46230 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(iv) Other demonstrations or special 

events are permitted in park areas under 

permit for the National Celebration 

Events listed in paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of 

this section to the extent that they do 

not significantly interfere with the 

National Celebration Events. Except for 

Inaugural ceremony activities, no 

activity containing structures is 

permitted closer than 50 feet to another 

activity containing structures without 

the mutual consent of the sponsors of 

those activities. 

(v) NPS will issue a permit for a 

demonstration on the White House 

sidewalk and in Lafayette Park at the 

same time only if the requirements of 

this paragraph are met. The 

organization, group, or other sponsor of 

the demonstration must undertake in 

good faith all reasonable action, 

including the provision of sufficient 

marshals, to ensure that the sponsor: 

(A) Maintains good order and selfdiscipline in conducting the 

demonstration and any necessary 

movement of persons; and 

(B) Observes the numerical 

limitations and waiver provisions 

described in paragraphs (g)(5)(i) and (ii) 

of this section. 

(vi) NPS will issue permits 

authorizing demonstrations or special 

events for the periods shown in the 

following table. NPS may extend these 

periods for demonstrations only, unless 

another application requests use of the 

particular area and that application 

precludes double occupancy. 

Park area Permit validity period Permit validity period for Inaugural activities 

(A) White House area, except the 

Ellipse.

7 days ............................................ Between October 24 through April 1 for reasonable and necessary 

set-up and take-down activities for the White House Sidewalk and 

Lafayette Park. 

(B) The Ellipse and all other park 

areas.

4 months ........................................ Between December 7 through February 10 for reasonable and necessary set-up and take-down activities for Pennsylvania Avenue 

National Historic Park and Sherman Park. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 21, 2008. 

Lyle Laverty, 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E8–18412 Filed 8–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Part 261 

RIN 0970–AC38 

Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) Program, Elimination 

of Enhanced Caseload Reduction 

Credit for Excess Maintenance-ofEffort Expenditures 

AGENCY: Administration for Children 

and Families (ACF), Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Administration for 

Children and Families proposes to 

revise the TANF regulations to 

eliminate the provision that allows a 

State to receive additional caseload 

reduction credit for maintenance-ofeffort (MOE) expenditures in excess of 

its required MOE spending. This 

provision is no longer necessary and not 

consistent with Congressional direction 

in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

received on or before October 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments in writing to the Office of 

Family Assistance (OFA), 

Administration for Children and 

Families, 5th Floor East, 370 L’Enfant 

Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 

20447, or hand deliver to OFA/ACF, 5th 

Floor East, 901 D Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20447. You may 

download an electronic copy of the 

proposed rule at the Federal 

Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov and may download 

a copy and transmit electronic 

comments at the agency Web site: 

http://www.regulations.acf.hhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Shelbourne, Director, Division of 

State TANF Policy, Office of Family 

Assistance, ACF, at (202) 401–5150. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Inspection of Comments 

All comments received, including any 

personal information provided, will be 

available for public inspection Monday 

through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at 

901 D St., SW., 5th Floor, Washington, 

DC. 

II. Statutory Authority 

We are issuing this proposed 

regulation under the authority granted 

to the Secretary of HHS by Section 

1102(a) of the Social Security Act, 42 

U.S.C. 1302(a). Section 1102(a) 

authorizes the Secretary to make and 

publish such rules as may be necessary 

for the efficient administration of 

functions with which he is charged 

under the Social Security Act. 

The statute at 42 U.S.C. 617 limits the 

authority of the Federal government to 

regulate State conduct or enforce the 

TANF provisions of the Social Security 

Act, except as expressly provided. We 

have interpreted this provision to allow 

us to regulate where Congress has 

charged HHS with enforcing certain 

TANF provisions by assessing penalties. 

Because the caseload reduction credit 

directly relates to the work participation 

requirements to which States and the 

Territories are subject and the failure to 

meet those requirements can result in a 

financial penalty pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

609(a)(3), we have the authority to 

regulate in this instance. 

III. Background 

Under the TANF program, States must 

engage certain percentages of their 

caseloads in work activities or face 

financial penalties for failing to meet the 

work participation requirements. These 

required participation rates are 50 

percent overall and 90 percent for twoparent families; however, the rates a 

State must actually meet for a fiscal year 

(FY) are reduced by the amount of a 

State’s caseload reduction credit. 

Generally, the caseload reduction credit 

equals the number of percentage points 

that a State reduces its overall caseload 

in the prior fiscal year (the comparison 

year) compared to its overall caseload in 

the base year. For caseload reduction 

credits that apply to the two-parent 

work participation rate, States have the 

option of using the overall calculation 

or using a calculation based on the 

reduction in the two-parent caseload. 

Because of sharp State caseload declines 

since FY 1995, the caseload reduction 

credit had virtually eliminated 

participation requirements for most 

States. The Deficit Reduction Act of 

2005 (DRA) updated the base year from 

FY 1995 to FY 2005, effectively raising 

the target work participation rates and 


rfrederick on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules 46231 

encouraging States to help families 

become independent. 

The original TANF rule published in 

1999 (64 FR 17720, April 12, 1999) 

included a provision at § 261.43(a)(2) 

(now § 261.43(b)) that allowed a State to 

exclude from the caseload reduction 

credit calculation cases on which the 

State had spent what has been termed 

‘‘excess MOE.’’ Excess MOE refers to 

State maintenance-of-effort (MOE) or 

cost-sharing expenditures in excess of 

the amount the State needs to meet its 

required MOE expenditure requirement. 

If a State chose to use this provision, we 

factored out cases funded with excess 

MOE from the comparison-year caseload 

in calculating the State’s credit. 

Title IV–A of the Social Security Act 

did not expressly provide for the 

concept of an allowance in the caseload 

reduction credit for excess MOE. Rather, 

we included it in the rule in response 

to a comment on the proposed TANF 

rule published in 1997. Our intent was 

to encourage States to spend MOE in 

their TANF programs above the required 

level. At the time, we thought it was 

necessary to give States an incentive to 

spend MOE dollars because the Personal 

Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) 

had shifted the culture of welfare and 

States faced new, more challenging 

work participation rates. In addition, 

there was some concern that welfare 

reform would reduce the prior level of 

State funding. Since then, States have 

been successful in moving large 

numbers of families off of the welfare 

rolls, and we believe States have 

adequate resources to devote to their 

TANF programs. 

In an effort to continue the drive to 

move individuals into the workforce 

and to help ensure that TANF clients 

with barriers to employment receive the 

services they need, the DRA placed a 

renewed emphasis on work 

participation rates, requiring States to 

meet effectively higher work 

participation rates by recalibrating the 

caseload reduction credit and imposing 

new requirements to ensure consistent 

and accurate reporting of work 

participation data. Because the excess 

MOE provision allows States to reduce 

their target work participation rates 

artificially without actually moving 

recipients off of the rolls and into jobs, 

this regulatory provision is not 

consistent with the DRA. 

IV. Discussion of Regulatory Provisions 

This proposed rule would delete 

§ 261.43(b), which allows a State to 

receive additional caseload reduction 

credit for MOE expenditures in excess 

of its required MOE spending. 

We now propose deleting this 

provision for several reasons. First, we 

no longer think the incentive the excess 

MOE provision attempted to offer is 

necessary. While the TANF block grant 

amount has remained constant, State 

TANF caseloads have plummeted. 

Consequently, the amount of Federal 

TANF and minimum required State 

MOE funding available per case has 

grown considerably since that time and 

State TANF programs are operating 

successfully without spending large 

sums in excess of their required MOE 

levels. 

Second, the DRA expanded the range 

of expenditures that a State may claim 

as MOE. As a result, a State could 

feasibly claim as ‘‘excess MOE’’ existing 

State and third-party spending that is 

not claimed as MOE but that would 

qualify if a State chose to report such 

expenditures. This would allow a State 

to increase the amount of excess MOE 

without truly investing new resources in 

programs to serve needy families. 

Finally, we look again to the intent of 

the DRA to support eliminating the 

excess MOE credit in the caseload 

reduction credit calculation. Congress 

included the new calculation of work 

participation rates and program integrity 

provisions of the DRA in large part to 

restore State accountability for the 

TANF program and to ensure real 

progress in moving families from 

welfare to self-sufficiency. It did this 

through recalibration of the caseload 

reduction credit, expansion of the 

universe of families counted in 

calculating participation rates, and 

improved verification and oversight of 

work participation activities. 

Meaningful work participation rates 

help ensure effective programs and keep 

States accountable for the funds they 

expend and the programs they operate. 

Higher caseload reduction credits that 

do not reflect families actually leaving 

the caseload for work only hurt those 

goals. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) (PRA), no 

persons are required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

As required by this Act, we have 

submitted the proposed data collection 

requirements to OMB for review and 

approval. We are concurrently using 

this NPRM as a vehicle for seeking 

comment from the public on this 

information collection. 

