[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44795-44817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22276]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Parts 302, 304 and 307
RIN 0970-AB70
Computerized Support Enforcement Systems
AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), ACF, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule implements provisions of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA), related to child support enforcement program automation.
Under PRWORA, States must have in effect a statewide automated data
processing and information retrieval system which by October 1, 1997,
meets all the requirements of title IV-D of the Social Security Act
enacted on or before the date of enactment of the Family Support Act of
1988, and by October 1, 2000, meets all the title IV-D requirements
enacted under PRWORA. The law further provides that the October 1,
2000, deadline for systems enhancements will be delayed if HHS does not
issue final regulations by August 22, 1998.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective August 21, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Rushton (202) 690-1244.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Authority
This regulation is published under the authority of several
provisions of the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended by the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA). Sections 454(16), 454(24), 454A and 455(a)(3)(A) of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 654(16), (24), 654A, and 655(a)(3)(A)), contain requirements
for automated data processing and information retrieval systems to
carry out the State's IV-D State plan. Other sections, such as section
453 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 653) specify data that the system must
furnish or impose safeguarding and disclosure requirements that the
system must meet.
This regulation is also published under the general authority of
section 1102 (42 U.S.C. 1302) of the Act which requires the Secretary
to publish regulations that may be necessary for the efficient
administration of the provisions for which she is responsible under the
Act.
Background
Full and complete automation is pivotal to improving the
performance of the nation's child support program. With a current
national caseload of 20 million, caseworkers are dependent on enhanced
technology and increased automation to keep up with the massive volume
of information and transactions critical to future success in providing
support to children.
Under PRWORA, States must build on existing automation efforts to
implement the programmatic enhancements the law included for
strengthening child support enforcement, including new enforcement
tools and a shift in child support distribution requirements to a
family-first policy. By October 1, 2000, States must have in place an
automated statewide system that meets all the requirements and performs
all the functions specified in PRWORA.
These requirements include:
Functional requirements specified by the Secretary related
to management of the program (454A(b)).
Calculation of performance indicators (454A(c)).
Information integrity and security requirements (454A(d)).
Development of a State case registry (454A(e)).
Expanded information comparisons and other disclosures of
information (454A(f)), including to the Federal case registry of child
support orders and the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) and with
other agencies in the State, agencies of other States and interstate
information networks, as necessary and appropriate.
Collection and distribution of support payments (454A(g)),
including facilitating the State's centralized collection and
disbursement unit and modifications to meet the revised distribution
requirements.
Expedited Administrative Procedures (454A(h)).
We issued proposed rules in the Federal Register on March 25, 1998,
(63 FR 14402) setting forth the framework for automation that State
systems must have in place by the October 1, 2000, deadline. Thirty
letters from State agencies and other interested parties were received
as a result. While the vast majority of these comments did not
[[Page 44796]]
necessitate changes to the rule, we did make modifications in the
preamble discussion and/or the regulation primarily in the following
areas as a result of the comments received:
Sec. 307.11(f), Federal Case Registry Data Elements.
Sec. 307.15, Independent Verification and Validation.
These changes and several others of a clarifying nature are
explained in detail in the following section, Regulatory Provisions. A
discussion of all the comments received and our responses follows in
the preamble under the Response to Comments section.
Regulatory Provisions
State Plan Requirements (Part 302)
To implement the statutory changes, we revised the regulations at
45 CFR 302.85, ``Mandatory computerized support enforcement systems.''
Current 45 CFR 302.85(a) provides that if the State did not have in
effect by October 13, 1988 a computerized support enforcement system
that meets the requirements of Sec. 307.10, the State must submit an
Advanced Planning Document (APD) for such a system to the Secretary by
October 1, 1991, and have an operational system in effect by October 1,
1995.
Section 454(24) of the Act, as amended by PRWORA, provides that the
State must have in effect a computerized support enforcement system
which by October 1, 1997 meets all IV-D requirements in effect as of
the date of enactment (October 13, 1988) of the Family Support Act of
1988. In addition, the State must have a Computerized Support
Enforcement System (CSES) which by October 1, 2000, meets all IV-D
requirements in effect as of the date of enactment (August 22, 1996) of
PRWORA, including all IV-D requirements in that Act.
Section 302.85(a) of the final regulations reiterates the statutory
requirements for mandatory automated systems for support enforcement.
Section 302.85(a)(1) includes the requirement under existing paragraph
(a) that the system be developed in accordance with Secs. 307.5 and
307.10 of the regulations and the OCSE guidelines entitled ``Automated
Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for States.'' In
addition, Sec. 302.85(a)(2) requires that, by October 1, 2000, a system
meeting PRWORA requirements be developed in accordance with Secs. 307.5
and 307.11 of the regulations and the OCSE guidelines referenced above.
Change in Federal Financial Participation (Part 304)
To make part 304 regulations consistent with the Act as amended by
PRWORA, Sec. 304.20 is amended at paragraph (c) to provide that FFP at
the 90 percent rate for the planning, design, development, installation
and enhancement of computerized support enforcement systems that meet
the requirement of Sec. 307.30(a) is only available until September 30,
1997.
Computerized Support Enforcement Systems (Part 307)
Computerized support enforcement systems is amended throughout to
conform part 307 to the changes required by sections 454, 454A, and
455(a) of the Act, as amended by PRWORA and the revisions to 45 CFR
302.85, which were discussed earlier.
The title of Sec. 307.10 is revised to read ``Functional
requirements for computerized support enforcement systems in operation
by October 1, 1997'', and to add titles for two new sections, ``Sec.
307.11 Functional requirements for computerized support enforcement
systems in operation by October 1, 2000'' and ``Sec. 307.13 Security
and Confidentiality of computerized support enforcement systems in
operation by October 1, 2000'' to reflect these changes.
Section 307.0, ``Scope of this part,'' is revised to reflect the
new requirements of sections 454, 454A, 455(a) of the Act, as amended,
and section 344(a)(3) of PRWORA regarding statewide automated CSESs.
New statutory language is referenced in the introductory section and a
new paragraph (c) is added to refer to the security and confidentiality
requirements for CSESs. Paragraphs (c) through (h) are redesignated as
paragraphs (d) through (i).
In Sec. 307.1, ``Definitions'', the definition of ``Business day''
has been added as defined in the new section 454A(g)(2) of the Act.
Accordingly, paragraphs (b) through (j) are redesignated as paragraphs
(c) through (k). In addition, in the redesignated paragraphs (d) and
(g), the citation ``Sec. 307.10'' is replaced with the citations
``Secs. 307.10, or 307.11'' to reflect the regulatory changes made
below.
Mandatory Computerized Support Enforcement Systems
Mandatory computerized support enforcement systems at 45 CFR 307.5
is amended as follows:
To reflect the amended section 454(24) of the Act, paragraphs (a)
and (b) are eliminated in their entirety and a new paragraph (a) is
added. Paragraphs (c) through (h) are redesignated as (b) through (g).
Paragraph (a)(1) provides that each State must have in effect by
October 1, 1997, an operational computerized support enforcement system
which meets the requirements in 45 CFR 302.85(a)(1) related to the
Family Support Act of 1988 requirements and that OCSE will review the
systems to certify that these requirements are met. Under paragraph
(a)(2), each State is required to have in effect, by October 1, 2000,
an operational computerized support enforcement system which meets the
requirements in 45 CFR 302.85(a)(2) related to PRWORA requirements.
In addition, under paragraph (d), the reference to ``Section
307.10'' is replaced by ``Sections 307.10 or 307.11.''
Functional Requirements for Computerized Support Enforcement Systems
To reflect the statutory changes, the title of Sec. 307.10
``Functional requirements for computerized support enforcement
systems.'' is revised to read ``Functional requirements for
computerized support enforcement systems in operation by October 1,
1997.'' In the introductory language, the citation ``Sec. 302.85(a)''
is replaced by the citation ``Sec. 302.85(a)(1) to reflect changes made
earlier in the regulations. The citation ``AFDC'' is replaced with the
citation ``TANF'' (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) in
paragraph (b)(10).
Paragraph (b)(14) is deleted because the requirement for electronic
data exchange with the title IV-F program (Job Opportunities and Basic
Skills Training Program) is no longer operative since under PRWORA
States had to eliminate their IV-F programs by July 1, 1997. Paragraphs
(b)(15) and (16) are redesignated as paragraphs (b)(14) and (15).
A new Sec. 307.11, ``Functional requirements for computerized
support enforcement systems in operation by October 1, 2000,'' is added
and reiterates the statutory requirements in sections 454(16) and 454A
of the Act, as discussed below.
The introductory language of Sec. 307.11 specifies that each
State's computerized support enforcement system established and
operated under the title IV-D State plan at Sec. 302.85(a)(2) must meet
the requirements in this regulation. Under paragraph (a), the CSES in
operation by October 1, 2000 must be planned, designed, developed,
installed or enhanced and operated in accordance
[[Page 44797]]
with an initial and annually updated APD approved under Sec. 307.15 of
the regulations. As explained in the proposed rule, if a State elects
to enhance its existing CSES to meet PRWORA requirements, it has the
option of submitting either a separate APD or combining the Family
Support Act and PRWORA requirements in one APD update. If a State
elects to develop a new CSES, a separate implementation APD must be
submitted.
Under paragraph (b), the CSES must control, account for, and
monitor all the factors in the support collection and paternity
determination process under the State plan which, at a minimum, include
the factors in the regulation. Under paragraph (b)(1), the system must
control, account for, and monitor the activities in Sec. 307.10(b) of
the regulations which a CSES in operation by October 1, 1997, must
meet, except those activities in paragraphs (b)(3), (8), and (11) of
Sec. 307.10. These reporting, financial accountability, and security
activities are replaced by similar or expanded provisions discussed
later in this preamble that reflect statutory changes from PRWORA.
Paragraph (b)(2) describes the tasks that the computerized support
enforcement system must have the capacity to perform with the frequency
and in the manner required under or by the regulations that implement
title IV-D of the Act. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) requires the CSES to perform
the functions discussed below and any other functions the Secretary of
HHS may specify related to the management of the State IV-D program.
Under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A), the system must control and account
for the use of Federal, State, and local funds in carrying out the
State's IV-D program either directly or through an interface with State
financial management and expenditure information systems. States can
meet the financial accountability requirements through an interface.
This provision is intended to provide States flexibility to continue
existing practices which may be in place including the use of an
auxiliary system. We have added reference to the use of auxiliary
systems in the regulatory language.
Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) requires that the system maintain the data
necessary to meet Federal reporting requirements for the IV-D program
on a timely basis as prescribed by the Office of Child Support
Enforcement. This requirement is similar to the functional requirements
at Sec. 307.10(b)(3) that a system must meet by October 1, 1997.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) requires the CSES to enable the Secretary
of HHS to determine State incentive payments and penalty adjustments
required by sections 452(g) and 458 of the Act through the use of
automated processes to: (1) Maintain the necessary data for paternity
establishment and child support enforcement activities in the State;
and, (2) calculate the paternity establishment percentage for the State
for each fiscal year. Under this requirement, the system must maintain
the necessary data and calculate for each fiscal year the State's
paternity establishment percentage under section 452(g) of the Act. The
system must also maintain the data necessary to determine State
incentive payments under section 458 of the Act. In addition, under
paragraph (b)(1), the State will continue to be required to compute and
distribute incentive payments to political subdivisions in accordance
with Sec. 307.10(b)(6) of the regulations.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) requires the system to enable the Secretary
to determine State incentive payments and penalty adjustments required
by sections 452(g) and 458 of the Act by having in place system
controls to ensure: (1) The completeness, and reliability of, and ready
access to, the data on State performance for paternity establishment
and child support enforcement activities in the State; and, (2) the
accuracy of the paternity establishment percentage for the State for
each fiscal year. Under this provision, the system controls apply to
data related to the calculation of the State's paternity establishment
percentage, and the calculation of incentive payments. Data regarding
the paternity establishment percentage and incentive payments is
reported to the Federal government in accordance with instructions
issued by OCSE.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) requires the system to have controls (e.g.,
passwords or blocking of fields) to ensure strict adherence to the
systems security policies described in Sec. 307.13(a) of the
regulations. Under Sec. 307.13(a), the State IV-D agency must have
written policies concerning access to data by IV-D agency personnel and
sharing of data with other persons.
Under paragraph (b)(3), the system must control, account for, and
monitor the activities in the Act added by PRWORA not otherwise
addressed in this part. Paragraph (c) requires that the system, to the
extent feasible, assist and facilitate the collection and disbursement
of support payments through the State disbursement unit operated under
section 454B of the Act. Under paragraph (c)(1), the system must
transmit orders and notices to employers and other debtors for the
withholding of income: (1) Within 2 business days after the receipt of
notice of income, and the income source subject to withholding from the
court, another State, an employer, the Federal Parent Locator Service,
or another source recognized by the State, and (2) using uniform
formats prescribed by the Secretary.
Paragraph (c)(2) requires the system to monitor accounts, on an
ongoing basis, to identify promptly failures to make support payments
in a timely manner. Paragraph (c)(3) requires the system to
automatically use enforcement procedures, including enforcement
procedures under section 466(c) of the Act, if support payments are not
made in a timely manner. These procedures include Federal and State
income tax refund offset, intercepting unemployment compensation
insurance benefits, intercepting or seizing other benefits through
State or local governments, intercepting or seizing judgments,
settlements, or lottery winnings, attaching and seizing assets of the
obligor held in financial institutions, attaching public and private
retirement funds, and imposing liens in accordance with section
466(a)(4) of the Act.
Paragraph (d) requires that, to the maximum extent feasible, the
system be used to implement the expedited administrative procedures
required by section 466(c) of the Act. These procedures include:
ordering genetic testing for the purpose of establishing paternity
under section 466(a)(5) of the Act; issuing a subpoena of financial or
other information to establish, modify, or enforce a support order;
requesting information from an employer regarding employment,
compensation, and benefits of an employee or contractor; accessing
records maintained in automated data bases such as records maintained
by other State and local government agencies described in section
466(c)(1)(D) of the Act and certain records maintained by private
entities regarding custodial and non-custodial parents described in
section 466(c)(1)(D) of the Act; increasing the amount of monthly
support payments to include an amount for support arrears; and,
changing the payee to the appropriate government entity when support
has been assigned to the State, or required to be paid through the
State disbursement unit.
Paragraph (e) requires the State to establish a State case registry
(SCR) which must be a component of the computerized child support
enforcement system. This registry is essentially a directory of
electronic case records or files. Paragraph (e)(1)
[[Page 44798]]
contains definitions of terms used in this section.
Paragraph (e)(2) describes the records which the registry must
contain. Under paragraph (e)(2)(i), the registry must contain a record
of every case receiving child support enforcement services under an
approved State plan. Under paragraph (e)(2)(ii), the registry must
contain a record of every support order established or modified in the
State on or after October 1, 1998.
Under paragraph (e)(3) each record must include standardized data
elements for each participant. These data elements include the name(s),
social security number(s), date of birth, case identification number(s)
and other uniform identification numbers, data elements required under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section for the operation of the Federal case
registry (FCR), issuing State of an order, and any other data elements
required by the Secretary. In response to comments on the proposed
rule, we added ``the issuing State of the order.'' We made this change
because as commenters correctly pointed out, information on the issuing
State of the order is essential in processing interstate cases.
Under paragraph (e)(4), each record must include payment data for
every case receiving services under the IV-D State plan that has a
support order in effect. Under this provision, the payment data must
include the following information: (1) Monthly (or other frequency)
support owed under the order, (2) other amounts due or overdue under
the order including arrearages, interest or late payment penalties and
fees, (3) any amount described in paragraph (e)(4) (i) and (ii) of this
section that has been collected, (4) the distribution of such collected
amounts, (5) the birth date and, beginning no later than October 1,
1999, the name and social security number of any child for whom the
order requires the provision of support, and (6) the amount of any lien
imposed under the order in accordance with section 466(a)(4) of the
Act.
Under paragraph (e)(5), the State using the CSES must establish and
update, maintain, and regularly monitor case records in the State case
registry for cases receiving services under the State plan. In the
proposed rule, we invited public comment as to whether timeframes or
other standards should be set for the monitoring and updating of
records and if so what timeframes and standards would be applied. As
noted in the response to comments found later in this preamble, while
many commenters responded to this request, the responses varied widely.
Therefore, we are not adding timeframes to this section of the
regulation.
To ensure that information on an established IV-D case is up to
date, the State must regularly update the record to make changes to the
status of a case, the status of and information about the participants
of a case, and the other data contained in the case record. This
includes: (1) Information on administrative and judicial orders related
to paternity and support, (2) information obtained from comparison with
Federal, State or local sources of information, (3) information on
support collections and distributions, and (4) any other relevant
information. In the proposed rule, we included reference to
``administrative actions and proceedings'' under item (1) above. We
have deleted this language in response to comments on the proposed rule
pointing out that the information in orders is most useful and while
relevant to the Statewide system, other information on actions and
proceedings would not be meaningful for purposes of the case registry.
Under the paragraph (e)(6), the State is authorized to meet the
requirement in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section which requires the
State case registry to have a record of every support order established
or modified in the State on or after October 1, 1998, by linking local
case registries of support orders through an automated information
network. However, linked local case registries established in the
State's computerized support enforcement system must meet all other
requirements in paragraph (e) of this section.
Under paragraph (f), the State must use the computerized support
enforcement system to extract information at such times and in such
standardized format or formats, as required by the Secretary, for the
purposes of sharing and comparing information and receiving information
from other data bases and information comparison services to obtain or
provide information necessary to enable the State, other States, the
Office of Child Support Enforcement or other Federal agencies to carry
out the requirements of the Child Support Enforcement program. The use
and disclosure of certain data is subject to the requirements of
section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code and the system must meet the
security and safeguarding requirements for such data specified by the
Internal Revenue Service. The system must also comply with safeguarding
and disclosure requirements specified in the Act.
Under paragraph (f)(1), effective October 1, 1998, the State must
furnish information in the State case registry to the Federal case
registry. To ensure the effective implementation of the Federal case
registry, required data elements on IV-D cases must be reported by
October 1, 1998, to be followed by initial non-IV-D submissions on or
before January 1, 1999. States must furnish information to the Federal
case registry, including updates as necessary, and notices of
expiration of support orders, except that States have until October 1,
1999, to furnish certain child data. In the proposed rule, we invited
public comment as to whether timeframes for the submission of data on
new cases or orders and for the submission of updated information
should be specified. While we clarified the above dates, with two
exceptions we have not added additional timeframes because there was no
indication that this would be helpful. With respect to the exceptions
noted, commenters noted that it was especially important that the
Family Violence indicator and the Federal case registry information be
up-to-date and therefore, we have added a requirement that the Family
Violence indicator and the Federal case registry information be updated
within five business days of receipt by the IV-D agency of new or
changed information, including information which would necessitate
adding or removing a Family Violence indicator.
Sections 453(h)(2) and (3) of the Act requires the inclusion of
child data in the Federal case registry and provide the Secretary of
the Treasury with access to Federal case registry data for the purpose
of administering those sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
which grant tax benefits based on the support or residence of children,
such as the Earned Income Tax Program.
Under this rule, States must provide to the Federal case registry
the following data elements on participants: (1) State Federal
Information Processing Standard (FIPS) and optionally, county code; (2)
State case identification number; (3) State member identification
number; (4) case type (IV-D, non-IV-D); (5) social security number and
any necessary alternative social security numbers; (6) name, including
first, middle, last name and any necessary alternative names; (7) sex
(optional); (8) date of birth; (9) participant type (custodial party,
non-custodial parent, putative father, child); (10) family violence
indicator (domestic violence or child abuse); (11) indication of an
order; (12) locate request type (optional); (13) locate source
(optional), and (14) any other information as the Secretary may
require.
[[Page 44799]]
With respect to domestic violence information identified in item 10
above and addressed under paragraph (f)(1)(x) of this rule, section
453(b)(2) of the Act states that no information in the Federal Parent
Locator Service shall be disclosed to any person if the State has
notified the Secretary that the State has reasonable evidence of
domestic violence or child abuse and the disclosure of such information
could be harmful to the custodial parent or the child of such parent.
OCSE will not disclose any information on a participant in a IV-D case
or non-IV-D support order to any person unless otherwise specified in
section 453(b)(2), if the State has included a ``family violence''
indicator on such participant.
Section 453(b)(2) of the Act provides that a court may have access
to information in a case when a participant in the case has been
identified with a Family Violence indicator. This section provides that
disclosure to a court or agent of the court, may occur if, upon receipt
of the information, the court or agent of the court determines whether
disclosure beyond the court could be harmful to the parent or the child
and, if the court makes such a determination, the court or its agent
shall not make such disclosure.
Accordingly, under paragraph (f)(2), the CSES must request and
exchange information with the Federal parent locator service for the
purposes specified in section 453 of the Act. As stipulated in the
statute, the Secretary will not disclose information received under
section 453 of the Act when to do so would contravene the national
policy or security interests of the United States or the
confidentiality of census data or, as indicated above, if the Secretary
has received notice of reasonable evidence of domestic violence or
child abuse and the disclosure of such information could be harmful to
the custodial parent or the child of such parent.
Under paragraph (f)(3), the CSES must exchange information with
State agencies, both within and outside of the State, administering
programs under title IV-A and title XIX of the Act, as necessary to
perform State agency responsibilities under title IV-A, title IV-D and
title XIX.
Under the paragraph (f)(4), the CSES must exchange information with
other agencies of the State, and agencies of other States, and
interstate information networks, as necessary and appropriate, to
assist the State and other States in carrying out the Child Support
Enforcement program.
Security and Confidentiality for Computerized Support Enforcement
Systems
With the mandates of the Family Support Act of 1988, and most
recently of PRWORA, State public assistance agencies have been given
additional tools to locate individuals involved in child support cases
and visitation and custody orders and their assets.
With the use of these automated data processing (ADP) systems, and
the data they maintain and manipulate, come concerns about the security
and privacy of the information resident in these systems. In order to
protect this information, our regulations require that States must have
policies and procedures in place to ensure the integrity and validity
of their automated data processing systems.
This rule reiterates statutory requirements in section 454A(d) of
the Act addressing security and privacy issues by adding new
regulations at 45 CFR 307.13, ``Security and confidentiality for
computerized support enforcement systems in operation after October 1,
1997.''
Paragraph (a) requires the State IV-D agency to have safeguards on
the integrity, accuracy, completeness of, access to, and use of data in
the CSES, including written policies concerning access to data by IV-D
agency personnel and sharing of data with other persons. Under
paragraph (a)(1), these policies must address access to and use of data
to the extent necessary to carry out the IV-D program. This includes
the access to and use of data by any individual involved in the IV-D
program, including personnel providing IV-D services under a
cooperative or purchase-of-service agreement or other arrangement.
Under paragraph (a)(2), these policies must specify the data that
may be used for particular IV-D program purposes and the personnel
permitted access to such data. This provision applies to all personnel
who have access to data on the CSES.
In response to a comment, we have revised the language in the
proposed rule under paragraph (a)(3) to cover the disclosure of
information to State agencies administering programs under titles IV-A
and XIX of the Act. Pursuant to section 454A(f)(3) of the Act, State
IV-D agencies are required to exchange information with State IV-A and
XIX agencies as necessary to carry out the title IV-A, and XIX
programs. As drafted in the NPRM, this provision did not clearly
identify the specific disclosures of information that were authorized
and therefore, was confusing.
Paragraph (b) requires the State IV-D agency to monitor routine
access and use of the computerized support enforcement system through
methods such as audit trails and feedback mechanisms to guard against
and identify unauthorized access or use. States have flexibility in
meeting this requirement, so long as the IV-D agency monitors routine
access and use of the system.
Paragraph (c) requires the State IV-D agency to have procedures to
ensure that all personnel, including State and local staff and
contractors, who may have access to or be required to use confidential
program data in the CSES are: (1) Informed of applicable requirements
and penalties, including those in section 6103 of the Internal Revenue
Service Code, and (2) adequately trained in security procedures. Under
this requirement, State procedures must address Federal and State
safeguarding requirements and the security and safeguarding
requirements for data obtained from the Internal Revenue Service.
Finally, paragraph (d) requires the IV-D agency to have
administrative penalties, including dismissal from employment, for
unauthorized access to, disclosure or use of confidential information.
In the proposed rule we solicited comments on all areas of computer
systems security and data privacy relative to these regulations. We
received relatively little input on this section of the proposed rules.
One commenter asked that timeframes be added so that nothing would be
left to State discretion, another indicated that the level of
rulemaking was adequate and a couple of others asked that we limit
rulemaking to the statute. Given this array of positions, and the fact
that we heard no strong reaction to this section we are not making
changes to the language in the proposed rule.
Approval of Advance Planning Documents
The regulations at 45 CFR 307.15 speak to certain APD requirements
specific to CSE automated system development. These rules make
conforming amendments to address the changes made by PRWORA and to
codify certain existing requirements and authorities related to APD and
APDU oversight. We revised 45 CFR 307.15, ``Approval of advance
planning documents for computerized support enforcement systems,'' to
reflect new functional requirements the State must meet by October 1,
2000.
[[Page 44800]]
Prior to this final rule, paragraph (b)(2) required that the APD
specify how the objectives of the system will be carried out throughout
the State, including a projection of how the proposed single State
system will meet the functional requirements and encompass all
political subdivisions of the State by October 1, 1997. This paragraph
is revised to require that the APD specify how the objectives of a CSES
that meets the functional requirements in Sec. 307.10 of the
regulations, or the functional requirements in Sec. 307.11 of the
regulations, will be carried out throughout the State including a
projection of how the proposed system will meet the functional
requirements and encompass all political subdivisions of the State by
October 1, 1997, or also meet the additional functional requirements
and encompass all political subdivisions of the State by October 1,
2000.
States may submit a separate APD for each group of functional
requirements. The State may also update its current APD for the
development and implementation of a system to meet the October 1, 1997,
requirements in order to address the functional requirements that must
be met by October 1, 2000. We also replaced the citation ``Sec.
307.10'' with the citations ``Secs. 307.10, or 307.11'' where it
appears in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).
A number of States experienced difficulty in developing systems
that complied with Family Support Act requirements and, as a
consequence, failed to meet the October 1, 1997, deadline for having
such systems in place. In response, we have made several changes in
these regulations to strengthen the oversight and management of CSE
systems development projects.
First, we will aggressively monitor State CSE development efforts
and as stated in the proposed rule we intend to conduct on-site
technical assistance visits and reviews in all States this year, as we
did last year. States whose system development efforts are lagging will
receive multiple visits. We are in the process of procuring the
services of one or more contractors to augment our ability to monitor
States progress and provide project assistance.
In addition, we will more closely review State APD and APDU
submissions. One area of focus will be on the resources available to:
(1) Monitor the progress of systems development efforts, (2) assess
deliverables, and (3) take corrective action if the project goes
astray. We will not approve a State's APD unless we are convinced that
adequate resources and a well conceived project management approach are
available for these purposes, as well as for the systems design and
implementation processes.
Most States already retain Quality Assurance assistance, using
either contractors or State staff. We will not approve a State's APD
unless it evidences adequate quality assurance services. States with a
history of troubled systems development efforts will have to rigorously
demonstrate that such resources are available to the project and are
integrated into the project's management. All reports prepared by a
State's quality assurance provider must be submitted directly to OCSE
at the same time they are submitted to the State's project management.
This rule provides for more systematic determinations and
monitoring of key milestones in States' CSE systems development
efforts, and more closely ties project funding to those milestones.
Systems should be implemented in phased, successive modules as narrow
in scope and brief in duration as practicable, each of which serves a
specific part of the overall child support mission and delivers a
measurable benefit independent of future modules. Specifically, we
added language to Sec. 307.15(b)(9) to clarify that the APD must
contain an estimated schedule of life-cycle milestones and project
deliverables (modules) related to the description of estimated
expenditures by category. The regulation includes a list of milestones
which must be addressed as provided in the September 1996 ``DHHS State
Systems Guide''.
