Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15475 

401–404, 414, 416, 3001–3018, 3201–3220, 

3401–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3629, 3631– 

3633, 3641, 3681–3685, and 5001. 

■ 2. Amend § 111.1 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 111.1 Incorporation by reference; Mailing 

Standards of the United States Postal 

Service, Domestic Mail Manual. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Inspection—NARA. You may view 

this material at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

this material at NARA, visit 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@

nara.gov. 

(b) The Director of the Federal 

Register approved DMM, updated 

January 21, 2024, for incorporation by 

reference as of March 4, 2024. 

■ 3. Amend § 111.3 by adding an entry 

for ‘‘DMM’’ to the end of table 1 to read 

as follows: 

§ 111.3 Amendments to the Mailing 

Standards of the United States Postal 

Service, Domestic Mail Manual. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 111.3—DOMESTIC MAIL MANUAL

Transmittal letter for issue Dated Federal Register publication 

*******

DMM ............................................... January 21, 2024 ........................... [Insert Federal Register citation for this final rule]. 

Sarah E. Sullivan, 

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2024–04421 Filed 3–1–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Part 305 

RIN 0970–AC95 

Modifications to Performance 

Standards During Natural Disasters 

and Other Calamities 

AGENCY: Office of Child Support 

Services (OCSS), Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF), 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS or the Department). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: OCSS issues this final rule to 

provide temporary relief to states from 

certain child support program 

performance requirements and penalties 

during natural disasters and other 

calamities which have a negative impact 

on state child support program 

operations. The rule allows OCSS to 

modify performance measure 

requirements when natural disasters 

and other calamities affect, or are 

expected to affect, the state child 

support program’s ability to achieve 

performance standards for paternity 

establishment, support order 

establishment, and current collections. 

The rule enables states to avoid the 

imposition of penalties due to adverse 

data reliability audit findings during, 

and after, natural disasters and other 

calamities, including pandemics and 

declared public health emergencies. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 4, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tricia John, Policy Specialist, Division 

of Policy and Training, OCSS, telephone 

(202) 260–7143. Email inquiries to ocss.

dpt@acf.hhs.gov. Deaf and hearingimpaired individuals may call the 

Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1– 

800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 

p.m. Eastern Time. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Statutory Authority 

This rule is published under the 

authority granted to the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services by section 

1102 of the Social Security Act (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. The authority to modify 

the paternity establishment percentage 

(PEP) performance measure and data 

reliability audit requirements is based 

on section 452(g)(3)(A) of the Act (42 

U.S.C. 652(g)(3)(A)), which provides the 

Secretary with discretionary authority to 

modify the PEP and program audit 

requirements taking into account 

additional variables as identified by the 

Secretary that affect the ability of a state 

to meet the PEP and audit requirements. 

The authority to modify, waive or 

suspend the support order 

establishment and current collections 

performance measures is based on 

section 409(a)(8)(A)(i)(I) of the Act (42 

U.S.C. 609(a)(8)(A)(i)(I)), which 

provides the Secretary with discretion 

regarding the establishment of other 

state child support program 

performance measures. 

Background 

The purpose of this rule is to 

authorize the Secretary to provide 

targeted and time-limited relief to states 

from certain performance penalties 

when natural disasters and other 

calamities impact state child support 

program operations, preventing the state 

from achieving the required program 

performance measures. 

This rule allows OCSS to modify the 

requirements for states to meet the 

following performance standards: the 

PEP performance standard of 90 percent 

under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(1), the support 

order establishment standard of 40 

percent under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(2), and 

the current collections performance 

standard of 35 percent under 45 CFR 

305.40(a)(3). This rule sets forth the 

process by which states may request, 

and OCSS may adjust these performance 

standards to a lower level to avoid 

imposing financial penalties on states 

and modify the requirements to avoid 

the imposition of penalties due to 

adverse data reliability audit findings. 

The rule permits time-limited 

modification of performance 

requirements during, and subsequent to, 

natural disasters and other calamities. 

We note that the rule only addresses 

modifications to penalty performance 

measures and levels under 45 CFR 

305.40; it does not change the 

requirements related to incentive 

payments under section 458 of the Act 

and 45 CFR part 305. 

The need for OCSS to establish a 

process for states to request relief from 

penalties during natural disasters and 

calamities became apparent during the 

COVID–19 pandemic. During the 

COVID–19 pandemic, states 

experienced significant workload 

burdens and service backlogs due to 

disruptions to state child support 

program operations and court closures. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
15476 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/ 

flexibilities-state-and-tribal-child-support-agenciesduring-covid-19-pandemic. 

State child support program operations 

were affected in a variety of ways, 

including being unable to obtain 

voluntary acknowledgments through inhospital programs or to access genetic 

testing due to child support office 

closures, court closures, staffing 

shortages, or when clinical laboratory 

resources were diverted for pandemicrelated testing. In response, OCSS added 

45 CFR 305.61(e) to provide timelimited relief specific to the impact of 

COVID–19, to modify the Paternity 

Establishment Percentage for Federal 

Fiscal Years (FFY) 2020, 2021, and 

2022. 

Since the start of the pandemic in 

early 2020, states have appealed for 

relief from program requirements in 

order to support their operations during 

the crisis. OCSS was able to provide 

certain flexibilities for administrative 

requirements under the Robert T. 

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) (See 

OCSS’s Dear Colleague Letter 20–04: 

Flexibilities for State and Tribal Child 

Support Agencies during COVID–19 

Pandemic 1). However, these flexibilities 

did not extend to relief for financial 

penalties related to performance or 

adverse data reliability audit findings. 

States are concerned that performancerelated financial penalties resulting 

from a natural disaster or other 

calamity, and which are imposed in the 

form of a reduction to state TANF 

grants, place an undue burden on state 

budgets and threaten funding that 

supports the very families who are most 

in need of public assistance during a 

time of crisis. 

State Child Support Program 

Performance Requirements 

Under title IV–D of the Act, states are 

required to achieve performance levels 

in paternity establishment, support 

order establishment, and current 

collections. Failure to achieve required 

performance levels may lead to 

penalties assessed as a percentage 

reduction of the state’s Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

grant in accordance with section 

409(a)(8) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(8)). 

The PEP, support order establishment, 

and current collections performance 

measures, which are part of the overall 

performance, audit, penalties, and 

incentives for the child support 

program, are established under 452(g) of 

the Act and 45 CFR 305.40. Section 

452(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act requires the 

Secretary to determine whether statereported data used to determine the 

performance levels are complete and 

reliable. Additionally, section 

409(a)(8)(A) of the Act and 45 CFR 

305.61(a)(1) include the assessment of a 

financial penalty if there is a failure to 

achieve the required level of 

performance or an audit determines that 

the data are incomplete or unreliable. 

The required levels of performance for 

the PEP, support order establishment, 

and current collections performance 

measures are set out in 45 CFR 305.40: 

• The PEP performance level must be 

at least 90 percent or an improvement 

of 2 to 6 percentage points over the 

previous year’s level of performance, 

below which a state will incur a 

penalty. 

• The support order establishment 

performance level must be at least 40 

percent, below which a state will be 

penalized unless an increase of 5 

percent over the previous year is 

achieved. 

• The current collections 

performance level must be at least 35 

percent, below which a state will be 

penalized unless an increase of 5 

percent over the previous year is 

achieved. 

Section 409(a)(8)(A)(ii) of the Act and 

45 CFR 305.61(a)(2) impose automatic 

corrective action for the subsequent 

fiscal year. A state also must submit 

complete and reliable data used in the 

performance measure calculations, 

which will be audited according to 45 

CFR 305.60. 

If a state fails to meet the annual 

performance measure standards, or to 

show improvement in the subsequent 

year, the amount of the initial penalty 

will be equal to one to two percent of 

the adjusted State Family Assistance 

Grant for the state’s TANF program in 

accordance with 45 CFR 305.61(c) and 

(d). A penalty will also be imposed if 

the state fails to submit complete and 

reliable performance measure data and 

there is an adverse data reliability audit 

finding for a performance measure in 

the subsequent year. The penalty will 

continue to be assessed in accordance 

with section 409(a)(8)(B) of the Act and 

45 CFR 305.61 until the state is 

determined to have submitted complete 

and reliable data and achieved the 

required performance measure 

standards. In accordance with 45 CFR 

262.1(e)(1), the state must expend 

additional state funds equal to the 

amount of the penalty (which will not 

count toward the maintenance-of- effort 

requirement under TANF) the year after 

the TANF grant penalty is assessed. 

Summary Description of the Regulatory 

Changes 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) was published in the Federal 

Register on July 13, 2023 (88 FR 44760 

through 44764). The comment period 

ended September 11, 2023. In the 

NPRM, we proposed to add a new 

provision to Part 305, ‘‘Program 

Performance Measures, Standards, 

Financial Incentives and Penalties,’’ to 

explain when OCSS may exercise its 

authority to provide short-term relief 

from certain performance requirements 

related to the PEP, support order 

establishment, and current collections 

performance standards when states are 

unable to meet those requirements due 

to the impact of natural disasters or 

other calamities on state child support 

program operations. Specifically, we 

proposed adding a new paragraph (f) to 

§ 305.61, ‘‘Penalty for failure to meet 

IV–D requirements,’’ to explain when 

OCSS may exercise its authority, during 

and subsequent to natural disasters and 

other calamities, to temporarily modify 

the performance requirements for states 

to meet the PEP standard of 90 percent 

under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(1), the support 

order establishment standard of 40 

percent under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(2), and 

the current collections standard of 35 

percent under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(3), to a 

lower level to avoid imposing a 

financial penalty on states. In addition, 

we proposed that OCSS may set aside 

adverse data reliability audit findings 

under section 452(g) of the Act during 

the same time period. 

Response to Comments 

OCSS received 16 sets of comments to 

the July 2023 NPRM from states, 

organizations, and other interested 

entities and individuals, which were 

posted on www.regulations.gov. OCSS 

reviewed and analyzed the comments 

and considered them in finalizing the 

rule. All comments received in response 

to this rulemaking were supportive of 

the proposed relief as outlined in the 

NPRM. We received several comments 

to the NPRM that included additional 

suggestions and recommendations, and 

we respond to those comments below. 

Comment 1: Several commenters 

requested clarification around data 

reliability audit findings in relation to 

this proposed regulation. Some 

commenters had concerns regarding 

whether requests for relief from adverse 

data reliability audit findings related to 

the three performance measures that are 

the subject of this rule should coincide 

or be submitted subsequent to the 

request for relief from one or more 

performance requirements. One 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15477 

commenter requested clarification 

regarding the process for requesting 

relief from adverse data reliability audit 

findings and whether such relief can be 

sought without a prior or concurrent 

request for modification of performance 

requirements. 

A commenter requested clarification 

regarding the types of adverse data 

reliability audit findings that could be 

set aside under the new rule. A 

commenter observed that the rule does 

not address the arrears or costeffectiveness performance measures 

and, while acknowledging that failure to 

meet these performance measures does 

not result in penalties, such 

performance could still be implicated in 

data reliability audit findings. 

A commenter requested clarification 

on whether substandard performance 

occurring prior to an approved 

performance modification period would 

carry over to the post performance 

modification period. One commenter 

asked for clarification on whether a state 

would still need to do a data reliability 

audit if data reliability errors were 

found, or if states could instead plan on 

doing the Data Reliability Review/data 

reliability audit on a state’s regular 

schedule. 

Response 1: Data reliability audits for 

the period(s) which performance 

requirement modifications are requested 

will continue to occur after a request is 

made under section 305.61(f). A state 

may submit a request to set aside 

adverse data reliability audit findings to 

avoid the imposition of a financial 

penalty subsequent to or concurrent 

with a request to modify performance 

requirements. A state can request relief 

from adverse data reliability audit 

findings without a request to modify 

performance requirements. 

Relief from adverse data reliability 

audit findings to avoid the imposition of 

a financial penalty only applies to data 

related to the PEP, order establishment, 

and current collections performance 

measures, and only during those periods 

for which the state seeks and OCSS 

grants relief, as provided for under this 

rule. As such, the performance measures 

of arrearage collections and costeffectiveness, which are not penalty 

performance measures under 45 CFR 

305.40, are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. States should make every 

effort to demonstrate how, and for what 

periods, the natural disaster or other 

calamity directly results in a reduction 

in performance. If the state expects a 

continued reduction in performance due 

to the natural disaster or calamity for 

subsequent Federal fiscal years, the state 

should submit a subsequent request for 

a reduction in the affected performance 

measures for each fiscal year. 

The process to determine what type of 

audit a state will receive has not 

changed. States that could have been 

exempt from a data reliability audit will 

go back into the annual audit pool for 

the next audit cycle if, during the 

current audit cycle, they either fail to 

meet a performance standard, fail to 

report reliable data, or achieve marginal 

performance on any line evaluated for 

data reliability. 

Comment 2: A number of commenters 

requested more information around 

timeframes to make the request for relief 

and timeframes for OCSS to respond to 

their request for relief. One commenter 

observed that there did not seem to be 

a timeframe attached to when an initial 

application for relief should be 

submitted and recommended that the 

rule include language similar to the 

requirement for submitting subsequent 

requests (‘‘as soon as the adverse effect 

of the natural disaster or other calamity 

giving rise to the request is known to the 

state’’). Another commenter stated that 

the requirement to submit a subsequent 

request as soon as the adverse effect is 

known should be clarified or deleted, 

and that a requirement of timeliness is 

overly strict and could allow for a 

denial based on an untimely request. 

Another commenter recommended 

adding a clarification regarding whether 

a state can make the same request 

multiple years in a row. 

Five commenters requested that the 

rule include a timeframe for OCSS to 

respond to state applications for relief, 

two of them recommending a period of 

30 days. One commenter recommended 

the creation of a standardized request 

form to apply for relief. The commenter 

also suggested that such a form should 

include instructions on what specific or 

support information is needed. 

Response 2: During times of natural 

disasters and other calamities, states 

will need flexibility in determining the 

impacts to their programs and adequate 

time and resources to gather the 

necessary data to substantiate the state’s 

request for relief. Therefore, the 

regulation does not impose a specific 

timeframe for initial application or 

subsequent requests. 

Similarly, we believe states should 

have the maximum flexibility to submit 

a request for relief in the form that the 

state determines is most reasonable. 

Each state’s circumstances will differ in 

the type of disaster or calamity and 

impacts to performance. Creating a 

standardized form would reduce that 

flexibility for states. Additionally, states 

may request relief by following the 

procedures specified in paragraphs 

(f)(4), (5) and (6), and OCSS will provide 

timely communication regarding the 

state’s request. 

We have contemplated that a state 

could request relief on a fiscal year by 

fiscal year basis, following the same 

process outlined in the rule. As we have 

previously stated, a natural disaster or 

other calamity includes state chief 

executive officer-declared states of 

emergency, pandemics, events 

designated by the President under the 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

5170) and declared public health 

emergencies under section 319 of the 

Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

247d). Therefore, the state must 

demonstrate, based on available data, 

that such natural disaster or other 

calamity has directly resulted in a 

reduction in performance or is expected 

to result in a reduction in performance 

in subsequent fiscal years. 

We agree with comments indicating 

that a timeframe for OCSS to respond to 

state applications for relief should be 

included in the rule. We have revised 

the final rule to include a 30-calendar 

day response time. 

Comment 3: Some commenters 

requested the inclusion of language 

addressing equity and enforcement 

flexibility. One commenter asked OCSS 

to consider the adverse consequences of 

imposing financial penalties on states 

during emergent situations and urged 

the incorporation of language that 

recognizes the need for flexibility and 

prioritizes equity, to enable agencies to 

allocate resources where they are most 

needed. Another commenter requested 

clarification about whether child 

support programs could activate 

enforcement flexibility during natural 

disasters or other calamities, based on 

public need, even if the state knows that 

implementing this flexibility will 

reduce performance measures. 

Response 3: We recognize natural 

disasters and other calamities may affect 

state child support program operations 

in a variety of ways and that states may 

need flexibility during emergent 

situations. As detailed in the rule, OCSS 

expects that a request to modify a state’s 

performance requirements will include 

state-specific information describing the 

circumstances and justification for the 

requested relief, as well as the impact of 

the natural disaster or other calamity on 

the state’s ability to comply with the 

standards. We also recognize that 

natural disasters and other calamities 

may not necessarily require relief from 

performance requirements. The current 

child support performance, audit, 

penalties, and incentives system is 

designed to drive performance. States 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
15478 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

that experience individual challenges 

that impact performance, whether these 

challenges are within or outside the 

states’ immediate control, are motivated 

to recover from setbacks and strive to 

achieve performance goals, as states 

have over the last two decades. 

Comment 4: A few commenters asked 

for clarification about local, regional, 

and national emergencies, and whether 

joint requests could be made by more 

than one state in a particular affected 

region. 

One commenter stated that although 

the information required to apply for 

relief is state-specific, there are national 

and global emergencies that impact all 

states and territories and that other 

emergencies may impact specific 

regions of the country. This commenter 

asked us to consider the option for 

states to submit a joint request for relief 

when more than one state is affected by 

a disaster. 

Two commenters asked for 

clarification on how the rule would 

apply if a disaster only impacted one 

part of a state. 

Response 4: While we understand that 

disasters can affect more than one state 

in certain regions, the rule is structured 

in a way that each state needs to provide 

information specific to that state to 

demonstrate that the disaster has 

directly impacted the state’s ability to 

meet performance requirements or is 

expected to result in a reduction in 

performance. This is especially true 

with the data requirements, and each 

state, even within a region, may be 

impacted differently with respect to 

performance. It is not feasible for states 

to submit joint applications for relief, 

due to the unique impacts of an 

emergency on each state and the statespecific data required to substantiate the 

request for relief. 

For those states where a natural 

disaster or other calamity is only 

impacting a part of the state, the state 

may apply for relief from performance 

requirements. 

Comment 5: Several commenters 

suggested that OCSS provide the 

opportunity for an appeal if a state is 

denied the request to modify their 

performance requirements. An 

additional suggestion was that 45 CFR 

301.14 could be used for this purpose. 

Response 5: Adequate process already 

exists as part of the overall performance 

evaluation for a state to provide 

information and request consideration 

of special circumstances, so an 

administrative appeal before the 

Departmental Appeals Board of a denial 

of a state’s request to modify its 

performance requirements is 

unnecessary. Under the existing 

process, if a state fails to meet their 

performance requirements, the state will 

be provided one year as their corrective 

action year as outlined under 45 CFR 

305.61. During the corrective action 

year, OCSS will issue a warning letter 

to advise of the potential for a penalty 

if no improvement is made the 

following fiscal year, as outlined under 

45 CFR 305.40, 305.61(a)(2) and 305.66. 

After the corrective action year, if a 

penalty is assessed, and the state is 

subject to the penalty, the state has the 

option to file an appeal with the 

Departmental Appeals Board, in 

accordance with 45 CFR 262.7. 

The Departmental Appeals Board has 

limited jurisdiction under 45 CFR part 

16, and for mandatory grants generally 

only penalties and disallowances are 

appealable. 45 CFR part 16, Appendix 

A. Its jurisdiction would not naturally 

extend to a denial of a state’s request to 

modify its performance requirements. 

Comment 6: A few states have 

requested that OCSS also include the 

option to provide IV–D agencies with an 

exception from the impact of increased 

Federal Medical Assistance Percentages 

rates on state-retained collections. 

Additionally, one other state agrees with 

the proposed rule, but requested that 

OCSS place limitations on the relief so 

that a state could not use this flexibility 

to gain an unfair advantage with respect 

to performance incentives. Another state 

suggested that OCSS allow data sharing 

among programs during times of 

national disasters and other calamities. 

Response 6: These suggestions are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking and 

would require legislative changes. OCSS 

does not have legislative authority. 

OCSS disagrees that placing additional 

limitations on the relief is necessary 

because the rule requires, in 45 CFR 

305.61(f)(5), that the requesting state 

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 

Secretary that the natural disaster or 

other calamity has directly resulted in a 

reduction in performance or is expected 

to result in a reduction in performance, 

based on data provided by the state. 

Comment 7: One state commented 

that OCSS should require states to 

submit a disaster plan as part of their 

request for relief. 

Response 7: While we appreciate the 

intent behind this comment, OCSS 

disagrees that states should be required 

to provide disaster plans as a part of the 

request for relief. We believe states 

should have the maximum flexibility to 

submit a request for relief in the form 

that the state determines is most 

reasonable. Each state’s circumstances 

will differ in the type of disaster or 

calamity and possible impacts to 

performance. 

Comment 8: One commenter 

suggested revisions to two subsections 

of the regulatory language. First, the 

commenter suggested rewording 

subsection (f)(4)(ii) and removing the 

term ‘‘impracticability of compliance’’ 

as the term is inherently imprecise and 

does not help to establish whether a 

natural disaster or other calamity may 

have an impact on a state’s ability to 

comply with the performance 

requirements. Second, the commenter 

suggested replacing the term ‘‘will not’’ 

with the term ‘‘may not’’ in subsection 

(5)(i) as it is overly strict to require 

states to demonstrate that they ‘‘will not 

meet one or more existing performance 

requirements, such that a performance 

penalty would apply.’’ 

Response 8: We agree with the 

suggested changes to these subsections 

and have revised the final rule to reflect 

that language. We made these changes 

to clarify ambiguous language and to 

remove overly restrictive conditions on 

requests for relief. 

Comment 9: One commenter 

suggested providing consideration for 

those instances where a state is unable 

to produce preliminary data due to the 

natural disaster or other calamity. 

Another commenter requested the 

option for states to request an extension 

to the submission of annual and 

quarterly reports when disasters occur 

toward the end of a reporting period. 

Response 9: The final rule authorizes 

OCSS to determine the modified 

performance requirements based on the 

preliminary data provided by the state 

under 45 CFR 305.32(f), and as such, the 

preliminary data are necessary for the 

state to demonstrate that the natural 

disaster or other calamity has directly 

resulted in a reduction in performance 

or is expected to result in a reduction in 

performance. This final rule also allows 

OCSS to set aside adverse data 

reliability audit findings under section 

452(g) for the same time period as the 

time period for which a modification of 

performance requirements is sought. 

While we appreciate that a state’s 

ability to meet reporting requirements 

may also be impacted by a natural 

disaster or other calamity, modifications 

to reporting deadlines are outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. During such 

events, additional flexibilities may be 

available to states beyond those 

available under title IV–D. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

No new information collection 

requirements would be imposed by this 

regulation. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15479 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Executive Orders 12866 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 final 

rule meets the standards of Executive 

Order 13563 because it creates a shortterm public benefit, at minimal cost to 

the Federal Government, by not 

imposing penalties against a state’s 

TANF grant, during a time when public 

assistance funds are critically needed. 

Executive Order 12866, as amended 

by Executive Order 14094, provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) will 

review all significant rules. OIRA has 

determined that this final rule is 

significant and was accordingly 

reviewed by OMB. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires Federal 

agencies to determine, to the extent 

feasible, a rule’s impact on small 

entities, explore regulatory options for 

reducing any significant impact on a 

substantial number of such entities, and 

explain their regulatory approach. The 

Secretary certifies that this rule will not 

result in a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The primary impact is on state 

governments. State governments are not 

considered small entities under the 

RFA. 

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 $177 million. This rule 

does not impose any mandates on state, 

local, or tribal governments, or the 

private sector, that will exceed this 

threshold in any year. 

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 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. OCSS believes it is not 

necessary to prepare a family 

policymaking assessment (see Pub. L. 

105–277) because this regulation does 

not impose requirements on states or 

families and thus will not have any 

impact on family well-being. 

Congressional Review Act 

This final rule is not a major rule as 

defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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 13132. 

Jeff Hild, Acting Assistant Secretary of 

the Administration for Children and 

Families approved this document on 

February 1, 2024. 

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 305 

Child support, program performance 

measures, standards, financial 

incentives, and penalties. 

Dated: February 26, 2024. 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of Health and 

Human Services amends 45 CFR part 

305 as set forth below: 

PART 305—PROGRAM 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES, 

STANDARDS, FINANCIAL 

INCENTIVES, AND PENALTIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 609(a)(8), 652(a)(4) 

and (g), 658a, and 1302. 

■ 2. Amend § 305.61 by adding a new 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 305.61 Penalty for failure to meet IV–D 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) During, and subsequent to, natural 

disasters and other calamities (e.g., state 

chief executive officer-declared states of 

emergency, pandemics, events 

designated by the President under the 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

5170), and declared public health 

emergencies under section 319 of the 

Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 

247d), the Secretary may temporarily 

modify the performance measure 

requirements for a state to meet the 

paternity establishment percentage 

standard of 90 percent under section 

452(g) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 652(g)) and 

45 CFR 305.40(a)(1), the support order 

establishment standard of 40 percent 

under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(2), and the 

current collections standard of 35 

percent under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(3), to 

lower levels to avoid imposing financial 

performance penalties on states, and 

may set aside adverse data reliability 

audit findings under section 452(g) of 

the Act (42 U.S.C. 652(g)) and 45 CFR 

305.61(a)(1)(ii) during the same time 

period. For Federal fiscal years 

subsequent to September 30, 2022, the 

performance requirements for paternity 

establishment under section 452(g) of 

the Act (42 U.S.C. 652(g)) and 45 CFR 

305.40(a)(1), for support order 

establishment under 45 CFR 

305.40(a)(2), and for current collections 

under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(3)—may be 

modified by the Secretary to a lower 

level under the conditions described in 

this section. 

(1) If a state experiences a natural 

disaster or other calamity (e.g., state 

chief Executive officer-declared states of 

emergency, pandemics, events 

designated by the President under the 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

5170), and declared public health 

emergencies under section 319 of the 

Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 

247d), the state’s chief executive officer 

(or his or her designee) may submit to 

the Secretary a request to modify one or 

more of the performance requirements 

specified under section 452(g) of the Act 

(42 U.S.C. 652(g)) and 45 CFR 

305.40(a)(1), under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(2), 

or under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(3). 

(2) The state may also ask the 

Secretary to set aside adverse data 

reliability audit findings under section 

452(g) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 652(g)) and 

45 CFR 305.61(a)(1)(ii) for the same time 

period as the time period for which a 

modification of performance 

requirements is sought. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
15480 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 43 / Monday, March 4, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) The request for a modification to 

the performance requirements must be 

submitted in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraphs 

(f)(4), (5) and (6) of this section. Any 

request other than one submitted with 

the initial application must be 

submitted as soon as the adverse effect 

of the natural disaster or other calamity 

giving rise to the request is known to the 

state. 

(4) A request for a modification of one 

or more of the performance 

requirements must include the 

following: 

(i) A narrative statement describing 

the circumstances and justification for 

the request to modify the state’s 

performance requirement; 

(ii) Information substantiating the 

impact of the natural disaster or other 

calamity on the state’s ability to comply 

with the standards, including a 

description of the specific conditions 

caused by the natural disaster or other 

calamity that have, or may have, a 

significant impact on the state’s ability 

to comply, and preliminary data 

provided by the state, as required under 

45 CFR 305.32(f), showing reduced 

performance; 

(iii) Information on the expected 

duration of the conditions that make 

compliance impracticable; and 

(iv) Any other documentation or other 

information that the Secretary may 

require to make this determination. 

(5) The state must demonstrate to the 

satisfaction of the Secretary that the 

natural disaster or other calamity has 

directly resulted in a reduction in 

performance or is expected to result in 

a reduction in performance, based on 

data provided by the state. In its request 

for a temporary modification to one or 

more performance requirements, the 

state must be able to demonstrate that it: 

(i) Has not, or may not meet one or 

more existing performance 

requirements, such that a performance 

penalty would apply; 

(ii) Has submitted preliminary data 

supporting this statement; and 

(iii) Has provided all required 

information requested by the Secretary. 

(6) The Secretary shall provide 

written communication of the decision 

to modify or decline to modify the 

performance standards, and the period 

for which any modified standards shall 

apply, within 30-calendar days after 

receipt of appropriate written 

communication from the chief executive 

officer. 

(i) If approved, a temporary 

modification in a performance 

requirement will expire on the last day 

of the Federal fiscal year for which it 

was approved. 

(ii) Adverse findings of data reliability 

audits of the state’s performance data 

under 45 CFR 305.60 as reported during 

the period in which the performance 

requirement modification is approved 

will not result in a financial penalty 

pursuant to the state’s request as 

specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this 

section. 

(iii) Unless the state receives a written 

approval of its performance requirement 

modification request, the performance 

requirements under section 452(g) of the 

Act (42 U.S.C. 652(g)) and 45 CFR 

305.40(a)(1), under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(2), 

and under 45 CFR 305.40(a)(3) remain 

in effect. 

(iv) If the request for a performance 

requirement modification is denied, the 

denial is not subject to administrative 

appeal. 

[FR Doc. 2024–04244 Filed 3–1–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–41–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 17–59; WC Docket No. 17– 

97; FCC 23–18; FCC 23–37; FR ID 204126] 

Advanced Methods To Target and 

Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call 

Authentication Trust Anchor; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective and compliance dates; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission published a document in 

the Federal Register of January 25, 

2024, announcing the effective dates of 

amendments to its non-internet Protocol 

call authentication and robocall 

mitigation database rules. The 

document contained an incorrect 

Federal Register citation and an 

incorrect compliance date. 

DATES: This correction is effective 

March 4, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik 

Beith, Competition Policy Division, 

Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 

418–0756, or email: erik.beith@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

document published January 25, 2024, 

at 89 FR 4833, announcing the effective 

dates of amendments to its non-internet 

Protocol call authentication and 

robocall mitigation database rules, an 

incorrect Federal Register citation and 

an incorrect compliance date appeared 

in DATES. The Federal Register citation 

for the publication of the amendments 

to 47 CFR 64.6303(c) (amendatory 

instruction 9) and 47 CFR 64.6305(d), 

(e), (f), and (g) (amendatory instruction 

12) is corrected to 88 FR 40096. The 

compliance date for the regulations at 

47 CFR 4.6305(g) is corrected to May 28, 

2024. 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of January 25, 

2024, in FR Doc. 2024–01167, on page 

4833, in the first column, correct the 

DATES caption to read: ‘‘The 

amendments to 47 CFR 64.6303(c) 

(amendatory instruction 9) and 47 CFR 

64.6305(d), (e), (f), and (g) (amendatory 

instruction 12), published at 88 FR 

40096, June 21, 2023, and the 

amendments to 47 CFR 64.6305(d)(2)(ii) 

and (iii), (e)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) 

(amendatory instruction 5), published at 

88 FR 43446, July 10, 2023, are effective 

February 26, 2024. The compliance date 

for 47 CFR 64.6305(g) is May 28, 2024.’’ 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03987 Filed 3–1–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 24–172; MB Docket No. 23–197; RM– 

11949, 11973; FR ID 205736] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Puhi and 

Kekaha, Hawaii 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends the 

Table of FM Allotments, of the Federal 

Communications Commission’s 

(Commission) rules, by allotting FM 

Channels 280A at Puhi, Hawaii, and 

298C3 at Kekaha, Hawaii, as the 

communities’ first local service. The 

staff engineering analysis indicates that 

Channel 280A at Puhi can be allotted 

consistent with the minimum distance 

separation requirements of the 

Commission’s rules with a site 

restriction of 10.8 kilometers (6.7 miles) 

west of the community at reference 

coordinates are 21–58–24 NL and 159– 

29–45 WL and Channel 298C3 at 

Kekaha can be allotted consistent with 

the minimum distance separation 

requirements of the Commission’s rules 

with no site restriction at reference 

coordinates are 22–02–00 NL and 159– 

38–00 WL. 

DATES: Effective April 11, 2024. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES