This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

47025 

Vol. 86, No. 160 

Monday, August 23, 2021 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

8 CFR Part 212 

[CIS No. 2696–21; DHS Docket No. USCIS– 

2021–0013] 

RIN 1615–AC74 

Public Charge Ground of 

Inadmissibility 

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, DHS. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking and notice of virtual public 

listening sessions. 

SUMMARY: Under provisions of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) administers the public charge 

ground of inadmissibility as it pertains 

to applicants for admission and 

adjustment of status. DHS is publishing 

this advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) to seek broad 

public feedback on the public charge 

ground of inadmissibility that will 

inform its development of a future 

regulatory proposal. DHS intends to 

propose a rule that will be fully 

consistent with law; that will reflect 

empirical evidence to the extent 

relevant and available; that will be clear, 

fair, and comprehensible for officers as 

well as for noncitizens and their 

families; that will lead to fair and 

consistent adjudications and thus avoid 

unequal treatment of the similarly 

situated; and that will not otherwise 

unduly impose barriers on noncitizens 

seeking admission to or adjustment of 

status in the United States. DHS also 

intends to ensure that its regulatory 

proposal does not cause undue fear 

among immigrant communities or 

present other obstacles to immigrants 

and their families accessing public 

services available to them, particularly 

in light of the COVID–19 pandemic and 

the resulting long-term public health 

and economic impacts in the United 

States. DHS welcomes input from 

individuals, organizations, government 

entities and agencies, and all other 

interested members of the public. 

Comments will be most helpful if they 

clearly identify the questions to which 

they are responding, offer concrete 

proposals, and/or articulate support or 

opposition to current or prior DHS 

public charge policies, and cite to 

relevant laws, regulations, data, and/or 

studies. DHS is also providing notice of 

public virtual listening sessions on the 

public charge ground of inadmissibility 

and this ANPRM. 

DATES: Written comments and related 

material must be submitted on or before 

October 22, 2021. 

Listening Sessions Dates and Themes: 

The virtual public listening sessions 

(which will be opportunities for the 

public to speak directly to DHS on the 

questions raised in this ANPRM) will be 

held on— 

Date/time Theme 

September 14, 2021 

at 2:00 pm ET.

Listening Session for 

the General Public. 

October 5, 2021 at 

2:00 pm ET.

State, Territorial, 

Local, and Tribal 

Benefits Granting 

Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations 

Only. 

Registration to comment date: For an 

opportunity to provide oral comments 

during the virtual public listening 

sessions, you must register by 12:00 

p.m. (noon) Eastern Time (ET) on the 

Sunday before the listening session in 

question. For registration instructions, 

see the Public Participation section 

below. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this ANPRM, identified by DHS 

Docket No. USCIS–2021–0013, through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

website instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Comments submitted in a manner 

other than the one listed above, 

including emails or letters sent to DHS 

or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS) officials, will not be 

considered comments on the ANPRM 

and may not be considered by DHS in 

informing future rulemaking. Please 

note that DHS and USCIS cannot accept 

any comments that are hand-delivered 

or couriered. In addition, USCIS cannot 

accept comments contained on any form 

of digital media storage devices, such as 

CDs/DVDs and USB drives. USCIS is not 

accepting mailed comments. If you 

cannot submit your comment by using 

https://www.regulations.gov, please 

contact Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 

Regulatory Coordination Division, 

Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Department of Homeland Security, by 

telephone at (240) 721–3000 for 

alternate instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Parker, Branch Chief, 

Residence and Admissibility Branch, 

Residence and Naturalization Division, 

Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

DHS, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp 

Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 

721–3000 (this is not a toll-free 

number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Public Participation 

II. Background 

A. Legal Authority 

B. Regulatory History 

III. Request for Information 

A. Purpose and Definition of Public Charge 

B. Prospective Nature of the Public Charge 

Inadmissibility Determination 

C. Statutory Factors 

D. Affidavit of Support Under Section 

213A of the INA 

E. Other Factors to Consider 

F. Public Benefits Considered 

G. Previous Rulemaking Efforts 

H. Bond and Bond Procedures 

I. Specific Questions for State, Territorial, 

Local, and Tribal Benefit Granting 

Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations 

Table of Abbreviations 

AFM—USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual 

ANPRM—Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

BIA—Board of Immigration Appeals 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS—Department of Homeland Security 

DOS—Department of State 

DOJ—Department of Justice 

FAM—Department of State Foreign Affairs 

Manual 

HCV—Housing Choice Voucher 

HSA—Homeland Security Act 

IIRIRA—Illegal Immigration Reform and 

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 

INA—Immigration and Nationality Act 

INS—Immigration and Naturalization Service 

IRCA—Immigration Reform and Control Act 

LPR—Lawful Permanent Resident 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47026 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1See Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 

U.S.C. 101 et seq. (Nov. 25, 2002). 

2See INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). 

3See INA section 245(j), 8 U.S.C. 1255(j); 8 CFR 

245.11; INA section 245(h)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 

1255(h)(2)(B); INA 212(d)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 

1182(d)(3)(A). 

4See INA section 212(a)(4)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4)(B)(i). 

5When required, the applicant must submit an 

Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA 

(Form I–864 or Form I–864EZ). 

6See INA section 212(a)(4)(C), (D), 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4)(C), (D). 

7See INA section 213, 8 U.S.C. 1183. 

8See Matter of Viado, 19 I&N Dec. 252 (BIA 

1985). 

9See Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) Ch. 

61.1(b), available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/ 

default/files/document/policy-manual-afm/afm61- 

external.pdf (last visited June 4, 2021). 

10Public Law 104–208, div. C, 110 Stat 3009–546. 

DHS notes that a few months after IIRIRA was 

enacted, Congress enacted the Personal 

Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law 

104–193, 11 Stat. 2105, which included a statement 

of national policy regarding immigration and 

welfare generally. The statement provides, among 

other things, that ‘‘it continues to be the 

immigration policy of the United States that aliens 

within the Nation’s borders not depend on public 

resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on 

their own capabilities and the resources of their 

families, their sponsors, and private organizations, 

and the availability of public benefits not constitute 

an incentive for immigration to the United States.’’ 

See 8 U.S.C. 1601. 