This NPRM proposes to delete a 

provision in the regulation concerning 

the TANF caseload reduction credit that 

permits a State not to report caseloads 

funded with ‘‘excess MOE.’’ Excess 

MOE refers to State maintenance-ofeffort (MOE) expenditures in excess of 

the amount the State needs to meet its 

required MOE expenditures. The 

reporting burden on States would 

decrease as a result of this proposed 

change because they would no longer 

have the option to compute how many 

cases they funded with excess MOE in 

submitting the Caseload Reduction 

Report, Form ACF–202. We have 

recomputed the burden of completing 

the ACF–202, factoring out the 

computation of excess MOE. 

We estimate that the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto 

Rico, and the United States Virgin 

Islands will be respondents. Currently, 

American Samoa has not applied to 

implement the TANF program. 

The estimated burden associated with 

preparing the Caseload Reduction Credit 

Report, Form ACFF–202 is: 

Instrument or requirement Number of 

respondents 

Yearly 

submittals 

Average 

burden hours 

per response 

Average 

reduction in 

burden hours 

per response 

Total burden 

hours 

Reduction in 

total burden 

hours 

Caseload Reduction Documentation 

Process, ACF–202—§§ 261.41–261.44 54 1 115 5 6,210 270 

We are submitting this information 

collection to OMB for approval. These 

requirements will not become effective 

until approved by OMB. Copies of the 

proposed collection may be obtained by 

writing to the Administration for 

Children and Families, Office of 

Administration, Office of Information 

Services, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW., 

Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF 

Reports Clearance Officer. All requests 

should be identified by the title of the 

information collection. E-mail address: 

rsargis@acf.hhs.gov. Written comments 

to OMB concerning the proposed 


rfrederick on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
46232 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

information collection should be sent 

directly to: Office of Management and 

Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 

725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the 

Administration for Children and 

Families. OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the collection of 

information contained in this regulation 

between 30 and 60 days after its 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Therefore, a comment is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication. This does 

not affect the deadline for the public to 

comment to the Department on the 

proposed regulation. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354), 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 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Executive Order 12866 requires that 

regulations be reviewed to ensure that 

they are consistent with the priorities 

and principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. The Department has determined 

that this rule is consistent with these 

priorities and principles. 

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires that a covered agency 

prepare a budgetary impact statement 

before promulgating a rule that includes 

any Federal mandate that may result in 

the expenditure by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. 

The Department has determined that 

this rule would not impose a mandate 

that will result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million in any one year. 

The proposed rule has no direct 

budgetary implications. The TANF 

program has been unaffected in 

budgetary terms by the existing excess 

MOE provision. 

IX. Congressional Review 

This regulation is not a major rule as 

defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8. 

X. Assessment of Federal Regulation 

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 will not have an 

impact on family well-being as defined 

in the legislation. 

XI. Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 ‘‘Federalism’’

requires that Federal agencies consult 

with State and local government 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies with Federalism 

implications. We solicit and welcome 

comments from State and local 

government officials on this proposed 

rule, consistent with Executive Order 

13132. 

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 261 

Grant programs—Federal aid 

programs, Penalties, Public assistance 

programs—Welfare programs. 

Dated: October 24, 2007. 

Daniel C. Schneider, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and 

Families. 

Approved: May 6, 2008. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received at the Office of the Federal Register 

on August 4, 2008. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Administration for 

Children and Families proposes to 

amend 45 CFR chapter II by amending 

part 261 as set forth below: 

PART 261—ENSURING THAT 

RECIPIENTS WORK 

1. The authority citation for 45 CFR 

part 261 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 601, 602, 607, and 

609; Public Law 109–171. 

2. Revise § 261.43 to read as follows: 

§ 261.43 What is the definition of a ‘‘case 

receiving assistance’’ in calculating the 

caseload reduction credit? 

The caseload reduction credit is based 

on decreases in caseloads receiving 

TANF- or SSP-MOE-funded assistance 

(other than those excluded pursuant to 

§ 261.42). 

[FR Doc. E8–18208 Filed 8–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 08–1735; MB Docket No. 08–153; RM–

11477] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Bangor, ME 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission requests 

comments on a channel substitution 

proposed by Community Broadcasting 

Service (‘‘Community Broadcasting’’), 

the licensee of WABI–DT, DTV channel 

19, Bangor, Maine. Community 

Broadcasting requests the substitution of 

DTV channel 12 for channel 19 at 

Bangor. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before September 8, 2008, and reply 

comments on or before September 22, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

445 12th Street, SW., TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the FCC, 

interested parties should serve counsel 

for petitioner as follows: Michelle A. 

McClure, Esq., Fletcher, Heald & 

Hildreth, PLC, 1300 North 17th Street, 

11th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, 

joyce.bernstein@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, 

(202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

08–153, adopted July 24, 2008, and 

released July 28, 2008. The full text of 

this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY–

A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 

1–800–478–3160 or via e-mail http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 


rfrederick on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS