Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Elimination of the Tribal Non-Federal Share Requirement rule (2024)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Elimination of the Tribal Non-Federal Share Requirement rule is a significant rule issued by the Office of Child Support Services (OCSS) effective October 1, 2024, that eliminated Tribal child support programs' cost-sharing requirements to increase the programs' ability to expand. OCSS issued the rule pursuant to its authority under the Social Security Act (SSA).[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Elimination of the Tribal Non-Federal Share Requirement
  • Code of Federal Regulations: 45 CFR chapter undefined
  • Agency: Office of Child Support Services (OCSS)
  • Action: Final rule
  • Type of significant rule: Other significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    The Office of Child Support Services (OCSS) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2000 that proposed open-ended funding with a Tribal match for Tribal child support programs. OCSS codified non-federal cost-sharing in 2004 with 100% funding from the OCSS at the start of the Tribal child support program and the stipulation that the program must reach a funding ratio of 80% federal money and 20% non-federal funding after two years. OCSS believed a cost-share encouraged better management of the programs, according to the text of the Elimination of the Tribal Non-Federal Share Requirement rule. As of 2023, some Tribal Nations indicated that they had not fully recovered economically from the COVID-19 pandemic, and that "they are still dealing with other issues like the opioid epidemic and natural disasters that require Tribal resources and funds to mitigate," according to the rule. Accordingly, OCSS issued the Elimination of the Tribal Non-Federal Share Requirement rule to eliminate a non-federal funding requirement to decrease cost burdens on Tribal support programs. The rule aimed to help Tribal child support programs grow, so that "Tribal Nations can offer culturally appropriate and affirming child support services to their communities," according to OCSS.[1]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “ 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.[2] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “

    Eliminating the non-Federal share requirement, including the 90/10 and 80/20 cost sharing rates, removes a significant financial barrier for current and prospective Tribal child support programs. Many Tribes and Tribal organizations face systemic, historical, and ongoing issues that impact their ability to meet the non-Federal share. 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.

    ...

    The elimination of the non-Federal share requirement will enable Tribal child support programs to grow and expand.[2]

    		”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

    Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. Executive Order 14094, issued by President Joe Biden (D) on April 6, 2023, made changes to Executive Order 12866, including referring to economically significant rules as section 3(f)(1) significant rules and raising the monetary threshold for economic significance to $200 million or more.[1]


    The text of the rule states that OMB deemed this rule significant, but not economically significant:

    “ OIRA has determined that this final rule is significant, and it was accordingly reviewed by OMB.[2] ”

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 Federal Register, "Elimination of the Tribal Non-Federal Share Requirement," March 6, 2024.
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Elimination_of_the_Tribal_Non-Federal_Share_Requirement_rule_(2024)&oldid=10361030"