would represent 

cost savings to employers for prevented 

productivity losses will depend on the 

ability of businesses to have found 

replacement labor in the case of an EAD 

lapse. In this case, the increase in the 

automatic extension period may also 

result in additional cost savings to 

employers for prevented profit losses 

and having to choose the next best 

alternative to the EAD holder. 

DHS does not know what this nextbest alternative may be for those 

companies. However, if the replacement 

candidate would have been 

substitutable for the affected renewal 

EAD applicant to a high degree, the 

labor performed by the new candidate 

would not have resulted in changes to 

profits or productivity. Accordingly, if 

the replacement labor is highly 

substitutable, we wouldn’t expect cost 

savings for productivity loss as a result 

of employing the next available 

alternative for labor. If, however, the 

replacement labor is a poor substitute 

and would have decreased productivity, 

then preventing the EAD from lapsing 

will preserve that productivity. 

The above discussion involves two 

important points: If employers replaced 

individuals who faced a lapse in their 

employment authorization and/or EAD 

validity after the automatic extension 

with others in the labor force, then once 

employment eligibility and the EAD was 

eventually reauthorized the EAD holder 

would need to conduct a new search for 

a new job. They would thus incur direct 

costs associated with seeking new 

employment. As discussed above, DHS 

was not able to monetize these potential 

additional costs. 

DHS does not believe an increase in 

the automatic extension period will 

adversely affect the U.S. labor market. 

The 2022 and 2024 TFRs, as well as this 

rule, extend current employment 

authorization from up to 180 days to up 

to 540 days for individuals who are at 

risk of losing it solely because of USCIS 

processing delays; the increase in the 

automatic extension period does not 

grant new work authorization to 

additional persons. DHS expects that 

this change will help to partially 

alleviate the adverse effects that a lapse 

in employment authorization would 

have on affected current employmentVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Dec 12, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13DER2.SGM 13DER2

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101264 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

355We note that the applicable renewal EAD 

approval rate from FY 2022 for A03, A05, A07, A08, 

A10, A12, A17, A18, C08, C09, C10, C16, C19, C20, 

C22, C24, C26, and C31 filings was 88 percent. The 

calculation was made from EAD filing data. See 

Form I–765, Application for Employment 

Authorization, All Receipts, Approvals, Denials 

Grouped by Eligibility Category and Filing Type, FY 

2023, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ 

document/data/i-765_application_for_

employment_fy23.pdf (last updated Nov. 2023). Due 

to the increase in backlogs, the renewal EAD 

approval rate was calculated as the number of 

approvals divided by the sum of approvals and 

denials, rather than the receipts basis. Calculation: 

562,209 ÷ (562,209 + 77,461) = 0.88. We note that 

this percent may be understated because some C09 

denials are denied because the applicant’s Form I– 

485 was approved, and they are now a lawful 

permanent resident; setting aside C09 adjudications 

entirely, the renewal EAD approval rate would be 

92%. Calculation: 516,866 ÷ (516,866 + 42,100) = 

0.92. Further, the table in the above link notes that 

‘‘[s]ome applications approved or denied may have 

been received in previous reporting periods.’’ It is 

possible that an approval or denial reported in this 

table for FY 2023 could have been from a renewal 

EAD application submitted in FY 2022. 

356BLS, Economic News Release, ‘‘The 

Employment Situation—June 2024, Summary Table 

A, Household Data, seasonally adjusted, Civilian 

labor force,’’ www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ 

empsit_07052024.htm (July 5, 2024). 

357Calculation: 460,000 ÷ 168,009,000 = 0.0027. 

358Calculation: Likeliest lapse rate =11.9%; 

1¥11.9% = 88.1%; 468,000 × 0.881 = 412,308. 

359Renewal EAD applications are filed by the 

noncitizen, so employers do not know when or if 

the application is approved. Employers usually 

must rely on the employee to provide the 

information. 

360See 89 FR 24648 (Apr. 8, 2024). 

authorized individuals and their 

employers. In FY 2023, 88 percent of 

EAD renewals for affected categories 

were approved 355 and all renewals, by 

definition, had a previously approved 

initial EAD application. According to 

the most recent data (applicable to June 

2024), the U.S. labor force stands at 

168,009,000.356 The maximum 

population of about 468,000 affected 

individuals during the period of 

analysis represents 0.30 percent 357 of 

the national labor force, approximately 

412,000 of which would potentially not 

lapse as a result of the actions taken.358

Without a change in the automatic 

extension period, EAD holders who 

remain eligible for employment 

authorization would encounter delays 

in renewal EADs and either be 

unauthorized to work for periods of 

time or lack documentation reflecting 

their employment authorization. This 

change does not make additional 

categories eligible for employment 

authorization; it simply permanently 

increases the 180-day timeframe for 

those already eligible for an automatic 

extension. It mitigates the risk that these 

EAD holders will experience gaps in 

employment authorization and/or EAD 

validity as a result of USCIS processing 

delays. Accordingly, stabilized earnings 

for these EAD holders may also relieve 

the support network of the applicants 

for any monetary or other support that 

would have been necessary during such 

a period of unemployment. This 

network could include public and 

private entities, and it may comprise 

family and personal friends, legal 

services providers and advisors, 

religious and charity organizations, 

State and local public institutions, 

educational providers, and 

nongovernmental organizations. DHS 

believes these impacts would accrue as 

cost-savings to the noncitizen EAD 

holders and their families. 

3. Alternatives Considered 

As described earlier in this preamble, 

DHS again explored the option of 

increasing the automatic extension 

period to at least up to 730 days. 

However, many of the same risks 

outlined in the 2024 TFR still remain, 

including risks that would potentially 

have an associated burden or cost to 

employers: 

• TPS designations and associated 

EAD benefits cannot be granted for 

longer than 18 months (which is 

approximately 540 days). 

• Having up to 730 days of an 

automatic extension period for one 

group of renewal EAD applicants, and 

540 days for others increases the risk of 

confusion. Employers would be 

required to understand and adhere to 

additional different extension periods 

depending on the eligibility category on 

the EAD the worker possessed and 

when and under what category the 

renewal EAD application was filed. 

• The longer the period of time before 

an employer has to reverify a noncitizen 

employee whose employment 

authorization and/or documentation is 

automatically extended, the greater the 

risk they could unknowingly employ 

someone whose employment 

authorization has ended.359

• Both employers and applicants are 

already familiar either with the up to 

540-day extension under the 2022 and 

2024 TFRs. The up to 540-day extension 

provided under the 2022 TFR continues 

to be effective for some applicants until 

October 2025 and the 2024 TFR is 

effective for some applicants until 

September 2027; having other validity 

periods in this Final Rule may be 

confusing to applicants and employers. 

• Form I–797C, Notice of Action, the 

document that the renewal EAD 

applicant must present along with the 

expired or expiring eligible EAD to 

show that the EAD has been 

automatically extended, is a non-secure 

document and DHS prefers shorter 

validity periods for temporary 

documents that are non-secure.360

DHS provides Table 19 to elucidate 

the share and number of EADs that 

could lapse at the baseline population 

value (388,000) under different 

automatic extension periods. 

TABLE 19—APPROXIMATE EAD LAPSES UNDER DIFFERENT EXTENSIONS

Extension days 

(above current 180 days) 

Total automatic 

extension days 

(including current 

180 days) 

Approximate 

share that could 

lapse 

(percent) 

Approximate 

number that 

could lapse 

0 ................................................................................................................................. 180 100 388,000 

30 ............................................................................................................................... 210 85 331,000 

60 ............................................................................................................................... 240 71 276,000 

90 ............................................................................................................................... 270 58 225,000 

120 ............................................................................................................................. 300 47 183,000 

150 ............................................................................................................................. 330 37 145,000 

180 ............................................................................................................................. 360 28 108,000 

210 ............................................................................................................................. 390 21 81,000 

360 ............................................................................................................................. 540 12 46,000 

540 ............................................................................................................................. 720 1 3,000 

Source: USCIS analysis of renewal EAD filing data, provided by DHS, USCIS, OPQ, Claims 3 database; data provided July 11, 2024.


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101265 

361From Table 19, the approximate number that 

could lapse at a 540-day automatic extension is 

46,000 and 3,000 at a 720-day automatic extension. 

46,000 + 3,000 = 49,000. 49,000 ÷ 388,000 = 0.126. 

362See 89 FR at 24650–24654 (explaining the 

basis for bypassing notice and comment for the 

2024 TFR). 

363Small Business Administration, A Guide for 

Government Agencies: How to Comply with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, August 2017, page 22, 

https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 

2019/07/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf 

(last visited September 26, 2024). 

364See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a). 

365See BLS, ‘‘Historical Consumer Price Index for 

All Urban Consumers (CPI–U): U.S. city average, all 

items, by month,’’ https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/ 

supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202406.pdf (last 

visited Aug. 6, 2024). Calculation of inflation: (1) 

Calculate the average monthly CPI–U for the 

reference year (1995) and the current year (2023); 

(2) Subtract reference year CPI–U from current year 

CPI–U; (3) Divide the difference of the reference 

year CPI–U and current year CPI–U by the reference 

year CPI–U; (4) Multiply by 100 = [(Average 

monthly CPI–U for 2023¥Average monthly CPI–U 

for 1995) ÷ (Average monthly CPI–U for 1995)] × 

100 = [(304.702¥152.383) ÷ 152.383] = (152.319/ 

152.383) = 0.99958001 × 100 = 99.96 percent = 100 

percent (rounded). Calculation of inflation-adjusted 

value: $100 million in 1995 dollars × 2.00 = $200 

million in 2023 dollars. 

366The term ‘‘Federal mandate’’ means a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private 

sector mandate. See 2 U.S.C. 1502(1), 658(6). 

367See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3). 

368See 5 U.S.C. 808(2). 

Even with the increase in the 

automatic extension period granted 

under the 2022 and 2024 TFRs an 

estimated 46,000 EADs could still lapse 

under status quo conditions. We project 

that the ‘‘near term’’ cases that could 

still lapse during July through December 

2024 are applications filed under the 

2022 TFR and have been pending at 

least 18 months after their EAD 

expiration date. Extensions below 540 

days would stand to generate larger 

numbers of potential lapses. Therefore, 

DHS did not consider lower extensions 

as alternatives. 

DHS has not quantified the net 

benefits from an alternative of granting 

extensions greater than 540 days to all 

or some EAD categories. Qualitatively, 

although Table 19 shows the 

approximate number of EADs that could 

lapse is further reduced using a 720-day 

bridge (540-day extension + the existing 

180 days) and thus attendant benefits 

would be greater, policy and operational 

constraints exist. As discussed earlier in 

this preamble, a longer automatic 

extension period would result in a 

larger number of employers using 720 or 

730 days as their Form I–9, Employment 

Eligibility Verification, reverification 

date, even though only about thirteen 

percent of affected applicants could 

need longer than 540 days.361

Additionally, TPS designations, and 

thus associated-EAD benefits are most 

often granted for 18 months 

(approximately 540 days) and cannot be 

granted for longer. Furthermore, the 

Department believes that a longer period 

could cause confusion and potential 

mistakes by employers conducting 

employment eligibility verifications. 

While a hypothetical carve out might 

allow for all non-TPS EAD extensions of 

greater duration, DHS has limited 

information on the potential burdens 

such a carve out could create by 

deviating from the 540-day extension 

that applicants and their U.S. employers 

are familiar with from the 2022 and 

2024 TFRs. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires 

an agency to prepare and make available 

to the public a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions). 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. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a). DHS 

did not issue a notice of proposed 

rulemaking for this action.362 Therefore, 

a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required for this rule. Nonetheless, DHS 

has determined that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This rule directly regulates individual 

noncitizens eligible for an automatic 

extension period with a timely filed 

EAD renewal application. The rule 

indirectly impacts certain employers if, 

in the future, processing times increase 

beyond the current 180-day automatic 

extension period. The longer automatic 

extension period provided by this rule 

will prevent adverse impacts to 

employers of affected individuals that 

would result from a lapse in the 

employee’s employment authorization. 

However, the RFA’s regulatory 

flexibility analysis requirements apply 

only to small entities subject to the 

requirements of the rule.363 The 

individual noncitizens subject to the 

requirements of this rule are not small 

entities as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 

Accordingly, DHS certifies that this rule 

does not have a significant economic 

impact to a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

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. 

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 the agency 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.364 The inflation adjusted 

value of $100 million in 1995 is 

approximately $200 million in 2023 

based on the Consumer Price Index for 

All Urban Consumers (CPI–U).365 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.366 The requirements of 

title II of UMRA, therefore, do not 

apply, and DHS has not prepared a 

statement under UMRA. 

D. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(Congressional Review Act) 

Under the Congressional Review Act 

(CRA), enacted as part of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 

121, the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

determined that this final rule meets the 

criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The CRA 

generally provides a 60-day delayed 

effective date for such rules 367 but an 

agency can bypass that requirement ‘‘for 

good cause.’’ 368 Because this rule makes 

permanent the 2024 TFR that would 

otherwise apply for many months before 

this final rule has a practical effect, DHS 

has for good cause found that the 60-day 

delay typically required under 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(3)(A) is unnecessary. Therefore, 

consistent with 5 U.S.C. 808(2), this rule 

will become effective on January 13, 

2025. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This final rule does 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 E.O. 13132, 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), this rule 

does not have sufficient federalism 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
101266 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

369The Instruction Manual contains DHS’s 

procedures for implementing NEPA and was issued 

November 6, 2014, available at https://

www.dhs.gov/publication/directive-023-01-rev-01- 

and-instruction-manual-023-01-001-01-rev-01-andcatex (last visited Jul. 25, 2024). 

370 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. 

371 40 CFR 1507.3(e)(2)(ii) and 1501.4. 

372 See Appendix A, Table 1. 

373 Instruction Manual 023–01 at V.B(2)(a)–(c). 

374 Public Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a federalism summary impact 

statement. 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This final rule was drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with E.O. 

12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final 

rule was written to provide a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct and was 

reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguities, so as to 

minimize litigation and undue burden 

on the Federal court system. DHS has 

determined that this rule meets the 

applicable standards provided in 

section 3 of E.O. 12988. 

G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This final rule does not have Tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it would not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

Tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes. 

H. National Environmental Policy Act 

DHS and its components analyze final 

actions to determine whether the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., applies 

to them and, if so, what degree of 

analysis is required. DHS Directive 023– 

01 Rev. 01 and Instruction Manual 023– 

01–001–01 Rev. 01 (Instruction 

Manual) 369 establish the policies and 

procedures that DHS and its 

components use to comply with NEPA 

and the Council of Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations for 

implementing NEPA.370

The CEQ regulations allow 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 

(EA) or environmental impact statement 

(EIS).371 The Instruction Manual, 

Appendix A lists the DHS Categorical 

Exclusions.372

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.373

This rule is strictly administrative and 

procedural and amends DHS’s existing 

regulations at 8 CFR 274a.13(d) to 

permanently increase the period that the 

employment authorization and/or 

employment authorization 

documentation of certain eligible 

renewal EAD applicants are 

automatically extended while their 

renewal applications remain pending 

with USCIS. More specifically, this rule 

provides that the automatic extension 

period applicable to expiring 

employment authorization and/or EADs 

for certain applicants who have filed 

renewal EAD applications will be 

permanently increased from up to 180 

days to up to 540 days. 

DHS has reviewed the 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. This final rule is limited to 

increasing the automatic extension 

period applicable to expiring 

employment authorization and/or EADs 

for certain renewal applicants who have 

filed a renewal EAD application and is 

not part of a larger DHS rulemaking 

action. 

Accordingly, DHS finds that the 

promulgation of this final rule’s 

amendments 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. 

I. Family Assessment 

DHS has reviewed this rule in line 

with the requirements of section 654 of 

the Treasury General Appropriations 

Act, 1999.374 DHS has systematically 

reviewed the criteria specified in 

section 654(c)(1), 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; (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 well-being, then the agency 

must provide an adequate rationale for 

its implementation. 

DHS has determined that the 

implementation of this regulation will 

not negatively affect family well-being 

and will not have any impact on the 

autonomy and integrity of the family as 

an institution. DHS believes, similar to 

the 2022 and 2024 EAD TFR, that this 

final rule will create positive effects on 

the family by mitigating uncertainty 

about continued employment 

authorization for renewal applicants. 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13, all agencies 

are required to submit to OMB, for 

review and approval, any reporting 

requirements inherent in a rule. This 

rule does not impose any new reporting 

or recordkeeping requirements under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

However, this rule requires the use of 

USCIS Form I–765. This form has 

previously been approved by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

The OMB control number for this 

information collection is 1615–0040. As 

this is a final rule that only will 

permanently increase the duration of an 

automatic extension of employment 

authorization and EADs, USCIS does 

not anticipate a need to update the Form 

I–765 or to collect additional 

information beyond that already 

collected on the application Form. 

VII. List of Subject and Regulatory 

Amendments 

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 274a 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Employment, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, DHS amends 8 CFR 

part 274a as follows: 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101267 

PART 274a—CONTROL OF 

EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 274a 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1105a, 

1158, 1184, 1254a, 1324a; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 

Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 

2461 note); Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 599 (28 

U.S.C. 2461 note); 8 CFR part 2. 

■ 2. Amend § 274a.2 by revising the 

third sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(vii) to 

read as follows: 

§ 274a.2 Verification of identity and 

employment authorization 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) * * * If an Employment 

Authorization Document (Form I–766) 

as described in 8 CFR 274a.13(d) was 

presented for completion of the Form I– 

9 in combination with a Notice of 

Action (Form I–797C), stating that the 

original Employment Authorization 

Document has been automatically 

extended, reverification applies upon 

the expiration of the automatically 

extended validity period under 8 CFR 

274a.13(d) and not upon the expiration 

date indicated on the face of the 

individual’s Employment Authorization 

Document. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 274a.13 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) 

introductory text, and (d)(1)(i); 

■ b. Revising and republishing 

paragraph (d)(3); and 

■ c. Removing paragraphs (d)(5) and 

(d)(6). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 274a.13 Application for employment 

authorization. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Automatic extension of 

Employment Authorization Documents. 

Except as otherwise provided in this 

chapter or by law, notwithstanding 

§ 274a.14(a)(1)(i), the validity period of 

an expired or expiring Employment 

Authorization Document (Form I–766) 

and, for aliens who are not employment 

authorized incident to status, also the 

attendant employment authorization, 

will be automatically extended for an 

additional period not to exceed 540 

days if the request for renewal meets all 

of the criteria listed in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and 

was pending on May 4, 2022, or was 

properly filed on or after May 4, 2022. 

For renewal applications properly filed 

and adjudicated before May 4, 2022, the 

validity period of such an expired or 

expiring Employment Authorization 

Document (Form I–766) and, for aliens 

who were not employment authorized 

incident to status, also the attendant 

employment authorization, was 

automatically extended for an 

additional period not to exceed 180 

days if the request for renewal met all 

of the criteria listed in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. The 

first day of the automatic extension 

under this paragraph is the day after the 

expiration date shown on the face of the 

expired or expiring Employment 

Authorization Document (Form I–766). 

To be eligible for the automatic 

extension under this paragraph, the 

request must be: 

(i) Properly filed on a form designated 

by USCIS and as provided by form 

instructions before the expiration date 

shown on the face of the Employment 

Authorization Document, or, for 

Temporary Protected Status-related 

Employment Authorization Documents 

(EADs), during the re-registration filing 

period described in the applicable 

Federal Register notice; 

* * * * * 

(3) Termination. For renewal requests 

pending on May 4, 2022, or properly 

filed on or after May 4, 2022, the period 

authorized by paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section automatically terminates the 

earlier of up to 540 days after the 

expiration date of the Employment 

Authorization Document (Form I–766), 

or upon issuance of notification of a 

decision denying the renewal request. 

For renewal applications that were 

properly filed and adjudicated before 

May 4, 2022, the period authorized by 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section 

automatically terminated upon the 

earlier of up to 180 days after the 

expiration date of the Employment 

Authorization Document (Form I–766) 

or issuance of notification of a decision 

denying the renewal request. Nothing in 

paragraph (d) of this section will affect 

DHS’s ability to otherwise terminate any 

employment authorization or 

Employment Authorization Document, 

or extension period for such 

employment or document, by written 

notice to the applicant, by notice to a 

class of aliens published in the Federal 

Register, or as provided by statute or 

regulation including 8 CFR 274a.14. 

* * * * * 

Alejandro N. Mayorkas, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28584 Filed 12–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2