32090 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS—Continued 

Missouri 

citation Title 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–11349 Filed 5–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0962; FRL–9400–03– 

R9] 

Delegation of New Source 

Performance Standards and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for the States of Arizona 

and California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Because the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) received 

public comment, which we intend to 

address, we are withdrawing the direct 

final rule for Delegation of New Source 

Performance Standards and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for the States of Arizona and 

California published on March 31, 2022. 

The EPA will take a final action on the 

proposed action in a separate 

subsequent final rulemaking. 

DATES: As of May 27, 2022, the EPA 

withdraws the direct final rule 

published at 87 FR 18705, on March 31, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 947–4152 or by 

email at buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Because the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) received a public 

comment that we intend to address, we 

are withdrawing the direct final rule for 

Delegation of New Source Performance 

Standards and National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for the States of Arizona and California 

published on March 31, 2022 (87 FR 

18705). We stated in that direct final 

rule that if we received adverse 

comment by May 2, 2022, the direct 

final rule would not take effect and we 

would publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register. We subsequently 

received one comment on that direct 

final rule that we intend to address. We 

will address this comment in a 

subsequent final action, which will be 

based on the parallel proposed rule also 

published on March 31, 2022 (87 FR 

18760). As stated in the direct final rule 

and the parallel proposed rule, we will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, 

and 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, the EPA withdraws the 

direct final rule published at 87 FR 

18705, on March 31, 2022. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 23, 2022. 

Elizabeth Adams, 

Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region 

IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11461 Filed 5–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Part 305 

RIN 0970–AC86 

Paternity Establishment Percentage 

Performance Relief 

AGENCY: Office of Child Support 

Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF), 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Due to the impact of the 

COVID–19 public health emergency 

(PHE) on State child support program 

operations, OCSE modifies the Paternity 

Establishment Percentage (PEP) from the 

90 percent performance threshold to 50 

percent for Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 

2020, 2021, and 2022 in order for a State 

to avoid a financial penalty. OCSE also 

provides that adverse findings of data 

reliability audits of a State’s paternity 

establishment data will not result in a 

financial penalty in FFYs 2020, 2021, 

and 2022. 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 27, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kimberly Smith, Senior Advisor, OCSE 

Division of Policy and Training, at 

ocse.dpt@acf.hhs.gov or (202) 401–5679. 

Deaf and hearing impaired 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: 

I. 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 relief from the PEP 

performance penalty under this rule is 

based on statutory authority granted 

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

U.S.C. 652(g)(3)(A)). 

II. Background 

This rule provides targeted and timelimited relief to States from penalties 

due to the impact of the national PHE 

caused by COVID–19 on State program 

performance. The pandemic has had an 

enormous adverse impact on child 

support services delivered by States 

under title IV–D of the Act, especially 

on paternity/parentage establishment, a 

core function of the child support 

program under section 452(a)(1) of the 

Act. 

A State’s paternity establishment 

performance, measured using the PEP, 

is a federally required performance 

measure under section 452(g) of the Act. 

Penalties related to the PEP performance 

measure are imposed as a reduction in 

the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) program funding to 

States. 

Section 452(g)(3) of the Act authorizes 

the Secretary ‘‘to take into account such 

additional variables as the Secretary 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32091 

identifies (including the percentage of 

children in a State who are born out of 

wedlock or for whom support has not 

been established) that affect the ability 

of a State to meet the [PEP performance 

measures] requirements of [section 

452(g) of the Act].’’ The effect of the 

COVID–19 PHE on States is one such 

additional variable due to the 

unprecedented nature and scope of the 

pandemic’s impact on the child support 

program. 

FFY 2020 data indicated PEP 

performance declined for 41 States 

during the pandemic, with 

approximately one-third of States 

subject to a financial penalty if they did 

not take sufficient corrective action in 

FFY 2021. FFY 2021 preliminary data 

indicate that nine of the States that 

faced a financial penalty for PEP 

performance for FFY 2020, along with 

four new States, would be assessed 

penalties without this rule. 

