Elimination of the Tribal Non-Federal Share Requirement, 9784-9793 [2024-02110]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
• Administration for Children and Families

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9784-9793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02110]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Chapter III

RIN 0970-AC99


Elimination of the Tribal Non-Federal Share Requirement

AGENCY: Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), Administration for 
Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OCSS eliminates the non-Federal share of program expenditures 
requirement for Tribal child support programs, including the 90/10 and 
80/20 cost sharing rates. Based upon the experiences of and 
consultations with Tribes and Tribal organizations, we have determined 
that the non-Federal share requirement limits growth, causes 
disruptions, and creates instability.

DATES: This rule is effective October 1, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice McDaniel, Program Specialist, 
Division of Policy and Training, OCSS, telephone (202) 969-3874. Email 
inquiries to [email protected]. Telecommunications Relay users may 
dial 711 first.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Statutory Authority

    This final rule is published in accordance with section 455(f) of 
the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 655(f)). Section 455(f) of 
the Act requires the Secretary to issue regulations governing the 
grants to Tribes and Tribal organizations operating child support 
programs.
    This final rule is also published under the authority granted to 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services by section 1102 of the Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1302). Section 1102 of the Act authorizes the Secretary to 
publish regulations, not inconsistent with the Act, as may be necessary 
for the efficient administration of the functions with which the 
Secretary is responsible under the Act.

II. Public Consultation

    Since the inception of the Tribal child support program, OCSS has 
conducted numerous face-to-face and virtual Tribal Consultations and 
listening sessions to discuss the longstanding issue of the non-Federal 
share requirement and the cost sharing rates.

[[Page 9785]]

    In fact, even before drafting regulations to implement direct 
funding for Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs, OCSS conducted a 
series of Tribal consultations during which OCSS received many 
questions about how funding levels would be set. The notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM), published in August 2000, indicated that ``if the 
Secretary determines based on experience and consultation with Tribes 
that the 80/20 match rate is disruptive to the program and imposes 
hardship to Tribes, the regulations will be revised accordingly'' (65 
FR 50823).
    Since then, Tribal leaders and Tribal child support directors have 
submitted oral and written feedback, testimony, and blanket waiver 
requests describing the barriers they face in meeting the non-Federal 
share requirement and requesting relief by modifying, suspending, or 
eliminating the requirement.
    Most recently, on April 6, 2023, OCSS held a Tribal Consultation 
for the NPRM issued on April 21, 2023 (88 FR 24526). Several Tribal 
leaders or their designees provided oral testimony about the 
difficulties Tribes and Tribal organizations face in meeting the non-
Federal share requirement and the adverse impacts. For example, meeting 
the non-Federal share forces Tribal child support programs to cut 
staff, limit services, defer systems or equipment purchases, and 
compete with other Tribal programs for scarce Tribal funds and 
resources. They specifically mentioned the importance of Tribal monies 
to support self-governance functions like public safety, health, and 
natural resources. Oftentimes, Tribe-Tribes and Tribal organizations 
must underfund critical self-governance functions and services to meet 
the non-Federal share. They indicated that Tribal Nations have limited 
ways to increase revenue, are more susceptible to losses and economic 
downturns, and do not have the same taxing authorities as state 
governments. Many discussed the administrative burden of documenting, 
tracking, and reporting on non-Federal share contributions and how 
dedicating staff time and resources to that makes their child support 
programs less efficient and effective. They thought the non-Federal 
share waiver provision was overly restrictive and unnecessary since the 
non-Federal share was not imposed by Congress in section 455(f) the 
Social Security Act but by OCSS through regulation despite the 
objections of Tribes. They also thought that revising the non-Federal 
share waiver requirement was not an adequate, long-term solution, 
especially because that would not remove the financial barrier that 
prevents prospective Tribes from administering a child support program 
and places existing Tribal child support programs at risk of closing. 
All the oral and written testimony supported the elimination of the 
non-Federal share requirement because it will create stability, promote 
growth, and ensure Tribal families and communities have access to 
Tribal child support program services. It also reaffirms the 
government-to-government relationship between Indian Tribes and the 
Federal Government. The April 6, 2023, Tribal Consultation Session 
Summary Report is available on the OCSS website, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css.
    The NPRM issued on April 21, 2023, includes a discussion on prior 
Tribal Consultations and OCSS listening sessions on the non-Federal 
share requirement (88 FR 24527). These consultations and sessions 
demonstrate that Tribes and Tribal organizations have consistently and 
repeatedly objected to the non-Federal share requirement and expressed 
the hardship and harm it causes.

III. Background

    In the 2000 NPRM for the Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs, 
OCSS estimated that within 3 years, 150 Tribes and Tribal organizations 
would operate a child support program (65 FR 50801). As one commenter 
pointed out, the expansion of the Tribal child support program has 
fallen significantly short of those earlier projections. To date, few 
Tribes and Tribal organizations operate child support programs, 
although funding was authorized 19 years ago. Out of the 574 federally 
recognized Tribes, only 60 operate Tribal child support programs 
despite the flexible eligibility requirements to receive program 
funding.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See U.S. Department of Interior Indian Affairs Tribal Leader 
Directory at https://www.bia.gov/service/tribal-leaders-directory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eliminating the non-Federal share requirement, including the 90/10 
and 80/20 cost sharing rates, removes a significant financial barrier 
for current and prospective Tribal child support programs. Many Tribes 
and Tribal organizations face systemic, historical, and ongoing issues 
that impact their ability to meet the non-Federal share.\2\ For 
example, some Tribes have high rates of unemployment and families 
living below the poverty level, have limited and vulnerable Tribal 
enterprises that generate revenue, are in rural, communities that have 
faced disinvestment, are exposed to greater environmental threats, and 
lack robust economies. One comment indicated that many Tribes are shut 
out of the opportunity to provide federally funded child support 
services precisely because of long-term problems like high unemployment 
rates, limited economic development, a subsistence economy remote from 
employment centers, and no tax base. The non-Federal share requirement 
not only discourages prospective Tribes, it also increases the risk of 
current Tribal child support programs shutting down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Broken Promises: 
Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans (December 
2018), available at https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several Tribal commenters expressed their fears of being forced to 
shut down their Tribal child support programs if the non-Federal share 
is not eliminated. In fact, in fiscal year (FY) 2017, a Tribe had to 
shut down their child support program because they were unable to meet 
the non-Federal share of program expenditures, indicating that the 
requirement is a barrier for any Tribe to be successful.
    Additionally, the current economic conditions in Tribal Nations 
have made their situations even more precarious. Several Tribal 
commenters indicated that their enterprises and revenues have not fully 
returned to pre-pandemic levels, and they are still dealing with other 
issues like the opioid epidemic and natural disasters that require 
Tribal resources and funds to mitigate. Yet, the non-Federal share 
requirement forces Tribal child support programs to compete with other 
Tribal departments and programs to obtain limited Tribal government 
funding.
    The elimination of the non-Federal share requirement will enable 
Tribal child support programs to grow and expand. Meeting the non-
Federal share has disproportionately and negatively driven programmatic 
and fiscal decisions. As one commenter mentioned, it forces Tribes and 
Tribal organizations to make decisions to meet the non-Federal share 
instead of meeting the needs of their Tribal families and communities. 
Many commenters indicated that their Tribal child support programs had 
to defer paying for required security assessments to access the Federal 
Parent Locator Service (FPLS), which helps in locating noncustodial 
parents and their assets. They also indicated that the non-Federal 
share requirement made their programs less efficient and effective 
because they had no funds or time to spend on wraparound services, 
employment referrals for noncustodial parents, robust outreach, 
intensive case

[[Page 9786]]

management, fatherhood programs, and parenting initiatives.
    The National Association of Tribal Child Support Directors included 
the results of their 2022 survey in their comments. Out of the 46 
respondents, the survey found that if the non-Federal share were 
eliminated 63 percent expected to have more time to focus on efforts to 
increase service quality, 50 percent would be interested in offering a 
fatherhood program, and 67 percent would be interested in expanding 
outreach.
    Eliminating the non-Federal share will help to ensure that Tribal 
Nations can offer culturally appropriate and affirming child support 
services to their communities. Native American children in Tribal areas 
with child support programs are in great need of child support, 
especially since 53 percent of Native American children in these areas 
lived in single-parent families.\3\ According to data from the 2015 
American Community Survey, nearly one-third of Native Americans living 
in Tribal areas with a child support program lived below the poverty 
line in 2015 (that year, the poverty line for a family of three was 
$20,090).\4\ This poverty rate was more than twice the poverty rate for 
Americans in general (15 percent). Particularly stark was the poverty 
rate among Native American children living in these areas, which was 40 
percent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See OCSS Exploring Tribal Demographic Data: Part Two at 
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/ocsedatablog/2023/01/exploring-tribal-demographic-data-part-two.
    \4\ See OCSS Exploring Tribal Demographic Data: Part One at 
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/ocsedatablog/2022/11/exploring-tribal-demographic-data-part-one.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FY 2022, Tribal child support programs collected $51 million in 
child support payments, and 97 percent went to families.\6\ These child 
support payments help to reduce the need for other supportive services 
such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Additionally, 
Tribal child support programs offer unique services like non-cash 
support, parenting classes that reflect Tribal culture and traditions, 
and intensive and family-centered case management. A Tribal commenter 
who is receiving child support services stated, ``My Tribal IV-D 
program treated me as a person, not just a child support case number.'' 
The commenter also indicated that when the state was unable to locate 
her child's father, the Tribal child support program found him and 
established and enforced a child support order, which resulted in the 
receipt of regular child support payments. Tribal child support 
directors have indicated that many Tribal parents have had similar 
experiences and value the Tribal child support services they receive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See OCSS 2022 Tribal Infographic at FY 2022 Tribal Child 
Support Providing Support for Our Families (hhs.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The elimination of the non-Federal share will also ensure that 
state child support programs continue to receive assistance from Tribal 
child support programs to enforce state child support orders and 
collect child support payments in intergovernmental cases in accordance 
with 45 CFR 309.120(a). For example, when a Tribal child support 
program receives a request for assistance from a state, they register 
the state child support order in Tribal court and enforce it. Then, the 
tribe collects the child support payment from the noncustodial parent 
and sends it to the state in accordance with 45 CFR 309.115(d). Without 
this assistance from Tribal child support programs, states are, for the 
most part, unable to collect child support payments in these 
intergovernmental cases because they lack jurisdiction to enforce their 
child support orders in Tribal Nations. In FY 2022, Tribal child 
support programs collected and sent $10 million in child support 
payments to states, other tribes, and countries.\7\ Comments from five 
states acknowledged the importance of Tribal child support programs, 
reiterated the difficulties they face in meeting the non-Federal share 
requirement, and supported the elimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See OCSS 2021 Tribal Infographic at FY 2022 Tribal Child 
Support Providing Support for Our Families (hhs.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eliminating the non-Federal share promotes equity and honors Tribal 
sovereignty and the trust relationship between the Federal Government 
and Tribal Nations. This regulation also aligns with President Biden's 
Executive order on Reforming Federal Funding and Support for Tribal 
Nations to Better Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and Promote the 
Next Era of Tribal Self-Determination, Executive Order 14112, 88 FR 
86021 (December 6, 2023). As set out by the 1977 Senate report of the 
American Indian Policy Review Commission, ``The purpose behind the 
trust is and always has been to insure the survival and welfare of 
Indian Tribes and people. This includes an obligation to provide those 
services required to protect and enhance Indian lands, resources, and 
self-government and also includes those economic and social programs 
which are necessary to raise the standard of living and social well-
being of the Indian people to a level comparable to the non-Indian 
society.'' \8\ As several commenters mentioned, Tribal governments have 
substantially less funds and revenue generating options than state 
governments. Yet the needs and disparities are greater in Tribal 
communities. For example, they continue to face inequalities and 
structural barriers that limit their opportunities, negatively impact 
their well-being and economic mobility, and contribute to their higher 
rates of poverty.\9\ Instead of competing, these programs and services 
should collaborate to use both Federal and Tribal funds efficiently and 
effectively to improve the economic and social well-being of Tribal 
children, families, and communities. Therefore, eliminating the 
requirement reduces the competition for scarce resources and makes the 
Tribal child support program funding more equitable and obtainable for 
Tribal Nations. As one state commenter indicated, it helps put Tribes 
on more equal footing with state child support programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See American Indian Policy Review Commission Final Report 
(May 1977), page 130 available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED164229.pdf.
    \9\ See Joint Economic Committee Democrats, Native American 
Communities Continue to Face Barriers to Opportunity that Stifle 
Economic Mobility (May 2022) available at https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9a6bd201-d9ed-4615-bc32-9b899faf5627/nativeamericanscontinuetofacepervasiveeconomicdisparaties-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From the start, the Tribal child support program regulations 
recognized and honored Tribal sovereignty and attempted to convey 
flexibilities in Tribal child support programs as stated in the NPRM 
published in 2000 (65 FR 50805). The 2000 NPRM stated that the 
regulation recognizes the government-to-government relationship by 
supporting Tribe's right to exercise self-determination and decide 
whether or not to operate a Tribal child support program (65 FR 50805). 
Many commenters to this final rule also recognized and reiterated the 
importance of exercising Tribal sovereignty by operating a Tribal child 
support program. Child support services help Tribal communities promote 
parental responsibility, so children receive support from both parents 
even when they live in separate households. Tribes and Tribal 
organizations exercising their sovereignty to operate their own child 
support programs is, in fact, what Congress intended when it authorized 
funding under Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