11 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Due to a printing 

error, the Federal Register version of the field 

guidance appears to be dated ‘‘March 26, 1999’’ 

even though the guidance was actually signed May 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

PRWORA—Personal Responsibility and 

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 

1996 

SNAP—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program 

SSI—Supplemental Security Income 

USCIS—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

I. Public Participation 

DHS invites all interested parties to 

submit written data, views, comments, 

and arguments on all aspects of this 

ANPRM. Comments must be submitted 

in English, or an English translation 

must be provided. DHS welcomes 

comments on any aspects discussed in 

this ANPRM and has identified in 

Section ‘‘III. Request for Information’’ of 

this document the matters on which 

DHS will find public comments most 

helpful to its future rulemaking. 

Registration for listening sessions: To 

register and receive information on how 

to attend the virtual public listening 

sessions, please go to: https://

www.uscis.gov/outreach/upcomingnational-engagements. 

Instructions for comments: All 

submissions may be posted, without 

change, to the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at https://www.regulations.gov, 

and may include any personal 

information you provide. Therefore, 

submitting this information makes it 

public. You may wish to consider 

limiting the amount of personal 

information that you provide in any 

voluntary public comment submission 

you make to DHS. DHS may withhold 

information provided in comments from 

public viewing that it determines may 

impact the privacy of an individual or 

is offensive. For additional information, 

please read the Privacy and Security 

Notice available at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket and 

to read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, referencing DHS 

Docket No. USCIS–2021–0013. You may 

also sign up for email alerts on the 

online docket to be notified when 

comments are posted or a final rule is 

published. 

II. Background 

A. Legal Authority 

The authority of the Secretary of 

Homeland Security (Secretary) for 

issuing regulations is found in various 

sections of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et 

seq.), and the Homeland Security Act of 

2002 (HSA). 1 Section 102 of the HSA, 

6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103 of the 

INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, charge the Secretary 

with the administration and 

enforcement of the immigration laws of 

the United States. In addition to 

establishing the Secretary’s general 

authority for the administration and 

enforcement of immigration laws, 

section 103 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, 

enumerates various related authorities, 

including the Secretary’s authority to 

establish such regulations, prescribe 

such forms of bond, issue such 

instructions, and perform such other 

acts as the Secretary deems necessary 

for carrying out such authority. 

Section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4), provides that an applicant 

for a visa, admission, or adjustment of 

status is inadmissible if he or she is 

likely at any time to become a public 

charge. The public charge ground of 

inadmissibility, therefore, applies to 

anyone applying for a visa to come to 

the United States temporarily or 

permanently, for admission to the 

United States, or for adjustment of 

status to that of a lawful permanent 

resident.2 Some categories of 

noncitizens are exempt from the public 

charge inadmissibility ground, while 

others may apply for a waiver of the 

public charge inadmissibility ground.3

The INA does not define the term 

‘‘public charge.’’ It does, however, 

specify that when determining whether 

a noncitizen is likely at any time to 

become a public charge, consular 

officers and immigration officers must, 

at a minimum, consider the noncitizen’s 

age; health; family status; assets, 

resources, and financial status; and 

education and skills.4 Additionally, 

section 212(a)(4)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B)(ii), permits the 

consular officer or the immigration 

officer to consider any Affidavit of 

Support Under Section 213A of the INA 

submitted on the applicant’s behalf 

when determining whether the 

applicant is likely at any time to become 

a public charge.5 Most noncitizens 

seeking family-based immigrant visas or 

adjustment of status, and some 

noncitizens seeking employment-based 

immigrant visas or adjustment of status, 

must submit a sufficient Affidavit of 

Support Under Section 213A of the INA 

in order to avoid being found 

inadmissible under section 212(a)(4) of 

the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).6

In general, under section 213 of the 

INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183, the Secretary has 

the discretion to admit into the United 

States a noncitizen who is determined 

to be inadmissible based only on the 

public charge ground upon the giving of 

a suitable and proper bond or 

undertaking approved by the Secretary.7

The purpose of issuing a public charge 

bond is to ensure that the noncitizen 

will not become a public charge in the 

future.8 Since the introduction of the 

Affidavit of Support Under Section 

213A of the INA, the use of public 

charge bonds has decreased, and USCIS 

does not currently administer a public 

charge bond process.9

Section 235 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225, 

addresses the inspection of applicants 

for admission, including admissibility 

determinations of such applicants. 

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

generally establishes eligibility criteria 

for adjustment of status to that of a 

lawful permanent resident. 

B. Regulatory History 

The public charge ground of 

inadmissibility has been the subject of 

numerous judicial and administrative 

decisions, as well as administrative 

guidance and regulations. On May 26, 

1999, soon after enactment of the Illegal 

Immigration Reform and Immigrant 

Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 

which amended the public charge 

ground of inadmissibility,10 INS issued 

Interim Field Guidance on Deportability 

and Inadmissibility on Public Charge 

Grounds (1999 Interim Field 

Guidance).11 This guidance identified 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47027 

20, 1999, became effective May 21, 1999 and was 

published in the Federal Register on May 26, 1999. 

12See Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public 

Charge Grounds, 64 FR 28676 (May 26, 1999). 

13See 9 FAM 40.41. 

14See 9 FAM 302.8–2(B)(2), Determining 

‘‘Totality of Circumstances,’’ (g) Public Charge 

Bonds, available at https://fam.state.gov/fam/ 

09fam/09fam030208.html. Note that on January 3, 

2018, DOS amended its FAM guidance, which 

retained the definitions and framework from the 

prior guidance, but changed the manner in which 

DOS evaluated the Affidavit of Support Under 

Section 213A of the INA as well as how it 

considered the receipt of non-cash benefits by 

applicants, sponsors, and family members. 

15See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019); see also 84 

FR 52357 (Oct. 2, 2019) (making corrections). In 

October 2019, DOS issued a conforming rule. See 

84 FR 54996 (Oct. 11, 2019). 

16See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019). 

17See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019). 

18See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019). For example, 

under that rule, public benefits did not include 

benefits received by a person who, at the time of 

receipt, filing the application for admission or 

adjustment of status, or adjudication, was enlisted 

in the U.S. Armed Forces, serving in active duty or 

in the Ready Reserve component of the U.S. Armed 

Forces, or benefits received by the spouse or child 

of such a service member. Moreover, under that 

rule, public benefits did not include benefits 

received by children of U.S. citizens whose lawful 

admission for permanent residence would result in 

automatic acquisition of U.S. citizenship. 

19See INA section 212(a)(4)(A), 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4)(A). 

20The Declaration of Self-Sufficiency 

requirement only applied to adjustment of status 

applicants and not to applicants for admission at a 

port of entry. 

21See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019). The 2019 

Final Rule also contained provisions that would 

render certain nonimmigrants ineligible for 

extension of stay or change of status if they received 

one or more public benefits for more than 12 

months in the aggregate within any 36-month 

period since obtaining the nonimmigrant status 

they sought to extend or change. 

22See City and Cnty. of San Francisco v. USCIS, 

408 F. Supp. 3d 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Cook 

County, Ill. v. McAleenan, 417 F. Supp. 3d 1008 

(N.D. Ill. 2019); Casa de Md. v. Trump, 414 F. Supp. 

3d 760 (D. Md. 2019) Make the Road New York v. 

Cuccinelli, 419 F. Supp. 3d 647 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); 

Wash. v. DHS, 408 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (E.D. Wash. 

2019). 

23See Wolf v. Cook County, 140 S. Ct. 681 (2020) 

(staying preliminary injunction from the Northern 

District of Illinois); DHS v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599 

(2020) (staying preliminary injunctions from the 

Southern District of New York); City and Cnty. of 

San Francisco v. USCIS, 944 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 

2019) (staying preliminary injunctions from the 

Eastern District of Washington and Northern 

District of California); CASA de Md. v. Trump, No. 

19–2222 (4th Cir. Dec. 9, 2019) (staying preliminary 

injunction from the District of Maryland). 

24See New York v. DHS, 969 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 

2020); Cook County, Ill. v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208 (7th 

Cir. 2020); City and Cnty. of San Francisco v. 

USCIS, 981 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Casa 

de Md. v. Trump, 981 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 2020) 

(granting en banc review and vacating a panel 

opinion that had reversed a preliminary injunction). 

In July 2020, the Southern District of New York 

issued a second preliminary injunction against the 

Final Rule for reasons related to the COVID–19 

pandemic, which the Second Circuit later stayed. 

See New York v. DHS, 475 F. Supp. 3d 208 

(S.D.N.Y. 2020), injunction stayed, 974 F.3d 210 (2d 

Cir. 2020). 

25See Cook County, Ill. v. Wolf, No. 19–C–6334, 

2020 WL 6393005 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2020). 

26 86 FR 14221 (Mar. 15, 2021). 

27 86 FR 8277 (Feb. 5, 2021). 

28 86 FR 8277 (Feb. 5, 2021). 

how the agency would determine if a 

person is likely to become a public 

charge under section 212(a)(4) of the 

INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), for admission 

and adjustment of status purposes, and 

whether a person is deportable as a 

public charge under section 237(a)(5) of 

the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(5). INS 

proposed promulgating these policies as 

regulations in a proposed rule issued on 

May 26, 1999, but no final rule was 

issued.12 The Department of State (DOS) 

also issued a cable to its consular 

officers at that time implementing 

similar guidance for visa adjudications, 

and similarly updated its Foreign 

Affairs Manual (FAM).13 Until 2019, 

INS and later, USCIS, followed the 1999 

Interim Field Guidance in their 

adjudications. DOS followed its public 

charge guidance as set forth in the 

FAM.14

In August 2019, DHS issued a final 

rule titled Inadmissibility on Public 

Charge Grounds (2019 Final Rule).15

The 2019 Final Rule redefined the term 

public charge to mean ‘‘an alien who 

receives one or more public benefits, as 

defined in [the 2019 Final Rule], for 

more than 12 months in the aggregate 

within any 36-month period (such that, 

for instance, receipt of two benefits in 

one month counts as two months).’’ 16 It 

also defined the term public benefit to 

include cash assistance for income 

maintenance (other than tax credits), 

SNAP, most forms of Medicaid, Section 

8 Housing Assistance under the Housing 

Choice Voucher (HCV) Program, Section 

8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and 

certain other forms of subsidized 

housing.17 The applicability of some 

provisions of the 2019 Final Rule was 

limited in certain ways, including with 

respect to active duty military members 

and their spouses and children, and for 

children in certain contexts.18

The 2019 Final Rule also established 

an evidentiary framework for USCIS’ 

consideration of public charge 

inadmissibility and explained how DHS 

would interpret the minimum statutory 

factors for determining whether, ‘‘in the 

opinion of’’ 19 the officer, a noncitizen is 

likely at any time to become a public 

charge. Specifically, for adjustment of 

status applications before USCIS, DHS 

created a new Declaration of SelfSufficiency, Form I–944, that collected 

information from applicants relevant to 

the 2019 Final Rule’s approach to the 

statutory factors.20

The 2019 Final Rule also revised DHS 

regulations governing the Secretary’s 

discretion to accept a public charge 

bond under section 213 of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1183, for those seeking 

adjustment of status.21

The 2019 Final Rule was 

preliminarily enjoined by U.S. district 

courts in the Southern District of New 

York, District of Maryland, Northern 

District of California, Eastern District of 

Washington, and Northern District of 

Illinois.22 Following a series of stays of 

the preliminary injunctions,23 DHS 

began applying the Final Rule on 

February 24, 2020. Since that time, 

preliminary injunctions against the 

Final Rule were affirmed by the Second, 

Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of 

Appeals.24 On November 2, 2020, the 

U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois issued a Rule 54(b) 

judgment vacating the rule on the 

merits.25 On November 3, 2020, the 

Seventh Circuit granted an 

administrative stay of the district court’s 

judgment and, on November 19, 2020, 

the Seventh Circuit granted a stay 

pending appeal. On March 9, 2021, DHS 

moved to dismiss its appeal before the 

Seventh Circuit, the Seventh Circuit 

dismissed the appeal, and the Rule 54(b) 

judgment went into effect. 

As a result of the judgment, DHS 

ceased to apply the 2019 Final Rule and 

instead reverted to the policy that was 

in effect prior to that rule, i.e., the 1999 

Interim Field Guidance. DHS also 

removed the regulatory text that DHS 

had promulgated in the 2019 Final Rule 

and that had been vacated by the district 

court, thereby restoring the regulatory 

text to appear as it did prior to the 2019 

Final Rule’s issuance.26

DHS notes that on February 2, 2021, 

President Biden issued Executive Order 

14012, Restoring Faith in Our Legal 

Immigration System and Strengthening 

Integration and Inclusion Efforts for 

New Americans.27 In the Executive 

Order, the President declared a national 

policy ‘‘to ensure that our laws and 

policies encourage full participation by 

immigrants, including refugees, in our 

civic life; that immigration processes 

and other benefits are delivered 

effectively and efficiently; and that the 

Federal Government eliminates sources 

of fear and other barriers that prevent 

immigrants from accessing government 

services available to them.’’ 28 The 

President also specifically directed a 

review of public charge policies by the 

Secretary of State, the Attorney General, 

and the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

in consultation with the heads of 

relevant agencies. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47028 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

29See Executive Order 14012 (Restoring Faith in 

Our Legal Immigration System and Strengthening 

Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New 

Americans), 86 FR 8277 (Feb. 5, 2021). 

30See, e.g., International Labor Organization, 

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United 

Nations, International Fund for Agricultural 

Development, and World Health Organization Joint 

Statement, ‘‘Impact of COVID–19 on people’s 

livelihoods, their health and our food systems’’ 

(2020), https://www.who.int/news/item/13-10-2020- 

impact-of-covid-19-on-people’s-livelihoods-theirhealth-and-our-food-systems (last visited Jul. 14, 

2021); Pew Research Center, A Year Into the 

Pandemic, Long-Term Financial Impact Weighs 

Heavily on Many Americans (2021), https://

www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/ 

uploads/sites/3/2021/03/PSD_03.05.21.covid_

.impact_fullreport.pdf (last visited Jul. 14, 2021); 

Health Affairs, Spillover Effects of the COVID–19 

Pandemic Could Drive Long-Term Health 

Consequences for Non-COVID–19 Patients (2020), 

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/ 

hblog20201020.566558/full/ (last visited Jul. 14, 

2021). 

31See INA section 212(a)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4)(B). 

32Consistent with Executive Orders 12866 and 

13563, DHS is committed to evidence-based 

policymaking. DHS is aware of at least one recent 

attempt to use available data and machine-learning 

tools to estimate the probability of a noncitizen 

becoming a public charge (as that term was defined 

under the 2019 Final Rule). See Mitra Akhtari et al., 

Estimating the Likelihood of Becoming a ‘‘Public 

Charge,’’ N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y Quorum 

(Aug. 2, 2021), https://nyujlpp.org/quorum/ 

estimating-the-empirical-likelihood-of-becoming-apublic-charge/ (accessed Aug. 4, 2021). DHS 

welcomes comments on the approach described in 

that paper; alternative approaches that may 

appropriately leverage available evidence and tools; 

and the potential implications of such approaches 

for this rulemaking. 

33See 64 FR 28689, 28690 (May 26, 1999). 

34See 84 FR 41292, 41502 (Aug. 14, 2019). 

35See 84 FR 41292, 41423 (Aug. 14, 2019). 

III. Request for Information 

DHS is publishing this ANPRM to 

seek broad public feedback on the 

public charge ground of inadmissibility 

that will inform DHS’s consideration of 

further rulemaking action. DHS is in the 

process of preparing a regulatory 

proposal that will be fully consistent 

with law; that will reflect empirical 

evidence to the extent relevant and 

available; that carefully considers public 

comments; that will be clear, fair, and 

comprehensible for officers as well as 

for noncitizens and their families; that 

will lead to fair and consistent 

adjudications and thus avoid unequal 

treatment of similarly situated 

individuals; and that will not otherwise 

unduly impose barriers for noncitizens 

seeking admission or adjustment of 

status in the United States.29 DHS also 

intends to ensure that any regulatory 

proposal does not unduly interfere with 

the receipt of public benefits by 

applicants and their families, 

particularly in light of the COVID–19 

pandemic and the resulting long-term 

public health and economic impacts in 

the United States.30

DHS welcomes and will carefully 

consider public input on all aspects of 

public charge inadmissibility in its 

ongoing rulemaking efforts in this area, 

consistent with its broad authority to 

administer the U.S. immigration system. 

In addition to inviting written 

comments, DHS is providing the public 

with the opportunity to participate in 

virtual public listening sessions. For 

information about those sessions, please 

see the Public Participation and Dates 

sections of this document. 

A. Purpose and Definition of Public 

Charge 

1. Background 

As noted, the INA does not define the 

term ‘‘public charge,’’ but specifies that 

consular and immigration officers must, 

at a minimum, consider the noncitizen’s 

age; health; family status; assets, 

resources, and financial status; and 

education and skills when making 

public charge inadmissibility 

determinations.31

As part of this rulemaking, DHS 

expects to codify a definition of public 

charge that (1) is consistent with law; (2) 

is easily understood; (3) is 

straightforward to apply in a fair, 

consistent, and predictable manner; (4) 

reflects consideration of relevant 

national policies; and (5) will not 

unduly impose barriers for noncitizens 

seeking admission or adjustment of 

status in the United States. 

2. Questions for the Public 

DHS welcomes public comment on all 

aspects of the topic described above, 

and would particularly benefit from 

commenters addressing one or more of 

the following questions, including the 

reasoning, data, and information behind 

their comments: 

1. How should DHS define the term 

‘‘public charge’’? 

2. What data or evidence is available 

and relevant to how DHS should define 

the term ‘‘public charge’’? 

3. How might DHS define the term 

‘‘public charge’’, or otherwise draft its 

rule, so as to minimize confusion and 

uncertainty that could lead otherwiseeligible individuals to forgo the receipt 

of public benefits? 

4. What national policies, including 

the policies referenced throughout this 

ANPRM, policies related to controlling 

paperwork burdens on the public, and 

policies related to promoting the public 

health and general well-being, should 

DHS consider when defining the term 

‘‘public charge’’ and administering the 

statute more generally? 

5. What potentially disproportionate 

negative impacts on underserved 

communities (e.g., people of color, 

persons with disabilities) could arise 

from the definition of ‘‘public charge’’ 

and how could DHS avoid or mitigate 

them? 

6. What tools and approaches can 

DHS use to ensure that future 

rulemaking is appropriately informed by 

available evidence? 32

B. Prospective Nature of the Public 

Charge Inadmissibility Determination 

1. Background 

As noted in the 1999 Interim Field 

Guidance, the existing test for 

adjudicating public charge 

inadmissibility ‘‘has been developed in 

several Service, BIA, and Attorney 

General decisions and has been codified 

in the Service regulations implementing 

the legalization provisions of the 

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 

1986. These decisions and regulations, 

and section 212(a)(4) itself, create a 

‘totality of the circumstances’ test.’’ 33

The vacated 2019 Final Rule also 

required that the public charge 

inadmissibility determination ‘‘be based 

on the totality of the alien’s 

circumstances by weighing all factors 

that are relevant to whether the alien is 

more likely than not at any time in the 

future to receive one or more public 

benefits.’’ 34 Under the vacated 2019 

Final Rule, at a minimum, officers were 

to consider all of the mandatory factors 

set forth in the statute, as well as the 

noncitizen’s prospective immigration 

status and expected period of 

admission, and (where applicable) a 

sufficient Affidavit of Support Under 

Section 213A of the INA.35

Through a future rulemaking, DHS 

may seek to clarify how officers should 

consider a noncitizen’s past and present 

circumstances in determining the 

likelihood that they will become a 

public charge at any time in the future. 

2. Questions for the Public 

DHS welcomes public comment on all 

aspects of the topic described above, but 

would particularly benefit from 

commenters addressing one or more of 

the following questions, including the 

reasoning, data, and information that 

inform their comments: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47029 

36See INA section 212(a)(4)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4)(B)(i). 

37See INA section 212(a)(4)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4)(B)(ii). 

38See 64 FR 28689, 28689–90 (May 26, 1999). 

39See 64 FR 28689, 28689–90 (May 26, 1999). 

40See 64 FR 28689, 28689–90 (May 26, 1999). As 

explained more fully elsewhere in this document, 

the 1999 Interim Field Guidance included 

consideration of the past and present receipt of cash 

assistance for income maintenance and noted that 

less weight would be assigned the longer ago the 

benefits were received. 64 FR at 28690. The 1999 

Interim Field Guidance also noted that applicants 

who received cash assistance for income 

maintenance could overcome such receipt by being 

employed full-time or having a sufficient Affidavit 

of Support Under Section 213A of the INA. 64 FR 

at 28690. 

41See 84 FR 41307. As explained more fully 

elsewhere, the rule also required consideration of 

an additional factor not referenced in the statute. 42See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019). 

43Note that under Executive Order 12250, DOJ is 

charged with coordinating the implementation and 

enforcement by Executive agencies of Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act. 

1. To the extent that DHS considers a 

noncitizen’s past or current receipt of 

public benefits, for what period of time 

before the public charge inadmissibility 

determination should DHS consider the 

noncitizen’s receipt of public benefits? 

Why is that time period relevant? 

C. Statutory Factors 

1. Background 

Section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), states that DHS 

must, at a minimum, consider the 

noncitizen’s age; health; family status; 

assets, resources, and financial status; 

and education and skills.36 DHS may 

also consider any Affidavit of Support 

under Section 213A of the INA, which 

is described below in Section D.37

In the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, 

the former INS noted that officers must 

consider the mandatory statutory 

factors, as well as any Affidavit of 

Support Under Section 213A of the INA 

submitted, and that ‘‘[e]very denial 

order based on public charge must 

reflect consideration of each of these 

factors and specifically articulate the 

reasons for the officer’s 

determination.’’ 38 The guidance 

suggested that factors would be either 

positive or negative,39 but did not 

explain what evidence officers should 

consider in evaluating these factors 

listed in section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 

8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), or the weight to 

be given to a particular factor, in the 

totality of the circumstances.40

In the vacated 2019 Final Rule, DHS 

also required officers to consider the 

mandatory statutory factors, as well as 

a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under 

Section 213A of the INA, if submitted, 

in the totality of the circumstances, 

when assessing an applicant’s 

likelihood of becoming a public charge 

at any time in the future.41 That rule 

provided certain standards for officers 

to use in assessing each factor and also 

identified evidence that USCIS deemed 

relevant for the consideration of these 

factors.42

Through a future rulemaking, DHS 

may seek to clarify how officers should 

consider the statutory factors in making 

a public charge inadmissibility 

determination, as well as any other 

factors relevant to assessing an 

applicant’s likelihood of becoming a 

public charge at any time. 

2. Questions for the Public 

DHS welcomes public comment on 

the topic described above, but would 

particularly benefit from commenters 

addressing one or more of the following 

questions including the reasoning, data, 

and information behind their comments: 

1. Which factors (whether statutory 

factors or any other relevant factors 

identified by the commenter) are most 

predictive of whether a noncitizen is 

likely (or is not likely) to become a 

public charge? To the extent that data 

exist on this question, how can DHS use 

such data to improve public charge 

policymaking and adjudication? 

2. How can DHS address the potential 

for perceived or actual unfairness or 

discrimination in public charge 

inadmissibility adjudications, whether 

due to cognitive, racial, or other biases; 

arbitrariness; variations in outcomes 

across cases with similar facts; or other 

reasons? 

3. What kinds of tools (in regulation 

or policy guidance) could DHS provide 

to the public and adjudicators to make 

the totality of the circumstances 

determination more predictable and less 

subject to variation in different cases 

presenting similar facts? 

4. Should DHS give any more or less 

consideration to any one or more of the 

statutory factors, the Affidavit of 

Support Under Section 213A of the INA, 

or any additional factors DHS may add 

through the rulemaking process in a 

public charge inadmissibility 

determination? 

5. In the adjustment of status context, 

how should DHS request the necessary 

information to consider the mandatory 

statutory factors for each adjudication, 

without imposing undue paperwork 

burdens on the public and adjudicators? 

a. Age 

1. How should an applicant’s age be 

considered as part of the public charge 

inadmissibility determination? 

b. Health 

1. How should DHS define health for 

the purposes of a public charge 

inadmissibility determination? 

2. Should DHS consider disabilities 

and/or chronic health conditions as part 

of the health factor? If yes, how should 

DHS consider these conditions and 

why? 

3. How should the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973’s prohibition of discrimination 

on the basis of disability be considered 

in DHS’s analysis of the health factor? 43

4. How should DHS consider the 

Report of Medical Examination and 

Vaccination Record, Form I–693, as part 

of the health factor? 

5. Should DHS account for social 

determinants of health to avoid 

unintended disparate impacts on 

historically disadvantaged groups? If 

yes, how should DHS consider this 

limited access and why? 

c. Family Status 

1. How should DHS define and 

consider family status for the purposes 

of a public charge inadmissibility 

determination? 

2. How should an applicant’s 

household size be considered as part of 

the family status factor? What definition 

of an applicant’s household size should 

DHS use for the public charge 

inadmissibility determination? 

d. Assets, Resources, and Financial 

Status 

1. What types of assets and resources 

are relevant to a public charge 

inadmissibility determination? 

2. Whose assets and resources should 

be considered as part of this factor? 

3. How should DHS define financial 

status for the purposes of a public 

charge inadmissibility determination? 

4. How should DHS address the 

challenges faced by those not served by 

a bank or similar financial institution in 

demonstrating their assets, resources, 

and financial status? 

5. Should DHS consider an 

applicant’s financial obligations (such 

as child or spousal support), debt, or 

bankruptcy in a public charge 

inadmissibility determination? If yes, 

how should DHS consider an 

applicant’s debt, bankruptcy, or 

financial obligations when evaluating an 

applicant’s financial status and why? 

6. Should DHS address its assessment 

of the relationship between the 

applicant’s assets, resources, and 

financial status in the context of his or 

her particular circumstances (e.g., costs 

of living in the applicant’s geographic 

location) in its rulemaking? If yes, how 

so? 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47030 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

44See INA sections 212(a)(4)(C), (D) and 213A, 8 

U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C) and (D). 

45See INA sections 212(a)(4)(C), (D) and 213A, 8 

U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C) and (D). 

46A sufficient Affidavit of Support Under Section 

213A of the INA is one in which the sponsor has 

demonstrated that he or she has enough income 

and/or assets to maintain the sponsored noncitizen 

and the rest of the sponsor’s household at 125% of 

the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG) for that 

household size (or at 100 percent of the FPG if the 

sponsor is active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces or 

U.S. Coast Guard). See INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 

1183a. 

47See 64 FR 28689, 28693 (May 26, 1999). 

48See 84 FR 41292, 41440 (Aug. 14, 2019). 

49See 84 FR 41292, 41504 (Aug. 14, 2019). 

50See 64 FR 28689, 28690 (May 26, 1999). 

51See 84 FR 41292, 41423 (Aug. 14, 2019). 

52See 64 FR 28689, 28692 (May 26, 1999). 

53See 64 FR 28689, 28692 (May 26, 1999). 

7. What data sources and criteria 

should DHS use to assess the sufficiency 

of the applicant’s assets, resources, and 

financial status? 

8. Should DHS consider the varied 

economic opportunities afforded to 

applicants to avoid unintended 

disparate impacts? If yes, how should 

DHS consider these limited 

opportunities and why? 

e. Education and Skills 

1. How should DHS consider an 

applicant’s education and skills in 

making a public charge inadmissibility 

determination? 

2. What education and skills should 

DHS consider in making a public charge 

inadmissibility determination? 

3. Should DHS consider the varied 

access to educational opportunities 

afforded to applicants to avoid disparate 

impacts? If yes, how should DHS 

consider this limited access and why? 

D. Affidavit of Support Under Section 

213A of the INA 

1. Background 

Most family-based and some 

employment-based applicants for 

adjustment of status are required to 

submit an Affidavit of Support Under 

Section 213A of the INA, Form I–864 or 

Form I–864EZ, executed by a sponsor, 

which is usually the U.S. citizen or LPR 

who filed the immigrant visa petition on 

the adjustment applicant’s behalf.44 The 

absence of a sufficient Affidavit of 

Support Under Section 213A of the INA, 

where required, will result in a finding 

of inadmissibility under section 

212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), 

without consideration of the mandatory 

statutory factors.45 Under section 

212(a)(4)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4)(B)(ii), DHS may consider a 

sufficient Affidavit of Support Under 

Section 213A of the INA 46 for the 

purposes of determining the applicant’s 

likelihood of becoming a public charge 

at any time. 

The 1999 Interim Field Guidance did 

not specifically address how officers 

should consider the Affidavit of Support 

Under Section 213A of the INA for the 

purposes of the totality of the 

circumstances determination as set forth 

in section 212(a)(4)(B)(ii) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B)(ii), focusing instead 

on how a sponsor’s receipt of meanstested public benefits was considered 

for the purposes of determining the 

sufficiency of the affidavit.47 However, 

in the vacated 2019 Final Rule, DHS 

described how officers would consider 

a sufficient Affidavit of Support Under 

Section 213A of the INA.48 In that rule, 

DHS provided that adjudicators would 

consider the likelihood that the sponsor 

would actually provide the statutorily 

required amount of financial support to 

the noncitizen as part of the totality of 

the circumstances determination.49

In a future rulemaking, DHS may seek 

to address the manner in which a 

sufficient Affidavit of Support Under 

Section 213A of the INA is considered 

as part of a public charge 

inadmissibility determination. 

2. Questions for the Public 

DHS welcomes public comment on all 

aspects of the topic described above, but 

would particularly benefit from 

commenters addressing one or more of 

the following questions, including the 

reasoning, data, and information behind 

their comments: 

1. How should DHS consider a 

sufficient Affidavit of Support Under 

Section 213A of the INA in the public 

charge inadmissibility determination? 

2. What weight should DHS give to a 

sufficient Affidavit of Support Under 

Section 213A of the INA in comparison 

to the mandatory statutory factors in the 

public charge inadmissibility 

determination? 

E. Other Factors To Consider 

1. Background 

Section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), states that DHS 

must, at minimum, consider the 

individual’s age; health; family status; 

assets, resources, and financial status; 

and education and skills. DHS may also 

consider any Affidavit of Support Under 

Section 213A of the INA, which is 

described above in Section D. The 

statute’s inclusion of the words ‘‘at 

minimum’’ suggests that other factors, 

beyond those listed and the Affidavit of 

Support Under Section 213A of the INA, 

may be considered when determining 

whether an individual is likely to 

become a public charge. 

While the 1999 Interim Field 

Guidance suggests that there are other 

factors besides the mandatory factors 

and the Affidavit of Support Under 

Section 213A of the INA that are 

considered in the totality of the 

circumstances, that guidance did not 

specify or explain those other factors.50

The vacated 2019 Final Rule, however, 

promulgated one additional factor apart 

from the factors set forth in section 

212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4)(B)—the noncitizen’s 

prospective immigration status and 

expected period of admission.51

In a future rulemaking, DHS may seek 

to address whether there are factors 

other than those identified in section 

212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1184(a)(4)(B), that should be considered 

as part of a public charge 

inadmissibility determination. 

2. Questions for the Public 

DHS welcomes public comment on all 

aspects of the topic described above, but 

would particularly benefit from 

commenters addressing the following 

questions including the reasoning, data, 

and information behind their comments: 

1. What other factors, if any, should 

DHS consider as part of the public 

charge inadmissibility determination 

and why? 

2. How, if at all, should DHS account 

for the fact that there are differences in 

the duration of time noncitizens are 

authorized to stay in the United States, 

and that many noncitizens subject to the 

public charge ground of inadmissibility 

are expected to remain in the United 

States for only a brief period of time? 

3. What data or evidence is available 

and relevant to the question above? 

F. Public Benefits Considered 

1. Background 

The former INS, in the 1999 Interim 

Field Guidance, recognized a link 

between public charge and the receipt of 

public benefits by defining public 

charge in terms of primary dependence 

on the government for subsistence, and 

in directing officers to consider the 

receipt of public cash assistance for 

income maintenance or 

institutionalization for long-term care at 

government expense.52 In tying the 

receipt of cash assistance for income 

maintenance to public charge, the 

former INS believed it would be able to 

‘‘identify those who are primarily 

dependent on the government for 

subsistence without inhibiting access to 

non-cash benefits that serve important 

public interests.’’ 53 The former INS’s 

focus on cash assistance for income 

maintenance reflected the determination 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 47031 

54See 64 FR 28689, 28692 (May 26, 1999). 

55See 64 FR 28689, 28692 (May 26, 1999). 

56See 84 FR 41292, 41349 (Aug. 14, 2019). 

57See 8 U.S.C. 1601. 

58See 84 FR 41292, 41439 (Aug. 14, 2019). 

59See Inadmissibility and Deportability on Public 

Charge Grounds, 64 FR 28676 (May 26, 1999). 

60See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019), as amended 

by Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds; 

Correction, 84 FR 52357 (Oct. 2, 2019). 

61See 84 FR 41292 (Aug. 14, 2019), as amended 

by Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds; 

Correction, 84 FR 52357 (Oct. 2, 2019). 

62See Miscellaneous Amendments to Chapter, 29 

FR 10579 (July 30, 1964); Miscellaneous Edits to 

Chapter, 31 FR 11713 (Sept. 7, 1966). 

63See 64 FR 28689, 28693 (May 26, 1999). 

that receipt of benefits under these 

programs was more reflective of poverty 

or dependence, while such was not the 

case for most non-cash benefits, which 

(with the exception of 

institutionalization for long-term care at 

government expense) were not 

considered.54 Finally, the former INS 

also tried to address the negative 

impacts on public health and general 

welfare caused by individuals forgoing 

the receipt of such non-cash benefits to 

avoid negative immigration 

consequences.55

In the vacated 2019 Final Rule, DHS 

also recognized a link between public 

charge and receipt of public benefits, 

but determined ‘‘that neither the 

wording of section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 

8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), nor case law 

examining public charge 

inadmissibility, mandates the ‘primarily 

dependent’ standard [set forth in the 

1999 Interim Field Guidance] . . . .’’ 56

Emphasizing the policy statements 

contained in PRWORA,57 the vacated 

2019 Final Rule expanded the types of 

public benefits considered as part of a 

public charge inadmissibility 

determination to include not only 

public cash assistance for income 

maintenance but also certain designated 

public non-cash benefits.58

In a future rulemaking, DHS may seek 

to clarify whether and which public 

benefits should be considered as part of 

a public charge inadmissibility 

determination. 

2. Questions for the Public 

DHS welcomes public comment on all 

aspects of the topic discussed above, but 

would particularly benefit from 

commenters addressing one or more of 

the following questions including the 

reasoning, data, and information behind 

their comments: 

1. Should DHS consider the receipt of 

public benefits (past and/or current) in 

the public charge inadmissibility 

determination? If yes, how should DHS 

consider the receipt of public benefits 

and why? 

2. Which public benefits should be 

considered as part of a public charge 

inadmissibility determination? 

3. Which public benefits, if any, 

should not be considered as part of a 

public charge inadmissibility 

determination? 

4. How should DHS address the 

possibility that individuals who are 

eligible for public benefits, including 

U.S. citizen relatives of noncitizens, 

would forgo the receipt of those benefits 

as a result of DHS’s consideration of 

certain public benefits in the public 

charge inadmissibility determination? 

What data and information should DHS 

consider about the direct and indirect 

effects of past public charge policies in 

this regard? 

G. Previous Rulemaking Efforts 

1. Background 

DHS and its predecessor, INS, 

engaged in two previous rulemaking 

efforts as discussed in greater detail 

above in Part II, Section C. On May 26, 

1999, INS issued a NPRM, which 

proposed how the agency would 

determine if a noncitizen is likely at any 

time to become a public charge under 

section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a), for admission and adjustment 

of status purposes, and whether a 

noncitizen in and admitted to the 

United States has become a public 

charge within 5 years after the date of 

entry for causes not affirmatively shown 

to have arisen since entry under section 

237(a)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1227(a)(5).59 That NPRM, and the 

related 1999 Interim Field Guidance, 

provided a definition for public charge, 

specified the public benefits that would 

and would not be considered as part of 

a public charge determination, 

established a prospective totality of the 

circumstances framework that 

considered the factors set forth in 

section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1182(a)(4)(B), and clarified how the 

Affidavit of Support Under Section 

213A of the INA is used. INS and later 

DHS never finalized the 1999 NPRM. 

On August 14, 2019, DHS issued a 

final rule addressing the public charge 

ground of inadmissibility.60 The rule 

provided a new definition for public 

charge; specified the public benefits that 

would be considered as part of a public 

charge inadmissibility determination; 

established a prospective totality of the 

circumstances framework that required 

consideration of all of the factors set 

forth in section 212(a)(4)(B) of the INA, 

8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(B), as well as one 

additional factor; specified the 

standards and evidence that would be 

considered in the public charge 

inadmissibility determination; created a 

new Form I–944 for public charge 

inadmissibility determinations in the 

adjustment of status context; and 

changed the regulations for public 

charge bonds.61

2. Questions for the Public 

DHS welcomes public comment on all 

aspects of the topic described above, but 

would particularly benefit from 

commenters addressing one or more of 

the following questions including the 

reasoning, data, and information behind 

their comments: 

1. What aspects of the 1999 Interim 

Field Guidance, if any, should be 

included in a future public charge 

inadmissibility rulemaking and why? 

2. What aspects of the 1999 NPRM, if 

any, should be included in a future 

public charge inadmissibility 

rulemaking and why? 

3. What aspects of the vacated 2019 

Final Rule, if any, should be included 

in a future public charge inadmissibility 

rulemaking and why? 

4. What data are available to estimate 

any potential direct and indirect effects, 

economic or otherwise, of the public 

charge ground of inadmissibility, the 

1999 Interim Field Guidance, or the 

vacated 2019 Final Rule? For instance, 

what data are available to estimate any 

potential direct and indirect effects, 

economic or otherwise, on individuals, 

social service organizations, hospitals, 

businesses, and other persons and 

entities? 

H. Bond and Bond Procedures 

1. Background 

If a noncitizen is determined to be 

inadmissible based on the public charge 

ground, but is otherwise admissible, the 

person may be admitted in the 

discretion of the Secretary of Homeland 

Security upon the giving of a suitable 

and proper bond under section 213 of 

the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183. That section 

authorizes the Secretary to establish the 

amount and conditions of such bond. 

Regulations implementing the public 

charge bond were promulgated in 1964 

and 1966,62 and are currently found at 

8 CFR 103.6 and 8 CFR 213.1. 

The 1999 Interim Field Guidance 

noted that the agency had the 

discretionary authority to offer public 

charge bonds, but did not otherwise 

explain the manner in which the agency 

would exercise that discretion.63 In the 

vacated 2019 Final Rule, DHS 

established a framework to offer public 

charge bonds under section 213 of the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47032 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

64See 84 FR 41292, 41299 (Aug. 14, 2019). 

INA, 8 U.S.C. 1183, to adjustment of 

status applicants inadmissible only on 

the public charge ground, which 

included the minimum bond amount, 

conditions under which a bond was 

breached, and when a public charge 

bond would be cancelled.64

In a future rulemaking, DHS may seek 

to establish a public charge bond 

process. 

2. Questions for the Public 

DHS welcomes public comment on all 

aspects of the topic described above, but 

would particularly benefit from 

commenters addressing one or more of 

the following questions including the 

reasoning, data, and information behind 

their comments: 

1. What standard should DHS use to 

determine whether to exercise its 

discretion and authorize a noncitizen 

inadmissible only under the public 

charge ground to submit a public charge 

bond? 

2. Should DHS establish a minimum 

bond amount? If yes, how should DHS 

establish that minimum bond amount 

and how should DHS adjust that 

minimum bond amount over time? 

3. What factors should DHS consider 

in establishing a bond amount for a 

particular inadmissible noncitizen? 

4. Under what circumstances should 

DHS consider a public charge bond 

breached? 

5. Under what circumstances should 

DHS consider a public charge bond 

cancelled? 

I. Specific Questions for State, 

Territorial, Local, and Tribal Benefit 

Granting Agencies and Nonprofit 

Organizations 

1. Background 

DHS acknowledges that benefit 

granting agencies and nonprofit 

organizations may have valuable 

information and data regarding the 

receipt of public benefits and how 

benefit use intersects with the public 

charge ground of inadmissibility. DHS 

intends to formally consult with 

relevant Federal agencies, including 

benefits granting agencies, in 

connection with future rulemaking 

actions addressing the public charge 

ground of inadmissibility. As part of 

this ANPRM, DHS is specifically 

seeking feedback from state, territorial, 

local, and tribal benefit granting 

agencies, as well as nonprofit 

organizations. 

2. Questions for State, Territorial, Local, 

and Tribal Benefit Granting Agencies 

and Nonprofit Organizations 

DHS welcomes public comment on all 

aspects of the topic described above, but 

would particularly benefit from 

commenters addressing one or more of 

the following questions including the 

reasoning, data, and information behind 

their comments: 

1. What costs, if any, has your agency 

or organization incurred in order to 

implement changes in public charge 

policy, such as revising enrollment 

procedures and public-facing materials? 

Please provide relevant data. 

2. What costs, if any, has your agency 

or organization incurred as a result of 

reduction in enrollment, or 

disenrollment in public benefits 

programs generally? Please provide 

relevant data. 

3. What costs, if any, has your agency 

or organization incurred as a result of 

disenrollment or reduction in 

enrollment in public benefits programs 

caused by the public charge ground of 

inadmissibility, the 1999 Interim Field 

Guidance, or the vacated 2019 Final 

Rule? Please provide relevant data. 

4. With respect to the specific types 

of public benefits overseen by your 

agency, under what circumstances is the 

receipt of such benefits relevant, if at 

all, to assessing whether or not an 

individual is likely at any time to 

become a public charge? 

5. What, if any, specific concerns does 

your agency or organization have about 

how DHS applies the public charge 

ground of inadmissibility and how 

should DHS address those concerns? 

6. What data does your agency or 

organization have that can be shared to 

demonstrate any potential impact of the 

public charge ground of inadmissibility, 

the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, or the 

vacated 2019 Final Rule on applications 

for or disenrollment from public 

benefits by individuals who are eligible 

for such benefits? 

7. What information, data, or studies 

does your agency or organization have 

that can be shared that would help DHS 

identify factors or patterns of benefit use 

(e.g., duration, frequency, or extent of 

benefits use) that suggest whether and to 

what extent individuals would be likely 

to use public benefits in the future? 

8. How should DHS reduce the 

possibility that individuals who are 

eligible for public benefits overseen by 

your agency would decide to forgo the 

receipt of those benefits out of concern 

that receipt of such benefits will make 

them (or a family member or household 

member) inadmissible on public charge 

grounds, even if receipt of such a benefit 

would not be considered by DHS in a 

public charge determination, or would 

not be a decisive factor in a public 

charge inadmissibility determination? 

Alejandro N. Mayorkas, 

Secretary of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17837 Filed 8–20–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 51 

[NRC–2018–0300] 

RIN 3150–AK54 

Categorical Exclusions from 

Environmental Review 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; reopening of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On May 7, 2021, the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

requested public comment on an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

to obtain input from stakeholders on the 

agency’s plan to amend its regulations 

on categorical exclusions for licensing, 

regulatory, and administrative actions 

that individually or cumulatively do not 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. The public comment 

period closed on July 21, 2021. The NRC 

has decided to reopen the public 

comment period until September 21, 

2021, to allow more time for members 

of the public to develop and submit 

their comments. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

published on May 7, 2021 (86 FR 

24514), is reopened and now closes on 

September 21, 2021. Comments received 

after this date will be considered, if it 

is practical to do so, but the NRC is able 

to ensure consideration only for 

comments received on or before this 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods; 

however, the NRC encourages electronic 

comment submission through the 

Federal rulemaking website: 

• Federal rulemaking website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0300. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Dawn 

Forder; telephone: 301–415–3407; 

email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS