[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14402-14414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-7714]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: These proposed regulations would implement 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.
DATES: Consideration will be given to written comments received by May
11, 1998. We have reduced the standard 60-day comment period specified
in E.O. 12866 to 45 days in recognition of the statutory deadline of
August 22, 1998 for issuing final rules and the necessity of providing
States with the required guidance as soon as practicable to facilitate
their development or enhancement of systems.
ADDRESSES: Address comments to: Administration for Children and
Families, Department of Health and Human Services, 370 L'Enfant
Promenade, S.W., Washington D.C. 20447. Attention: Norman L. Thompson,
Associate Deputy Director for Automation and Special Projects, Office
of Child Support Enforcement.
Comments will be available for public inspection Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the fourth floor of the Department's
offices at the address mentioned above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betsy Matheson at (202) 401-7386.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Authority
These proposed regulations are published under the authority of
several provisions of the Social Security Act, as amended by the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996. 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 new 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.
These proposed regulations are 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.
While most States have sought some level of child support program
automation since the inception of the program, it wasn't until
enactment of the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-485), that
program automation became a title IV-D State plan requirement. The
Family Support Act required that States have in operation by October 1,
1995, a certified statewide system. (This date was subsequently
extended to October 1, 1997, under Pub. L. 104-35).
These systems are to be statewide, operational, comprehensive,
integrated, efficient, and effective. They are required to provide for
case initiation; interface with other systems to obtain information to
locate parents; aid in paternity establishment efforts by tracking,
monitoring, and reporting on State efforts; monitor compliance with
support orders and initiate enforcement action; update and maintain
case records; process payments and distribute support; meet reporting
requirements and address security and privacy issues.
Under PRWORA, States must build on this comprehensive automated
foundation 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. This requirement recognizes that
case processing changes and Federal and State legislative enhancements
to State IV-D programs have little impact without proper automated
support. The October 1, 2000 date is a completion date for the entire
system, however certain requirements and functions must be met prior to
that date. We have included those statutory effective dates in the
regulations.
Accordingly, this rule proposes to set forth in regulations the
framework for automation that State systems must have in place by the
October 1, 2000, deadline. Our approach in developing these proposed
rules was to adhere as closely as possible to the statute. We believe
this approach is essential to ensuring that the proposed rules are well
received, allowing the final regulation to be issued by the statutory
deadline of August 22, 1998. The State deadline for completing these
systems enhancements is delayed by one day for each day, if any, that
we miss the statutory deadline for regulating. We believe this would be
an unconscionable position--PRWORA compliant systems are intended to
have a substantial impact on States' ability to protect the support
rights of children, and it is essential that these changes are made
without delay.
In addition, we believe the statute provides a proper and straight-
forward
[[Page 14403]]
functional framework to support ACF's certification standards. These
standards are outlined in a document entitled, ``Automated Systems for
Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for States (the Guide).'' Concurrent
with publishing these rules and in partnership with State child support
agencies, we are updating the Guide to reflect the changes made by
PRWORA. In particular, we are focusing on ways to measure system
standards that support program outcomes most effectively.
The draft Guide will be disseminated to States and other interested
parties for comment through an Action Transmittal (AT). After reviewing
the comments received, we will issue an AT with final systems
functional requirements.
We have, however, proposed several changes in these regulations to
strengthen the process for approving and monitoring State activity
under Advanced Planning Documents (APDs) by codifying and building on
several existing practices and authorities relevant to systems
oversight in regulation. We believe this is necessary to ensure that
child support systems meet the critical needs of the program as
envisioned under the Family Support Act of 1988 and the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
As is current practice, once ACF determines, through a
certification review, that a Computerized Support Enforcement System
(CSES) meets these standards throughout the State, the CSES is
certified by ACF. Certification may be granted in two stages. The first
stage, level 1 certification, is granted when a State system meets all
functional requirements in 45 CFR 307.10, as specified in the Guide,
and is installed and operational in a pilot or multiple pilot location
and; level 2 certification is granted when statewide installation of
the functionally comprehensive system is complete and the system is
operational.