[[Page 9787]]

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193).
    Eliminating the non-Federal share requirement helps to achieve this 
and to ensure the sustainability and expansion of the program by 
providing the adequate and appropriate Federal financial participation. 
This is important because many Federal programs that assist Tribal 
Nations and promote Tribal sovereignty are underfunded, according to 
the 2018 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report on Federal funding for 
Native Americans.\10\ Additionally, this rule honors and reflects the 
trust relationship and doctrine, which requires the Federal Government 
to support Tribal self-government and economic prosperity.\11\ And it 
also fulfills the 2000 NPRM directive that indicated ``if the Secretary 
determines based on experience and consultation with Tribes that the 
80/20 match rate is disruptive to the program and imposes hardship to 
Tribes, the regulations will be revised accordingly'' (65 FR 50823).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Broken Promises: 
Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans (December 
2018) at https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf.
    \11\ See Administration for Children and Families, American 
Indians and Alaska Natives--The Trust Responsibility Fact Sheet at 
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ana/fact-sheet/american-indians-and-alaska-natives-trust-responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, OCSS considered whether a change in policy might 
negatively impact Tribal child support programs, which have structured 
their operations based on the existing matching requirement and 
determined that any potential negative impact is far outweighed by the 
benefit of not using scarce Tribal funds for the non-Federal share.
    In the NPRM published in 2000, OCSS considered several different 
funding approaches that controlled costs, including performance-based 
funding, funding based on cost per child to operate the program, 
capping certain costs, and state-cost based funding (65 FR 50823). OCSS 
engaged in extensive deliberations over the issue of funding for Tribal 
child support programs. After careful consideration of the advantages 
and disadvantages of each cost control funding approach, ultimately, 
the Secretary proposed open-ended funding with a Tribal match (65 FR 
50823). The NPRM proposed that Tribes and Tribal organizations provide 
a 10 percent match during the start-up period and first 3 years of 
operating a Tribal child support program, with the match increasing to 
20 percent thereafter (65 FR 50823). The NPRM also included a waiver 
provision allowing the Secretary to waive the non-Federal share for 
Tribes and Tribal organizations that lacked sufficient resources and 
met certain specific criteria (65 FR 50823).
    The Tribal Child Support Enforcement Program final rule was 
promulgated on March 30, 2004 (hereinafter final rule) and included 
revisions to the cost sharing provision for start-up funding and the 
non-Federal share waiver provisions at 45 CFR 309.130(e) (69 FR 16638 
and 16646). In the final rule, OCSS indicated that it received numerous 
comments from Tribes objecting to the cost sharing requirement. In 
response, OCSS again expressed concern regarding the control of costs 
in the Tribal child support program, stating that ``unlike other Tribal 
grant programs, the funding for Tribal IV-D programs is not sum certain 
grants,'' meaning a specified and set amount of funds (69 FR 16667). 
OCSS further stated that the cost sharing requirement was maintained 
after determining ``that a non-Federal share in expenditures is 
necessary, based on the principle that better programs and better 
management result when local resources are invested'' (69 FR 16667). 
However, in response to comments, the match requirement was changed to 
allow 100 percent funding during the start-up period, not to exceed 2 
years, and, capped at $500,000 per 45 CFR 309.130(c)(1). OCSS noted 
that the non-Federal match for start-up costs was eliminated in 
recognition that ``Tribes just beginning title IV-D child support 
enforcement may have very limited funds for this activity'' (69 FR 
16646).
    The 2004 final rule also revised the non-Federal share waiver 
provisions and made them more prescriptive and restrictive (69 FR 
16646). For example, OCSS noted that denied waiver requests were not 
subject to administrative appeal (69 FR 16646). The regulation at 45 
CFR 309.130(e) permits, under certain circumstances, a temporary waiver 
of part or all of the non-Federal share of program expenditures. This 
provision includes the following two types of temporary waiver requests 
that a Tribe or Tribal organization may submit for consideration: 
``anticipated temporary waiver request'' and ``emergency waiver 
request.'' Both waiver requests must be submitted in accordance with 
the procedures specified in 45 CFR 309.130(e)(2) through (4). These 
procedures require the submission of extensive information and 
documentation to demonstrate the temporary lack of resources and 
justify the waiver request.
    Under 45 CFR 309.130(e)(1)(i), when Tribes or Tribal organizations 
anticipate that they will be temporarily unable to contribute part or 
all of the required non-Federal share of program funding, they must 
submit an anticipated temporary waiver request. The anticipated waiver, 
due no later than 60 days before the start of the funding period, is 
more restrictive because untimely or incomplete requests will not be 
considered, in accordance with 45 CFR 309.130(e)(1)(i). Many Tribal 
child support programs have been denied anticipated waivers because of 
untimely or incomplete requests. An untimely anticipated waiver request 
means a Tribe submitted the request after the deadline of August 1 
pursuant to 45 CFR 309.130(e)(1)(i). An incomplete anticipated waiver 
request means a Tribe did not include all the information required by 
45 CFR 309.130(e)(2) through (4), such as portions of the Tribal budget 
sufficient to demonstrate the extent of the funding shortfall and 
uncommitted funds.
    Under 45 CFR 309.130(e)(1)(ii), after the start of the funding 
period, if an emergency situation occurs, such as a hurricane or flood, 
that warrants a waiver of the non-Federal share of program 
expenditures, Tribes or Tribal organizations may submit an emergency 
waiver request.
    Although OCSS previously determined during drafting of the Tribal 
Child Support Enforcement Program regulations that a non-Federal match 
was important to ensure ``better programs and better management'' (69 
FR 16667), it has now reconsidered that conclusion after seeing the 
Tribal child support program in practice during the past two decades. 
Based on its experience, OCSS now concludes that its oversight tools 
are sufficient, without the non-Federal share match, to monitor use of 
funds for IV-D expenditures and consider cost containment. Tribes and 
Tribal organizations show in their budget submissions and 
communications with OCSS that they are engaged in operating successful 
programs and using Federal funds properly, efficiently, and 
effectively, in accordance with 45 CFR 309.60(b). A non-Federal share 
is also not necessary to ensure Tribal investment in the program. 
Tribes and Tribal organizations are inherently invested in operating a 
child support program because they can exercise their Tribal 
sovereignty and incorporate their Tribal traditions and customs. Most 
importantly, they are invested in the Tribal members who staff their 
programs and the Tribal families and children who benefit from child 
support services. They will continue to provide Tribal resources, such 
as Tribal

[[Page 9788]]

buildings and courts, to ensure their programs are successful and 
efficient.
    The Tribal child support program regulations provide OCSS with 
sufficient authority to control costs and monitor compliance without 
the non-Federal share requirement. The primary method for evaluating 
and ensuring allowable and appropriate costs is through the budget 
submission, review, and approval process. The regulation at 45 CFR 
309.15(c) requires Tribal child support programs to submit a budget to 
receive Title IV-D funding to administer their child support programs. 
Budgets must include the detailed information specified in 45 CFR 
309.130(b) and OCSS guidance, such as quarterly estimate of 
expenditures, narrative justification for each cost category, and 
copies of contracts (see Tribal Child Support Budget Toolbox and OCSS 
PIQT-21-01). OCSS and Office of Grants Management (OGM) review Tribal 
budget submissions for compliance with 45 CFR parts 309, 310, and 75 
and other applicable Federal laws. During the review of Tribal budgets, 
OCSS and OGM examine the estimates of program expenditures, determine 
whether the budget narratives and documentation justify costs, and 
approve allowable costs charged to the Title IV-D grant. OCSS reviews 
the entire budget in detail to ensure the costs are reasonable and 
necessary given the caseload size and other demographic and geographic 
factors. OCSS compares contract costs to industry standards and similar 
contracts from other child support programs. For questionable costs, 
OCSS works with the Tribe to obtain additional information or revise or 
remove those costs when warranted. For example, OCSS determined that a 
Tribe's contract costs for information technology development were 
higher than the industry standard and worked with the Tribe to secure a 
reduction in the costs before approving the contract.
    OCSS must approve a Tribe's budget before OGM issues a notice of 
grant award, which provides OCSS with direct oversight over Tribal 
expenditures before Tribal child support programs drawdown and use 
Title IV-D funds at the start of the fiscal year. After OCSS approves a 
Tribe's budget, a Tribe may request additional funds by submitting the 
information specified in 45 CFR 309.130(f)(1). If the increase in funds 
impacts the Tribal IV-D plan, the Tribe must also submit a plan 
amendment in accordance with 45 CFR 309.130(f)(2). A Tribe must provide 
the required information and documentation and the costs must comply 
with the Federal regulations before OCSS approves the request for an 
increase in funds. This ensures that increases in approved Tribal 
budgets are reasonable, necessary, allowable, and allocable. 
Additionally, OCSS uses a variety of methods to provide technical 
assistance and assess needs so that Tribal child support programs 
comply with the program regulations, uniform grant requirements, and 
cost principles. These methods include conducting training, national 
webinars, conference workshops, regional meetings, and site visits. As 
a result, the overall Tribal child support program expenditures of 
existing Tribes are not expected to rise substantially beyond normal 
cost increases due to factors like inflation, filling vacancies, or 
upgrading equipment and systems.
    Even with the elimination of the non-Federal share, OCSS does not 
expect that every federally recognized Tribe or Tribal organization 
will request funding to operate a Tribal child support program, meaning 
that OCSS expects only a modest and gradual increase in program 
expenditures. Prospective Tribes and Tribal organizations may not have 
the required administrative capacity or infrastructure to operate a 
child support program. For example, they may not have 100 children 
under the age of majority, as referenced in 45 CFR 309.10(a). Although 
they may request a waiver of this requirement (45 CFR 309.10(c)), the 
waiver must demonstrate that their prospective Tribal child support 
program will be cost effective (45 CFR 309.10(c)(1)(iii)). 
Additionally, prospective Tribes and Tribal organizations may not want 
to comply with the extensive requirements and procedures required to 
receive funding (45 CFR 309.65). A Tribal court can hear child support 
cases without the Tribe administering a child support program. 
Administering a Tribal child support program and working with parents 
on such a vulnerable and sensitive subject is complex and demanding. As 
previously mentioned, instead of operating their own Tribal child 
support program, they may jointly operate a program or may receive 
child support services from an existing Tribal child support program.
    As a policy alternative to eliminating the non-Federal share, OCSS 
considered revising the non-Federal share waiver requirements to make 
waivers easier to request and receive. In fact, the non-Federal share 
waiver requirements proposed in the 2000 NPRM were less restrictive and 
burdensome than the requirements in the 2004 final rule under 45 CFR 
309.130(e) (65 FR 50837). Only one commenter suggested this policy 
alternative. Reducing the burden and criteria for requesting non-
Federal share waivers does not change the fact that they are temporary 
and must be requested each time a Tribe needs one. The underlying 
issues that make meeting the non-Federal share difficult or impossible 
for Tribes and Tribal organizations are persistent, intractable, and 
systemic such as high rates of unemployment, little or no economic 
development, or lack of or a decline in revenue. As one commenter 
pointed out, Tribal communities have been historically underserved, 
marginalized, or subject to discrimination or systemic disadvantage. 
These issues not only hinder current Tribal child support programs from 
meeting the non-Federal share and potentially shutting down, but they 
also prevent prospective Tribes from even applying for funding. 
Therefore, OCSS does not think revising the non-Federal share waiver 
requirements would increase Tribal participation or reduce the risks of 
program closures as much as eliminating the requirement entirely. Nor 
would it reduce the administrative burden associated with tracking and 
reporting on non-Federal share contributions and submitting waiver 
requests. Most importantly, revising the non-Federal share waiver 
provision recognizes the need to implement the 2000 NPRM directive for 
the Secretary to revise the regulations when the 80/20 match rate is 
disruptive to the program and imposes hardship to Tribes (65 FR 50823). 
Accordingly, the time has come to revise the regulation. The 
overwhelming majority of commenters agreed with this decision.
    In 1996, Congress was compelled to pass PRWORA and authorize direct 
funding of Tribes and Tribal organizations for operating child support 
programs. And now, OCSS issues this final rule that eliminates the non-
Federal share requirement, helping to ensure that new Tribal child 
support programs are established, and current ones continue to operate 
and thrive, as Congress intended. As a result, more Tribal communities 
will receive child support services that reflect and affirm their 
Tribal cultures and traditions, increase family economic well-being, 
and help lift Tribal families out of poverty.

IV. Summary Description of the Regulatory Provisions

    The following is a summary of the regulatory provisions included in 
the final rule and, where appropriate, how these provisions differ from 
what was initially included in the NPRM. The NPRM was published in the 
Federal Register on April 21, 2023 (88 FR 24526 through 24535). The 
comment period

[[Page 9789]]

ended June 20, 2023. OCSS received 51 sets of comments from 48 entities 
as follows: 28 Tribes, 5 Tribal child support programs, 5 states, 5 
organizations, and 5 individuals. Three Tribes submitted 2 sets of 
comments. Comments were posted on www.regulations.gov.
    Overwhelmingly, the comments received on the NPRM supported the 
elimination of the non-Federal share requirement for Tribal child 
support programs. Several commenters indicated that they had no 
objections to the regulatory revisions, as discussed below, resulting 
from the elimination of the non-Federal share. Only one comment 
disagreed with the elimination and recommended allocating funds by the 
size of the Tribal child support program or revising the non-Federal 
share waiver provision instead.

Section 309.15 What is a Tribal IV-D program application?

    In Sec.  309.15(a)(2)(iii), OCSS proposed removing the language ``; 
and either:'' at the end of that provision and inserting a period in 
its place. Section 309.15(a)(2)(iv) requires the initial application 
for funding to include a statement that the Tribe or Tribal 
organization has or will have the non-Federal share of program 
expenditures available. Section 309.15(a)(2)(v) permits a request for a 
waiver of the non-Federal share in accordance with Sec.  309.130(e). 
OCSS proposed removing Sec.  309.15(a)(2)(iv) and (v) due to the 
elimination of the non-Federal share. There were no objections to the 
proposed regulatory amendments.

Section 309.45 When and how may a Tribe or Tribal organization request 
reconsideration of a disapproval action?

    Section 309.45(g) indicates that disapproval of start-up funding, a 
request for waiver of the 100-child rule, and a request for waiver of 
the non-Federal Tribal share is not subject to administrative appeal. 
OCSS proposed amending Sec.  309.45(g) by removing ``, and a request 
for waiver of the non-Federal Tribal share.'' Revised paragraph (g) 
will read as follows: ``Disapproval of start-up funding and a request 
for waiver of the 100-child rule is not subject to administrative 
appeal.'' There were no objections to the proposed regulatory 
amendments.

Section 309.75 What administrative and management procedures must a 
Tribe or Tribal organization include in a Tribal IV-D plan?

    Section 309.75(e) describes the requirements for a Tribe and Tribal 
organization that intends to charge an application fee or recover costs 
in excess of the fee. Collected fees and recovered costs are considered 
program income and deducted from total allowable costs in accordance 
with 45 CFR 309.75(e)(4) and 75.307(e)(1). Due to the proposed 
elimination of the non-Federal share requirement, we proposed revising 
Sec.  309.75(e) and modified the proposed language in the NPRM, 
requiring Tribal child support programs to provide that charging fees 
and recovering costs will not be permitted. We also proposed removing 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (4). There were no objections to the proposed 
regulatory amendments.

Section 309.85 What records must a Tribe or Tribal organization agree 
to maintain in a Tribal IV-D plan?

    Section 309.85(a)(6) requires a Tribe or Tribal organization to 
maintain records on any fees charged and collected, if applicable. As 
previously stated, collected fees and recovered costs are considered 
program income and deducted from total allowable costs in accordance 
with 45 CFR 309.75(e)(4) and 75.307(e)(1). Due to the proposed 
elimination of the non-Federal share requirement, we proposed removing 
Sec.  309.85(a)(6) and redesignating Sec.  309.85(a)(7) to Sec.  
309.85(a)(6). There were no objections to the proposed regulatory 
amendments.

Section 309.130 How will Tribal IV-D programs be funded and what forms 
are required?

    In Sec.  309.130(b)(2)(iii), we proposed removing the language 
``and for funding under Sec.  309.65(a) either:'' at the end of that 
provision and replacing it with a period. Section 309.130(b)(2)(iv) 
requires the annual Tribal budget submissions to include a statement 
certifying that the Tribe or Tribal organization has or will have the 
non-Federal share of program expenditures. Section 309.130(b)(2)(v) 
permits a request for a waiver of the non-Federal share in accordance 
with paragraph (e) of the section. We proposed removing Sec.  
309.130(b)(2)(iv) and (v) due to the elimination of the non-Federal 
share requirement.
    Section 309.130(c) describes the Federal share of program 
expenditures for start-up funding and for initial and ongoing grant 
funding to administer a Tribal child support program. We proposed 
amending Sec.  309.130(c)(2) by removing ``during a 3-year period,'' 
replacing ``90'' with ``100'', and adding ``and thereafter'' following 
``made during that period.'' We proposed amending Sec.  309.130(c)(3) 
by removing Sec.  309.130(c)(3)(i), redesignating paragraph (c)(3)(ii) 
to paragraph (c)(3), and replacing ``90'' with ``100''. We proposed 
these revisions to indicate that the Federal share of program 
expenditures will be 100 percent due to the elimination of the non-
Federal share requirement.
    Section 309.130(d) describes the requirements for the non-Federal 
share of program expenditures. We proposed removing Sec.  309.130(d) 
due to the elimination of the non-Federal share requirement.
    Section 309.130(e) describes the requirements for permitting a 
temporary waiver of part or all of the non-Federal share of program 
expenditures. We proposed removing Sec.  309.130(e) due to the 
elimination of the non-Federal share requirement.
    Section 309.130(f) describes the requirements for requesting 
increases in the approved Tribal budget and Sec.  309.130(f)(3) 
addresses how budget increases impact the non-Federal share. We 
proposed redesignating Sec.  309.130(f) to Sec.  309.130(d) and 
removing Sec.  309.130(f)(3).
    Section 309.130(g) describes how to obtain Federal funds and Sec.  
309.130(h) requires compliance with the uniform administrative 
requirements and cost principles. We proposed redesignating Sec.  
309.130(g) and (h) to Sec.  309.130(e) and (f), respectively.
    The overwhelming majority of comments supported the elimination of 
the non-Federal share requirement. Only one comment disagreed with the 
elimination and recommended allocating funds by the size of the Tribal 
child support program or revising the non-Federal share waiver 
provision instead.

Section 309.155 What uses of Tribal IV-D program funds are not 
allowable?

    Section 309.155(c) prohibits a Tribe or Tribal organization from 
using Federal IV-D funds for any expenditures that have been reimbursed 
by fees or costs collected, including any fee collected from a state. 
We proposed removing Sec.  309.155(c) and redesignating Sec.  
309.155(d), (e), (f), and (g) to Sec.  309.155(c), (d), (e), and (f), 
respectively. There were no objections to the proposed regulatory 
amendments.

Section 309.170 What statistical and narrative reporting requirements 
apply to Tribal IV-D programs?

    Section 309.170(b)(8) requires a Tribe or Tribal organization to 
provide annual information and statistics on the total amount of fees 
and costs recovered. We proposed removing Sec.  309.170(b)(8) and 
redesignating Sec.  309.170(b)(9) to Sec.  309.170(b)(8). There were no

[[Page 9790]]

objections to the proposed regulatory amendments.

Section 310.10 What are the functional requirements for the Model 
Tribal IV-D System?

    Section 310.10(c) requires the Model Tribal IV-D System to record 
and report any fees collected, either directly or by interfacing with 
state or Tribal financial management and expenditure information. 
Although we proposed removing Sec.  310.10(c) and redesignating Sec.  
310.10(d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to Sec.  310.10(c), (d), (e), (f), 
and (g), respectively, OCSS has reconsidered these amendments, despite 
not receiving any objections to them. After further consideration, OCSS 
has decided it is necessary to maintain the Model Tribal Systems (MTS) 
requirements described in Sec.  310.10(c) because a Tribal child 
support program may collect fees to assist a state child support 
program in an intergovernmental case. If so, they would need to record 
and report any fees collected along with expenditure information as per 
Sec.  310.10(c). Because we are retaining Sec.  310.10(c), we also no 
longer need to redesignate the other subsections.

Section 310.20 What are the conditions for funding the installation, 
operation, maintenance and enhancement of Computerized Tribal IV-D 
Systems and Office Automation?

    Section 310.20(a) describes the conditions that must be met for 
Federal financial participation for Computerized Tribal IV-D Systems. 
We proposed replacing ``90'' with ``100'' for installation of the Model 
Tribal IV-D System.

V. Response to Comments

    Comment 1: The majority of commenters indicated that they had no 
objections to the regulatory revisions proposed in 45 CFR 309.15, 
309.45, 309.75, 309.85, 309.155, 309.170, and 310.20.
    Response 1: Based on the overwhelming support for the elimination 
of the non-Federal share of program expenditure requirement for Tribal 
child support programs, including the 90/10 and 80/20 cost sharing 
rates, OCSS agrees that the relief should be provided.
    For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, OCSS 
revises 45 CFR 309.15, 309.45, 309.75, 309.83, 309.155, 309.170, and 
310.20 as proposed.
    Comment 2: Overwhelmingly, Tribes, Tribal child support programs, 
states, organizations, and individuals who submitted comments were 
unequivocal in their support of the proposed elimination of the non-
Federal share requirement.
    Most commenters indicated that the non-Federal share limits growth, 
causes disruptions, creates instability, and imposes hardships for 
Tribal child support programs.
    Many Tribal commenters stated that meeting the non-Federal share 
forced their Tribal child support program to reduce services, cut 
travel and training, and forgo hiring staff, modernizing, digitizing, 
accessing FPLS, and participating in the Federal Tax Refund Offset 
Program (FTRO). Several Tribal commenters also indicated that these 
forced cuts and reductions made their programs less efficient and 
effective. For example, one Tribal commenter indicated that their 
program was unable to afford their non-Federal share to access 
enforcement remedies like FPLS and FTRO to locate noncustodial parents 
and to offset Federal tax returns for overdue support.
    Many commenters indicated that Tribes had limited resources. 
Several Tribal commenters described how meeting the non-Federal share 
diverted their limited Tribal funds from essential self-governance 
services and functions for the elderly, youth, Tribal courts, public 
safety, natural resources, natural disasters, and crisis mitigation 
like the opioid crisis and coronavirus disease pandemic. Some Tribal 
commenters also stated that it forced Tribal programs to compete for 
those limited funds and make difficult decisions about how to allocate 
resources to address the needs and issues of Tribal members and which 
programs to underfund. Two commenters indicated how Tribal governments 
do not have taxing authorities like state governments.
    Some Tribal commenters stated that finding, tracking, calculating, 
and documenting non-Federal share contributions was time consuming and 
that their efforts could be better used on providing needed child 
support services to families, such as parenting classes and fatherhood 
programs. Some Tribal commenters also indicated that the non-Federal 
share waiver requirements were burdensome and impossible to meet. And 
two Tribal commenters stated that Congress did not impose the non-
Federal share requirement in the authorizing legislation.
    One Tribal commenter indicated that they may have to shut down 
their Tribal child support program if OCSS does not eliminate the non-
Federal share requirement. And two commenters mentioned how one Tribe 
had to close their program because of the difficulty with providing the 
non-Federal share.
    Many commenters indicated that the elimination of non-Federal share 
would be beneficial for Tribal child support programs. Several 
commenters specified that they would increase child support services, 
update their systems, and fill vacancies. Several commenters also 
stated that the elimination would help to ensure that existing programs 
continue operating and new ones are established, creating stability and 
growth. Additionally, several commenters emphasized the importance of 
Tribes and Tribal organizations exercising their Tribal sovereignty by 
administering a child support program.
    One commenter stated that the elimination promotes equity by 
removing a substantial financial burden for Tribal communities that 
have been historically underserved, marginalized, or subject to 
discrimination or systemic disadvantage. Two commenters indicated that 
it honors the trust relationship the Federal Government has with Tribal 
Nations. And another two commenters stated that it would reduce 
bureaucratic barriers faced by Tribes and Tribal organizations.
    One commenter agreed that OCSS still has sufficient oversight and 
cost containment tools without the non-Federal share requirement. 
Another commenter indicated that many Tribes and Tribal organizations 
will continue to invest in their programs by contributing Tribal 
facilities and using Tribal members as staff. Many commenters indicated 
how Tribes and Tribal organizations are invested in their children, 
helping noncustodial and custodial parents support them financially and 
emotionally.
    A few Tribal commenters indicated that the elimination demonstrates 
that OCSS is listening to Tribes and Tribal organizations.
    Many commenters expressed the need for child support services in 
Tribal communities to help lift Tribal families and children out of 
poverty.
    Response 2: Based on the overwhelming support for the proposed 
elimination of the non-Federal share requirement, for the reasons 
described in the NPRM and by the majority of commenters, OCSS agrees 
that the non-Federal share requirement should be eliminated for Tribal 
child support programs.
    Comment 3: One individual opposed the elimination of the non-
Federal share requirement without replacing with another cost 
containment mechanism. The commenter thought OCSS could not reasonably 
expect to apply the level of oversight or impartiality to fiscally

[[Page 9791]]

manage a program where an unlimited amount of money can be requested 
without financial participation by grantees. The commenter indicated 
that cost sharing ensures a grantee considers cost-to-benefit 
proposition and that the principle has never been questioned for states 
and is a solid principle for Tribes. In lieu of cost sharing, the 
commenter recommended allocating funds by the size of the Tribal 
program based upon historical caseload data. The commenter also 
recommended revising the non-Federal share waiver provision. The 
commenter indicated that Tribes are not all in the same financial 
position and some have limited resources while others are thriving.
    Response 3: OCSS disagrees. As discussed previously, the Tribal 
child support program regulations provide OCSS with sufficient 
authority to control costs and monitor compliance without the non-
Federal share requirement. Unlike state child support programs, Tribal 
child support programs must submit a budget to receive Title IV-D 
funding in accordance with 45 CFR 309.15(c). Budgets must include the 
detailed information specified in 45 CFR 309.130(b) and OCSS guidance, 
such as quarterly estimate of expenditures, narrative justification for 
each cost category, and copies of contracts (see Tribal Child Support 
Budget Toolbox and OCSS PIQT-21-01). OCSS and OGM review Tribal budget 
submissions for compliance with 45 CFR parts 309, 310, and 75 and other 
applicable Federal laws. During the review of Tribal budgets, OCSS and 
OGM examine the estimates of program expenditures, and determine 
whether the budget narratives and documentation justify costs. Many 
factors impact a Tribe's caseload. For example, some Tribal child 
support programs receive cases transferred from a state child support 
program, others do not and must conduct intensive outreach to get 
parents to apply for services, a few Tribal child support programs 
receive referrals from the Tribal TANF programs, and at least one 
Tribal child support program provides services to other Tribes. Several 
Tribal child support programs have parents who do not live locally and 
reaching them is costly. As indicated by the feedback from Tribes and 
Tribal organizations, meeting the non-Federal share has limited their 
ability of conduct outreach to increase their caseloads. Therefore, 
using historical data is problematic and may not be a valid predictor 
for prospective Tribes and Tribal organizations since they have unique 
characteristics, histories, and relationships with their states.
    Additionally, OCSS considered but decided against capping certain 
costs for Tribal child support programs in the 2000 NPRM (65 FR 50823). 
OCSS also disagrees with that option now. Capping costs limits Tribes 
and Tribal organizations to self-govern, grow their program as they 
determine, and innovate to meet the evolving needs and circumstances of 
Tribal parents and children.
    Comment 4: Several commenters indicated that they had no objections 
to the regulatory revisions proposed in Sec.  310.10.
    Response 4: Although commenters indicated that they had no 
objection to the regulatory revisions proposed in Sec.  310.10, OCSS 
has decided not to revise 45 CFR 310.10 as originally proposed in the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Specifically, OCSS has determined, as 
noted above, it is necessary to maintain the Model Tribal Systems (MTS) 
requirements described in Sec.  310.10(c) because a Tribal child 
support program may collect fees to assist a state child support 
program in an intergovernmental case. If so, they would need to record 
and report any fees collected along with expenditure information as per 
Sec.  310.10(c). And, because we are retaining Sec.  310.10(c), we no 
longer need to redesignate the other paragraphs.

VI. Regulatory Review

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13), all Departments 
are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping requirements 
inherent in a proposed or final rule. For this final rule, Tribal child 
support programs that charge fees and recover costs must submit a plan 
amendment, providing that charging fees and recovering costs will not 
be permitted. Only three Tribal programs report data on the collection 
of fees and recovered costs. The description and total estimated burden 
on the ``Tribal Child Support Enforcement Direct Funding Request'' (OMB 
#0907-0218) is described in the chart below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Average burden              National   National
     Section and purpose         Instrument       Number of         hour per       Total     Federal     Tribal
                                                 respondents        response        cost      share      share
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added requirement Sec.        Tribal plan      One time for 3   3 hours x          $664.56    $664.56         $0
 309.75(e) regarding           amendment.       Tribes.          $73.84 x 3
 charging fees and                                               Tribes.
 recovering costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance 45 CFR 309.35(d), after approval of the original 
Tribal IV-D program application, all relevant changes required by new 
Federal statutes, rules, regulations, and Department interpretations 
are required to be submitted so that the Secretary may determine 
whether the plan continues to meet Federal requirements and policies.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Secretary certifies that, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), this rule will not 
result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The primary impact is on Tribal governments. Tribal 
governments are not considered small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.

Congressional Review

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows Congress to review major 
rules issued by Federal agencies before the rules take effect (see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)). The CRA defines a ``major rule'' as one that has 
resulted, or is likely to result, in (1) an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or 
prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local 
government agencies; or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or 
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign based enterprises in domestic and export markets 
(see 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8). Based on our estimates of the impact of this 
rule, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule as `not 
major' under the CRA.

[[Page 9792]]

Regulatory Impact Analysis

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
    Executive Orders 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and 
13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select 
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive 
impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance 
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of 
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule meets the 
standards of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 
14094, and Executive Order 13563 because it creates equity, promotes 
predictability, and reduces burdens and hardships for Tribal child 
support programs. The non-Federal share requirement limits growth, 
causes disruptions, and creates instability. Eliminating it encourages 
expansion of services and enforcement remedies, removes a financial 
barrier for prospective Tribes and Tribal organizations, prevents 
closure of existing Tribal child support programs, and provides a 
permanent solution to longstanding problems. This will ensure Tribal 
families receive child support services that reflect and affirm their 
cultures and traditions and that promote parental responsibility and 
increase disposable family income and financial stability.
    Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, 
provides that OIRA at OMB will review all significant rules. Section 
3(f) of E.O. 12866, as modified by 14094, defines ``a significant 
regulatory action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule (1) 
having an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more in any 1 
year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, and Tribal governments or communities; (2) 
creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action 
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the 
budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising 
legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully 
further the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the 
Executive order. OIRA has determined that this final rule is 
significant, and it was accordingly reviewed by OMB.
    Based upon the increase in program expenditures from existing 
Tribal child support programs and the modest growth of new programs due 
to the elimination of the non-Federal share, we anticipate that the 
costs associated with this rule will be the following: FY 2025 $17.2M; 
FY 2026 $19M; FY 2027 $26.4M; FY 2028 34.3M; and FY 2029 $42.6M.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits 
before issuing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by 
state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation). That threshold level is currently approximately $164 
million. This rule does not impose any mandates on State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or the private sector, that will result in an 
annual expenditure of $164 million or more.

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a proposed 
policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's 
determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact 
assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. We certify 
that we have assessed this proposed rule's impact on the well-being of 
families. The purpose of the Tribal child support program is to 
strengthen the financial and social stability of families. This rule 
eliminates the burden and hardships imposed by the non-Federal share 
requirement for Tribal child support programs, which limits growth, 
causes disruptions, and creates instability. Eliminating it encourages 
expansion of services and enforcement remedies, removes a financial 
barrier for prospective Tribes and Tribal organizations, and prevents 
closure of existing Tribal child support programs. The proposed rule 
will have a positive effect on family well-being. It will ensure Tribal 
families receive child support services that reflect and affirm their 
cultures and traditions and that promote parental responsibility and 
increase disposable family income and financial stability.

Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 prohibits an agency from publishing any rule 
that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not 
required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency 
meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the 
Executive order. This rule does not have federalism impact as defined 
in the Executive order.
    Jeff Hild, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Administration for 
Children and Families, approved this document on January 18, 2024.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs No. 93.563, Child 
Support Enforcement Program.)

List of Subjects

45 CFR Part 309

    Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Indians--Tribal 
government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 310

    Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Indians.

    Dated: January 30, 2024.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Health 
and Human Services amends 45 CFR chapter III as set forth below:

0
1. Under the authority provided in FR Doc. 2023-11815 (88 FR 36587, 
June 5, 2023), revise the heading for chapter III to read as follows:

CHAPTER III--OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, ADMINISTRATION OF 
FAMILIES AND SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

PART 309--TRIBAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (IV-D PROGRAM)

0
2. The authority citation for part 309 continues to read as follows:

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


0
3. Section 309.15 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii); and
0
b. Removing paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (v).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  309.15   What is a Tribal IV-D program application?

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) A narrative justification for each cost category on the form.
* * * * *

[[Page 9793]]


0
4. Section 309.45 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  309.45   When and how may a Tribe or Tribal organization request 
reconsideration of a disapproval action?

* * * * *
    (g) Disapproval of start-up funding and a request for waiver of the 
100-child rule is not subject to administrative appeal.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 309.75 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  309.75   What administrative and management procedures must a 
Tribe or Tribal organization include in a Tribal IV-D plan?

* * * * *
    (e) Provide that charging fees and recovering costs will not be 
permitted.


Sec.  309.85   [Amended]

0
6. Section 309.85 is amended by:
0
a. Adding the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (a)(5);
0
b. Removing paragraph (a)(6); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (a)(7) as paragraph (a)(6).

0
7. Section 309.130 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii);
0
b. Removing paragraphs (b)(2)(iv) and (v);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (3);
0
d. Removing paragraphs (d) and (e);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (f) through (h) as paragraph (d) through 
(f); and
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  309.130   How will Tribal IV-D programs be funded and what forms 
are required?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) A narrative justification for each cost category on the form.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Beginning with the first day of the first quarter of the 
funding grant specified under Sec.  309.135(a)(2), a Tribe or Tribal 
organization will receive Federal grant funds equal to 100 percent of 
the total amount of approved and allowable expenditures made during 
that period and thereafter for the administration of the Tribal child 
support enforcement program.
    (3) A Tribe or Tribal organization will receive Federal grant funds 
equal to 100 percent of pre-approved costs of installing the Model 
Tribal IV-D System.
    (d) Increase in approved budget. (1) A Tribe or Tribal organization 
may request an increase in the approved amount of its current budget by 
submitting a revised SF 424A to ACF and explaining why it needs the 
additional funds. The Tribe or Tribal organization should submit this 
request at least 60 days before additional funds are needed, to allow 
the Secretary adequate time to review the estimates and issue a revised 
grant award, if appropriate.
    (2) If the change in Tribal IV-D budget estimate results from a 
change in the Tribal IV-D plan, the Tribe or Tribal organization must 
submit a plan amendment in accordance with Sec.  309.35(e), a revised 
SF 424, and a revised SF 424A with its request for additional funding. 
The effective date of a plan amendment may not be earlier than the 
first day of the fiscal quarter in which an approvable plan is 
submitted in accordance with Sec.  309.35(f). The Secretary must 
approve the plan amendment before approving any additional funding.
* * * * *


Sec.  309.155   [Amended]

0
8. Section 309.155 is amended by removing paragraph (c) and 
redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g) as paragraphs (c) through (f).


Sec.  309.170   [Amended]

0
9. Section 309.170 is amended by:
0
a. Adding the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(7);
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(8); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (b)(9) as paragraph (b)(8).

PART 310--COMPUTERIZED TRIBAL IV-D SYSTEMS AND OFFICE AUTOMATION

0
10. The authority citation for part 310 continues to read as follows:

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


0
11. Section 310.20 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; and
0
b. Removing the semicolons at the ends of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2)(v), 
and (a)(5) and (6) and adding periods in their places.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  310.20   What are the conditions for funding the installation, 
operation, maintenance and enhancement of Computerized Tribal IV-D 
Systems and Office Automation?

    (a) Conditions that must be met for FFP at the applicable matching 
rate in Sec.  309.130(c) of this chapter for Computerized Tribal IV-D 
Systems. The following conditions must be met to obtain 100 percent FFP 
in the costs of installation of the Model Tribal IV-D System and FFP at 
the applicable matching rate under Sec.  309.130(c) of this chapter in 
the costs of operation, maintenance, and enhancement of a Computerized 
Tribal IV-D System:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-02110 Filed 2-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-42-P