[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 30, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15132-15136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7667]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Part 303

RIN 0970-AB72


Child Support Enforcement Program; Grants to States for Access 
and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements provisions contained in section 391 
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 
of 1996 and establishes the requirements for State monitoring, 
reporting and evaluation of Grants to States for Access and Visitation 
Programs. Access and Visitation programs support and facilitate non-
custodial parents' access to and visitation of their children by means 
of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), 
counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation 
enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and 
pickup) and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative 
custody arrangements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Arnaudo, OCSE, Division of 
Automation and Special Projects, (202) 401-5364. Hearing impaired 
individuals may call the Federal Dual Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statutory Authority

    The final regulations are published under the authority of section 
469B of the Social Security Act (the Act), as added by section 391 of 
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
1996 (PRWORA) (Pub. L. 104-193), and section 1102 of the Act. Section 
469B(e)(3) requires that each State receiving a grant for Access and 
Visitation Programs shall monitor, evaluate, and report on such 
programs in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

Background

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On March 31, 1998 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was 
published in the Federal Register. Public comments were formally 
requested. Comments received in response to this request are discussed 
and summarized below.

History of Federal Involvement in Access and Visitation

    The Federal financial involvement in access and visitation began 
when the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-485) authorized up to 
$4 million each year for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 for State 
demonstration projects to develop, improve, or expand activities 
designed to increase compliance with child access provisions of court 
orders. The legislation required an evaluation of these projects and a 
Report to Congress on the findings. In October 1996, the Department of 
Health and Human Services transmitted to Congress the report entitled, 
``Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects''. The report 
indicated that requiring both parents to attend mediation sessions and 
developing parenting plans was successful for cases without extensive 
long-term problems.
    In September, 1996, the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare 
submitted a report to the President and Congress which strongly 
endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State 
and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed 
family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents 
to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren).
    Finally, PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds 
annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and 
facilitate non-custodial parents' (fathers or mothers) access to, and 
visitation of, their children. Activities funded by this program 
include mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, 
education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement 
(including monitoring, supervision, neutral drop-off and pickup), 
development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody 
arrangements. States may administer programs directly or through 
contracts or grants with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit 
private entities; States are not required to

[[Page 15133]]

operate such programs on a statewide basis.
    Under this provision, the amount of the grant to be made to the 
State shall be the lesser of 90 percent of State expenditures during 
the fiscal year for activities just described or the allotment to the 
State for the fiscal year. The Federal government will pay for 90 
percent of project costs, up to the amount of the grant allotment. In 
other words, States are required to provide for at least ten percent of 
project funding even if they do not spend their entire allotment. The 
allotment would be determined as follows: an amount which bears the 
same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants as the number of children in the 
State living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of 
such children in all States. Such allotments are to be adjusted so that 
no State is allotted less than $50,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 
or $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year. These funds may not be used 
to supplant expenditures by the State for authorized activities; 
rather, States shall use the grant to supplement such expenditures at a 
level at least equal to the level of such expenditures for fiscal year 
1995.
    In September 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement awarded 
54 States and independent jurisdictions Access and Visitation Grants 
covering all the activities mentioned in the Act. A second round of 
grants was issued in September 1998; all States and Territories, except 
Guam, received grants. Guam did not apply.

Description of Regulatory Provisions

    Paragraph 303.109(a) has been added to 45 CFR part 303 containing 
procedures for States to follow in monitoring, evaluating and reporting 
on their Grants for Access and Visitation Programs. This rule requires 
States to monitor all access and visitation programs to ensure that 
these programs are: (1) Providing services authorized under section 
469B(a) of the Act; (2) being conducted efficiently and effectively; 
(3) complying with reporting and evaluation requirements, as set forth 
in paragraphs 303.109(b) and 303.109(c); and (4) providing appropriate 
safeguards to insure the safety of children and parents.
    Paragraph 303.109(b) allows States to evaluate programs funded by 
section 469B of the Act, but does not require these programs to be 
evaluated. States are, however, required to assist in the evaluation of 
programs deemed significant or promising by the Department, as directed 
by program memorandum.
    Paragraph 303.109(c) requires that States provide a detailed 
description of each funded program including such information as: 
service providers and administrators, service area, population served, 
program goals, application or referral process, referral agencies, 
nature of the program, activities provided, and length and features of 
a ``completed'' program. This paragraph also requires, with regard to 
programs which provide services: the number of applicants or referrals 
for each program, the total number of participating individuals and the 
number of persons completing program requirements by authorized 
activities (e.g., mediation, education etc.). This information will 
help the Office of Child Support Enforcement assess: (1) The demand for 
the program, the effectiveness of outreach and ability of the program 
to meet demand; (2) the services being delivered and the number and the 
characteristics of the individuals being served; and (3) whether such 
individuals are completing standard program requirements.
    Paragraph 303.109(c)(3) requires States to report information 
specified in paragraphs 303.109(c)(1) and (c)(2) annually, collected at 
a date and in a form as the Secretary may prescribe.

Response to Comments

    We received comments from representatives of 14 States and local 
IV-D agencies, national organizations, advocacy groups and private 
citizens on the proposed rule published March 31, 1998, in the Federal 
Register (63 FR 15351-53). A summary of the comments received and our 
responses follows; similar or identical comments have been grouped 
together:
    Comment: One commenter suggested that Sec. 303.109(a) of the 
regulation calling for monitoring of ``all access and visitation 
programs'' should be restricted to mean only those programs funded by 
DHHS' grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs and other 
funded programs.
    Response: In this final rule, OCSE states that: ``The State must 
monitor all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and 
Visitation Programs * * *.'' This addresses the commenter's concern. In 
one section of the NPRM this qualifier, ``funded under Grants to States 
for Access and Visitation Programs'', was not used, thereby giving an 
inaccurate impression. It was not our intent to extend the monitoring 
requirement to other funded programs.
    Comment: There was a concern among commenters that the regulation 
contains no requirement to monitor whether States are screening 
potential clients for domestic violence (spousal or child abuse) to 
ensure that the battered spouse is not put at further risk.
    Response: We share the concerns for safety expressed by 
commentators who wrote about domestic violence. Access and visitation 
by a non-custodial parent can lead to dangerous situations for some 
parents and their children. The safety of the custodial parents and 
their children must be addressed when it is a problem. It is our intent 
to encourage States to ensure safety when necessary in implementing 
grants under this program. States should develop procedures to assess 
the degree of danger, weighing sensitively the assertions of both 
parents.
    In response to the comments, we have added to the regulation a new 
requirement under Sec. 303.109(a) requiring States to monitor programs 
to safeguard against domestic violence, as follows:
    ``(a) Monitoring. The State must monitor all programs funded under 
Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs to ensure that the 
programs * * * contain safeguards to ensure the safety of parents and 
children.''
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the regulation require 
specific approaches for addressing problems that may occur in 
activities funded by these grants. Concerns were noted regarding 
mandated mediation and supervised transfer and visitation of children.
    Response: Since we wish to provide maximum flexibility to the 
States, we have not required specific approaches to dealing with issues 
of domestic violence. Consistent with our authority under the Statute 
to regulate what the States need to monitor, we require States to 
monitor their grantees to ensure that there are procedures in place and 
being used to ensure safety.
    Regarding mandated mediation, we wish to make clear that the 
statute does not mandate mediation for any particular clients. 
Mediation mandated by the courts for contending parents is one service 
that the States may chose to fund. We recognize that in some cases, 
mediation may be dangerous for the victim of abuse. There is also 
evidence that in some cases involving partner abuse, mediation has been 
effective. This is a service that warrants careful monitoring by States 
to ensure that safety assessments are conducted. When it is determined 
not to be warranted, alternative forms of conflict resolution should be 
used.
    States may choose to use their grants to fund supervised transfer 
and visitation of children by non-custodial

[[Page 15134]]

parents. Neutral drop-off or pickup of children (supervised transfer) 
is designed to provide for the transfer of children without danger for 
the abused parent or hostile actions between the parents when domestic 
violence or other situations involving acrimony between parents exist. 
Supervised visitation is designed to promote and protect the safety of 
the visited child. States should monitor such programs when funded by 
this authority (as discussed above) to ensure that adequate and 
appropriate procedures are in place and being used to ensure safety.
    Comment: Commenters suggested that grantees be required to consult 
local domestic violence agencies about appropriate procedures for 
identifying and assisting battered parents.
    Response: Based on our experience with other service sectors that 
have addressed domestic violence, consultation with community based 
domestic violence experts is often very useful. While requiring such 
consultation would go beyond the scope of this regulation, we do 
believe domestic violence experts have important experience and 
knowledge that can be useful to access and visitation programs. We 
encourage all access and visitation grantees to hold consultations with 
experts in the field of domestic violence.
    Comment: One commenter wanted to include domestic violence as one 
category of participant data reported.
    Response: We have not included domestic violence as a category of 
participant data reported because the quality of information collected 
is not likely to be consistent or useful. It would be difficult to 
reach any agreement for reporting responses on how domestic violence 
should be defined or how the determination would be made that domestic 
violence had occurred. Additionally, services and targeted clientele 
will vary widely from State to State, and even within States, making 
comparisons even more inappropriate. We do encourage States to use 
their own State protocols and definitions of domestic violence to 
monitor and evaluate how their programs are protecting the safety of 
parents and children.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that Grants for Access and 
Visitation Programs be conducted by those with domestic violence 
training.
    Response: The legislation mandates that the Governor of each State 
determine the organizational entity responsible for the grant program. 
Each State has the flexibility and responsibility to determine the 
services to be provided and qualifications of the providers.
    Comment: Another domestic violence related concern is that the 
final rule should acknowledge that domestic violence occurs in many of 
the access and visitation cases before the family court and, therefore, 
the statement that involvement by non-custodial parents is desirable 
for children should be dropped or amended.
    Response: In response to the concern about domestic violence we 
have added to the regulations a requirement that all States monitor 
access and visitation programs to ensure that programs have safeguards 
to ensure the safety of parents and children.
    Comment: One commenter stated that visitation and access should not 
be mandatory for the non-custodial parent. The commenter also suggests 
that evaluation requirements should look at the success of visitation 
and not just the number of visits.
    Response: The Act does not require the noncustodial parent to visit 
the child; rather, it funds activities to facilitate and encourage non-
custodial parents to participate in raising the child(ren) as 
determined appropriate by the parents and the court. There are no 
specific evaluation requirements placed on either State or Federal 
government evaluation activities regarding visitation programs or any 
other allowable services provided under the program. We would encourage 
any evaluators of visitation programs to carefully determine the most 
appropriate measures of success for program evaluation purposes.
    Comment: One commenter had several suggestions:
    (i) OCSE should include in the monitoring requirements that States 
assure that the Access and Visitation Programs funded under Federal 
grants do not merely replace existing programs.
    Response: Section 469B(d) of the Act does not allow States to 
supplant or use Federal funds authorized under this Act to replace or 
displace State funds spent for the same purposes as specified by 
section 469B(a) of the Act. States must use these Federal grant funds 
to supplement these expenditures at a level at least equal to the level 
of such expenditures as existed in fiscal year 1995. States are 
required to follow all requirements in the statute, therefore, it is 
not necessary to repeat the requirement in the regulation.
    (ii) OCSE should prohibit use of funds for programs that are 
available only to children of divorced or separated parents, on the one 
hand, or children of unmarried parents on the other hand.
    Response: The philosophy of this Act is to allow States maximum 
flexibility. Some States may concentrate their efforts only on unwed 
families (or on divorced families) because there are already State 
programs serving other families. We would not want to limit the 
flexibility States have under this act to address unmet needs.
    (iii) OCSE should require that the States report on the economic 
status of program participants.
    Response: This has been done in the reporting requirements for a 
description of the program under Sec. 303.109(c)(1) of this final 
regulation. Under these requirements States must report as follows:

    (c) Reporting: the State must: report a detailed description of 
each program funded, providing the following information as 
appropriate: * * * population served (income * * *) * * *.

    (iv) OCSE should involve experts on the life situations and needs 
of the children of unmarried parents in setting up their programs.
    Response: The philosophy behind this program is to give the States 
maximum flexibility. Most States are delivering programs through 
experienced community-based organizations or court agencies.
    Comment: One commenter noted that some States are using grant funds 
in the first year to assess which access and visitation program 
strategies to undertake; in such States there would be no reporting of 
cases. Reporting requirements are only where services are provided.
    Response: It is appropriate to footnote any report with this 
information. Thus no change needs to be made to the regulation.
    Comment: Two commenters had comments on reporting responsibilities 
and definitions as follows: In the requirement for description of 
project--Sec. 303.109(c)--an addition should be made for ``outcome 
measures''. There should be some data elements that measure whether the 
program is achieving its goals; the current data elements do not.
    Response: We have chosen not to include outcome measures in our 
initial reporting requirements. First, States can and are providing a 
wide variety of services. It would be premature at this early stage of 
program implementation to specify a limited set of outcomes, that may 
or may not measure the outcomes or changes that States are attempting 
to achieve. Second, program outcomes in this area are often difficult 
and expensive to measure. Given the limited resources of this program 
it is more cost

[[Page 15135]]

effective to focus routine reporting on service delivery and use 
evaluation efforts to measure outcomes.
    Comment: The data requirement for program ``graduates'' could be 
meaningless due to definitional inconsistencies between States and 
projects.
    Response: For clarity, we have revised the wording to read: 
``Number of persons who have completed program requirements.'' Even 
though each program and project may have a different set of program 
requirements for recipients, this data element will measure the extent 
to which programs were successful in ensuring that participants 
completed these requirements.
    Comment: In Sec. 303.109(a) ``effective'' and ``efficient'' should 
be defined.
    Response: Effective means whether the programs are actually doing 
what they are intended to do. Efficient means that they are 
accomplishing their mission using a reasonable amount of resources. 
Because each State may provide very different services there is no way 
to standardize these definitions for reporting purposes.
    Comment: ACF should work with States to create a standardized 
database to track program information.
    Response: Given the variety of programs, this is what we have 
attempted to do, while at the same time preserving State flexibility 
and minimizing burden.
    Comment: ``Urban/rural'' as part of the required description of a 
project should be defined due to the different nature of rural and 
urban in States of different sizes.
    Response: We are not making a change in the regulation. However, in 
the instructions that accompany the reporting form, we have indicated 
that an urban project is defined as operating within a Standard 
Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) and that a rural project is 
defined as operating outside a SMSA. We have added the category 
``mixed'' to cover a project area that serves both SMSA and non-SMSA 
areas.
    Comment: There are two comments about reporting on the nature of 
the referral. One commenter suggested that the providers should have to 
report on the type of the referral. Another commenter indicated that in 
Sec. 303.109(c)(2), referral reporting should distinguish between 
court-referred and self-referred.
    Response: The regulation at Sec. 303.109(c)(2) does indicate that 
the source of referral will be included in the reporting requirements. 
Source of referral will include such categories as courts, social 
services agencies, responsible fatherhood programs, churches and self-
referral. Additionally, the reporting forms will indicate whether 
clients are receiving services on a mandatory or voluntary basis. In 
general, mandatory services will include services that a court or other 
agency requires an individual to participate in. Voluntary services 
will include non-mandatory referrals and self-referrals. We believe 
these two categories of source of referral and mandatory versus 
voluntary participation will provide us with the information we need 
about the nature of participation. Self-referred relates to individuals 
signing up for access and visitation services on their own accord or on 
a voluntary basis.
    Comment: What is meant by program participant families and 
individuals?
    Response: We have revised the final rule to ask only for 
information on individuals. We have done this to avoid confusion about 
reporting of families or individuals. This is because in some cases 
only the non custodial parent receives services. However, sometimes 
services would be received jointly by both ex-spouses or father and 
mother as in the case of mediation. Occasionally the child is involved. 
As such, if we use family as a measure of service, all three of these 
types could be considered a family; however, the service provider is 
not given credit for the differential costs of serving different 
numbers of people. Also, use of individual as opposed to families is 
easier to do if the family under consideration changes (e.g., if a man 
applies for services, and then the ex-spouse becomes involved etc.). As 
such, we would have the States count individuals only and not families; 
however, on the survey form we would have individuals identified as 
non-custodial parents, custodial parents and/or child(ren) to provide a 
more precise definition.
    Comment: Does this language contemplate a father and his family in 
a supervised visitation program? How about a custodial parent? Do all 
individuals in a family have to be recorded? More precision is needed 
in defining individuals and families.
    Response: As discussed above, we have changed reporting to count 
individuals only. As such, if a family of three (e.g., husband, ex-
spouse, and child) is served, States would count three individuals and 
not one family. The individual becomes the service unit. In the survey 
form, individuals would be counted as non-custodial parents, custodial 
parents and/or child(ren).
    In the case of supervised visitation, a non-custodial father and a 
child or children and a third person (the supervisor) are involved. 
However, only the non-custodial father and the child or children are 
served; this translates into two to three or more individual service 
units. The supervisor would not be considered a service unit since this 
is part of the service, not someone served.
    Comment: The definition of when a program is significant to require 
an evaluation by the State should be defined. Will such evaluations be 
funded by the Federal government?
    Response: The regulations permit, but do not require, States to 
evaluate their access and visitation programs. State initiated 
evaluations can be paid for out of State access and visitation grant 
funds or other State funds. States must cooperate in any federally 
initiated evaluations of the access and visitation grant program. It is 
not possible to determine in advance what type of programs might be 
considered significant or promising. These decisions will be based on 
our review of State program activities. Specific decisions regarding 
cost sharing will be made in the context of specific evaluation 
designs.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that OCSE develop an on-line 
database for reporting of data. Client satisfaction should be reported.
    Response: We will consider the suggestion for an on-line database. 
We have not included client satisfaction in the requirements since we 
wanted to avoid complexity and ambiguity.
    Comment: One commenter believed that the requirement asking for 
information on race of recipients is inappropriate, and in many cases 
where work is handled by the phone, it would be awkward for mediators 
to ask the race question. The commenter recommended either eliminating 
this question or making it optional.
    Response: We agree that there are circumstances in which it would 
be inappropriate or awkward. We will therefore include on the reporting 
form the designation ``unknown'' in recognition that sometimes this 
information cannot be collected.
    Comment: One commenter felt that the State child support 
enforcement agency should not be required to report on the Access and 
Visitation Grants when the agency in the State administering this grant 
is not the child support agency.
    Response: We agree. The reporting agency is the State agency 
administering the Access and Visitation Program. This, in many cases, 
is not the child support enforcement agency.
    Comment: One commenter believed that enforcement of visitation 
rights is vital.

[[Page 15136]]

    Response: Visitation enforcement is an allowable program activity 
under section 469B(a) of the Act. Since there are no specific 
reporting, monitoring, or evaluation provisions dealing with visitation 
enforcement in isolation, it is not specifically mentioned in the 
regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The new regulation at Sec. 303.109(c) contains an information 
collection requirement. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Administration for Children and Families 
has submitted a copy of this section to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for its review and has received approval. The OMB control 
number is 0970-0178.
    Legal Significance Statement: 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be reviewed to 
ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set 
forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that the 
rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. Statutory 
provisions require States that receive grants for child access and 
visitation programs to monitor, evaluate, and report on such programs 
in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact 
statement before promulgating a rule that includes any 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.
    The Department has determined that this final 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. The Department has determined that 
this rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

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 303
    Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs No. 93.597, Grants 
to States for Access and Visitation).

    Dated: March 10, 1999.
Olivia A. Golden,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    For reasons stated in the preamble, we are amending 45 CFR Part 303 
as follows:

PART 303--STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM OPERATIONS

    1. The authority citation of Part 303 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 660, 663, 664, 666, 667, 
1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).

    2. A new section 303.109 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 303.109  Procedures for State monitoring, evaluation and reporting 
on programs funded by Grants to States for Access and Visitation 
Programs.

    (a) Monitoring. The State must monitor all programs funded under 
Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs to ensure that the 
programs are providing services authorized in section 469B(a) of the 
Act, are being conducted in an effective and efficient manner, are 
complying with Federal evaluation and reporting requirements, and 
contain safeguards to insure the safety of parents and children.
    (b) Evaluation. The State:
    (1) May evaluate all programs funded under Grants to States for 
Access and Visitation Programs;
    (2) Must assist in the evaluation of significant or promising 
projects as determined by the Secretary;
    (c) Reporting. The State must:
    (1) Report a detailed description of each program funded, providing 
the following information, as appropriate: service providers and 
administrators, service area (rural/urban), population served (income, 
race, marital status), program goals, application or referral process 
(including referral sources), voluntary or mandatory nature of the 
programs, types of activities, and length and features of a completed 
program;
    (2) Report data including: the number of applicants/referrals for 
each program, the total number of participating individuals, and the 
number of persons who have completed program requirements by authorized 
activities (mediation--voluntary and mandatory, counseling, education, 
development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement--including 
monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup) and 
development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody 
arrangements; and
    (3) Report the information required in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) 
of this section annually, at such time, and in such form, as the 
Secretary may require.

[FR Doc. 99-7667 Filed 3-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P