In the discussion of the provisions in this rule, the following acronyms or abbreviations stand in for certain words or phrases:

The final rule implements the E&T provisions of section 4022(a)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79). The Department published an interim final rule (IFR) on March 24, 2016 (81 FR 15613), that became effective May 23, 2016, and received 43 comments, 36 of which were substantive.

After the release of the IFR the Department conducted various activities to provide guidance to State agencies on the implementation of the reporting measures. These activities included release of an implementation memo, two-part series of questions and answers and a webinar. 1

The final rule incorporates changes from the interim final rule that includes specifying the information the Department will use in assessing the effectiveness of State's E&T programs; adding educational reporting measures for attainment of a credential or certificate and measurable skill gains; reporting of employment and earnings measures and educational measures by distinct participant characteristics, such as by race and/or ethnicity; and adding reporting measures for States operating mandatory E&T programs. The final rule also changes the due date of the State agency's submission of the E&T Annual Report from January 1 to April 15.

The final rule establishes information sources that the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) will use for assessing the effectiveness of E&T programs in preparing E&T participants for employment, including skill attainment and employment retention. The rule specifies the authority of FNS to require a State agency to modify its SNAP E&T State Plan to improve outcomes if determined through an assessment that the E&T outcomes are inadequate.

The final rule requires State agencies to identify an outcome reporting measure for every component that is designed to serve at least 100 participants a year in annual E&T State Plan.

The final rule also requires State agencies to submit an E&T Annual Report by April 15 each year that contains the following:

• Employment and earnings reporting measures that consist of four consecutive quarters of data from the two previous Federal Fiscal Years (FFY);

• Educational reporting measures that consist of data from the FFY ending the preceding September 30th;

• Employment and earnings reporting measures and educational reporting measures for each of the seven (7) participant characteristics;

• States that serve mandatory E&T participants will report on the number of SNAP participants required to participate in E&T and referred to E&T and the number and percentage of SNAP participants that were deemed ineligible for SNAP benefits due to failure to comply with E&T requirements;

• Number and percentage of E&T participants for the FFY ending the preceding September 30th by nine (9) participant characteristics;

• Component measures identified in the States' E&T State Plan for components that are designed to serve at least 100 participants a year; and

• States that have committed to offering at-risk ABAWDs, defined as an able-bodied adult without dependents who are at risk of losing SNAP eligibility due to time-limited participation, a slot in a qualifying activity and received an additional allocation of funds will report on:

○ The monthly average number of individuals in the State who meet the conditions of an at-risk ABAWD:

○ The number of individuals the State offers a position in a work program or workfare program;

○ The monthly average number of individuals who participate in such programs; and

○ A description of the types of employment and training programs the State agency offered to at-risk ABAWDs and the availability of those programs throughout the State.

The final rule specifies that State agencies may be required to submit the E&T Annual Report in a standardized format specified by FNS.

The final rule will also reinstate regulatory language in 7 CFR 273.24(a) for the definition of a workfare program for the purposes of meeting the ABAWD work requirement. This definition was inadvertently removed during a prior rulemaking.

The Department would note that this final rule does not address any changes to ABAWD work requirements as a result of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5). Those changes will be addressed through separate rulemaking.

The Department discusses the changes from the interim final rule, as well as a summary of comments and explanation of each of the final regulatory changes in more detail below.

• The interim final rule codified the authority of FNS to require a State agency to modify its E&T State Plan to improve outcomes. The final rule includes language that specifies the information sources that FNS will utilize in assessing the effectiveness of a State's E&T program.

• The interim final rule specified a January 1 due date for State agencies' submission of the E&T Annual Report. The final rule changes that due date to April 15.

• The interim final rule established a reporting measure for the completion of an educational, training, work experience or on-the-job training component. The final rule removes and replaces this measure with two educational measures aligned with Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 113-128) (WIOA) programs, for attainment of a credential or certificate, and measurable skill gains.

• The interim final rule required State agencies to disaggregate each of the reporting measures by four (4) key participant characteristics, e.g., of the 100 E&T participants in unsubsidized employment in the second quarter after completion of participation in E&T, 90 had the characteristic of a mandatory E&T participant. The final rule modifies this disaggregation by requiring the reporting of the employment, earnings, and educational measures for each of the key participant characteristics, e.g., of the 90 mandatory E&T participants who completed participation in E&T, 60 mandatory E&T participants are in unsubsidized employment in the second quarter after completion of participation in E&T. The final rule also introduces three (3) additional key participant characteristics, race and/or ethnicity and mandatory E&T participants deemed ineligible due to failure to comply with mandatory E&T.

• The interim final rule required State agencies to report the number and percentage of all E&T participants that participated during the reporting fiscal year by seven (7)participant characteristics, such as gender, age, etc. The final rule is modifying this requirement by adding race and/or ethnicity to the participant characteristics.

FNS received thirty-six (36) relevant and non-duplicative comments. Thirty comments came from advocacy organizations and six comments from State SNAP agencies or State Workforce agencies. Generally, the comments were supportive of the interim final rule and believed that the reporting measures would greatly improve employment and training efforts in States. However, many of the supporters made recommendations for improvement or sought clarification of specific provisions.

Many commenters raised general or cross-cutting issues about the overall impact of the interim final rule. We address these issues in this section, followed by comments on each section of the interim final rule.

Twenty-seven (27) commenters, while supportive of the interim final rule, believed that additional reporting requirements should be added to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of and need for change to States' E&T programs, specifically for States that serve mandatory E&T participants. Commenters urged that additional reporting measures be added to capture the following:

• The number and percentage of individuals required to participate in E&T;

• The number and percentage who were exempted from participation in E&T;

• The number and percentage who were sanctioned before participating in E&T; and

• The number and percentage of those who were sanctioned after beginning participation in E&T.

Some commenters further suggested that States should be required to report on the sanctioned individuals' employment information and the number and percentage of individuals exempted from participation by exemption reason, noting exemptions as an important outcome in shaping an effective E&T program and remedying ineffective practices. In addition, one commenter proposed that States should report on the employment rates in the second and fourth quarters after SNAP recipients are mandated to participate and suggested that States should be required to report on the number of mandatory E&T participants who receive a SNAP E&T assessment, as well as the number of those mandated to participate who are later found to be exempt. Three of the commenters urged that the final rule require States to report on the number of individuals who are assigned to SNAP E&T; the activity component to which they are assigned; and the number and percentage of individuals assigned to an activity who are sanctioned by the type of activity.

The Department appreciates the comments and agrees that to assess the effectiveness of a State's E&T program, particularly those that serve mandatory E&T participants, sanction data for those that fail to comply with E&T requirements is an important factor. For this reason, the Department added additional reporting requirements for States that serve mandatory E&T participants in the E&T Program Activity Report (FNS-583) (OMB Control No. 0584-0064; expiration date: 06/30/2027) through the final rule, Employment and Training Opportunities in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, published January 5, 2021 (“2021 final rule”, 86 FR 358). As required in the 2021 final rule, the Department will collect via the FNS-583 report the number of SNAP applicants and participants required to participate in E&T by the State agency and, of those applicants and participants, the number who began participation in an E&T program, the number who began participating in an E&T component, and the number of mandatory E&T participants who were deemed ineligible for failure to comply with E&T requirements. This FNS-583 data is capturing every time an individual is subject to mandatory participation in E&T and the resulting actions. This results in a duplicated count if an individual has multiple certification periods and is subject to mandatory participation in E&T at each of those certification periods in a reporting fiscal year. The FNS-583 report also collects individual participation data and component participation.

To complement and enhance the FNS-583 data, in this final rule, the Department is modifying the regulation at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(iv) by adding to the E&T Annual Report for States that serve mandatory E&T participants the reporting of the unduplicated number of SNAP participants who were required to participate in E&T, the unduplicated number of those individuals who were referred to E&T and the unduplicated number and percentages of SNAP participants who were deemed ineligible for failure to comply with E&T requirements. The Department is adding these reporting elements to analyze the churn  2 of SNAP E&T participants as well as the difference in the number of individuals required to participate and referred to E&T. This change is responsive to the comments received through the IFR. The Department believes the data from the FNS-583 report and the E&T Annual Report, as well as information collected through management evaluations, will provide FNS and State agencies information to assess the effectiveness of a mandatory E&T program.

However, the Department does not believe that the other suggested reporting requirements, such as sanctioned individuals' employment information or the employment rates in the second or fourth quarters after being sanctioned, are necessary due to other changes being included for mandatory E&T programs, e.g. employment and earnings measures for participants deemed ineligible due to failure to comply with E&T, and believes that the additional burden these measures would place on State agencies outweighs their benefit in the overall determination of effectiveness of E&T programs. The Department is not addressing these suggested additional reporting requirements in this final rule.

Eleven commenters stated that the interim final rule failed to define “completion of participation in E&T”, with nine of the commenters noting that the final rule should clarify that completion of participation in E&T has the same meaning as “exit” used in WIOA programs. One commenter asked if, for States that serve mandatory E&T participants, completion of participation in E&T correlates with becoming exempt from work registration for reasons others than employment. One commenter asked if completion of participation in E&T includes a person who (1) participates but leaves an assignment before meeting all obligations of the assignment while remaining a SNAP participant; (2) leaves a component after becoming ineligible for SNAP; or (3) finds unsubsidized employment during component participation.

The Department appreciates the comments and agrees that for clarity and consistency the term “completion of participation in E&T” should be defined in the regulations. For the purposes of capturing the reporting measures of employment and earnings, completion of participation in E&T is defined as an E&T participant who has not received any E&T services for at least 90 days with no plans for future services, as discussed in the SNAP E&T Program Monitoring, Oversight and Reporting Measures Questions and Answer, Part II, released May 15, 2017. This timeframe and definition align with the definition of “exit” in WIOA programs as provided in Training and Employment Guidance Letter No.10-16, Change 3. 3 The Department clarifies that for States serving mandatory E&T participants, completion of participation in E&T does not in any way relate to participants becoming exempt from work registration for reasons other than employment, unless an E&T participant stops participating in E&T as a direct result of the exemption status. Thus, completion of participation in E&T could include participants who leave an assignment before meeting all the obligations of the assignment while remaining a SNAP recipient, or participants who leave a component when becoming ineligible for SNAP or for participants who find unsubsidized employment during component participation, if those individuals do not receive any E&T services for at least 90 days. Under 7 CFR 271.2 the Department is codifying the definition of “completion of participation in E&T” to mean that an E&T participant has not received any E&T services for at least 90 days and no future services are planned.

Twenty-five commenters noted that the Department defines an “E&T participant,” for the purposes of reporting, as an individual who is placed in and begins an E&T component. The commenters stated that this definition fails to adequately capture many individuals in SNAP who are required to participate in E&T activities and that the regulation as written would not capture the outcomes of SNAP participants who are required to participate in E&T but are disqualified before they begin an E&T component.

The Department appreciates the comments and agrees that the definition of an “E&T participant,” for the purposes of reporting, discussed in the interim final rule would exclude those individuals who were deemed ineligible for SNAP before they were placed in an E&T component. The interim final rule did not add the definition of an E&T participant. This determination of when an individual could be considered an E&T participant for reporting purposes, as discussed in the interim final rule preamble, was based on an existing definition under 7 CFR 271.2 for “placed in an employment and training (E&T) program”, which provided that a State agency may count a person as “placed” in an E&T program when the individual commences a component. As a result of the changes to the E&T program made through the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, the 2021 final rule made several changes to definitions under 7 CFR 271.2. The changes in the 2021 final rule modified definitions of an E&T program and E&T mandatory participant, added definitions for an E&T participant and an E&T voluntary participant, and removed the definition of “placed in an employment and training (E&T) program.” An “E&T program” is defined as a program operated by each State agency consisting of case management and one or more E&T components. The definition for an “E&T participant” is an individual who meets the definition of a mandatory or voluntary E&T participant. Because these definitions do not explicitly establish at what point an individual becomes an E&T participant for reporting on the E&T Program Activity Report (FNS-583) or E&T Annual Report, the Department is modifying the definition of an E&T participant under 7 CFR 271.2 to state that an “E&T participant” means an individual who meets the definition of a mandatory or voluntary E&T participant who is referred to E&T and begins at least one part of an E&T program, including orientation, assessment, case management services or a component. Because the purpose of the reporting measures is to measure the impact of the E&T services that an individual receives, the Department is not including mandatory E&T participants who do not appear for E&T services in the definition of an E&T participant. However, the modified definition will include individuals who do begin an E&T program including orientation, assessment, case management services, who were previously not being captured. Therefore, the Department is addressing in this final rule a modification to the definition of an “E&T participant” under 7 CFR 271.2.

One commenter suggested that the term “former E&T participant” be defined. The Department appreciates the comment and agrees that because the interim final rule under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17) included the term former participant as one group of participants in the reporting measures that this term should be defined. Former participants are included in these measures to capture those individuals who began participation in an E&T program but who discontinued participation because they are no longer receiving SNAP benefits due to reasons such as failure to recertify. The Department is defining under 7 CFR 271.2 the term “former E&T participant” to mean an individual who is no longer participating in E&T services because the individual is no longer receiving SNAP benefits.

One commenter requested definitions for both the numerators and denominators for each of the reporting measures. The Department appreciates the comment and would note that the Department issued guidance  4 through the SNAP E&T Outcome Reporting Interim Final Rule Questions and Answers Part II that was issued May 15, 2017, that provided such definitions and does not believe it necessary to define in regulations. For the measures of unsubsidized employment in the second or fourth after “completion of participation in E&T” the denominator includes those E&T participants who have completed participation, defined as not receiving services for 90 days, and the numerator consists of those participants who completed participation in E&T and have earned income in the second or fourth quarters after completion of participation in E&T. As these measures are generally aligned with measures in the WIOA program the Department wishes to retain some level of flexibility to accommodate changes that may be instituted in the WIOA programs. The Department is not including numerator and denominator definitions for these reporting measures in this final rule.

Two commenters noted that the interim final rule requires States to start collecting complex data elements and that State agencies would need to evaluate the system changes, regulatory changes and new directives they would need to implement to comply with the new reporting requirements. One commenter noted that the State agency would need to seek State statutory changes to access employment and wage outcomes through quarterly wage reporting or the National Directory of New Hires. The commenters recommended that the implementation of the reporting measures be delayed to improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

The Department recognizes that the introduction of outcome reporting measures might require changes to States' data systems. However, the Department was statutorily required to issue an interim final rule implementing the provisions of section 4022 (c) of the Act within 18 months of enactment. The Department actively worked with State agencies to implement these provisions by conducting readiness assessments during FFY 2016 and FFY 2017 and offering grants for data systems annually beginning with FFY 2017. The Department also conducted a webinar for State agencies that included representatives from the Department of Labor on the use of quarterly wage record data. 5 Because State agencies already collect participant characteristics, such as race and/or ethnicity for the SNAP program and some State agencies report educational measures such as attainment of credential or certificate for educational components in their E&T State Plans, the Department believes that most State agencies will be ready to implement these changes in the final rule. However, the Department is delaying implementation of all the provisions of this final rule until October 1, 2025, in order to allow States sufficient time to make necessary changes to implement the final rule and to ensure that the first Annual Report under the final rule will be comprehensive of all provisions.

One commenter stated that the preamble for the interim final rule provided each measure under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17) would be reported using the most recent data available during the reporting period. The commenter stated that the final rule should clarify that different measures will be reported for individuals in different time periods. The Department appreciates the comment and acknowledges that different measures contained within a State's annual report may consist of information from different time periods, due to the lag time for measures such as employment and earnings; therefore, the Department is modifying the regulatory text in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17) to indicate the time period to be reported for each section of the annual report. Due to the lag time in the employment and earnings reporting measures, as well as the lag time in the availability of quarterly wage records, for these measures State agencies will be required to report four (4) consecutive quarters of data from the two previous FFYs. This is consistent with the timeframe reported in annual reports as specified in guidance issued through the SNAP E&T Outcome Reporting Requirements—Questions and Answers (Q&A) Part II. The Department is aware that these lag times create a challenge for State agencies to provide four (4) quarters of data by the required January 1 due date of the annual report. To address this challenge the Department is modifying the due date of the Annual Report to April 15 under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17). For educational measures added in this final rule for obtainment of a credential or certificate and measurable skill gains, State agencies will report on data from the previous FFY. State agencies will report participant characteristics for those E&T participants served in the E&T program from the previous FFY, consistent with guidance  6 issued under the IFR.

Two commenters stated that, for States with county-administered SNAP E&T programs, there should be a requirement that every county track and provide the same data to the State agency. They state that without this requirement the data will lack continuity and comparability between locations and the reports that the State agency provides to the Department will be incomplete. The Department appreciates the comment and would note that section 16(h)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended (“the Act”), places the responsibility with the State agency for establishing component measures that will serve at least 100 individuals a year as well and for submitting the E&T Annual Report. In addition, section 11(a)(2) of the Act states that the responsibility of the agency of State government shall not be affected by whether the program is operated on a State-administered or county-administered basis. It is therefore the responsibility of the State agency to ensure that data is being tracked consistently, whether in a State-administered or county-administered program. The Department is not including additional requirements for county-administered SNAP E&T programs in this final rule.

One commenter noted that language included in the preamble to the interim final rule states that the Department retains the authority to consider outcome data as part of the scope of the impact for a State's E&T program when evaluating requests for additional 100 percent funds. The commenter stated that the April 2016 SNAP E&T State Plan Handbook did not discuss the use of outcome data for these reviews and that the final rule should address whether the Department intends to use outcome data when reviewing additional funds requests and if so, how the Department envisions this working when outcome data will not be available until the out-years.

The Department appreciates the comments and clarifies that the 2021 final rule implemented changes to the Department's process for reallocating unobligated or unexpended Federal E&T 100 percent funds to other State agencies requesting additional E&T funds, codified under 7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(iii)(E). This change was necessitated by requirements at section 16(h)(1)(C) of the Act, as amended by the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, that introduced priorities for the reallocation of funds, including the requirement that the Department determines that the requests funded have the most demonstrable impact on the ability of participants to find and retain employment that leads to increased household income and reduced reliance on public assistance. The Department has provided guidance in the revised 2022 E&T State Plan Handbook  7 and E&T Toolkit  8 regarding the inclusion of information in State agencies' requests for additional funds demonstrating that the planned use of the funds has a demonstrable impact on the ability of participants to find and retain employment that increases the household income. The rule under 7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(iii) provides that in making reallocations the Department will consider, among other things, whether the employment and training programs and activities for which the State agency is requesting reallocated funds have the “most demonstrable impact on the ability of participants to find and retain employment that leads to increased household income and reduced reliance on public assistance.” The Department must also consider the size of the request relative to the State agency's E&T spending in prior years, the specificity of the State's plan for spending the reallocated funds, and the quality of the program and scope of impact for the State's E&T program. The Department considers the information provided by the State agency in their request as well as all performance data, including outcome data such as the reporting measures from prior E&T Annual Reports and E&T Program Activity reports, to fall within the factors already delineated in 7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(iii). Therefore, it is not necessary to make a change in this final rule.

One commenter noted that State system interfaces currently do not allow for the automated collection of employment and earnings data. The commenter asked if the Department would provide funding to support State system infrastructure costs for ongoing support or system enhancements and if State agencies can direct Department funds for system costs to other agencies responsible for the interfacing system.

The Department notes that State agencies can use the E&T 100 percent Federal grant and 50 percent administrative funds to develop or enhance information management systems used for collecting and reporting E&T data. State agencies choosing to use their E&T funds, whether the 100 percent Federal grant or the 50 percent administrative funds, for system development or modifications should include the anticipated costs of data collection in the estimated operating cost within their annual E&T State Plan. Additionally, the Department periodically makes available additional grant opportunities, such as through E&T Data and Technical Assistance Grants, which are intended to support the development of State SNAP E&T data collection and reporting systems. Since the ability to use those funds for information management systems already exists, it is not necessary to specify available funds in this final rule.

Section 4022(a)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79) amended section 16(h)(5)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act to require the Department to develop, in consultation with the Department of Labor (DOL), reporting measures that identify improvements in the skills, training, education, or work experience of members of households participating in SNAP. The measures were to be based on common measures of performance for Federal workforce programs and include additional indicators that reflect the challenges facing the types of members of households participating in SNAP who participate in a specific E&T component. In the interim final rule, the Department, after consultation with DOL, established under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(i)-(iv) that State agencies would report annual outcome data based on measures that were similar to the performance indicators for the core programs in the WIOA, but that reflected the intent of the Act, and the unique characteristics of the SNAP E&T program and its participants. Those reporting measures included:

• The number and percentage of E&T participants and former participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after completion of participation in E&T;

• The number and percentage of E&T participants and former participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the fourth quarter after completion of participation in E&T;

• The median quarterly earnings of all the E&T participants and former participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after completion of participation in E&T; and

• The total number and percentage of participants that completed a training, educational, work experience or on-the-job training component.

