Rescission of Obsolete State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants Regulations

Content

ACTION:

Direct final rule, request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families rescinds obsolete provisions of the
State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants regulations (45 CFR part 402). The Administration for Children and Families has
undertaken a sweeping review aimed at eliminating outdated rules and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens to streamline,
simplify, and efficiently deregulate across multiple fronts simultaneously to better serve the public. The docket on https://www.regulations.gov will include a plain language summary of the direct final rule as required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4).

DATES:

Effective May 26, 2026, unless significant adverse comments are received on or before May 26, 2026. In the event the Administration
for Children and Families receive significant adverse comments, the Administration for Children and Families will publish
a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register
informing the public the provisions of the rule(s) for which significant adverse comments were received and elimination will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit written comments, identified by docket number ACF-2026-0166 and/or RIN number 0970-AD28, by one of the following
methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• Email: Deregulation@acf.hhs.gov. Include the docket number ACF-2026-0166 and/or RIN number 0970-AD28 in the subject line of the message.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN number for this rulemaking. All comments received
are a part of the public record and will be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov, without change. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of individuals or entities submitting
the comments will be subject to public disclosure. Anonymous comments are accepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Adam N. Jones, Deputy Chief of Staff, Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families,
Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 202-417-0115 or Deregulation@acf.hhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Authority

This final rule is being issued under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by Section 204 the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), as amended, (8 U.S.C. 1255a note), and the subsequent

  repeal of Section 204 of IRCA by Section 199(a) of Public Law 105-220.

II. Background

Section 204 of IRCA established a temporary program of State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) for states. Public
Law (Pub. L.) 99-603 (Nov. 6, 1986). Section 201 of IRCA had allowed groups of aliens who had been living in the United States
to adjust their immigration status. The purpose of SLIAG was to lessen the financial impact on state and local governments
presented by individuals with newly adjusted status seeking public benefits. The SLIAG program provided reimbursement to states
for costs of certain public assistance, public health, and education services they had provided these individuals.

IRCA directed HHS to issue regulations establishing a formula for allotting funds to each state and permitted HHS to issue
other regulations as long as HHS consulted with state and local governments on any regulations. IRCA 204(b)(1), 204(i). HHS
issued 45 CFR part 402 on March 10, 1998. State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants, 53 FR 7832 (Mar. 10, 1988). Part 402
established uniform requirements for grant application, award, and administration, including eligible state uses of SLIAG
funds, which included education, health care, and social services. This part also detailed financial management regulations,
reporting, and auditing requirements.

Congress appropriated $4 billion dollars for the SLIAG, starting with $1 billion appropriated in fiscal year 1988 and another
$1 billion appropriated each year for the next three fiscal years, which states were authorized to obligate through the end
of fiscal year 1994. IRCA 204(a)(1), (b)(4). In 1992, Congress amended the legislation to provide that any funds not expended
by a state by December 30, 1994, be reallocated to states that had spent their entire SLIAG allotments and still had unreimbursed
costs. Labor/Health and Human Services FY 1993, Public Law 102-394 (Oct. 6, 1992). In 1994, Congress provided that all the
reallotted funds be spent by July 31, 1995. Labor/Health and Human Services FY 1995 Appropriations Act, Public Law 103-333
(Sept. 30, 1994). After that date, the program ended. In 1998, Congress repealed the program. Workforce Investment Act of
1998, Public Law 105-220 (Aug. 7, 1998).

III. Executive Summary

Effective Date

ACF expects all provisions included in the final rule to become effective 60 days from the date of publication of the final
rule.

IV. Discussion of Changes

ORR is removing 45 CFR part 402 in its entirety. The State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants were a time-limited program
that operated from 1987 to 1995 to assist state and local agencies with any incurred costs related to the implementation of
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. However, as this program has been inactive and unfunded for over 30 years,
the regulatory framework is now obsolete and serves no current purpose. This action will decrease confusion and burden for
grantees and will ensure that only actively enforced regulations remain in place.

Waiver of Notice and Comment Process

When engaging in rulemaking, HHS will ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register
to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b). (1) Under the APA, (2) an agency is not required to provide notice and public comment prior to issuing a direct final rule when it determines, for
good cause, that such procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In such instances, the
agency must include in the rule a statement of its findings and the reasons supporting its determination that the notice and
public comment procedure generally required under the APA are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

At this point in time when the program is no longer functional, ACF finds that it is unnecessary to provide a public comment
period before issuing this direct final rule. Courts have found “good cause” that notice and comment is unnecessary when changes
are considered “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the
public.” Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Utility Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 755 (D.C. Cir. 2001)); accord Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 894 F.3d 95, 114 (2d Cir. 2018); N.C. Growers' Ass'n, Inc. v. United Farm Workers, 702 F.3d 755, 766-67 (4th Cir. 2012); see Attorney General's APA MANUAL 31 (“ Unnecessary' refers to the issuance of a minor
rule in which the public is not particularly interested.”); APA LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 200 (“ Unnecessary' means unnecessary
so far as the public is concerned, as would be the case if a minor or merely technical amendment in which the public is not
particularly interested were involved.”).

The rescission of this part is not of interest to the public to provide comment on because the program is no longer funded.
Rescinding the outdated requirements related to this program poses no harm or burden to programs or the public.

V. Regulatory Process Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., as amended) (PRA), all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval
any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. This direct final rule does not contain
any information requiring OMB approval under the PRA and, therefore, will not create any new paperwork burdens or modify existing
burdens subject to OMB review.

Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 requires federal agencies to consult with state and local government officials if they develop regulatory
policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance
are most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the people. This direct final rule would not have substantial
direct impact on the states, on the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This direct final rule would not pre-empt state law. The
changes in this direct final rule are removing unnecessary and obsolete regulations from the Office of Refugee Resettlement
rules. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this action does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may negatively affect
family well-being. If the agency determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being, then the agency must
prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. HHS believes it is not necessary to prepare a
family policymaking assessment because the actions in this direct final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity
of the family as an institution.

VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis

We have examined the impacts of this direct final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order
14192, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) and the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801, Pub. L. 104-121).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all benefits and costs of available regulatory alternatives and, when
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Rules are “significant” under Executive
Order 12866 Section 3(f)(1) if they “have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; or adversely affect in
a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety,
or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.” Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated
with significant new regulations “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated
with at least ten prior regulations.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this direct final
rule is a significant action under Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f), but that it does not meet the criteria set forth in
5 U.S.C. 804(2) under the Congressional Review Act. This rule is a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192 because
it eliminates obsolete and unnecessary regulations.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small entities. Because
this action would remove a program that is no longer in existence or funded, the Secretary certifies that the direct final
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) generally requires that each agency conduct a cost-benefit analysis; identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives; and select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule before promulgating any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million (adjusted for inflation) in at least one year by state,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Each agency issuing a rule with relevant effects
over that threshold must also seek input from state, local, and tribal governments. The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $187 million, using the most current (2024) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This
direct final rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

VII. Tribal Consultation Statement

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires agencies to consult with Indian
tribes when regulations have tribal implications, meaning they have substantial direct effects 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. The SLIAG grants were awarded only to the 50 states and the territories,
no funds were awarded to tribes. Thus, this change will not have tribal implications.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 402

Education, Grant programs-education, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-social programs, Health care, Immigration, Public
assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

PART 402—[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

Regulatory Text For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority of section 204 the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
(IRCA), as amended (8 U.S.C. 1255a note), and the subsequent repeal of section 204 of IRCA by section 199(a) of Public Law
105-220, ACF removes and reserves 45 CFR part 402.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. [FR Doc. 2026-06027 Filed 3-26-26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-49-P

Footnotes

(1) https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/5/553.

(2) 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Download File

Download