In this rule, OCSE modifies the 

required PEP to a lower performance 

threshold of 50 percent for FFYs 2020, 

2021, and 2022 and sets aside adverse 

data reliability audit findings related to 

PEP. This allows States that are not able 

to meet the PEP performance measure 

and data reliability audit requirements 

to avoid the financial penalty for FFYs 

2020, 2021, and 2022 when the 

pandemic had its greatest impact on the 

child support program. Based on 

preliminary performance data submitted 

by States for FFY 2020 and 2021, a PEP 

level of 50 percent will ensure that no 

State will be subject to a financial 

penalty while State agency operations 

are disrupted due to the ongoing PHE. 

This rule is time-limited and datainformed to provide relief narrowly and 

specifically in response to the ongoing 

PHE for FFYs 2020, 2021, and 2022. 

After the relief period, starting for FFY 

2023, the PEP performance thresholds 

will revert back to the usual levels 

described under section 452(g) of the 

Act and 45 CFR 305.40(a)(1), and States 

will once again be subject to penalties 

for adverse data reliability audit 

findings related to the PEP measure after 

an automatic corrective action year as 

specified in 45 CFR 305.42. 

The relief in this final rule maintains 

the integrity of the system of 

performance, audit, penalties, and 

incentives that has driven success and 

accountability in the child support 

program for over two decades. The 

regulation provides relief from the PEP 

measure and data reliability audit 

penalties but does not otherwise change 

the process for other performance 

measures, data collection, and reporting, 

audits, or incentives. 

III. Summary Description of the 

Regulatory Provision 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) was published in the Federal 

Register on October 19, 2021 (86 FR 

57770 through 57773). The comment 

period ended November 18, 2021. 

OCSE received 26 sets of comments 

from States, organizations, and other 

interested entities and individuals, 

which were posted on 

www.regulations.gov. 

Section 305.61: Penalty for Failure To 

Meet IV–D Requirements 

In the NPRM, we proposed to add a 

new provision to Part 305, ‘‘Program 

Performance Measures, Standards, 

Financial Incentives and Penalties,’’ to 

provide short-term relief from financial 

penalties related to the PEP measure 

due to the impact of the COVID–19 PHE 

on State IV–D operations. Specifically, 

we proposed adding a new paragraph (e) 

to § 305.61, ‘‘Penalty for failure to meet 

IV–D requirements,’’ to modify the 

criteria by which States are subject to 

financial penalties for the PEP 

requirements. The modified criteria are 

that the acceptable performance level of 

PEP measure under § 305.40(a)(1) is 

reduced from 90 percent to 50 percent 

and the adverse findings of data 

reliability audits of a State’s paternity 

establishment data under § 305.60 will 

not result in a financial penalty. The 

modifications, as proposed, are 

applicable to FFYs 2020 and 2021. In 

the NPRM, we specifically requested 

public comment on the timeframe for 

the relief and whether the relief period 

should be extended to include FFY 

2022. 

The vast majority of commenters 

supported the proposed relief and 

supported the extension of the 

timeframe to FFY 2022. We received 

one comment from an individual 

opposed to the regulation all together 

and a comment supporting the relief but 

not the extension of the relief period to 

FFY 2022. In drafting the final rule, the 

following are OCSE’s Response to 

Comments including the rationale for 

any changes made to the proposed rule 

and a final summary of regulatory 

changes. In addition, for clarity and 

emphasis, in the final rule, OCSE also 

added a reference to 452(g)(A) of the 

Act, which is the specific statutory cite 

that provides the Secretary with 

discretionary authority to modify the 

required PEP level. 

IV. Response to Comments 

Comment 1: State agencies, child 

support organizations, child support 

professionals, and other entities and 

individuals who submitted comments 

were unequivocal in their support of the 

proposed relief and rationale described 

in the NPRM. 

One commenter agreed with the 

conclusion in the NPRM that across-theboard State reductions in the PEP levels 

in FFY 2020 are directly attributable to 

the pandemic, based on performance 

trends for the last 10 years. Up until 

FFY 2020, almost all States achieved 

PEP levels above 90 percent each year. 

Most commenters mentioned the 

variety of impacts of the pandemic on 

the ability to obtain voluntary 

acknowledgments of paternity. For 

example, one commenter described 

multiple effects of the pandemic on 

voluntary acknowledgment processes: 

(1) Restrictions preventing fathers 

access to the hospital after a mother 

gives birth; (2) closure of local vital 

statistics offices; (3) restrictions 

preventing hospital access by State staff 

and contractors who provide training, 

technical assistance, and monitoring to 

hospital staff administering voluntary 

paternity programs; and (4) staffing 

shortages resulting in hospital staff 

sending paternity acknowledgment 

paperwork home with the mother rather 

than completing it at the hospital. 

One commenter described the 

compounded performance problem in 

their State because their program has 

historically had a very strong inhospital, voluntary acknowledgment 

program. In this State, children whose 

paternity was not acknowledged 

through the in-hospital program due to 

pandemic restrictions must now be 

acknowledged at the city or town 

municipality or through the judicial 

process. These latter processes are more 

complex, may involve fees, take longer, 

and also are impacted by the pandemic. 

Most commenters, especially from 

States with judicial-based child support 

programs, described the large and 

ongoing impact of the pandemic on 

court systems, where courts were 

initially closed and legal actions 

delayed, and where backlogs persist. 

One commenter noted that even as the 

courts and child support offices have 

shifted to virtual processes, the new 

mode of working has reduced 

productivity in some jurisdictions. Also, 

the pandemic has reduced in-person 

office visits, administrative proceedings, 

and court hearings. 

Several commenters noted the 

disruption to genetic testing programs 

due to child support office closures, 

court closures, and staffing shortages. 

One commenter noted the challenge of 

being able to access alternate testing 

sites, such as prisons and correctional 

facilities. A commenter described the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
32092 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

efforts to relocate their State’s genetic 

testing services from courthouses in 

response to the pandemic and noted 

that genetic testing appointment 

attendance rates for alleged fathers 

declined 20 percent and for mothers 

declined 24 percent, compared to prepandemic rates. A commenter noted 

that genetic testing programs were also 

impacted because clinical laboratory 

resources were diverted for pandemicrelated testing. 

Commenters also described other 

kinds of barriers that impacted PEP 

performance. One State commenter 

described that they are unable to legally 

serve parties by mail, as certified mail 

is now being marked ‘‘COVID–19’’ and 

found insufficient for legal service. Two 

commenters noted that the pandemic 

suspension of cooperation requirements 

for TANF recipients has removed an 

important tool that incentivized 

recipients to attend appointments 

necessary for paternity establishment. 

Notably, several States that will not be 

subject to PEP penalties, either because 

they met PEP performance during the 

pandemic or they expect to meet 

performance in the corrective action 

year, support providing the relief to 

other States under these pandemic 

circumstances. 

Several commenters particularly 

noted the need for the relief to be 

finalized as soon as possible to help 

States plan resources during these 

challenging times. One commenter 

discussed the additional costs to 

programs to respond to the disaster and 

that the demand of meeting PEP 

standards, which has always been 

challenging, places further stress on the 

programs. Confirmation of penalty relief 

in this rule would allow programs to 

focus on recovery and restoration of prepandemic performance. One commenter 

noted their State had requested PEP 

penalty relief from OCSE early in the 

pandemic under the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

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

OCSE Dear Colleague Letter 20–04: 

Flexibilities for State and Tribal Child 

Support Agencies during COVID–19 

Pandemic). However, the Stafford Act 

flexibilities do not extend to relief for 

financial penalties related to 

performance or adverse data reliability 

audit findings. 

Response 1: Based on the 

overwhelming support for the proposed 

relief from penalties related to the PEP 

measure, for the reasons described in 

the NPRM and by the majority of 

commenters, OCSE agrees that this relief 

is needed and should be provided. The 

COVID–19 pandemic is unprecedented; 

time-limited, targeted relief from PEPrelated performance penalties is 

appropriate. 

Comment 2: One individual opposed 

the relief, disagreeing that COVID–19 

was a reason for reducing the PEP 

performance threshold to 50 percent. 

The commenter stated that this relief 

was not needed in other pandemics and 

State child support agencies should try 

like everyone else to work virtually or 

even go back to mailing in the genetic 

tests. Finally, the commenter stated this 

relief is unfair to children who would be 

left without a sense of comfort. 

Response 2: We disagree. As noted by 

the majority of commenters, there are a 

number of operational challenges that 

justify this temporary modification of 

the required PEP levels. 

Comment 3: In support of the 

proposed relief, two commenters stated 

that States should not be subject to PEP 

performance penalties during the 

pandemic because these are 

circumstances beyond the States’ 

control. 

Response 3: OCSE clarifies that this 

relief is appropriate in response to the 

nationwide COVID–19 pandemic. Other 

future events or actions, including 

future pandemics, that create 

circumstances beyond a State’s control 

may not necessarily require this 

extraordinary regulatory response. The 

current child support performance, 

audit, penalties, and incentives system 

is designed to drive performance. States 

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. This 

time-limited and targeted relief is a onetime response to the unprecedented 

COVID–19 pandemic. 

Comment 4: A few States noted the 

importance of not imposing PEP 

penalties because of the direct impact 

on State TANF funds that support 

families who may be especially in need 

during the pandemic. One State TANF 

agency commented on how the 

reduction in the TANF grant will 

directly harm families, despite the 

TANF agency’s continued efforts to 

work closely with the State’s child 

support agency to facilitate paternity 

establishment for their service 

recipients. 

Response 4: Under section 409(a)(12) 

of the Act and 45 CFR 262.1(e)(1), a 

performance penalty imposed against a 

State’s TANF grant would not result in 

an overall reduction in the State’s TANF 

funding that is available to public 

assistance recipients because the state is 

required to make up the missing federal 

dollars with State funds. Rather, the 

requirement on States to make up this 

funding will put a strain on State public 

assistance and social services budgets 

overall, which will impact families 

needing assistance. 

Comment 5: Twenty-three 

commenters supported extending the 

timeframe for the relief from penalties 

related to PEP performance and from 

adverse findings of data reliability 

audits of a State’s paternity 

establishment data. The majority 

supported the extension as described in 

the proposed rule to include FFY 2022. 

Most commenters noted that the 

pandemic continues to impact child 

support operations, especially the 

operations necessary for paternity 

establishment, and expected the impact 

to last well into FFY 2022. One 

commenter expected the following 

issues to persist into FFY 2022: 

Backlogs with courts and vital statistics 

agencies; low DNA sample collection 

due to families missing appointments; 

suspension of TANF recipient 

cooperation requirements; and 

disruption of voluntary 

acknowledgment processes at hospitals 

and birthing centers, resulting in 

paperwork being sent home and delays 

in families processing them. Two 

commenters noted that an extension is 

appropriate since the national PHE 

currently extends to January 2022 (at the 

time of the comment). 

Commenters stated that there is no 

definitive end to the pandemic in the 

foreseeable future, that the end of the 

pandemic is uncertain, and that States 

being able to return to 90 percent PEP 

levels in FFY 2022 is not realistic, given 

the ongoing challenges. According to 

one commenter, it will take at least the 

remainder of FFY 2022 to work through 

backlogs in courts and agency offices of 

paternity cases, and this situation is 

especially acute in court systems where 

other types of cases have been 

prioritized over child support cases. 

According to another commenter, some 

States have indicated that the 

cumulative effects of the pandemic may 

result in a further decrease in their PEP 

levels in FFY 2021, and this negative 

momentum is likely to carry over in 

FFY 2022 and possibly beyond. 

One State commented that because 

the PHE has been extended to at least 

the beginning of the second quarter of 

FFY 2022, the impact of the pandemic 

will affect States’ abilities to establish 

paternity for at least half of the 

performance year. The Delta variant, 

according to several commenters, is 

adversely impacting State programs into 

FFY 2022. One commenter stated that 

the Delta variant appeared just as the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 32093 

1The determination that a PHE exists due to 

COVID–19 was first issued on January 31, 2020 and 

has been renewed every 90 days under section 319 

of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d). 

See Renewal of Determination That A Public Health 

Emergency Exists, dated January 14, 2022, available 

at: https://aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PHE/Pages/COVID19- 

14Jan2022.aspx. 

pandemic seemed to be abating, caused 

a spike in cases and reimposition of 

pandemic restrictions, and that it is too 

early to tell if a new variant will surface 

and cause more disruption. 

Several State commenters from States 

that did not expect to be subject to PEP 

penalties during the pandemic period 

strongly supported or saw no harm in 

extending the relief to FFY 2022 for 

other States. 

Response 5: OCSE supports extending 

the proposed relief period to include 

FFY 2022 for the reasons described by 

the commenters due to initial 

indications from FFY 2021 performance 

data that the pandemic continues to 

adversely affect paternity establishment 

performance, and in order to give States 

more time to plan and adjust for the 

resumption of operation and 

performance standards. 

According to OCSE’s preliminary FFY 

2021 data, 13 of the 54 State child 

support programs (the 54 programs 

include the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands) appear to have failed to 

meet the 90 percent PEP performance 

threshold. These include 9 States that 

previously failed to meet the 90 percent 

threshold in FFY 2020 and 4 new States 

that met PEP performance thresholds in 

FFY 2020 but failed in FFY 2021. 

These data show that the pandemic 

continues to have an oversized and 

ongoing impact on States’ abilities to 

establish paternity and meet 

performance thresholds. Not only were 

half of the 18 States that failed to meet 

performance in FFY 2020 unable to 

recover their performance in the 

subsequent year, but four additional 

States failed, despite having achieved 

PEP performance thresholds the year 

before. In addition, the PHE, first 

declared on January 31, 2020, was 

extended again on January 14, 2022, 

effective January 16, 2022.1

In order to allow States more time to 

plan and adjust to regain performance 

standards, given the ongoing, 

unpredictable nature of the pandemic, 

including the fast spread of successive 

COVID–19 variants, OCSE agrees it is 

appropriate to extend the relief period 

to include performance for FFY 2022. 

Comment 6: One commenter opposed 

the relief entirely for any time period, as 

noted in comment 2, and one 

commenter, who supported the relief for 

the proposed period of FFYs 2020 and 

2021, opposed the extension to FFY 

2022. According to this latter 

commenter, States inform them that 

paternity establishment operations are 

fully operational and that it is 

incumbent on HHS to return to normal 

operations and hold States accountable 

for program operations, including 

paternity establishment, which is a 

central function. The commenter 

recommended limiting relief to when 

State operations were most impacted by 

pandemic restrictions. 

Response 6: OCSE disagrees and will 

extend the relief to FFY 2022 due to the 

unprecedented nature of the pandemic 

and to allow States more time to plan 

and adjust. However, after the relief 

period, starting for FFY 2023, the PEP 

performance thresholds will revert back 

to the usual levels, and States will again 

be responsible for performance and 

subject to penalties for adverse data 

reliability audit findings related to the 

PEP measure after an automatic 

corrective action year. 

Comment 7: Several commenters 

suggested extending the relief beyond 

FFY 2022. One commenter suggested an 

option for an extension into FFY 2023 

if circumstances warrant, and others 

requested flexibility to extend the relief 

into the future as needed or for any 

future FFY in which the country 

remains under a PHE due to COVID–19. 

Another, citing the possibility of the rise 

of a new variant and general 

uncertainty, suggested that the Secretary 

of HHS be given the authority to extend 

penalty relief in future years without the 

need to issue another regulation. This 

commenter said that there is strong 

justification to extend the relief through 

FFY 2022, after which we can review 

the need for further action and whether 

the Secretary could continue to extend 

the relief if the pandemic and States’ 

need for relief are ongoing. 

Response 7: OCSE agrees to extend 

the relief through FFY 2022 to provide 

States one additional year. However, the 

relief must be time-limited and targeted. 

Comment 8: One State suggested that 

for the extension year, FFY 2022, the 

PEP threshold be modified from 90 

percent to 75 percent, instead of the 50 

percent proposed in the rule. The 

commenter reasoned that 75 percent is 

at the low end of the level just below 90 

percent in 45 CFR 305.40(a)(1) and 

allows States that are still working 

through paternity establishment 

challenges to gradually increase 

performance rather than meet a more 

rigorous 90 percent level. 

Response 8: For the reasons discussed 

in the previous comments and 

responses and for simplicity, OCSE will 

provide the same modification levels in 

extending the relief to FFY 2022 as 

provided for the first 2 years of the 

relief. 

Comment 9: A commenter suggested 

that States that have met or exceeded 

the 90 percent performance threshold 

during the pandemic period receive an 

incentive, such as not having a full 

paternity establishment audit for FFY 

2021 and FFY 2022. 

Response 9: OCSE proposed 

regulatory relief in response to COVID– 

19 that is narrowly targeted towards 

relieving States of PEP-related penalties 

and does not include other forms of 

relief or incentives. 

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For 

the reasons described above and in 

careful consideration of the comments, 

we finalize 45 CFR 305.61(e) by 

extending the relief period to FFY 2022 

and referencing the specific statutory 

cite that provides the Secretary with 

discretionary authority to modify the 

required PEP level, 452(g)(A) of the Act. 

V. Regulatory Review 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

No new information collection 

requirements are imposed by these 

regulations. 

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 State governments. State 

governments are not considered small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

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 rule 

meets the standards of Executive Order 

13563 because it creates a short-term 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
32094 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 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. 

ACF determined that the costs to title 

IV–D agencies as a result of this rule 

will not be ‘‘economically significant’’ 

as defined in Executive Order 12866 

(have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities). 

Accordingly, OIRA has determined that 

this rulemaking is ‘‘not major’’ under 

Subtitle E of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (also known as the Congressional 

Review Act). 

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. This regulation does not 

impose requirements on States or 

families. This regulation will not have 

an adverse impact on family well-being 

as defined in the legislation. 

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. 

January Contreras, Assistant Secretary 

of the Administration for Children and 

Families, approved this document on 

May 5, 2022. 

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 305 

Child support, Program performance 

measures, standards, financial 

incentives, and penalties. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Programs No. 93.563, Child Support 

Enforcement Program.) 

Dated: May 23, 2022. 

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 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. In § 305.61 add paragraph (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 305.61 Penalty for failure to meet IV–D 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) COVID–19 paternity establishment 

percentage penalty relief. Due to the 

adverse impact of the COVID–19 

pandemic on State IV–D operations, the 

criteria by which States are subject to 

financial penalties for the paternity 

establishment percentage under 

paragraph (a) of this section are 

modified for fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 

2022, in accordance with section 

452(g)(A) of the Act, as follows: 

(1) The acceptable level of paternity 

establishment percentage performance 

under § 305.40(a)(1) is modified for 

fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022 from 

90 percent to 50 percent, and 

(2) The adverse findings of data 

reliability audits of a State’s paternity 

establishment data under § 305.60 will 

not result in a financial penalty for 

fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–11391 Filed 5–26–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–42–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 180117042–8884–02;RTID 0648– 

XC021] 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason 

retention limit adjustment. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is adjusting the 

General category daily retention limit 

from one large medium or giant Atlantic 

bluefin tuna (BFT) to three large 

medium or giant BFT. This daily 

retention limit applies to Atlantic Tunas 

General category (commercial) 

permitted vessels and Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat 

permitted vessels with a commercial 

sale endorsement when fishing 

commercially for BFT. This adjustment 

will be effective for the June through 

August subquota time period until 

further modified. 

DATES: Effective June 1, 2022, through 

August 31, 2022, or until NMFS 

announces in the Federal Register 

another adjustment to the retention 

limit. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Redd, Jr., larry.redd@noaa.gov, 

301–427–8503, Nicholas Velseboer, 

nicholas.velseboer@noaa.gov, 978–281– 

9260, or Thomas Warren, 

thomas.warren@noaa.gov, 978–281– 

9260. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

HMS fisheries, including BFT fisheries, 

are managed under the authority of the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 

16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.). The 2006 Consolidated Atlantic 

HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

and its amendments are implemented 

by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. 

Section 635.27 divides the U.S. BFT 

quota recommended by the 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

and as implemented by the United 

States among the various domestic 

fishing categories, per the allocations 

established in the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS 

is required under the Magnuson-Stevens 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1