9784 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

31. On pages 80013, 80016, and 80026 

of APPENDIX 3: MVP INVENTORY, 

corresponding to TABLE B.2: Optimal 

Care for Kidney Health MVP, TABLE 

B.3: Optimal Care for Patients with 

Episodic Neurological Conditions MVP, 

and TABLE B.6: Advancing 

Rheumatology Patient Care MVP, 

respectively, the Collection Type for 

measure Q130 is corrected by removing 

‘‘Medicare Part B Claims Measure 

Specifications’’ and reads ‘‘eCQM 

Specifications, MIPS CQMs 

Specifications)’’. 

List of Subjects 

42 CFR Part 414 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Biologics, Diseases, Drugs, 

Health facilities, Health professions, 

Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

42 CFR 424 

Emergency medical services, Health 

facilities, Health professions, Medicare, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, CMS corrects 42 CFR parts 

414 and 424 by making the following 

correcting amendments: 

PART 414—PAYMENT FOR PART B 

MEDICAL AND OTHER HEALTH 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 414 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395hh, and 

1395rr(b)(1). 

§ 414.1405 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 414.1405 in paragraph 

(b)(9)(iii) by removing the phrase ‘‘2025 

MIPS payment year’’ and adding in its 

place the phrase ‘‘2026 MIPS payment 

year’’. 

PART 424—CONDITIONS FOR 

MEDICARE PAYMENT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 424 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh. 

■ 4. Amend § 424.541 by— 

■ a. Removing paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(B)(3) 

through (5); and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(3) through 

(5). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 424.541 Stay of enrollment. 

(a) * * * 

(3) A stay of enrollment lasts no 

longer than 60 days from the postmark 

date of the notification letter, which is 

the effective date of the stay. 

(4) CMS notifies the affected provider 

or supplier in writing of the imposition 

of the stay. 

(5) A stay of enrollment ends on the 

date on which CMS or its contractor 

determines that the provider or supplier 

has resumed compliance with all 

Medicare enrollment requirements in 

Title 42 or the day after the 60-day stay 

period expires, whichever occurs first. 

* * * * * 

Elizabeth J. Gramling, 

Executive Secretary to the Department, 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02705 Filed 2–8–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

45 CFR Part 170 

Health Information Technology 

Standards, Implementation 

Specifications, and Certification 

Criteria and Certification Programs for 

Health Information Technology 

CFR Correction 

This rule is being published by the 

Office of the Federal Register to correct 

an editorial or technical error that 

appeared in the most recent annual 

revision of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

In Title 45 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 140 to 199, revised as 

of October 1, 2023, amend section 

170.580 by reinstating paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 170.580 ONC review of certified health IT. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) ONC may assert exclusive review 

of certified health IT as to any matters 

under review by ONC and any similar 

matters under surveillance by an ONC– 

ACB. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–02940 Filed 2–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 0099–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Chapter III 

RIN 0970–AC99 

Elimination of the Tribal Non-Federal 

Share Requirement 

AGENCY: Office of Child Support 

Services (OCSS), Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF), 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: OCSS eliminates the nonFederal share of program expenditures 

requirement for Tribal child support 

programs, including the 90/10 and 80/ 

20 cost sharing rates. Based upon the 

experiences of and consultations with 

Tribes and Tribal organizations, we 

have determined that the non-Federal 

share requirement limits growth, causes 

disruptions, and creates instability. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 1, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janice McDaniel, Program Specialist, 

Division of Policy and Training, OCSS, 

telephone (202) 969–3874. Email 

inquiries to ocss.dpt@acf.hhs.gov. 

Telecommunications Relay users may 

dial 711 first. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Statutory Authority 

This final rule is published in 

accordance with section 455(f) of the 

Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 

655(f)). Section 455(f) of the Act 

requires the Secretary to issue 

regulations governing the grants to 

Tribes and Tribal organizations 

operating child support programs. 

This final rule is also published under 

the authority granted to the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services by section 

1102 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1302). 

Section 1102 of the Act authorizes the 

Secretary to publish regulations, not 

inconsistent with the Act, as may be 

necessary for the efficient 

administration of the functions with 

which the Secretary is responsible 

under the Act. 

II. Public Consultation 

Since the inception of the Tribal child 

support program, OCSS has conducted 

numerous face-to-face and virtual Tribal 

Consultations and listening sessions to 

discuss the longstanding issue of the 

non-Federal share requirement and the 

cost sharing rates. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 9785 

1See U.S. Department of Interior Indian Affairs 

Tribal Leader Directory at https://www.bia.gov/ 

service/tribal-leaders-directory. 

2See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Broken 

Promises: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for 

Native Americans (December 2018), available at 

https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/12-20- 

Broken-Promises.pdf. 

In fact, even before drafting 

regulations to implement direct funding 

for Tribal Child Support Enforcement 

Programs, OCSS conducted a series of 

Tribal consultations during which OCSS 

received many questions about how 

funding levels would be set. The notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 

published in August 2000, indicated 

that ‘‘if the Secretary determines based 

on experience and consultation with 

Tribes that the 80/20 match rate is 

disruptive to the program and imposes 

hardship to Tribes, the regulations will 

be revised accordingly’’ (65 FR 50823). 

Since then, Tribal leaders and Tribal 

child support directors have submitted 

oral and written feedback, testimony, 

and blanket waiver requests describing 

the barriers they face in meeting the 

non-Federal share requirement and 

requesting relief by modifying, 

suspending, or eliminating the 

requirement. 

Most recently, on April 6, 2023, OCSS 

held a Tribal Consultation for the NPRM 

issued on April 21, 2023 (88 FR 24526). 

Several Tribal leaders or their designees 

provided oral testimony about the 

difficulties Tribes and Tribal 

organizations face in meeting the nonFederal share requirement and the 

adverse impacts. For example, meeting 

the non-Federal share forces Tribal 

child support programs to cut staff, limit 

services, defer systems or equipment 

purchases, and compete with other 

Tribal programs for scarce Tribal funds 

and resources. They specifically 

mentioned the importance of Tribal 

monies to support self-governance 

functions like public safety, health, and 

natural resources. Oftentimes, TribeTribes and Tribal organizations must 

underfund critical self-governance 

functions and services to meet the nonFederal share. They indicated that 

Tribal Nations have limited ways to 

increase revenue, are more susceptible 

to losses and economic downturns, and 

do not have the same taxing authorities 

as state governments. Many discussed 

the administrative burden of 

documenting, tracking, and reporting on 

non-Federal share contributions and 

how dedicating staff time and resources 

to that makes their child support 

programs less efficient and effective. 

They thought the non-Federal share 

waiver provision was overly restrictive 

and unnecessary since the non-Federal 

share was not imposed by Congress in 

section 455(f) the Social Security Act 

but by OCSS through regulation despite 

the objections of Tribes. They also 

thought that revising the non-Federal 

share waiver requirement was not an 

adequate, long-term solution, especially 

because that would not remove the 

financial barrier that prevents 

prospective Tribes from administering a 

child support program and places 

existing Tribal child support programs 

at risk of closing. All the oral and 

written testimony supported the 

elimination of the non-Federal share 

requirement because it will create 

stability, promote growth, and ensure 

Tribal families and communities have 

access to Tribal child support program 

services. It also reaffirms the 

government-to-government relationship 

between Indian Tribes and the Federal 

Government. The April 6, 2023, Tribal 

Consultation Session Summary Report 

is available on the OCSS website, 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css. 

