23854 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

c. Does not have a significant adverse

effect on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation or

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This regulation does not impose an

unfunded mandate on State, local, or

tribal governments or the private sector

of more than $100 million per year. This

regulation does not have a significant or

unique effect on State, local or tribal

governments or the private sector

because this regulation only regulates

how and when CSB employees may

testify in certain situations. A statement

containing the information required by

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, this regulation does not have

significant takings implications. A

takings implication assessment is not

required.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

The CSB has determined this

regulation conforms to the Federalism

principals of Executive Order 13132. It

also certifies that to the extent a

regulatory preemption occurs, it is

because the exercise of State and Tribal

authority conflicts with the exercise of

Federal authority under the U.S.

Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and

Federal statute. This regulation is,

however, restricted to the minimum

level necessary to achieve the objectives

of 5 U.S.C. 301 pursuant to which this

regulation is promulgated.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the CSB has determined that this

regulation does not unduly burden the

judicial system, and does meet the

requirements of section 3(a) and 3(b)(2)

of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This regulation contains no reporting

or recordkeeping requirements which

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under 44

U.S.C. 3510 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)

This regulation does not constitute a

major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human

environment under NEPA, 42 U.S.C.

4321 et seq. A detailed statement under

the NEPA is not required.

List of Subjects

Administrative practice and

procedure, Freedom of information,

Government employees, Investigations,

Testimony of employees.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the Chemical Safety and

Hazard Investigation Board amends 40

CFR part 1611 as follows:

PART 1611—TESTIMONY BY

EMPLOYEES IN LEGAL

PROCEEDINGS

1. The authority citation for part 1611

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 42 U.S.C.

7412(r)(6)(G).

2. Amend § 1611.2 to add a new

definition paragraph as follows:

§ 1611.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Employee, for the purpose of this part

and part 1612 of this chapter, refers to

current or former CSB Board Members

or employees, including student interns,

and contractors, contract employees, or

consultants (and their employees). This

definition does not include persons who

are no longer employed by or under

contract to the CSB, and who are

retained or hired as expert witnesses or

agree to testify about matters that do not

involve their work for the CSB.

3. Amend § 1611.6 to redesignate the

existing text as paragraph (a) and to add

a new paragraph (b) as follows:

§ 1611.6 Testimony of former CSB

employees.

(a) * * *

(b) Any former employee who is

served with a subpoena to appear and

testify in connection with civil litigation

that relates to his or her work with the

CSB, shall immediately notify the CSB

General Counsel and provide all

information requested by the General

Counsel.

Dated: May 1, 2001.

Christopher W. Warner,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01–11791 Filed 5–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6350–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and

Families

45 CFR Part 270

RIN 0970–AC06

High Performance Bonus Awards

Under the TANF Program

AGENCY: Administration for Children

and Families, HHS.

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The final rule covering the

Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) high performance

bonuses to States in FY 2002 and

beyond was published August 30, 2000

(65 FR 52814). This interim final

regulation further implements the child

care measure, one of the measures on

which we will award bonuses to States

in FY 2002 and FY 2003.

Specifically, we explain how we will

compute scores and rank States on the

affordability component using four

income ranges and a comparison of the

number of children eligible under the

State’s income limits compared to the

federal eligibility limits. We also specify

how we will compute scores and rank

States for the child care quality

component based on new reporting

requirements for market rate surveys for

child care.

DATES: Effective date: This interim final

rule is effective on May 10, 2001, except

for § 270.4(e)(2)(ii) which requires an

information collection that is not yet

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB). We will publish a

document in the Federal Register

announcing the effecitve date of

§ 270.4(e)(2)(ii) when the additional

data collection requirement is approved

by OMB.

Comment period: You may submit

comments through July 9, 2001. We will

not consider comments received after

this date.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

the Administration for Children and

Families, Child Care Bureau, 330 C

Street SW., Room 2046, Washington, DC

20447. Attention: Gail Collins.

Commenters may also provide

comments on the ACF website.

Electronic comments must include the

full name, address and organizational

affiliation (if any) of the commenter.

This interim rule is accessible

electronically via the Internet from the

ACF Welfare Reform Home Page at

http:www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/welfare.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23855

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail

Collins, Acting Deputy Commissioner,

Administration for Children, Youth and

Families at (202) 205–8347. Ms.

Collins’s e-mail address is:

gcollins@acf.dhhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. The Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families Program.

B. Summary of the Statutory Provisions

Related to the High Performance Bonus

Awards.

C. High Performance Bonus Regulations.

II. The Child Care Measure

A. Summary of the Child Care Measure in

the Final Rule.

B. Consultation with States and Other

Organizations.

C. Changes Made in this Interim Final

Rule.

III. Justification for an Interim Final Rule

IV. Regulatory Impact Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

C. Assessment of the Impact on Family

Well-Being.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

F. Congressional Review.

G. Executive Order 13132.

I. Background

A. The Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families Program

Title I of the Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–193,

established the Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families (TANF) program

under title IV–A of the Social Security

Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.

TANF is a block grant program designed

to make dramatic reforms in the nation’s

welfare system. Its focus is on moving

recipients into work and turning welfare

into a program of temporary assistance,

preventing and reducing the incidence

of out-of-wedlock births, and promoting

stable two-parent families. Other key

features of TANF include provisions

that emphasize program accountability

through financial penalties and rewards

for high performance.

B. Summary of the Statutory Provisions

Related to the High Performance Bonus

Section 403(a)(4) of the Act requires

the Secretary to award bonuses to ‘‘high

performing States.’’ (Indian tribes are

not eligible for these bonuses.) The term

‘‘high performing State’’ is defined in

section 403(a)(4) of the Act to mean a

State that is most successful in

achieving the purposes of the TANF

program as specified in section 401(a) of

the Act. These purposes are to—

(1) Provide assistance to needy

families so that children may be cared

for in their own homes or in the homes

of relatives;

(2) End the dependence of needy

parents on government benefits by

promoting job preparation, work, and

marriage;

(3) Prevent and reduce the incidence

of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and

establish annual numerical goals for

preventing and reducing the incidence

of these pregnancies; and

(4) Encourage the formation and

maintenance of two-parent families.

Section 403(a)(4)(B) of the Act

specifies that the bonus award for a

fiscal year will be based on a State’s

performance in the previous fiscal year

and may not exceed five percent of the

State’s family assistance grant.

Section 403(a)(4)(C) of the Act

requires the Department to develop a

formula for measuring State

performance in consultation with the

National Governors’ Association and the

American Public Welfare Association,

now known as the American Public

Human Services Association.

Section 403(a)(4)(D) of the Act

requires the Secretary to use the formula

developed to assign a score to each

eligible State for the fiscal year

preceding the bonus year and prescribe

a performance threshold as the basis for

awarding the bonus. Section

403(a)(4)(D) of the Act also specifies that

$1 billion (or an average total of $200

million each year) will be awarded over

five years, beginning in FY 1999.

C. High Performance Bonus Regulations

On December 6, 1999, we published

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) covering the bonus awards in

FY 2002 and beyond. The NPRM

proposed the measures, the formula for

allocating funds, and the data sources,

methodologies, and specifications for

each measure. The final rule, published

on August 30, 2000 (65 FR 52814),

provided that we would base the

bonuses in FY 2002 and beyond on four

work measures; a measure on family

formation and stability; and three

measures that support work and selfsufficiency, i.e., participation by lowincome working families in the Food

Stamp Program, participation in the

Medicaid and State Children’s Health

Insurance Program (SCHIP), and a child

care measure. The methodologies and

specification for all of the measures,

except for the child care measure, were

completely specified in the final rule.

Although it had not been proposed in

the NPRM, we added the child care

measure in the final rule since we

strongly agreed with commenters that

child care subsidies or assistance

represent an essential support for lowincome families and are a critical part

of a successful welfare reform program.

We stated in the preamble to the final

rule that we planned to engage States

and others, particularly data experts, in

discussions regarding the technicalities

of implementing key elements of the

child care measure. While there were

many comments in support of a child

care measure, there was no opportunity

for detailed consultation or public

comment on the technical aspects of the

new measure, as it had not been

included in the NPRM.

We particularly wanted to obtain the

States’ views on, and information about,

issues for which we lacked specific

knowledge, such as State data systems.

We stated that we planned to hold these

consultations and issue details

regarding the components of this

measure by the end of the calendar year.

II. The Child Care Measure

A. Summary of the Child Care Measure

in the Final Rule

The final rule provided that $10

million would be allocated annually for

bonus awards under the child care

measure. The specific provisions of the

measure appear at § 270.4(e) of the final

rule. See regulatory text at the end of

this document.

Briefly, the measure includes three

components:

• Child care accessibility, as

measured by the percent of children,

eligible under the Child Care and

Development Fund (CCDF)

requirements, who are receiving

services, including eligible children

served with additional funds;

• Child care affordability, based on a

comparison of reported assessed family

co-payment to reported family income;

and

• Child care quality, as indicated by

a comparison of the actual amounts paid

for children receiving CCDF subsidies to

local market rates in the State.

We will base the bonus awards for FY

2002 on a composite ranking of State

scores on accessibility and affordability.

We will base the bonus awards for FY

2003 on a composite ranking of

accessibility, affordability, and quality.

The weights of the various components

in computing the composite score are

specified in § 270.4(e).

No new data collection is required in

order to compete on the two

components of the child care measure in

FY 2002. We will use existing CCDF

data and Census Bureau data as the data

source for family incomes at 85 percent

of the State’s median income, i.e., the

Federal eligibility limit in the CCDF

program. We will also calculate the

23856 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

percentage of potentially-eligible

children served by dividing the number

of children served with ‘‘pooled’’ funds,

that is, CCDF funds (including transfers

from TANF) and any other funds States

use to serve eligible children, by the

number of children eligible under the

Federal criteria.

For bonus awards FY 2003 and

beyond, we will base the quality

component on the actual rates States

pay for children receiving CCDF

subsidies, as reported on the ACF–801,

as compared to State data on actual

market rates.

B. Consultations With States and Other

Organizations

In determining the specifications for

the affordability component, we were

aware that States have tremendous

flexibility in setting sliding fee scales

under the regulations governing the

CCDF program which they use to

balance different needs and make child

care affordable for families at a range of

incomes. How to fairly score and rank

States in light of the diversity in State

practice was one of the major issues on

which we sought further advice.

The market rate survey and the data

collected as a part of the survey were

also issues on which we sought advice.

The CCDF statute requires States to

conduct a market rate survey

periodically as a way of monitoring

their program, but there is no

consistency in how States conduct these

surveys, and we have not required

States to submit their surveys or the

survey results to ACF. In the preamble

to the final rule, we stated that we

would consult with States and other

experts on the market rate data States

would need to submit in order to

compete on this measure, the process

for submitting the data, and the

methodology we would use for ranking

States on this component.

Beginning in October, 2000, we

contacted all States and approximately

30 advocacy organizations, including

agencies and organizations that had

commented on this issue in the NPRM,

inviting them to consult with us on

issues related to the child care measure.

At the first consultation meeting, we

asked for individuals to participate in

intensive discussions over the next two

months.

We established two child care

workgroups—one for State agency staff

and the other for representatives of

advocacy and other agencies and

organizations.

The State workgroups, made up of

approximately 20 State representatives,

met on five occasions by conference

call. We faxed information to the

workgroup members for review prior to

each conference call and had extensive

follow-up discussions. The advocate

workgroup, made up of representatives

of approximately 10 organizations, met

twice in two months by similar

conference calls. In addition, the Child

Care Bureau in ACF requested input

from all States through the regional

offices of ACF and in public

presentations to State representatives.

The consultations focused on the

following major issues:

Accessibility

• Were the data readily available?

• What did States need to know to

‘‘pool’’ data properly?

Affordability

• What was the effect of using the

State’s Median Income as a standard for

this component?

• Did it matter how States define

‘‘income’?

• What income levels, if any, should

be used in this component?

• How should we address family size

in the calculations?

Quality

• How reliable are the data collected

by the States in their market rate

surveys?

• What types of child care should be

compared?

• How could this component account

for States with large rural populations as

compared to States with large urban

centers?

C. Changes Made in this Interim Final

Rule

As a result of our consultations, we

are amending the child care measure to

add the following clarifications and

specifications.

The Accessibility Component

In the final rule, we referenced the

ACF–696 financial reporting form as the

source of the information on the

counting of children served by ‘‘pooled’’

funds. We are taking this opportunity to

update § 270.4(e)(1)(i) to delete the

reference to the ACF–696 and replace it

with a reference to the recently revised

ACF–800 and ACF–801. These two

reporting forms are now better sources

of the data on the number of children

served with all sources of funds used by

the State. We believe this change is not

only an update for accuracy, but also

will avoid confusion in the future. We

are deleting the phrase ‘‘including any

such eligible children served with

additional funds reported on the ACF–

696 financial reporting form’’ and

replacing it with the words ‘‘and who

are included in the data reported on the

ACF–800 and the ACF–801.’’

No additional guidance or

specifications are needed to implement

this component. We will use data from

the ACF–800 and ACF–801 to compute

scores and rank States.

The Affordability Component

There is considerable variation among

States in the amount of co-payments,

expressed as a percent of income, that

parents are asked to pay at different

income levels, particularly above the

poverty level. In our consultations with

both States and advocate groups, we

were encouraged to look at affordability

for families at several different

increments of income.

Therefore, we specify in § 270.4(e)(3)

that we will compare family income to

the assessed State co-payment for child

care, based on four income ranges.

These income ranges refer to

percentages of the Federal Poverty

Guidelines for a family of three persons.

The income ranges are as follows:

• Income below the poverty level;

• Income at least 100 percent and

below 125 percent of poverty;

• Income at least 125 percent and

below 150 percent of poverty; and

• Income at least 150 percent and

below 175 percent of poverty.

For a family of three in FY 2001,

100 percent of the Federal Poverty

Guidelines is $14,150;

125 percent of the Federal Poverty

Guidelines is $17,687;

150 percent of the Federal Poverty

Guidelines is $21,225; and

175 percent of the Federal Poverty

Guidelines is $24,762.

Although the maximum allowable

income eligibility limit for child care is

based on State Median Income (e.g., 85

percent of the SMI), we were

encouraged in our consultations to use

percent of the poverty level for this

comparison between family income and

assessed family co-payments. The

poverty level remains constant across

States, while the SMI varies from State

to State.

We were also encouraged to consider

family size in the measure of

affordability. However, family size is

not currently included in the data

reported by States on the ACF 800 or

801. Therefore, we have chosen not to

require this information at this time

because it would result in additional

data collection and reporting burden.

We have selected these income ranges

that refer to percentages of poverty for

a family of three for comparison of

assessed co-payments across States

because existing State data indicate that

the majority of families are receiving

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23857

care for only one or two children. While

some States establish their income

eligibility limits below 175 percent of

the Federal Poverty Guidelines, all

States are serving some larger

households with incomes up to $25,000,

which equals approximately 175

percent of the Federal Poverty

Guidelines for a family of three.

However, we are limited in our ability

to measure and compare co-payments

across States for families with income

levels beyond $25,000 because some

States are serving few families beyond

this point.

Limiting our measure of average copayments to families earning up to

$25,000 could potentially disadvantage

States that choose to serve families with

higher incomes. We know that some

States make use of modest co-payments

across a broad range of income in order

to extend eligibility higher up the

income scale. Families above the State’s

income guidelines would not be eligible

to be served at all and would, therefore,

pay 100 percent of the cost of care.

States serving households above

$25,000 could have lower than average

co-payments across the range of

incomes that they serve, but this would

not be captured in the measure that

examines co-payments only up to

$25,000. For example, State A has

established an income eligibility limit of

$24,000 for a family of three. State B has

established an income limit of $28,000

for a family of the same size, and a copayment rate of 11 percent of family

income. Although a family with an

annual income below $24,000 might

face higher co-payments in State B than

in State A, a family with income above

$24,000 would be ineligible in State A.

A family in State A with an annual

income of $26,000 would pay 100

percent of the cost of care, which would

likely be 20 percent or more of annual

income. A family with the same income

in State B would have an assessed copayment rate of only 11 percent.

In order to address this diversity, our

methodology also addresses State effort

to provide access to affordable copayments to a broader range of families.

As a part of the affordability component,

we will also rank States based on the

ratio of the number of children eligible

under the State-defined income limits,

as specified in the State CCDF Plan,

compared to the number of children

eligible under the Federal eligibility

limit for the CCDF (85% of State’s

median income (SMI)).

In § 270.4(e)(4), we clarify how we

will compute the scores and rank the

States on this component. We specify

that, for each State competing on this

measure, we will calculate, for each of

the four income ranges, the average of

the ratios of family co-payment to

family income for each individual

family. Next, we will calculate a fifth

ratio of the number of children eligible

under the State’s defined income limits

compared to the number of children

eligible under the Federal eligibility

limits in the CCDF, i.e., 85 percent of

the State’s median income. Finally, we

will rank each State based on each of

the five ratios and will combine the five

rankings for each State to obtain the

State’s score on this component.

The Quality Component

We specify in § 270.4(e)(5) that we

will compare the actual rates paid by

the State as reported on the ACF–801

(not the published maximum rates) to

the market rates applicable to the

performance year. In order to have the

data to make this comparison, we are

requiring that, if a State wishes to

compete on this measure, it must submit

two specific items of information from

its market rate survey. The two items

are:

• Age-specific rates for children 0–13

years of age as reported by the child care

centers and family day care homes

responding to the State’s market rate

survey; and

• the provider’s county or, if the State

uses multi-county regions to measure

market rates or set maximum payment

rates, the administrative region.

We have selected the parameters of

age of child, type of provider, and

location of provider, because the rates

charged by providers (that is market

rates) vary substantially based on these

factors. States must take these factors

into account when setting payment rates

that assure equal access to the full range

of provider types for children from 0–

13 years of age.

In § 270.4(e)(6), we specify how we

will compute the scores and rank States

on this component. We will compute

the percentile of the market represented

by the amount paid for each child as

reported on the ACF–801 by comparing

the actual payment for each child to the

array of reported market rates for

children of the same age in the relevant

county or administrative region.

(Payments for children in center-based

care will be compared to reported center

care rates; payments for children in noncenter-based care, i.e., family day care

and unlicensed child care, will be

compared to reported family child care

provider rates.)

Finally, we will take the percentile

that results from the per-child

comparison of the actual payment to the

reported market rates and compute

separate State-wide averages for centerbased and non-center-based care. Each

State will be ranked on each of the two

averages. The two rankings will be

combined to obtain the State’s final

score on this component.

III. Justification for This Interim Final

Rule

The time frames for implementing

and operationalizing the high

performance bonus award system are

extremely short. It became clear, even as

we published the final high

performance bonus rule in August,

2000, that States would need immediate

and additional guidance, clarification,

and specificity about our expectations

in order to make program decisions,

collect data, and prepare themselves to

compete successfully for child care

bonuses in FY 2002 and FY 2003.

However, it was equally clear that in

order to arrive at a reliable and workable

measurement system, it was necessary

to consult extensively with the National

Governors’ Association (NGA), the

American Public Human Services

Association (APHSA), States, and

others, which we did through early

December. The provisions of this

interim final rule reflect the information

and recommendations we received in

these consultations.

We have determined that publication

of an NPRM is unnecessary, impractical,

and not in the public interest. We

believe it is in the public interest to

have the maximum possible number of

States compete for bonuses under the

TANF program and that they be able to

structure their programs to successfully

compete on each of the bonus measures.

Without the additional information

contained in this interim final rule,

States will not know how they will be

ranked on the child care affordability

measure in FY 2002. The performance

year for FY 2002 is FY 2001, the current

fiscal year. Unless States are given this

information in a timely way, they will

be unable to have an opportunity to

make program changes or take other

actions in this fiscal year to prepare

themselves to compete on this measure.

There is insufficient time to issue both

an NPRM and a final rule and still

provide States with enough advance

notice to be able to make changes in

time to have them be operational during

the performance year.

Moreover, unless this information is

issued as a final rule, States will not

know what information they must

collect as a part of their child care

market rate surveys in order to compete

successfully in FY 2003. States are only

required to conduct these surveys every

two years. Since some States are

conducting their market rate surveys in

23858 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

FY 2001, it is crucial to advise them

quickly about what types of data they

would need to collect in order that they

can design and conduct their FY 2001

surveys in a way that will enable them

to compete for the child care bonus in

FY 2003.

Finally, we believe issuance of an

NPRM is unnecessary because we have

consulted with the States and others

who commented on the earlier NPRM

about the issues covered by this interim

final rule and received their input. We

have incorporated their concerns in this

interim final rule.

In spite of the need to advise States

immediately, we are sensitive to the

issue of public notice and comment. For

that reason we invite comment on these

proposals for the next 60 days.

IV. Regulatory Impact Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 requires that

regulations be drafted to ensure that

they are consistent with the priorities

and principles set forth in the Executive

Order. The Department has determined

that this interim final rule is consistent

with these priorities and principles.

The Executive Order encourages

agencies, as appropriate, to provide the

public with meaningful participation in

the regulatory process. As described

earlier, ACF consulted with States, their

representative organizations, and a

broad range of advocacy groups,

researchers, and others to obtain their

views. This rule reflects the discussions

with, and the concerns of, the groups

with whom we consulted.

This interim final rule will not have

an effect on the economy of $100

million or more in any one year,

according to section 3(F)(1) of the

Executive Order. We believe the cost of

competing for a high performance bonus

award in FY 2002 should be minimal

since competition for these awards will

be based, to the extent possible, on

existing data sources. This interim final

rule was determined to be significant

and has been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. Ch. 6) requires the Federal

government to anticipate and reduce the

impact of rules and paperwork

requirements on small businesses and

other small entities. Small entities are

defined in the Act to include small

businesses, small non-profit

organizations, and small governmental

entities. This rule will affect only the 50

States, the District of Columbia, and

certain Territories. Therefore, the

Secretary certifies that this rule will not

have a significant impact on small

entities.

C. Assessment of the Impact on Family

Well-Being

We certify that we have made an

assessment of this rule’s impact on the

well-being of families, as required under

section 654 of The Treasury and General

Appropriations Act of 1999. The high

performance bonus awards are a

statutory part of the TANF program and

are designed to reward State efforts in

strengthening the economic and social

stability of families and carrying out

other purposes in the statute. This

interim final rule does not limit State

flexibility to design programs to serve

these purposes.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 (PRA), no persons are required

to respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a valid OMB control

number. As required by the PRA, we

will submit the data collection

requirements to OMB for review and

approval.

In FY 2002, no additional reporting

burden will be required of the States in

competing on the child care measure

since we will rank States based on data

they currently report under the CCDF

program (ACF Forms 800 and 801).

However, there will be a reporting

burden for the information States must

submit if they wish to compete on the

child care measure in FY 2003. States

must provide the following information

based on the child care market rate

surveys that they currently conduct

every two years:

• All age-specific rates for children 0–

13 years of age reported by the child day

care centers and family day care homes

responding to the State’s market rate

survey; and

• The provider’s county or, if the

State uses multi-county regions to

measure market rates or set maximum

payment rates, the administrative

region.

We estimate the reporting burden for

reporting these data once every two

years to be 40 hours per respondent

times 54 respondents, or 2,160 hours.

Annualized, this equals a total burden

of 1,080 hours as shown below:

Instrument or requirement Number of

respondents

Annual

number of

responses per

respondent

Average

burden hours

per response

Total annual

burden hours

Abstract of Market Rate Survey ...................................................................... 54 0.5 40 1,080

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours ..................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,080

We will submit this information to

OMB for approval. These requirements

will not become effective until approved

by OMB.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Unfunded Mandates Act) requires that

a covered agency prepare a budgetary

impact statement before promulgating a

rule that includes any Federal mandate

that may result in the expenditure by

State, local, and Tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

If a covered agency must prepare a

budgetary impact statement, section 205

further requires that it select the most

cost-effective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with the

statutory requirements. In addition,

section 203 requires a plan for

informing and advising any small

governmental entity that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by

the proposed rule.

We have determined that this interim

final rule will not result in the

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of more than $100

million in any one year. Competition for

a high performance bonus is entirely at

State option. Accordingly, we have not

prepared a budgetary impact statement,

specifically addressed the regulatory

alternatives considered, or prepared a

plan for informing and advising any

significantly or uniquely impacted State

or small government.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23859

F. Congressional Review

This interim final rule is not a major

rule as defined in 5 U.S.C., Chapter 8.

G. Executive Order 13132

On August 4, 1999, the President

issued Executive Order 13132,

‘‘federalism.’’ The purposes of the Order

are: ‘‘to guarantee the division of

governmental responsibilities between

the national government and the States

that was intended by the Framers of the

Constitution, to ensure that the

principles of federalism established by

the Framers guide the executive

departments and agencies in the

formulation and implementation of

policies, and to further the policies of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act.* * *’’

We certify that this final rule does not

have a substantial direct effect on States,

on the relationship between the Federal

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. The final rule

does not pre-empt State law and does

not impose unfunded mandates.

This rule does not contain regulatory

policies with federalism implications

that would require specific

consultations with State or local elected

officials. The statute, however, requires

consultations with the National

Governors’ Association and the

American Public Human Services

Association in the development of a

high performance bonus system. Prior to

the development of the NPRM and this

interim final rule, we consulted with

representatives of these organizations,

State representatives and a broad range

of nonprofit, advocacy, and community

organizations; foundations; and others.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 270

Grant programs—social programs;

Poverty; Public assistance programs;

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance

Programs: No. 93.558 Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families (TANF) Program; State

Family Assistance Grants; Tribal Family

Assistance Grants; Assistance Grants to

Territories; Matching Grants to Territories;

Supplemental Grants for Population

Increases; Contingency Fund; High

Performance Bonus; Decrease in Illegitimacy

Bonus)

Dated: March 14, 2001.

Diann Dawson,

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Administration for Children and Families.

Approved: April 10, 2001.

Tommy G. Thompson,

Secretary, Department of Health and Human

Services.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, we are amending 45 CFR

Chapter II as follows:

PART 270—HIGH PERFORMANCE

BONUS AWARDS

1. The authority citation for part 270

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4).

2. In § 270.4, paragraph (e) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 270.4 On what measures will we base the

bonus awards?

* * * * *

(e) Child care subsidy measure. (1)

Beginning in FY 2002, we will measure

State performance based upon a

composite ranking of:

(i) The accessibility of services based

on the percentage of children in the

State who meet the maximum allowable

Federal eligibility requirements for the

Child Care and Development Fund

(CCDF) who are served by the State

during the performance year, and who

are included in the data reported on the

ACF–800 and ACF–801 for the same

fiscal year; and

(ii) The affordability of CCDF services

based on a comparison of the reported

assessed family co-payment to reported

family income and a comparison of the

number of eligible children under the

State’s defined income limits to the

number of eligible children under the

federal eligibility limits.

(2) Beginning in FY 2003, we will

measure State performance based upon

a composite ranking of:

(i) The two components described in

paragraph (e)(1) of this section; and

(ii) The quality of CCDF services

based on a comparison of

reimbursement rates during the

performance year to the market rates,

determined in accordance with 45 CFR

98.43(b)(2), applicable to that year.

(3) For the affordability component in

paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, we

will compare family income to the

assessed State family co-payment as

reported on the ACF–801 across four

income ranges. These income ranges

refer to percentages of the Federal

Poverty Guidelines for a family of three

persons. The income ranges are as

follows:

(i) Income below the poverty level;

(ii) Income at least 100 percent and

below 125 percent of poverty;

(iii) Income at least 125 percent and

below 150 percent of poverty; and

(iv) Income at least 150 percent and

below 175 percent of poverty.

(4)(i) For the affordability component,

we will calculate, for each income

range, the average of the ratios of family

co-payment to family income for each

family served; and

(ii) We will calculate a ratio of the

number of children eligible under the

State’s defined income limits compared

to the number of children eligible under

the Federal eligibility limits in the

CCDF, i.e., 85 percent of the State’s

median income.

(iii) We will rank each State based on

each of the four averages calculated in

paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section and

the ratio calculated in paragraph

(e)(4)(ii) of this section and combine the

ranks to obtain the State’s score on this

component.

(5) For the quality component

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

section, in FY 2003 and beyond, we will

compare the actual rates paid by the

State as reported on the ACF–801 (not

the published maximum rates) to the

market rates applicable to the

performance year, i.e., FY 2002. Each

State competing on this measure must

submit the following data as a part of its

market rate survey:

(i) Age-specific rates for children 0–13

years of age reported by the child care

centers and family day care homes

responding to the State’s market rate

survey; and

(ii) The provider’s county or, if the

State uses multi-county regions to

measure market rates or set maximum

payment rates, the administrative

region.

(6) For the quality component, we

will compute the percentile of the

market represented by the amount paid

for each child as reported on the ACF–

801 by comparing the actual payment

for each child to the array of reported

market rates for children of the same age

in the relevant county or administrative

region. (We will compare payments for

children in center-based care to reported

center care provider rates. We will

compare payments for children in noncenter-based care, i.e., family day care

and unlicensed child care, to reported

family child care provider rates.)

(i) We will take the percentile that

results from the per-child comparison of

the actual payment to the reported

market rates and compute separate

State-wide averages for center-based and

non-center-based care; and

(ii) We will rank the State according

to the two State-wide averages and

23860 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

combine the ranks to obtain the State’s

score on this component.

(7) For any given year, we will rank

the States that choose to compete on the

child care measure on each component

of the overall measure and award

bonuses to the ten States with the

highest composite rankings.

(8) We will calculate each component

score for this measure to two decimal

points. If two or more States have the

same score for a component, we will

calculate the scores for these States to as

many decimal points as necessary to

eliminate the tie.

(9)(i) The rank of the measure for the

FY 2002 bonus year will be a composite

weighted score of the two components

at paragraph (e)(1) of this section, with

the component at paragraph (e)(1)(i) of

this section having a weight of 6 and the

component at paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this

section having a weight of 4.

(ii) The rank of the measure for the

bonus beginning in FY 2003 will be a

composite weighted score of the three

components at paragraph (e)(2) of this

section, with the component at

paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section having

a weight of 5, the component at

paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section

having a weight of 3, and the

component at paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this

section having a weight of 2.

(10) We will award bonuses only to

the top ten qualifying States that have

fully obligated their CCDF Matching

Funds for the fiscal year corresponding

to the performance year and fully

expended their CCDF Matching Funds

for the fiscal year preceding the

performance year.

[FR Doc. 01–11767 Filed 5–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

46 CFR Part 205

[Docket No. MARAD–2000–8284]

RIN 2133–AB42

Audit Appeals; Policy and Procedure

AGENCY: Maritime Administration,

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration

(MARAD, we, our, or us) is updating our

regulations on Audit Appeals; Policy

and Procedure. The regulations

establish audit appeal procedures for

parties who contract with the Maritime

Subsidy Board or MARAD. This final

rule uses plain language to update the

audit procedures to reflect our current

practices. The intended effect of this

rulemaking is to improve our audit

appeals process by updating and

clarifying the regulations.

DATES: The effective date of this final

rule is June 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Lennis G. Fludd, Office of Financial and

Rate Approvals, (202) 366–2324. You

may send mail to Mr. Fludd at Maritime

Administration, Office of Financial and

Rate Approvals, Room 8117, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Part 205 establishes the policy and

procedure for parties to use when

seeking redress and appeals of audit

decisions involving contracts with the

Maritime Subsidy Board or MARAD.

Part 205 applies to contracts of the

Maritime Subsidy Board and MARAD

which have included, for example, the

Operating-Differential Subsidy,

Construction-Differential Subsidy,

Capital Construction Fund,

Construction Reserve Fund, and

Maritime Security Program.

We published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) on November 16,

2000 at 65 FR 69279. The NPRM

proposed revisions to part 205 to reflect

our current practices of making audit

appeals decisions. This final rule

essentially mirrors the NPRM to which

we received no public comments.

Accordingly, parties no longer appeal to

the appropriate Coast Director’s office.

In the past, auditors were assigned to

regional offices. However, we no longer

have these auditors. MARAD

headquarters is responsible for

overseeing audits as deemed

appropriate. Such audits may be

performed by the Office of Inspector

General. Also, as proposed, we are

eliminating the discretionary hearing

afforded appellants (under § 205.2 (b))

when appealing to the Maritime

Administrator. This final rule includes

provisions that give the appellant 90

days from the date of receipt of the

initial audit findings to file an appeal

with the appropriate Associate

Administrator and 30 days following the

Associate Administrator’s final audit

appeals decision to submit an appeal in

writing to the Administrator. However,

the Administrator may, at his or her

discretion, extend the 30 days in the

case of extenuating circumstances.

Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 and a

Presidential memorandum on plain

language in government writing of June

1, 1998, require each agency to write all

rules in plain language. The Department

of Transportation and MARAD are

committed to plain language in

government writing; therefore, we

revised part 205 using plain language to

provide easier understanding. Our goal

is to improve the clarity of our

regulations.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

We have reviewed this final rule

under Executive Order 12866 and have

determined that this is not a significant

regulatory action. Additionally, this

final rule is not likely to result in an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more. The purpose of this

final rule is to update MARAD’s audit

appeals procedures to reflect current

MARAD practices and to rewrite the

regulations in plain language.

This final rule is also not significant

under the Regulatory Policies and

Procedures of the Department of

Transportation (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979). The costs and benefits

associated with this rulemaking are

considered to be so minimal that no

further analysis is necessary. Because

the economic impact, if any, should be

minimal, further regulatory evaluation

is not necessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This final rule only updates procedures

for appealing audit findings and

decisions to the Maritime

Administrator. Although a number of

small entities may appeal audit

findings, the cost of filing an audit

appeal with MARAD is minimal, if any.

Therefore, MARAD certifies that this

final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Federalism

We have analyzed this final rule in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’) and have

determined that it does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a federalism

summary impact statement. These

regulations have no substantial effects

on the States, or on the current FederalState relationship, or on the current

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various local

officials. Therefore, consultation with