Regarding the measures required under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(i) through (iv) one commenter asked if States are required to report on participants who enter E&T during the fiscal year or on individuals under certification in the fiscal year that enter and participate in E&T. The Department is clarifying that for the reporting measures of employment and earnings, due to the nature of these measures, State agencies are reporting on those E&T participants from the previous two FFYs who were referred to E&T, began at least one part of an E&T program including case management services or a component, and had obtained employment six months (second quarter) or one year (fourth quarter) after completion of participation in E&T. Therefore, the Department is modifying the regulatory text at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(i) to indicate that for the reporting measures of employment and earnings State agencies shall report four (4) consecutive quarters of data from the two previous FFYs ending the preceding September 30.

One commenter noted that the E&T State Plan Handbook issued by the Department in April 2016 included options for data sources for reporting measures and State reporting measures not discussed in the interim final rule, including the use of sampling. The commenter stated that the final rule should identify the data sources that States may use to meet the reporting requirements. Another commenter had questions regarding the use of sampling as a data source. They asked if States that choose to use sampling for State- and Federal-reported outcomes will report both outcomes for the same sample of 500 cases, or does the Department expect the sample of 500 cases for State reported outcomes to be different than the sample of 500 cases for the reporting measures. The commenter also asked if States are required to report outcome data in the E&T State Plan or does the E&T plan contain a description of the reporting measures that will be reported for that fiscal year. Another commenter asked if there is a required source of data or methodology for calculating median earnings.

The Department appreciates the comments and notes that FNS issued guidance in the SNAP E&T State Plan Handbook in April 2016 and most recently updated May 2022 which specified that State agencies would determine the data source and the collection methodology it would use to gather the information needed for the annual report. The Department expressed that its preference was for State agencies to use administrative data and provided a list of sources they may consider using. These sources included Quarterly Wage Records (QWR) available through State's Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, the National Directory of New Hires, State's management information systems, manual follow-up or follow-up surveys of E&T participants. This guidance also indicated that State agencies may use sampling as a data collection methodology, rather than tracking all E&T participants. The Department recognized that given the variation in State's E&T programs, including their data collection and tracking procedures, State agencies were in the best position to determine the appropriate data source and collection methodology to employ. However, for the reporting measures of employment and earnings, the Department indicated that the preferred source of data was QWR but understood that State agencies needed lead time to negotiate data agreements, or in some cases require State regulatory or statutory changes granting them access to such data. For that reason, the Department indicated while State agencies moved toward the goal of using QWR for employment and earnings data, they could utilize any of the sources. State agencies indicate in their annual E&T State Plan the data sources they intend to use for reporting measures and component measures. For calculating the median quarterly wages in the second quarter after completion of participation in E&T, the methodology State agencies should employ is to arrange all individual quarterly earnings for participants in numerical order, from smallest to largest, and identify the wage that is in the middle of that list. Regarding the use of sampling, State agencies have discretion as to whether they employ different samples for reporting measures and State component measures, given that the nature and timeframe of the measures may differ. States choosing to use sampling as a collection methodology must also include details regarding the sample design in the E&T State Plan. The regulations under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(xviii) specifies that in the annual E&T State Plan State agencies will provide a component measure for every component that is expected to include 100 or more participants, and those measures will be reported in the annual report specified in paragraph (c)(17). To maintain flexibility to account for variations among States, the Department is not changing in the final rule the data sources or collection methodology States may employ for the annual report.

One commenter noted that UI QWR data does not capture all earnings, such as out of State, Federal or informal employment. The commenter asked if it was feasible for the Department to collect data on employment or to match nationally on behalf of States against the State submission of participants who completed an E&T program. Another commenter noted that the final rule should provide an option for States to request that the Department calculate performance measures related to employment and earnings using the Department's access to national quarterly wage record data or National Directory of New Hires. They indicated that such an option would relieve States of some of the burden imposed on the State to perform such measures and calculations, ensure standardized measurement standards for States participating in such an option, and provide the Department a more robust platform to assess the E&T program. The commenter stressed this as an option and would not support making this approach mandatory. One commenter stated that the Department should allow the use of automated data exchanges and State wage information to identify the employment status and quarterly wages of former E&T participants. They noted that they have observed that within the first year of reinstating the ABAWD work requirement in their State, 9 E&T vendors reported that the actual employment rate for SNAP participants is significantly higher than the 37% employment rate identified by the State's data. The commenter noted that former E&T participants rarely verify their new employment status after reporting it since there is no incentive for them to do so and they believe that it is essential for States to be able to use wage matches through such sources as Work Number or Equifax to accurate report employment outcomes of E&T participants.

The Department acknowledges that the quarterly wage record data available through State's UI reporting does not capture all earnings, specifically Federal employment or the self-employed. As previously discussed, the Department is not requiring States to use a specific data source for the annual report. However, the Department believes that QWR data is the most reliable and efficient source of information pertaining to employment and earnings of E&T participants and suggest as a best practice the use of QWR data. Further, it would not be feasible for the Department to calculate performance measures related to employment and earnings because quarterly wage record data is not available from a single source at a national level, it resides within each State agency responsible for UI reporting. In addition, this would require the Department to collect individual case records on every E&T participant from each State agency and this would impose additional burden on State agencies. The Department does not collect individual case records in the SNAP program, including the SNAP E&T program. Therefore, the Department is not changing the data sources or method for collection in this final rule.

One commenter asked if the fourth quarter employment after completion of E&T was intended to be a proxy for retention. This commenter also asked what if the employer or record from second and fourth quarters are different. The Department understands that the fourth quarter employment measure could be perceived as being a proxy for employment retention. However, the measure is a point in time measure and is only measuring whether an E&T participant is in unsubsidized employment twelve months after completing participation in E&T. Whether the E&T participant was included in the second quarter employment measure bears no relevance to the fourth quarter employment measure; therefore, the Department is not making a change in the final rule.

Three commenters stated that the timeline for reporting employment and earnings measures should consider the six-month lag time in the availability of quarterly wage records (QWR). They noted, for States using QWR information, reporting on fourth quarter employment after completion of E&T by the January 1 due date of the annual report would not be possible for any group completing components in FFY 2017 or thereafter. This lag time in the availability of the QWR gives States little time to perform the matches and analysis before the E&T Annual Report is due on January 1.

One commenter stated that the final rule should provide information addressing how States can request an extension or apply for a waiver of the requirement for States to submit an annual report to the Department on January 1 of each year.

The Department appreciates the comments and acknowledges that the timeframe of the employment and earnings measures as well as the six-month lag time in the availability of quarterly wage records (QWR) impacts State agencies' abilities to submit an E&T Annual Report that consists of four (4) quarters of data from only the preceding FFY on January 1. Therefore, the Department is modifying the regulatory text at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17) to change the due date of the annual report to April 15. Additionally, the Department is modifying 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(i) to reflect that for the employment and earnings measures State agencies shall submit four (4) consecutive quarters of data from the two previous FFYs.

Regarding the quarterly median wage measure, one commenter noted that because the quarterly wage records reflect quarterly earnings and does not include a start date or the number of pay periods, individuals who are hired mid-quarter will appear to have lower wages than their actual hourly rate. The Department appreciates the comment on the limitation of quarterly wage records to reflect the earnings of participants who may obtain employment mid-quarter. However, the Department was required to develop reporting measures, in consultation with the Department of Labor, that were based on common measures of performance for Federal workforce programs and the quarterly median measure is aligned with WIOA programs. The Department believes that, to account for the mid-quarter hires, as well as to ensure consistency, all States would need to modify their collection processes to include capturing the start date of employment for those individuals as well as the wage information. In order to ensure consistency in the State agencies reporting of participant wage information, this would require that all State agencies, as well as E&T providers devote staff time to collect the information necessary from the E&T participants or employers. This would place an undue burden on E&T participants and their employers to provide participant wage information. The Department believes that this burden far outweighs the benefits to account for those mid-quarter hires, therefore, the Department is not modifying the regulations regarding the quarterly median wage measure in this final rule.

One commenter questioned the practical utility of the employment and earnings measures and asked if employment and earnings six or twelve months after E&T participation correlate with the impact of the E&T intervention. Another commenter noted that the employment and earnings measures are reliant on systems outside of State SNAP agency and requires ongoing staffing effort to manually collect and compile the information, calling into question the effort and validity of such measures. The Department appreciates the comments and would note that the provisions of 4022(a) in the Agricultural Act of 2014 charged the Department with the responsibility to assess the effectiveness of SNAP E&T programs in preparing members of households participating in SNAP for employment, including the acquisition of basic skills necessary for employment; and increasing the number of household members who obtain and retain employment subsequent to participation in the SNAP E&T program. This section further required the Department, in consultation with the Department of Labor, to develop reporting measures that would identify improvements in the skills, training, education of SNAP participants and that were based on common measures of performance for Federal workforce training programs. As noted previously, WIOA established common measures of performance to ensure consistency across all programs under WIOA. These common measures for employment and earnings specified the timeframe of second quarter and fourth quarter after exit from a WIOA program. The Department believes that the adoption of employment and earnings measures aligned with measures for workforce programs under WIOA meets the Department's obligation to assess States for the number of individuals who obtain and retain employment subsequent to participation in E&T programs. The Department is not modifying the provisions for the employment and earnings measures in this final rule.

One commenter stated that while the Department has developed standardized reporting measures as required in the Act, it has not, at least as stated in the guidance provided in the E&T Plan Handbook, standardized the methods states must employ to collect data on those measures. Given that employment outcomes are known to differ based on the modality of data collection, the commenter suggested the final rule should address how the Department plans to adjust for performance differences across States using differing data collection methodologies.

The establishment of reporting measures, as provided in section 16(h)(5)(B) of the Act, was for the purpose of identifying improvements in the skills, training, education or work experience of members of households participating in States' Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs. The Act did not require the Secretary to establish reporting measures with performance targets or to compare reporting measures across State agencies. Therefore, the Department is not making changes in the final rule in response to this comment.

One commenter stated that the reporting measures should also include a credential attainment measure consistent with the WIOA primary indicator on credential attainment. This includes measures such as the number and percentage of individuals assigned to E&T who obtain a recognized postsecondary credential, or a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent during participation in or within 1 year after exit from SNAP E&T. The commenter noted that measuring credential attainment is an important part of measuring skill-building outcomes. The Department agrees that the reporting measures should include educational measures that are aligned with WIOA. 10 This includes measures such as credential attainment and measurable skill gain that are important factors to consider in assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of a State's E&T program in assisting E&T participants in obtaining skills necessary for employment. Measurable skill gains provide the Department and State agencies with an interim progress of participants who are enrolled in any educational or training program and is triggered by program enrollment rather than on completion of the program. Both measures are in practice by workforce development organizations. An analysis of State's FY 2021 E&T Annual Reports indicates that several State agencies already utilized these as component measures. Because of these factors, the burden on State agencies should be minimal. Therefore, the Department is creating two educational measures for attainment of credential or certificate and measurable skill gains under new 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(ii).

State agencies will be required to report the number and percentage of E&T participants enrolled during the preceding FFY in an educational or training program, excluding those in on-the-job training, customized training or transitional jobs, who attain a recognized post-secondary credential, certificate or a secondary school diploma, or its recognized equivalent, during participation in or upon completion of participation in E&T.

State agencies will also be required to report the number and percentage of E&T participants who, during the preceding FFY, were in an education or training program that will lead to a recognized postsecondary credential or employment and who are achieving measurable skill gains, defined as documented academic, technical, occupational, or other forms of progress, towards such a credential or employment. This measure is intended to capture E&T participants who are working towards attainment of a credential or employment but may not have had sufficient time to achieve the intended outcome during the reporting fiscal year. In essence, this measure is reporting E&T participants' progress toward attainment of a credential or employment. Depending on the type of education or training program, documented progress could consist of one of the following:

• Documented achievement of at least one educational functioning level of a participant who is receiving instruction below the postsecondary education level.

• Documented attainment of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent.

• Secondary or postsecondary transcript or report card for a sufficient number of credit hours that shows a participant is meeting the State unit's academic standards.

• Satisfactory or better progress report, towards established milestones, such as completion of one year of an apprenticeship program or similar milestones, from the training provider who is providing training.

• Successful passage of an exam that is required for a particular occupation or progress in attaining technical or occupational skills as evidenced by trade-related benchmarks such as knowledge-based exams.

One commenter, commenting on the collection of the total number and percentage of participants that completed an educational, training, work experience of on-the job training measure, stated that the ability to capture completion of components, specifically an education or training component, is dependent upon a manual, individual-level process and would pose an undue burden on States without clear benefit. They asked what the Department hopes to deduce from this information. Another commenter noted that the ability to capture completion of components must be imbedded in the E&T case management system and would require additional system functionality and would further require direct reporting by participants and data entry by a worker. The commenter asked if the Department would require verification of completion and if documentation of completion would be included in management evaluations or other Federal reviews. One commenter sought clarification for the measure of completion of an educational, training, work experience or on-the-job training component. They asked that “completion” be defined, and a clarification of who is included in the denominator, if it is all E&T participants or only those participating in one of the components. One commenter stated that for the completion of educational, training, work experience or on-the-job training components a SNAP client has the potential to complete multiple E&T activities. They stated that the final rule should clarify whether States should count completion in each of the components or just one and if States should only be reporting completion in one component during the fiscal year, clarify, how States should determine the completion to be reported.

The Department acknowledges that capturing completion of components would necessitate some level of case management, whether through a manual process or through an automated system. However, separate and apart from any reporting requirements, recording when participants begin and complete any activity is a cornerstone of an effective employment and training program, ensuring participants are making progress toward individual goals as well as program goals. The Department would note at the time of the interim final rule, the Department established reporting measure for completion of an education, training, work experience or on-the-job training (OJT) component in 7 CFR 273.17(c)(17)(iv) of the interim final rule as a measure that was specific to the SNAP E&T program. This was done, partly because the Departments of Labor and Education were still in the process of finalizing their policies for the educational common measures of credential or certificate attainment and measurable skill gains, for the WIOA programs. The Department is not aware of other Federal agencies incorporating similar completion measures, and after reconsideration the Department does not believe “completion” is a meaningful measure. Therefore, considering the comments, the Department is removing the completion of education, training, work experience and on-the-job training reporting measure under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(iv) and replacing with two educational measures for attainment of credential or certificate and measurable skill gains under new 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(ii).

Three commenters recommended that the Department fully align the proposed measures and reporting requirements with those established in WIOA and the final WIOA regulations to improve service integration and support evaluation of outcomes across programs. One of the commenters further stated that the Department should give States that choose to integrate services across the WIOA and SNAP E&T programs the option of using the common periods of participation with common exit used in WIOA programs. The Department appreciates the recommendation to fully align measures with those established in the WIOA programs. The measures in the interim final rule were closely aligned but not identical to those measures in WIOA. Some of the variation was attributable to differences in the frequency of reporting and difference in data needs. At the time of the interim final rule the Department did not include educational measures that aligned with WIOA, partly because the Departments of Labor and Education were still in the process of finalizing their policy. The Department encourages and applauds coordination and collaboration between WIOA and SNAP E&T to serve E&T participants. WIOA guidance states that common exit occurs when a participant, enrolled in multiple DOL-administered partner programs, has not received services from any DOL-administered program in which the participant is enrolled, to which the common exit policy applies, for at least 90 days, and no future services are planned. 11 In SNAP E&T an individual's eligibility for SNAP E&T services is directly tied to their eligibility and receipt of SNAP benefits, this means that an individual's participation in SNAP E&T ends when they are no longer receiving SNAP benefits. The Department believes that it would place an undue burden on State agencies to apply the common exit principle for those individuals who may be co-enrolled in SNAP E&T and WIOA programs. Therefore, the Department is not making this change in this final rule.

One commenter, while supportive of aligning reporting requirements between E&T and WIOA programs, suggested that the interim final rule should provide additional implementation time to allow States to align those standards. The commenter noted that SNAP E&T programs and WIOA programs are administered by different State agencies and have differences in vendors, outcome data tracking systems, eligibility and participant tracking systems. The commenter believed additional time is necessary to link the various systems and to align the reporting requirements. The Department appreciates the comment and acknowledges that State agencies need additional time to implement measures that are aligned with WIOA. Therefore, the Department will delay implementation of the educational reporting measures specified under the new 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(ii) until October 1, 2025.

One commenter asked if the Department intended to apply performance standards for outcome measures of employment, earnings and completion of education, training, work experience or on-the-job training. The Department would like to clarify that the provisions of section 16(h)(5)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014, required the Department to assess the effectiveness of States' E&T programs in preparing members of households participating in SNAP for employment, including the acquisition of basic skills necessary for employment, and in increasing the number of household members who obtain and retain employment after participation in SNAP E&T and to implement reporting measures to assist in making the determination of effectiveness. It was not the intent of the Department to apply performance standards or targets, or to compare the effectiveness of one State's E&T program to other States due to State flexibility in the design of their E&T program, such as the participants targeted for services, services to be delivered and the areas of the State for services, as well as the differences in labor markets and targeted occupations.

Section 16(h)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act, as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014, requires that the reporting measures developed by the Department include additional indicators that reflect the challenges facing the types of members of households participating in SNAP who participate in a specific employment and training component. In the interim final rule, the Department identified three participant characteristics that it believed were the most important to understand the challenges to employment faced by SNAP E&T participants and former participants who are included in the reporting measures. Those characteristics included whether the participants were voluntary or mandatory participants; participants who had received a high school degree (or GED) prior to being provided with E&T services; and were able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). The interim final rule required States to report the number and percentage of E&T participants reported in each of the reporting measures, a disaggregation of the number, and percentage of those participants and former participants by each of the three characteristics.

In the interim final rule, the disaggregated characteristics for the reporting measures, such as employment in the second or fourth quarters after completion of participation in E&T, reflect the composition of the outcome group. For example, the number of individuals in unsubsidized employment in the second or fourth quarter after completion of participation in E&T who are voluntary participants. The denominator is the number of individuals in unsubsidized employment in the second or fourth quarter after completion of participation in E&T and the numerator is the number of individuals who met one of the three characteristics.

Two commenters requested the Department clarify that the disaggregated characteristics in the interim final rule require reporting the outcomes of the disaggregated groups, not simply of the composition of the group that is used to determine these outcomes. The denominator would then be the total amount of individuals who meet the characteristic, and the numerator would be the number of individuals who meet that characteristic who are in unsubsidized employment in the second or fourth quarter after completion of participation in E&T. For example, the number and percentage of all voluntary participants in unsubsidized employment during quarter two after completion of E&T participation. One of the commenters noted that reporting employment, earnings and credential attainment outcomes for subpopulations will provide valuable information on the effectiveness of different SNAP E&T strategies.

The Department agrees that the disaggregated characteristics for the reporting measures, such as employment in the second or fourth quarters after completion of participation in E&T, should reflect the outcome observed for each characteristic, rather than the composition of the outcome group. The Department further agrees that this change would provide valuable information on the effectiveness of SNAP E&T observed by each participant characteristic. As a result, the Department is modifying the regulation for the disaggregated characteristics of the reporting measures to reflect the outcomes observed by each characteristic under renumbered 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(iii).

One commenter stated that individuals assigned to but not participating in E&T should be treated as a subpopulation for reporting purposes, just as are voluntary or mandatory participants, and participants achieving or not achieving a high school degree or its equivalent. The Department appreciates the suggestion that individuals assigned to but not participating in E&T should be treated as a subpopulation for reporting purposes. We agree that this is an important factor in evaluating the effectiveness of an E&T program, and the Department has recently modified the E&T Program Activity Report (FNS-583) to capture additional reporting elements for States that serve mandatory E&T participants through the 2021 final rule. The Department believes the role of outcome measures is to measure the impact of interventions received by participants, so covering individuals who never participated in E&T is not helpful for those outcome measures. However, the Department agrees that outcome measures should reflect those individuals who were required to participate in E&T, referred to E&T, began participating in an E&T program but who were subsequently deemed ineligible for SNAP due to failure to comply with E&T requirements. The Department believes that it is appropriate and would add value to add a characteristic for mandatory E&T participants who are deemed ineligible for SNAP due to a failure to comply with E&T requirements and therefore are adding this as a new characteristic under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(iii).

The Department remains committed in our efforts to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities, as demonstrated in Executive Order 13985 and the USDA Equity Plan. The Department is adding race and/or ethnicity of E&T participants as additional participant characteristics to be reported by State agencies. This is outlined in the race/ethnicity data collection requirements in 7 CFR 272.6(g). As the regulations at 7 CFR 272.6(g) and (h) require State agencies to collect race and ethnicity data on participating households and report the data to FNS, the Department does not believe reporting measures by race and/or ethnicity will cause any additional burden on the part of the State agencies. The Department will use the participant characteristic information collected through the E&T Annual Reports, such as the race and ethnicity data, in conjunction with other data of SNAP participants to better understand and help identify potential equity concerns at various stages of the SNAP E&T service delivery process. This information will be used by the Department in assessing State's effectiveness of the E&T program in meeting the needs of all E&T participants.

Section 4022(a)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 amended section 16(h)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act to require each State agency to identify in its annual E&T State Plan appropriate reporting measures for each proposed component that serves a threshold of at least 100 participants a year. The State agencies are then required to report on those measures in their E&T Annual Reports to the Department. This section of the Act provided several measures that State agencies could consider, such as the percentage and number of program participants who received E&T services and are in unsubsidized employment subsequent to the receipt of those services. Other examples include State agency-developed measures of a participant's interim progress toward achieving goals of a specific component and the number and percentage of program participants who are meeting program requirements in a component of the State agency's E&T program. Section 16(h)(5)(C)(iii) also charged the Department with the oversight responsibility to ensure that reporting measures are appropriate to identify improvements in skills, training, work and experience for participants in an E&T program component. The interim final rule established under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(xviii) the requirement that State agencies include in the E&T State Plan a reporting measure for every component that is expected to include 100 or more participants and include those measures in the E&T Annual Report. The rule included the list of suggested measures specified in the Act that State agencies could consider adopting. The Department chose a threshold of 100 participants a year to be consistent with the minimum specified in the Act. The Department would clarify that the intent of component measures is to measure the effectiveness of the intervention provided through the component so the ideal measure would be closely tied to the time of the intervention. For example, an appropriate measure for supervised job search is to measure E&T participant's attainment of unsubsidized employment upon completion of the component. To fulfill the Department's oversight responsibility, the Department will work with State agencies through the State Plan approval process to ensure that the State identified measures approved in the State Plan are appropriate for each component.

One commenter noted that the interim final rule allows States to establish their own component reporting measures subject to the Department's review and approval as part of the SNAP E&T State Plan review process. However, the rule is silent on the criteria by which component measures will be approved. The commenter suggests that the final rule provide that the Department will presumptively approve State component measures which are chosen from those measures suggested in the regulations and set forth the criteria under which the Department will deem other proposed measures appropriate. One commenter stated that, given the flexibility in determining state-designed reporting measures for components provided in the Act and interim final rule, it is essential that the Department defer to the States when reviewing and approving reporting measures in E&T State Plans. The commenter noted that with less than 100 days between the effective date of the interim final rule and the date the State's FFY 2017 E&T plans were due, the States are best situated to determine how they can effectively collect and report data with very little time to plan. One commenter stated that the final rule should describe what flexibility will be provided to change or adjust reporting measures for individual components after approval as part of the annual SNAP E&T Plan, and if a change is approved what measures the State will be required to include in the annual report.

The Department agrees that State agencies are best suited to determine an appropriate component measure that they can collect effectively and efficiently. The primary criteria for a component measure are that the measure be an outcome-based measure and not a process measure. The measure should be relevant to the given component and should be closely tied to the time of when the component was utilized for participants. For example, a measure of a measurable skill gains would not be applicable for a supervised job search component. The regulations under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(8) provide that if a State agency modifies or alters the nature or location of its components or the number or characteristics of persons served, a State Plan amendment must be submitted to the appropriate FNS Regional Office for approval at least 30 days prior to the planned implementation. This requirement extends to any proposed change in a component measure. If the proposed change is approved the State agency would be required to include the revised measure in that year's E&T Annual Report.

One commenter stated that the SNAP E&T Handbook published by the Department on April 25, 2016, appears to include requirements for county-level reporting measures for State supervised, county administered States, while the interim rule does not. They stated they do not believe that the statute provides the Department the authority to require measures below the State level because section 4022(a)(2) states that the Secretary will monitor E&T programs “carried out by State agencies” and “shall develop State reporting measures.” They do not believe that county-administered States should be held to additional reporting requirements that are not required of State-administered programs. The commenter proposed that the final rule specifically preclude county-level measurement. The commenter recommended that in the absence of such a prohibition, the Department should also provide information to address whether county-level reporting measurements were considered when the Department estimated States' administrative burden in complying with the requirements outlined in the interim rule.

The Department would like to clarify that the table of components offered by each county included in the April 2016 E&T State Plan Handbook was provided as an option that county-administered States may use in completing the E&T State Plan. It was not intended to indicate that additional reporting requirements were placed on county-administered programs. Rather, it was intended to assist State agencies in compiling the data collected from their counties. That optional table has since been modified to remove reporting measures by county. Further, the Department notes that section 11(a)(2) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, specifies that the responsibility of the agency of State government shall not be affected by whether the program is operated on a State-administered or county-administered basis. Thus, the Act specifically places the responsibility with the State agency for establishing component measures in the annual E&T State Plan and reporting of those measures in the annual report.

Twenty (20) commenters recommended that States should be required to report employment in the second and fourth quarters after completion of E&T and the median quarterly earnings in the second quarter for any component that is expected to include 100 or more participants, in addition to any State measures. Three of the commenters further stated that States should be required to report the completion of any component. The commenters stated that such information at the component level will allow States to assess the effectiveness of various approaches and redirect resources toward components with the greatest likelihood of helping SNAP participants improve their employability.

The Department appreciates the comments but notes that section (16)(h)(5)(B)(iii) of the Act provides flexibility in identifying appropriate reporting measures for every component that serves at least 100 participants a year in the annual E&T State Plans, with the Department's approval. The interim final rule under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(xviii) provided several examples of measures that State agencies could choose, such as the number of program participants that obtain unsubsidized employment subsequent to receipt of the component. States also can identify other measures in addition to the examples provided in the regulation. The Department would note that the intent of individual component measures is to measure the impact of a particular component. The Department does not believe that outcome measures of the E&T program, such as the reporting measures for employment and earnings six or twelve months after an individual's participation in an E&T program, which could consist of multiple components would be useful in measuring the effectiveness of a single component. However, the Department encourages State agencies to consider the full range of measures, including those measures that would provide an interim benchmark for participant's progress toward achieving goals of a specific component.

One commenter stated that the final rule should address how the States are to be required to track component completion after a person is no longer a SNAP recipient. The commenter explained that currently there is no requirement in place for individuals to report their employment or training status upon completing a SNAP E&T component and that it would be very costly and difficult to obtain this information. The Department wishes to clarify that SNAP regulations do not require States to track component completion after a person is no longer a SNAP recipient. Under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(xviii) States have the discretion to identify an appropriate component measure.

One commenter noted States would need additional time to develop evaluation plans and establish effective collaboration with E&T vendors and other stakeholders to develop a comprehensive evaluation plan for each proposed component serving at least 100 participants a year. They indicated that adequate planning and development time would ensure that collected data accurately measure intended outcomes. The commenter recommended delaying the implementation of reporting requirements. The Department appreciates the comment and acknowledges that adequate planning and development time is essential for ensuring accurate data collection procedures. The interim final regulations were published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2016, effective May 23, 2016, and States were required to identify component measures for components that served at least 100 participants annually in the FY 2017 E&T State Plan. While the Department realizes this only allowed States approximately six months to establish data collection procedures for component measures, guidance was issued in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—section 4022 of the Agricultural Act of 2014—Questions and Answer (Part I), issued July 26, 2016, that indicated that the Department would work with individual States as needed to allow additional lead time for the States to finalize reporting measures and data sources.

In conclusion, the Department codifies the regulatory text in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(xviii) as indicated in the interim final rule.

Section 16(h)(5)(C) of the Act, as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014, charges the Department with the responsibility for conducting oversight of State E&T program activities and lists four specific oversight activities. One of the activities includes ensuring that program activities are appropriate to meet the needs of the individuals referred by the State agency to an E&T program component. Additionally, as stated previously, section 16(h)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act required that reporting measures include additional indicators that reflect the challenges facing the types of members of households participating in SNAP who participate in a specific E&T component. Because the SNAP work registrant population, like the general SNAP population, is very diverse and faces a myriad of challenges to employment, such as measurable educational attainment, the Department believed that to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of SNAP E&T it must have a more complete picture of the population that is being served in E&T. For that reason, in the interim final rule the Department required State agencies to report the number and percentage of all E&T participants on seven characteristics. Those participant characteristics included the participants who:

• Are voluntary vs. mandatory;

• Have achieved a high school degree (or GED) prior to being provided with E&T services;

• Are ABAWDs;

• Speak English as a second language;

• Are male vs. female; and

• Belong in the following age ranges: 16-17, 18-35, 36-49, 50-59, 60 or older.

One commenter stated that it is unlikely that the six participant characteristics information would be useful in understanding the effectiveness of E&T programs, absent an effective way to establish relationship between participant characteristics, assignments, and outcomes. The commenter further stated that the Department did not have specific statutory authority to require reporting of participant characteristics and suggested more useful information on participant characteristics and the availability of appropriate assignments could be more efficiently obtained through specific research studies. Another commenter stated that the collection of reliable educational levels is problematic, and the utility of collecting is unclear. The commenter stated that SNAP eligibility systems do not collect educational attainment or an indicator for “speaks English as a second language” and that it's unclear what FNS intends to do with this information. The commenter also stated that the language of “prior to being provided with E&T services” is unclear and asked if SNAP E&T funds must be used to pay for the full cost of a service to be considered “provided” and how this applies to referrals to E&T.

The Department appreciates the comments but disagrees that participant characteristics are not useful in understanding the effectiveness of E&T programs. Based on widely reported research and data, women, minorities and individuals with lower education levels face additional obstacles to employment and lower earnings. To understand the overall effectiveness of a program it is important to consider the demographics of the population that is receiving the services, as well as the challenges that face participants that have less than a high school diploma or equivalency prior to participation in E&T or participants that speak English as a second language. The Department further disagrees that the Department does not have the statutory authority to require reporting of participant characteristics. Section 16(h)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act provided broad discretion to the Department in creating reporting metrics by requiring the inclusion of additional indicators that reflect the challenges facing the types of members of households participating in SNAP E&T. Additionally, the Act charges the Department with oversight responsibility for ensuring that program activities are appropriate to meet the needs of the individuals referred by the State agency to an E&T program component. The inclusion of reporting participant characteristics was in direct response to this requirement specified in the Act, so the Department is retaining the participant characteristics reporting and as described earlier, adding race and/or ethnicity as a participant characteristic.

The interim final rule at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(v) required States to include in the annual report the number and percentage of E&T participants who met the characteristic of having obtained a high school diploma (or GED) prior to being provided with E&T services. The Department agrees with the comment that the term “prior to being provided with E&T services” is unclear. For that reason, to add clarity, the Department is modifying the regulatory language in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(v) for this characteristic to read “E&T participants who obtained high school diploma and equivalency prior to referral to E&T.”

One commenter asked for the participant characteristic of education attainment prior to participation in E&T, for States not already tracking this information, how are States expected to capture data for anyone that participates in FFY 2017 or after. The Department appreciates the comment and notes that the Department allowed State agencies who were not already collecting participant's educational attainment prior to participation in E&T in their automated systems to report that characteristic as “unknown,” until such time as the State agency could modify their collection procedures to capture this characteristic. Given the guidance, it is not necessary to make this change in the final rule.

Two commenters inquired how participants should be reported if the characteristic, such as ABAWD status, changes multiple times during a reporting year. The Department issued guidance in the SNAP E&T Outcome Reporting Interim Final Rule: Questions and Answers Part II  12 on May 15, 2017, that State agencies should capture and report on a participant's characteristic at the time the individual begins an E&T program within the reported fiscal year. No change is required in this final rule.

One commenter noted that all references to high school degree or GED should be replaced with “high school diploma or equivalency.” The commenter stated that GED is a trademarked name and is only one of several types of high school equivalency exams being used. The Department appreciates the suggestion and is therefore providing a change in the regulatory language under the renumbered 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(iii)(F) and 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(v)(C) to reference high school diploma or equivalency.

The Agricultural Act of 2014 amended section 16(h)(5)(A) of the Act to require the Department to monitor and assess the effectiveness of E&T programs carried out by State agencies in preparing members of households participating in SNAP for employment, including the acquisition of basic skills necessary for employment, and increasing the number of household members who obtain and retain employment subsequent to participation in E&T. The Act also established in section 16(h)(5)(C)(i)-(iii) of the Act specific Department oversight activities of E&T programs, that included ensuring:

• Compliance with Federal E&T program rules and regulations;

• That program activities are appropriate to meet the needs of the individuals referred by the State agency to an E&T program component;

• That reporting measures are appropriate to identify improvements in skills, training, work, and experience for participants in an E&T program component.

Section 16(h)(5)(C)(iv) of the Act also specified Department oversight responsibilities for evaluating the compliance of States that receive an additional allocation for ensuring the availability of work opportunities for ABAWDs. This section provided the Department the authority to require any information from these States that were determined appropriate for evaluating compliance. This included requiring a report by the States on the number of individuals meeting ABAWD criteria; the number offered a work opportunity; the number who participated in such opportunities; and a description of the types of opportunities available throughout the State.

Section 16(h)(5)(E) of the Act, as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014, gives the Department the authority to require a State agency to make modifications to the State's E&T State Plan to improve outcomes if the Department determines that the E&T outcomes are inadequate.

The SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 275.3(a) already requires FNS to conduct management evaluations (ME) reviews of targeted areas of SNAP program areas each year, including E&T. FNS identifies target areas each year based upon a number of considerations, including recent policy changes, risk to Federal funds and risk to program access. For example, FNS may identify program access as an area that the regional offices are required to review in every State, and nutrition education as an area to be reviewed on an at-risk basis, as necessary. This affords FNS maximum flexibility to target resources to those current areas of vulnerability or agency priorities.

In previous years, FNS has not required its regional offices to perform an ME of each State's E&T program. FNS has required its regional offices to review E&T programs in States that operate third-party partner programs, or that have combined Federal and non-Federal budgets over a certain threshold. As part of its general monitoring and oversight responsibilities, FNS will meet the requirement of the Act by continuing to perform MEs of States' E&T programs but will also continue to establish in guidance which target areas to focus attention each year. 13

In addition, under existing authority FNS is required to review and approve State agencies' E&T plans and budgets. Through this process, FNS ensures that individual components are structured to meet the needs of participants and that the reporting measures for individual components with more than 100 projected participants required by this rule are appropriate to measure the impact of the components on participants.

The interim final rule under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(16) established that FNS may require a State agency to make modifications to its SNAP E&T State Plan to improve outcomes if FNS determines that the E&T outcomes are inadequate.

Two commenters provided remarks on the Department's monitoring, evaluating, and assessing of States' E&T programs. One commenter stated that they were concerned the rule discussed consequences for inadequate performance without any indication as to how performance expectations would be set and what would be considered inadequate. Another commenter stated that the final rule should address how the Department would monitor State E&T programs, assess their effectiveness, and determine that the State agencies' E&T outcomes are inadequate. The commenter asked what standards the Department will use to determine differential performances across States.

The Department appreciates the comments. As stated previously, section 16(h)(5)(A) of the Act charges the Department with the responsibility to assess the effectiveness of E&T programs in preparing members of SNAP households for employment, including the acquisition of skills necessary for employment, and increasing the number of household members who obtain and retain employment subsequent to participation in E&T programs. Section 16(h)(5)(C) of the Act also requires the Department to evaluate State agencies' E&T programs on a periodic basis to ensure compliance with Federal E&T program rules and regulations; that program activities are appropriate to meet the needs of individuals referred by the State agency to an E&T program; and that reporting measures are appropriate to identify improvements in skills, training, work experience for participants in an employment and training program component. As mentioned previously, the interim final rule under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(16) established that FNS may require a State agency to make modifications to its SNAP E&T State Plan to improve outcomes if FNS determines that the E&T outcomes were inadequate. When the Department's oversight responsibilities for the assessment of effectiveness of E&T programs is considered, the Department believes that the term `outcomes' may be mistakenly assumed to refer only to the reporting measures rather than to outcomes of the overall assessment of E&T programs' effectiveness. The reporting measures from the E&T Annual Report are just one tool the Department will utilize to assess the effectiveness of a State agency's E&T program. Other information the Department will also use includes, but is not limited to, E&T State Plans, E&T Program Activity Reports (FNS-583), and ME reviews. Because State agencies have great flexibility in the design of their E&T program, in terms of targeted population, location of services, range of components, as well as differing labor markets, the Department does not intend to set a benchmark or a threshold for inadequate performance but will rather assess and evaluate each State agency, taking into consideration attributes of a State's E&T program. As discussed further in this section the Department is developing a framework for assessing State's E&T programs. The attributes of a State's E&T program, such as targeted populations and differing labor markets is considered within the design of the framework. The Department does not believe it necessary to include these attributes in the regulations. However, to provide transparency and clarity, the Department is modifying the regulatory text at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(16) to include the sources of information the Department will use to determine the effectiveness of a State's E&T program, such as E&T State Plans, ME reviews, E&T Program Activity Reports, E&T Annual Reports and other factors the Department determines appropriate to the assessment. The Department is also amending this section to stipulate FNS' responsibility to assess that program activities are appropriate to meet the needs of individuals referred by the State agency to an E&T program.

One commenter stated they appreciated that the Department would consider unemployment rates together with other important factors when looking at the unique challenges SNAP E&T participants face. The commenter encouraged the Department to consider a broad array of labor market indicators, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics alternative measures of labor market underutilization. They noted that labor market demand, not only a mismatch of skills to available jobs, is a key driver of the unemployment and underemployment problems many SNAP participants face. One commenter stated that it is critical that any attempt to use long-term data to determine the efficacy of an E&T program take into consideration any external influences that may have an impact on the job retention of an E&T participant but is not caused by the overall effectiveness of the training services received from an E&T vendor. This caution will ensure that States, stakeholders, and advocates are focusing on variables that are within the control of the E&T program, and not those that are outside the program's control. The Department appreciates the comments and agrees that when evaluating the effectiveness of State's E&T programs, external factors, such as the alternative measures of labor market underutilization, are important to consider when looking at the challenges SNAP E&T participants face. As previously mentioned, the Department is adding regulatory text to 7 CFR 273.7(c)(16) to clarify the information the Department will use in evaluating the effectiveness of States' E&T programs.

Currently, under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(16), FNS may require a State agency to make modifications to its SNAP E&T State Plan to improve outcomes if FNS determines that the E&T outcomes were inadequate. FNS will evaluate the effectiveness of SNAP E&T programs in several categories, such as intentional program design, integrated eligibility, deliberate program operations, and meaningful outcomes. FNS is amending 7 CFR 273.7(c)(16) to reflect these considerations. FNS will develop a framework with more detail which will be issued in guidance but anticipates each assessment category will contain various factors that may influence how effective programs are administered. For example, under deliberate program operations, factors may include component availability, component utilization, and whether the components offered are appropriate to meets the needs of the State's targeted population. One factor alone will not indicate whether a State's program is effective, but all the factors when viewed in their totality will provide a roadmap for needed areas of improvement. This assessment is not intended to provide a benchmark or performance target. Nor is the assessment intended to compare one State's E&T program against another. Rather, when determining effectiveness, FNS will consider whether the State's E&T program is designed and implemented with the purpose of meeting the needs of SNAP participants and assisting participants in gaining the skills necessary to obtain and retain employment.

If through this effectiveness assessment of a State's E&T program, which includes, but is not limited to information collected through ME reviews and corrective action plans, and program activity reports, the State is found to have inadequate outcomes, such as inappropriate components for the targeted population the State serves in E&T, FNS will provide technical assistance to the State agency and make recommendations for modifications to the State's E&T State Plan. Depending upon the impact of the inadequate outcome on E&T participants, such as a high rate of individuals being deemed ineligible for SNAP benefits due to failure to comply with E&T requirements, FNS may require State agencies to amend their plan within that FFY. For other instances the State agency may be required to make the necessary modifications no later than in the E&T State Plan submitted for the next FFY. E&T State Plans are due at least 45 days before the start of a FFY as provided under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(8). The Department is modifying the regulation under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(16) to clarify that the modifications must be made before FNS will approve State E&T Plans.