The NPRM issued on April 21, 2023, 

includes a discussion on prior Tribal 

Consultations and OCSS listening 

sessions on the non-Federal share 

requirement (88 FR 24527). These 

consultations and sessions demonstrate 

that Tribes and Tribal organizations 

have consistently and repeatedly 

objected to the non-Federal share 

requirement and expressed the hardship 

and harm it causes. 

III. Background 

In the 2000 NPRM for the Tribal Child 

Support Enforcement Programs, OCSS 

estimated that within 3 years, 150 

Tribes and Tribal organizations would 

operate a child support program (65 FR 

50801). As one commenter pointed out, 

the expansion of the Tribal child 

support program has fallen significantly 

short of those earlier projections. To 

date, few Tribes and Tribal 

organizations operate child support 

programs, although funding was 

authorized 19 years ago. Out of the 574 

federally recognized Tribes, only 60 

operate Tribal child support programs 

despite the flexible eligibility 

requirements to receive program 

funding.1

Eliminating the non-Federal share 

requirement, including the 90/10 and 

80/20 cost sharing rates, removes a 

significant financial barrier for current 

and prospective Tribal child support 

programs. Many Tribes and Tribal 

organizations face systemic, historical, 

and ongoing issues that impact their 

ability to meet the non-Federal share.2

For example, some Tribes have high 

rates of unemployment and families 

living below the poverty level, have 

limited and vulnerable Tribal 

enterprises that generate revenue, are in 

rural, communities that have faced 

disinvestment, are exposed to greater 

environmental threats, and lack robust 

economies. One comment indicated that 

many Tribes are shut out of the 

opportunity to provide federally funded 

child support services precisely because 

of long-term problems like high 

unemployment rates, limited economic 

development, a subsistence economy 

remote from employment centers, and 

no tax base. The non-Federal share 

requirement not only discourages 

prospective Tribes, it also increases the 

risk of current Tribal child support 

programs shutting down. 

Several Tribal commenters expressed 

their fears of being forced to shut down 

their Tribal child support programs if 

the non-Federal share is not eliminated. 

In fact, in fiscal year (FY) 2017, a Tribe 

had to shut down their child support 

program because they were unable to 

meet the non-Federal share of program 

expenditures, indicating that the 

requirement is a barrier for any Tribe to 

be successful. 

Additionally, the current economic 

conditions in Tribal Nations have made 

their situations even more precarious. 

Several Tribal commenters indicated 

that their enterprises and revenues have 

not fully returned to pre-pandemic 

levels, and they are still dealing with 

other issues like the opioid epidemic 

and natural disasters that require Tribal 

resources and funds to mitigate. Yet, the 

non-Federal share requirement forces 

Tribal child support programs to 

compete with other Tribal departments 

and programs to obtain limited Tribal 

government funding. 

The elimination of the non-Federal 

share requirement will enable Tribal 

child support programs to grow and 

expand. Meeting the non-Federal share 

has disproportionately and negatively 

driven programmatic and fiscal 

decisions. As one commenter 

mentioned, it forces Tribes and Tribal 

organizations to make decisions to meet 

the non-Federal share instead of 

meeting the needs of their Tribal 

families and communities. Many 

commenters indicated that their Tribal 

child support programs had to defer 

paying for required security assessments 

to access the Federal Parent Locator 

Service (FPLS), which helps in locating 

noncustodial parents and their assets. 

They also indicated that the non-Federal 

share requirement made their programs 

less efficient and effective because they 

had no funds or time to spend on 

wraparound services, employment 

referrals for noncustodial parents, 

robust outreach, intensive case 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
9786 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

3See OCSS Exploring Tribal Demographic Data: 

Part Two at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/ 

ocsedatablog/2023/01/exploring-tribaldemographic-data-part-two. 

4See OCSS Exploring Tribal Demographic Data: 

Part One at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/ 

ocsedatablog/2022/11/exploring-tribaldemographic-data-part-one. 

5 Id. 

6See OCSS 2022 Tribal Infographic at FY 2022 

Tribal Child Support Providing Support for Our 

Families (hhs.gov). 

7See OCSS 2021 Tribal Infographic at FY 2022 

Tribal Child Support Providing Support for Our 

Families (hhs.gov). 

8See American Indian Policy Review 

Commission Final Report (May 1977), page 130 

available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ 

ED164229.pdf. 

9See Joint Economic Committee Democrats, 

Native American Communities Continue to Face 

Barriers to Opportunity that Stifle Economic 

Mobility (May 2022) available at https://www.jec.

senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9a6bd201-d9ed4615-bc32-9b899faf5627/nativeamericans

continuetofacepervasiveeconomicdisparatiesfinal.pdf. 

management, fatherhood programs, and 

parenting initiatives. 

The National Association of Tribal 

Child Support Directors included the 

results of their 2022 survey in their 

comments. Out of the 46 respondents, 

the survey found that if the non-Federal 

share were eliminated 63 percent 

expected to have more time to focus on 

efforts to increase service quality, 50 

percent would be interested in offering 

a fatherhood program, and 67 percent 

would be interested in expanding 

outreach. 

Eliminating the non-Federal share 

will help to ensure that Tribal Nations 

can offer culturally appropriate and 

affirming child support services to their 

communities. Native American children 

in Tribal areas with child support 

programs are in great need of child 

support, especially since 53 percent of 

Native American children in these areas 

lived in single-parent families.3

According to data from the 2015 

American Community Survey, nearly 

one-third of Native Americans living in 

Tribal areas with a child support 

program lived below the poverty line in 

2015 (that year, the poverty line for a 

family of three was $20,090).4 This 

poverty rate was more than twice the 

poverty rate for Americans in general 

(15 percent). Particularly stark was the 

poverty rate among Native American 

children living in these areas, which 

was 40 percent.5

In FY 2022, Tribal child support 

programs collected $51 million in child 

support payments, and 97 percent went 

to families.6 These child support 

payments help to reduce the need for 

other supportive services such as 

Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF). Additionally, Tribal 

child support programs offer unique 

services like non-cash support, 

parenting classes that reflect Tribal 

culture and traditions, and intensive 

and family-centered case management. 

A Tribal commenter who is receiving 

child support services stated, ‘‘My 

Tribal IV–D program treated me as a 

person, not just a child support case 

number.’’ The commenter also indicated 

that when the state was unable to locate 

her child’s father, the Tribal child 

support program found him and 

established and enforced a child 

support order, which resulted in the 

receipt of regular child support 

payments. Tribal child support directors 

have indicated that many Tribal parents 

have had similar experiences and value 

the Tribal child support services they 

receive. 

The elimination of the non-Federal 

share will also ensure that state child 

support programs continue to receive 

assistance from Tribal child support 

programs to enforce state child support 

orders and collect child support 

payments in intergovernmental cases in 

accordance with 45 CFR 309.120(a). For 

example, when a Tribal child support 

program receives a request for assistance 

from a state, they register the state child 

support order in Tribal court and 

enforce it. Then, the tribe collects the 

child support payment from the 

noncustodial parent and sends it to the 

state in accordance with 45 CFR 

309.115(d). Without this assistance from 

Tribal child support programs, states 

are, for the most part, unable to collect 

child support payments in these 

intergovernmental cases because they 

lack jurisdiction to enforce their child 

support orders in Tribal Nations. In FY 

2022, Tribal child support programs 

collected and sent $10 million in child 

support payments to states, other tribes, 

and countries.7 Comments from five 

states acknowledged the importance of 

Tribal child support programs, 

reiterated the difficulties they face in 

meeting the non-Federal share 

requirement, and supported the 

elimination. 

Eliminating the non-Federal share 

promotes equity and honors Tribal 

sovereignty and the trust relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Tribal Nations. This regulation also 

aligns with President Biden’s Executive 

order on Reforming Federal Funding 

and Support for Tribal Nations to Better 

Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and 

Promote the Next Era of Tribal SelfDetermination, Executive Order 14112, 

88 FR 86021 (December 6, 2023). As set 

out by the 1977 Senate report of the 

American Indian Policy Review 

Commission, ‘‘The purpose behind the 

trust is and always has been to insure 

the survival and welfare of Indian 

Tribes and people. This includes an 

obligation to provide those services 

required to protect and enhance Indian 

lands, resources, and self-government 

and also includes those economic and 

social programs which are necessary to 

raise the standard of living and social 

well-being of the Indian people to a 

level comparable to the non-Indian 

society.’’ 8 As several commenters 

mentioned, Tribal governments have 

substantially less funds and revenue 

generating options than state 

governments. Yet the needs and 

disparities are greater in Tribal 

communities. For example, they 

continue to face inequalities and 

structural barriers that limit their 

opportunities, negatively impact their 

well-being and economic mobility, and 

contribute to their higher rates of 

poverty.9 Instead of competing, these 

programs and services should 

collaborate to use both Federal and 

Tribal funds efficiently and effectively 

to improve the economic and social 

well-being of Tribal children, families, 

and communities. Therefore, 

eliminating the requirement reduces the 

competition for scarce resources and 

makes the Tribal child support program 

funding more equitable and obtainable 

for Tribal Nations. As one state 

commenter indicated, it helps put 

Tribes on more equal footing with state 

child support programs. 

From the start, the Tribal child 

support program regulations recognized 

and honored Tribal sovereignty and 

attempted to convey flexibilities in 

Tribal child support programs as stated 

in the NPRM published in 2000 (65 FR 

50805). The 2000 NPRM stated that the 

regulation recognizes the governmentto-government relationship by 

supporting Tribe’s right to exercise selfdetermination and decide whether or 

not to operate a Tribal child support 

program (65 FR 50805). Many 

commenters to this final rule also 

recognized and reiterated the 

importance of exercising Tribal 

sovereignty by operating a Tribal child 

support program. Child support services 

help Tribal communities promote 

parental responsibility, so children 

receive support from both parents even 

when they live in separate households. 

Tribes and Tribal organizations 

exercising their sovereignty to operate 

their own child support programs is, in 

fact, what Congress intended when it 

authorized funding under Personal 

Responsibility and Work Opportunity 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 9787 

10See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Broken 

Promises: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for 

Native Americans (December 2018) at https://www.

usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/12-20-BrokenPromises.pdf. 

11See Administration for Children and Families, 

American Indians and Alaska Natives—The Trust 

Responsibility Fact Sheet at https://www.acf.hhs.

gov/ana/fact-sheet/american-indians-and-alaskanatives-trust-responsibility. 

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 

(Pub. L. 104–193). 

Eliminating the non-Federal share 

requirement helps to achieve this and to 

ensure the sustainability and expansion 

of the program by providing the 

adequate and appropriate Federal 

financial participation. This is 

important because many Federal 

programs that assist Tribal Nations and 

promote Tribal sovereignty are 

underfunded, according to the 2018 U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights report on 

Federal funding for Native Americans.10

Additionally, this rule honors and 

reflects the trust relationship and 

doctrine, which requires the Federal 

Government to support Tribal selfgovernment and economic prosperity.11

And it also fulfills the 2000 NPRM 

directive that indicated ‘‘if the Secretary 

determines based on experience and 

consultation with Tribes that the 80/20 

match rate is disruptive to the program 

and imposes hardship to Tribes, the 

regulations will be revised accordingly’’ 

(65 FR 50823). 

Nevertheless, OCSS considered 

whether a change in policy might 

negatively impact Tribal child support 

programs, which have structured their 

operations based on the existing 

matching requirement and determined 

that any potential negative impact is far 

outweighed by the benefit of not using 

scarce Tribal funds for the non-Federal 

share. 

In the NPRM published in 2000, 

OCSS considered several different 

funding approaches that controlled 

costs, including performance-based 

funding, funding based on cost per child 

to operate the program, capping certain 

costs, and state-cost based funding (65 

FR 50823). OCSS engaged in extensive 

deliberations over the issue of funding 

for Tribal child support programs. After 

careful consideration of the advantages 

and disadvantages of each cost control 

funding approach, ultimately, the 

Secretary proposed open-ended funding 

with a Tribal match (65 FR 50823). The 

NPRM proposed that Tribes and Tribal 

organizations provide a 10 percent 

match during the start-up period and 

first 3 years of operating a Tribal child 

support program, with the match 

increasing to 20 percent thereafter (65 

FR 50823). The NPRM also included a 

waiver provision allowing the Secretary 

to waive the non-Federal share for 

Tribes and Tribal organizations that 

lacked sufficient resources and met 

certain specific criteria (65 FR 50823). 

The Tribal Child Support 

Enforcement Program final rule was 

promulgated on March 30, 2004 

(hereinafter final rule) and included 

revisions to the cost sharing provision 

for start-up funding and the non-Federal 

share waiver provisions at 45 CFR 

309.130(e) (69 FR 16638 and 16646). In 

the final rule, OCSS indicated that it 

received numerous comments from 

Tribes objecting to the cost sharing 

requirement. In response, OCSS again 

expressed concern regarding the control 

of costs in the Tribal child support 

program, stating that ‘‘unlike other 

Tribal grant programs, the funding for 

Tribal IV–D programs is not sum certain 

grants,’’ meaning a specified and set 

amount of funds (69 FR 16667). OCSS 

further stated that the cost sharing 

requirement was maintained after 

determining ‘‘that a non-Federal share 

in expenditures is necessary, based on 

the principle that better programs and 

better management result when local 

resources are invested’’ (69 FR 16667). 

However, in response to comments, the 

match requirement was changed to 

allow 100 percent funding during the 

start-up period, not to exceed 2 years, 

and, capped at $500,000 per 45 CFR 

309.130(c)(1). OCSS noted that the nonFederal match for start-up costs was 

eliminated in recognition that ‘‘Tribes 

just beginning title IV–D child support 

enforcement may have very limited 

funds for this activity’’ (69 FR 16646). 

The 2004 final rule also revised the 

non-Federal share waiver provisions 

and made them more prescriptive and 

restrictive (69 FR 16646). For example, 

OCSS noted that denied waiver requests 

were not subject to administrative 

appeal (69 FR 16646). The regulation at 

45 CFR 309.130(e) permits, under 

certain circumstances, a temporary 

waiver of part or all of the non-Federal 

share of program expenditures. This 

provision includes the following two 

types of temporary waiver requests that 

a Tribe or Tribal organization may 

submit for consideration: ‘‘anticipated 

temporary waiver request’’ and 

‘‘emergency waiver request.’’ Both 

waiver requests must be submitted in 

accordance with the procedures 

specified in 45 CFR 309.130(e)(2) 

through (4). These procedures require 

the submission of extensive information 

and documentation to demonstrate the 

temporary lack of resources and justify 

the waiver request. 

Under 45 CFR 309.130(e)(1)(i), when 

Tribes or Tribal organizations anticipate 

that they will be temporarily unable to 

contribute part or all of the required 

non-Federal share of program funding, 

they must submit an anticipated 

temporary waiver request. The 

anticipated waiver, due no later than 60 

days before the start of the funding 

period, is more restrictive because 

untimely or incomplete requests will 

not be considered, in accordance with 

45 CFR 309.130(e)(1)(i). Many Tribal 

child support programs have been 

denied anticipated waivers because of 

untimely or incomplete requests. An 

untimely anticipated waiver request 

means a Tribe submitted the request 

after the deadline of August 1 pursuant 

to 45 CFR 309.130(e)(1)(i). An 

incomplete anticipated waiver request 

means a Tribe did not include all the 

information required by 45 CFR 

309.130(e)(2) through (4), such as 

portions of the Tribal budget sufficient 

to demonstrate the extent of the funding 

shortfall and uncommitted funds. 

Under 45 CFR 309.130(e)(1)(ii), after 

the start of the funding period, if an 

emergency situation occurs, such as a 

hurricane or flood, that warrants a 

waiver of the non-Federal share of 

program expenditures, Tribes or Tribal 

organizations may submit an emergency 

waiver request. 

Although OCSS previously 

determined during drafting of the Tribal 

Child Support Enforcement Program 

regulations that a non-Federal match 

was important to ensure ‘‘better 

programs and better management’’ (69 

FR 16667), it has now reconsidered that 

conclusion after seeing the Tribal child 

support program in practice during the 

past two decades. Based on its 

experience, OCSS now concludes that 

its oversight tools are sufficient, without 

the non-Federal share match, to monitor 

use of funds for IV–D expenditures and 

consider cost containment. Tribes and 

Tribal organizations show in their 

budget submissions and 

communications with OCSS that they 

are engaged in operating successful 

programs and using Federal funds 

properly, efficiently, and effectively, in 

accordance with 45 CFR 309.60(b). A 

non-Federal share is also not necessary 

to ensure Tribal investment in the 

program. Tribes and Tribal 

organizations are inherently invested in 

operating a child support program 

because they can exercise their Tribal 

sovereignty and incorporate their Tribal 

traditions and customs. Most 

importantly, they are invested in the 

Tribal members who staff their 

programs and the Tribal families and 

children who benefit from child support 

services. They will continue to provide 

Tribal resources, such as Tribal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
9788 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

buildings and courts, to ensure their 

programs are successful and efficient. 

The Tribal child support program 

regulations provide OCSS with 

sufficient authority to control costs and 

monitor compliance without the nonFederal share requirement. The primary 

method for evaluating and ensuring 

allowable and appropriate costs is 

through the budget submission, review, 

and approval process. The regulation at 

45 CFR 309.15(c) requires Tribal child 

support programs to submit a budget to 

receive Title IV–D funding to administer 

their child support programs. Budgets 

must include the detailed information 

specified in 45 CFR 309.130(b) and 

OCSS guidance, such as quarterly 

estimate of expenditures, narrative 

justification for each cost category, and 

copies of contracts (see Tribal Child 

Support Budget Toolbox and OCSS 

PIQT–21–01). OCSS and Office of 

Grants Management (OGM) review 

Tribal budget submissions for 

compliance with 45 CFR parts 309, 310, 

and 75 and other applicable Federal 

laws. During the review of Tribal 

budgets, OCSS and OGM examine the 

estimates of program expenditures, 

determine whether the budget narratives 

and documentation justify costs, and 

approve allowable costs charged to the 

Title IV–D grant. OCSS reviews the 

entire budget in detail to ensure the 

costs are reasonable and necessary given 

the caseload size and other demographic 

and geographic factors. OCSS compares 

contract costs to industry standards and 

similar contracts from other child 

support programs. For questionable 

costs, OCSS works with the Tribe to 

obtain additional information or revise 

or remove those costs when warranted. 

For example, OCSS determined that a 

Tribe’s contract costs for information 

technology development were higher 

than the industry standard and worked 

with the Tribe to secure a reduction in 

the costs before approving the contract. 

OCSS must approve a Tribe’s budget 

before OGM issues a notice of grant 

award, which provides OCSS with 

direct oversight over Tribal 

expenditures before Tribal child support 

programs drawdown and use Title IV– 

D funds at the start of the fiscal year. 

After OCSS approves a Tribe’s budget, 

a Tribe may request additional funds by 

submitting the information specified in 

45 CFR 309.130(f)(1). If the increase in 

funds impacts the Tribal IV–D plan, the 

Tribe must also submit a plan 

amendment in accordance with 45 CFR 

309.130(f)(2). A Tribe must provide the 

required information and 

documentation and the costs must 

comply with the Federal regulations 

before OCSS approves the request for an 

increase in funds. This ensures that 

increases in approved Tribal budgets are 

reasonable, necessary, allowable, and 

allocable. Additionally, OCSS uses a 

variety of methods to provide technical 

assistance and assess needs so that 

Tribal child support programs comply 

with the program regulations, uniform 

grant requirements, and cost principles. 

These methods include conducting 

training, national webinars, conference 

workshops, regional meetings, and site 

visits. As a result, the overall Tribal 

child support program expenditures of 

existing Tribes are not expected to rise 

substantially beyond normal cost 

increases due to factors like inflation, 

filling vacancies, or upgrading 

equipment and systems. 

Even with the elimination of the nonFederal share, OCSS does not expect 

that every federally recognized Tribe or 

Tribal organization will request funding 

to operate a Tribal child support 

program, meaning that OCSS expects 

only a modest and gradual increase in 

program expenditures. Prospective 

Tribes and Tribal organizations may not 

have the required administrative 

capacity or infrastructure to operate a 

child support program. For example, 

they may not have 100 children under 

the age of majority, as referenced in 45 

CFR 309.10(a). Although they may 

request a waiver of this requirement (45 

CFR 309.10(c)), the waiver must 

demonstrate that their prospective 

Tribal child support program will be 

cost effective (45 CFR 309.10(c)(1)(iii)). 

Additionally, prospective Tribes and 

Tribal organizations may not want to 

comply with the extensive requirements 

and procedures required to receive 

funding (45 CFR 309.65). A Tribal court 

can hear child support cases without the 

Tribe administering a child support 

program. Administering a Tribal child 

support program and working with 

parents on such a vulnerable and 

sensitive subject is complex and 

demanding. As previously mentioned, 

instead of operating their own Tribal 

child support program, they may jointly 

operate a program or may receive child 

support services from an existing Tribal 

child support program. 

As a policy alternative to eliminating 

the non-Federal share, OCSS considered 

revising the non-Federal share waiver 

requirements to make waivers easier to 

request and receive. In fact, the nonFederal share waiver requirements 

proposed in the 2000 NPRM were less 

restrictive and burdensome than the 

requirements in the 2004 final rule 

under 45 CFR 309.130(e) (65 FR 50837). 

Only one commenter suggested this 

policy alternative. Reducing the burden 

and criteria for requesting non-Federal 

share waivers does not change the fact 

that they are temporary and must be 

requested each time a Tribe needs one. 

The underlying issues that make 

meeting the non-Federal share difficult 

or impossible for Tribes and Tribal 

organizations are persistent, intractable, 

and systemic such as high rates of 

unemployment, little or no economic 

development, or lack of or a decline in 

revenue. As one commenter pointed 

out, Tribal communities have been 

historically underserved, marginalized, 

or subject to discrimination or systemic 

disadvantage. These issues not only 

hinder current Tribal child support 

programs from meeting the non-Federal 

share and potentially shutting down, 

but they also prevent prospective Tribes 

from even applying for funding. 

Therefore, OCSS does not think revising 

the non-Federal share waiver 

requirements would increase Tribal 

participation or reduce the risks of 

program closures as much as 

eliminating the requirement entirely. 

Nor would it reduce the administrative 

burden associated with tracking and 

reporting on non-Federal share 

contributions and submitting waiver 

requests. Most importantly, revising the 

non-Federal share waiver provision 

recognizes the need to implement the 

2000 NPRM directive for the Secretary 

to revise the regulations when the 80/20 

match rate is disruptive to the program 

and imposes hardship to Tribes (65 FR 

50823). Accordingly, the time has come 

to revise the regulation. The 

overwhelming majority of commenters 

agreed with this decision. 

In 1996, Congress was compelled to 

pass PRWORA and authorize direct 

funding of Tribes and Tribal 

organizations for operating child 

support programs. And now, OCSS 

issues this final rule that eliminates the 

non-Federal share requirement, helping 

to ensure that new Tribal child support 

programs are established, and current 

ones continue to operate and thrive, as 

Congress intended. As a result, more 

Tribal communities will receive child 

support services that reflect and affirm 

their Tribal cultures and traditions, 

increase family economic well-being, 

and help lift Tribal families out of 

poverty. 

IV. Summary Description of the 

Regulatory Provisions 

The following is a summary of the 

regulatory provisions included in the 

final rule and, where appropriate, how 

these provisions differ from what was 

initially included in the NPRM. The 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on April 21, 2023 (88 FR 24526 

through 24535). The comment period 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 9789 

ended June 20, 2023. OCSS received 51 

sets of comments from 48 entities as 

follows: 28 Tribes, 5 Tribal child 

support programs, 5 states, 5 

organizations, and 5 individuals. Three 

Tribes submitted 2 sets of comments. 

Comments were posted on 

www.regulations.gov. 

Overwhelmingly, the comments 

received on the NPRM supported the 

elimination of the non-Federal share 

requirement for Tribal child support 

programs. Several commenters 

indicated that they had no objections to 

the regulatory revisions, as discussed 

below, resulting from the elimination of 

the non-Federal share. Only one 

comment disagreed with the elimination 

and recommended allocating funds by 

the size of the Tribal child support 

program or revising the non-Federal 

share waiver provision instead. 

Section 309.15 What is a Tribal IV–D 

program application? 

In § 309.15(a)(2)(iii), OCSS proposed 

removing the language ‘‘; and either:’’ at 

the end of that provision and inserting 

a period in its place. Section 

309.15(a)(2)(iv) requires the initial 

application for funding to include a 

statement that the Tribe or Tribal 

organization has or will have the nonFederal share of program expenditures 

available. Section 309.15(a)(2)(v) 

permits a request for a waiver of the 

non-Federal share in accordance with 

§ 309.130(e). OCSS proposed removing 

§ 309.15(a)(2)(iv) and (v) due to the 

elimination of the non-Federal share. 

There were no objections to the 

proposed regulatory amendments. 

Section 309.45 When and how may a 

Tribe or Tribal organization request 

reconsideration of a disapproval action? 

Section 309.45(g) indicates that 

disapproval of start-up funding, a 

request for waiver of the 100-child rule, 

and a request for waiver of the nonFederal Tribal share is not subject to 

administrative appeal. OCSS proposed 

amending § 309.45(g) by removing ‘‘, 

and a request for waiver of the nonFederal Tribal share.’’ Revised 

paragraph (g) will read as follows: 

‘‘Disapproval of start-up funding and a 

request for waiver of the 100-child rule 

is not subject to administrative appeal.’’ 

There were no objections to the 

proposed regulatory amendments. 

Section 309.75 What administrative 

and management procedures must a 

Tribe or Tribal organization include in 

a Tribal IV–D plan? 

Section 309.75(e) describes the 

requirements for a Tribe and Tribal 

organization that intends to charge an 

application fee or recover costs in 

excess of the fee. Collected fees and 

recovered costs are considered program 

income and deducted from total 

allowable costs in accordance with 45 

CFR 309.75(e)(4) and 75.307(e)(1). Due 

to the proposed elimination of the nonFederal share requirement, we proposed 

revising § 309.75(e) and modified the 

proposed language in the NPRM, 

requiring Tribal child support programs 

to provide that charging fees and 

recovering costs will not be permitted. 

We also proposed removing paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (4). There were no 

objections to the proposed regulatory 

amendments. 

Section 309.85 What records must a 

Tribe or Tribal organization agree to 

maintain in a Tribal IV–D plan? 

Section 309.85(a)(6) requires a Tribe 

or Tribal organization to maintain 

records on any fees charged and 

collected, if applicable. As previously 

stated, collected fees and recovered 

costs are considered program income 

and deducted from total allowable costs 

in accordance with 45 CFR 309.75(e)(4) 

and 75.307(e)(1). Due to the proposed 

elimination of the non-Federal share 

requirement, we proposed removing 

§ 309.85(a)(6) and redesignating 

§ 309.85(a)(7) to § 309.85(a)(6). There 

were no objections to the proposed 

regulatory amendments. 

Section 309.130 How will Tribal IV–D 

programs be funded and what forms are 

required? 

In § 309.130(b)(2)(iii), we proposed 

removing the language ‘‘and for funding 

under § 309.65(a) either:’’ at the end of 

that provision and replacing it with a 

period. Section 309.130(b)(2)(iv) 

requires the annual Tribal budget 

submissions to include a statement 

certifying that the Tribe or Tribal 

organization has or will have the nonFederal share of program expenditures. 

Section 309.130(b)(2)(v) permits a 

request for a waiver of the non-Federal 

share in accordance with paragraph (e) 

of the section. We proposed removing 

§ 309.130(b)(2)(iv) and (v) due to the 

elimination of the non-Federal share 

requirement. 

Section 309.130(c) describes the 

Federal share of program expenditures 

for start-up funding and for initial and 

ongoing grant funding to administer a 

Tribal child support program. We 

proposed amending § 309.130(c)(2) by 

removing ‘‘during a 3-year period,’’ 

replacing ‘‘90’’ with ‘‘100’’, and adding 

‘‘and thereafter’’ following ‘‘made 

during that period.’’ We proposed 

amending § 309.130(c)(3) by removing 

§ 309.130(c)(3)(i), redesignating 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii) to paragraph (c)(3), 

and replacing ‘‘90’’ with ‘‘100’’. We 

proposed these revisions to indicate that 

the Federal share of program 

expenditures will be 100 percent due to 

the elimination of the non-Federal share 

requirement. 

Section 309.130(d) describes the 

requirements for the non-Federal share 

of program expenditures. We proposed 

removing § 309.130(d) due to the 

elimination of the non-Federal share 

requirement. 

Section 309.130(e) describes the 

requirements for permitting a temporary 

waiver of part or all of the non-Federal 

share of program expenditures. We 

proposed removing § 309.130(e) due to 

the elimination of the non-Federal share 

requirement. 

Section 309.130(f) describes the 

requirements for requesting increases in 

the approved Tribal budget and 

§ 309.130(f)(3) addresses how budget 

increases impact the non-Federal share. 

We proposed redesignating § 309.130(f) 

to § 309.130(d) and removing 

§ 309.130(f)(3). 

Section 309.130(g) describes how to 

obtain Federal funds and § 309.130(h) 

requires compliance with the uniform 

administrative requirements and cost 

principles. We proposed redesignating 

§ 309.130(g) and (h) to § 309.130(e) and 

(f), respectively. 

The overwhelming majority of 

comments supported the elimination of 

the non-Federal share requirement. 

Only one comment disagreed with the 

elimination and recommended 

allocating funds by the size of the Tribal 

child support program or revising the 

non-Federal share waiver provision 

instead. 

Section 309.155 What uses of Tribal 

IV–D program funds are not allowable? 

Section 309.155(c) prohibits a Tribe or 

Tribal organization from using Federal 

IV–D funds for any expenditures that 

have been reimbursed by fees or costs 

collected, including any fee collected 

from a state. We proposed removing 

§ 309.155(c) and redesignating 

§ 309.155(d), (e), (f), and (g) to 

§ 309.155(c), (d), (e), and (f), 

respectively. There were no objections 

to the proposed regulatory amendments. 

Section 309.170 What statistical and 

narrative reporting requirements apply 

to Tribal IV–D programs? 

Section 309.170(b)(8) requires a Tribe 

or Tribal organization to provide annual 

information and statistics on the total 

amount of fees and costs recovered. We 

proposed removing § 309.170(b)(8) and 

redesignating § 309.170(b)(9) to 

§ 309.170(b)(8). There were no 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
9790 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

objections to the proposed regulatory 

amendments. 

Section 310.10 What are the functional 

requirements for the Model Tribal IV–D 

System? 

Section 310.10(c) requires the Model 

Tribal IV–D System to record and report 

any fees collected, either directly or by 

interfacing with state or Tribal financial 

management and expenditure 

information. Although we proposed 

removing § 310.10(c) and redesignating 

§ 310.10(d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to 

§ 310.10(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), 

respectively, OCSS has reconsidered 

these amendments, despite not 

receiving any objections to them. After 

further consideration, OCSS has 

decided it is necessary to maintain the 

Model Tribal Systems (MTS) 

requirements described in § 310.10(c) 

because a Tribal child support program 

may collect fees to assist a state child 

support program in an 

intergovernmental case. If so, they 

would need to record and report any 

fees collected along with expenditure 

information as per § 310.10(c). Because 

we are retaining § 310.10(c), we also no 

longer need to redesignate the other 

subsections. 

Section 310.20 What are the 

conditions for funding the installation, 

operation, maintenance and 

enhancement of Computerized Tribal 

IV–D Systems and Office Automation? 

Section 310.20(a) describes the 

conditions that must be met for Federal 

financial participation for Computerized 

Tribal IV–D Systems. We proposed 

replacing ‘‘90’’ with ‘‘100’’ for 

installation of the Model Tribal IV–D 

System. 

V. Response to Comments 

Comment 1: The majority of 

commenters indicated that they had no 

objections to the regulatory revisions 

proposed in 45 CFR 309.15, 309.45, 

309.75, 309.85, 309.155, 309.170, and 

310.20. 

Response 1: Based on the 

overwhelming support for the 

elimination of the non-Federal share of 

program expenditure requirement for 

Tribal child support programs, 

including the 90/10 and 80/20 cost 

sharing rates, OCSS agrees that the relief 

should be provided. 

For the reasons described in the 

proposed rule and above, OCSS revises 

45 CFR 309.15, 309.45, 309.75, 309.83, 

309.155, 309.170, and 310.20 as 

proposed. 

Comment 2: Overwhelmingly, Tribes, 

Tribal child support programs, states, 

organizations, and individuals who 

submitted comments were unequivocal 

in their support of the proposed 

elimination of the non-Federal share 

requirement. 

Most commenters indicated that the 

non-Federal share limits growth, causes 

disruptions, creates instability, and 

imposes hardships for Tribal child 

support programs. 

Many Tribal commenters stated that 

meeting the non-Federal share forced 

their Tribal child support program to 

reduce services, cut travel and training, 

and forgo hiring staff, modernizing, 

digitizing, accessing FPLS, and 

participating in the Federal Tax Refund 

Offset Program (FTRO). Several Tribal 

commenters also indicated that these 

forced cuts and reductions made their 

programs less efficient and effective. For 

example, one Tribal commenter 

indicated that their program was unable 

to afford their non-Federal share to 

access enforcement remedies like FPLS 

and FTRO to locate noncustodial 

parents and to offset Federal tax returns 

for overdue support. 

Many commenters indicated that 

Tribes had limited resources. Several 

Tribal commenters described how 

meeting the non-Federal share diverted 

their limited Tribal funds from essential 

self-governance services and functions 

for the elderly, youth, Tribal courts, 

public safety, natural resources, natural 

disasters, and crisis mitigation like the 

opioid crisis and coronavirus disease 

pandemic. Some Tribal commenters 

also stated that it forced Tribal programs 

to compete for those limited funds and 

make difficult decisions about how to 

allocate resources to address the needs 

and issues of Tribal members and which 

programs to underfund. Two 

commenters indicated how Tribal 

governments do not have taxing 

authorities like state governments. 

Some Tribal commenters stated that 

finding, tracking, calculating, and 

documenting non-Federal share 

contributions was time consuming and 

that their efforts could be better used on 

providing needed child support services 

to families, such as parenting classes 

and fatherhood programs. Some Tribal 

commenters also indicated that the nonFederal share waiver requirements were 

burdensome and impossible to meet. 

And two Tribal commenters stated that 

Congress did not impose the nonFederal share requirement in the 

authorizing legislation. 

One Tribal commenter indicated that 

they may have to shut down their Tribal 

child support program if OCSS does not 

eliminate the non-Federal share 

requirement. And two commenters 

mentioned how one Tribe had to close 

their program because of the difficulty 

with providing the non-Federal share. 

Many commenters indicated that the 

elimination of non-Federal share would 

be beneficial for Tribal child support 

programs. Several commenters specified 

that they would increase child support 

services, update their systems, and fill 

vacancies. Several commenters also 

stated that the elimination would help 

to ensure that existing programs 

continue operating and new ones are 

established, creating stability and 

growth. Additionally, several 

commenters emphasized the importance 

of Tribes and Tribal organizations 

exercising their Tribal sovereignty by 

administering a child support program. 

One commenter stated that the 

elimination promotes equity by 

removing a substantial financial burden 

for Tribal communities that have been 

historically underserved, marginalized, 

or subject to discrimination or systemic 

disadvantage. Two commenters 

indicated that it honors the trust 

relationship the Federal Government 

has with Tribal Nations. And another 

two commenters stated that it would 

reduce bureaucratic barriers faced by 

Tribes and Tribal organizations. 

One commenter agreed that OCSS still 

has sufficient oversight and cost 

containment tools without the nonFederal share requirement. Another 

commenter indicated that many Tribes 

and Tribal organizations will continue 

to invest in their programs by 

contributing Tribal facilities and using 

Tribal members as staff. Many 

commenters indicated how Tribes and 

Tribal organizations are invested in 

their children, helping noncustodial and 

custodial parents support them 

financially and emotionally. 

A few Tribal commenters indicated 

that the elimination demonstrates that 

OCSS is listening to Tribes and Tribal 

organizations. 

Many commenters expressed the need 

for child support services in Tribal 

communities to help lift Tribal families 

and children out of poverty. 

Response 2: Based on the 

overwhelming support for the proposed 

elimination of the non-Federal share 

requirement, for the reasons described 

in the NPRM and by the majority of 

commenters, OCSS agrees that the nonFederal share requirement should be 

eliminated for Tribal child support 

programs. 

Comment 3: One individual opposed 

the elimination of the non-Federal share 

requirement without replacing with 

another cost containment mechanism. 

The commenter thought OCSS could not 

reasonably expect to apply the level of 

oversight or impartiality to fiscally 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 9791 

manage a program where an unlimited 

amount of money can be requested 

without financial participation by 

grantees. The commenter indicated that 

cost sharing ensures a grantee considers 

cost-to-benefit proposition and that the 

principle has never been questioned for 

states and is a solid principle for Tribes. 

In lieu of cost sharing, the commenter 

recommended allocating funds by the 

size of the Tribal program based upon 

historical caseload data. The commenter 

also recommended revising the nonFederal share waiver provision. The 

commenter indicated that Tribes are not 

all in the same financial position and 

some have limited resources while 

others are thriving. 

Response 3: OCSS disagrees. As 

discussed previously, the Tribal child 

support program regulations provide 

OCSS with sufficient authority to 

control costs and monitor compliance 

without the non-Federal share 

requirement. Unlike state child support 

programs, Tribal child support programs 

must submit a budget to receive Title 

IV–D funding in accordance with 45 

CFR 309.15(c). Budgets must include 

the detailed information specified in 45 

CFR 309.130(b) and OCSS guidance, 

such as quarterly estimate of 

expenditures, narrative justification for 

each cost category, and copies of 

contracts (see Tribal Child Support 

Budget Toolbox and OCSS PIQT–21– 

01). OCSS and OGM review Tribal 

budget submissions for compliance with 

45 CFR parts 309, 310, and 75 and other 

applicable Federal laws. During the 

review of Tribal budgets, OCSS and 

OGM examine the estimates of program 

expenditures, and determine whether 

the budget narratives and 

documentation justify costs. Many 

factors impact a Tribe’s caseload. For 

example, some Tribal child support 

programs receive cases transferred from 

a state child support program, others do 

not and must conduct intensive 

outreach to get parents to apply for 

services, a few Tribal child support 

programs receive referrals from the 

Tribal TANF programs, and at least one 

Tribal child support program provides 

services to other Tribes. Several Tribal 

child support programs have parents 

who do not live locally and reaching 

them is costly. As indicated by the 

feedback from Tribes and Tribal 

organizations, meeting the non-Federal 

share has limited their ability of 

conduct outreach to increase their 

caseloads. Therefore, using historical 

data is problematic and may not be a 

valid predictor for prospective Tribes 

and Tribal organizations since they have 

unique characteristics, histories, and 

relationships with their states. 

Additionally, OCSS considered but 

decided against capping certain costs for 

Tribal child support programs in the 

2000 NPRM (65 FR 50823). OCSS also 

disagrees with that option now. Capping 

costs limits Tribes and Tribal 

organizations to self-govern, grow their 

program as they determine, and 

innovate to meet the evolving needs and 

circumstances of Tribal parents and 

children. 

Comment 4: Several commenters 

indicated that they had no objections to 

the regulatory revisions proposed in 

§ 310.10. 

Response 4: Although commenters 

indicated that they had no objection to 

the regulatory revisions proposed in 

§ 310.10, OCSS has decided not to 

revise 45 CFR 310.10 as originally 

proposed in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. Specifically, OCSS has 

determined, as noted above, it is 

necessary to maintain the Model Tribal 

Systems (MTS) requirements described 

in § 310.10(c) because a Tribal child 

support program may collect fees to 

assist a state child support program in 

an intergovernmental case. If so, they 

would need to record and report any 

fees collected along with expenditure 

information as per § 310.10(c). And, 

because we are retaining § 310.10(c), we 

no longer need to redesignate the other 

paragraphs. 

VI. Regulatory Review 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(Pub. L. 104–13), 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. For this final 

rule, Tribal child support programs that 

charge fees and recover costs must 

submit a plan amendment, providing 

that charging fees and recovering costs 

will not be permitted. Only three Tribal 

programs report data on the collection 

of fees and recovered costs. The 

description and total estimated burden 

on the ‘‘Tribal Child Support 

Enforcement Direct Funding Request’’ 

(OMB #0907–0218) is described in the 

chart below. 

Section and purpose Instrument Number of 

respondents 

Average burden hour 

per response Total cost 

National 

Federal 

share 

National 

Tribal 

share 

Added requirement § 309.75(e) regarding charging fees and recovering costs.Tribal plan amendment.One time for 3 

Tribes.

3 hours × $73.84 × 3 Tribes ...... $664.56 $664.56 $0 

In accordance 45 CFR 309.35(d), after 

approval of the original Tribal IV–D 

program application, all relevant 

changes required by new Federal 

statutes, rules, regulations, and 

Department interpretations are required 

to be submitted so that the Secretary 

may determine whether the plan 

continues to meet Federal requirements 

and policies. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Secretary certifies that, under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96– 

354), this rule will not result in a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The primary 

impact is on Tribal governments. Tribal 

governments are not considered small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

Congressional Review 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

allows Congress to review major rules 

issued by Federal agencies before the 

rules take effect (see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)). 

The CRA defines a ‘‘major rule’’ as one 

that has resulted, or is likely to result, 

in (1) an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more; (2) a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers; individual industries; 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies; or geographic regions; or (3) 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, or innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreign 

based enterprises in domestic and 

export markets (see 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8). 

Based on our estimates of the impact of 

this rule, the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

designated this rule as ‘not major’ under 

the CRA. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

I I I 
9792 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 

Executive Orders 12866, as amended 

by Executive Order 14094, and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all 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 both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This rule 

meets the standards of Executive Order 

12866, as amended by Executive Order 

14094, and Executive Order 13563 

because it creates equity, promotes 

predictability, and reduces burdens and 

hardships for Tribal child support 

programs. The non-Federal share 

requirement limits growth, causes 

disruptions, and creates instability. 

Eliminating it encourages expansion of 

services and enforcement remedies, 

removes a financial barrier for 

prospective Tribes and Tribal 

organizations, prevents closure of 

existing Tribal child support programs, 

and provides a permanent solution to 

longstanding problems. This will ensure 

Tribal families receive child support 

services that reflect and affirm their 

cultures and traditions and that promote 

parental responsibility and increase 

disposable family income and financial 

stability. 

Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed 

by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides 

that OIRA at OMB will review all 

significant rules. Section 3(f) of E.O. 

12866, as modified by 14094, defines ‘‘a 

significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action that is likely to result in a rule 

(1) having an annual effect on the 

economy of $200 million or more in any 

1 year, or adversely and materially 

affecting a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, and Tribal governments or 

communities; (2) creating serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfering 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) materially altering 

the budgetary impacts of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) raising legal or policy 

issues for which centralized review 

would meaningfully further the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive order. OIRA 

has determined that this final rule is 

significant, and it was accordingly 

reviewed by OMB. 

Based upon the increase in program 

expenditures from existing Tribal child 

support programs and the modest 

growth of new programs due to the 

elimination of the non-Federal share, we 

anticipate that the costs associated with 

this rule will be the following: FY 2025 

$17.2M; FY 2026 $19M; FY 2027 

$26.4M; FY 2028 34.3M; and FY 2029 

$42.6M. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires 

agencies to prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in an 

annual expenditure by state, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more (adjusted annually for inflation). 

That threshold level is currently 

approximately $164 million. This rule 

does not impose any mandates on State, 

local, or Tribal governments, or the 

private sector, that will result in an 

annual expenditure of $164 million or 

more. 

Assessment of Federal Regulations and 

Policies on Families 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to 

determine whether a proposed policy or 

regulation may affect family well-being. 

If the agency’s determination is 

affirmative, then the agency must 

prepare an impact assessment 

addressing seven criteria specified in 

the law. We certify that we have 

assessed this proposed rule’s impact on 

the well-being of families. The purpose 

of the Tribal child support program is to 

strengthen the financial and social 

stability of families. This rule eliminates 

the burden and hardships imposed by 

the non-Federal share requirement for 

Tribal child support programs, which 

limits growth, causes disruptions, and 

creates instability. Eliminating it 

encourages expansion of services and 

enforcement remedies, removes a 

financial barrier for prospective Tribes 

and Tribal organizations, and prevents 

closure of existing Tribal child support 

programs. The proposed rule will have 

a positive effect on family well-being. It 

will ensure Tribal families receive child 

support services that reflect and affirm 

their cultures and traditions and that 

promote parental responsibility and 

increase disposable family income and 

financial stability. 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 prohibits an 

agency from publishing any rule that 

has federalism implications if the rule 

either imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments and is not required by 

statute, or the rule preempts state law, 

unless the agency meets the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of section 6 of the Executive order. This 

rule does not have federalism impact as 

defined in the Executive order. 

Jeff Hild, Acting Assistant Secretary of 

the Administration for Children and 

Families, approved this document on 

January 18, 2024. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Programs No. 93.563, Child Support 

Enforcement Program.) 

List of Subjects 

45 CFR Part 309 

Child support, Grant programs— 

social programs, Indians—Tribal 

government, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

45 CFR Part 310 

Child support, Grant programs— 

social programs, Indians. 

Dated: January 30, 2024. 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Department of Health and 

Human Services amends 45 CFR chapter 

III as set forth below: 

■ 1. Under the authority provided in FR 

Doc. 2023–11815 (88 FR 36587, June 5, 

2023), revise the heading for chapter III 

to read as follows: 

CHAPTER III—OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT 

SERVICES, ADMINISTRATION OF FAMILIES 

AND SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PART 309—TRIBAL CHILD SUPPORT 

ENFORCEMENT (IV–D PROGRAM) 

■ 2. The authority citation for part 309 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 655(f) and 1302. 

■ 3. Section 309.15 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii); and 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and 

(v). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 309.15 What is a Tribal IV–D program 

application? 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) A narrative justification for each 

cost category on the form. 

* * * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 9793 

■ 4. Section 309.45 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 309.45 When and how may a Tribe or 

Tribal organization request reconsideration 

of a disapproval action? 

* * * * * 

(g) Disapproval of start-up funding 

and a request for waiver of the 100-child 

rule is not subject to administrative 

appeal. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 309.75 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 309.75 What administrative and 

management procedures must a Tribe or 

Tribal organization include in a Tribal IV–D 

plan? 

* * * * * 

(e) Provide that charging fees and 

recovering costs will not be permitted. 

§ 309.85 [Amended] 

■ 6. Section 309.85 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding the word ‘‘and’’ at the end 

of paragraph (a)(5); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (a)(6); and 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (a)(7) as 

paragraph (a)(6). 

■ 7. Section 309.130 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii); 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (b)(2)(iv) and 

(v); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (3); 

■ d. Removing paragraphs (d) and (e); 

■ e. Redesignating paragraphs (f) 

through (h) as paragraph (d) through (f); 

and 

■ f. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (d). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 309.130 How will Tribal IV–D programs 

be funded and what forms are required? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) A narrative justification for each 

cost category on the form. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Beginning with the first day of the 

first quarter of the funding grant 

specified under § 309.135(a)(2), a Tribe 

or Tribal organization will receive 

Federal grant funds equal to 100 percent 

of the total amount of approved and 

allowable expenditures made during 

that period and thereafter for the 

administration of the Tribal child 

support enforcement program. 

(3) A Tribe or Tribal organization will 

receive Federal grant funds equal to 100 

percent of pre-approved costs of 

installing the Model Tribal IV–D 

System. 

(d) Increase in approved budget. (1) A 

Tribe or Tribal organization may request 

an increase in the approved amount of 

its current budget by submitting a 

revised SF 424A to ACF and explaining 

why it needs the additional funds. The 

Tribe or Tribal organization should 

submit this request at least 60 days 

before additional funds are needed, to 

allow the Secretary adequate time to 

review the estimates and issue a revised 

grant award, if appropriate. 

(2) If the change in Tribal IV–D budget 

estimate results from a change in the 

Tribal IV–D plan, the Tribe or Tribal 

organization must submit a plan 

amendment in accordance with 

§ 309.35(e), a revised SF 424, and a 

revised SF 424A with its request for 

additional funding. The effective date of 

a plan amendment may not be earlier 

than the first day of the fiscal quarter in 

which an approvable plan is submitted 

in accordance with § 309.35(f). The 

Secretary must approve the plan 

amendment before approving any 

additional funding. 

* * * * * 

§ 309.155 [Amended] 

■ 8. Section 309.155 is amended by 

removing paragraph (c) and 

redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g) 

as paragraphs (c) through (f). 

§ 309.170 [Amended] 

■ 9. Section 309.170 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding the word ‘‘and’’ at the end 

of paragraph (b)(7); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (b)(8); and 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (b)(9) as 

paragraph (b)(8). 

PART 310—COMPUTERIZED TRIBAL 

IV–D SYSTEMS AND OFFICE 

AUTOMATION 

■ 10. The authority citation for part 310 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 655(f) and 1302. 

■ 11. Section 310.20 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; and 

■ b. Removing the semicolons at the 

ends of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2)(v), and 

(a)(5) and (6) and adding periods in 

their places. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 310.20 What are the conditions for 

funding the installation, operation, 

maintenance and enhancement of 

Computerized Tribal IV–D Systems and 

Office Automation? 

(a) Conditions that must be met for 

FFP at the applicable matching rate in 

§ 309.130(c) of this chapter for 

Computerized Tribal IV–D Systems. The 

following conditions must be met to 

obtain 100 percent FFP in the costs of 

installation of the Model Tribal IV–D 

System and FFP at the applicable 

matching rate under § 309.130(c) of this 

chapter in the costs of operation, 

maintenance, and enhancement of a 

Computerized Tribal IV–D System: 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–02110 Filed 2–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–42–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 231215–0305; RTID 0648– 

XD718] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Summer Flounder Fishery; 

Quota Transfer From North Carolina to 

Virginia 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; quota transfer. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

State of North Carolina is transferring a 

portion of its 2024 commercial summer 

flounder quota to the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. This adjustment to the 2024 

fishing year quota is necessary to 

comply with the Summer Flounder, 

Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer 

provisions. This announcement informs 

the public of the revised 2024 

commercial quotas for North Carolina 

and Virginia. 

DATES: Effective February 9, 2024, 

through December 31, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Deighan, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9184. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the summer 

flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 

648.100 through 648.111. These 

regulations require annual specification 

of a commercial quota that is 

apportioned among the coastal states 

from Maine through North Carolina. The 

process to set the annual commercial 

quota and the percent allocated to each 

state is described in § 648.102 and final 

2024 allocations were published on 

December 21, 2023 (88 FR 88266). 

The final rule implementing 

amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder 

FMP, as published in the Federal 

Register on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 

65936), provided a mechanism for 

transferring summer flounder 

commercial quota from one state to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES