October 30, 2026
Submitted via regulations.gov
Mr. Daniel Sweeney
Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce
4600 Silver Hill Road
Designation: ADDEMO/FRN
Washington, DC 20746
Re: Comments on Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions” (Docket No. 260903-0005; RIN 0607-AA75)
Dear Mr. Sweeney:
DPE urges the Census Bureau to withdraw the residence provisions of its proposed rule and to keep counting every person who lives in the United States where they live and sleep most of the time. As drafted, proposed 15 CFR 60.4(b) would drop lawfully employed professionals from the apportionment count, and the days-present test in proposed § 60.2 could place working Americans in the wrong state.
DPE is a coalition of 24 national unions representing millions of professional and technical workers in more than 200 occupations. Our affiliates' members include nurses, physicians, engineers, scientists, teachers, faculty, federal employees, merchant mariners, and arts and entertainment professionals.
This proposal would affect our members in two ways. Some are foreign nationals working here lawfully on employer-sponsored visas. Others work away from home for weeks or months at a time, on tour, on location, at sea, or on assignment. Section I addresses the first group, and Section II addresses the second.
I. Count every person who lives in the United States (§ 60.4)
Proposed § 60.4(b) would exclude from apportionment every foreign citizen who is not a lawful permanent resident, including people the federal government has authorized to live and work here. The 2020 criteria counted foreign citizens living in the United States where they live and sleep most of the time. DPE urges the Bureau to keep that approach, which follows the Fourteenth Amendment's command to count "the whole number of persons in each State."
The workers § 60.4(b) would exclude include professionals our affiliates represent and work alongside:
Health care: nurses, physicians, physical therapists, and other healthcare providers working on H-1B, TN, and other visas.
Higher education and research: faculty, researchers, and postdoctoral scholars on H-1B, O-1, and J-1 visas.
STEM: engineers and technical professionals on H-1B and L-1 visas.
Arts and entertainment: musicians, directors, singers, dancers, and other performing artists on O-1 visas.
Humanitarian status holders: refugees, asylees, and Temporary Protected Status holders.
A. The Bureau's question on statuses "materially similar" to permanent residence
DPE's position is that the U.S. Census should count every resident. Because the Bureau asks which statuses are materially similar to permanent residence, we note that several have a strong claim under the Bureau's own test of allegiance, durable permission to settle, and domicile:
Applicants for adjustment of status, who have formally applied for permanent residence and are authorized to remain while their applications are pending.
Beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions, whose petitions for permanent residence the government has already approved.
Dual-intent visa holders, such as H-1B and L-1 workers, whom Congress expressly permits to seek permanent residence while in status.
Refugees and asylees, whose status has no fixed end date and who can apply for permanent residence after one year.
Long-term O-1 status holders, whose status can be extended in one-year increments without a fixed limit.
These examples show how hard it would be to draw any status-based line fairly.
B. The rule relies on tax records while excluding people who file them
Proposed § 60.2(a) says a person's usual residence should be evidenced by tax records such as tax returns and W-2 forms. Work-authorized noncitizens file those same returns and receive those same W-2s. Those who meet the IRS substantial presence test are treated as U.S. residents for federal tax purposes. The rule's reliance on tax filings to establish residence sits uneasily with excluding the residents who file them.
C. The Bureau should not add a legal-status question
The Bureau invites comment on adding a legal-status question to the census form. DPE opposes it. The proposal itself notes that, in general, more questions mean a lower response rate.
Before the 2020 Census, Census Bureau researchers concluded that a citizenship question would likely lower self-response in households that may include noncitizens, raising fieldwork costs and lowering the quality of the count. Households that do not respond are often counted through proxies such as neighbors. The Bureau has reported that in 2010, proxy responses had a 70.2 percent correct enumeration rate, compared with 97.3 percent for self-responses.
II. Count people where they live and sleep most of the time (§ 60.2)
Proposed § 60.2 defines usual residence as the residence where a person has "lawfully spent the greatest number of days" between January 3 and April 1, with one hour of presence counting as a day. The rule does not define "lawfully spent." For workers whose jobs take them away from home, the days count can point to the wrong place and can conflict with the tax records the rule itself relies on.
A. Who the days count would misplace
A three-month window captures where people happen to be working early in the Census year, which for some professionals is far from home. Those most affected include:
Touring performers and crews: actors, musicians, variety artists, and stagehands on national tours that move from city to city.
Film and television crews: craftspeople, technicians, directors, and performers on location shoots in other states.
Health care professionals on travel assignments: nurses and other clinicians working temporary assignments away from home.
Engineers and technical professionals on rotational or project assignments at plants, utilities, and job sites.
B. Two examples
An actor based in Ohio joins a national tour from January through March, playing two weeks each in six cities. Under § 60.2, the actor could spend more days at a single tour stop than at home, even though the actor's tax return points to Ohio. The rule does not say which controls when the two conflict.
A California-based crew member spends January through March on a production in Georgia. The days count points to Georgia, while the worker's resident tax return points to California. Again, the rule does not say which controls.
C. Tax records will not resolve these cases
Tax records may not reliably show where people live. Returns and W-2s can carry a mailing address, such as a post office box, a business address, or a tax preparer's office.
D. Merchant mariners and deployed federal personnel
In 2020, crews of U.S.-flag vessels were counted at the onshore residence where they live and sleep most of the time. The criteria also said where to count crew members with no onshore residence: at the vessel, the U.S. port, or the port of departure. Crews docked in a foreign port or sailing between foreign ports on Census Day were not counted in the stateside census.
Proposed § 60.7 would count those foreign-port crews at their onshore U.S. residence, and DPE supports counting them. But § 60.7 places every crew member "in accordance with § 60.2," and it drops the 2020 fallback. A mariner at sea for the entire January 3 to April 1 window has no days at any onshore residence, so § 60.2 produces no result. Proposed § 60.5(b) creates the same gap for federal civilian and military employees deployed overseas.
The Bureau should count all U.S.-flag crews, including those in foreign ports, at the onshore residence where they live and sleep most of the time, with a fallback for crew members who have no onshore residence. Deployed federal personnel should likewise be counted at the U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time, as they were in 2020.
III. Recommendations
DPE asks the Bureau to do two things:
Count merchant mariners on U.S.-flag vessels in foreign ports or sailing between foreign ports, using the 2020 standard of where they live and sleep most of the time, with a fallback for crew members who have no onshore residence.
Withdraw every other proposed change. The Bureau should keep the 2020 residence criteria, including counting every person who lives in the United States where they live and sleep most of the time, keep the race and ethnicity questions, and not add a legal-status question.
Conclusion
The Census should count working people where they actually live, including the lawfully employed professionals who staff our hospitals, laboratories, classrooms, and stages.
If you have any questions, please contact me or DPE Assistant to the President/Legislative Director, Michael Wasser at mwasser@dpeaflcio.org.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Dorning, President