Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26829

PART 265—INTERIM STATUS

STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND

OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND

DISPOSAL FACILITIES

3. The authority citation for part 265

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,

6925, and 6935.

Subpart CC—Air Emission Standards

for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and

Containers

4. Section 265.1080 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1) and paragraph

(c) introductory text to read as follows:

§ 265.1080 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) A waste management unit that

holds hazardous waste placed in the

unit before December 6, 1995, and in

which no hazardous waste is added to

the unit on or after this date.

* * * * *

(c) For the owner and operator of a

facility subject to this subpart who has

received a final permit under RCRA

section 3005 prior to December 6, 1995,

the following requirements apply:

* * * * *

5. Section 265.1082 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) introductory

text, paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2),

introductory text, (a)(2)(iii), and

(a)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

§ 265.1082 Schedule for implementation of

air emission standards.

(a) Owners or operators of facilities

existing on December 6, 1995, and

subject to subparts I, J, and K of this part

shall meet the following requirements:

(1) Install and begin operation of all

control equipment required by this

subpart by December 6, 1995, except as

provided for in paragraph (a)(2) of this

section.

(2) When control equipment required

by this subpart cannot be installed and

in operation by December 6, 1995, the

owner or operator shall:

(i) * * *

(ii) * * *

(iii) For facilities subject to the

recordkeeping requirements of § 265.73

of this part, the owner or operator shall

enter the implementation schedule

specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this

section in the operating record no later

than December 6, 1995.

(iv) For facilities not subject to

§ 265.73 of this part, the owner or

operator shall enter the implementation

schedule specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)

of this section in a permanent, readily

available file located at the facility no

later than December 6, 1995.

* * * * *

PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR

AUTHORIZATION OF STATE

HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS

6. The authority citation for part 271

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and

6926.

Subpart A—Requirements for Final

Authorization

7. Section 271.1(j) is amended by

adding the promulgation date, Federal

Register reference, and effective date to

the following entry in Table 1 to read as

follows:

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Promulgation

date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date

* * * * * * *

Dec. 6, 1994 ..... Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers ... 59 FR 62896–62953 Dec. 6, 1995.

8. Section 271.1(j) is amended by

revising the effective date and adding

the Federal Register reference to the

following entry in Table 2 to read as

follows:

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Effective date Self-implementing provision RCRA citation Federal Register reference

* * * * * * *

Dec. 6, 1995 ..... Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers .......... 3004(n) ............. 59 FR 62896–62953.

[FR Doc. 95–12367 Filed 5–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and

Families

45 CFR Parts 1355 and 1356

RIN 0970–AB38

Statewide Automated Child Welfare

Information Systems

AGENCY: Office of Information Systems

Management (OISM), ACF, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: These final rules implement

section 13713 of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–

66). Under section 13713, funding is

made available for the planning, design,

development and installation of

statewide automated child welfare

information systems. Such systems must

be comprehensive in that they must

meet the requirements for an Adoption

and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
26830 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

System (AFCARS) required by section

479(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (the

Act) and implementing regulations; to

the extent practicable, be capable of

interfacing with State child abuse and

neglect automated systems; to the extent

practicable, be capable of interfacing

with, and retrieving information from

the State automated system for

determining eligibility for title IV–A

assistance; and, be determined by the

Secretary to be likely to provide more

efficient, economical, and effective

administration of the programs carried

out under State plans approved under

title IV–B or IV–E of the Act.

Enhanced Federal funding at the 75

percent matching rate is provided for

such activities as well as for the cost of

hardware components effective October

1, 1993. This funding rate is eliminated

under the statute after September 30,

1996, at which time a Federal matching

rate of 50 percent is available. Also

effective October 1, 1993, Federal

financial participation at the 50 percent

matching rate is available for the

operation of such systems.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Naomi Marr (202) 401–6960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains information

collection activities which are subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, the Department

resubmitted for OMB clearance the APD

process, described in this document,

under which States may apply for and

obtain Federal financial participation in

their ADP acquisitions. This reporting

requirement was previously approved

under OMB control number 0990–0174.

The reporting burden over and above

what the States already do for the

current APD approval process is

estimated to average 10 hours for the

initial submission of an APD. This

includes time for reviewing

instructions, and collecting and

reporting the needed information in the

APD.

Send comments regarding the burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing burden, to the

Administration for Children and

Families, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW,

Washington, DC, 20447 and the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Room 3208, New Executive Office

Building, Washington, DC 20503, Attn:

Desk Officer for ACF.

Statutory Authority

These regulations are published under

the authority of several provisions of the

Social Security Act (the Act), as

amended by Pub. L. 103–66. Section

474(a)(3) of the Act contains new

requirements providing funding for

statewide automated child welfare

information systems to carry out the

State’s programs under parts IV–B and

IV–E of the Act. Under section

474(a)(3)(C), Federal financial

participation at the 75 percent matching

rate is available from October 1, 1993

through September 30, 1996 (after

which time the rate is reduced to 50

percent), for the planning, design,

development and installation of

statewide automated child welfare

information systems (including the full

amount of expenditures for hardware

components for such systems) to the

extent that such systems—

(i) Meet the requirements imposed by

regulations promulgated pursuant to

section 479(b)(2);

(ii) To the extent practicable, are

capable of interfacing with the State

data collection system that collects

information relating to child abuse and

neglect;

(iii) To the extent practicable, have

the capability of interfacing with, and

retrieving information from, the State

data collection system that collects

information relating to the eligibility of

individuals under part IV–A (for the

purposes of facilitating verification of

eligibility of foster children); and

(iv) Are determined by the Secretary

to be likely to provide more efficient,

economical and effective administration

of the programs carried out under a

State’s plans approved under part IV–B

or IV–E of the Act.

Under section 474(a)(3)(D), Federal

financial participation at the 50 percent

matching rate is available for the

operation of the systems described

above.

Section 474(e) provides that the

Secretary treat as necessary for the

proper and efficient administration of

the State plan, all expenditures of a

State necessary to plan, design, develop,

install, and operate the information

retrieval system under section

474(a)(3)(C), without regard to whether

the systems may be used with respect to

foster or adoptive children other than

those on behalf of whom foster care

maintenance payments or adoption

assistance payments may be made under

part IV–E of the Act.

These regulations are also published

under the general authority of section

1102 of the Act which requires the

Secretary to publish regulations that

may be necessary for the efficient

administration of the functions for

which she is responsible under the Act.

Background

The title IV–E Foster Care and

Adoption Assistance program provides

Federal funds to States for the care of

eligible dependent, abused or neglected

children who must be placed in foster

care, and for adoption assistance

payments for certain children with

special needs. The title IV–B, subpart 1

program provides Federal funds for

service programs for children and their

families aimed at strengthening families

and preventing the unnecessary

separation of children from their

families; assuring adequate care by the

State of children who are away from

their homes; providing services to

return children when separation occurs;

and placing children for adoption or

other permanent placement when

restoration to the family is not possible

or appropriate.

The title IV–B, subpart 2 program is

a capped entitlement for family

preservation and family support

services. Family preservation services

are targeted to families that are already

in crisis and children who are at risk of

being placed in foster care and include

intensive interventions to help families

weather crises, provide for reunification

of families by returning home foster care

children whenever possible, and by

arranging for the adoption of or

permanent and appropriate living

arrangements for those children who

cannot return home. Family support

services are designed to help increase

the strength and stability of families and

include programs to improve and

reinforce parenting skills and to provide

respite care for care providers and dropin centers for families.

In recognition of the critical need for

effective statewide automated capability

to support these programs in a

comprehensive fashion, section 13713

of Pub. L. 103–66 amends the funding

provisions under section 474 of the Act

to provide for the development and

operation of comprehensive information

systems to assist in the administration

of title IV–B and IV–E programs. To

encourage States to act quickly to

develop efficient comprehensive

statewide automated information

systems, Congress limited the

availability of Federal funding at the 75

percent matching rate for statewide

automated child welfare information

systems (SACWIS) to Fiscal Years 1994,

1995 and 1996.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26831

When implemented, these

information systems will result in more

efficient and effective practices in

administering child welfare programs

which in turn will ultimately result in

improved service delivery. Readily

available information and automated

procedures to assist in case assessments

and plans will allow States to be more

proactive in program administration and

to focus efforts on preventive services

and measures rather than constantly

reacting to crisis. With a single

statewide automated information

system, States will realize more efficient

and effective processes and procedures.

An interim final rule providing the

requirements for States wishing to

pursue enhanced funding for the

development of statewide automated

child welfare information systems was

published in the Federal Register

December 22, 1993 (58 FR 67939). We

received 22 letters of public comment

regarding the interim final rule from

State agencies and other interested

parties. Specific comments and

responses follow the discussion of

regulatory provisions. These comments

did not generate any changes to the

regulatory provisions outlined in the

interim final rule.

Regulatory Provisions

The requirements for the automation

of comprehensive child welfare services

are included under 45 CFR part 1355,

which provides the general

requirements for Foster Care

Maintenance Payments, Adoption

Assistance and Child Welfare Services.

The purpose of these regulations, as

provided under § 1355.50, is to set forth

the requirements and procedures States

must meet in order to receive Federal

financial participation authorized under

the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993

for the planning, design, development,

installation and operation of statewide

automated child welfare information

systems.

Funding authority for statewide

automated child welfare information

systems (SACWIS), is provided at

§ 1355.52 to effect the statutory

provisions under section 474(a)(3)(C) of

the Social Security Act authorizing

funding for comprehensive child

welfare systems.

Paragraph (a) provides the basic

requirements a State must meet in order

to be eligible for Federal financial

participation at a 75 percent matching

rate for fiscal years 1994, 1995 and 1996

and at a 50 percent matching rate

thereafter for expenditures related to the

planning, design, development and

installation of a statewide automated

child welfare information system.

First, under § 1355.52(a)(1), the

SACWIS must provide for the collection

and electronic reporting of data required

under section 479(b) of the Act and the

implementing regulations under

§ 1355.40. Under section 479(b) of the

Act, States must establish and

implement adoption and foster care

reporting systems designed to collect

uniform, reliable information on

children who are under the

responsibility of the State title IV–B/IV–

E agency for placement and care.

Under paragraph (a)(2), the SACWIS

must, to the extent practicable, provide

for an interface with the State’s data

collection system for child abuse and

neglect. The phrase ‘‘to the extent

practicable’’ as used in this paragraph is

statutory and reflects in part the

voluntary nature of the National Child

Abuse and Neglect Data Systems

(NCANDS) established under Pub. L.

100–294, the Child Abuse Prevention,

Adoption and Family Services Act of

1988, as well as the inherent

requirement that such interface be cost

beneficial to the title IV–B/IV–E

programs. (For more information on the

term ‘‘practicable’’ as used throughout

this rule, refer to ACF–OISM–AT–95–

001.)

As provided in the interim final rule,

we would expect that most States would

integrate the automation of child abuse

and neglect activities as part of their

SACWIS because of the direct

association between child protection

and child welfare services. While the

language of the statute speaks of

interfacing with child abuse and neglect

data systems, we understand that in

many States these data are already a part

of a larger child welfare system and/or

States will be considering the

integration of such data as part of an

overall comprehensive information/

client system. Accordingly, the

statewide automated child welfare

information systems development effort

may include automated procedures

which will provide the State with the

capability to meet the National Child

Abuse and Neglect Data System

requirements.

While we believe that such interface/

integration is vital, in accordance with

the statute any State which can clearly

demonstrate through the submission of

documentation with the advanced

planning document (APD) that such

integration or interface is not practicable

because no automated statewide

database exists to complete the interface

or because of cost constraints would not

be required to include this provision in

the SACWIS as a condition of approval.

In the latter case, the documentation

should establish that the costs to

develop and operate an automated

interface with the existing system will

exceed the combined costs of manual

inquiry, verification and information

exchange with the existing system, and

duplicate data entry and maintenance in

the SACWIS.

Similarly, paragraph (a)(3) requires

that the SACWIS, to the extent

practicable, provide for interface with

and retrieval of information from the

State automated information system that

collects information relating to

eligibility of individuals under title IV–

A of the Act. Interface with, and access

to, the data maintained by State IV–A

systems is of vital importance for

gathering information about clients or

other relevant persons and because

eligibility for foster care maintenance

payments as well as adoption assistance

are based in part, on a child’s eligibility

under the AFDC program. However, as

provided in greater detail under the

discussion of § 1355.53 below, this

requirement need not be met if a State

clearly demonstrates through the

submission of documentation with the

APD, as indicated under § 1355.52(a)(2),

that electronic interface and data

retrieval is not practicable because of

limitations in the design of the IV–A

system or because of cost constraints.

Finally, paragraph (a)(4) requires that

the SACWIS provide for more efficient,

economical and effective administration

of the programs carried out under State

plans approved under title IV–B and

title IV–E.

As used here, efficient, economical

and effective means that: the system

must improve program management and

administration by addressing all

program services and case processing

requirements by meeting the

requirements of § 1355.53; the design

must appropriately apply computer

technology; the project must not require

duplicative application system

development or software maintenance;

the procurement must provide for

maximum free and open competition;

and the costs must be reasonable,

appropriate and beneficial.

Paragraph (b) provides that Federal

financial participation provided under

paragraph (a) is also available for the

full amount of expenditures for

hardware components. The matching

rate provided is 75 percent with respect

to Fiscal Years 1994, 1995 and 1996,

and 50 percent thereafter. The general

requirements applicable to the treatment

of hardware expenditures under part 95

apply to all such expenditures.

Paragraph (c) provides that Federal

financial participation at the 50 percent

matching rate is available for the

operating costs of statewide automated
26832 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

child welfare information systems

described under paragraph (a).

The conditions for funding systems

under § 1355.52 are provided at

§ 1355.53. Functional guidelines

providing details of these requirements

were recently issued in the form of an

action transmittal (ACF–OISM–AT–95–

001).

Under paragraph (a), as a condition of

funding, the SACWIS must be designed,

developed (or an existing State system

enhanced), and installed in accordance

with an approved advance planning

document (APD). The APD must

provide for an efficient and effective

design which, when implemented, will

produce a comprehensive system which

will improve the program management

and administration of the State plans for

titles IV–B and IV–E. Comprehensive

means that the SACWIS must, to the

extent feasible and appropriate,

introduce, monitor and account for all

the factors of child welfare services,

foster care and adoption assistance,

family preservation and support

services, and independent living

services, as provided under paragraph

(b).

Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8)

provide, in accordance with section

474(a)(3)(C)(iv) of the Act, the

functional requirements determined by

the Secretary to be likely to provide

more efficient, economical and effective

administration of the programs carried

out under State plans approved under

part IV–B and IV–E of the Act. First,

under paragraph (b)(1) the system must

provide the State automated support to

meet the Adoption and Foster Care

reporting requirements through the

collection, maintenance, integrity

checking and electronic transmission of

the data elements specified by the

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and

Reporting System (AFCARS)

requirements mandated under section

479(b) of the Act and § 1355.40 of this

chapter.

Paragraph (b)(2) includes the

requirements for system interface or

integration necessary for the

coordination of services with other

Federally assisted programs and for the

elimination of paperwork and

duplication of data collection and data

entry. Under this paragraph the

SACWIS must provide for electronic

data exchange with State systems for:

(A) Title IV–A, (B) National Child Abuse

and Neglect Data Systems (NCANDS),

(C) title XIX, and (D) title IV–D, unless

the State demonstrates that such

interface or integration would not be

practicable because of systems

limitations or cost constraints.

With respect to the electronic

exchange with the NCANDS and IV–A

systems, these are statutory conditions

of funding which must be met to the

extent practicable. As indicated

previously, we have defined

‘‘practicable’’ to mean that the interface

requirement need not be met if the

responding program system is not

capable of an exchange (and the State

does not wish to pursue such capability)

or where cost constraints render such an

interface infeasible as demonstrated by

the State through the submission of

documentation, in the APD, that the

development and operation of such an

exchange would exceed the costs of

manual inquiry, verification and

information exchange as well as the cost

of duplicate data entry and

maintenance.

Similarly, the electronic data

exchange with the title XIX system is

required unless the State Medicaid

system does not have the capacity for

such an interface or the State clearly

demonstrates through the submittal of

documentation that such an exchange

would not otherwise be practicable

because of cost constraints. The

requirement for an interface with the

State’s child support enforcement

system, unless demonstrated to be

impracticable, duplicates the systems

requirements under the title IV–D

program, requiring statewide child

support enforcement systems to provide

electronic data exchange with the title

IV–E program, to assure that benefits

and services are provided in an

integrated manner and that the State is

able to collect support from the

responsible parent.

Paragraph (b)(3) requires that the

SACWIS enable the State to meet the

provisions of section 422 of the Act by

providing for the automated collection,

maintenance, management and

reporting of necessary information.

Section 422 of the Act requires that each

child in foster care under the

responsibility of the State agency be

afforded specific protections related to

case planning, case reviews and

dispositional hearings.

Accordingly, under paragraph (b)(3)

the SACWIS must have automated

procedures and processes to assist the

State in meeting the 422 requirements.

At a minimum, these automated

procedures would include collection,

maintenance, management and

reporting of information on all children

in foster care under the responsibility of

the State, including statewide data from

which the demographic characteristics,

location and goals for foster children

can be determined.

Under paragraph (b)(4), the SACWIS

must provide for the collection and

management of information necessary to

facilitate the delivery of client services,

the acceptance and referral of clients,

client registration, and the evaluation of

the need for services, including child

welfare services under title IV–B

subparts 1 and 2, family preservation

and family support services, family

reunification and permanent placement.

This provision speaks to intake and

assessment activities which include

processing referrals for services,

conducting investigations and

determining the need for services.

Under paragraph (b)(5), the SACWIS

must collect and manage information

necessary to determine eligibility for the

foster care program, the adoption

assistance program, and the

independent living program.

Paragraph (b)(6) requires that the

SACWIS support necessary case

assessment activities. Under this

requirement, the system must have

automated procedures to assist in

evaluating the client’s needs.

Under paragraph (b)(7), the SACWIS

must assist the State in monitoring case

plan development, review and

management, including eligibility

determinations and redeterminations.

Under this requirement the system

must provide for service provision and

case management which entails

determining eligibility and supporting

the caseworker’s determination of

whether continued service is warranted,

the authorization and issuance of

appropriate payments, the preparation

of service plans, determining whether

the agency can provide services,

authorizing services and managing the

delivery of services.

Finally, under paragraph (b)(8), the

confidentiality and security of the

information and the system must be

ensured.

Paragraph (c) provides other program

functions which may be included at

State option in the SACWIS design

under paragraph (a) of this section. We

believe that the vast majority of States

would want to incorporate these

functions in their SACWIS development

or enhancement activities but we are

sensitive to the need for State flexibility

to determine their own optimal level of

automation and thus these elements are

optional.

Under paragraph (c)(1), the SACWIS

may provide management and tracking

capability to assist the State in resource

management, including automated

procedures to assist in managing service

providers, facilities, contracts and

recruitment activities associated with

foster care and adoptive families.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26833

Under paragraph (c)(2) the SACWIS

may provide for tracking and

maintenance of legal and court

information, and preparation of

appropriate notifications to relevant

parties.

Under paragraph (c)(3) the SACWIS

may provide automated capability to

assist in the administration and

management of staff and workloads.

This functionality would provide for a

sensible and practical balance between

the workload and workforce and

provide a methodology for management

to prioritize resource allocation and

workload decisions.

Under paragraph (c)(4) of this section,

the SACWIS may assist the State in

tracking and management of licensing

verification activities.

Paragraph (c)(5) provides that the

SACWIS may support the State in

priority setting and risk assessment or

risk analysis activities. Such automated

support could include an expert systems

module, or rule-based automation to

assist in consistent caseworker analysis

and to aid in decision-making to the

extent the APD justifies that such

automation is both technologically and

programmatically feasible as well as

cost effective.

Paragraph (d), provides that the

SACWIS design may at State option

provide for interface with other

automated information systems,

including, but not limited to: accounting

and licensing systems, court and

juvenile justice systems, vital statistics

and education, as appropriate. Such

interface or integration would create a

link to obtain and verify client

information that is maintained in other

systems to ensure appropriate delivery

of services such as information on

school attendance and performance.

Other linkages could include resource

directories and license payment

systems.

Under paragraph (e), if the cost

benefit analysis submitted as part of the

APD indicates that full adherence to

paragraph (c) and (d), would not be cost

beneficial (e.g., relative to the State

caseload or level of automation), final

approval of the APD may be withheld

pending reassessment of the State’s

specific automation needs and, as

necessary, adjustment of the APD to

reflect a level of automation which is

cost beneficial. This paragraph is

intended to make clear that any optional

functionality to be undertaken by a State

is subject to the same requirement for

cost effectiveness as required of all other

functional elements.

Paragraph (f) provides that a statewide

automated child welfare information

system may be designed, developed and

installed on a phased basis, in order to

allow States to implement AFCARS

requirements expeditiously as long as

the approved APD includes the State’s

plan for full implementation of a

comprehensive system which meets all

functional and data requirements as

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of

this section, and a design which

provides for a comprehensive system

and which will support these

enhancements on a phased basis.

Finally, paragraph (g) requires that the

system perform quality assurance

functions to provide for the review of

case files for accuracy, completeness

and compliance with Federal

requirements and State standards.

Requirements for submittal of

advance planning documents are

provided at § 1355.54. Under § 1355.54,

Submittal of advance planning

documents, the State title IV–E agency

must submit an APD for a statewide

automated child welfare information

system, signed by the appropriate State

official, in accordance with procedures

specified by 45 CFR part 95, subpart F.

The conditions for FFP at the applicable

rates for the costs of automatic data

processing incurred under an approved

State plan for titles IV–A, IV–B and IV–

E of the Act (among others) are

contained in 45 CFR part 95, subpart F.

ACF review and assessment of

statewide automated child welfare

information systems is provided under

§ 1355.55 of this regulation. Under

paragraph (a), ACF will, on a continuing

basis, review, assess and inspect the

planning, design, development,

installation and operation of the

SACWIS to determine the extent to

which such systems: (1) Meet § 1355.53

of this chapter, (2) meet the goals and

objectives stated in the approved APD,

(3) meet the schedule, budget, and other

conditions of the approved APD, and (4)

comply with the automated data

processing services and acquisitions

procedures and requirements of 45 CFR

part 95, subpart F.

Under § 1355.56, Failure to meet the

conditions of the approved APD,

information on the consequences and

actions resulting from a State’s failure to

meet the conditions of the approved

APD is provided. Under paragraph (a) of

§ 1355.56, if ACF finds that the State

fails to meet any of the conditions cited

in § 1355.53, or to substantially comply

with the criteria, requirements and other

undertakings prescribed by the

approved APD, approval of the APD

may be suspended.

Paragraph (b) provides events which

shall take place should suspension of

the APD occur. Under paragraph (b)(1),

if the approval of an APD is suspended

during the planning, design,

development, installation, or operation

of the SACWIS the State will be given

written notice of the suspension stating:

(A) The reason for the suspension, (B)

the date of the suspension, (C) whether

the suspended system complies with

Part 95 criteria for 50 percent FFP, and

(D) the actions required by the State for

future enhanced funding.

Under paragraph (b)(2), the

suspension will be effective as of the

date the State failed to comply with the

approved APD. Paragraph (b)(3) further

provides that the suspension shall

remain in effect until ACF determines

that such system complies with

prescribed criteria, requirements, and

other undertakings for future Federal

funding. Should a State cease

development of an approved system,

either by voluntary withdrawal or as a

result of Federal suspension, paragraph

(b)(4) provides that all Federal incentive

funds invested to date that exceed the

normal administrative FFP rate (50

percent) will be subject to recoupment.

The issue of cost allocation is

addressed under § 1355.57. Under

paragraph (a), all expenditures of a State

to plan, design, develop, install, and

operate the data collection and

information retrieval system described

in § 1355.53 of this chapter shall be

treated as necessary for the proper and

efficient administration of the State plan

under title IV–E, without regard to

whether the system may be used with

respect to children other than those on

behalf of whom foster care maintenance

payments or adoption assistance

payments may be made under the State

plan.

Paragraph (b) provides that cost

allocation and distribution for the

planning, design, development,

installation and operation must be in

accordance with Part 95.631 and section

479(e) of the Act, if the SACWIS

includes functions, processing,

information collection and management,

equipment or services that are not

directly related to the administration of

the programs carried out under the State

plans approved under titles IV–B or IV–

E.

A conforming provision is provided

under § 1356.60, Fiscal requirements

(title IV–E), in paragraph (e), Federal

matching funds for SACWIS. This

paragraph merely reiterates the statutory

provision that all expenditures related

to an approved APD under § 1355.52,

will be treated as necessary for the

proper and efficient administration of

the State plan, without regard to

whether the system is used with respect

to foster or adoptive children other than

those on behalf of whom foster care
26834 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

maintenance or adoption assistance

payments are made under title IV–E.

Response To Comments

We received a total of 22 comments

on the interim final rule published in

the Federal Register December 22, 1993,

(58 FR 67939) from State agencies and

other interested parties.

Specific comments and our responses

follow.

General Comments

Comment: Commenters were

extremely supportive of the interim

final rules. They were pleased with the

flexibility provided and noted that the

rules incorporate the diversity of child

welfare programs into a realistic

automation plan. One commenter

however was concerned about the

limited comment period provided.

Response: We believe that the

partnership strategy employed in

developing these rules fostered a

positive dialogue between the Federal

government and States and led to the

development of a better rulemaking

document which provides States with

the tools they need to improve IV–B/IV–

E effectiveness. As indicated in the

preamble to the interim final rule, in

developing these rules we relied heavily

on information from existing State

efforts to establish systems and the

efforts of a State and Federal child

welfare system workgroup.

So that the States could begin

development and avoid the risk that the

rules would change, we restricted the

comment period to 30 days in an effort

to quickly identify whether there were

any fundamental problems or concerns

with the terms of the interim rules

which would have necessitated a major

change in direction in the final rule. We

felt this was critical because of the

relatively short window of opportunity

related to the availability of enhanced

funding.

Requirements for FFP

Comment: One commenter questioned

the criteria used to distinguish between

development and operation and asked

how implementation costs will be

funded. Another commenter asked at

what point a system is considered

operational for the purpose of claiming

expenditures at the regular rate,

particularly under a phased approach.

Response: Enhanced funding is

available for the planning, design

development and installation of a

SACWIS, while operational costs are

funded at the regular administrative

match rate. We view implementation

costs as part of design, development and

installation of the system. The State’s

ability to claim enhanced funding

ceases when the system (or portion of

the SACWIS, in a phased development

effort) has successfully passed a pilot

test and is used to support child welfare

activities in an automated fashion in

any geographical area. However, a State

may continue to claim enhanced

funding for costs associated with the

planning, design, development and

installation of a subsequent phase of the

total project, as well as allowable

installation costs (e.g., conversion and

training activities) for parts of the State

that have not yet been converted to the

new system.

As provided in ACF–OISM–AT–95–

001, the operational stage of the

SACWIS is the point at which the

system is used for automated

processing. The implementation APD

covers the design, development and

installation of the SACWIS. It should

also be noted that hardware costs are

eligible for 75 percent matching within

the window provided by statute

regardless of the operational status of

the system.

HHS and the Food and Consumer

Service (formerly the Food and

Nutrition Service) published changes to

our information technology policies

regarding the depreciation or expensing

of data processing equipment (Action

Transmittal AT–94–5, dated July 22,

1994). Equipment having a useful life of

more than one year and a unit

acquisition cost of less than $5,000 may

now be expensed for the quarter in

which it is purchased. These recent

policy changes should allow States to

expense a large portion of the hardware

necessary for SACWIS; however, there

will still remain hardware with a unit

acquisition cost of greater than $5,000.

For equipment that falls into this

category, the State must either

depreciate or charge use allowance for

the cost of the equipment over its useful

life, and in accordance with statewide

accounting practice.

For more information, see 45 CFR part

95, subpart F, ‘‘Automated Data

Processing Equipment and Services;

Conditions for Federal Financial

Participation (FFP).’’

Comment: One commenter asked

what effect the rules will have on

current and future claims at the 50

percent matching rate for systems

enhancements that may not meet these

requirements. Another commenter

asked whether the effective date

limitation means that the entire system

must be accepted prior to September 30,

1996 for enhanced funding to be

available.

Response: In response to the first

commenter, these rules apply only to

systems funded at the enhanced

matching rate provided in the 1993

legislation. However, any system

initially funded under these rules would

continue to be subject to these

requirements even after the start of FY

1997 when the enhanced funding

allowance expires.

With respect to the second comment,

the system need not be fully operational

by September 30, 1996 to receive

enhanced funding. As provided in ACF–

OISM–95–001, the three-year window

for claiming enhanced funding does not

mean that the project must be

completed prior to the expiration of the

availability of enhanced funding.

However, even though the project may

not be complete within this time, the

statute is clear that expenditures after

this date are no longer eligible for

enhanced funding.

Comment: A number of commenters

expressed concern that the three year

window for enhanced funding is too

short, especially for States which are

starting with primitive systems or which

require the consent of the State

legislature. Others were concerned with

the limitation in light of their immediate

need to meet the AFCARS requirements.

Response: The three-year time limit

on the availability of enhanced funding

for statewide automated child welfare

information systems is contained in

statute and we have no statutory

authority to extend the availability of

this funding rate. With respect to the

second point, however, we understand

that States may have difficulty in

dedicating the necessary time and

resources to meet the AFCARS and

SACWIS requirements concurrently and

for this reason the rule provides a

phase-in strategy to allow the AFCARS

requirements of the system to be

pursued first.

As provided in ACF–OISM–AT–95–

001, a phased approach might allow the

roll-out of a system on a phased basis

under which workers could begin to use

some of the planned functionality of the

system, such as enhanced data

collection capability which would

enable compliance with the AFCARS

reporting requirements, while

additional modules or components are

not yet available.

Functional Requirements

Comment: One commenter asked

whether guidance will be offered to

assure that States have a clear

understanding of the systems

requirements.

Response: Since issuance of the

interim final rule, general guidance on

systems requirements and functionality

has been provided to the States in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26835

several forums, such as the semi-annual

ACF User Group Meeting, various ACF

sponsored State technical advisory

groups, System and Child Welfare

related conferences, State and Federal

Child Welfare Collaboratives, and

issuance of a draft and final version of

a child welfare related action transmittal

(ACF–OISM–AT–95–001). As indicated

in the interim final rule, we stand ready

to assist in the planning, design,

development and installation of a

SACWIS upon request.

Comment: One commenter was

concerned that the requirements are too

client focused, rather than family

focused, stating that in a system growing

out of concern for family preservation,

there needs to be greater attention to the

identification of the strengths and needs

of the family.

Response: We disagree with the

commenter and believe that the

SACWIS design envisioned under this

rule supports the family. These projects

are intended to be more than

information systems but rather

comprehensive tools to make service

delivery more responsive to the needs of

families and communities. It is our

strong expectation, which we had hoped

to convey in the interim final rule, that

States will take advantage of this

opportunity to move the child welfare

service system into a direction which

would lead to a more coordinated,

flexible system, built on and linked to

existing community services and

support able to serve children and their

families in a more effective way.

A. Interfaces

Comment: One commenter asked

about the availability of FFP for systems

modifications to enable the interface

and data exchange requirements with

SACWIS to be met. Another requested

additional clarification as to what must

be addressed in an interface component.

Still another asked if the cost of an

interface is placed completely on the

State’s child welfare agency and

questioned the role of the agencies with

jurisdiction over IV–A, Medicaid and

IV–D?

Response: As provided in ACF–

OISM–AT–95–001, FFP is available for

the IV–B/IV–E portion of the interface.

FFP is not available for the cost of

automating the respondent agency.

Because we have no legislative authority

to pay for the reciprocating end of any

interface, any modifications to another

existing system to support an interface

with a SACWIS (optional or required)

must be funded by the program that

supports the system to which this

interface is being established.

To the extent that such programs are

automated, the SACWIS would be

required to establish an interface. Where

these entities are not automated, no

automated interface is possible, and the

State will not need to fulfill this

requirement. Further, as provided in the

above cited action transmittal, FFP is

not available to develop functionality in

a SACWIS when it duplicates

functionality which already exists in

other State system(s) to which an

interface is required.

The purpose of these requirements is

to provide integrated services to clients

through more accurate, timely and

effective exchange of information.

Comment: One commenter asked that

we provide clarification on cost

allocation procedures between programs

sharing data for purposes of the

interface requirements.

Response: As indicated above, FFP is

not available to develop functionality

when it duplicates functions which

already exist in another State system. If

a function supports but does not

exclusively or primarily benefit the

program under title IV–E or IV–B, the

cost must be allocated among all

benefitting programs. To illustrate, our

action transmittal provided the example

of factors pertaining to the

determination of eligibility for an

income maintenance program such as

AFDC. While the determination of

eligibility for such benefits is clearly

linked to the provision of services to

children and families under title IV–E

and IV–B, it is not reasonable to allocate

the cost of developing eligibility

subsystems or modules to title IV–E as

the primary program benefitting from

such automation. In these cases, the cost

must be allocated between title IV–E

and the other benefitting eligibility

processes.

The issue of cost allocation is

addressed in more detail in response to

comments later in the preamble and in

ACF–OISM–AT–95–001.

Comment: One commenter requested

clarification of the requirement for

interface with the IV–A (AFDC) and IV–

D (child support enforcement)

programs.

Response: We believe each of the

interfaces referenced by the commenter

are important to SACWIS development

in that they are intricately related to the

title IV–E program. Title IV–A eligibility

is a determining factor in title IV–E

eligibility. Further, the requirement for

an interface where practicable between

the SACWIS and the State’s IV–A

system is mandated in statute. The title

IV–D interface requirement replicates a

functional requirement of a certified IV–

D system. Interface between the child

support agency and the SACWIS may be

extremely beneficial to the goals of both

programs in that it may assist in the

collection of increased child support on

behalf of children receiving child

welfare services and could assist in the

unification and permanent placement of

children with formerly noncustodial

parents.

As with the requirements for interface

with the State Medicaid agency and the

State child abuse and neglect system,

we believe an electronic interface will

be far more effective in service delivery

than redundant data entry to multiple

systems.

B. Case Assessment Activities

Comment: One commenter was

concerned that the approach to services

is not sufficiently individual and stated

that an adequate SACWIS needs to

support a sophisticated and highly

individualized approach to the

provision of services.

Response: Automation is intended to

assist workers’ needs in effective service

delivery, not supersede their judgment.

We wholeheartedly agree that

individual assessment is critical but

believe that the system can support and

inform the caseworker by ensuring that

the right questions are asked and

addressed.

C. Confidentiality and Security

Comment: One commenter was

particularly concerned about the

requirement that the State agency

responsible for the APD be accountable

for the confidentiality of the SACWIS

and raised related concerns regarding

access to information and the crosstraining of agency workers. Concern was

raised by another commenter that the

rule does not mention confidentiality

which the commenter considers to be an

important aspect of any required crossagency interface. Still another

questioned how confidentiality of

information can be assured in an

interface system and what rules the

agency with jurisdiction over IV–A, IV–

D and Medicaid have for treatment?

Response: These regulations require

under § 1355.53, that at a minimum the

SACWIS must ensure the confidentiality

and security of the information and the

system. Under this requirement, States

are expected to build systems which

provide necessary safeguards which

would, for example, enable them to

share information, when such sharing is

legal and appropriate, without

identifying the source, or which would

enable them to limit access to specific

data elements.

Each of the programs subject to an

interface expectation is also subject to
26836 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

specific statutory confidentiality

requirements which the system must

provide. However, Federal statute and

regulations allow, and in many cases

require, designated State agencies to

disclose confidential information to

other State agencies for the purpose of

administering other Federal programs.

Thus, confidentiality rules should not

be an obstacle to the development of an

effective interface with the systems used

to administer the title IV–A, IV–D and

XIX programs.

For more information on the issue of

confidentiality, see our action

transmittal, ACF–OISM–AT–95–001.

Optional Functionality

Comment: One commenter expressed

hope that the final regulations will

speak to the importance of incorporating

outcome measure data collection within

the comprehensive system development

and that data collection specifically

related to capturing training information

for State staff be provided as an optional

feature.

Response: We agree that data

collection to support outcome measures

are important to comprehensive systems

design and believe that we have

provided States with flexibility to

incorporate these measures in their

SACWIS. Data collection necessary to

support outcome measures are integral

to meeting the AFCARS requirements

and are also embraced under

§ 1355.53(g), which requires that the

system perform Quality Assurance

functions for the review of casefiles for

accuracy, completeness and compliance

with Federal requirements as well as

State standards. This would include

generation of summary management

reports and exception reports related to

services needed and provided.

With respect to the second point,

under § 1355.53(c)(1), the system may

perform functions related to resource

management which would include

information captured for training

purposes.

Comment: One commenter asked

whether the provision at § 1355.53(c)(3)

includes systems administration or

administration of staff and workload

and asked for clarification of whether

costs associated with systems

administration are eligible for enhanced

funding and then regular funding for

operational costs.

Response: Under § 1355.53(c)(3) the

SACWIS may provide automated

capability to assist in the administration

and management of staff and workloads.

This would provide a methodology for

management to prioritize resource

allocation and workload decisions to

support program staff. It is not intended

to provide systems administrative

support.

Comment: One commenter asked for

clarification of whether the allowance at

§ 1355.53(c)(5), i.e., that the system may

provide for risk analysis, was the same

as risk assessment.

Response: Yes, as used under

§ 1355.53(c)(5) risk analysis is the same

as risk assessment.

Comment: Also regarding risk

analysis, one commenter expressed

concern that ACF may be suggesting

that commercially-available off-the-shelf

(COTS) technology is limited in use to

the area mentioned in the regulation

and encouraged ACF to restate the

position on this technology and its use

so it is clear that they are not restricting

it in some manner or endorsing any

particular system approach. The

commenter further questioned ACF’s

reference to ‘‘rule based’’ automation

and noted that COTS technology is far

preferable to the customized rule based

software modules which have been

embedded in other human service

systems.

Response: It was not our intent to

suggest that commercially available off

the shelf technology (COTS) is either

limited in its use or inferior to

customized rule based technology.

However, we are not aware of a COTS

package available today that will meet

the case management, service delivery

and automated support needed to

qualify as a SACWIS. A State may build

or transfer a customized application

software which is enabled by a COTS

software development tool.

Comment: One commenter questioned

whether the intent of § 1355.53(e) was to

provide that if one of the optional

functions under paragraph (c) and (d) is

not cost beneficial, final approval of the

APD may be withheld.

Response: Paragraphs (c) and (d) of

§ 1355.53 are optional levels of system

functionality which States have

discretion to adopt, and for which

enhanced funding may be provided, if

such functionality will be efficient and

effective. However, if a State decides to

include any or all of these elements in

their SACWIS design, the APD would

have to indicate that their inclusion

would not negatively affect the costeffectiveness of the system. The fact that

they are optional functions does not

eliminate the requirement that the

system design prove to be cost

beneficial. For example, if in a given

State inclusion of one or more of these

elements resulted in over-automation

for demographic reasons, that is,

automated to a level beyond the State’s

needs and thus was not cost beneficial,

approval of the APD would be withheld

until the area of over-automation was

dropped.

If it is shown through the cost benefit

assessment that it is more cost-effective

not to automate to the degree provided

under the optional functionality,

approval of the APD may be withheld.

Comment: We were asked by one

commenter to state that the ‘‘mays’’ of

the system are purely optional. This

commenter also remarked that States

should not have to justify why these

functions are not included in their APD.

Response: We would reiterate that the

functionality included under paragraphs

(c) and (d) of § 1355.53 are State options

as indicated in the preamble. If a State

chooses not to include these elements in

their SACWIS design, no justification is

necessary in the APD. However, as

provided under paragraph (e), if any of

these items is included, the State must

indicate in the APD that such element(s)

will be cost beneficial.

Comment: One commenter asked for

clarification regarding what functions

can reside within a statewide payment

system and what is required for the

SACWIS.

Response: We are not limiting the use

or functions of statewide payment

systems under this regulation. States

have flexibility to continue to use such

systems as long as the IV–B/IV–E related

information necessary to meet these

regulations is accessible through

communication or link with the

SACWIS. In this case, enhanced funding

may be claimed for the interface to the

existing statewide payment system.

However, any modifications to a

separate system must be allocated to all

benefitting programs affected by such

modification. Any costs allocable to title

IV–B or IV–E for such modifications

will only be matched at the regular

funding rate.

Comment: One commenter questioned

whether it would be possible to modify

the APD at a later date to include

optional interfaces.

Response: Yes, under § 1355.53(d),

the system may interface with other

automated information systems. This

could be included under the original

APD or as an amendment to the APD,

as long as the State can show, in

accordance with paragraph (e), that such

an interface would be cost beneficial.

Comment: One commenter stated

appreciation for the section in the rules

that addresses optional systems

functions, acknowledging that not all

States will be in a position to develop

systems so far reaching.

Response: Our intent was to outline

the level of functionality we thought

appropriate for the vast majority of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26837

States while recognizing the need for

maximum State flexibility.

Comment: We were asked by one

commenter to clarify whether the need

for a cost benefit analysis in the APD

process could be waived.

Response: The need for a cost benefit

analysis in the APD cannot be waived.

Cost benefit analyses are a required

portion of all APDs, necessary to

determine efficiency, effectiveness and

economy of system design. As noted in

the preamble to the interim final rule,

OBRA ’93, in authorizing enhanced

funding for automated information

systems for family and children’s

programs, specifically requires for the

first time that the Secretary include

economic considerations along with the

traditional statutory provisions for

systems implementation of ‘‘efficiency

and effectiveness’’ in determining

whether a system should be funded. In

accordance with existing requirements

at 45 CFR Part 95, before a project is

approved the State must present a cost

benefit analysis as part of an APD. We

have issued technical assistance in this

area in the form of a publication entitled

Feasibility, Alternatives, and Cost/

Benefit Analysis Guide. Following our

initial publication, we issued additional

guidance entitled Companion Guide

Cost/Benefit Analysis Illustrated. Both

of these documents are available

through ACF.

Sound management practices require

that a State perform a cost/benefit

analysis of any proposed undertaking

which would result in the expenditure

of a large amount of funds.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that it might be helpful to revise the

language in § 1355.53(e) to provide ‘‘any

function described under paragraph (c)

and (d) included in the APD by the State

will require cost justification or final

approval of the APD may be withheld.’’

Response: Under paragraph (e), if a

State chooses to include optional

functionality in its system design, such

functions are subject to all cost benefit

tests required of any other functional

specification. If a State cannot design a

system including such optional

functionality in a manner that proves

cost beneficial in the APD, approval of

the APD may be withheld until such

time as the system is designed in such

a manner that it is cost beneficial.

While the language suggested by the

commenter is acceptable, since we did

not receive a substantial number of

questions on this issue, we are not

revising the language from that provided

in the interim final rule.

Comment: Paragraph (f) of § 1355.53

provides that a statewide automated

child welfare information system may

be designed, developed and installed on

a phased basis, in order to allow States

to implement AFCARS requirements

expeditiously, in accordance with

section 479(b) of the Act, as long as the

APD includes the State’s plan for full

implementation of a comprehensive

system which meets all functional

requirements and a system design

which will support these enhancements

on a phased basis. According to a

commenter, it is not clear in the case of

a State which has included mandatory

components and optional components

whether they only have to meet the

mandatory components addressed in the

APD to keep from jeopardizing their

enhanced match.

Several commenters indicated that

they were pleased with the phased

approach. One of these requested

clarification on enhanced funding

allowed for the development of nonrequired features.

Response: With respect to the first

comment, if a State initially anticipates

developing a system on a phased basis

which includes mandatory and optional

functionality and later decides not to

pursue the optional elements, they

would not jeopardize the enhanced

funding. In such a case, we would

simply adjust funding approvals to

reflect changes for the cost of the

optional elements which were dropped

from the systems effort. Corresponding

changes will be required in the costbenefit analysis for the project to reflect

the anticipated differences in costeffectiveness resulting from the change

in systems functionality. However, we

expect such situations to be rare and

that APDs will realistically provide

what the State can do.

With respect to the latter comment,

optional elements are eligible for

enhanced funding as long as other

general requirements for enhanced

funding are met.

Comment: One commenter expressed

the view that the term quality assurance

functions has no singular or clear

meaning in the child welfare or social

services arena and stated that States

should not be expected to perform

functions beyond their current staffing

and legislative mandates and scope.

Another commenter indicated that

this provision might be troubling

because it sounds like the system would

need to include almost the entire

casefile in order to perform the

functions necessary to assure

compliance with Federal requirements

and State standards. The commenter

questioned this mandate since it was

not in statute.

Other commenters requested

clarification of why the quality

assurance function is needed and said

the definition should include whether it

is related to data integrity for AFCARS

or rather review of a casefile to assure

compliance with program policy

requirements. One commenter asked for

further guidance on the requirements for

quality assurance functions to provide

for review of casefiles.

Response: While not specifically

mandated by statute, we believe the

requirement for quality assurance

capability is necessary to meet the

statutory requirements of efficiency,

economy and effectiveness. Since a

State’s SACWIS is intended to be the

source of child welfare information, it is

essential that the State have in place a

process to ensure the quality and

completeness of the data. As provided

in our action transmittal (ACF–OISM–

AT–95–001), it is essential that the

system incorporate quality assurance

measures, processes and functions to

ensure completeness, accuracy and

consistency of critical data and to

support sound management practices.

The requirement is intended to ensure

that all current and historical

information and data maintained by the

system are kept in logical sequence, and

accessible in a timely manner to

monitor operation and assess

performance. With respect to the

commenter’s concern about the need for

the system to maintain the State’s entire

casefile, we would remind the

commenter that such a requirement is

inherent in the statutory requirement

that the system meet the SACWIS case

management and AFCARS

requirements, to the extent that these

requirements comprise the most

significant data elements included in

the casefile.

Further guidance on meeting the

requirements for quality assurance are

detailed in our action transmittal

referenced above.

Comment: One commenter stated that

quality assurance functions are focused

on agency process rather than outcomes

for children and families and expressed

concern that while good attention is

given to documenting service delivery

only minimal attention is given to

outcome measures. The commenter was

concerned that an adequate SACWIS

must not only address the scope of

services but their effectiveness.

Response: We encourage States to use

their SACWIS as a means for measuring

the effectiveness of service delivery.

Furthermore, we believe that the

language is flexible enough to allow

States to address outcome measures as

part of their SACWIS effort. However,

effective outcome measures of service

delivery do not ensure the accuracy and
26838 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

completeness of data, and while we

encourage State to use the flexibility

allowed, it is essential that the system

incorporate quality assurance measures

to ensure the completeness, accuracy

and consistency of critical data.

Comment: One commenter stated a

desire to see a statement in the optional

section that allows the Secretary to

approve other enhancements to the

child welfare automated systems not

mentioned in this section but which

will result in a comprehensive system.

Response: Additional functionality

beyond what is defined in § 1355.53 of

the regulation may be funded at the

enhanced rate as long as the State can

demonstrate that it will provide more

efficient, economical and effective

administration of the programs under

title IV–B and IV–E. To be eligible,

added functionality may not duplicate

functionality included in an existing

system to which an interface is required

and the APD must address the cost

benefit of the optional functionality

requested for approval by the State.

APD Submission

Comment: One respondent asked how

States which have already submitted an

APD expressing the intent to seek

funding for a comprehensive system

should submit claims now for the

enhanced funding.

Response: Such States would submit

requests using existing form IV–E–12,

State Quarterly Report of Expenditures

and Estimates, and following existing

procedures for requesting program

funding under title IV–E. Procedures for

submitting APDs are specified by 45

CFR part 95, subpart F.

Comment: Two commenters

expressed agreement with the transfer

policy provided in the interim final

rule. However, another requested that

systems transfer be addressed in the

final rule. Still another suggested that

system transfer may not be the best

solution.

Response: As stated in the preamble

to the interim final rule, our intent in

publishing these rules is to provide

States necessary flexibility to develop

systems fitting their individual needs.

Under part 95 requirements, a State

must conduct an alternative analysis to

consider both the enhancement of any

existing systems and the transfer of a

system to determine the most cost

effective approach. However, as noted

in the interim final rule, we recognize

that at this time, there is only limited

State experience in comprehensive

child welfare systems development.

Because of the limited scope of current

comprehensive child welfare systems, a

flexible approach has been adopted in

considering justifications for not

transferring existing systems.

Comment: Two commenters

expressed interest in pursuing any

technical assistance which ACF can

provide. Another commenter questioned

how technical assistance can be

provided when ACF Regional Office

staff have no travel money.

Response: Budget limitations often

necessitate difficult decisions

concerning allocation of resources,

including decisions which may serve to

limit the availability of on-site technical

assistance. However, we do not believe

that technical assistance must

necessarily be on-site to be effective. In

fact, we are hopeful that our action

transmittal and our involvement in

national users meeting and conferences

have alleviated much of the need for onsite assistance. Furthermore, ACF has

awarded a contract to assist in the

development of a Child Welfare

prototype system. As part of that

contract, we will sponsor several

national and regional conferences to

share information and provide technical

assistance to States. Central and

Regional Office staff stand ready to

provide States with help upon request.

Comment: One commenter asked

whether, in the interest of saving time,

if it is possible to share APD work being

done by various other States and

whether the Federal government will

facilitate sharing. Another expressed

interest in efforts to develop a consortia

of States with similar commitments to

permit more rapid and efficient

development of systems which have

greater capability to produce

information of quality.

Response: We have and will continue

to share system related documents, such

as APDs, RFPs and other design

documents, as they become available.

These materials are available to the

public upon request. We have

distributed information to various

States, child welfare related

foundations, vendors and other public

interest groups. We have entered into

partnerships with States to coordinate

the joint design of child welfare

information systems. We have

established different State Technical

Advisory groups to identify the best

approaches for sharing information. We

have participated in regional and

national system and child welfare

conference and we will continue to

encourage the sharing of State

experience at the ACF Users Group

meetings.

Review and Assessment and Part 95

Requirements

Comment: One commenter stated that

depreciation of equipment is a major

concern. For many States the three year

window could conceivably be very

narrow for the planning, design and

development phases, especially under a

phased-in approach and for States just

entering the planning phase and asked

that this be addressed in the guidance

provided under an action transmittal.

Others stated that the depreciation

period should be over the same period

as the availability of enhanced funding,

i.e., equipment should be depreciated

over a three year period instead of a five

year time span.

These commenters point out that the

regulation appears to conflict with the

statute which states that payments to

States ‘‘including 75 percent of the full

amount of expenditures for hardware

components for such system’’ and

suggested that since enhanced funding

is available for only 3 years, the rule

should reflect an exception to the 5-year

depreciation schedule requirements.

On a related issue, commenters

thought that language on financing of

hardware appears to be the same as

depreciation and suggested that

expensing be instituted.

Response: As provided in our action

transmittal, recent policy changes

delineated at ACF–AT–94–5, dated July

22, 1994, may allow States to expense

a large portion of the hardware

necessary for SACWIS. For additional

information, see ACF–OISM–AT–95–

001.

However, the statute explicitly

eliminates enhanced funding for system

activities as of October 1, 1996. We have

no authority to adjust this statutory date

or to revise the Department’s

requirements for capitalization and

depreciation of equipment in this final

rule. The controlling requirements for

depreciation are found in 45 CFR part

95, subparts F and G.

Comment: One commenter

recommended that a clear timeframe for

review and assessment of the systems be

provided to allow States to view the

process as cooperative, supportive and

one that allows regular feedback,

technical support and a mechanism for

State accountability.

Response: As indicated previously,

technical assistance is available to

ensure that the process for APD review

and approval and subsequent system

approval is as cooperative and

supportive as possible. Unlike the case

with other State systems, the review

process established does not entail a

certification requirement in order to

allow maximum flexibility.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26839

Comment: With respect to the

submittal of Advance Planning

Document Updates, one commenter

noted that meeting the timeframe for

submitting an APD may be problematic

due to new Federal requirements,

identification of proposed project

changes and the internal State review

process.

Similarly, another commenter

expressed concern that the timeframe

will be difficult for some States to meet

and encouraged ACF to actively seek

out States to which this section applied

to ensure they understand the

importance of meeting this critical

deadline.

Response: The regulations at 45 CFR

95.605(3)(b), indicate that a State must

submit an As Needed APD Update when

significant changes are expected to a

project. We have identified and worked

with the States affected by this

requirement and have either granted

final or conditional approval of their

APD Updates. None of the concerned

States were adversely affected by this

requirement.

Comment: On a miscellaneous issue,

one commenter noted that paragraph (b)

has been reserved under 45 CFR 95.641

or 45 CFR 1355.55 and questioned this.

Response: The issue raised by the

commenter merely speaks to a

regulatory drafting requirement. Under

regulatory drafting rules it is

inappropriate to refer to a paragraph

designated as ‘‘(a)’’ without referencing

a ‘‘(b)’’ cite. There are no plans to add

to this section.

Failure to Meet the Condition of the

Approved APD

Comment: One commenter thought

that it was unclear whether recoupment

of enhanced FFP applies only to those

components of the APD that are

required under 45 CFR 1355.53. States

could develop an APD that proposes to

develop an automated system that

included some permissive components,

develop required components and then

fail to get sufficient funding to complete

the permissive components. States

should not be penalized for revising the

APD downward as long as they meet the

minimum requirements.

Response: While we would hope that

States would ensure that their plans are

realistic prior to submittal, States would

not be penalized in cases where

optional automation plans were

dropped, unless such changes

negatively affected either the costeffectiveness of the system or the State’s

ability to complete the project

successfully. In such cases, if a State

pulled back on discretionary items, we

would simply recalculate funding to

make the necessary adjustments.

Comment: Another commenter noted

that § 1355.56 provides that failure to

meet the conditions of these regulations

may result in an approved APD being

suspended while at the same time

recognizing that penalties are provided

for failure to comply with the AFCARS

regulations. The commenter was

concerned that this could put States in

the position of being unable to meet

AFCARS because of a loss of SACWIS

funding.

Response: We would like to clarify

that the loss of funding discussed with

respect to § 1355.56 refers only to

enhanced funding for SACWIS and good

systems planning would ensure that no

State is put in the position of losing this

funding.

We agree that there is a strong

interrelationship between AFCARS

implementation and SACWIS

development and for this reason have

allowed States to implement their

SACWIS on a phased based to ensure

that AFCARS requirements are met

expeditiously.

Cost allocation

Comment: One commenter expressed

interest that we acknowledge that

systems transfer from another State may

not be the best solution, but shared

development (and funding) program to

program in the State be encouraged.

Another asked that we provide more

detail on cost allocation.

Response: We agree that systems

transfer from another State may not be

the best solution in SACWIS design and,

as indicated in the preamble to the

interim final rule, plan to be flexible in

our consideration of State analysis

provided in the APD for not going this

route in SACWIS development.

For information regarding the effect of

shared development on cost allocation

or for detailed specification of the cost

allocation requirement, please see our

action transmittal, ACF–OISM–AT–95–

001.

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. An assessment

of the costs and benefits of available

regulatory alternatives (including not

regulating) demonstrated that the

approach taken in the regulation is the

most cost-effective and least

burdensome while still achieving the

regulatory objectives.

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 businesses and other small

entities, the Secretary certifies that this

rule has no significant effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required.

List of Subjects

45 CFR Part 1355

Adoption and foster care, Child

welfare, Data collection, Definitions

grant programs—Social programs

45 CFR Part 1356

Adoption and foster Care,

Administrative costs, Child welfare,

Fiscal requirements (title IV–E), Grant

programs—social programs, Statewide

information systems

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 13.658, Foster Care

Maintenance, 13.659, Adoption Assistance

and 13.645, Child Welfare Services—State

Grants)

Approved: April 5, 1995.

Mary Jo Bane,

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 45 CFR Parts 1355 and 1356

which was published at 58 FR 67939 on

December 22, 1993, is adopted as a final

rule with the following change:

PART 1355—GENERAL

1. The authority citation for Part 1355

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C.

670 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1301 and 1302.

§ 1355.53 [Amended]

2. Section 1355.53(b)(3) is amended

by replacing the reference to ‘‘section

427’’ in the first line with a reference to

‘‘section 422.’’

[FR Doc. 95–11909 Filed 5–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

49 CFR Part 1039

[Ex Parte No. 346 (Sub-No. 35)]

Rail General Exemption Authority—

Exemption of Ferrous Recyclables

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.