at-9809.htm

ACTION TRANSMITTAL

Office of Child Support Enforcement
OCSE-AT-98-09
March 11, 1998

TO: STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PLANS UNDER TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS

SUBJECT:Proposed Rule - Federal regulation concerning automated data processing funding limitation for child support enforcement systems.

ATTACHMENT:Attached is a proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on March 2, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 40).

This proposed rule specifies the Federal share of funding available at an 80 percent matching rate for child support enforcement automated systems changes resulting from the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The Federal share of funding is limited to a total of $400,000,000 for fiscal years 1996 through 2001. This proposed rule responds to the requirement that the Secretary of Health and Human Services issue regulations which specify a formula for allocating this sum among the States, Territories and eligible systems.

REGULATION
REFERENCE: 45 CFR Part 307

DATES:Consideration will be given to written comments received by May 1, 1998. Address comments to: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Department of Health and Human Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20447, Attention: Director, Child Support Information Systems Division.

Comments may also be submitted by electronic mail to "hsmith@acf.hhs.gov" or by telefaxing to 202-401-6400. This is not a toll-free number. Comments sent electronically must be in ASCII format.

INQUIRIES: Helen Smith, Federal OCSE, 202-690-6639.
ACF Regional Administrators

___________/s/_________
David Gray Ross
Commissioner
Office of Child Support
Enforcement

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Part 307

RIN 0970--AB71

Automated Data Processing Funding Limitation for Child Support Enforcement Systems

AGENCY: Office of State Systems (OSS), OPS, ACF, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal share of funding available at an 80 percent matching rate for child support enforcement automated systems changes resulting from the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act is limited to a total of $400,000,000 for fiscal years 1996 through 2001. This proposed rule responds to the requirement that the Secretary of Health and Human Services issue regulations which specify a formula for allocating this sum among the States, Territories and eligible systems.

DATES: Consideration will be given to written comments received by May 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Address comments to: Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, Washington, DC, 20447. Attention: Mark Ragan, Director, Office of State Systems.

Comments will be available for public inspection Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the third floor of the Department's offices at 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20201. FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen H. Smith, (202) 690-6639.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule does not require information collection activities and, therefore, no approvals are necessary under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). In a separate transmittal, however, the Administration for Children and Families is submitting for approval the information collection activities under 45 CFR Sec. 307.15 which is referenced in this proposed rule.

Statutory Authority

These proposed regulations are published under the authority of the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA;Pub. L. 104-193) and section 5555 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33). Section 344(b) of Pub. L. 104-193 amends section 455(a) of the Act to provide enhanced Federal matching for approved development and implementation costs of automated child support enforcement systems.

Section 344(b)(2) of PRWORA establishes a temporary limitation on payments under the special Federal matching rate of 80 percent. The Secretary of Health and Human Services may not pay more than $400,000,000 in the aggregate for approved systems development and implementation costs in fiscal years 1996 through 2001. Under this section the Secretary is also required to prescribe in regulation a formula for allocating the available $400,000,000 among the States. According to section 344(b)(2)(C) the formula for allocating the specified funds among the States shall take into account the relative size of State IV-D caseloads and the level of automation required to meet the IV-D automated data processing requirements. Section 5555 of The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 amends the requirements in this section of PRWORA to include certain systems in the allocation formula. Regulatory Provisions Background

With the enactment of the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-485), States were required to have an operational child support enforcement system, certified by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) as meeting the requirements specified in that statute and implementing regulations, no later than October 1, 1995. (Pub. L. 104-85 subsequently extended this deadline to October 1, 1997.) PRWORA specifies new requirements in section 454A of the Act which must be included in a State child support enforcement system no later than October 1, 2000. The new automation requirements require State systems to perform functions including: Controlling and accounting of Federal, State and local funds to carry out the child support enforcement program; maintaining data necessary to meet Federal reporting requirements; maintaining data on State performance for calculation of performance indicators; safeguarding of the integrity and security of data in the automated system; developing a State case registry; performing data matches; and providing expedited administrative procedures. (PRWORA requires the establishment of State New Hire and State Disbursement Units but does not require them to be an integrated part of the Statewide automated child support system.)

For fiscal years 1996 through 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will reimburse 80 percent of approved State expenditures for development and implementation of automated systems which meet the requirements of section 454(16) of the Act as in effect on September 30, 1996 (i.e., Family Support Act requirements which must be completed by October 1, 1997), the amended section 454(16), and new section 454A of the Act. The Federal share of reimbursement to States is limited to an aggregate total of $400,000,000. Once a State reaches itsallocated share of the $400,000,000, Federal funding remains available at the 66 percent rate for additional approved expenditures incurred in developing and implementing child support enforcement systems. Child Support Enforcement Action Transmittal 96-10 (OCSE-AT- 96-10) provides instructions for submitting claims for Federal reimbursement at the 80 percent rate.

PRWORA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations which specify a formula for allocating the $400,000,000 available at 80 percent FFP among the States and Territories. The Balanced Budget Act Amendments add specified systems to the entities included in the formula. The allocation formula must take into account the relative size of State and systems IV-D (child support enforcement) caseloads and the level of automation needed to meet title IV-D automated data processing requirements. Accordingly, we propose to revise 45 CFR Part 307 to include conforming changes and to add Sec. 307.31. Conditions That Must Be Met for 80 Percent Federal Financial Participation

Pub. L. 104-193 provides enhanced funds to complete development of child support enforcement systems which meet the requirements of both the Family Support Act and PRWORA. From this we conclude that no change in the conditions for receipt of funds was anticipated by Congress. Thus, we propose to retain in 45 CFR 307.31 the same conditions for receipt funds at 80 percent FFP which appear at Sec. 307.30 (a), (b), (c), and (d) and apply to claims for FFP at the 90 percent rate.

Throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking we use ``State'' as the inclusive term for States, Territories and approved systems as described in 42 U.S.C. 655(a)(3)(B)(iii) (section 455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act) as added to the Act by section 5555 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33). The technical amendments to section 455(a)(3)(B) of the Act changed the entities included in the allocation formula by adding ``system'' to States and Territories. For purposes of this proposed rule, a system eligible for enhanced funding is a system approved by the Secretary to receive funding at the 90 percent rate for the purpose of developing a system that meets the requirements of section 454(16) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 654(16)) (as in effect on and after September 30, 1995) and section 454A of the Act (42 U.S.C. 654A), including a system that received funding for this purpose pursuant to a waiver under section 1115(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1315(a)). We believe that the Los Angeles County child support enforcement system is the only non-State system which meets these requirements.

Therefore, the proposed Sec. 307.31(a) provides that until September 30, 2001, Federal financial participation (FFP) is available at the 80 percent rate for expenditures for the planning, design, development, installation, or enhancement of a child support enforcement system meeting the requirementsdescribed in Secs. 307.5 and 307.10. To receive Federal reimbursement: (1) A State must have an approved advance planning document (APD); (2) the system must meet the requirements of Sec. 307.10; (3) OCSE must determine that the expenditures are consistent with the APD; (4) OCSE must also determine that the computerized support enforcement system is designed effectively and efficiently and will improve the management and administration of the State IV-D plan; (5) the State IV-D agency must agree in writing to use the system for a period of time which is consistent with the APD approved by OCSE; and (6) the State or local government must have ownership rights in any software, software modifications and associated documentation that is designed, developed, installed or enhanced with Federal funds.

In proposed Sec. 307.31(b) the requirements for FFP at the 80 percent rate in the costs of hardware and proprietary software are the same as the requirements at the 90 percent rate. Until September 30, 2001, FFP at the 80 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. FFP at the 80 percent rate is available until September 30, 2001, for the rental or purchase of proprietary operating/vendor software necessary for the operation of hardware during the planning, design, development, installation, enhancement or operation of a child support enforcement system in accordance with the OCSE guideline entitled ``Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for States.'' FFP at the 80 percent rate is not available, however, for proprietary application software developed specifically for a computerized support enforcement system.

With proposed Sec. 307.31(c), the Department of Health and Human Services continues to reserve a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use for Federal Government purposes, software, software modifications, and documentation developed under Sec. 307.10. This license permits the Department to authorize the use of software, software modifications and documentation developed under Sec. 307.10 in another project or activity funded by the Federal Government.

Proposed Sec. 307.31(d) reiterates the consequences of suspension of the APD. If OCSE suspends approval of an APD during the planning, design, development, installation, enhancement or operation of the system, FFP is disallowed as of the date the State failed to comply substantially with the approved APD. FFP at the 80 percent and applicable matching rates is not available for any expenditure incurred under the APD after the date of the suspension until the date OCSE determines that the State has taken the actions specified in the notice of suspension. OCSE will notify the State in writing upon making such a determination.

Note that for conformance, we propose to add to Sec. 307.40(a) of the regulation a reference to ``Sec. 307.31(d).''

As required in section 344(a)(3) of PRWORA, the Administration for Children and Families is developing Federal regulations for the implementation of the child support enforcement systems requirements mandated by section 454A of the Social Security Act and listed in the background section above. We anticipate issuing proposed rules in the near future which will revise 45 CFR Part 307 to reflect these requirements.

These regulations specify the conditions that States must meet in order to receive funding (both enhanced and regular) and certification. Under these rules, we will set out provisions to: ensure the coordination of Federal financial participation and States' progress toward implementing PRWORA system requirements; hold States accountable for ensuring that their automation plans are effectively designed and implemented; and, enable States to produce the results envisioned under PRWORA. Because of the interrelationship between these two rules, ACF will assess comments on both rules and issue final rules in a coordinated manner.

In addition, ACF will revise the existing OCSE publication, ``Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for States'' through the issuance of a series of action transmittals to explain the new and revised child support enforcement system functional requirements. Each action transmittal will be circulated in draft form for review and comment by the States before a final document is issued. Limitation on Payments to States

Section 344(b)(2) of PRWORA limits the Federal share of payments at the 80 percent rate to $400,000,000 over fiscal years 1996 through 2001. The proposed Sec. 307.31(e) therefore provides that FFP at the 80 percent rate may not exceed $400,000,000 in the aggregate for fiscal years 1996 through 2001.

We include the amount of the funding limitation in the regulation because it caps the funds available to each State at the special matching rate. The statute requires an allocation of the available $400,000,000 based on a formula established by the Secretary, HHS.

State implementation of all automated systems requirements enacted with the Family Support Act of 1988 is to be accomplished by October 1, 1997. Subsequent requirements enacted with or before PRWORA must be met by October 1, 2000. For fiscal years 1996 through 2001, the FFP rate for the provisions of this section is 80 percent. Although system implementation must be completed no later than October 1, 2000, Federal funds at the 80 percent FFP rate remain available through September 30, 2001, to accommodate contractually mandated ``holdback'' payments and other systemimplementation-related expenses.

As indicated above, FFP at the 80 percent rate is available only for expenditures made by a State on or before September 30, 2001, for system development and implementation activities which meet all statutory and regulatory requirements. Under section 1132 of the Act and Federal regulations at 45 CFR part 95, subpart A, States have two years from the end of a quarter in which an expenditure is made to file a claim for Federal funding for that cost. Therefore, approved system implementation expenditures made in 2001 may be claimed for Federal funding at the 80 percent FFP rate as late as 2003. Allocation Formula

Section 344(b)(2)(C) of PRWORA requires the Secretary to allocate by formula the $400,000,000 available at the 80 percent FFP rate. This section specifies that the formula take into account the relative size of State IV-D caseloads and the level of automation needed to meet applicable automatic data processing requirements. The legislative history does not elaborate on the meaning of these factors.

The allocation formula proposed in this section is the product of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. We sought information from child support enforcement systems experts, financial experts, economists, State IV-D directors, and national associations. Before drafting regulations we asked States to suggest approaches for allocating the available Federal share of the funds. In a number of open forums we sought suggestions for the allocation formula. An internal working group considered the information from States, reviewed the suggestions, then developed the proposed allocation formula.

Simply stated, the proposed formula first allots a base amount of $2,000,000 to each State to take into account the level of automation needed to meet the automated data processing requirements of title IV- D. The formula, then, allots an additional amount to States based on both their reported IV-D caseload and their potential caseload based on Census data on children living with one parent.

As indicated earlier, we use ``State'' as the inclusive term for States, Territories and systems described in 42 U.S.C. 655(a)(3)(B)(iii) (455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act) as amended by section 5555 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The technical amendments to section 455(a)(3)(B) of the Act changed the entities included in the allocation formula by adding ``system'' to States. As noted earlier, we believe that the Los Angeles County child support enforcement system is the only non-State system which meets the requirements specified in section 455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act.

Before considering a base level of funding, we examined several approaches for taking into account States' level of automation. First, we contemplated allocating funds based on the certification status of a State's child support enforcement automated system. However, we were advised of several flaws in this approach: it does not reflect current automation needs; it could reward States that are behind schedule and not certified for Family Support Act standards by giving them a larger allocation to meet PRWORA requirements and complete their statewide automated systems; and, it could advantage States with certified but obsolete systems. We then considered establishing a ranking system based on dollars invested in systems to date. This approach is problematic because it penalizes States that were early developers of child support enforcement systems and it does not address the new requirements. We also considered grading States' systems on a set of criteria, but we came to believe that this was an overly complex approach with numerous and subjective variables.

As an alternative, several States suggested that the formula allocate a base amount to each State to take into account the level of automation. This is the approach we are proposing in the following formula.

Using a funding base and then varying the allocation by current and potential caseload reflects the flexibility States have, and have had, in designing their systems. Each State develops its system to meet its particular needs. Thus, each State's system development plan takes into account factors such as: caseload size; organization (county administered, state-administered, court involvement); State and local business practices for case processing and management; the process for setting and enforcing orders (court or administrative process); responsiveness and capacity of its contractors; State planning process; availability of State funding and resources.

A number of areas common to all State systems will need additional investment in order to meet the new PRWORA requirements. Primarily, the increased systems costs are associated with changes in distribution, performance indicators, reporting, interfaces and case management, the State Case Registry and wage withholding activities on non-IV-D cases. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to allocate a base amount to each State.

A base level of funding for each State takes into account the level of automation by recognizing that all States have similar costs for planning, design, programming and development regardless of the size of their caseloads. A minimum amount is provided to each State to ensure support for a State's development effort. In order to treat States fairly in determining this minimum level of funding, we looked to our experience with basic project costs (e.g., planning, design, programming, and development). We believe a base amount of $2,000,000 per State fairly represents the start-up costs which are common to all States. Table 2 in Appendix Ashows the distribution of the base amount to each State, Territory and Los Angeles County.

States suggested various percentages of the available funds which should be set aside to distribute as equal base amounts to each State. Obviously, as the portion of the funds designated for the base amount increases, the portion available to distribute based on relative caseload size decreases. Changes in the portion set aside for minimum funding to each State could advantage or disadvantage some States (e.g., allocating a larger percentage of funds to a base amount advantages States with small caseloads). Allocating a minimum of $2,000,000 to each State accounts for a little over one-quarter of the $400,000,000 available from federal funds. As discussed in the following paragraphs, our proposal for taking into account the relative size of State IV-D caseloads in the allocation formula also considers the scope of changes that States must make in their child support enforcement systems to meet PRWORA requirements. Therefore, we believe that using one-quarter of the available funds for the base amount is reasonable.

In addition to the base level of funding which takes into account States' levels of automation, the proposed allocation formula's calculation of relative caseload size also addresses the changes that States must make in their child support enforcement systems in order to meet PRWORA requirements. Section 311 of PRWORA mandates that child support enforcement systems include information on all new and modified child support orders in the State as of October 1, 1998 as well as information on all cases receiving services under title IV-D. Effectively, this increases the potential child support enforcement caseload maintained on a State's automated system to include almost all children in a State who are not living with both parents. Since the majority of States must increase their automated systems capacity because of this expanding caseload, the use of a census factor based on the size of the child population not living with both parents helps take into account the need for additional capacity building.

With this in mind, the proposed formula allocates the remaining funds, after the base amount is assigned to each State, by an Allocation Factor. A Caseload Factor and a Census Factor are averaged to yield the Allocation Factor. Table 1 shows by State the calculation of the Allocation Factor from caseload and census data.

At this time caseload and census data are not available for Los Angeles County. Therefore, the tables in appendix A show a base amount allocated to Los Angeles County and blank cells for the caseload factor and the census factor. With a base amount assigned for Los Angeles County, we can calculate the total remaining funds available for allocation among the other States. California's caseload factor and census factor represent the total for the State, including Los Angeles County. The California IV-D agencyand the Los Angeles County IV-D agency have been asked to provide us with caseload and census data, as described below, showing Los Angeles County's share of the California total.

The Caseload Factor is the ratio of the six-year average IV-D caseload as reported by a State to the OCSE for fiscal years 1990-1995 to the total six-year average caseload in all States for the same period. States differ in the percentage of total child support cases which receive IV-D services and thus, are included in the IV-D system. For example, some States routinely include all court-ordered support cases in the child support enforcement system. In addition, all States have some duplication in their caseload count due to interstate cases. To compensate for counting variations, we propose averaging the caseloads as reported by States for fiscal years 1990-1995. We considered using shorter periods for averaging, (e.g., 2 years, 4 years) but we decided on the period from 1990-1995 because it minimizes variations in each State's reported caseload.

The Census Factor is the ratio of the number of children in a State with one parent living elsewhere as reported in the 1992 Current Population Survey-Child Support Supplement to the total number of such children in all States. Data will be taken from the most recent Current Population Survey-Child Support Supplement, which is a national survey conducted by the Census Bureau every two years. We propose to use census data on children with one parent living elsewhere because this represents the maximum number of children living in the State who could potentially receive services from the IV-D program.

Note: It is also the same data set required by statute to determine the allotments for the Access and Visitation Grants which the OCSE will issue to the States under section 391 of PRWORA.

Therefore, the proposed Sec. 307.31(f) provides that payments to individual States will be equal to the sum of a $2,000,000 base amount and an additional amount as determined by the Allocation Factor. The Allocation Factor is an average of the Caseload and Census Factors which yields the percentage that is used to calculate a State's allocation of the $400,000,000 (less the amounts set aside for the base).

Table 1 shows by State the Caseload Factors and the Census Factors and the calculation of the Allocation Factor. Table 2 displays the amount each State would be allotted from the $400,000,000 under the proposed allocation formula. The tables are printed in Attachment A at the end of this NPRM. Regulatory Impact Analysis

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 this rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) which requires the Federal Government to anticipate and reduce the impact of rules and paperwork requirements on small business and other small entities, the Secretary certifies that this rule has no significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. The primary impact of this proposed regulation is on State governments. State governments are not considered small entities under the Act. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Unfunded Mandates Act

The Department has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 307

Child support, Computer technology, Grant programs--social programs. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.023, Child Support Enforcement Program)

Dated: September 19, 1997. Olivia A. Golden, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.

Approved: November 5, 1997. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 45 CFR part 307 is proposed to be amended as follows: 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.

2. A new Sec. 307.31 is added to read as follows: Sec. 307.31 Federal financial participation at the 80 percent rate for computerized support enforcement systems.

(a) Conditions that must be met for 80 percent FFP. Until September 30, 2001, Federal financial participation is available at the 80 percent rate to States, Territories and systems defined in 42 U.S.C. 655(a)(3)(B)(iii) (455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act) (hereafter referred to as ``States'') for expenditures for the planning, design, development, installation, or enhancement of a computerized support enforcement system meeting the requirements as described in Secs. 307.5 and 307.10 of this part or 42 U.S.C 654(16) (454(16) of the Act), if:

(1) The Office has approved an APD in accordance with Sec. 307.15 of this part;

(2) The Office determines that the system meets the requirements specified in Sec. 307.10, or 42 U.S.C 654(16) (454(16) of the Act);

(3) The Office determines that the expenditures incurred are consistent with the approved APD;

(4) The Office determines that the computerized support enforcement system is designed effectively and efficiently and will improve the management and administration of the State IV-D plan;

(5) The State IV-D agency agrees in writing to use the system for a period of time which is consistent with the APD approved by the Office; and

(6) The State or local government has ownership rights in software, software modifications and associated documentation that is designed, developed, installed or enhanced under this section subject to the Department of Health and Human Services license specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Federal financial participation in the costs of hardware and proprietary software. (1) Until September 30, 2001, FFP at the 80 percent rate is available for expenditures for the rental or purchase of hardware for the planning, design, development, installation, or enhancement of a computerized support enforcementsystem as described in Sec. 307.10 or 42 U.S.C 654(16) (454(16) of the Act).

(2) Until September 30, 2001, FFP at the 80 percent rate is available for the rental or purchase of proprietary operating/vendor software necessary for the operation of hardware during the planning, design, development, installation, enhancement or operation of a computerized support enforcement system in accordance with the OCSE guideline entitled ``Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for States.'' FFP at the 80 percent rate is not available for proprietary application software developed specifically for a computerized support enforcement system. (See Sec. 307.35 regarding reimbursement at the applicable matching rate.)

(c) HHS rights to software. The Department of Health and Human Services reserves a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use for Federal government purposes, software, software modifications, and documentation developed under Sec. 307.10 or 42 U.S.C 654(16) (454(16) of the Act). This license would permit the Department to authorize the use of software, software modifications and documentation developed under Sec. 307.10 or 42 U.S.C 654(16) (454(16) of the Act) in another project or activity funded by the Federal government.

(d) Consequences of suspension of the APD. If the Office suspends approval of an APD in accordance with Sec. 307.40 during the planning, design, development, installation, enhancement or operation of the system:

(1) The Office shall disallow FFP as of the date the State failed to comply substantially with the approved APD; and

(2) FFP at the 80 percent and applicable matching rates is not available in any expenditure incurred under the APD after the date of the suspension until the date the Office determines that the State has taken the actions specified in the notice of suspension described in Sec. 307.40(a) of this part. The Office will notify the State in writing upon making such a determination.

(e) Limitation on 80 percent funding. Federal financial participation at the 80 percent rate may not exceed $400,000,000 in the aggregate for fiscal years 1996 through 2001.

(f) Allocation formula. Payments at the 80 percent rate to individual States, Territories and systems defined in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 655(a)(3)(B)(iii) (455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act) (hereafter referred to as ``States'') will be equal to the sum of:

(1) A base amount of $2,000,000; and

(2) An additional amount defined as the Allocation Factor computed as follows:

(i) Allocation Factor--an average of the Caseload and Census Factors which yields the percentage that is used to calculate a State's allocation of the funds available, less amounts set aside pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

(ii) Caseload Factor--a ratio of the six-year average IV-D caseload as reported by a State for fiscal years 1990 through 1995 to the total six-year average IV-D caseload in all States for the same period;

(iii) Census Factor--a ratio of the number of children in a State with one parent living elsewhere as reported in the 1992 Current Population Survey--Child Support Supplement to the total number of such children in all States.

3. In Sec. 307.40 paragraph (a)(1) is amended by adding ``Sec. 307.31(d)'' at the end of the last sentence. The addition reads as follows: Sec. 307.40 Suspension of approval of advance planning documents for computerized support enforcement systems.

(a) * * * Federal funding will be disallowed as described in Sec. 307.30(d) and Sec. 307.31(d). * * * * *

Appendix A--Proposed Allocation Tables-- See Attached

Note: Appendix A will not be codified in Title 45 of the Code of

Federal Regulations.

Table 1.--Calculation of Allocation Factor From Caseload and Census Data

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

Caseload 6 % of Census--92 Allocation

yr avg. caseload children % of census factor

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

Alabama........................................ 290,391 1.81 345,570 1.84 1.83

Alaska......................................... 42,954 0.27 27,765 0.15 0.20

Arizona........................................ 240,814 1.50 271,870 1.45 1.47

Arkansas....................................... 111,852 0.70 187,640 1.00 0.86

California..................................... 1,682,256 10.48 2,178,600 11.60 11.09

Los Angeles County*............................ 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

Colorado....................................... 166,360 1.04 182,320 0.97 1.00

Connecticut.................................... 167,175 1.04 242,910 1.29 1.18

Delaware....................................... 44,417 0.28 68,966 0.37 0.33

District of Columbia........................... 78,327 0.49 61,788 0.33 0.40

Florida........................................ 795,006 4.95 1,043,100 5.56 5.28

Georgia........................................ 460,993 2.87 428,450 2.28 2.55

Guam........................................... 5,788 0.04 6,772 0.04 0.04

Hawaii......................................... 59,662 0.37 79,211 0.42 0.40

Idaho.......................................... 50,243 0.31 70,539 0.38 0.35

Illinois....................................... 695,072 4.33 879,600 4.68 4.52

Indiana........................................ 610,335 3.80 690,510 3.68 3.74

Iowa........................................... 137,349 0.86 174,860 0.93 0.90

Kansas......................................... 115,061 0.72 227,530 1.21 0.98

Kentucky....................................... 259,739 1.62 362,530 1.93 1.79

Louisiana...................................... 258,556 1.61 402,430 2.14 1.90

Maine.......................................... 64,203 0.40 70,932 0.38 0.39

Maryland....................................... 310,502 1.94 366,710 1.95 1.94

Massachusetts.................................. 234,721 1.46 336,030 1.79 1.64

Michigan....................................... 1,239,750 7.73 757,680 4.04 5.74

Minnesota...................................... 195,708 1.22 357,550 1.90 1.59

Mississippi.................................... 254,350 1.59 268,880 1.43 1.50

Missouri....................................... 312,990 1.95 339,170 1.81 1.87

Montana........................................ 29,676 0.18 55,911 0.30 0.25

Nebraska....................................... 118,598 0.74 90,157 0.48 0.60

Nevada......................................... 64,867 0.40 80,703 0.43 0.42

New Hampshire.................................. 38,461 0.24 56,581 0.30 0.27

New Jersey..................................... 530,061 3.30 395,560 2.11 2.66

New Mexico..................................... 64,995 0.41 138,260 0.74 0.58

New York....................................... 1,053,781 6.57 1,363,500 7.26 6.94

North Carolina................................. 381,598 2.38 457,280 2.44 2.41

North Dakota................................... 31,981 0.20 32,165 0.17 0.18

Ohio........................................... 879,306 5.48 785,450 4.18 4.78

Oklahoma....................................... 117,380 0.73 200,790 1.07 0.91

Oregon......................................... 221,282 1.38 222,130 1.18 1.27

Pennsylvania................................... 851,155 5.30 696,690 3.71 4.45

Puerto Rico.................................... 184,548 1.15 215,949 1.15 1.15

Rhode Island................................... 70,281 0.44 44,712 0.24 0.33

South Carolina................................. 186,716 1.16 254,370 1.35 1.27

South Dakota................................... 25,440 0.16 48,647 0.26 0.21

Tennessee...................................... 486,970 3.03 394,230 2.10 2.53

Texas.......................................... 641,667 4.00 1,377,600 7.34 5.80

Utah........................................... 79,955 0.50 142,460 0.76 0.64

Vermont........................................ 18,577 0.12 40,292 0.21 0.17

Virgin Islands................................. 10,704 0.07 12,525 0.07 0.07

Virginia....................................... 300,239 1.87 379,510 2.02 1.95

Washington..................................... 294,085 1.83 346,700 1.85 1.84

West Virginia.................................. 83,599 0.52 111,830 0.60 0.56

Wisconsin...................................... 365,825 2.28 374,170 1.99 2.13

Wyoming........................................ 29,279 0.18 27,763 0.15 0.16

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

Totals................................... 16,045,594 100.00 18,775,849 100.00 100.00

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

*Currently Los Angeles County data are included in California's data.

Table 2.--Proposed Allocation of Child Support Enforcement Funds Available at 80% EFFP

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

Federal calculations

Allocation ------------------------------------------------ Total State

factor Allocated Total Federal share Total

(percent) Base amount remainder share

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

Alabama................................. 1.83 $2,000,000 $5,296,411 $7,296,411 $1,824,103 $9,120,514

Alaska.................................. 0.20 2,000,000 588,959 2,588,959 647,240 3,236,199

Arizona................................. 1.47 2,000,000 4,269,736 6,269,736 1,567,434 7,837,170

Arkansas................................ 0.86 2,000,000 2,494,226 4,494,226 1,123,556 5,617,782

California.............................. 11.09 2,000,000 32,153,986 34,153,986 8,538,496 42,692,482

Los Angeles County*..................... 0.00 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 500,000 2,500,000

Colorado................................ 1.00 2,000,000 2,903,875 4,903,875 1,225,969 6,129,843

Connecticut............................. 1.18 2,000,000 3,415,271 5,415,271 1,353,818 6,769,088

Delaware................................ 0.33 2,000,000 944,272 2,944,272 736,068 3,680,340

District of Columbia.................... 0.40 2,000,000 1,166,907 3,166,907 791,727 3,958,634

Florida................................. 5.28 2,000,000 15,308,115 17,308,115 4,327,029 21,635,143

Georgia................................. 2.55 2,000,000 7,407,463 9,407,463 2,351,866 11,759,329

Guam.................................... 0.04 2,000,000 104,603 2,104,603 526,151 2,630,754

Hawaii.................................. 0.40 2,000,000 1,156,560 3,156,560 789,140 3,945,699

Idaho................................... 0.35 2,000,000 1,005,900 3,005,900 751,475 3,757,375

Illinois................................ 4,52 2,000,000 13,114,182 15,114,182 3,778,545 18,892,727

Indiana................................. 3.74 2,000,000 10,833,701 12,833,701 3,208,425 16,042,126

Iowa.................................... 0.90 2,000,000 2,600,140 4,600,140 1,150,035 5,750,174

Kansas.................................. 0.98 2,000,000 2,853,168 4,853,168 1,213,292 6,066,460

Kentucky................................ 1.79 2,000,000 5,182,378 7,182,378 1,795,594 8,977,972

Louisiana............................... 1.90 2,000,000 5,504,825 7,504,825 1,876,206 9,381,031

Maine................................... 0.39 2,000,000 1,125,430 3,125,430 781,358 3,906,788

Maryland................................ 1.94 2,000,000 5,639,961 7,639,961 1,909,990 9,549,951

Massachusetts........................... 1.64 2,000,000 4,753,331 6,753,331 1,688,333 8,441,663

Michigan................................ 5.74 2,000,000 16,635,003 18,635,003 4,658,751 23,293,753

Minnesota............................... 1.59 2,000,000 4,607,640 6,607,640 1,651,910 8,259,550

Mississippi............................. 1.50 2,000,000 4,357,564 6,357,564 1,589,391 7,946,954

Missouri................................ 1.87 2,000,000 5,431,316 7,431,316 1,857,829 9,289,145

Montana................................. 0.25 2,000,000 712,782 2,712,782 678,195 3,390,977

Nebraska................................ 0.60 2,000,000 1,738,551 3,738,551 934,638 4,673,189

Nevada.................................. 0.42 2,000,000 1,212,336 3,212,336 803,084 4,015,420

New Hampshire........................... 0.27 2,000,000 791,530 2,791,530 697,883 3,489,413

New Jersey.............................. 2.66 2,000,000 7,708,758 9,708,758 2,427,190 12,135,948

New Mexico.............................. 0.58 2,000,000 1,692,749 3,692,749 923,187 4,615,936

New York................................ 6.94 2,000,000 20,131,601 22,131,601 5,532,900 27,664,501

North Carolina.......................... 2.41 2,000,000 6,986,341 8,986,341 2,246,585 11,232,926

North Dakota............................ 0.18 2,000,000 534,222 2,534,222 633,556 3,167,778

Ohio.................................... 4.78 2,000,000 13,864,421 15,864,421 3,966,105 19,830,526

Oklahoma................................ 0.91 2,000,000 2,649,783 4,649,783 1,162,446 5,812,228

Oregon.................................. 1.27 2,000,000 3,692,822 5,692,822 1,423,205 7,116,027

Pennsylvania............................ 4.45 2,000,000 12,890,767 14,890,767 3,722,692 18,613,458

Puerto Rico............................. 1.15 2,000,000 3,335,419 5,335,419 1,333,855 6,669,273

Rhode Island............................ 0.33 2,000,000 957,681 2,957,681 739,420 3,697,101

South Carolina.......................... 1.27 2,000,000 3,673,449 5,673,449 1,418,362 7,091,811

South Dakota............................ 0.21 2,000,000 617,014 2,617,014 654,254 3,271,268

Tennessee............................... 2.53 2,000,000 7,338,813 9,338,813 2,334,703 11,673,516

Texas................................... 5.80 2,000,000 16,816,864 18,816,864 4,704,216 23,521,080

Utah.................................... 0.64 2,000,000 1,852,320 3,852,320 963,080 4,815,400

Vermont................................. 0.17 2,000,000 490,273 2,490,273 622,568 3,112,841

Virgin Islands.......................... 0.07 2,000,000 193,459 2,193,459 548,365 2,741,823

Virginia................................ 1.95 2,000,000 5,661,088 7,661,088 1,915,272 9,576,360

Washington.............................. 1.84 2,000,000 5,336,587 7,336,587 1,834,147 9,170,733

West Virginia........................... 0.56 2,000,000 1,627,568 3,627,568 906,892 4,534,460

Wisconsin............................... 2.13 2,000,000 6,162,828 8,162,828 2,040,707 10,203,534

Wyoming................................. 0.16 2,000,000 475,057 2,475,057 618,764 3,093,822

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

100.00 110,000,000 290,000,000 400,000,000 100,000,000 500,000,000

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

*Included in California's allocated remainder.

[FR Doc. 98-5181 Filed 2-27-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P