PRWORA Automation Enhancements
As indicated above, the Family Support Act laid the foundation for
comprehensive automated systems. The PRWORA requirements build on this
base to ensure these systems support the new tools and other
programmatic enhancements the law included to strengthen child support
enforcement.
PRWORA added a new section 454A to the Act to house all functional
requirements that State systems must meet, both from the Family Support
Act and from PRWORA. Those emanating from PRWORA 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))
Each of these is discussed in greater detail in the section of this
preamble entitled, Proposed Regulatory Changes.
To assist States in meeting these mandates for enhancement to their
statewide automated systems, Congress provided an additional amount of
Federal funding available at the 80 percent rate for the planning,
design, development, installation or enhancement of statewide,
automated systems. Section 344(b)(2) of PRWORA places a cap on the
Federal share of funding available at 80 percent enhanced Federal
Financial participation. This 80 percent funding is available to meet
the automation requirements of the Family Support Act as well as the
new automation requirements of PRWORA. PRWORA also revised section
455(a)(3) of the Act to restore 90 percent Federal funding for
completing Family Support Act systems on a limited basis.
Proposed Regulatory Changes
State Plan Requirements (Part 302)
To implement the statutory changes, we first propose to revise 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, including all IV-D requirements in PRWORA. In addition, the State
must have a 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.
Thus, the proposed Sec. 302.85(a) of the regulations would
reiterate the current statutory requirements for mandatory automated
systems for support enforcement. Proposed Sec. 302.85(a)(1) would
include 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, the proposed
Sec. 302.85(a)(2) would require 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 statute, we
propose to amend 45 CFR 304.20, ``Availability and rate of Federal
financial participation,'' 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. (See the discussion below regarding revised Sec. 307.30(a).)
Computerized Support Enforcement Systems (Part 307)
We propose to amend 45 CFR part 307, Computerized support
enforcement systems, 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 proposed revisions to 45 CFR 302.85, which were
discussed earlier.
We propose to revise the title of Sec. 307.10 to read ``Functional
requirements for computerized support enforcement systems in operation
by October 1, 1997'', and 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
[[Page 14404]]
and Confidentiality of computerized support enforcement systems in
operation by October 1, 2000'', to reflect these changes.
We propose to revise Sec. 307.0, ``Scope of this part'', 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. This would be accomplished by referencing the new statutory
language in the introductory section and by adding a new paragraph (c)
which would refer to the security and confidentiality requirements for
CSESs. Accordingly, current paragraphs (c) through (h) would be
redesignated as paragraphs (d) through (i).
In Sec. 307.1, ``Definitions'', we propose to add the definition of
``Business day'' as defined in the new section 454A(g)(2) of the Act.
Accordingly, current paragraphs (b) through (j) would be redesignated
as paragraphs (c) through (k). In addition, we propose in the
redesignated paragraphs (d) and (g) to replace the citation
``Sec. 307.10'' with the citations ``Secs. 307.10, or 307.11'' to
reflect the regulatory changes proposed below.
Mandatory Computerized Support Enforcement Systems
We propose to amend 45 CFR 307.5, Mandatory computerized support
enforcement systems, as follows:
Currently, paragraphs (a) and (b) are outdated and reflect
deadlines mandated by the Family Support Act on APD submittal
requirements and timeframes. To reflect the amended section 454(24) of
the Act, we propose to eliminate paragraphs (a) and (b) in their
entirety, to replace paragraph (a) and to renumber paragraphs (c)
through (h) as (b) through (g).
We propose adding a paragraph (a)(1) to provide 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
to provide that OCSE will review the systems to certify that these
requirements are met. Under paragraph (a)(2), we propose to require
each State 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 and to provide that
OCSE will review the systems to certify that these requirements are
met.
In addition, under paragraph (d), the reference to ``Sec. 307.10''
would be replaced by ``Secs. 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.'' would be revised to read ``Functional requirements for
computerized support enforcement systems in operation by October 1,
1997.'' to better reflect the content of the regulation. In the
introductory language, the citation ``Sec. 302.85(a)'' would be
replaced by the citation ``Sec. 302.85(a)(1)'' to reflect proposed
changes made earlier in the regulations. The citation ``AFDC'' would be
replaced by the citation ``TANF'' (Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families) in paragraph (b)(10). Paragraph (b)(14) would be 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. Current paragraphs (b)(15) and (16) would be
redesignated as paragraphs (b)(14) and (15).
We propose to add a new regulation at 45 CFR 307.11, ``Functional
requirements for computerized support enforcement systems in operation
by October 1, 2000,'' which reiterates the new statutory requirements
in sections 454(16) and 454A of the Act, as discussed below.
The introductory language of proposed Sec. 307.11 would specify
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. As proposed in paragraph (a),
the CSES in operation by October 1, 2000 must be planned, designed,
developed, installed or enhanced and operated in accordance with an
initial and annually updated APD approved under Sec. 307.15 of the
regulations. If the 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 the State elects to develop a new CSES, a separate
implementation APD must be submitted.
We propose in paragraph (b) that the CSES 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 the proposed 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.
We propose in paragraph (b)(2) to describe 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. We are not proposing to add
additional management-related functional requirements other than those
currently specified or provided in the statute.
Under the proposed 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.
Some States currently meet this requirement by maintaining and
accessing IV-D cost data on a State financial management and
expenditure system. Since the statute does not specifically address
meeting this requirement through an interface with a State financial
management and expenditure information system, we propose to continue
to allow the States to meet the financial accountability requirements
through an interface.
Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) would require the system to 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 proposal 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), as proposed, 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
[[Page 14405]]
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.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) would require 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.
Proposed 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 the proposed Sec. 307.13(a) discussed later in this
preamble, 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 the proposed paragraph (b)(3), the system must control,
account for, and monitor the activities described in PRWORA not
otherwise addressed in this part. As indicated previously, we plan to
address the detailed systems functional requirements related to title
IV-D program requirements modified or added by PRWORA in the Guide
which we are in the process of revising and reissuing to the States.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require 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. On January 27, 1998, OCSE issued a
model wage withholding form (Approval 0970-0154) for use in
implementing wage withholding (OCSE Action Transmittal 98-03).
The proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require the system to monitor
accounts, on an ongoing basis, to identify promptly failures to make
support payments in a timely manner. Paragraph (c)(3), as proposed,
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.
Proposed paragraph (d) requires that, to the maximum extent
feasible, the system must 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.
The proposed 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. Proposed paragraph (e)(1) contains
definitions which relate to terms used in this section.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) describes the records which the registry
must contain. Under the proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i), the registry must
contain a record of every case receiving child support enforcement
services under an approved State plan. Under the proposed 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
the proposed 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), data elements required under paragraph (f)(1) of this
section for the operation of the Federal case registry (FCR) and any
other data elements required by the Secretary and set forth in
instructions issued by the Office.
Under the proposed 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 proposed 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. We have not
defined ``regularly.'' We invite 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. 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
[[Page 14406]]
participants of a case, and the other data contained in the case
record.
Under the proposal, this would include the following: (1)
Information on administrative actions and administrative and judicial
proceedings and 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.
Under the proposed paragraph (e)(6), the State is authorized to
meet the requirement in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section which
would require 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 proposed 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. (See IRS Publication
1075 entitled ``The Information Security Guidelines for Federal, State
and Local Agencies.'') The system must also comply with safeguarding
and disclosure requirements specified in the Act. Timeframes not
specified in Federal law regarding the transmission of information will
be developed in consultation with the States and appropriate Federal
and State workgroup(s). We invite public comment on whether these
matters should be addressed in the regulation and if so, what
timeframes should be imposed. The comparisons and sharing of
information include the activities specified below.
Under proposed paragraph (f)(1), effective October 1, 1998, the
State 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 child data.
We invite 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 and if so, what are appropriate
standards.
Section 453(h)(2) and (3) of the Act require the inclusion of child
data in the FCR and provides the Secretary of Treasury with access to
FCR 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 the proposal, the State must provide to the FCR 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 (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 as set forth in
instructions issued by the Office.
These data elements were developed in consultation with a workgroup
comprising individuals from the State and the Federal level. The
primary reason that only these data elements were selected for
inclusion in the FCR is that they are static in nature, thereby
requiring less update and maintenance. The intent of the FCR is to
serve as a ``pointer'' system to quickly notify States of other States
that have an interest and/or information on a participant. State
automated child support systems will have more detailed data elements
on participants. Upon receiving information from the FCR regarding
participants in another State or States, 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.
The information we are proposing to require under this paragraph
implements section 453(h) requirements for establishment and
maintenance of an automated Federal Case Registry of Support Orders.
With respect to domestic violence information identified in item 10
above and addressed under paragraph (f)(1)(x) of this proposal, 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.
Unless otherwise specified in section 453(b)(2), OCSE will not disclose
any information on a participant in a IV-D case or non-IV-D support
order to any person if the State has included a ``family violence''
indicator on such participant.
Under proposed 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 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 proposed 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 the Child
Support Enforcement program.
Under the proposed 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. These tools are
used in conjunction with or operate through the State's automated
[[Page 14407]]
data processing (ADP) system. With the use of these Automated Data
Processing (ADP) systems, and the data they maintain and manipulate,
come inevitable concerns about the security and privacy of the
sensitive and confidential personal, demographic, and financial
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.
Under current rules, States must conduct reviews of automated
systems to ensure their security and assess vulnerability, and maintain
reports of those reviews for HHS to examine should circumstances
warrant. Further, Federal OCSE certification requirements for automated
child support systems likewise have specific requirements and
objectives relative to physical and operational security, and of the
privacy of the data those systems maintain. In addition, numerous
Federal and State agencies that share data with States' child support
agencies also impose varying degrees of regulatory restriction on the
availability, privacy, security and use of the data exchanged. A
primary example is the restrictions imposed by the U.S. Department of
Treasury's Internal Revenue Service on the income tax refund and 1099
program information provided to States' child support agencies.
Language in PRWORA further strengthens these security requirements,
clearly addressing the concerns all Americans have for the privacy of
personal information while recognizing the need for effective program
administration.
We are proposing to reiterate 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.''
Proposed paragraph (a) would require 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 proposed 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 the proposed 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.
Under the proposed paragraph (a)(3) these policies must specify the
non-IV-D purposes for which and the non-IV-D persons to whom data may
be disclosed.
Paragraph (b), as proposed, would require 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.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require 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, including the safeguarding
of information regulations at 45 CFR 303.21 and 303.70(d)(2), and the
security and safeguarding requirements for data obtained from the
Internal Revenue Service. (See IRS publication 1075, entitled ``Tax
Information Security Guidelines for Federal, State and Local
Agencies.'' This publication was sent to the IV-D agency in each State
by OCSE.)
Finally, paragraph (d) would require the IV-D agency to have
administrative penalties, including dismissal from employment, for
unauthorized access to, disclosure or use of confidential information.
The intent of Congress in PRWORA is clear with regard to systems and
data security: we must ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to
protect the privacy of those we serve. In drafting these regulations,
we have attempted to err on the side of comprehensiveness when
addressing the needs of security in our automated data processing
systems, but to do so without injecting a greater Federal presence in
the operation of States' child support enforcement systems. To that
end, we are seeking comments from all sectors of the child support
program, not just those concerned with the operation of States'
automated data processing systems. Further, we are seeking comment in
all areas of computer systems security and data privacy relative to
these proposed regulations, be it the safety and security of data
center operations and equipment, personnel security, data availability
and access within the program, and the control of data gathered from
and shared with outside agencies. We are also interested in whether
these proposed regulations should be more prescriptive in all or part,
relative to security and privacy, or whether there are other venues to
ensure and/or strengthen data and systems security, such as through
formal written guidance manuals, enhanced system certification
requirements, action transmittals, training, or a more visible Federal
presence and oversight in this area.
Approval of Advance Planning Documents
The regulations at 45 CFR 307.15 speak to certain APD requirements
specific to CSE automated system development and we are proposing in
these rules to make conforming amendments to address the changes made
by PRWORA and as indicated previously, to codify certain existing
requirements and authorities related to APD and APDU oversight.
Specifically we are proposing to revise 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.
Currently, paragraph (b)(2) requires 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.
Federal law now requires each State to have in operation by October
1, 1997, a statewide CSES that meets specified functional requirements,
and a statewide system that also meets additional functional
requirements by October 1, 2000. Therefore, the proposed paragraph
(b)(2) would 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
[[Page 14408]]
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.
Under this proposal, the State 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 propose to
replace 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. As a result, OCSE has reviewed the Federal and
State experience over the past several years and based on that review,
we are putting into place administratively a number of improvements in
the Federal and State oversight process. In addition, we are proposing
several changes to these regulations that will strengthen the oversight
and management of CSE systems development projects.
Continuing a trend begun last year, we will be more aggressively
monitoring State CSE development efforts. 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 be more closely reviewing 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. Using our current regulatory authority, 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. These services
may be procured from the private sector, or may be provided by State
staff, e.g., a State's information technology office, State auditor,
State data center, etc. 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. We will require that all reports prepared by a
State's quality assurance provider be submitted directly to OCSE at the
same time they are submitted to the State's project management.
Further, we intend to more systematically determine and monitor key
milestones in States' CSE systems development efforts, and to more
closely tie 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. To that end, we are proposing to add
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. We would also include in the proposed regulation a list of
milestones which must be addressed as provided in the ``DHHS State
Systems Guide'' (September 1996). 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, user's manuals, and security and
contingency plans; converting and testing data, developing, modifying
or converting software, testing software, training staff, installing,
testing and accepting systems. Specifically, we are proposing 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 secure substantial worker involvement and buy-in
throughout the project.
With respect to funding, we will generally provide funding under an
approved APD only for the most immediate milestones and 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, we are proposing to revise Sec. 307.15(b)(10) to
expand the requirements for an implementation plan and backup
procedures. This proposed language would require certain States to
obtain independent validation and verification services (IV&V). These
States would 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) States which fail to meet a critical milestone,
as identified in their APDs; (3) States which fail to timely and
completely submit APD updates; (4) States whose APD indicates the need
for a total system redesign; (5) States developing systems under
waivers pursuant to section 452(d)(3) of the Social Security Act or,
(6) States 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.
OCSE will carefully review States' system development efforts,
using States' APD and APDU submissions, other documentation, on-site
reviews and monitoring, etc., relating to States' efforts to meet
PRWORA requirements. Based on this review, OCSE may
[[Page 14409]]
determine that a State must obtain Independent Validation and
Verification (IV&V) services and will so require as a condition of its
approval of the State's APD and associated funding or contract-related
documents. OCSE is in the process of hiring an Independent Validation
and Verification (IV&V) 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 rule and
where the State's systems development efforts are on track as a result.
The independent validation and verification provider must:
Develop a project workplan. 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 it is given to the State.
Consult with all stakeholders and assess the 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. 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.
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.
We invite comments on this approach as well as suggestions for
alternative actions for addressing missed milestones.
Related to this discussion, the Department has recently been
discussing with our partners, including State staff, representatives of
the corporate community, and other Federal agencies, the need to re-
examine the processes associated with development of State systems.
Many issues and concerns have been raised in these discussions,
including the contracting process and risk sharing among the partners.
There is broad consensus among the partners that a re-examination
of the processes associated with development of State systems is
necessary. DHHS is committed to moving forward with this process with
the goal of implementing changes that will facilitate and improve State
system development efforts. We would expect that this process would
build upon a recent effort, termed the ``Information Technology
Partnership,'' which resulted in changes in policies regarding system
transfers, depreciation and expensing, and increases in the thresholds
for prior Federal approval of certain APDs and contracts.
Review and Certification of Mandatory Automated Systems
We are proposing to revise 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 are proposing to revise 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.
Currently, paragraph (a) of the regulation provides that, until
September 30, 1995, Federal financial participation was 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, if specific
conditions are met. Federal law extends the availability of FFP at the
90 percent rate until September 30, 1997, for such activities included
in an approved APD or APDU submitted on or before September 30, 1995.
Therefore, proposed paragraph (a) would specify 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.
Currently, 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.
To reflect the statutory changes discussed earlier, paragraph
(b)(1), as proposed, would provide Federal funding at the 90 percent
rate until September 30, 1997, on a limited basis in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section for such expenditures.
Similarly, under proposed paragraph (b)(2), FFP is available at the
90 percent rate until September 30, 1997, for expenditures for the
rental or purchase
[[Page 14410]]
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 has issued proposed regulations at 63 FR 10173, on March 2,
1998, 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 are proposing to amend 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.
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
proposed rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. The
proposed changes in this rule, including IV-D State plan amendments,
new functional requirements for CSESs, and limited extension of 90
percent Federal funding, reiterate the language in the statute, and do
not add any non-statutory requirements.
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 proposed 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, Public Law 104-13, all
Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping
requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. Interested parties
may comment to OMB on these recordkeeping requirements as described
below. This NPRM 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responses Average
Information collection Number of per burden per Total annual
respondents respondent 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 2,239
307.15 (APDU)............................................. 62.33 1 60 3,740
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... ........... ........... ............ 851,535.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration for Children and Families will consider comments
by the public on the proposed 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
[[Page 14411]]
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.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments to OMB for
the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the
following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction
Project, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Ms. Wendy
Taylor.
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: March 6, 1998.
Olivia A. Golden,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
Approved: March 17, 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 proposed to be 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,
1396a(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 in accordance with Sec. 307.5 and
Sec. 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
in accordance with Sec. 307.5 and Sec. 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) and
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 ``Secs. 307.10, or 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
``Secs. 307.10, or 307.11'' in the newly redesignated paragraph (d);
and adding a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(a) Basic requirement.
(1) By October 1, 1997, each State must have in effect an
operational computerized support enforcement system, which meets
Federal requirements under Sec. 302.85(a)(1). 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). OCSE will review each
system to certify that these requirements are met.
* * * * *
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:
[[Page 14412]]
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) 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 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) Allocation 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 Title III of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 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 support or
with respect to or on behalf of whom a support obligation is sought to
be established or other 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 Federal case registry.
(iii) locate request type refers to the purpose of the request for
locate services to the Federal case registry. For example, paternity
establishment, parental kidnapping or custody and visitation.
(iv) locate source type refers to the external sources a locate
submitter desires the Federal case registry to match against.
(2) 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.
(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; and
(vii) Any other information that the Secretary may require as set
forth in instructions issued by the Office.
(4) The record 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, 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 actions and administrative and
judicial proceedings and orders related to paternity and support;
(ii) Information obtained from comparison 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 Comparison and other Disclosure of Information.
Extract
[[Page 14413]]
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 the State furnishing the following information to
the Federal case registry, including updates as necessary and notices
of expiration of support orders, on participants in cases receiving
services under the State plan, and in non-IV-D support orders
established or modified on or after October 1, 1998:
(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 the Secretary may require as set forth
in instructions issued by the Office.
(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;
(3) Limit access and disclosure to non-IV-D personnel or for Non-
IV-D program purposes as authorized by Federal law.
(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 ``Secs. 307.10, or 307.11'' in
paragraphs (a), (b), 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 Secs. 307.10, or 307.11 will be carried
out throughout the State; this includes a projection of how the
proposed system will meet the functional requirements of Secs. 307.10,
or 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, 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.
[[Page 14414]]
(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 a 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 ``Secs. 307.10, or 307.11'' in the
introductory text.
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 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 of this
chapter 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. (See 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 ``Secs. 307.10, or 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 ``Secs. 307.10, or 307.11'' in
paragraph (a).
[FR Doc. 98-7714 Filed 3-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-P