(OCSE will issue an addendum to the Guide to provide more
information on milestones.) These life cycle milestones should include,
where applicable: Developing the general and/or detailed system
designs; preparing solicitations and awarding contracts for contractor
support services, hardware and software; developing a conversion plan,
test management plan, installation plan, facilities management plan,
training plan, users' manuals, and security and contingency plans;
converting and testing data; developing, modifying or converting
software; testing software; training staff; and, installing, testing
and accepting systems. Specifically, we are requiring that the APD must
include milestones relative to the size, complexity and cost of the
project and at a minimum address: Requirements analysis, program
design, procurement and project management.
We will treat seriously States' failure to meet critical milestones
and deliverables or to report promptly and fully on their progress
toward meeting those milestones. We will approach these problems in
several ways. States shall reduce risk by: Using, when possible, fully-
tested pilots, simulations or prototypes that accurately model the
full-scale system; establish clear measures and accountability for
project progress; and, securing substantial worker involvement and user
buy-in throughout the project.
With respect to funding, we will generally provide funding under an
approved APD only for the most immediate milestones; funding related to
achievement of later milestones will be contingent upon the successful
completion of antecedent milestones. For States with proven track
records in CSE systems development, we will continue our practice of
providing funding approval on an annual basis. Since current
regulations provide sufficient authority to limit funding in this way,
we are not proposing any additional regulatory changes but rather
reaffirming in this preamble management practices which we will follow
under existing authority.
In addition, in Sec. 307.15(b)(10) we have expanded the
requirements for an implementation plan and backup procedures to
require certain States to obtain independent validation and
verification services (IV&V). These States include those: (1) That do
not have in place a statewide automated child support enforcement
system that meets the requirements of the FSA of 1988; (2) which fail
to meet a critical milestone, as identified in their APDs; (3) which
fail to timely and completely submit APD updates; (4) whose APD
indicates the need for a total system redesign; (5) developing systems
under waivers pursuant to section 452(d)(3) of the Social Security Act;
or, (6) whose system development efforts we determine are at risk of
failure, significant delay, or significant cost overrun.
With respect to this last item, we would point out that Year 2000
systems compliance is critical to State child support enforcement
program automation efforts. Accordingly, the requirement above would
apply to States which are not Year 2000 compliant and which do not have
an existing assessment and monitoring mechanism in place. We would
consider any such State at serious risk of systems failure.
Also with respect to this last item, OCSE will carefully review
States' system development efforts, using States' APD and APDU
submissions, other documentation, on-site reviews
[[Page 44801]]
and monitoring, etc., relating to States' efforts to meet PRWORA
requirements. Based on this review, OCSE will determine the type and
scope of Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) services that a
State must utilize and will so require such IV&V services as a
condition of its approval of the State's APD and associated funding or
contract-related documents. As indicated in the proposed rule, OCSE has
obtained the services of a contractor to assist in making this
determination.
Independent validation and verification efforts must be conducted
by an entity that is independent from the State. We would only provide
very limited exceptions to this requirement based on a State's request.
For example, we would consider an exception in a situation where a
State has an existing IV&V provider in place which is independent of
the child support agency (or other entity responsible for systems
development), which meets all criteria set forth in these rules and
where the State's systems development efforts are on track as a result.
The independent validation and verification provider must:
Develop a project work plan. The plan must be provided
directly to OCSE at the same time it is given to the State.
Review and make recommendations on both the management of
the project, both State and vendor, and the technical aspects of the
project. The results of this analysis must be provided directly to OCSE
at the same time they are given to the State.
Consult with all stakeholders and assess user involvement
and buy-in regarding system functionality and the system's ability to
meet program needs.
Conduct an analysis of past project performance (schedule,
budget) sufficient to identify and make recommendations for
improvement.
Provide a risk management assessment and capacity planning
services.
Develop performance metrics which allow tracking of
project completion against milestones set by the State.
The RFP and contract for selecting the IV&V provider must be
submitted to OCSE for prior approval and must include the experience
and skills of the key personnel proposed for the IV&V analysis. In
addition, the contract must specify by name the key personnel who
actually will work on the project.
ACF recognizes that many States already have obtained IV&V services
and as indicated in the proposed rule, OCSE will review those
arrangements to determine if they meet the criteria specified above.
The requirement that a State obtain an IV&V provider if it
significantly misses one or more milestones in their APD is intended to
assist the State in obtaining an independent assessment of their system
development project. The IV&V provider will make an independent
assessment and recommendations for addressing the systemic problems
that resulted in the missed milestones before the situation reaches the
point where suspension of the State's APD and associated Federal
funding approval is necessary. Any reports prepared by an IV&V provider
must be submitted to OCSE at the same time they are submitted to the
State's project manager. The responsibility, authority and
accountability for successful completion of systems' projects rests
with the designated single and separate State child support agency.
OCSE also has a need to receive these independent validation and
verification reports in a timely manner to fulfill their program
stewardship and oversight responsibilities. As a general rule, OCSE
will seek State reaction before acting upon any report submitted
directly to us from a State-level IV&V contractor to avoid the
possibility of acting upon misconceptions and erroneous data.
In addition, if a State fails to meet milestones in its APD, OCSE
may fully or partially suspend the APD and associated funding. OCSE
currently has authority under 45 CFR 307.40 to suspend a State's APD if
``the system ceases to comply substantially with the criteria,
requirements, and other provision of the APD * * *'' This action may
include suspension of future systems efforts under the APD until
satisfactory corrective action is taken. In such cases, funding for
current efforts, i.e., those not affected by the suspension, would
continue to be available, although OCSE would closely monitor such
expenditures. In more serious cases, suspension would involve cessation
of all Federal funds for the project until such time as the State
completed corrective action. In response to this proposal, several
commenters recommended the use of a corrective action plan as an
alternative reaction to a missed milestone. Another commenter raised
the concern that a link between project funding and a missed milestone
will further delay implementation. We believe the existing language
provides sufficient flexibility to address these comments. As indicated
above, funding would cease only in the most serious cases.
As indicated in the Response to Comments section of this preamble,
we received a number of comments on this requirement. We continue to
believe that IV&V services will be necessary in some instances to
ensure efficient and timely program automation.
However, we also want to ensure that such assistance does not
undermine or duplicate State efforts. When a trigger under these rules
is reached pointing to the need for an IV&V provider, OCSE will, in
close consultation with the States, assess the type and scope of IV&V
services a State must utilize. The assessment will include whether OCSE
through its Federal IV&V contracts can provide the independent review
needed or whether the State will need to obtain its own IV&V services.
Given OCSE's limited resources and the limited size of our IV&V
contract, the independent reviews provided under the Federal IV&V
contract are expected to be few in number and for smaller-scale, not
lengthy IV&V reviews.
Review and Certification of Mandatory Automated Systems
We revised 45 CFR 307.25, ``Review and certification of
computerized support enforcement systems,'' by replacing the citation
``Sec. 307.10'' with the citations ``Secs. 307.10, or 307.11'' in the
introductory language to reflect other changes made in this document.
FFP Availability
We also revised Sec. 307.30, ``Federal financial participation at
the 90 percent rate for computerized support enforcement systems'', to
reflect changes made to section 455(a)(3) of the Act by section
344(b)(1) of PRWORA regarding the limited extension of 90 percent
Federal financial participation.
Paragraph (a) specifies that financial participation is available
at the 90 percent rate for expenditures made during Federal fiscal
years 1996 and 1997 for the planning, design, development, installation
or enhancement of a CSES as described in Secs. 307.5 and 307.10, but
limited to the amount in an APD or APDU submitted on or before
September 30, 1995, and approved by OCSE.
Paragraph (b) provides that Federal funding at the 90 percent rate
is available in expenditures for the rental or purchase of hardware and
proprietary operating/vendor software during the planning, design,
development, installation, enhancement or operation of a CSES described
in Secs. 307.5 and 307.10.
Paragraph (b)(1) specifies that Federal funding at the 90 percent
rate is available until September 30, 1997, on a limited basis in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section for such expenditures.
[[Page 44802]]
Similarly, under paragraph (b)(2), FFP is available at the 90
percent rate until September 30, 1997, for expenditures for the rental
or purchase of proprietary operating/vendor software necessary for the
operation of hardware during the planning, design, development,
installation or enhancement of a computerized support enforcement
system in accordance with the limitations in paragraph (a) of this
section, and the OCSE guideline entitled ``Automated Systems for Child
Support Enforcement: A Guide for States.'' FFP at the 90 percent rate
remains unavailable for proprietary applications software developed
specifically for a CSES. (See OCSE-AT-96-10 dated December 23, 1996
regarding the procedures for requesting and claiming 90 percent Federal
funding.)
ACF is issuing regulations simultaneously to implement the
provisions in section 455(a)(3)(B) of the Act, regarding the
availability and allocation of Federal funding at the 80 percent rate
for Statewide systems.
With respect to regular funding, we amended 45 CFR 307.35,
``Federal financial participation at the applicable matching rate for
computerized support enforcement systems'', by replacing the citation
``Sec. 307.10'' with the citations ``Secs. 307.10, or 307.11'' in
paragraph (a) to reflect other changes made in this document.
Suspension of APD Approval
Similar to the above, we are proposing to amend 45 CFR 307.40,
``Suspension of approval of advance planning document for computerized
support enforcement systems,'' to make a conforming change to replace
the citation ``Sec. 307.10'' with the citations ``Secs. 307.10, or
307.11'' in paragraph (a) to reflect other changes made in this
document.
Response to Comments
We received comments from a total of 30 commenters on the proposed
rule published in the Federal Register March 25, 1998 (63 FR 14462)
from State agencies and other interested parties. Specific comments and
our response follows.
General Comments
1. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the regulation
simply mirrored the statute and asked when States could anticipate
further clarification.
Response: We believe the statute provides a clear and adequate
framework within which to regulate. However, the certification guide
provides further explanation of the statutory and regulatory
requirements for States' CSES certification. This guide was shared with
all States on April 8, 1998, via OCSE AT-98-13 and was distributed at
three OCSE-sponsored systems conferences held in March, 1998. The guide
may also be downloaded from OCSE's Internet site (ftp://
ftp.acf.dhhs.gov/pub/oss/cse/csecert.exe).
2. Comment: The FSA 1988 requirements called for a description in
the APD of a cost-to-benefit measurement methodology that the State
intended to use in the project. A commenter suggested that a
confirmation on what OCSE's expectations are in this regard for PRWORA
system certification would be helpful.
Response: OCSE-AT-96-10 provides guidance in this area that may be
helpful to the commenter. Specifically, the guidance explains that
States that choose to enhance their existing FSA '88 certified system
have the option of continuing to utilize that cost-benefit analysis, or
to close out that project when the benefits exceed the cost and
establish a new cost-benefit analysis for the PRWORA project.
State Plan Requirements (Part 302)
1. Comment: One commenter questioned why the Certification Guide is
needed in light of the regulations and suggested that it be eliminated.
A couple of other commenters agreed with this suggestion. The first
commenter went on to say that if the Guide is published, it should be
incorporated in the rules so that it is available at the time of rule
promulgation. Another commenter urged prompt release of the Guide in
final form.
Response: This rule does not initiate reference to the Guide in
regulations but rather continues the procedures that have been in place
since the Family Support Act automation requirements were implemented.
As such, this rule merely updates the reference to speak to the
Certification Guide which incorporates PRWORA requirements and
recommendations made by a State/Federal workgroup established for this
purpose. The Guide was disseminated to States (OCSE-AT-98-13) on April
8, 1998, and is posted on OCSE's Web site. It also was disseminated at
the March 1998 Systems conferences. The Certification Guide for PRWORA
will be finalized in conjunction with these final automation
regulations.
2. Comment: One commenter noted that the preamble discussion of the
State plan requirements incorrectly stated that section 454(24) of the
Act provides that States have in effect by October 1, 1997 all IV-D
requirements in PRWORA.
Response: The commenter correctly pointed out a mistake in the
preamble which we have fixed. The reference should have cited the
October 1, 1997, deadline in reference to the Family Support Act
automation requirements, not the automation requirements added by
PRWORA.
Computerized Support Enforcement Systems (Part 307)
Functional Requirements for Computerized Support Enforcement Systems
(Sec. 307.11)
1. Comment: One commenter recommended that we limit any additional
functional requirements to those required by statute or added by the
Secretary after consultation with State IV-D Directors, noting that
this would continue the collaborative, partnership process being
promoted by OCSE.
Response: We will continue to consult with the States in developing
additional functional requirements for child support automated systems.
We appreciate the collaborative, partnership process evidenced by the
Federal/State workgroup that developed the functional requirements for
automated systems in the Revised Certification Guide and the workgroups
associated with the Expanded Federal Parent Locator Service.
2. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of the
requirement that the system ``control, account for, and monitor the
activities described in PRWORA not otherwise addressed in this part.''
Response: The State/Federal certification work group has reviewed
the existing certification requirements and has determined that
existing functional requirements in the Guide related to Family Support
Act requirements are sufficient for PRWORA requirements. Specifically,
the Guide provides for the system to update and maintain in the
automated case record all information, facts, events and transactions
necessary to describe a case and all actions taken with respect to a
case. The system must perform case monitoring to ensure that case
actions are accomplished within required time frames. The system must
maintain information required to prepare Federal reports, must generate
reports to assist in case management and processing, and must ensure
and maintain the accuracy of data.
3. Comment: One commenter questioned the inclusion of language from
section 454(16) of the Act and our
[[Page 44803]]
authority to regulate based on this language. The commenter asked that
the first sentence of Sec. 307.11(b) be deleted, recognizing that it
derives from section 454(16) of the Act, ``State plan for child and
spousal support,'' not from section 454A of the Act, ``Automated data
processing'' and that the list of ADP tasks be limited to those under
section 454A of the Act.
Response: The commenter is correct that this provision is from
section 454(16) of the Act. However, that section speaks to the State
plan requirement for automated systems for child support and thus is
relevant to this rulemaking. The discussion of statutory authority for
this rulemaking indicates that the rule implements new requirements
found under sections 454(16), 454(24), 454A and 455(a)(3)(A) of the
Act. We would also point out with respect to the first sentence, that
this is not a new provision but rather is identical to the language in
the prior rules for implementing the Family Support Act.
4. Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that the requirement
that the system control and account for the use of Federal, State and
local funds directly or through an interface with State financial
management and expenditure information went beyond the statute and
would be difficult to implement.
Response: The statute provides under section 454A(b) that the
system perform functions including controlling and accounting for
Federal, State and local funds and implies that this function is to be
part of the statewide system. Our intent in regulating this provision
is to provide maximum flexibility and permit States to continue to meet
the financial accountability requirements through an auxiliary system.
In fact, most of the systems we have seen do have this type of
interface. However, we agree that an interface would not always be
required and did not intend to require an interface when one wasn't
necessary. We've modified the language in the regulation accordingly.
5. Comment: Two commenters asked whether the intent of the
requirement that States maintain the necessary data for paternity
establishment and child support enforcement activities in the State for
each fiscal year is that the system maintain out-of-wedlock birth
statistics?
Response: We do not require States to maintain out-of-wedlock birth
statistics in the CSES. These statistics may be maintained by another
State agency, such as State Vital Statistics agencies. However, the
State IV-D agency must have access to this data to ensure accurate
calculation of the paternity establishment standard and to meet Federal
reporting requirements.
6. Comment: One commenter pointed out that the requirement for the
system to ``allocate'' performance indicators should actually be that
the system ``calculate'' the indicators.
Response: The commenter is correct and we have revised the
regulation accordingly.
7. Comment: One commenter suggested that since the PRWORA incentive
formula is still unknown, the requirement for the system to compute
performance indicators be excluded from the October 1, 2000 deadline.
Response: The requirement that the system compute performance
indicators used for incentives speaks to requirements for computing
incentives under the existing incentive formula as well as the formula
enacted by the Congress in Pub. L. 105-200.
8. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of the reference
to ``other benefits'' in the statute at section 466(c) which speaks to
enforcement procedures including Federal and State income tax refund
offset, intercepting unemployment compensation insurance benefits,
intercepting or seizing other benefits through State or local
governments.
Response: ``Other benefits'' as referenced in the statute merely
refers to any other benefits that may be seized under State law to
enforce child support beyond what is specifically referenced in the
Act.
9. Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the
requirement that the State case registry be a component of the
statewide automated system.
Response: Section 454A(e) of the Act requires that the automated
system of each State include a registry to be known as the State case
registry and contain a record of each case in which services are being
provided under title IV-D and each support order entered or modified on
or after October 1, 1998. The section further provides that non-IV-D
orders may be maintained on a linked registry of support orders. The
IV-D agency is responsible for ensuring that the State case registry
functionality for non-IV-D orders is met, regardless of whether the
State opts to meet the non-IV-D order requirements through the
Statewide automated system or through an automated network of local
linkages.
10. Comment: We received a number of comments in response to our
solicitation of views regarding whether time frames or other standards
should be set for the monitoring and updating of records in the State
case registry (SCR) and, if these should be set, what time frames and
standards would be applied.
Commenters stated that factors such as the size of the caseload,
the status of pending automation and the cost effectiveness of updating
and monitoring may impact a States capability to update the State case
registry. Many commenters suggested that present regulatory time frames
were adequate to update and monitor the State case registry. Others
noted time frames should be included in the Certification Guide.
Additional commenters recommended specific time frames pointing out
that States may adopt varying approaches to updating and monitoring if
these requirements are not specifically delineated in regulation.
Response: There was no clear preponderance of comments on this
issue. In the absence of a distinct standard being recommended by those
commenting on these regulations, no additional regulations will be
promulgated with respect to time frames. Those time lines which are
prescribed by the System Certification Guide will remain in effect.
11. Comment: Comments regarding updating and monitoring of the
Federal case registry were also solicited. Comments ranged from
requiring updates weekly, to no regulation whatsoever.
Response: Due to the great disparity of comments, we chose to allow
States flexibility to determine when to update data in the State case
registry. However, for national consistency and accuracy of Federal
case registry data, we chose to impose the requirement of updating data
in the Federal case registry within five (5) business days.
12. Comment: One comment recommended changing the definition of
``Participant'' to more clearly include paternity orders.
Response: We agree with this position and have amended the
definition as follows: (i) Participant means an individual who owes or
is owed a duty of support, imposed or imposable by law, or with respect
to or on behalf of whom a duty of support is sought to be, established,
or who is an individual connected to an order of support or a child
support case being enforced.
13. Comment: One commenter recommended the definition of
participant be amended by deleting the reference to custodial party and
inserting in its place the word custodian, because of the legal
implications the word party may have.
Response: The term custodial party is used to encompass not only
parents, but
[[Page 44804]]
also others who may have physical custody of a child, but not
necessarily legal custody. This term is defined in a variety of
documents which have been issued with respect to the design and
implementation of State case registries and the Federal case registry.
To introduce another term at this point would be confusing and
counterproductive.
14. Comment: We received a suggestion to amend the definition of
``locate request type'' to more accurately reflect that a locate may be
used for paternity and support establishment purposes.
Response: We agree with this position and have inserted the words
``or support'' in the definition.
15. Comment: A comment was received requesting greater detail on
what records must be included in the State case registry.
Response: The State case registry shall contain a record of: (i)
Every case receiving child support enforcement services under an
approved State plan and (ii) every support order established or
modified in the State on or after October 1, 1998.
16. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about gathering
non-IV-D information for inclusion in State case registries. It was
recommended the regulation provide a phase-in approach with regard to
non-IV-D information.
Response: The Federal case registry will be operational on October
1, 1998, and capable of accepting information on all IV-D cases and all
orders entered or modified on or after that date. In order to ensure
the effective implementation of State case registries and the Federal
case registry, the Secretary is planning a staggered schedule for the
initial submissions to the Federal case registry. The reporting of the
required data elements on IV-D cases will begin on October 1, 1998, to
be followed by initial non-IV-D submissions on or before January 1,
1999. We successfully implemented the National Directory of New Hires
by using a similar approach of staggering new hire and quarterly wage
submissions.
17. Comment: One commenter requested guidance on the way in which
non-IV-D information is to be added to a State case registry.
Response: The request for guidance on the manner in which non-IV-D
information is to be added to the State case registry exceeds the
purpose of these regulations. The purpose of these regulations is to
provide the provisions necessary for implementation of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 as it
relates to child support enforcement program automation. However, the
Office of Child Support Enforcement is committed to providing technical
assistance and guidance on collecting and maintaining of non-IV-D data.
Information on this issue may be found in the Federal case registry
Implementation Guide, Chapter 3--State case registry.
18. Comment: One commenter asked if Federal financial participation
was available for gathering and maintaining non-IV-D case payment data
if the State determines a unified system to maintain such data was
determined to be economical.
Response: Section 454A(e)(4) of the Act provides that payment
records shall be maintained for each case record in the State case
registry with respect to which services are being provided under the
State plan. The statutory language limits the necessity of maintaining
payment information to IV-D cases. Therefore, we cannot provide Federal
financial participation to extend this to the maintenance of this
information on non-IV-D cases.
19. Comment: Many commenters were concerned with the statement that
the State case registry and Federal case registry data elements include
``any other information the Secretary may require as set forth in
instructions issued by the Office.'' Most of these commenters expressed
the position that only those established data elements be included in
the regulation. There was also concern that data elements be set prior
to October 1, 1998.
Response: Those data elements presently delineated in the
regulation are the only ones required on October 1, 1998, to be
reported to the Federal case registry. Through working with States to
identify their needs, additional data elements may become necessary to
assist States in processing child support cases. The primary reason for
allowing the Secretary to adopt additional data elements is to maintain
flexibility to respond to States' requests for enhancements in the
Federal case registry. If the Secretary requires additional data
elements in the future, States will be given adequate notice of the
changes and ample time to make the necessary system changes.
20. Comment: A couple of commenters asked for clarification of the
minimum data elements necessary for support orders on both the State
case registry and the Federal case registry.
Response: The data elements contained in the regulation at
paragraphs (e)(3) and (f)(1) are required for IV-D cases and for
support orders which are entered or modified on or after October 1,
1998. The data elements listed at paragraph (e)(4) are only required
for IV-D cases with support orders in effect.
21. Comment: Commenters also suggested that in addition to the data
element listing the existence of an order, that we should also include
the State where the order was issued. Commenters generally felt the
State where the order was issued was critical information for Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) and the Full Faith and Credit for
Child Support Orders Act purposes. Many commenters also expressed the
belief that federal legislation mandated the issuing State of an order
be included as a data element on the Federal case registry.
Response: We agree that inclusion of the State where the order was
entered is necessary in case processing for UIFSA and Full Faith and
Credit for Child Support Orders Act purposes. We have added this to the
list of required data elements which a State must maintain on the State
case registry.
However, the Federal case registry serves as a pointer system to
States and is not intended to contain all of the data with respect to a
case or order maintained in the State case registry. Therefore, the
Federal case registry will only carry an indication of whether an order
exists and not the State where the order was entered. States will be
expected to use the Child Support Enforcement Network (CSEnet) to
ascertain any additional information on a participant that the State
may need. By including a State case registry data element for the State
that issued the order, we ensure that CSEnet will be able to quickly
process automated transactions of order information for UIFSA purposes.
22. Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the
distinction between the amounts of support arrears and the amount of a
lien since by definition support arrears become liens by operation of
law.
Response: We agree with the commenter that inclusion of both the
amount of the arrears and the amount of a lien as data elements in the
State case registry creates a degree of confusion since these amounts
may be identical. However, pursuant to section 466(a)(4) of the Act,
the amount of arrears in a case becomes a lien only if the non-
custodial parent owns real or personal property in the State or resides
in the State. Thus, where a non-custodial parent does not reside or own
property in the State enforcing the support obligation or if the value
of real property owned in the State is less than the amount of arrears
owed, the amount of arrears will differ from the amount of
[[Page 44805]]
liens. Section 454A(e) requires both amounts to be listed as State case
registry data elements.
23. Comment: One commenter requested that the list of standard data
elements for the State case registry include administrative and
judicial orders, rather than administrative and judicial proceedings.
The commenter was of the opinion that it is more useful to limit the
information on the case registry to this data.
Response: We agree with the commenter. The data elements have been
amended to reflect that information on administrative and judicial
orders related to paternity and support be included as a data element
in place of information on administrative actions and administrative
and judicial proceedings and orders related to paternity and support.
24. Comment: A commenter requested clarification of the distinction
between disbursement and distribution.
Response: Distribution is the allocation or apportionment of a
support collection. Disbursement is the actual dispensing or paying out
of the collection. Action Transmittal 97-13 provides a more detailed
discussion of the distinction between disbursement and distribution.
25. Comment: A comment was received requesting clarification of the
meaning of ``sharing and comparing with and receiving information from
other data bases and information comparisons services to obtain or
provide information necessary to enable the State, other States, the
Office or other Federal agencies to carry out this chapter.'' The
assumption is this section expands the base of agencies and individuals
with access to information.
Response: The intent of the introductory language of Sec. 307.11(f)
is to ensure the automated system has the capacity to share, compare
and receive information from other data bases as expressly authorized
by title IV-D of the Act. See, for example, sections 454A(f) and
466(c)(1)(D) of the Act. Except as provided under sections 454A(f)(3),
453 and 463, these exchanges are for the purposes of obtaining
information necessary to carry out the Child Support Enforcement
program under title IV-D of the Act. As a result of these comparisons,
the IV-D agency is obtaining information, not releasing information.
Thus, this section does not generally expand the base of agencies or
individuals with access to information. Information sharing activities
in the statewide automated system must be conducted in full compliance
with the safeguarding provisions of Sec. 307.13, section 453 of the
Act, and section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
26. Comment: We received a comment asking for clarification of the
requirement that information be exchanged with State agencies both
within the State and with agencies in other States. More particularly,
the commenter asked whether the requirement for an exchange of data
with agencies in other States was a CSEnet transaction or a direct
exchange from the IV-D agency in one State with the IV-A agency or XIX
agency in another State.
Response: States' systems must be able to use CSEnet to exchange
data with IV-D agencies in other States. CSEnet may not be used to
exchange data with IV-A or XIX agencies in other States. Such exchanges
may be accomplished through direct exchanges or through their-in-State
title IV-A and XIX agencies.
27. Comment: We received a comment requesting explicit detail be
provided with respect to the requirement that certain data was subject
to the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Response: The term ``certain data'' refers to taxpayer return
information obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. That
information is subject to the prohibitions contained in section 6103 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Return information is defined as ``a
taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income,
payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets,
liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, over
assessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is
being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or
processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by,
furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or
with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible
existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under
this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other
imposition, or offense, and any part of any written determination or
any background file document relating to such written determination
which is not open to public inspection.''
28. Comment: It was recommended by one commenter that all
references to IRS publications be eliminated and the regulation reflect
that security standards will be set following consultation between the
Secretary and the IRS.
Response: We do not agree with this recommendation. IRS Publication
1075 entitled ``The Information Security Guidelines for Federal, State
and Local Agencies'' was referenced to assist States in ensuring
compliance with IRS requirements.
29. Comment: Commenters requested greater detail be provided with
regard to updating information reported by a State to the Federal case
registry, particularly as it relates to the notice of expiration of a
support order.
Response: The definition of expiration of a support order is
determined under State law. States are required to notify the Federal
case registry when an order expires pursuant to State law. It is
critical to keep data current in both the State case registry and the
Federal case registry. The primary intent of the Federal case registry
is to act as a ``pointer'' system in notifying States of other States
which may have an interest and/or information on a participant.
30. Comment: We received a number of comments on the need for
greater detail and guidance to States on the issue of a Family Violence
indicator as a data element. Commenters suggested criteria be
established to guide States on the placement of this indicator and to
offer courts guidance on the process whereby they can release
information despite the presence of a Family Violence indicator on a
person contained within the Federal case registry. One commenter
suggested there was a need to provide direction on how and when to
update the Family Violence indicator.
Other commenters requested a definition be provided for what
constitutes reasonable evidence of domestic violence as that phrase is
used within the statute and this regulation. One commenter also
expressed the difficulty States would have in collecting Family
Violence indicators on orders or cases which are not receiving services
under the State plan. One commenter also suggested adding the Family
Violence indicator as a data element to the State case registry.
Response: The purpose of these regulations is to provide the
provisions necessary for implementation of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 as it relates to child
support enforcement program automation. The request for additional
guidance with respect to a Family Violence indicator is beyond the
scope of these regulations. A definition of reasonable evidence will
depend primarily on State law. However, the Office of Child Support
Enforcement is committed to providing technical assistance and guidance
on the issue of the Family Violence indicator. An Action Transmittal on
the issue is forthcoming. It will assist States
[[Page 44806]]
in addressing outstanding questions such as placement of the Family
Violence indicator, the process for court access to Federal case
registry information on a person to whom a Family Violence indicator
has been attached and the necessity for updating a case when the
circumstances for the placement of the indicator changes. In addition,
OCSE is preparing a compilation of State laws and policies regarding
the criteria and placement for the Family Violence indicator. OCSE is
also participating in the Department of Health and Human Services
Violence Against Women Act Steering Committee and has disseminated
multiple resources to States regarding family violence. OCSE's Domestic
Violence liaison, Susan Notar, may be contacted for further information
on this subject at (202) 401-9370.
We agree that it is appropriate to include the Family Violence
indicator as a data element within the State case registry for purposes
of reporting the Family Violence indicator to the Federal case
registry. This data element is already required pursuant to
Sec. 307.11(e)(3)(vi) which states that the State case registry shall
contain all data elements required under Sec. 307.11(f)(1) of this
section for the operation of the Federal case registry.
31. Comment: We received comments expressing concern over the lack
of access to information by a court when a Family Violence indicator is
present. The comment also suggested updates to the Family Violence
indicator occur every two (2) days.
Response: Sections 453(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act provide that a
court may have access to information as permissible under 453 and 463
of the Act, in a case when a participant in the case has been
identified with a Family Violence indicator. These sections provide
that disclosure to a court, as defined in 453(c)(2) and 463(d)(2) of
the Act, or the agent of the court, may occur if upon receipt of the
information the court, or agent of the court, determines whether
disclosure beyond the court could be harmful to the parent or the child
and, if the court makes such a determination, the court and its agents
shall not make such disclosure. At the time of the disclosure of this
information to the court, the court making the request shall also be
notified of the State which placed the Family Violence indicator on a
participant. The State which made the determination that caused the
indicator to be placed on a participant shall also be informed that
another State's court has requested the Family Violence indicator be
overridden.
While we agree the Family Violence indicator is of such a sensitive
nature that it requires regular updating, we believe that updating this
every two (2) days is unrealistic. To accommodate the necessity of
updating this data element, we have added a requirement in
Sec. 307.11(f)(1)(x) requiring the Family Violence indicator be updated
within five (5) business days of receipt by the IV-D agency of
information which would cause the IV-D agency to add or remove a Family
Violence indicator.
32. Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of the
definition of a support order and the order indicator.
Response: A support order is defined in section 453(p) of the Act
as ``a judgment, decree, or order, whether temporary, final, or subject
to modification, issued by a court or an administrative agency of
competent jurisdiction, for the support and maintenance of a child,
including a child who has attained the age of majority under the law of
the issuing State, or of the parent with whom the child is living,
which provides for monetary support, health care, arrearages, or
reimbursement, and which may include related costs and fees, interest
and penalties, income withholding, attorney fees, and other relief''.
The order indicator data element will be marked ``Yes'' if a State
knows of the existence of an order (as defined above), whether the
order was issued by the reporting State or another State.
33. Comment: A comment was received suggesting that if the purpose
of the Federal case registry was to act as a pointer system to quickly
notify States of other States that have an interest and/or information
on a participant, the regulations clarify that only interstate cases
are to be submitted to the Federal case registry.
Response: Section 453(h) of the Act provides that the Federal case
registry shall include abstracts of support orders and other
information with respect to each case and order in each State case
registry. The State case registry is required by the Act to contain
records with respect to each case in which services are being provided
by the State agency under the approved State plan and each support
order established or modified in the State on or after October 1, 1998.
The reporting requirements of the Act clearly indicate all cases and
orders entered or modified on or after October 1, 1998, be included in
the State and the required data elements on each be reported to the
Federal case registry. There is no stipulation that this only be
interstate cases.
Security and Confidentiality for Computerized Support Enforcement
Systems (Sec. 307.13)
1. Comment: One commenter supported the need for adequate
safeguards for security data but was concerned that the use of employee
dismissal is subject to collective bargaining agreements and other
constraints and recommended allowing States to determine for themselves
what the administrative penalties should be.
Response: We believe the regulatory reference to administrative
penalties provides wide State flexibility for identifying appropriate
State sanctions. However, security and confidentiality of the
information is paramount to the integrity of the system and as such
administrative sanctions must include dismissal of employees in
appropriate cases.
2. Comment: One commenter expressed the view that the section on
privacy and confidentiality was difficult to follow and questioned the
intent of Sec. 307.13(a)(3), limiting access and disclosure to non-IV-D
personnel or for Non-IV-D program purposes as authorized by Federal
Law.
Response: We have reviewed the language identified by the commenter
and agree that it is confusing. Paragraph (a)(3) was designed to cover
the disclosure of information to State agencies administering programs
under titles IV-A and XIX of the Act which is authorized under section
454A(f)(3) of the Act. We have revised paragraph (a)(3) to more closely
track the language of the statutory provision. Information disclosures
to State agencies administering title IV-A or XIX programs are subject
to the safeguarding provisions of section 453 of the Act to the extent
that the disclosure involves information obtained from the FPLS and
section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The following table
clarifies access to FPLS information as specified in sections 453 and
463 of the Act:
[[Page 44807]]
Access to FPLS Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who Why How What Exceptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agent/Attorney of a Establish paternity, Request filed in Information Disclosure would
State who has establish, modify or accordance with (including SSN, contravene national
authority/duty to enforce child regulations, 45 CFR address, and name, policy or security
collect child support obligations. Sec. 303.70. address and FEIN of interests of the
support and spousal Sec. 453(a) Only SPLS can request employer) on, or US, or
support, which may information from facilitating the confidentiality of
include a State IV-D FPLS. discovery of, the census data.
agency. --Must contain location of any Notification from
Resident parent, specified individual-- State of reasonable
legal guardian, information --Who is under an evidence of child
attorney or agent of including obligation to pay abuse or domestic
a child not attestation. child support, violence.
receiving IV-A --Fee must be paid. --Against whom a Sec. 453(b)
benefits. Sec. 453(d) child support
453(c) obligation is
sought,
--To whom a child
support obligation
is owed,
--Who has or may have
parental rights with
respect to a child.
Information on the
individual's wages,
other income from,
and benefits of
employment
(including health
care coverage).
Information on the
type, status,
location and amount
of any assets of, or
debts owed by or to,
the individual.
Sec. 453(a)
State Agency that is To administer such Same as above. Same as above. Same as above.
administering a program. Sec. 453(d) Sec. 453(a) Sec. 453(b).
program operated Sec. 453(a)
under a State Plan
under subpart 1 of
part B or a State
plan approved under
subpart 2 of part B
or under part E.
Sec. 453(c)
Court (or agent of Establish paternity, Request filed in Same as above, except However, upon
the court) with establish, modify or accordance with can get it despite notification that
authority to issue enforce child regulations. Sec. child abuse or FPLS has received
an order against an support obligations. 453(b) domestic violence notice of child
NCP for child Sec. 453(a) Request must be notification. abuse or domestic
support, or to serve processed through Sec. 453(b) violence, court
as the initiating the SPLS, 45 CFR must determine
court in an action Sec. 303.70 whether disclosure
to seek a child SPLS may process of the information
support order. request from court to any other person
Sec. 453(c) to FPLS. 45 CFR Sec. would be harmful.
302.35(c)(2) Sec. 453(b)
Above restrictions
on information that
would compromise
national security
etc. still apply.
Agent/Attorney of a Make or enforce a Request filed in Most recent address Disclosure would
State who has the child custody or accordance with and place of contravene national
authority/duty to visitation regulations. employment of parent policy or security
enforce a child determination. State agency receives or child. interests of the
custody or Enforce any federal request and Sec. 463(c) US, or
visitation or State law transmits it to confidentiality of
determination. regarding taking or Secretary. census data.
Agent/Attorney of the restraint of a Sec. 463(b)-45 CFR Notification from
US or a State who child. Sec. 302.35 State of reasonable
has authority/duty Sec. 463(a) SPLS made request to evidence of child
to investigate, FPLS in standard abuse or domestic
enforce or prosecute format. SPLS shall violence.
the unlawful taking identify these cases Sec. 463(c)
or restraint of a to distinguish them
child. from other requests.
Sec. 463(d)(2) 45 CFR Sec. 303.15
[[Page 44808]]
Court (or agent of Same as above. Request filed in Same as above, except However, no
court) with Sec. 463(a) accordance with can get it despite disclosure shall be
jurisdiction to make regulations. Sec. notice of child made to anyone
or enforce a child 463(c) abuse or domestic else. However, upon
custody or Request must be violence. notification that
visitation processed through Sec. 463(c) FPLS has received
determination. the SPLS. 45 CFR notice of child
Sec. 463(d)(2) Sec. 303.70 abuse or domestic
SPLS may process violence, and
request from court receipt of
to FPLS. 45 CFR Sec. information the
303.35 court must
SPLS makes request to determine whether
FPLS in standard disclosure of the
format. SPLS shall information to any
identify these cases other person would
to distinguish them be harmful.
from other requests. Sec. 463(c)
Upon receipt of Above restrictions
response from FPLS, on information that
SPLS shall send would compromise
information directly national security
to the requester, still apply.
then destroy
information related
to the request. 45
CFR Sec. 303.15
US Central Authority Locate any parent or Upon request, Most recent address Restrictions under
(under the Hague child on behalf of pursuant to and place of Sec. 453 (national
convention on an applicant to agreement between employment. security etc.,
international child central authority in Secretary of DHHS Sec. 463(e) domestic violence).
abduction). a child abduction and the central Sec. 453(b) and
Sec. 463(e) case. authority. Sec. 463(c)
Sec. 463(e) No fee may be
charged.
Sec. 463(e)
Secretary of the Administration of Pursuant to FCR data and NDNH
Treasury federal tax laws. procedures developed data.
Sec. 453(h)(3) and Sec. 453(h)(3) and between the Sec. 453(h)(3) and
(i)(3) (i)(3) Secretary of (i)(3)
Treasury and DHHS.
Social Security Verification. Pursuant to procedure FPLS data.
Administration Sec. 453(j)(1) developed between Sec. 453(j)(1)
Sec. 453(j)(1) For any purpose. the Social Security NDNH data.
Sec. 453(j)(4) Sec. 453(j)(4) Administration and Sec. 453(j)(4)
DHHS.
State IV-D agencies Location of Every 2 business days FPLS matches. Disclosure would
Sec. 453(j) (2) and individual in information Sec. 453(j) (2) and contravene national
(3) paternity or child comparison in NDNH (3) policy or security
support case. with the FCR and interest of the US,
Sec. 453(j)(2) report back to or confidentiality
Administration of IV- States within 2 of census data.
D program. business days after Notification from
Sec. 453(j)(3) a match is State of reasonable
discovered. This evidence of child
would be an abuse or domestic
automatic match with violence.
the statewide Sec. 453(b)
automated system.
Sec. 453(j)(2)(A & B
)
When the Secretary
determines a data
match would be
necessary to carry
out the purposes of
the IV-D program.
Sec. 453(j)(3)
Researchers. Research purposes At Secretary's Data in each Personal identifiers
Sec. 453(j)(5) found by the discretion. component of the removed.
Secretary to be Sec. 453(j)(5) FPLS. Sec. 453(j)(5)
likely to contribute
to achieving
purposes of IV-A or
IV-D programs.
Sec. 453(j)(5)
State IV-A agencies. Administration of IV- When the Secretary FPLS matches. Disclosure would
Sec. 453(j)(3) A program. determines a data Sec. 453(j)(3) contravene national
Sec. 453(j)(3) match would be policy or security
necessary to carry interests of the
out the purposes of US, or
the IV-A program. confidentiality of
Sec. 453(j)(3) census data.
Notification from
State of reasonable
evidence of child
abuse or domestic
violence.
Sec. 453(b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44809]]
Approval of Advance Planning Documents (Sec. 307.15)
1. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of the phrase,
``how the single State system will encompass all political
jurisdictions in the State by October 1, 1997, or October 1, 2000,
respectively.'' The commenter asked for clarification of how all
political subdivisions in the State are to be included and, with
respect to the date, whether this means that as long as States have
IV&V consultants in place and comply with the APD requirements there
will not be a federal review until after October 1, 2000?
Response: The requirement that the system cover all political
subdivisions of the State was part of the Family Support Act automation
rules published October 14, 1992; this is not a new requirement. With
respect to the October 1, 2000 date, this is a reference to the date
when the State must meet the new automated system requirements of
PRWORA. We reserve the right to conduct at any time reviews of CSE
systems funded by FFP and plan to increase on-site technical assistance
related to automated CSE systems.
2. Comment: One commenter suggested that we eliminate the
requirement that ``adequate resources'' be provided in line with the
Federal resource limitation, i.e., the cap on enhanced funding.
Response: While PRWORA did cap the amount of FFP reimbursable at
the 80 percent matching rate at $400 million, FFP at the regular 66
percent rate continues to be open-ended. The investment by both the
Federal and State government necessitates the need for States to
allocate sufficient resources to properly manage a project of this
size, complexity and importance; we are making no change to this
requirement.
3. Comment: A couple of commenters questioned the APD approval
process and recommended that the process be eliminated and that a new
approach be adopted. One of these commenters suggested a State-Federal
partnership to examine and develop an effective new process. The other
comment suggested we substitute a very limited planning section to the
State plan describing how Federal funding will be used to support the
statutory requirement.
Response: The Advanced Planning Document procedures are not limited
to automated systems for Child Support Enforcement. The child support
systems requirements are based on the APD requirements of 45 CFR part
95 and are used by Food and Nutrition Service for Food Stamps, HCFA for
Medicaid, and ACF for IV-A (prior to TANF), Child Welfare and Child
Care programs.
Since 1981, of the $3.2 billion expended on developing and
implementing child support automated systems over the last 17 years,
the Federal government has provided $2.5 billion for development of
child support automated systems, a considerable investment. While the
amount of enhanced (80%) funding is capped, there is no limitation on
the amount of expenditures for systems development at the 66 percent
rate, still a considerable investment by the Federal government. The
other Federal programs which have no enhanced funding and whose level
of regular rate FFP is 50 percent still require States to adhere to APD
procedures and certification reviews.
We believe we have a fiduciary responsibility to oversee and
monitor this considerable financial investment in automated systems for
child support. The commenters blamed APD procedures for past systems
development failures, but various independent entities, including the
General Accounting Office during their evaluation of CSE systems
development, have cited the need for more, not less, monitoring and
oversight of the States by the Federal government through the APD
process. The importance of automation to child support enforcement
cannot be over emphasized.
4. Comment: One commenter expressed appreciation for Federal
efforts to have a more substantial presence in assisting and monitoring
State's development projects. An automated system is a major tool in
tracking and enforcing child support and must be efficiently developed.
The commenter agrees with the proposal to require a State to obtain
IV&V when certain APD requirements are not met, stating that a well
organized work plan and schedule based on the critical path method must
be used in development of an automation effort of this size and
complexity.
Another commenter, commenting as a State with a proven successful
track record, indicated that they understand the intent of the quality
assurance process, backup procedure, and IV&V as outlined but raised
concerns that it may prove to be process-intensive and distracting if
too hard a line is taken requiring proven states to provide this level
of detail. The commenter raised concern that the potential
repercussions include causing disruption to management of the project,
escalation of development costs and delay.
Other commenters asked what was meant by projects going astray and
in what form corrective action will take place? Other commenters were
also concerned about the requirement that quality assurance providers
reports be submitted directly to OCSE because they believe State
project management should have an opportunity to correct misperceptions
or erroneous data prior to submittal. These commenters and another were
concerned that this approach will delay State's progress while awaiting
approval and additional funding and strongly recommend that steps be
taken to ensure this does not occur. They further recommended that if a
time period is necessary for OCSE to receive the report, it be 30 days
after the State has received the report from the QA vendor.
Still another commenter suggested a collaborative approach between
the State and the IV&V to ensure progress is not impeded due to
miscommunication between the vendor and the State. Such collaboration
could ensure that Federal needs of monitoring and validating system
development efforts are met, while State's efforts at timely completion
of automation requirements are not impeded.
Response: Independent validation and verification efforts must be
conducted by an entity that is independent from the State. We would
only provide very limited exceptions to this requirement based on a
State's request. For example, we would consider an exception in a
situation where a State has an existing IV&V provider in place which is
independent of the child support agency (or other entity responsible
for systems development), which meets all criteria set forth in these
rules and where the State's systems development efforts are on track as
a result.
The requirement that OCSE receive the QA and IV&V reports
simultaneous with a State should have no impact on State systems
development progress since funding approval is not tied to these
reports. Further, the State is free to correct any misconceptions or
erroneous data in the QA or IV&V reports submitted, but delaying the
reports for 30 days or editing them before submittal to OCSE defeats
the purpose of OCSE's receiving the reports, i.e., early identification
of problems. We would clarify that while we require quarterly progress
reports, we encourage more frequent communication, especially during
critical system development phases.
5. Comment: One commenter raised concerns about the statement in
the preamble that States will be required to reduce risk by using, when
possible,
[[Page 44810]]
fully tested pilots, simulations or prototypes. The commenter expressed
the belief that each of the items were key factors in the delay of
State's ability to finalize system development under the Family Support
Act and led to significant cost overruns.
Other commenters expressed the view that these regulations are an
unnecessary burden on States and will not enhance either the system
development or system quality assurance process. In fact, the
commenters said, this requirement may even delay systems
implementation.
We received one recommendation that the requirement for an
independent validation and verification (IV&V) provider not be tied to
past project performance. The commenter stated that a more efficient
use of resources is to concentrate the IV&V review on the merits of the
existing APD and related project plans.
Another commenter shared the view that if sufficient time is given,
the IV & V requirement is not overly burdensome.
Several commenters were concerned that the cost of this item was
never considered in the allocation of the enhanced funding and States
required to procure these services will have an unexpected financial
burden placed on them. One of these commenters went on to suggest that
it should be up to the State to determine the appropriate corrective
action, where an IV & V would be only one option.
Reponse: The suggestions enumerated in the preamble are common best
practices recommended by all successful information technology efforts.
We are concerned that commenters believe that ``establishing clear
measures, worker involvement and buy-in'' are delaying factors. They
should be an essential part of any information technology system
development effort. Without these procedures, the systems project has a
high probability of failure and delay.
However, we recognize that many States have already obtained IV & V
services or conducted the type of review that the proposed IV & V
requirement was intended to address. We also recognize that the IV & V
services requirement must be structured to avoid delaying the project.
When a State's action or inaction triggers the need for IV & V services
as specified in Sec. 307.11, we will, in close consultation with the
States, assess the value, need for, and type of IV & V services.
OCSE has recently acquired an IV & V service contract. While this
contract is not meant to substitute for effective State IV & V reviews,
the Federal IV & V contractors may be utilized in some situations. The
assessment will include whether OCSE through its Federal IV & V
contractors can provide the independent review needed or whether the
State will need to obtain its own IV & V services.
6. Comment: One commenter questioned why States already under
penalty for missing certification, i.e. the States that have lost all
Federal funding, need APD approval since they have no further Federal
dollars to lose. The commenter believes this would result in such
States being penalized twice.
Response: While several States have received letters of intent to
disapprove their State plans because of their failure to meet the
October 1, 1997 statutory deadline for State automated system
certification, all States receiving such notices have requested a
predecisional hearing. Until such time as a hearing is concluded and
HHS reaches a final decision, those States will continue to receive
Federal funds for child support, including funds for system development
to complete those CSE systems. While those States continue to receive
Federal funds for systems development and other APD services, Federal
APD requirements continue to apply.
7. Comment: one commenter pointed out that there are various
reasons for missing milestones, citing policy changes as a major
factor. Another factor is that PRWORA included enormous automation
requirements, yet the resource allocation is diminishing almost
simultaneously. The commenter suggests that the best action for missed
milestones is a corrective action plan agreed upon by State and Federal
representatives.
Related to this, another commenter suggested this requirement be
changed to require the submittal of a revised APDU, as soon as the
State is ``off-plan'' if it has missed milestones. Further, OCSE should
work with the State and their QA service provider to reach agreement on
the corrective actions necessary to assure continued progress and
continued funding. If the Federal agency review of this new APDU does
not result in approval of the revised approach, then funding could be
reduced or eliminated.
Response: Current regulations require States missing significant
milestones to submit to ACF for approval a revised schedule and budget
in an As-Needed APDU. Current regulations also provide that OCSE may
suspend system development funding when a State ceases to comply
substantially with its APD. The rule adds additional tools and
flexibility to assist States whose systems development efforts are
experiencing difficulty, such as obtaining IV & V services, short of
cutting off all funding.
8. Comment: One commenter questioned the need for IV & V when
determining the need for system redesign, stating that the decision is
based on State administration and operational needs and APD approval is
already required.
Response: The final rule cites as a trigger for an IV & V a total
redesign of the automated CSE system (i.e. replacing existing automated
system with new system). We believe that an independent assessment of
the system project can bring valuable new insight into the process.
9. Comment: One commenter thought the language on Federal oversight
was confusing. The commenter noted that it appears that OCSE may be
requiring States to acquire IV & V in addition to their QA service
provider and questioned the requirement that OCSE has approval
authority over the contract and the contractor's key personnel. While
several commenters agreed with the requirement for the acquisition of a
QA service provider and the need to share specified QA status reports,
they do not agree that another layer of review should be added.
Response: Current regulations require prior Federal approval of
contracts or contract amendments over certain thresholds. Because of
the importance of this activity to system development, the proposed
regulations provide for prior approval for IV&V contracts regardless of
threshold, if the need for IV&V is triggered by one of the events cited
in the regulation.
The final rule enumerates what the IV&V contract the State enters
into should have regarding key personnel. That information is intended
to assist the State in maintaining those key personnel bid by the
vendor on the contract; there is no intent for the Federal government
to judge the key personnel proposed in the State's IV&V contract.
10. Comment: One commenter raised concerns about the requirement
that the IV&V vendor consult with all stakeholders and assess user
involvement and buy-in and recommended eliminating the word ``all.''
The commenter indicated agreement that buy-in is critical to success,
but stated that attaining consensus from ``all'' interested parties in
any process that involves as many divergent stakeholders as child
support does is not possible. The commenter suggested that removal of
the word all makes this requirement something that can be done.
[[Page 44811]]
Response: We have not changed the language because we believe that
the regulation is clear that the IV&V provider must consult with all
stakeholders, but not necessarily consult with each and every member of
a stakeholder group (i.e. every clerk or the court, or every
caseworker) nor does it require the IV&V provider to achieve consensus
among ``all'' stakeholders.
11. Comment: One commenter asked how States will be evaluated to
determine significant delay or cost overruns? The commenter suggested
that we specify the measure to avoid arbitrary measures.
Response: We recognize that all system development projects require
some level of schedule and budget revisions. The Implementation Advance
Planning Document addresses these topics and requires an estimated
schedule and budget which is revised annually or requires an as-needed
update. A significant delay is one which affects a State's ability to
meet the statutory deadlines in PRWORA. Current regulations at 45 CFR
95.611(c)(2)(ii) require an explanation for significant (10%) cost
increases from the previous year and also require States to explain
slippage in terms of causes and effect on the overall implementation
schedule. For example, for enhanced FFP, Sec. 95.611(c)(2)(ii) requires
States to submit an as-needed APDU when there is a projected increase
of $100,000 or 10 percent of the project costs, whichever is less, or a
schedule extension of more than 60 days for major milestones.
12. Comment: Two commenters pointed out that milestones can be
missed due to circumstances beyond the control of the State (i.e.
delayed issuance of requirements, changes in requirements,
underestimation of changes required due to unknown factors). One of the
commenters recommended that States be allowed to correct project plans
to modify milestone due dates within reason. The commenter asked for
clarification of the procedures that will be used to monitor the
completion of milestones and be assured that progress will not be
impeded by the monitoring and approval process. The commenter
encouraged that funding loss not be threatened without first allowing
some room for corrective action by the State.
Response: We believe the APD process and the As-Needed APDU process
already provide the State with the opportunity for corrective action.
The procedures that will be used to monitor include reports from the
State, quarterly reports from the State's QA vendor, ongoing
communications, and on-site monitoring from OCSE staff.
13. Comment: One commenter suggested that the list of milestones be
a guide or recommendation and that the actual milestones and
deliverables to be included in the APD should be negotiable and based
on individual State needs and current status.
Response: We agree with this position. Traditional life cycle
methodologies will form the basis of milestones for any State, but we
are open to negotiating modifications with States to address individual
State needs and circumstances.
14. Comment: Several commenters charged that the APD and APDU
process as it currently exists is extremely burdensome and will become
more so with the implementation of this rule. The record keeping which
is necessary to annually update the APD is very complex. The commenters
indicated that the data needed for the APD is not usually part of the
normal operations of the IV-D agency, especially after system
implementation, and keeping up with all the data needed for the update
requires staff who are dedicated to this type of recording. Since
enhanced funding is no longer available for operation of a certified
system, a couple of these commenters thought it unreasonable to
continue to require an annual update of the APD. One commenter
suggested that while elimination of the process would be ideal, at best
the APD should be simplified.
Response: Enhanced funding is not the trigger for annual update of
the APDU. This requirement applies to all State automated systems
development activities, including those funded at the regular matching
rate. However, we are in full agreement with the goal to simplify the
approval process where possible and appropriate. As mentioned in the
preamble, revisions to the APD process affect other programs. We will
continue to work with our Federal and State partners to develop
innovative ideas and approaches and plan to convene meetings to address
this issue.
15. Comment: A couple of commenters asked how suspending the APD
and associated funding assists States in achieving the goal of systems
development. The commenter suggested that a more productive approach
might be to provide States experiencing difficulties with technical
assistance.
Response: One purpose of the rule is to give us and States
additional tools and options for dealing with systems development
efforts which are experiencing difficulties. We would agree with the
commenter that suspending funding would not always be the most
productive course of action. We certainly agree that technical
assistance can be productive in assisting States experiencing
difficulties and we are committed to providing such assistance.
The rule also gives us and States a better framework for designing
and monitoring system development efforts and facilitates the early
identification of difficulties. This should assist us and States in
taking appropriate corrective action before more punitive measures,
such as suspension of funding, become necessary. However, this rule
leaves in place the current regulatory provision that if OCSE finds a
State substantially out of compliance with its APD, it must totally
suspend all associated funding. The proposal refers to ACF's approval
of funds under an approved APD and the intent is to continue to provide
some funding for limited, specific functions under the APD to assist
the State in addressing the areas of the APD that are out of
compliance.
16. Comment: Commenters also thought it unclear how a State can
identify a failure and a backup procedure since there is no explanation
defining at what point a situation becomes a failure, or at what point
a backup procedure is to be implemented, and who makes those
determinations. The commenter further questioned how a State can
account for failures and backup procedures in its projected timetable
when the State does not know what failure may occur and when that
failure may occur.
Response: The State, in planning an information technology project
of the size and complexity of most CSE projects, develops risk
management factors that help in identifying possible risks of failure.
Current regulations require the inclusion of backup procedures in a
State's APD. The final rule expands on that requirement by listing six
circumstances that would trigger the need for a specific type of backup
procedure, viz, obtaining IV&V services. The first five trigger points
are self-explanatory. The sixth trigger point is based on ACF's
traditional oversight and monitoring role over ACF-funded State
automated systems.
17. Comment: Several comments pointed out that the statute does not
require an IV&V and questioned whether this wasn't an unfunded mandate.
These commenters and others suggested that the provision be eliminated.
One commenter stated that although the States are being required to
obtain IV&V, it appears that the State-level IV&V will be doing Federal
monitoring, that the so-called State-level
[[Page 44812]]
IV&V will actually be controlled at the Federal level. The commenter
asked if this was the intent.
Response: Obtaining IV&V to review a troubled system is good
business practice and has been utilized by numerous State systems as
they encountered the very problems enumerated in this proposed
regulation. OCSE will obtain its own IV&V contractor which will be
assisting the Federal government in its oversight and monitoring role.
The State IV&V is not intended to substitute for Federal monitoring.
Rather, it is a mechanism whereby a State, and by extension the Federal
government, can obtain objective analysis and recommendations to deal
with serious system development issues. Funding for IV&V services is
available to States at the applicable (66%) FFP rate.
18. Comment: One commenter noted that CSES are the only mandated,
automated state systems that must pass certification requirements which
not only detail what the systems should do, but in many cases, how they
should do it. The commenter went on to say that the certification
requirements do not take into account the business practices of the
States, or successful program performance. The commenter and several
others suggested that the systems certification process needs to be
more flexible, less focused on systems detail and take into account
overall program performance of the State.
Response: Child support differs from other Federally funded
programs in at least two respects. The first is that OCSE reimburses
States for a higher share of costs--both systems development and
administrative costs, than do other Federal programs. With the Federal
government funding 66 to 80 percent of costs, one of OCSE's objectives
is to ensure that States use automation to the greatest extent
practicable in order to keep program costs in line. The second
distinction is that approximately one-third of child support cases
involve more than one State. Having some consistency in terminology and
practices across State automated systems is critical if this portion of
the caseload is to be handled efficiently and effectively. The
specificity of automation requirements is a reflection of the
programmatic provisions of the CSE authorizing statute; and under
current financing arrangements, States in the aggregate reap a
substantial financial return from the Program and stand to gain even
more as effectiveness and efficiency improve due to automation.
In developing the certification guide for PRWORA requirements, OCSE
heavily involved States early on in the process via a Federal/State
work group. One of the guiding principles followed by this Federal/
State work group was to avoid prescriptive requirements and micro-
management of the functionality of the State's CSE system. Comparison
of those sections of the certification guide related to PRWORA with
those sections related to Family Support Act requirements will show
that we've substantially reduced the prescriptiveness and detail.
19. Comment: One commenter recommended that States be permitted to
have flexibility in plan development for projects rather than be
restricted to phased successive models as narrow in scope and brief in
duration as practicable.
Response: Use of life cycle methodology for system development is
considered good business practice. However, we agree that the process
should be commensurate with the size and scope of the development
effort. OCSE recognizes, for example, that for States that choose to
enhance their existing Family Support Act certified CSE systems to meet
the new PRWORA system requirements, the milestones and project
methodologies may differ from traditional life cycle methodologies
associated with building entirely new systems. The utilization of the
traditional life cycle methodologies should be commensurate with the
size, scope, complexity and risk of the enhancement. If a State feels
that using traditional life cycle methodologies is inappropriate to its
project, it should contact OCSE and discuss alternatives.
20. Comment: One commenter suggested that it might help if the
Federal government had a group of State resources that were familiar
with these projects and they groomed them as a team to go into a State,
do the evaluation, etc., at Federal expense.
Similarly, another commenter suggested that we consider the
practicality of developing a mentoring or coaching arrangement where
the more proven States would be joined with other States which may be
struggling with their system development effort to share ideas and
brainstorm solutions to obstacles.
Response: OCSE has been supportive of the ``peer-to-peer''
assistance approach and will consider funding State systems experts to
assist other States in system development. For example, West Virginia,
Puerto Rico, Virginia, Iowa and Washington State have all lent the
expertise of their CSE systems staff to assist other States. ACF
intends to follow-up on the suggestion for a resource directory and
specialized training as a method of improving technical assistance to
States. State staff certainly would bring a practical hands-on
expertise and experience to the project. However, with all States
working to meet the same statutory deadlines, OCSE does not believe
that the States can spare the time and resources needed to substitute
entirely for independent validation and verification of State systems
development.
21. Comment: One commenter noted that the automation requirements
of PRWORA require significantly more data sharing between the States
and with DHHS but that unfortunately, the Family Support Act of 1988
mandated that all States IV-D systems have certain functionality, it
did not require that these systems have common protocol and data
structures. According to the commenter, this first became a problem as
States brought up CSENet and experienced numerous errors in exchanging
case information and will continue to be a significant problem with the
Federal case registry process. In addition, there are no common
definitions for some of the basic data elements involved: e.g., case,
Family Violence indicator, etc. Common definitions must be established
and adhered to by all States for effective communication between the
disparate systems.
Response: We acknowledge that PRWORA requires increased data
sharing between States and that neither the statute nor regulations
require that statewide CSE systems have common protocols and data
structures. In these rules, we have attempted to strike a balance
between providing common definitions, standardized data elements, and
uniform transmission protocols and maintaining States' flexibility in
designing systems that meet their business needs. OCSE, as required by
statute, has recently specified common definitions and data reporting
forms for Federal reporting purposes that will become effective October
1, 1998. In both CSENet and FCR, we are working with State work groups
to develop valid transaction tables, ``Good Manners Guides,'' and
implementation and interface guidance documents to assist States in
exchanging data without intruding on a State's prerogative to design
its statewide CSE systems to best meet its needs.
FFP Availability (Sec. 307.30)
1. Comment: One commenter requested clarification on whether the 80
percent match includes costs of developing policies and procedures and
training. The commenter recommended
[[Page 44813]]
that if the response is affirmative that this be made explicit in
guidance.
Response: Training is not eligible for enhanced Federal financial
participation. This funding limitation was applicable to 90% enhanced
funding and did not change under PRWORA for 80% funding. Only training
for trainers is eligible for enhanced matching; training of staff is
reimbursable at the normal 66 percent matching rate.
2. Comment: One commenter asked that we modify software and
ownership rights regulations so ownership rights are option. The
commenter suggested that we should act as a model to ``* * * test a
more flexible approach that is used widely in other areas of government
* * * .''
Response: This is not a new requirement, nor is it unique to child
support enforcement. It is a restatement of current regulations that
apply to all automated systems, not just CSE. Over the course of the
last few years, through various interagency workgroups and research
efforts and public-private partnerships (such as the Human Service
Information Technology Advisory Group), we have examined the issue of
Federal software rights in licenses, and State and local government
software ownership. Our conclusion consistently has been that the
Federal policy in this area, as stated in Federal regulations at 45 CFR
95.617, and as restated in our child support automation regulations at
45 CFR 307.30, is appropriate and best protects the Federal interest in
CSE and other Federal systems development efforts. We are unfamiliar
with any other, ``* * * approach that is used widely in other areas of
government * * *'' as stated by the commenter.
This policy does not apply to ``* * * proprietary operating/vendor
software packages (e.g., ADABASE or TOTAL) which are provided at
established catalog or market prices and sold or leased to the general
public * * *'', nor is it applicable to commercial off-the-shelf
software because these types of software are not unique to public
assistance programs.
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to
ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set
forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this
rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. The changes in
this rule include IV-D State plan amendments, new functional
requirements for CSESs, and limited extension of 90 percent Federal
funding.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) requires the
Federal government to anticipate and reduce the impact of regulations
and paperwork requirements on small entities. The Secretary certifies
that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the primary impact of
these regulations is on State governments.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, all
Departments are required to submit the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping
requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule.
When an OMB control number is issued, it will be published in the
Federal Register as required by law. This final rule contains
information collection requirements in Secs. 302.85(a)(1) and (2),
307.11 (e) and (f), 307.13 (a) and (c), and 307.15(b)(2) which the
Department has submitted to OMB for its review.
More specifically, Secs. 302.85(a) (1) and (2) include IV-D State
plan amendments; Secs. 307.11 (e) and (f) include procedures for
establishing a State case registry (SCR) and for providing information
to the Federal case registry (FCR), Sec. 307.13(a) includes written
policies concerning access to data by IV-D agency personnel and sharing
of data with other persons to carry out IV-D program activities,
Sec. 307.13(c) includes procedures that all personnel with access to or
use of confidential data in the CSES be informed of applicable
requirements and penalties, and receive training in security
procedures, and Sec. 307.15 describes several requirements for an
advance planning document for a Statewide computerized support
enforcement system.
The respondents to the information collection requirements in this
rule are the State child support enforcement agencies of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The respondents also include the courts that handle family, juvenile,
and/or domestic relations cases within the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Department
requires this collection of information: (1) To determine compliance
with the requirements for a Statewide computerized support enforcement
system; (2) to determine State compliance with statutory requirements
regarding informing IV-D personnel of integrity and security
requirements for data maintained in the CSES; and (3) for States to
make funding requests through advance planning documents, and APD
updates.
These information collection requirements will impose the estimated
total annual burden on the States described in the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Responses per Average burden Total annual
Information collection respondents respondent per response burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302.85 (a)(1) and (2).......................... 27 1 .5 13.5
307.11(f)(1)................................... 54 .............. 114.17 6,165
307.11(f)(1)................................... 54 1 46.27 2,499
307.11(f)(1)................................... 54 162,963 .083 730,400
307.11(f)(1)................................... 54 52 1.41 3,959
307.11(e)(2)(ii)............................... 54 25,200 .046 62,597
307.11(e)(1)(ii)............................... 3,045 447 .029 39,472
307.13(a) and (c).............................. 27 1 16.7 451
307.15 (APD)................................... 9.33 1 240 2239
307.15 (APDU).................................. 62.33 1 60 3740
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... .............. .............. .............. 851,535.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44814]]
The Administration for Children and Families invited comments by
the public in the proposed rule on the information collection in:
Evaluating whether the proposed collections are necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of ACF, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of ACF's estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who have to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technology to permit electronic
submission of responses.
No comments were received on this information collection on the
associated estimated burden hours. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1532) requires that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact
statement before promulgating a rule that includes and Federal mandate
that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year.
We have determined that this rule will not impose a mandate that
will result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million
in any one year. Accordingly, we have not prepared a budgetary impact
statement, specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives
considered, or prepared a plan for informing and advising any
significantly or uniquely impacted small government.
Congressional Review of Rulemaking
This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined in Chapter 8 of 5
U.S.C.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 302
Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Unemployment compensation.
45 CFR Part 304
Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Unemployment compensation.
45 CFR Part 307
Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Computer
technology, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.563, Child
Support Enforcement Program)
Dated: June 30, 1998.
Olivia A. Golden,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
Approved: July 28, 1998.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 45 CFR parts 302, 304,
and 307 are amended as set forth below.
PART 302--STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 660, 664, 666, 667, 1302,
1396(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p) and 1396(k).
Sec. 302.85 [Amended]
2. Section 302.85 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
* * * * *
(a) General. The State plan shall provide that the State will have
in effect a computerized support enforcement system:
(1) By October 1, 1997, which meets all the requirements of Title
IV-D of the Act which were enacted on or before the date of enactment
of the Family Support Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-485, in accordance with
Secs. 307.5 and 307.10 of this chapter and the OCSE guideline entitled
``Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for
States.'' This guide is available from the Child Support Information
Systems Division, Office of State Systems, ACF, 370 L'Enfant Promenade,
SW., Washington, DC 20447; and
(2) By October 1, 2000, which meets all the requirements of title
IV-D of the Act enacted on or before the date of enactment of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996, Pub. L. 104-193, in accordance with Secs. 307.5 and 307.11 of
this chapter and the OCSE guideline referenced in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section.
* * * * *
PART 304--FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION
1. The authority citation for part 304 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 655, 657, 1302, 1396a(a)(25),
1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).
Sec. 304.20 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 304.20, reference to ``Until September 30, 1995'' in
paragraph (c) is revised to read ``Until September 30, 1997''.
PART 307--COMPUTERIZED SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS
1. The authority citation for part 307 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 652 through 658, 664, 666 through 669A, and
1302.
Sec. 307.0 [Amended]
2. Section 307.0 is amended by revising the introductory text;
redesignating paragraphs (c) through (h) as paragraphs (d) through (i);
and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
* * * * *
This part implements sections 452(d) and (e), 454(16) and (24),
454A, and 455(a)(1)(A) and (B), and (a)(3)(A) of the Act which
prescribe:
* * * * *
(c) Security and confidentiality requirements for computerized
support enforcement systems;
* * * * *
Sec. 307.1 [Amended]
3. Section 307.1 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b) through
(j) as paragraphs (c) through (k); replacing the citation
``Sec. 307.10'' with the citations ``Sec. 307.10, or Sec. 307.11'' in
the newly designated paragraphs (d) and (g); and adding a new paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(b) Business day means a day on which State offices are open for
business.
* * * * *
Sec. 307.5 [Amended]
4. Section 307.5 is amended by removing paragraphs (a) and (b);
redesignating paragraphs (c) through (h) as paragraphs (b) through (g);
replacing the citation ``Sec. 307.10'' with the citations
``Sec. 307.10, or Sec. 307.11'' in the newly redesignated paragraph
(b); and adding a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(a) Basic requirement. (1) By October 1, 1997, each State must have
in effect
[[Page 44815]]
an operational computerized support enforcement system, which meets
Federal requirements under Sec. 302.85(a)(1) of this chapter, OCSE will
review each system to certify that these requirements are met; and
(2) By October 1, 2000, each State must have in effect an
operational computerized support enforcement system, which meets
Federal requirements under Sec. 302.85(a)(2) of this chapter. OCSE will
review each system to certify that these requirements are met.
* * * * *
Sec. 307.10 [Amended]
5. Section 307.10 is amended in the introductory text by replacing
the citation ``Sec. 302.85(a)'' with the citation
``Sec. 302.85(a)(1)''; replacing ``AFDC'' with ``TANF'' in paragraph
(b)(10); removing paragraph (b)(14); redesignating paragraphs (b)(15)
and (16) as paragraphs (b)(14) and (15); and revising the section
heading to read as follows:
Sec. 307.10 Functional requirements for computerized support
enforcement systems in operation by October 1, 1997.
* * * * *
6. Section 307.11 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 307.11 Functional requirements for computerized support
enforcement systems in operation by October 1, 2000.
At a minimum, each State's computerized support enforcement system
established and operated under the title IV-D State plan at
Sec. 302.85(a)(2) of this chapter must:
(a) Be planned, designed, developed, installed or enhanced, and
operated in accordance with an initial and annually updated APD
approved under Sec. 307.15 of this part;
(b) Control, account for, and monitor all the factors in the
support collection and paternity determination processes under the
State plan. At a minimum, this includes the following:
(1) The activities described in Sec. 307.10, except paragraphs
(b)(3), (8) and (11); and
(2) The capability to perform the following tasks with the
frequency and in the manner required under, or by this chapter:
(i) Program requirements. Performing such functions as the
Secretary may specify related to management of the State IV-D program
under this chapter including:
(A) Controlling and accounting for the use of Federal, State and
local funds in carrying out the program either directly, through an
auxiliary system or through an interface with State financial
management and expenditure information; and
(B) Maintaining the data necessary to meet Federal reporting
requirements under this chapter in a timely basis as prescribed by the
Office;
(ii) Calculation of Performance Indicators. Enabling the Secretary
to determine the incentive payments and penalty adjustments required by
sections 452(g) and 458 of the Act by:
(A) Using automated processes to:
(1) Maintain the requisite data on State performance for paternity
establishment and child support enforcement activities in the State;
and
(2) Calculate the paternity establishment percentage for the State
for each fiscal year;
(B) Having in place system controls to ensure the completeness, and
reliability of, and ready access to, the data described in paragraph
(b)(2)(i)(A)(1) of this section, and the accuracy of the calculation
described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(2) of this section; and
(iii) System Controls: Having systems controls (e.g., passwords or
blocking of fields) to ensure strict adherence to the policies
described in Sec. 307.13(a); and
(3) Activities described in the Act that were added by the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L.
104-193, not otherwise addressed in this part.
(c) Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments. To the maximum
extent feasible, assist and facilitate the collection and disbursement
of support payments through the State disbursement unit operated under
section 454B of the Act through the performance of functions which, at
a minimum, include the following:
(1) Transmission of orders and notices to employers and other
debtors for the withholding of income:
(i) Within 2 business days after receipt of notice of income, and
the income source subject to withholding from a court, another State,
an employer, the Federal Parent Locator Service, or another source
recognized by the State; and
(ii) Using uniform formats prescribed by the Secretary;
(2) Ongoing monitoring to promptly identify failures to make timely
payment of support; and
(3) Automatic use of enforcement procedures, including procedures
under section 466(c) of the Act if payments are not timely;
(d) Expedited Administrative Procedures. To the maximum extent
feasible, be used to implement the expedited administrative procedures
required by section 466(c) of the Act.
(e) State case registry. Have a State case registry that meets the
requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Definitions. When used in this paragraph and paragraph (f) of
this section, the following definitions shall apply.
(i) Participant means an individual who owes or is owed a duty of
support, imposed or imposable by law, or with respect to or on behalf
of whom a duty of support is sought to be established, or who is an
individual connected to an order of support or a child support case
being enforced.
(ii) Participant type means the custodial party, non-custodial
parent, putative father, or child, associated with a case or support
order contained in the State or Federal case registry.
(iii) locate request type refers to the purpose of the request for
additional matching services on information sent to the Federal case
registry, for example, a IV-D locate (paternity or support
establishment or support enforcement), parental kidnapping or custody
and visitation.
(iv) locate source type refers to the external sources a locate
submitter desires the information sent to the Federal case registry to
also be matched against.
(2) The State case registry shall contain a record of:
(i) Every IV-D case receiving child support enforcement services
under an approved State plan; and
(ii) Every support order established or modified in the State on or
after October 1, 1998.
(3) Standardized data elements shall be included for each
participant. These data elements shall include:
(i) Names;
(ii) Social security numbers;
(iii) Dates of birth;
(iv) Case identification numbers;
(v) Other uniform identification numbers;
(vi) Data elements required under paragraph (f)(1) of this section
necessary for the operation of the Federal case registry;
(vii) Issuing State of an order; and
(viii) Any other information that the Secretary may require.
(4) The record required under paragraph (e)(2) of this section
shall include information for every case in the State case registry
receiving services under an approved State plan that has a support
order in effect. The information must include:
(i) The amount of monthly (or other frequency) support owed under
the order;
(ii) Other amounts due or overdue under the order including
arrearages,
[[Page 44816]]
interest or late payment penalties and fees;
(iii) Any amounts described in paragraph (e)(4) (i) and (ii) of
this section that have been collected;
(iv) The distribution of such collected amounts;
(v) The birth date and, beginning no later than October 1, 1999,
the name and social security number of any child for whom the order
requires the provision of support; and
(vi) The amount of any lien imposed in accordance with section
466(a)(4) of the Act to enforce the order.
(5) Establish and update, maintain, and regularly monitor case
records in the State case registry for cases receiving services under
the State plan. To ensure information on an established IV-D case is up
to date, the State should regularly update the system to make changes
to the status of a case, the participants of a case, and the data
contained in the case record. This includes the following:
(i) Information on administrative and judicial orders related to
paternity and support;
(ii) Information obtained from comparisons with Federal, State or
local sources of information;
(iii) Information on support collections and distributions; and
(iv) Any other relevant information.
(6) States may link local case registries of support orders through
an automated information network in meeting paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of
this section provided that all other requirements of this paragraph are
met.
(f) Information Comparisons and other Disclosures of Information.
Extract information, at such times and in such standardized format or
formats, as may be required by the Secretary, for purposes of sharing
and comparing with, and receiving information from, other data bases
and information comparison services, to obtain or provide information
necessary to enable the State, other States, the Office or other
Federal agencies to carry out this chapter. As applicable, these
comparisons and disclosures must comply with the requirements of
section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the requirements
of section 453 of the Act. The comparisons and sharing of information
include:
(1) Effective October 1, 1998, (or for the child data, not later
than October 1, 1999) furnishing the following information to the
Federal case registry on participants in cases receiving services under
the State plan and in support orders established or modified on or
after October 1, 1998, and providing updates of such information within
five (5) business days of receipt by the IV-D agency of new or changed,
information, including information which would necessitate adding or
removing a Family Violence indicator and notices of the expiration of
support orders:
(i) State Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) code and
optionally, county code;
(ii) State case identification number;
(iii) State member identification number;
(iv) Case type (IV-D, non-IV-D);
(v) Social security number and any necessary alternative social
security numbers;
(vi) Name, including first, middle, last name and any necessary
alternative names;
(vii) Sex (optional);
(viii) Date of birth;
(ix) Participant type (custodial party, non-custodial parent,
putative father, child);
(x) Family violence indicator (domestic violence or child abuse);
(xi) Indication of an order;
(xii) Locate request type (optional);
(xiii) Locate source (optional); and
(xiv) Any other information of the Secretary may require.
(2) Requesting or exchanging information with the Federal parent
locator service for the purposes specified in section 453 of the Act;
(3) Exchanging information with State agencies, both within and
outside of the State, administering programs under titles IV-A and XIX
of the Act, as necessary to perform State agency responsibilities under
this chapter and under such programs; and
(4) Exchanging information with other agencies of the State, and
agencies of other States, and interstate information networks, as
necessary and appropriate, to assist the State and other States in
carrying out the purposes of this chapter.
7. Section 307.13 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 307.13 Security and confidentiality for computerized support
enforcement systems in operation after October 1, 1997.
The State IV-D agency shall:
(a) Information integrity and security. Have safeguards on the
integrity, accuracy, completeness of, access to, and use of data in the
computerized support enforcement system. These safeguards shall include
written policies concerning access to data by IV-D agency personnel,
and the sharing of data with other persons to:
(1) Permit access to and use of data to the extent necessary to
carry out the State IV-D program under this chapter; and
(2) Specify the data which may be used for particular IV-D program
purposes, and the personnel permitted access to such data; and
(3) Permit access to and use of data for purposes of exchanging
information with State agencies administering programs under titles IV-
A and XIX of the Act to the extent necessary to carry out State agency
responsibilities under such programs in accordance with section
454A(f)(3) of the Act.
(b) Monitoring of access. Monitor routine access to and use of the
computerized support enforcement system through methods such as audit
trails and feedback mechanisms to guard against, and promptly identify
unauthorized access or use;
(c) Training and information. Have procedures to ensure that all
personnel, including State and local staff and contractors, who may
have access to or be required to use confidential program data in the
computerized support enforcement system are:
(1) Informed of applicable requirements and penalties, including
those in section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Service Code and section
453 of the Act; and
(2) Adequately trained in security procedures; and
(d) Penalties. Have administrative penalties, including dismissal
from employment, for unauthorized access to, disclosure or use of
confidential information.
* * * * *
Sec. 307.15 [Amended]
8. Section 307.15 is amended by replacing the citation
``Sec. 307.10'' with the citations ``Sec. 307.10, or Sec. 307.11'' in
paragraphs (a), (b), introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(5), (b)(7), and
(c); and revising paragraph (b)(2), (b)(9) and (b)(10) to read as
follows:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The APD must specify how the objectives of the computerized
support enforcement system in Sec. 307.10, or Sec. 307.11 will be
carried out throughout the State; this includes a projection of how the
proposed system will meet the functional requirements of Sec. 307.10,
or Sec. 307.11 and how the single State system will encompass all
political subdivisions in the State by October 1, 1997, or October 1,
2000 respectively.
* * * * *
(9) The APD must contain a proposed budget and schedule of life-
cycle milestones relative to the size, complexity and cost of the
project which at a minimum address requirements analysis, program
design,
[[Page 44817]]
procurement and project management; and, a description of estimated
expenditures by category and amount for:
(i) Items that are eligible for funding at the enhanced matching
rate, and
(ii) items related to developing and operating the system that are
eligible for Federal funding at the applicable matching rate;
(10) The APD must contain an implementation plan and backup
procedures to handle possible failures in system planning, design,
development, installation or enhancement.
(i) These backup procedures must include provision for independent
validation and verification (IV&V) analysis of a State's system
development effort in the case of States:
(A) that do not have in place a statewide automated child support
enforcement system that meets the requirements of the FSA of 1988;
(B) States which fail to meet a critical milestone, as identified
in their APDs;
(C) States which fail to timely and completely submit APD updates;
(D) States whose APD indicates the need for a total system
redesign;
(E) States developing systems under waivers pursuant to section
452(d)(3) of the Social Security Act; or,
(F) States whose system development efforts we determine are at
risk of failure, significant delay, or significant cost overrun.
(ii) Independent validation and verification efforts must be
conducted by an entity that is independent from the State (unless the
State receives an exception from OCSE) and the entity selected must:
(A) Develop a project workplan. The plan must be provided directly
to OCSE at the same time it is given to the State.
(B) Review and make recommendations on both the management of the
project, both State and vendor, and the technical aspects of the
project. The IV&V provider must provide the results of its analysis
directly to OCSE at the same time it reports to the State.
(C) Consult with all stakeholders and assess the user involvement
and buy-in regarding system functionality and the system's ability to
meet program needs.
(D) Conduct an analysis of past project performance sufficient to
identify and make recommendations for improvement.
(E) Provide risk management assessment and capacity planning
services.
(F) Develop performance metrics which allow tracking project
completion against milestones set by the State.
(iii) The RFP and contract for selecting the IV&V provider (or
similar documents if IV&V services are provided by other State
agencies) must include the experience and skills of the key personnel
proposed for the IV&V analysis and specify by name the key personnel
who actually will work on the project and must be submitted to OCSE for
prior approval.
* * * * *
Sec. 307.25 [Amended]
9. Section 307.25 is amended by replacing the citation
``Sec. 307.10'' with the citations ``Sec. 307.10, or Sec. 307.11'' in
the introductory text.
Sec. 307.30 [Amended]
10. Section 307.30 is amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text and paragraph (b) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(a) Conditions that must be met for FFP. During the Federal fiscal
years 1996, and 1997, Federal financial participation is available at
the 90 percent rate in expenditures for the planning, design,
development, installation or enhancement of a computerized support
enforcement system as described in Secs. 307.5 and 307.10 limited to
the amount in an advance planning document, or APDU submitted on or
before September 30, 1995, and approved by OCSE if:
* * * * *
(b) Federal financial participation in the costs of hardware and
proprietary software. (1) Until September 30, 1997, FFP at the 90
percent rate is available in expenditures for the rental or purchase of
hardware for the planning, design, development, installation or
enhancement of a computerized support enforcement system as described
in Sec. 307.10 in accordance with the limitation in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(2) Until September 30, 1997, FFP at the 90 percent rate is
available for expenditures for the rental or purchase of proprietary
operating/vendor software necessary for the operation of hardware
during the planning, design, development, installation or enhancement
of a computerized support enforcement system in accordance with the
limitation in paragraph (a) of this section, and the OCSE guideline
entitled ``Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for
States.'' FFP at the 90 percent rate is not available for proprietary
application software developed specifically for a computerized support
enforcement system. Sec. 307.35 of this part regarding reimbursement at
the applicable matching rate.)
* * * * *
Sec. 307.35 [Amended]
11. Section 307.35 is amended by replacing the citation
``Sec. 307.10'' with the citations ``Sec. 307.10, or Sec. 307.11'' in
paragraph (a)
* * * * *
Sec. 307.40 [Amended]
12. Section 307.40 is amended by replacing the citation
``Sec. 307.10'' with the citations ``307.10, or Sec. 307.11'' in
paragraph (a).
[FR Doc. 98-22276 Filed 8-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-P