As a consequence for a State agency's failure to modify their E&T State Plan according to the recommendations by FNS to improve the effectiveness of the State's E&T program, FNS will employ the current authorities provided in the regulations under 7 CFR 272.2(e) to deny the State agency's E&T plan and under 7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(ii)(B) that states a State agency's receipt of its 100 percent Federal E&T grant is contingent on FNS' approval of the State agency's E&T plan. This regulation further stipulates that non-receipt of an E&T grant does not release a State agency from its responsibility to design and operate an E&T program. Additionally, FNS will follow the procedure provided under 7 CFR 276.4 regarding suspension and disallowance of administrative funds due to FNS determination of the efficiency and effectiveness of State agencies administration of SNAP. Under this process, FNS will provide advance warning to the State agency that their failure to modify their E&T State Plan can result in FNS rescinding the prior approval of the State agency's E&T State Plan and the State agency may be at risk of having administrative funds, including the 100 percent E&T Federal grant and E&T 50 percent reimbursement funds, suspended or disallowed until the State comes into compliance.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

This final rule has been determined to be significant under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for regulatory actions that are significant as defined by section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14904. This final rule does not meet the definition of significant under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended, and therefore the Department has prepared an economic summary of the rule, rather than a regulatory impact analysis.

This final rule makes changes to the interim final rule (IFR) published by the Department on March 24, 2016, and made effective May 23, 2016. The Department expects several of the final rule provisions to impact FNS or State administrative costs. This final rule is not expected to impact SNAP participants' benefit levels and is expected to minimally impact household burden. For this economic analysis, the Department compares the final rule's costs and savings to a pre-IFR baseline of burden costs, in addition to the currently approved information collection request (ICR) which already incorporates activities of the IFR since it was updated in 2022 (OMB #0584-0614, approved from December 29, 2022, through December 31, 2025). As such, comparisons to the current ICR indicate changes in burden caused by the final rule compared to the IFR.

The following provisions are expected to have measurable impacts:

Final rule provisions that are unchanged from the interim final rule (IFR): These provisions represent a change from the pre-IFR baseline, but no change from the burden hours estimated under the IFR's provisions and the currently approved ICR.

• 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(xviii) requires State agencies to identify component measures in their E&T Plans.

• 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(i)(A)-(C) requires State agencies to report on employment and earnings measures in an E&T Annual Report, renumbered in this final rule.

• 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(vi) requires State agencies to report the component measures identified in its E&T Plan, renumbered in this final rule.

• 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(vii) requires ABAWD pledge States that have received additional allocation funds to report information regarding the use of those funds, renumbered in this final rule.

• 7 CFR 272.1(f) mandates E&T Annual Report recordkeeping requirements.

Final rule provisions that are revised or newly added: These provisions represent a change from the pre-IFR baseline and from the burden hours estimated under the IFR's provisions in the currently approved ICR.

• 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(ii)(A)-(B) requires State agencies to report on educational measures in an E&T Annual Report.

• 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(iii) requires State agencies to report on seven participant characteristics, a change from the four characteristics required in the IFR, for the employment and earnings measures and educational measures in 273.7(c)(17)(i) through (ii).

• 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(v) modifies the reporting requirements for E&T participant characteristics established by the IFR to include race and/or ethnicity.

• 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(iv) removes the IFR requirement for State agencies to report measures on completion of education, training, work experience, and on-the-job training. Additionally, the final rule adds required reporting for State agencies that serve mandatory E&T participants, which was not included in the IFR.

Below, table 1 provides a summary of the total effects of all provisions in the final rule, compared to the pre-IFR baseline. The Baseline column shows the annual costs for each final rule provision, prior to implementation of the IFR. The columns with FY headers show the effects of the final rule in that specific fiscal year. FY 2026 is the first implementation year and the first year in which the discount rate is applied. As noted previously, there are no anticipated impacts on SNAP benefit payments to households (transfers) and nominal burden-related costs to SNAP households. The cost for State agencies to conduct ongoing E&T program reporting and recordkeeping over five years (FY 2026 through FY 2030) is $4.33 million. The cost for Federal (FNS) staff to review and analyze the E&T outcome data provided by State agencies over five years is about $50,100. The total combined cost to State and Federal governments over five years, compared to pre-IFR policy, is approximately $4.38 million. All costs, except for those in discounted cost impact rows of table 1, are adjusted annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for Uban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) fiscal year-over-fiscal year projections from OMB's Economic Assumptions for the FY 2025 Midsession Update.

The final rule's provisions will result in substantial benefits for FNS, State SNAP E&T programs, and SNAP E&T participants. Currently, research on the effects of SNAP E&T is limited and participant outcomes have not been quantified on a large scale. The improved reporting requirements finalized in this rule will allow FNS and State agencies to better measure and monitor the effectiveness of E&T programs and strategically improve those programs. FNS can use these data to assess which practices work well in SNAP E&T and share those best practices across State agencies. The final rule also allows FNS to require State agencies to modify their E&T State Plan if the data show inadequate outcomes in their E&T program. By improving E&T programs, participants will be better prepared for employment by acquiring the necessary skills to obtain and retain employment upon completion of E&T.

FNS expects State agencies will not incur implementation costs in excess of those incurred as a result of the IFR. The implementation costs associated with this final rule include one-time costs for developing new or modifying existing data collection systems for E&T programs. FNS expects State agencies will incur a small increase in recurring burden costs in excess of those incurred as a result of the IFR. We estimate an increase of 740 total hours from the burden hours included in the currently approved ICR due to the addition of reporting on educational measures and State agencies that serve mandatory E&T participants. As a result, annual State E&T reporting and recordkeeping will cost an additional $61,764 per year in FY 2026 dollars, 14 compared to the estimated costs in the current ICR. However, the Department acknowledges that there are uncertainties which could affect State burden (see Uncertainties section). Compared to a pre-IFR baseline, ongoing State agency burden as a result of the final rule are estimated to be approximately 186.8 hours per State, or 9,899 total hours annually.

The Department funds SNAP E&T programs through E&T grants and additional grants for State agencies that pledge to serve all individuals who are subject to the SNAP work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) and are at-risk of losing eligibility due to time-limited participation. The Department allocates these funds annually to State agencies based on the percentage of work registrants and time-limited participants in each State. State agencies may use their 100-percent federally funded E&T grants to pay for all costs associated with the implementation of this final rule. As such, the Department estimates the net cost to State agencies for these activities will be $0. However, the Federal government will provide 50-percent reimbursement for administrative costs that exceed the State agencies' E&T grants. 15

State agencies may find it necessary to implement system modifications to report on new measures that were not required in the IFR, including educational measures and mandatory E&T program measures. However, the Department estimates the new measures will not add to the overall implementation burden costs associated with the IFR included in the currently approved ICR (see table 2, below). This assumes that State agencies would rely on government entities with which they already have data matching or sharing agreements, but may need to renegotiate those agreements, such as with State Unemployment Insurance agencies for the matching of quarterly wage records, as well as other existing sources to obtain administrative data, including SNAP eligibility systems. The Department acknowledges that the actual number of hours to implement this final rule will vary by State agency (see Uncertainties section).

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data at time of analysis, the fully loaded median hourly rate for functions performed by State agency workers for SNAP is $77.03 in 2023 dollars. 16 Using this hourly rate and CPI-W projections from OMB to adjust for inflation, the one-time implementation costs associated with all provisions in the final rule, in comparison to the pre-IFR baseline, will total an estimated $2.3 million in FY 2026.

The Department notes that States will be permitted to cover the burden-related costs associated with this final rule with 100-percent federally funded E&T grants. Therefore, the Department does not expect State agencies to directly incur ongoing costs because of the final rule. All costs in this section are in FY 2026 dollars and are expected to increase annually due to inflation.

Provisions that are unchanged from the interim final rule (IFR) to the final rule: Burden hours identified in this section are included in the currently approved ICR and are unchanged by the final rule. Costs noted in this section are relative to the pre-IFR baseline.

Identifying State component measures in E&T State Plan. State agencies are required to identify in their E&T State Plan an outcome reporting measure for every component that serves at least 100 participants annually. Each State SNAP agency is estimated to spend two hours annually to identify component measures (106 total hours, annually), with a total annual cost of $8,847. There is no change in burden hours from the currently approved ICR.

Reporting employment and earnings measures. State agencies are required to report on employment and earnings measures for E&T participants and former participants in their E&T Annual Report. Fifty-three State agencies are expected to spend 60 hours annually to report these measures (3,180 total hours, annually), with a total annual cost of $265,417. There is no change in burden hours from the currently approved ICR.

Reporting State component measures: State agencies are required to report component measures for E&T components serving at least 100 participants a year. Each State agency is expected to spend 20 hours per year on this requirement (1,060 total burden hours, annually), with a total annual cost of $88,472. There is no change in burden hours from the currently approved ICR.

Additional reporting for ABAWD pledge States. State agencies that have committed to offering at-risk ABAWDs participation in a qualifying activity and have received additional funds are required to report on the use of those funds. Ten State agencies  17 are each expected to spend 10 hours on this requirement (100 total hours, annually), with a total annual cost of $8,346. There is no change in burden hours from the currently approved ICR.

Recordkeeping for E&T Annual Report: State agencies are required to conduct recordkeeping for the E&T Annual Report. Each State agency is expected to spend one hour on this task per year (53 total hours, annually), with a total annual cost of $4,424. There is no change in burden hours from the currently approved ICR.

Provisions that are revised or new in the final rule: Costs and savings identified in this section differ from those caused by the IFR, which are included in the currently approved ICR. Costs and savings in this section are discussed relative to the currently approved ICR and the pre-IFR baseline.

New requirement to report educational measures, replacing requirement to report E&T annual measures in IFR. State agencies will be required to report on new educational measures for attainment of a credential or certificate and measurable skill gains for all E&T participants enrolled in education or training programs. These measures align with Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs and replace the previous reporting measures in the IFR that required State agencies to report on completion of education, training, work experience, and on-the-job training. Each of the 53 State agencies are expected to spend 80 hours annually reporting these measures (4,240 total hours, annually) with a total annual cost of $353,889. Because the reporting requirements that are being replaced represent 3,600 total burden hours in the currently approved ICR, this change in the final rule results in a net increase of 640 annual burden hours and a net annual cost increase of $53,417.

Modified requirement to report participant characteristics for reporting measures. State agencies are required to report on four participant characteristics for each employment, earnings and educational measures under the IFR. The final rule adds three additional participant characteristics for the reporting measures: race and/or ethnicity, and mandatory E&T participants deemed ineligible due to failure to comply with mandatory E&T. Each State agency is expected to spend 10 hours annually on this requirement (530 total burden hours, annually), with a total annual cost of $44,236. The requirement to report on four participant characteristics, which has become seven characteristics in this final rule, was previously included with another requirement in the IFR (See Modified requirement to report E&T participant characteristics, in the next paragraph of this section). That requirement was approved for a total of 1,060 burden hours in the currently approved ICR. The 530 total burden hours for this requirement were transferred from those 1,060 burden hours and do not reflect new burden hours.

Modified requirement to report E&T participant characteristics. The final rule is adding race and/or ethnicity to the list of E&T participant characteristics that State agencies are required to report as established in the IFR. Each of the 53 State agencies are expected to spend 10 hours annually on this requirement, with a total cost of $44,236 annually. State agencies were previously expected to spend 20 hours on this requirement under the currently approved ICR because it included the required reporting on four participant characteristics for reporting measures. However, this participant characteristics reporting requirement has been modified to seven participant characteristics and renumbered in the final rule (see Modified requirement to report seven participant characteristics for reporting measures in this section). Ten of the allotted 20 burden hours for this provision were transferred to the seven participant characteristics reporting requirement. Therefore, this modified requirement does not result in an overall change in annual burden hours compared to the currently approved ICR.

New requirement for mandatory E&T program reporting. State agencies that serve mandatory E&T participants will be required to report on the number of SNAP participants who were required to participate in E&T and were referred to E&T, and the number and percentages of SNAP participants who were deemed ineligible for failure to comply with E&T requirements. This is a new provision that was not included in the IFR. Each State agency that serves mandatory E&T participants is expected to spend 10 hours implementing this new requirement. On average, 10 State agencies serve mandatory E&T participants (resulting in 100 total burden hours, annually), with a total annual cost of $8,346.

FNS National Office employees must review and analyze the outcome data provided by State agencies as required by this final rule. An FNS National Office analyst at a GS-13 Step 5 level is expected to spend two hours to review each of the 53 State agencies' outcome data once per year for a total annual cost of $9,480, compared to the pre-IFR baseline. 18 It is also estimated that an FNS National Office analyst at the GS-14 Step 1 level will spend one hour reviewing and approving the information, for a total annual cost of $93.25. The combined Federal costs associated with FNS review and analysis of E&T outcome data is $9,573 in FY 2026 dollars. The final rule does not cause a change in Federal burden hours compared to the currently approved ICR.

The Department estimates that household burden due to the final rule will be minimal. A small number of E&T participants may face additional reporting burden due to the need to contact these individuals to track outcomes. However, the Department expects State agencies to bear the primary burden of tracking and reporting E&T outcomes. The final rule does not cause a change in annual household administrative burden compared to the currently approved ICR.

There is considerable variation in the size and scope of States' E&T programs. There is also significant variation in the structure and functionality of SNAP E&T data systems and State SNAP eligibility systems. This variability makes it difficult to anticipate the changes that State agencies might need to make to collect and report the required outcome data. For these estimates, the Department assumed that State agencies use a combination of methods to collect data, including using existing automated systems data, collecting new data, and collecting data for a sample of participants. Although the exact methods State agencies use could affect the cost, the Department expects that the total cost of the final rule will be minimal.

Additionally, there is uncertainty regarding how State agencies will fund costs associated with State agency burden hours in this final rule. State agencies will be able to use their 100-percent federally funded E&T grants to pay for all costs associated with this rule, so the Department anticipates that the net cost to State agencies will be $0. However, State agencies may choose not to use their E&T grant funds or to use only a portion of the funds, in which case they would incur administrative expenses.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, it has been certified that this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule would not have an impact on small entities because the provisions of this final rule apply to State agencies, which are not small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as meeting the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This final rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.551 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)

Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.

The Department has considered the impact of this rule on State and local governments and has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. Therefore, under section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism summary is not required.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations, or policies which conflict with its provisions, or which would otherwise impede its full and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Dates section of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.

FNS has reviewed the final rule, in accordance with the Department Regulation 4300-004, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis” to identify and address any major civil rights impacts the final rule might have on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. FNS specifically prohibits the State and local government agencies that administer the Program from engaging in actions that discriminate based on race, color national origin, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), religious creed, age, disability, and political beliefs. SNAP's nondiscrimination regulation can be found at 7 CFR 272.6(a). The final rule does not change these requirements. The final rule will require State agencies to collect and report outcome data on SNAP E&T programs and will not change work requirements or impact the population subject to work requirements. FNS will provide implementation guidance to State agencies through webinars or policy meetings for State agencies requesting technical assistance. FNS will also assist State agencies in improving the collection and analysis of State E&T data systems. FNS will provide information to program stakeholders, including State agencies and the general public, using a variety of communication methods: in-person, written and electronic, including ensuring that program information is generally available in multiple languages, and new materials on FNS' websites are compliant with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR 1320) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this final rule will contain information collections that are subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget; therefore, FNS is submitting for public comment the changes in the information collection burden that would result from adoption of the proposals in this final rule.

Comments on this final rule must be received by January 17, 2025. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: SNAP: Employment and Training Program Performance Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

OMB Number: 0584-0614.

Form Number: Not Applicable.

Expiration Date: December 31, 2025.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), FNS is submitting this information collection to OMB for its review and approval. The final rule will require State agencies to collect and report annually on: (1) the number and percentage of all E&T participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the second and fourth quarters after completion of participation in E&T; (2) Median quarterly wages of the E&T participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after completion of participation in E&T; (3) educational measures for attainment of credential or certificates and measurable skill gains for all E&T participants enrolled in education or training programs; (4) employment, earnings and educational measures for each of seven unique participant characteristics; (5) certain unique characteristics of all E&T participants that participate in E&T during the preceding Federal fiscal year.

The final rule also requires State agencies to identify in the annual E&T State Plan appropriate reporting measures for each proposed component that is projected to serve a threshold of at least 100 participants a year and report on those measures in the E&T Annual Report. Additionally, the final rule requires that State agencies that have committed to offering all ABAWDs at risk of losing eligibility due to time-limited participation a slot in a qualifying activity and have received an additional allocation of funds, to report information regarding the use of those funds.

The information collection for the SNAP E&T Performance Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements is currently approved under OMB Control No. 0584-0614, expiration date December 31, 2025. The changes made to this information collection because of the final rule is described below. Once OMB approves the information collection request associated with this final rulemaking activity, the agency will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval.

Change from Interim Final Rule: The interim final rule established a reporting measure for the completion of an educational, training, work experience or on-the-job training component under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(iv). The final rule removes and replaces this measure with two educational measures under the renumbered 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(ii).

The interim final rule required State agencies to disaggregate each of the reporting measures by four key participant characteristics under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(vi). The final rule removes this disaggregation requirement and under the renumbered 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(iii) requires the State agencies to report the reporting measures of employment, earnings and educational measures for each of the key participant characteristics, including two additional key participant characteristics for race and/or ethnicity and mandatory E&T participants deemed ineligible due to failure to comply with mandatory E&T.

The interim final rule required State agencies to report the number and percentage of all E&T participants that participated during the reporting fiscal year for seven (7) participant characteristics under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(v). The final rule modifies this requirement by adding race and/or ethnicity to the participant characteristics to be reported.

The final rule under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17)(iv) adds additional reporting requirements for State agencies that serve mandatory E&T participants.

The Department received some comments on the cost and hour burden, as well as comments related to the underlying policy. One commenter noted that the regulations require several data elements that some State agencies currently do not collect that may require system implementation costs, including one-time capital costs, additional reporting costs for collecting and creating the required reporting measures and ongoing costs for operating and maintaining those system. The commenter suggested that the final regulations should explain how the Department determined that the interim rule did not meet the $100 million threshold that would subject the regulation to the Federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The commenter also suggested that the final regulations should state the amount of additional funds the Department would make available to States to pay for these implementation costs. The Department appreciates the comment and would note that in determining the cost to implement the Department considered the analysis conducted of FY 2013 State agency E&T State Plans that indicated that thirty-six State agencies tracked the number of E&T participants that enter employment. The Department anticipated that some of the system implementation costs, including the one-time capital costs and the ongoing costs for collecting and reporting, could be paid for using the existing Federal grant funds States receive to operate E&T and that State funds in excess of those grant funds are reimbursed at a 50 percent rate by the Federal government.

One State agency believed, based on their experience, that the burden estimate for rule implementation was underestimated by the Department. They noted that they had recently completely redesigned their E&T data system that resulted in 14,577 hours of contractor time and 9,400 hours of State agency staff time totaling approximately $1.5 million. The commenter estimated that modifications to implement the new reporting requirements would require at least 4,000 hours of contractor time and 2,600 hours of State staff for an estimated cost of approximately $546,000. The commenter believes that other States would likely need to invest a similar amount of time and money to comply with the new reporting requirements. The Department appreciates the commenter's experience in redesigning their E&T data system, the Department does not believe that this same experience would be borne by other State agencies, due to the different size and complexity of States' E&T programs. In determining the initial reporting and recordkeeping burden estimate, the Department relied on the analysis that indicated thirty-six State agencies had identified reporting measures and collected outcome data and that the remaining States would need to develop systems to collect and report the required data. The Department considered that in the first year that the interim final rule was published, State agencies would need to develop E&T data collection systems, modify existing system, or build interfaces between SNAP eligibility and SNAP E&T data collection systems. Several of the measures, such as employment, earnings, characteristics of E&T participants, State agencies could use a variety of sources to obtain administrative data, such as SNAP eligibility systems. The Department also anticipates that some State agencies would rely on government entities with which they already had agreements and would need to renegotiate those agreements, such as with State's UI agencies for the matching of quarterly wage records.

One State agency stated that they estimated that ongoing reporting and maintenance would total 1,500 hours and that the Department's estimated burden of 231 hours is far below what States would need to spend in ongoing maintenance efforts. This State agency also stated that the burden for reporting participants who complete an educational or training program six months after completing the E&T program was underestimated by the Department. The commenter noted that they do not currently track completion of education or training programs, and this would require a manual process to contact participants six months after completing the E&T program. They estimate that this manual process would result in approximately 2,600 staff hours to collect a single data element and that this is not an efficient use of resources. The State agency acknowledged that the State's quarterly wage records could be used to report participant's employment and earnings after completion. However, they noted that not all individuals have wage information in this data source and that discrepancies in the Federal Employer Identification Number and self-employment contribute to the largest portion of unavailable wage matches for approximately 20 percent of participants. For those cases, the commenter estimates that a manual process to gather quarterly earnings information would result in approximately 750 hours of staff time. Lastly, the State agency noted that they estimate the overall burden to collect and report the required information would be approximately 3,600 hours annually. They do not believe that this is an efficient use of resource for their State E&T program. The Department appreciates the comments and experience of this State agency. The Department again relied on the basis that a vast majority of State agencies already tracked E&T participants for various outcome measures, including obtainment of employment. The Department assumed that State agencies could use a combination of methods to collect the data including existing automated systems data, new data collection, and some contact with SNAP E&T participants. Further, the Department assumed that manual processes, such as contacting E&T participants would be minimal. As stated previously, given the variations of State's E&T programs, the Department does not believe the experience of this one State agency would equate into a similar experience by all State agencies.

Respondents: State, local or Tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 53.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: One response per year for each State agency that administers the SNAP E&T program. State agencies will be required to report their outcome data annually.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 53.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 25.32.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours on Respondents: 9,899.

Estimated Hourly Wage Rate (Fully-Loaded): $75.25.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost on Respondents: $762,519.97.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of May 2023, for Occupational Group (11-3021), 19 has an hourly mean wage for functions performed by State agency workers for the SNAP program are estimated at $57.92 median hourly wage per staff. Including 33% for fringe benefits the fully loaded hourly rate per staff is estimated at $77.03 ($57.92 * 33% = $19.11 + $57.92).

USDA issues this final rule in conformance with Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and 14094 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. E.O. 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates E.O. 12866 and further directs agencies to ask for and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866. So, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This action has been reviewed per the requirements of E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. The review revealed that this regulation would not have substantial and direct efforts on Tribal governments or significant Tribal implications.

This final rule was reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act (7 U.S.C. 6309) provides that nothing in the Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to soybean promotion organized and operated under the laws of the U.S. or any State. There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

In accordance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. part 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in the Order and accompanying Rules and Regulations have previously been approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0093.

The Board was initially appointed on July 11, 1991, per the provisions of the Act (7 U.S.C. 6301-6311), and the Order (7 CFR part 1220) issued thereunder. The Order set up an initial Board with sixty members, composed of soybean producers. For purposes of setting up the Board, the United States was divided into 31 States and geographical units. Representation on the Board from each unit was determined by the level of production in each unit.

Section 1220.201(c) of the Order provides that at the end of each 3-year period, the Board shall review soybean production levels in the geographic units throughout the United States. Section 1220.130 of the Order defines a unit as each State, or group of States, which is represented on the Board. The Board may recommend to the Secretary that Board membership for each unit be changed to reflect current production levels.

Section 1220.201(d) of the Order provides that at the end of each 3-year period, the Secretary must review the volume of production of each unit and adjust the boundaries of any unit and the number of Board members from each such unit as necessary to conform with the criteria set forth in § 1220.201(e): (1) To the extent practicable, States with annual average soybean production of less than 3 million bushels shall be grouped into geographically contiguous units, each of which has a combined production level equal to or greater than 3 million bushels, and each such group shall be entitled to at least 1 member on the Board; (2) units with at least 3 million bushels, but fewer than 15 million bushels shall be entitled to 1 board member; (3) units with 15 million bushels or more but fewer than 70 million bushels shall be entitled to 2 Board members; (4) units with 70 million bushels or more but fewer than 200 million bushels shall be entitled to 3 Board members; and (5) units with 200 million bushels or more shall be entitled to 4 Board members.

The Board was last reapportioned in 2021. The total Board membership decreased from 78 to 77 members, with Alabama decreasing one member. The final rule was published in the Federal Register (86 FR 61668) on November 8, 2021, and became effective with the 2022 appointments.

This final rule keeps total membership of the Board at 77 members. Production data was used for years 2018-2022 (excluding the crops in years in which production was the highest and in which production was the lowest in each State) was reported by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). This change does not affect the number of geographical units.

This final rule adjusts representation on the Board as follows:

Board adjustments by this final rule will become effective with the 2025 appointment process.

A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (89 FR 51277) on June 17, 2024, with a 30-day comment period. USDA received three comments. One comment communicated displeasure for North Dakota's decreased number from four seats to three seats. Upon reviewing the requirements of the Act and Order, USDA determined that leaving the North Dakota seats at four would not be consistent with the Act and Order, which requires that at the end of each 3-year period, the Secretary review the volume of production of each unit and adjust the boundaries of any unit and the number of Board members from each such unit as necessary to conform with the formula to determine the number of directors for each unit set forth in § 1220.201(e) of the Order. This was done by calculating production data for years 2018-2022 (excluding the crops in years in which production was the highest and in which production was the lowest in each State) as reported by USDA's NASS, resulting in a 3-year average for North Dakota that fell below the required number of bushels to retain four seats under § 1220.201(e)(5) of the Order. Accordingly, no change is made in response to this comment.

One comment was in favor of the seat adjustments for North Dakota and New York.

One comment was not germane to the proposed rule.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) considered the economic effect of this action on small entities and determined that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly burdened.

Effective August 19, 2019, the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) published an interim final rule (84 FR 34261) that adjusts the monetary-based size standards for inflation. As a result of this rule, the size classification for soybean producers changed from sales of $750,000 or less to sales of $1,000,000 or less. There are an estimated 413,358 soybean producers and an estimated 10,000 first purchasers who collect the assessment, most who would be considered small businesses under the criteria set up by SBA.

According to USDA's NASS 2022 Census of Agriculture, the number of operations in the United States with soybean production totaled 270,851. 1 The most recent (2022) Census of Agriculture data show that roughly 19 percent of producers with soybean production, or 52,756 operations, have annual receipts of $1,000,000 or more. 2 Therefore, most soybean producers, 81 percent, are considered small businesses with the new SBA guidance. It should be noted that producers are only indirectly affected by this final rule.

This final rule imposes no new burden on the industry, as it only adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in soybean production. The adjustments are required by the Order and do not result in a change to Board membership, which will remain at 77 members.

AMS is committed to following e-Government Act of 2002 to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not found any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 1220 as follows:

On May 16, 2024, the President signed into law the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63) (“the Act”), impacting certain requirements for BasicMed in section 815, BasicMed for Examiners Administering Tests or Proficiency Checks, and section 828, Expansion of BasicMed. Specifically, section 815 expanded the privileges of BasicMed to examiners and section 828 amended provisions in section 2307 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note) (FESSA) directly applicable to BasicMed. The Act also directed the Administrator of the FAA to implement the amendments made in sections 815 and 828 through rulemaking. Section 828 further provides that the Administrator of the FAA shall update regulations in 14 CFR parts 61 and 68 to implement the amendments made in the Act ( i.e., the updated statutory language in FESSA), and within 180 days of the enactment, apply parts 61 and 68 to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft if the provisions of section 2307 of FESSA are met. The amendments to parts 61 and 68 in this final rule align with the statutory charge set forth by section 828  1 in the following manner:

• Increase the number of allowable passengers from 5 to 6 and occupants from 6 to 7 for covered aircraft;

• Increase the maximum takeoff weight from 6,000 pounds to 12,500 pounds for covered aircraft;

• Clarify that calendar months will be used in determining the duration of the comprehensive medical examination for those persons acting as the pilot in command or as a required flightcrew member for operations under § 61.113(i);

• Specify that covered aircraft does not include transport category rotorcraft certified to airworthiness standards under part 29; and

• Clarify which versions of FAA Form 8500-8, Application for Airman Medical Certificate, may be used to populate the questions in the BasicMed Comprehensive Medical Examination Checklist.

Section 815, BasicMed For Examiners Administering Tests or Proficiency Checks, provides that an examiner may administer a practical test or proficiency check if such examiner meets the medical eligibility requirements for BasicMed and the flight is conducted in a covered aircraft. 2 While the FAA finds the expansion to be self-enacting, the section provided the FAA with three years to issue a final rule updating the regulations, as well as any related requirements the Administrator finds are in the interest of aviation safety. 3 This final rule will, therefore, update § 61.23 to permit persons performing the duties of an examiner to administer a practical test or proficiency check without holding a medical certificate issued under part 67, provided those persons meet the requirements to operate under the conditions and limitations set forth in § 61.113(i).

There are no costs or benefits of this rule relative to the with-statute baseline. This rule conforms FAA regulations to self-implementing legislation in sections 815 and 828 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. Under the updated Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 guidance, 4 an agency may use a with-statute baseline for estimating costs and benefits for regulations that simply restate statutory requirements in self-implementing legislation. Since the rule does not deviate from the self-implementing statutory provisions, there are no costs or benefits as measured against the with-statute baseline.

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This final rule is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart iii, section 44701, General Requirements; section 44702, Issuance of Certificates; and section 44703, Airman Certificates. Under these sections, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. The FAA is also authorized to issue certificates, including airman certificates and medical certificates, to qualified individuals. This final rule is within the scope of that authority.

BasicMed provisions were originally promulgated under section 2307 of Public Law 114-190, the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016. The requirements of this rule continue to be within that authority, as well as under sections 815 and 828 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024.

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) requires an agency to conduct notice and comment rulemaking except when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Additionally, section 553(d) permits agencies, upon a finding of good cause, to issue rules with an effective date less than 30 days from the date of publication. The FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and opportunity for comment and the 30 days notice requirement to implement the statutory amendments as a final rule.

First, as it pertains to section 815, the FAA finds that notice and the opportunity for comment to be unnecessary because the final rule implements the statutory provisions without interpretation. The declaratory provision of section 815(a) became effective on May 16, 2024, immediately upon passage of the Act. While section 815(b) provided three years to conform the regulations with the self-enacting provision, the FAA has simply adopted the statutory language without interpretation and implements that language directly into the regulations, rendering notice and the opportunity for comment unnecessary.

Second, as it pertains to section 828, by effect of section 828(c), which directs the Administrator to “apply parts 61 and 68, Code of Federal Regulations, in a manner reflecting the amendments made by this section,” the FAA must implement the provisions of section 828(a) beginning 180 days after passage of the Act ( i.e., November 12, 2024). Notice and the opportunity for comment are unnecessary in this action because the FAA is strictly implementing the amendments made to the statutory provisions in section 2307 of FESSA without interpretation. This rule conforms parts 61, 68, and 91 to the specific amended provisions within the Act. Additionally, because the FAA is simply amending the regulations to the language in section 2307 of FESSA, the updated regulations do not impose any additional substantive restrictions or requirements on the persons affected by these regulations. Further, case law supports the concept that the FAA's compliance to implement a rule by the statutorily prescribed deadline of November 12, 2024, makes compliance with section 553 impracticable and supports a finding of good cause to forgo notice and the opportunity for comment. 5

For similar reasons, the FAA finds good cause to forgo the 30 days delay of effective date requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) because 30 days delay of effective date is impracticable and unnecessary. The FAA is publishing this rule with an immediate effective date to comply with the statutory deadline imposed in section 828 of the Act, which directed the FAA to apply parts 61 and 68 to reflect the amendments beginning 180 days after the Act's enactment. Additionally, because section 815 has been effective since May 14, 2024, ( i.e., self-enacting), 30 days notice is unnecessary. Delaying the effective date of this final rule will not stay these requirements from being legally binding and would only cause inconsistency between the FAA's regulations and the statutory provisions already in effect. 6 Therefore, the FAA finds good cause to forgo the 30 days effective date requirement to comply with the Congressional directive and align with FAA's regulations with the self-enacting statutory provisions.

Finally, this final rule makes one technical amendment to add an OMB control number for an already existing and approved information collection to the FAA's regulatory list of control numbers in part 11. The FAA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary for such technical change. 7

FESSA was enacted on July 15, 2016. Section 2307(a) of FESSA, Medical Certification of Certain Small Aircraft Pilots, directed the FAA to “issue or revise regulations to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft” without having to undergo the medical certification process under 14 CFR part 67 if the pilot and aircraft meet certain prescribed requirements as outlined in FESSA. The FAA implemented, without interpretation, the provisions of section 2307 of FESSA by publishing the Alternative Pilot Physical Examination and Education Requirements final rule on January 11, 2017, 8 which amended parts 61 and 91 and created part 68. 9 These medical eligibility requirements for pilots are collectively known as BasicMed.

On May 16, 2024, the President signed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63) into law. Specific to this rulemaking, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, sections 815 and 828, promulgates certain changes to (1) expand the applicability of BasicMed to pilot examiners, (2) expand the definition of a covered aircraft in FESSA, (3) apply consistent usage of the term “calendar months,” and (4) permit the FAA to modify forms related to comprehensive medical examination checklists. As discussed herein, certain changes were self-enacting upon enactment of the Reauthorization, while others are self-enacting 180 days from the enactment of the Reauthorization. This final rule conforms FAA regulations as set forth by the Reauthorization.

Section 828(a) of the Act amended certain requirements set forth in FESSA, section 2307, paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(7), (a)(8)(A), (b)(2)(A)(i), (h), and (j). First, section 828 revises the definition of covered aircraft to increase the number of occupants in a BasicMed covered aircraft from 6 to 7, increases the maximum certificated takeoff weight from 6,000 pounds to 12,500 pounds, and excludes transport category rotorcraft certified to airworthiness standards under part 29. Second, section 828(a) also increases the maximum number of passengers from 5 to 6, modifies the duration of time for a comprehensive medical examination from 48 months to 48 calendar months, and updates which medical application form versions the FAA may use to populate the questions of the Comprehensive Medical Examination Checklist (BasicMed), FAA Form 8700-2 (CMEC). While section 828(b) directs the FAA to amend regulations in 14 CFR parts 61 and 68 without imposing a deadline to do so, 10 paragraph (c) requires the FAA to apply parts 61 and 68 in a manner reflecting the amendments made by paragraph (a) within 180 days of the enactment of the Act ( i.e., November 12, 2024). The amended requirements of section 828 and the FAA's implementation of those requirements are subsequently discussed.

Prior to this rule, § 61.23(c)(3)(i)(D) required that, to be eligible to operate under BasicMed, an individual must complete their comprehensive medical examination from a State-licensed physician during the 48 months before acting as a pilot in command or serving as a required flightcrew member in operations under § 61.113(i) and in accordance with the relevant requirements in part 68. This requirement was consistent with the directive of section 2307(a)(7) of FESSA at the time of final rule adoption  11 ( i.e., before May 16, 2024). With the exception of § 61.23(c)(3)(i)(D), the FAA has generally used the term “calendar month” throughout part 61 to refer to periods of time for the purposes of recency. Further, the usage of the term “month” was inconsistent within section 2307 of FESSA, which used the term “month” to refer to the duration of a comprehensive medical examination, but “calendar month” when referring to the duration of recency for the medical education course. This amendment will implement section 828(a)(1)(B) to correct the term and align the language in § 61.23 with part 61 convention and section 2307(a)(7) of FESSA to state “calendar month.”

In section 2307(j) of FESSA, as promulgated in 2016, a covered aircraft was defined as an aircraft that (1) is authorized under Federal law to carry not more than 6 occupants; and (2) has a maximum certificated takeoff weight of not more than 6,000 pounds. These requirements were implemented for aircraft authorized under Federal law. 12 Section 828(a)(4) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 amended section 2307(j) of FESSA to increase the number of occupants an aircraft is authorized to carry under Federal law from 6 to 7 and to increase the maximum certificated takeoff weight from not more than 6,000 pounds to not more than 12,500 pounds. Additionally, section 828(a)(4) added a third provision to section 2307(j) of FESSA to exclude transport category rotorcraft certificated to airworthiness standards under part 29. To note, these amendments were immediately adopted within 49 U.S.C. 44703 note (FESSA).

For aircraft authorized under Federal law, this final rule revises § 61.113(i)(1) to reflect the provisions of section 2307(j), as amended by section 828(a)(4). 13 Additionally, this final rule revises § 91.319(j) to increase the maximum number of occupants that a person may carry in an experimental aircraft operated under § 61.113(i) from 6 to 7. 14

Section 2307(a)(8) of FESSA established limitations for operations under BasicMed. One operating requirement limited an individual operating in the covered aircraft from carrying more than 5 passengers. Section 828 of the Act amended section 2307(a)(8)(A) ( i.e., the operating requirement) by increasing the number of passengers from 5 to 6. This final rule will revise § 61.113(i)(1) to reflect this increased passenger limitation. Therefore, a covered aircraft may now be authorized to carry up to 7 occupants (including any required flight crewmembers) and may be operating with up to 6 passengers on board. 15

To comply with the requirements of BasicMed, a pilot must receive a comprehensive medical examination from a State-licensed physician. 16 The State-licensed physician conducts the examination using the CMEC  17 completed by the recipient prior to the examination. Section 2307(b)(2) of FESSA prescribes the content of the CMEC, implemented in § 68.7. Originally, section 2307(b)(2)(A)(i) specified that the checklist must be populated with specific questions from FAA Form 8500-8 (3-99); however, the 3-99 version of FAA Form 8500-8 is now obsolete and no longer an active form.

Now, section 828(a)(2) of the Act amended section 2307(b)(2)(A)(i) of FESSA to specify that the checklist must include certain questions from the 8500-8 (3-99) or any successor form, which include pertinent medical history of the examination recipient. As a result of the amendment, this final rule amends § 68.7(a)(1) by inserting the language “(or any successor form)” following “FAA Form 8500-8 (3-99).” In practice, this amendment explicitly facilitates future updates to the FAA Form 8700-2 CMEC and incorporates changes made to specific questions in subsequent versions of FAA Form 8500-8.

Prior to FESSA, the medical eligibility requirements for an examiner mirrored the requirements for the applicant taking the examination. The provisions of section 2307 of FESSA, and subsequent modifications to apply BasicMed to required flightcrew members, did not originally apply to examiners because an examiner does not typically act as pilot in command of the aircraft for a practical test and only serves as a required flightcrew member during portions of a practical test. 18

Section 815(a) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 permits examiners to administer a practical test or proficiency check so long as the examiner meets the medical eligibility requirements of BasicMed ( i.e., the examiner meets the medical qualification requirements under part 68 and the operation is conducted in a covered aircraft as defined in section 2307(j) of FESSA). While the FAA determined that this provision was self-enacting as of May 16, 2024, section 815(b) of the Act directs the FAA to issue a final rule revising part 61 within three years of enactment. Section 815(b) also permits the Administrator to add “any related requirements the Administrator finds are in the interest of aviation safety” to the final rule; however, at this time, the FAA does not find any related requirements warranted and will not be adding any additional related requirements to this final rule. To align the regulations with the self-enacting statute, this final rule adds new § 61.23(c)(1)(vii)  19 to explicitly allow examiners to administer practical tests or proficiency checks for airman certificates, ratings, or authorizations, provided the flight is conducted under the conditions and limitations set forth in § 61.113(i).

The amended provisions in § 61.23(a)(3)(iv) to allow examiners to perform their duties under BasicMed use the phrase “when meeting the requirements to operate under the conditions and limitations set forth in § 61.113(i)” rather than “when operating under the conditions and limitations set forth in § 61.113(i)” because § 61.113(i) applies to persons exercising private pilot privileges as either pilot in command or as a required flightcrew member. The added phrase “when meeting the requirements” was included to clarify that even though the examiner may not be performing a pilot duty as an examiner and not serving as either pilot in command or as a required flightcrew member, that person may serve as an examiner without holding a medical certificate provided that person has otherwise met all the requirements to operate as pilot in command or as a required flightcrew member under BasicMed.

Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and Executive Order 14094 (“Modernizing Regulatory Review”) direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 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 (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183 million using the most current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule: (1) has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, (3) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (4) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. As the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and opportunity for comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for this final rule, 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not require regulatory flexibility analyses regarding impacts on small entities.

There are no costs or benefits of this rule relative to the with-statute baseline. This rule conforms FAA regulations to self-implementing legislation in sections 815 and 828 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. Section 815 allows a pilot examiner to perform authorized examiner duties so long as the examiner can otherwise meet the requirements to operate under BasicMed in the aircraft being used for the practical test or proficiency check. Section 828 expands BasicMed by increasing the number of allowable passengers in a covered aircraft to 6 (up from 5); increasing the allowable number of seats in a covered aircraft to 7 (up from 6); and increasing the maximum certificated takeoff weight of a covered aircraft to 12,500 pounds (up from 6,000 pounds). This expansion of Basic Med does not apply to transport category rotorcraft certified to airworthiness standards under part 29.

Under the updated OMB Circular A-4 guidance, 20 an agency may use a with-statute baseline for estimating costs and benefits for regulations that simply restate statutory requirements in self-implementing legislation. Since the rule does not deviate from the self-implementing statutory provisions, there are no costs or benefits as measured against the with-statute baseline.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law requires an agency to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 after that section or any other law requires publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment and to not delay the effective date for this rule. As 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) permits an agency to forgo notice and the opportunity for comment when good cause exists and the FAA finds good cause exists in this situation, 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 similarly do not require regulatory flexibility analyses.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it will only have a domestic impact and therefore will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government, or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. The FAA determined that the final rule will not result in the expenditure of $183 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

The FAA has determined that there would be no new information collection associated with the requirement to complete the Comprehensive Medical Examination Checklist associated with this final rule. Approval to collect such information previously was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and was assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0770.

The FAA lists OMB control numbers assigned to its information collection activities in 14 CFR 11.201(b). Accordingly, this technical amendment updates 14 CFR 11.201(b) to display OMB control number 2120-0770 associated with the information collection activities in the final rule, Alternative Pilot Physical Examination and Education Requirements.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed ICAO SARPs applicable to private pilots.

Airmen certificated by the FAA are represented to ICAO as compliant with ICAO standards for private pilots, among other requirements. As FESSA and this final rule describe standards that diverge from ICAO requirements, 21 flights must be geographically limited to operations within the United States, unless authorized by the country in which the flight is conducted.

The FAA will modify certain differences to reflect that certain U.S. private pilots no longer are required to hold a current FAA airman medical certificate. A filing is required for certain ICAO Annex 1 SARPs found in Chapters 1, 2, and 6.

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f for regulations and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have federalism implications.

Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures, the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes; or to affect uniquely or significantly their respective Tribes. At this point, the FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this final rule.

The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The FAA has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the Executive order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action will have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

A copy of this final rule and all background material may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. A copy of this final rule will be placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at the FAA's Regulations and Policies website at www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Requestors must identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking.

All documents the FAA considered in developing this final rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cook Airfield, Rose Hill, KS, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-1624 in the Federal Register (89 FR 66290; August 15, 2024), proposing to establish the Class E airspace at Rose Hill, KS. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

An FAA database review noted that the incorrect coordinates were used in the NPRM. This Final Rule replaces the incorrect coordinates with the correct coordinates: 37°33′55″ N, long 097°10′29″ W. This action does not change the airspace dimensions or operating requirements.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024 and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Cook Airfield, Rose Hill, KS.

This action supports new public instrument procedures.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The Commission is amending the following rules and forms:

The Commission is adopting amendments to correct errors in certain Commission rules and forms. Specifically, the amendments correct errors in the formula for calculating yield data reported on Form N-MFP, which requires money market funds to report portfolio and other information to the Commission each month. The amendments also make conforming changes to the risk disclosure statement in rule 482, which requires certain information to be included in mutual fund advertisements and sales literature. The amendments also conform certain provisions of Form N-1A and Form N-2, forms used by open-end management investment companies (“open-end funds”) and closed-end funds, respectively, to register under the Investment Company Act and to offer their shares under the Securities Act. These amendments reflect recent rule changes requiring open-end funds to transmit more concise annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders. Further, the amendments correct outdated cross- references and redesignate the numbering of certain paragraphs within Form N-CSR, a reporting form used by funds to file shareholder reports under the Investment Company Act and the Exchange Act. The amendments also correct an erroneous cross-reference in rule 204-2, which prescribes recordkeeping requirements for investment advisers. Finally, the amendments insert inadvertently omitted Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) control numbers in 17 CFR 200.800, which is a rule that displays control numbers OMB has assigned to existing information collection requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Although the amendments are effective immediately, to the extent that registrants need additional time to conform to the amendments, they may take up to 90 days after the effective date to comply. 12 Given the nature of the amendments, a 90-day compliance period gives registrants adequate time to review these amendments and, if necessary, update their practices to reflect the corrections.

The Commission is adopting amendments to correct errors in Form N-MFP. Money market funds use Form N-MFP to report portfolio and other information to the Commission each month. Among the items required by Form N-MFP is the reporting of a money market fund's 7-day annualized gross and net yields. The form requires money market funds to report 7-day gross yield at the series level and 7-day net yield at the class level. 13 These standardized metrics give investors the ability to view the yield information of a money market fund over a recent time period, allowing investors to make better informed decisions and, in the aggregate, provide the Commission with useful data for identifying and monitoring trends in the money market fund sector.

In 2023, the Commission adopted a rulemaking that changed the frequency at which funds are required to report the 7-day yield information in their monthly reports on Form N-MFP to require 7-day gross and net yield data for each business day of the month (instead of only the 7 days ended on the last day of the month). 14

In making this frequency-related change, the phrase “business days” was erroneously inserted into the yield calculation formula in a way that inadvertently altered the calculation period from 7 calendar days to 7 business days. A 7-business day period is internally inconsistent with the remainder of the yield calculation formula, which uses a scaling factor intended to annualize yields calculated over 7 calendar days. If used with a 7-business day period, it would result in the reporting of inflated annual yields on Form N-MFP. 15 Based on a review of a sample of recent Form N-MFP filings, Commission staff has not observed any evidence of an increase in reported yield figures relative to yields reported in prior periods, suggesting that money market funds' yield calculations do not reflect the error. 16 In addition, in amending Form N-MFP in 2023, the phrase “immediately preceding” was inadvertently inserted into the yield calculation formula, such that the reporting day would not be included in the calculation. The amendments correct these errors, ensuring that Form N-MFP continues to reflect the longstanding method money market funds have used to calculate and report yield figures (measured over seven calendar days) to the Commission in Form N-MFP and in other contexts, including prospectuses, advertisements, and sales literature. 17

We are amending rule 482 to correct outdated cross-references and conform the risk statements that money market funds must include in their advertisements and sales literature to the risk statements that money market funds must include in their prospectuses. 18 Rule 482 applies to advertisements or other sales materials with respect to securities of an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act that is selling or proposing to sell its securities pursuant to a registration statement that has been filed under the Investment Company Act. 19 This rule describes the information that is required to be included in an advertisement, including a disclosure statement that must be used on money market fund advertisements. 20

In the Money Market Fund Reform Adopting Release, the Commission amended the risk statements that money market funds must include in their prospectuses to align with the changes to money market fund regulations adopted in that release ( e.g., the removal of provisions allowing temporary suspensions of redemptions and changes to the liquidity fee framework). However, rule 482 was not included in the amendments and the statements that rule 482 currently requires are inconsistent with the recently amended regulatory framework for money market funds. 21 Further, the risk statements that money market funds were required to include in prospectuses and advertisements have otherwise always been identical and the risk statements should not differ based on whether an investor is reviewing a prospectus or an advertisement. 22

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the San Diego Parade of Lights in San Diego Bay, CA in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 5 of that section from 5 p.m. until 8 p.m. on December 8, 2024, and on December 15, 2024. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the event. The Coast Guard's regulation for recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated entities and area for this event. During the enforcement periods and under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and local advertising by the event sponsor.

Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

Each state must formally adopt the control measures and strategies in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them and then submit the proposed SIP revisions to the EPA. Once these control measures and strategies are approved by the EPA, and after notice and comment, they are incorporated into the federally approved SIP and are identified in title 40 of part 52, “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The full text of the state regulation approved by the EPA is not reproduced in its entirety in 40 CFR part 52 but is “incorporated by reference.” This means that the EPA has approved a given state regulation or specified changes to the given regulation with a specific effective date. The public is referred to the location of the full text version should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP. The information provided allows the EPA and the public to monitor the extent to which a state implements a SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS and to take enforcement action for violations of the SIP.

The SIP is a living document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, the EPA from time to time must take action on proposed revisions containing new or revised state regulations. A submission from a state can revise one or more rules in their entirety, or portions of rules. The state indicates the changes in the submission (such as by using redline/strikethrough text) and the EPA then takes action on the requested changes. The EPA establishes a docket for its actions using a unique Docket Identification Number, which is listed in each action. These dockets and the complete submission are available for viewing on www.regulations.gov.

On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), the EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference, into the Code of Federal Regulations, materials approved by the EPA into each SIP. These changes revised the format for the identification of the SIP in 40 CFR part 52, streamlined the mechanisms for announcing the EPA approval of revisions to a SIP, and streamlined the mechanisms for the EPA's updating of the IBR information contained for each SIP in 40 CFR part 52. The revised procedures also called for the EPA to maintain “SIP Compilations” that contain the federally approved regulations and source-specific permits submitted by each state agency.

The EPA generally updates these SIP Compilations every few years. Under the revised procedures, the EPA must periodically publish an informational document in the rules section of the Federal Register notifying the public that updates have been made to a SIP Compilation for a particular state. The EPA began applying the 1997 revised procedures to the Idaho SIP on January 25, 2005 (70 FR 3479). The EPA subsequently published updates to the IBR materials for Idaho on December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76417), April 1, 2015 (80 FR 17333), and July 24, 2020 (85 FR 44741).

Since the last IBR update, the EPA approved and incorporated by reference regulatory materials into the Idaho SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(c) as described in the following paragraphs of this preamble.

1. Action on November 19, 2020 (85 FR 73632):

• IDAPA 58.01.01.006 (general air quality definitions), except section 006.49, 006.50, 006.51, 006.66, 006.67, 006.68.b, 006.116, and 006.118 (State effective 4/11/2019);

• IDAPA 58.01.01.107 (incorporation by reference of Federal standards), except section 107.03.f through 107.03.p (State effective 3/30/2020);

• IDAPA 58.01.01.221 (exemptions from permit to construct requirements for certain pollutants) (State effective 4/11/2019);

• IDAPA 58.01.01.222 (exemptions from permit to construct for certain sources) (State effective 4/11/2019); and

• IDAPA 58.01.01.404 (procedure for issuing permits) (State effective 4/11/2019).

2. Action on May 24, 2022 (87 FR 31429):

• IDAPA 58.01.01.107 (incorporation by reference of Federal standards), except section 107.03.f through 107.03.p (State effective 6/17/2021).

3. Action on March 29, 2023 (88 FR 18426):

• IDAPA 58.01.01.107 (incorporation by reference of Federal standards), except section 107.03.f through 107.03.p (State effective 3/24/2022).

4. Action on May 26, 2023 (88 FR 34091):

• Idaho Code section 39-107(1)(a) (board composition rules) (State effective 7/1/2022).

Since the last IBR update, the EPA also removed the following regulatory materials from the Idaho SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(c).

1. Action on November 19, 2020 (85 FR 73632):

• IDAPA 58.01.01.845 (rules for control of sulfur oxide emissions from sulfuric acid plants) (State effective 5/1/1994);

• IDAPA 58.01.01.846 (emission limits) (State effective 4/5/2000);

• IDAPA 58.01.01.847 (monitoring and testing requirements) (State effective 5/1/1994); and

• IDAPA 58.01.01.848 (compliance schedules) (State effective 4/5/2000).

2. Action on June 15, 2023 (88 FR 39177):

• Ada County Ordinance (motor vehicle emissions control ordinance) (county approval date 6/15/1999);

• City of Boise Ordinance (motor vehicle emissions control ordinance) (city approval date 7/20/1999);

• City of Eagle Ordinance (motor vehicle emissions control ordinance) (city approval date 4/27/1999);

• City of Garden City Ordinance (motor vehicle emission control ordinance) (most recently amended 8/13/1996); and

• City of Meridian Ordinance (motor vehicle emissions control ordinance) (city approval date 6/1/1999).

In this action, the EPA is providing notification of an update to the materials incorporated by reference into the Idaho SIP as of September 1, 2024, and identified in 40 CFR 52.670(c) and (d). This update includes SIP materials submitted by Idaho and approved by the EPA since the last IBR update. See 85 FR 44741 (July 24, 2020). In addition, The EPA is providing notification of the following corrections and clarifying changes to 40 CFR 52.670(c), (d), and (e):

1. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (c), “EPA approved regulations,” to read “EPA approved laws and regulations”;

2. Replacing the original table entitled “EPA Approved Idaho Regulations and Statutes” with three new tables entitled “Table 1 to Paragraph (c)—State Regulations”, “Table 2 to Paragraph (c)—State Statutes”, and “Table 3 to Paragraph (c)—City and County Codes and Ordinances”;

3. Sorting the entries from the original table into the three new tables;

4. Revising the undesignated heading “Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho” to read “Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01)”;

5. Adding back entries 121 and 122 that were removed in error in the action on November 19, 2020 (85 FR 73632); and

6. Correcting entries 221 and 222 that should have been revised in the action on November 19, 2020 (85 FR 73632).

1. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (d), “EPA approved State Source-specific requirements,” to read “EPA approved source-specific requirements”; and

2. Renaming the original table entitled “EPA Approved Idaho Source-Specific Requirements” to read “Table 4 to Paragraph (d)—State Source-Specific Requirements”.

1. Replacing the original table entitled “EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures” with two new tables entitled “Table 5 to Paragraph (e)—State Provisions Approved but not Incorporated by Reference”, “Table 6 to Paragraph (e)—State Attainment, Maintenance and Other Plans”;

2. Sorting and grouping the entries from the original table into the two new tables;

3. Correcting the entry for “Northern Ada County Air Quality Maintenance Area Second 10-year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan” to list the appropriate geographic area, “Northern Ada County”, instead of “state-wide”; and

4. Correcting the entry for “Regional Haze SIP Revision” to revise text in the explanations column that was included in error.

The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make an action effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This administrative action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs, makes corrections and clarifying changes to the tables in the CFR, and makes ministerial changes to the prefatory heading to the tables in the CFR. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment for this administrative action is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification (and corrections) only reflect existing law. Immediate notice of this action in the Federal Register benefits the public by providing the public notification of the updated Idaho SIP Compilation and notification of corrections to the Idaho “Identification of Plan” portion of the CFR. Further, pursuant to section 553(d)(3), making this action immediately effective benefits the public by immediately updating both the SIP Compilation and the CFR “Identification of plan” section (which includes table entry corrections).

In this document, The EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, The EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of regulations promulgated by Idaho, previously approved by the EPA and federally effective before September 1, 2024, contained in 40 CFR 52.670(c), EPA approved laws and regulations, and 40 CFR 52.670(d), EPA approved source-specific requirements, described in section II. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, The EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on and supplements Executive Order 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment.

The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Order 12898/14096 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The EPA also believes that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. This is because prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Idaho SIP Compilation previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, the EPA believes judicial review of this action under section 307(b)(1) is not available.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

This final rule is being issued under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9857 et seq. ), and section 418 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618).

In response to requests from Tribal Leaders and Tribal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Lead Agencies for more flexibility on family income eligibility to better meet community needs and to recent statutory changes to eligibility in the Tribal Head Start program, this final rule amends the CCDF regulations to provide all Tribal CCDF Lead Agencies the flexibility to serve Indian children (as defined by the Tribal Lead Agency) in their defined service area regardless of family income or assets. This final rule is also responsive to Executive Order 14112, Reforming Federal Funding and Support for Tribal Nations To Better Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and Promote the Next Era of Tribal Self-Determination, which directs agencies to “increase the accessibility, equity, flexibility, and utility of Federal funding.” This final rule provides Tribal Nations with more flexibility to better meet community needs, responds to calls for greater Tribal sovereignty and self-determination, and facilitates better alignment between Tribal CCDF and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Head Start programs.

The CCDBG Act (42 U.S.C. 9857 et seq. ), hereafter referred to as the “Act,” together with section 418 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618), authorize the CCDF program, which is the primary federal funding source to Tribes, States, and Territories devoted to supporting families access to child care and to increasing the quality of child care for all children. CCDF plays a vital role in supporting child development and family well-being; facilitating parent employment, training, and education; and improving the economic well-being of participating families. In fiscal year (FY) 2024, 264 Tribal Lead Agencies representing 546 federally recognized Tribal Nations received CCDF grants totaling nearly $600 million. 1 Annual Tribal CCDF awards range from $70,000 to $88 million per year.

The Act does not explicitly apply most of its provisions to the Tribal CCDF program, so with some exceptions and within certain parameters, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to determine many of the CCDF requirements for Tribal Lead Agencies, including the family income and assets eligibility requirements for children to receive services from Tribal CCDF programs. Previous Tribal CCDF regulations included different family income and assets eligibility requirements and flexibilities based on a Tribal Lead Agency's award allocation size in FY 2016. Tribal Lead Agencies who had allocations under $250,000 in 2016 (155 Tribal Lead Agencies) could serve any Indian child (as defined by the Tribal Lead Agency) in their defined service area, regardless of family income or assets. However, Tribal Lead Agencies with allocations above $250,000 in 2016 were subject to the same CCDF income and assets eligibility standard as States, set forth at § 98.20(a)(2), which meant that family income could not be more than 85 percent of Grantee Median Income (GMI) and family assets could not exceed $1 million.

This final rule extends the existing flexibility for Tribal Lead Agencies with small allocations to disregard family income and assets in determining family eligibility for CCDF to all Tribal Lead Agencies. All Tribal CCDF Lead Agencies may continue to use family income and/or assets criteria for eligibility at their option, but it will no longer be a requirement. Tribal Lead Agencies choosing to use family income or assets criteria for eligibility would have the flexibility to determine the appropriate threshold for their Nation. This final rule does not alter existing flexibilities that permit Tribal Lead Agencies with medium and large allocations to apply categorical eligibility criteria for families under certain conditions.

This final rule will benefit Tribal Nations by better aligning family income eligibility rules in the Tribal CCDF with Head Start programs and providing necessary flexibility to determine how early childhood program family income or assets determinations can best support their communities. This alignment is particularly salient because many American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) Head Start grant recipients administer a Tribal CCDF program. At the request of Tribal Nations and the Biden-Harris Administration, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 118-47, Div. D, Tit. II, Sec. 238) included changes to AIAN Head Start eligibility criteria, to make eligible for Head Start services all age-eligible children in an AIAN program's service area regardless of income. The Head Start Act, unlike the CCDBG Act, required legislative action to make this change.

This final rule will become effective on the date of publication to expedite Tribal Lead Agencies' ability to implement the flexibilities included in this final rule.

The provisions of this final rule are intended to be severable, such that, in the event a court were to invalidate any particular provision or deem it to be unenforceable, the remaining provisions would continue to be valid.

ACF published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on July 16, 2024, (89 FR 57835) proposing revisions to CCDF regulations. We provided a 60-day comment period during which interested parties could submit comments in writing electronically.

ACF received 18 comments on the proposed rule (public comments on the proposed rule are available for review on www.regulations.gov ), including Tribal Nations and Tribal organizations, a state CCDF Lead Agency, non-profit and research organizations, parents, and individual members of the public. Public comments informed the development of content for this final rule.

Tribal consultation and comments. ACF is committed to consulting with Tribal Nations prior to promulgating any regulation that has Tribal implications. ACF held a formal consultation session virtually in August 2024 with Tribal leaders and authorized representatives to discuss the impact of the proposed regulations on Tribes. Tribes and Tribal organizations were informed of these events through formal letters to Tribal leaders and announcements to Tribal CCDF administrators. ACF also distributed materials specifically addressing the impact of the proposed rule on Tribes. ACF will publish a consultation report, which will be posted as a supplemental document in the Federal Register and will include information on consultation attendees as well as their specific comments. During consultation, ACF received testimony from one authorized representative who expressed strong support for the proposed change. This final rule was informed by this testimony.

In addition, prior to the development of the NPRM, OCC sought feedback from Tribal Nations and other interested parties on areas where more flexibility and/or different program rules would better serve children, families, and Tribal Nations through a formal Request for Information (RFI), published in the Federal Register at 88 FR 48409 (July 27, 2023). Through the RFI process, many Tribal Lead Agencies expressed support for changing eligibility requirements so they can serve Indian children (as defined by the Tribal Lead Agency), regardless of family income. OCC also received feedback on the need for flexibility in eligibility determination at the ACF Tribal Early Childhood Consultation held in July 2024. This final rule was informed by this feedback.

This final rule maintains the structure and organization of the current CCDF regulations. Where language of previous regulations remains unchanged, the preamble explanation and interpretation of that language published with all prior final rules also is retained, unless specifically modified in the preamble to this rule. (See 57 FR 34352, Aug. 4, 1992; 63 FR 39936, Jul. 24, 1998; 72 FR 27972, May 18, 2007; 72 FR 50889, Sep. 5, 2007; 81 FR 67438, Sept. 30, 2016; 89 FR 15366, Mar. 1, 2024).

This final rule amends § 98.81(b)(1) to provide all CCDF Tribal Lead Agencies the flexibility to determine family eligibility for CCDF without regard to family income and assets. Specifically, the rule revises § 98.81(b)(1)(ii) so that all Tribal Lead Agencies may disregard family income and assets requirements described in § 98.20(a)(2), while retaining the ability for Tribal Lead Agencies with a Tribal median income below a level determined by the Secretary to deem any child in their service area categorically eligible, regardless of work, or training status. Previously, the 40 percent of Tribal Lead Agencies with medium and large allocations were subject to the requirements at § 98.20(a)(2) that children must be in families with incomes below 85 percent Grantee Median Income (GMI) and with assets under $1 million to be eligible for CCDF. Tribes with small allocations were already exempt from the requirements at § 98.20(a)(2). Extending the flexibility to serve any Indian child in the service area regardless of family income or assets to all Tribal Lead Agencies gives the Lead Agencies the authority to better meet the needs of Tribal Nations and their communities and supports Tribal sovereignty and self-determination. It also creates better opportunities for Tribes to align CCDF programs with other Tribal early childhood programs, including Tribal home visiting, Early Head Start, Head Start preschool, and tribally or state funded preschool.

The new flexibility included in this final rule is at the option of the Tribal Lead Agency. Therefore, Tribal Lead Agencies with medium and large allocations may choose to continue using income and/or assets when determining if a child is eligible for CCDF. Tribal Lead Agencies who choose to keep income and/or assets as eligibility criteria are not limited to setting the income threshold at or below 85 percent GMI, or an asset limit at $1 million and may set these thresholds higher.

This final rule does not make any other changes to Tribal CCDF regulations. No other changes were made to family eligibility rules, including existing Tribal categorical eligibility flexibilities, which remain unchanged.

Comment: Commenters unanimously expressed support for the proposed change to provide all Tribal Lead Agencies the flexibility to serve all Indian children (as defined by the Lead Agency) in their service area regardless of family income or assets. Commenters noted that the change is a step toward promoting Tribal sovereignty and enabling Tribal Nations to implement the CCDF program in a way that meets the unique needs of each community. They also noted that the change better aligns with eligibility rules of other early childhood programs, including Head Start, which may lead to more inclusive and equitable services for Native families.

Response: We acknowledge that commenters supported the proposed change and agree that this change supports Tribal sovereignty and have retained the provision as proposed with one minor addition to clarify that Tribal Lead Agencies may disregard eligibility requirements for assets, in addition to those required for income, which has always been the intent of the rule.

Comment: While all commenters supported the change, some noted that all Tribal Lead Agencies may not have the funding to serve all Indian children in their service areas.

Response: This regulatory change provides a new flexibility for all Tribal Lead Agencies. The rule does not impact Congressionally appropriated funds or Tribal CCDF allocations. Disregarding income and assets as eligibility criteria is an option for Tribal Lead Agencies, not a requirement. Tribal Lead Agencies have flexibility to establish income and asset requirements that balance the needs of the community and resources available.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., as amended), 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. As required by this Act, we will submit all revised data collection requirements to OMB for review and approval.

The final rule modifies the previously approved ACF-118-A CCDF Tribal Plan information collection (OMB #0970-0198). ACF initiated the process to receive OMB approval to revise and extend approval of the ACF-118-A CCDF Tribal Plan. This began with the initial 60-day comment period, which started on July 2, 2024, (89 FR 54827) and the first comment period ended on September 3, 2024. ACF will include the changes that result from this final rule in the revision request that is submitted to OMB for review and approval. This includes updates to the information collection and the associated burden estimates. This process will include publication of a second Federal Register notice soliciting public comments over a 30-day period on the revisions to the ACF-118-A CCDF Tribal Plan.

The table below provides current approved annual burden hours and estimated annual burden hours for these existing information collections that are modified by this final rule.

We did not receive any public comments on these burden estimates, which were included in the NPRM.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (see 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act) requires federal agencies to determine, to the extent feasible, a rule's impact on small entities, explore regulatory options for reducing any significant impact on a substantial number of such entities, and explain their regulatory approach. The term “small entities,” as defined in the RFA, comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. HHS considers a rule to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities if it has at least a 3 percent impact on revenue on at least 5 percent of small entities. The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the RFA (Pub. L. 96-354), that this rulemaking will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as this rulemaking primarily impacts tribes receiving federal CCDF grants. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this document.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2024 the threshold is approximately $183 million. This final rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $183 million per year. Therefore, ACF is not required to provide a statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, of the impacts of the changes.

Executive Order 13132 requires federal agencies to consult with State and local government officials if they develop regulatory policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the people. This rulemaking does not have substantial direct impact on the States, on the relationship between the federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000 requires federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. HHS believes it is not necessary to prepare a family policymaking assessment (see Pub. L. 105-277) because the action it takes in this final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.

We have examined the impacts of the rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the UMRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all benefits, costs, and transfers of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. This final rule has, however, been designated “a significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Of the nearly $600 million appropriated for 264 Tribal Lead Agencies in FY 2024, approximately $422 million was allocated to grantees that already have discretion to take-up the flexibilities included in this rule. The remaining $173 million is allocated to Tribal Lead Agencies that could be impacted by the change included in this rule. Further, these Tribal Lead Agencies have discretion on whether to adopt this flexibility based on their unique needs. This final rule does not stipulate any new requirements.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires agencies to consult with Indian tribes when regulations have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The discussion in sections III and IV of the preamble serves as the Tribal impact statement and contains a detailed description of the consultation and outreach in this final rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend 45 CFR part 98 as follows:

Congress delegated certain powers to regulate interstate commerce to DOT in numerous pieces of legislation, most notably in section 6 of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) (Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931, 937, Oct. 15, 1966). Section 6 of the DOT Act transferred to DOT the authority of the former Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate the qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees, the safety of operations, and the equipment, of motor carriers in interstate commerce (80 Stat. 939). This authority, first granted to the ICC in the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (Pub. L. 74-255, 49 Stat. 543, Aug. 9, 1935), now appears in 49 U.S.C. chapter 315. The regulations issued under this authority, as well as subsequently enacted laws, became known as the FMCSRs, codified at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 350-399. The administrative powers to enforce chapter 315 (codified in 49 U.S.C. chapter 5) were also transferred from the ICC to DOT in 1966, assigned first to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and then to FMCSA. The FMCSA Administrator, whose powers and duties are set forth in 49 U.S.C. 113, has been delegated authority by the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) under 49 CFR 1.81 to prescribe regulations and to exercise authority over and with respect to any personnel within the organization, and under 49 CFR 1.87 to carry out the motor carrier functions vested in the Secretary.

Between 1984 and 1999, enforcement of the FMCSRs, the Hazardous Materials Regulations, and the Commercial Regulations was added to FHWA's authority. The statutes granting these authorities include the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, Oct. 30, 1984), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapter III; the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170, Oct. 27, 1986), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 313; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990, as amended (Pub. L. 101-615, 104 Stat. 3244, Nov. 16, 1990), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 51; the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-143, Title V, 105 Stat. 917, 952, Oct. 28, 1991), codified at 49 U.S.C. 31306; the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, Dec. 29, 1995), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapters 131-149; and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, June 9, 1998).

The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, Dec. 9, 1999) established FMCSA as a new operating administration within DOT, effective January 1, 2000, and transferred authorities specifically related to commercial motor vehicle safety to FMCSA. Accordingly, since that time the motor carrier safety, and certain commercial, responsibilities previously assigned to both the ICC and FHWA have been the jurisdiction of FMCSA. These responsibilities also include regulations relating to section 18 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4917, which were originally assigned to the Secretary of Transportation (Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1249, Oct. 27, 1972) and delegated to FHWA (39 FR 7791, Feb. 28, 1974), and are now the jurisdiction of FMCSA, as codified at 49 U.S.C. 113(f)(1). 1

Congress subsequently expanded, modified, and amended FMCSA's authority in the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, Oct. 26, 2001); the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug. 10, 2005); the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572, June 6, 2008); the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, July 6, 2012); Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, Dec. 4, 2015); and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, Nov. 15, 2021).

The specific regulations amended by this rule are based on the statutes detailed above. Generally, the legal authority for each of those provisions was explained when the requirement was originally adopted and is noted at the beginning of each part in Title 49 of the CFR.

The APA specifically provides exceptions to its notice and comment rulemaking procedures when an agency finds there is good cause to dispense with them, and incorporates the finding, and a brief statement of reasons therefore, in the rules issued (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). Good cause exists when an agency determines that notice and public comment procedures are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The amendments made in this final rule primarily correct inadvertent errors and omissions, remove or update obsolete references, and make minor language changes to improve clarity and consistency. The technical amendments do not impose any new material requirements or increase compliance obligations. For these reasons, FMCSA finds good cause that notice and public comment on this final rule are unnecessary.

In addition to amendments that fall within the APA good cause exception, this rule also contains amendments that fall within the APA exception for rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. Specifically, the Agency amends 49 CFR 387.307(e) to align with the service rules in part 386 and to specify the same procedures for Agency review of documents filed by brokers notified of a pending suspension of operating authority due to insufficient financial responsibility as are followed by the Agency when such brokers file documents in support of a reinstatement from suspension. These amendments fall within the exception to the APA's notice and comment rulemaking procedures for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice,” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)) because the procedures for filing such documents are already specified in § 387.307(e) and so are made clearer with this amendment. Similarly, an amendment to part 389 also concerns matters of Agency policy. These changes are therefore excepted from the notice and public comment requirements.

The APA also allows agencies to make rules effective immediately with good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)), instead of requiring publication 30 days prior to the effective date. For the reasons already stated, FMCSA finds there is good cause for this rule to be effective immediately.

This rule contains numerous, unrelated provisions that focus on unique aspects of FMCSA's regulations. Therefore, FMCSA finds that the various provisions of this final rule are severable and able to operate functionally if severed from each other. In the event a court were to invalidate one or more of this final rule's unique provisions, the remaining provisions should stand.

FMCSA amends part 350 to eliminate the current question-and-answer format in favor of standard styling. Thus, all section headings that are phrased as questions will be rephrased as brief descriptive phrases pertaining to the section's content. However, unless specifically described below, this change does not affect the body text of the regulations in this part. FMCSA makes this change because it has determined that the question-and-answer format is cumbersome, difficult to read, and may cause confusion. Moreover, in several instances the title of a section is styled as a question, but the regulatory text does not provide a concise answer to the question asked, somewhat defeating the purpose of the question-and-answer style.

Part 350 previously had section headings styled as brief descriptive phrases, rather than questions, until 2000. That year, FMCSA issued a final rule that comprehensively revised part 350 (65 FR 15092 (March 21, 2000)). The revisions included a series of stylistic changes described in the NPRM: question and answer format, the active voice, and “Plain English” (64 FR 11414, 11416 (March 9, 1999)). The Agency intended for the stylistic changes to logically organize the regulations, clearly format the regulations, and make the regulations easily understood. The Agency continues to pursue these goals when drafting regulations and adopts active voice and “Plain English” where practical, in new and revised regulations, to achieve these goals. However, the Agency no longer uses a question-and-answer format in new and revised regulations. Most of the FMCSRs, and most federal regulations generally, use a short descriptive phrase for section headings instead of a question-and-answer format. Therefore, the Agency amends each section heading in part 350 to use a short descriptive phrase. FMCSA is also making other amendments to part 350, which are described below.

In addition to revising the title of § 350.305 to use a short descriptive phrase, FMCSA amends the section by adding an introductory sentence specifying that these variances are for State laws and regulations applicable to intrastate commerce and not subject to Federal jurisdiction.

FMCSA also revises § 350.305(d)(3) to eliminate the reference to a 100-air mile radius under § 395.1(e)(1)(i) because it is no longer correct. The regulations in part 350 relate to MCSAP funding, and § 350.305 describes allowable variances in state laws and regulations for States receiving MCSAP funding. Each State that receives MSCAP funds must adopt and enforce laws, regulations, standards, and orders on CMV safety for intrastate commerce that are compatible with the FMCSRs. However, since the early days of MCSAP, some variances for intrastate operations have been allowed. On September 8, 1992, FHWA published what previously had been informal intrastate variances as appendix C to part 350. Section 3(e) provided that exemptions based on the distance traveled from the home terminal were not compatible. However, the prohibition did not apply to exemptions already in the FMCSRs or to the extension of the short-haul mileage exemption for driver hours of service from 100 to 150 miles (57 FR 40946, 40962; Sept. 8, 1992). The short-haul mileage exemption has been placed in several different sections of the CFR over time; it was located in § 350.341(d) prior to moving to its current location in § 350.305(d)(3) when part 350 was rewritten in 2020 (85 FR 37785, 37804; June 24, 2020). The current short-haul mileage exemption references the short-haul mile radius in the hours-of-service regulations, § 395.1(e)(1)(i). On June 1, 2020, FMCSA revised regulations relating to driver hours of service and extended the short-haul exemption in § 395.1(e)(1)(i) to 150 air-miles, effective September 29, 2020 (85 FR 33396, 33451).

Although the allowed air-mile radius is currently the same in §§ 350.305(d)(3) and 395.1(e)(1)(i), it is nevertheless possible that the radius specified in § 395.1(e)(1)(i) could be either expanded or contracted at some time in the future. To correct the discrepancy that currently exists in the regulation while avoiding unintentional effects on the intrastate variance, FMCSA revises § 350.305(d)(3) to read as follows: “A 150-air mile radius or the air mile radius under § 395.1(e)(1)(i) of this subchapter, whichever is greater.” The revision affords States the benefit of any future expansion of the air-mile radius in § 395.1(e)(1)(i) and also protects against a decrease of the long-standing 150-mile intrastate variance without full consideration of the impact of any change on intrastate commerce through notice and comment rulemaking. Therefore, there is no substantive impact from this revision.

Section 369.1 requires certain motor carriers to file the Motor Carrier Annual Report Form M (Form M) with the Agency. The website address provided in § 369.1(b), where the Agency has made Form M available, is no longer valid. FMCSA amends § 369.1(b) to provide a correct website address for Form M and to update the phrasing of the regulation to avoid using the word “you.”

Section 369.4 requires certain motor carriers of passengers to file the Motor Carrier Annual Report Form MP-1 for Motor Carriers of Passengers (Form MP-1). However, this section does not provide a website address where the form is available. FMCSA amends § 369.4(c) to provide a website address where the form is available for the convenience of motor carriers of passengers.

Section 371.2 provides definitions that apply to FMCSA's property broker regulations in Part 371. FMCSA amends § 371.2 to format the definitions as a list of terms without paragraphs rather than providing the definition for each term in a separate paragraph. The definitions are unchanged by this amendment. This format conforms to the format of other definition sections in Chapter III, Subchapter B, such as § 390.5T, and guidance from the Office of the Federal Register's Document Drafting Handbook (3-33).

Section 380.301 contains general requirements for longer combination vehicle driver-instructors. FMCSA amends the introductory text of § 380.301 to avoid using the word “you,” and thereby clarify to whom the regulation applies.

Section 380.723 describes the procedures for removing a training provider from FMCSA's Training Provider Registry, including processes FMCSA follows when it removes a training provider from the registry. In § 380.723, paragraph (b) explains that FMCSA begins the involuntary removal process by issuing a written notice to the provider, and paragraph (c) explains that if the provider wishes to remain on the registry, they must submit a written response to FMCSA within 30 days. Paragraph (c) also explains that the provider can either oppose the notice of proposed removal or take corrective action within 60 days. FMCSA amends paragraph (c) to provide clarification on the timelines for provider responses, as the current regulation may be confusing for providers who choose to take corrective action in response to a notification of proposed removal. Providers that intend to take corrective action must still submit the initial written response described in paragraph (c) within 30 days of the notification. Further, these providers are still required to submit evidence of corrective action in accordance with (c)(2)(i).

FMCSA also amends section § 380.723 to replace the word “notice” with the word “notification” wherever it refers to a communication from FMCSA to a training provider, as this section also uses the word “notice” to refer to Federal Register notices. This change will improve the clarity and readability of the section.

Lastly, FMCSA amends § 380.723(c)(2)(i) to correct an error from a previous amendment. When paragraph (c)(2)(i) was established, it described a 60-day time period that began either on the date the notice of proposed removal was issued or on the date when FMCSA's Director of the Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety Standards subsequently affirmed or modified the notice of proposed removal (81 FR 88732, 88793, Dec. 8, 2016). FMCSA later amended the section, with the intention to remove the reference to that particular director and replace it with a reference to FMCSA (86 FR 57060, 57062, Oct. 14, 2021). Although the word “Director” was removed, it was not replaced with “FMCSA,” and FMCSA now corrects that inadvertent error by adding the word “FMCSA” in the appropriate place.

Part 381 covers waiver and exemptions from the FMCSRs, and § 381.210 sets out the process for requesting a waiver and the required contents of the request. The regulations in § 381.210 are authorized by 49 U.S.C. 31315, which is titled “Waivers, exemptions, and pilot programs.” The authorizing statute requires certain contents in a waiver request, and while the regulation also requires these contents so that it aligns with the statute, the requirements are phrased differently. The statute requires that a person requesting a waiver explain how, if granted a waiver, they would likely achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety as compared to the level of safety they would achieve absent the waiver. Section 381.210 describes this as a requirement that the person requesting a waiver explain how they would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation. Though this framing of the requirement has the same effect, FMCSA revises § 381.210 to use the phrasing from the authorizing statute, to avoid any confusion.

Section 381.310 sets out the process for requesting an exemption, and FMCSA amends it to better align with the authorizing statute, as with § 381.210. The authorizing statute, 49 U.S.C. 31315, requires that a person requesting an exemption explain how they would likely achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety as compared to the level of safety they would achieve absent the exemption. Section 381.210 describes this as a requirement that the person requesting an exemption explain how they would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation. Though this framing of the requirement has the same effect, FMCSA revises § 381.310 to use the phrasing from the authorizing statute, to avoid any confusion.

Section 381.505 sets out the requirement for a pilot program, and FMCSA amends it to better align with the authorizing statute, as with §§ 381.210 and 381.310. The authorizing statute, 49 U.S.C. 31315, requires that FMCSA ensure that the pilot program is designed to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would otherwise be achieved through compliance with the applicable regulations. Section 381.210 describes this as a requirement to ensure that the program is designed to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved by complying with the regulations. Again, though this framing of the requirement has the same effect, FMCSA revises § 381.505 to use the phrasing from the authorizing statute, to avoid any confusion.

Section 382.101 sets out the purpose of part 382 and in doing so, uses the term “commercial motor vehicles.” In later sections of part 382, the term is abbreviated as “CMV,” and so FMCSA revises § 382.101 to provide the abbreviation for “commercial motor vehicle(s)” where it is first used in the part.

Section 382.103 provides the applicability of the controlled substances and alcohol use and testing regulations in part 382. The section cross-references §§ 390.3(f) and 390.5, which are currently suspended. FMCSA revises § 382.103 to cross-reference the equivalent temporary sections §§ 390.3T(f) and 390.5T.

Section 382.107 defines terms that are used in the controlled substances and alcohol use and testing regulations in part 382. The introductory text of § 382.107 cross-references § 390.5, which is currently suspended. FMCSA revises § 382.107 to cross-reference the equivalent temporary section § 390.5T.

One of the terms defined in § 382.107 is “commercial motor vehicle,” which is abbreviated to “CMV” in the definition of “actual knowledge” in the same section and in the table for § 382.303(a) and (b). FMCSA amends the definition of “commercial motor vehicle” in § 382.107 to add the definition, for clarity.

Section 382.413 requires employers to request alcohol and controlled substances information from the previous employers of their employees. The section references 49 CFR 40.25, titled “Must an employer check on the drug and alcohol testing record of employees it is intending to use to perform safety-sensitive duties?” for specific requirements of the inquiry process. The same requirements are covered within the FMCSRs in § 391.23(e), and so FMCSA amends § 382.413 to reference § 391.23(e) rather than § 40.25, for ease of reference. The amendment also enables paragraph (a) to be simplified. Although paragraph (a) references § 40.25 for the inquiry requirements, it adds that the required time frame for the inquiry of previous employers is 3 years, rather than the 2 years specified in § 40.25. Section 391.23(e) requires a 3-year time frame, and by referencing that section rather than § 40.25, paragraph (a) no longer needs to specify a different time frame.

FMCSA revises § 382.501(b) to replace the semicolon after “functions” with a comma. This is a punctuation correction.

Section 382.601 requires employers provide educational materials explaining the alcohol and controlled substances regulations in part 382. The materials are required to cover the post-accident testing requirements, and in stating this requirement, § 382.601 references § 382.303(d). FMCSA amends § 382.601 to change these cross-references to instead reference § 382.303 as a whole because there are post-accident testing requirements in other paragraphs of § 382.303 as well.

FMCSA revises § 383.141(b) to change “state” to “State”, to conform with the capitalization used throughout the rest of part 383.

FMCSA amends section 384.405 to align the regulatory requirements with the statutory requirements. Specifically, paragraph (a) of the regulation uses permissive language, stating that the Administrator may prohibit a State found to be in substantial noncompliance from performing certain CLP or CDL transactions, and sets out the conditions the Administrator should consider when making a decertification determination. However, 49 U.S.C. 31312 uses mandatory language, stating, “the Secretary shall issue an order” to prohibit States from carrying out licensing procedures and issuing CDLs if there is a determination of substantial noncompliance.

The regulatory history does not clearly indicate why there is a discrepancy between the statutory text and the regulatory text. It is clear from the statute that the Administrator is required to prohibit noncompliant states from engaging in the enumerated CLP and CDL transactions. FMCSA therefore replaces the word “may” in paragraph (a) with the word “shall,” to harmonize the regulation with the statutory text.

As with part 350, FMCSA also revises part 385, subparts C, D, and E, to eliminate the current question-and-answer format in favor of standard styling. This set of revisions includes revisions to the currently suspended §§ 385.301, 385.303, 385.305, 385.329, 385.405, 385.409, 385.419, and 385.421 to mirror the amendments made to the corresponding temporary sections. All section headings that are phrased as questions will be rephrased as brief descriptive phrases pertaining to the section's content, but the body text of the regulations is unchanged unless otherwise stated below. FMCSA's reasoning for making this change in part 385 is the same as for part 350. As used in these regulations, the question-and-answer format is cumbersome, difficult to read, and may cause confusion, and the Agency finds the regulations are clearer and more useful when standard styling is used. FMCSA also makes other amendments to part 385, which are described below.

In addition to revising the heading of § 385.205 to be a short descriptive phrase, FMCSA also amends the section by moving the context for the regulation's requirements from the heading to the body of the regulation, in order to clarify the regulation.

In addition to revising the heading of § 385.407 to be a short descriptive phrase, FMCSA also makes a clarifying revision to the section by adding paragraph (a)(2)(iv) regarding the requirement for carriers to maintain the minimum financial responsibility required by § 387.9 in order to receive a safety permit. This addition does not impose new burdens on carriers because 49 CFR part 387 already imposes financial responsibility requirements on motor carriers, including hazardous materials carriers, and these requirements are referenced in the safety fitness standard described in § 385.5. Safety permits and financial responsibility are already linked by § 385.407(a), which requires achieving a “satisfactory” safety rating as a prerequisite for issuance of a safety permit, and § 385.421T(a)(8), which specifies that failure to maintain the minimum required financial responsibility is grounds for suspending or revoking a safety permit. This revision will eliminate confusion and ensure consistency between these regulations.

In addition to revising the heading of § 385.409 to be a short descriptive phrase, FMCSA also amends the section by removing the paragraph heading of § 385.409(a), which is unnecessary given the revised section heading. Although this section is currently suspended, FMCSA is amending it to mirror the amendments to temporary regulation § 385.409T.

In addition to revising the heading of § 385.409T to be a short descriptive phrase, FMCSA also amends the section by removing the paragraph heading of § 385.409T(a), which is unnecessary given the revised section heading.

In addition to revising the heading of § 385.411 to be a short descriptive phrase, FMCSA also amends the section by moving the context for the regulation's requirements from the heading to the body of the regulation, in order to clarify the regulation. Finally, § 385.411 contains a cross-reference to § 385.405, which is currently suspended, and FMCSA amends the section to reference § 385.405T instead.

In addition to revising the heading of § 385.413 to be a short descriptive phrase, FMCSA also amends the section by moving the context for the regulation's requirements from the heading to the body of the regulation, in order to clarify the regulation.

Part 385 covers FMCSA's safety fitness procedures, and appendix B to part 385 provides an explanation of the safety rating process. Within appendix B, section III.B. explains that proposed safety ratings of “conditional” and “unsatisfactory” will become final 45 days after they are received, and the explanation uses the word “you.” The use of the word “you” is unnecessary and may cause confusion, therefore FMCSA amends the appendix to avoid using it in this instance.

FMCSA revises § 387.307(e)(5) and (6) to clarify that a broker's or freight forwarder's operating authority registration will be suspended 7 business days after the date a notice of pending suspension is served, not 7 business days after the date printed on the notice. This aligns with the Agency's service rules in part 386 and ensures that, when service is accomplished by mail, brokers and freight forwarders will receive the additional 5 days prescribed in § 386.8(c) to file a response before the suspension takes effect.

FMCSA also revises § 387.307(e)(5) to clarify the Agency's review process when a broker submits information in response to notification from the Agency that the broker's operating authority is pending suspension for failure to maintain adequate financial security. When this rule was issued on November 16, 2023 (88 FR 78656), the procedures specified in § 387.307(e)(6), which apply when a broker seeks reinstatement of its operating authority after being suspended, were also intended to apply to § 387.307(e)(5). However, due to a drafting error, the sentence “FMCSA will consider such evidence and provide written notice to the broker of its determination” was omitted from § 387.307(e)(5). FMCSA is therefore adding this sentence to § 387.307(e)(5), to reflect that the Agency's obligation to review evidence a broker submits and provide a response is consistent, regardless of whether the Agency receives information prior to a suspension or after a suspension has occurred.

Section 389.13(a) describes how the Administrator may initiate a rulemaking, paragraph (b) describes certain steps the Administrator must take when promulgating a major rule, and paragraph (c) describes exceptions to the requirements of paragraph (b). The last sentence of paragraph (c) explains when a proposed rule should be evaluated to determine whether 49 CFR 5.17 applies. Section 5.17 was a former regulation in the CFR titled “Special procedures for economically significant and high-impact rulemakings” and was removed in the final rule “Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures” published on April 2, 2021 (86 FR 17292). When § 5.17 was removed, § 389.13 should have been amended to remove the last sentence of paragraph (c). FMCSA corrects this oversight by amending § 389.13 to remove the reference to § 5.17.

FMCSA adds a new section that sets forth the Agency's policy on the severability of regulatory provisions in its final rules. Rules often address numerous provisions that are not inextricably intertwined. Therefore, FMCSA generally considers such provisions to be severable, meaning that if any provision in a rule is later held to be invalid, the remainder of the rule is not affected. If provisions of a rule are so inextricably intertwined that the invalidation of one provision would affect another, FMCSA generally explains the relationship between those provisions in the rule's preamble. Adding this section will improve rulemaking efficiency by allowing FMCSA to cite to the regulation in future rulemakings. Because this new section relates to Agency policy and practice, notice and comment is not required in order for the Agency to codify these practices in a new section of the regulations.

As with part 350, FMCSA also revises part 390, subpart C, to eliminate the current question-and-answer format in favor of standard styling. This set of revisions includes a revision to the currently suspended § 390.40 to mirror the amendment made to the corresponding temporary section. All section headings that are phrased as questions will be rephrased as brief descriptive phrases pertaining to the section's content, but the body text of the regulations is unchanged unless otherwise stated below. FMCSA's reasoning for making this change in part 390 is the same as for part 350. As used in these regulations, the question-and-answer format is cumbersome, difficult to read, and may cause confusion, and the Agency finds the regulations are clearer and more useful when standard styling is used. FMCSA also makes other amendments to part 390, which are described below.

Section 390.27 provides the addresses of the motor carrier safety service centers. FMCSA revises § 390.27 to change the address of the Midwestern Service Center from 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 300A, Matteson, Illinois 60443 to 600 Holiday Plaza Drive, Suite 240, Matteson, Illinois 60443. The Midwestern Service Center moved in May 2024, requiring this update to the address.

In addition to revising the heading of § 390.44 to be a short descriptive phrase, FMCSA also amends the section to relocate the context for the regulation's requirements from the heading to the body.

Subpart D of part 390 covers the medical examiner certification requirements for qualified Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examiners, and § 390.125 requires that they complete certain training as part of the certification process. In June 2018, FMCSA adopted a rule that created an alternative process for certain VA healthcare professionals to be listed on the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (National Registry) (83 FR 26846, June 11, 2018). At the time, VA and FMCSA had planned to deliver the training through a web-based system operated by VA. Since that time, the technological capabilities of the National Registry system have been enhanced. Accordingly, VA and FMCSA now plan to deliver the training via the National Registry system, which will be more convenient for the qualified VA examiners. FMCSA revises § 390.125 to reflect this change in training delivery.

Section 390.127 requires that qualified VA examiners pass the medical examiner certification test as part of the certification process. Similar to the training required by § 390.125, the test was previously planned to be administered through a web-based system operated by VA. Because of the enhanced National Registry system capabilities, VA and FMCSA now plan to deliver the testing via the National Registry system, which will be more convenient for the qualified VA examiners. FMCSA revises § 390.127 to reflect this change in test administration.

FMCSA revises § 391.45(c) to change “intra-city” to “intracity,” to conform the styling of the term with its use in other FMCSRs, including § 390.5T, “Definitions.”

FMCSA amends § 391.49(d)(3)(i)(B) and (d)(3)(ii)(C) to clarify the meaning, effect, and effective date of the current requirement that individuals must be capable of demonstrating precision prehension and power grasp prehension with each upper limb separately to be eligible for a skill performance evaluation (SPE) certificate issued by FMCSA. An SPE certificate allows individuals who do not meet FMCSA's physical qualification standards in § 391.41(b)(1) for limb loss or (b)(2) for limb impairment to operate a CMV in interstate commerce subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations provided on the certificate.

On December 5, 1985, FHWA published a final rule amending § 391.49 to incorporate its policy that required an individual with upper limb loss or impairment “to be capable of demonstrating precision prehension . . . and power grasp prehension . . . in each upper limb separately” (50 FR 49849). FHWA indicated that the requirement was based on the technical expertise and rehabilitation experiences of the personnel of the Krusen Center for Research and Engineering, which developed a report in 1977 for FHWA titled “Limb Prosthetics for the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety”  2 (Krusen Study) (50 FR at 49850-51).

The term prehension is commonly defined to mean the act of taking hold, seizing, or grasping. 3 The more specific medical terms precision prehension and power grasp prehension were used in the regulation to communicate clearly and effectively with the medical professionals who state whether an individual is capable of demonstrating precision prehension and power grasp prehension; however, these medical terms often are not understood by individuals applying for SPE certificates.

The Krusen Study explains the terms in the context of a hand on page II-2 as follows:

Accordingly, demonstrating power grasp prehension requires use of the palm and fingers/thumb of a hand, while demonstrating precision prehension requires use of the fingers/thumb of a hand.

FHWA stated that the effect of the requirement that an individual must be capable of demonstrating precision prehension and power grasp prehension in each upper limb separately was that individuals with loss of a hand or arm will be required to be properly fitted with a functional prosthesis and be proficient in its use prior to applying for a waiver  4 (50 FR at 49849 and 49851). Individuals with upper limb impairment will be required to be fitted with a functional orthotic device and be proficient in its use prior to applying to a waiver, if the individual is not capable of demonstrating precision prehension and power grasp prehension in each upper limb separately without a device (50 FR at 49849 and 49851). Although FHWA included in the regulation that the requirement that an individual must be capable of demonstrating precision prehension and power grasp prehension in each upper limb separately does not apply to an individual who was granted a waiver absent a prosthetic or orthotic device prior to the 1985 amendment, FMCSA has determined that individuals applying for an SPE certificate would benefit from a clearer statement of the effect of the requirement.

For the reasons provided above, FMCSA clarifies § 391.49(d)(3)(i)(B) by changing the explanation of precision prehension from “( e.g., manipulating knobs and switches)” to “( e.g., grasping and manipulating knobs and switches using the fingers/thumb)” and by changing the explanation of power grasp prehension from “( e.g., holding and maneuvering the steering wheel)” to “( e.g., grasping, holding, and maneuvering the steering wheel using a hand).” Because precision prehension and power grasp prehension are demonstrated by a hand, FMCSA changes “with each upper limb separately” to “with each hand separately” for clarity. To clarify the effect of the current requirement, FMCSA adds the following as a new second sentence: “Prior to applying for an SPE certificate, an applicant with loss of a hand or arm must be fitted and proficient with a proper prosthesis that enables the applicant to demonstrate precision prehension and power grasp prehension with each hand separately.” In the last sentence, FMCSA adds a date for the requirement by changing “prior to the publication of this amendment” to “prior to January 6, 1986, the effective date of the requirement” for clarity and the convenience of the reader.

Similarly, FMCSA clarifies § 391.49(d)(3)(ii)(C) by changing the explanation of precision prehension from “( e.g., manipulating knobs and switches)” to “( e.g., grasping and manipulating knobs and switches using the fingers/thumb)” and by changing the explanation of power grasp prehension from “( e.g., holding and maneuvering the steering wheel)” to “( e.g., grasping, holding, and maneuvering the steering wheel using a hand).” Because precision prehension and power grasp prehension are demonstrated by a hand, FMCSA changes “with each upper limb separately” to “with each hand separately” for clarity. To clarify the effect of the current requirement and FMCSA's practice of allowing use of either a prosthesis or orthotic device as appropriate when upper limb impairment is present, FMCSA adds the following as a new second sentence: “Prior to applying for an SPE certificate, an applicant with upper limb impairment must be fitted and proficient with a proper prosthesis or orthotic device, if the applicant is not capable of demonstrating precision prehension and power grasp prehension with each hand separately without a prosthesis or orthotic device.” In the last sentence, FMCSA adds a date for the requirement by changing “prior to the publication of this amendment” to “prior to January 6, 1986, the effective date of the requirement” for clarity and the convenience of the reader. FMCSA also changes “an SPE certificate” in the last sentence to “a waiver” to make the sentence factually correct. SPE certificates were not available prior to January 6, 1986. This error occurred in 2000 when a universal change was made to replace “waiver” with “SPE certificate,” or its equivalent, throughout § 391.49 (65 FR 25285, 25286, May 1, 2000).

FMCSA revises the title of § 391.62 to change “intra-city” to “intracity,” to conform the styling of the term with its use in the body of the section and other FMCSRs, including § 390.5T, “Definitions.”

As with part 350, FMCSA is also revising part 393, subpart I, to eliminate the current question-and-answer format in favor of standard styling. All section headings that are phrased as questions will be rephrased as brief descriptive phrases pertaining to the section's content, but the body text of the regulations is unchanged unless otherwise stated below. FMCSA's reasoning for making this change in part 393 is the same as for part 350. As used in these regulations, the question-and-answer format is cumbersome, difficult to read, and may cause confusion, and the Agency finds the regulations are clearer and more useful when standard styling is used. FMCSA is also making other amendments to part 393, which are described below.

FMCSA amends the § 393.5 definition of “longwood” to expressly include utility poles. This amendment was previously included in a final rule that published June 22, 2006 (71 FR 35819), however, the amendment was not codified in the regulations and utility poles were not expressly included in the definition of “longwood” FMCSA amends § 393.5 to correct this oversight.

Automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs) are electric, electronic, electromechanical, or mechanical device used to record information pertinent to a driver's duty status information, for the purpose of tracking the driver's hours of service. As part of the AOBRD final rule, issued on September 30, 1988, § 395.15 codified in the regulations and prescribed the specific requirements for using such devices (53 FR 38670). Subsequently, Congress mandated the use of a different type of device, known as an electronic logging device (ELD), in Section 32301(b) of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Enhancement Act, enacted as part of MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 786-788, July 6, 2012). FMCSA implemented this requirement on December 16, 2015, but allowed drivers and motor carriers to continue using certain AOBRDs until December 16, 2019 (80 FR 78292). As this date has passed and all drivers and carriers are now required to use ELDs, FMCSA is now making updates to part 395 to remove the requirements for AOBRDs in § 395.15, as well as multiple references to AOBRDs in other sections.

Section § 395.1 contains the hours-of-service exceptions for part 395, and paragraph (d) explains the exceptions for oilfield operations. In describing how waiting time should be recorded, paragraph (d) references both §§ 395.8 and 395.15. Since drivers are no longer permitted to use AOBRDs to track hours of service, FMCSA removes the reference to § 395.15 in § 395.1(d).

FMCSA amends § 395.2 by removing the definition for “automatic on board recording device,” for the reasons stated above.

FMCSA amends § 395.8 to remove cross references to AOBRDs and part § 395.15 for the reasons stated above. Specifically, FMCSA removes § 395.8(a)(1)(ii), renumbers the remaining paragraphs, and updates the cross-references to those paragraphs accordingly. Additionally, FMCSA removes current paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(B) and renumbers the remaining paragraphs accordingly.

FMCSA revises § 395.8(e)(2) and (3) by removing the references to AOBRDs.

FMCSA revises § 395.13 to remove the cross-reference to § 395.15, for the reasons stated above.

FMCSA removes and reserves § 395.15, for the reasons stated above.

Section 397.65 provides definitions that apply to part 397, subpart C—Routing of Non-Radioactive Hazardous Materials, including a definition for the term “commerce.” When that definition was adopted, it contained an error, referring to its paragraph (1) as subparagraph (a) (59 FR 51824, 51830 (Oct. 12, 1994)). FMCSA amends this section to correct the error.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and by E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879, Apr. 11, 2023), Modernizing Regulatory Review. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O. In addition, this rule is not significant within the meaning of DOT regulations (49 CFR 5.13(a)). The amendments made in this final rule primarily correct inadvertent errors and omissions, remove or update obsolete references, and make minor language changes to improve clarity and consistency. In accommodating those changes, the Agency is performing nondiscretionary, ministerial acts. Other changes merely align regulatory requirements with the underlying statutory authority. None of the changes in this final rule impose new material requirements or increase compliance obligations; therefore, this final rule imposes no new costs and a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.

Changes to §§ 390.125 and 390.127 are expected to result in cost savings. Originally, the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) medical examiner training and certification testing were to be delivered through a web-based platform operated by VA. To facilitate this initiative, FMCSA estimated the cost to develop an information technology (IT) connection between the National Registry and the VA platform to be $258,000 with the costs split evenly between FMCSA and VA, i.e., $129,000 each. Because the National Registry has been unavailable, the alternative process to get VA healthcare providers on the National Registry has not yet been implemented. Under the new approach in which the training and testing are to be delivered via the National Registry, it is no longer necessary to develop the IT connection originally included in the costs of the rule. Therefore, there will be cost savings for VA of at least $129,000 under the new approach.

As part of the National Registry rebuild, FMCSA is scheduled to build mechanisms to deliver training for medical examiners for two other areas within the National Registry system. Once these two mechanisms are built, there will be a platform in existence to deliver training to medical examiners, and only minor modifications will be necessary to add another training area and an area for testing for the qualified VA examiners. Thus, the costs to FMCSA are expected to be minimal and significantly lower than the $129,000 allocated to FMCSA for the IT connection that is no longer needed. Therefore, there will be cost savings for FMCSA of up to $129,000.

This rule is not a major rule as defined under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). 5

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 604(a) for this final rule because FMCSA has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking prior to this action.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the final rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $200 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2023 levels) or more in any 1 year. Though this final rule would not result in such an expenditure, and the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply as a result, the Agency discusses the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor will it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. Because this rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable information, the Agency is not required to conduct a privacy impact assessment.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a Privacy Impact Analysis (PIA) for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology will collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), appendix 2, paragraph 6.b and c. These Categorical Exclusions address technical amendments and other minor amendments such as those found in this rulemaking, as well as regulations concerning internal agency functions, organization, or personnel administration. Therefore, preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is not necessary.

In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III as set forth below: