Safeguarding Child Support Information, 81894-81908 [2010-32424]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
• Administration for Children and Families

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81894-81908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32424]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Parts 301, 302, 303, and 307


Safeguarding Child Support Information

AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for 
Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) created and expanded State and 
Federal Child Support Enforcement databases under title IV-D of the 
Social Security Act (the Act) and significantly enhanced access to 
information for title IV-D child support purposes. States are moving 
toward a more integrated service delivery to better serve families and 
further the mission of the Child Support Enforcement program, while 
protecting confidential data. This final rule specifies requirements 
for: State Parent Locator Service responses to authorized location 
requests; and State Child Support Enforcement program safeguards for 
confidential information and authorized disclosures of this 
information. This final rule revises certain aspects of the State 
Parent Locator Service; Safeguarding Child Support Information final 
rule published on September 26, 2008 with an effective date delayed 
until December 30, 2010. This final rule will prohibit the disclosure 
of confidential and personally identifiable information to private 
collection agencies and expand disclosure to child welfare programs and 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Hausburg, OCSE, Division of 
Policy, (202) 401-5635, e-mail paige.hausburg@acf.hhs.gov. Deaf and 
hearing-impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay 
Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Statutory Authority

    This final rule is published under the authority granted to the 
Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services 
(Secretary) by sections 1102, 453, 453A, 454, 454A, and 463 of the Act. 
Section 1102 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1302, authorizes the Secretary to 
publish regulations that may be necessary for the efficient 
administration of the Child Support Enforcement program authorized 
under title IV-D of the Act (IV-D program).
    The provisions of this final rule pertaining to the Federal Parent 
Locator Service (Federal PLS) implement section 453 of the Act, 42 
U.S.C. 653. Section 453 requires the Secretary to establish and conduct 
a Federal PLS to obtain and transmit specified information only to 
authorized persons for purposes of establishing parentage, or 
establishing, modifying, or enforcing child support obligations. 
Section 453 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 653, also authorizes the Secretary to 
disclose information in the Federal PLS to the State Child Support 
Enforcement program (authorized under title IV-D of the Act), Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF or IV-A program authorized 
under title IV-A of the Act), Child Welfare Services program (IV-B 
program authorized under title IV-B of the Act), and Foster Care and 
Adoption Assistance program (IV-E program authorized under title IV-E 
of the Act) to assist States in carrying out their responsibilities 
under those programs. Section 463 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 663, also 
permits States to use information in the Federal PLS for the purpose of 
enforcing any Federal or State law with respect to a parental 
kidnapping or making or enforcing a child custody or visitation 
determination. In addition, the provisions of this final rule 
pertaining to the State Parent Locator Service (State PLS) implement 
section 454(8), 42 U.S.C. 654(8), which requires each State IV-D 
program to establish a State PLS to locate parents by exchanging data 
with the Federal PLS and utilizing other information sources and 
records in the State.
    Several sections of the Act require safeguarding measures for 
information contained in State and Federal databases, including the 
National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and the Federal Case Registry 
(FCR). Section 454(8) requires States receiving funding under title IV-
D to have a State plan providing that the State IV-D program will: (1) 
Establish a service to locate parents utilizing all sources of 
information and available records and the Federal PLS; and (2) disclose 
the information described in sections 453 and 463 only to the 
``authorized persons'' specified in sections 453 and 463, subject to 
the privacy safeguards in section 454(26) of the Act. In addition, 
sections 453(m) and 463(c) restrict disclosure of confidential 
information maintained by the Federal PLS only to an ``authorized 
person'' for an authorized purpose and require the Secretary to 
establish and implement safeguards designed to restrict access to 
confidential information in the Federal PLS to authorized persons for 
authorized purposes. Section 453(l), 42 U.S.C. 653(l), also specifies 
that information in the Federal PLS shall not be used or disclosed 
except as expressly provided in section 453. Section

[[Page 81895]]

454(26), 42 U.S.C. 654(26), requires the State IV-D agency to have in 
effect safeguards, applicable to all confidential information handled 
by the State agency, that are designed to protect the privacy rights of 
the parties and prohibit disclosure of information in cases involving 
domestic violence or child abuse. Section 453A of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 
653a, requires States to establish and operate an automated directory 
containing information on newly hired employees and to use the 
information to assist in the administration of the State Child Support 
program and certain other specified programs listed in section 453A(h) 
of the Act. Additionally, sections 454(16) and 454A, 42 U.S.C. 654(16) 
and 654a, require States to maintain computerized child support 
enforcement systems and to use the system to extract information 
necessary to enable the State IV-D agency (and other programs 
designated by the Secretary) to carry out their responsibilities under 
title IV-D of the Act and under such programs, and to have in effect 
safeguards on the access to and use of data in the State's automated 
system.

II. Background

    This final rule prohibits disclosure of confidential and personally 
identifiable information to private collection agencies (PCAs) and 
expands disclosure of information to child welfare programs authorized 
under titles IV-B and IV-E and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP). On September 26, 2008, a final rule, following a notice 
and comment period, entitled ``State Parent Locator Service; 
Safeguarding Child Support Information,'' was published in the Federal 
Register [73 FR 56422] to address requirements for State Parent Locator 
Service responses to authorized location requests, State IV-D program 
safeguarding of confidential information, authorized disclosures of 
this information, and restrictions on the use of confidential data and 
information for child support purposes with exceptions for certain 
disclosures permitted by statute. The effective date given for the 
final rule was March 23, 2009. In accordance with the memorandum of 
January 20, 2009, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of 
Staff entitled ``Regulatory Review'' [74 FR 4435], on March 3, 2009, 
the Department published a notice in the Federal Register [74 FR 9171] 
seeking public comment on a contemplated delay of 60 days in the 
effective date of the rule entitled ``State Parent Locator Service; 
Safeguarding Child Support Information.'' In response to those 
comments, the Department issued a subsequent notice published in the 
Federal Register [74 FR 11879] on March 20, 2009, which delayed the 
effective date of the September 26, 2008 rule by 60 days until May 22, 
2009, in order to permit Departmental officials the opportunity for 
further review of the issues of law and policy raised by this rule. 
However, subsequent to publication of the March 20, 2009 notice, the 
Department determined that additional time would be needed for 
officials to complete their review of the rule and to fully assess the 
substantive comments received in response to the March 3, 2009 notice. 
As a result, on April 15, 2009, a notice was published in the Federal 
Register [74 FR 17445] indicating that the Department was contemplating 
a further delay in the effective date of the ``State Parent Locator 
Service; Safeguarding Child Support Information'' final rule to 
December 30, 2010, and requesting comments on the delay of the 
effective date. In response to comments from the April 15, 2009 notice, 
the Department issued a subsequent notice, published in the Federal 
Register [74 FR 23798] on May 21, 2009 delaying the effective date of 
the September 26, 2008 rule to December 30, 2010.
    Although the March 3, 2009 and the April 15, 2009 notices invited 
comments on whether a delay in the rule's effective date was needed 
``to allow Departmental officials the opportunity for further review 
and consideration,'' both notices also generated focused substantive 
comments recommending changes to several particular provisions of the 
final rule that warranted further consideration. In addition to 
supporting a delay in the effective date of the rule, the comments 
raised specific policy concerns regarding two areas of the September 
26, 2008 final rule: (1) The rules for disclosure of confidential and 
personally identifiable information about individuals maintained by 
State IV-D programs to a private, for-profit child support collection 
agency as an ``agent of a child;'' and (2) the child welfare data 
exchange provisions of the rules in light of legislation enacted in 
October 2008 after publication of the final rule.
    With respect to disclosure of information to private collection 
agencies, concerns have been raised by commenters, Departmental 
officials, media coverage, litigation and program stakeholders that the 
government's disclosure of confidential information to private child 
support collection agencies may not serve the children's best 
interests. Specific concerns have been raised about the risks involved 
in disclosing confidential data to private collection agencies not 
acting as a State's agent under a contractual relationship nor required 
to comply with ethics and confidentiality rules such as those governing 
State agencies and private attorneys, and whose business practices are 
largely unregulated and not subject to program oversight.
    Additionally, commenters on the March 3 and April 15, 2009 notices 
stated that a delay in the effective date would give the Administration 
an opportunity to conduct a review of the child welfare data exchange 
provisions to ensure that the provisions of the rule conform to The 
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (Pub. L. 
110-351), (the Fostering Connections Act) signed into law on October 7, 
2008, eleven days after the Safeguarding Final Rule was published.
    On June 7, 2010, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was 
published in the Federal Register [75 FR 32145] which proposed limited 
changes to the final regulation published on September 26, 2008 to 
address concerns identified by Department officials as well as those 
raised by commenters. Only selected portions of the ``State Parent 
Locator; Safeguarding Child Support Information'' final rule were 
addressed in the NPRM. The final rule published on September 26, 2008, 
in [73 FR 56442] will go into effect on December 30, 2010.

III. Summary Description of Regulatory Provisions

    The following is a summary of the regulatory provisions included in 
this final rule. The NPRM limited those sections of the final rule 
published on September 26, 2008 that were open for public comment. 
Affected sections include Sec. Sec.  301.1, 302.35, 303.21, 303.69, 
303.70, and 307.13. Additionally, we made a conforming change to Sec.  
303.20, which did not appear in the NPRM.
    The Section-by-Section Discussion of the Regulations (Section IV) 
provides a detailed listing of the comments and responses. We 
considered each comment and where appropriate, amended the final rule. 
Specifically, changes include:
    In Sec.  301.1 we added a definition of ``attorney of a child.'' 
Commenters recommended a definition that requires the assurance of a 
genuine attorney-client relationship which creates an ethical 
obligation to represent the best interests of the child and/or the 
child's resident parent. The newly-added definition specifies that 
there is an attorney-client relationship with an

[[Page 81896]]

ethical and fiduciary duty upon the attorney to represent the client's 
best interests under applicable rules of professional responsibility.
    We made a technical change to the language in Sec.  302.35(a)(2)(i) 
to include ``non-parent relatives'' to the list of those individuals 
about whom the State PLS may disclose information under section 
453(a)(2) and 453(j)(3) of the Act for locate purposes. This was based 
on a comment that the rule was inconsistent; we agree and made the 
change accordingly. Additionally, this change is consistent with the 
change made to Sec.  302.35(d)(2) in accordance with the Fostering 
Connections Act. We changed the language at Sec.  302.35(c) in response 
to a comment that, as written, the NPRM would mandate that Tribal IV-D 
programs would have to make attestation and provide evidence that they 
are an authorized program to which the State PLS may disclose locate 
information. It was not our intent to exclude authorization for Tribal 
IV-D programs which are a part of the Child Support Enforcement program 
and have an intergovernmental agreement with a State to access Federal 
PLS information as set forth in OCSE PIQT-10-01. Therefore, we added 
new language to Sec.  302.35(c)(1) providing that a Tribal IV-D agency 
that provides child support services under an approved Tribal IV-D plan 
and has an intergovernmental agreement in place with a State, entered 
into pursuant to section 454(7) of the Act for the provision of Federal 
PLS services, is an authorized program and may request locate 
information from the State PLS.
    Additionally, the commenters supported preventing disclosure of 
confidential information to private collection agencies. However, the 
commenters thought that attestation remained important for a parent, 
legal guardian, attorney, or agent of a child not receiving assistance 
under title IV-A of the Act. We agree and reinstated the attestation 
for those individuals listed above in Sec.  302.35(c)(3)(iii).
    A conforming change was made to Sec.  303.20 that was not proposed 
in the NPRM. Previously, Sec.  303.20(b)(7) referenced operation of the 
State PLS required under Sec.  302.35. Because of the changes made to 
the regulatory language at Sec.  302.35, it was necessary to make a 
conforming change for consistency by adding Sec. Sec.  303.3 and 303.70 
to the regulatory text at Sec.  303.20(b)(7).
    The final change to the regulatory language is in Sec. Sec.  
303.70(d)(1), (3), and (4). This technical amendment was made to 
correspond with the change intended to permit disclosure of location 
information regarding non-parent relatives. The former paragraph 
referred to information provided to parents and putative fathers. The 
technical correction is necessary to eliminate any conflicts or 
confusion in providing non-parent relative information to IV-B and IV-E 
agencies. The phrase ``non-parent relative'' was added to Sec.  
303.70(d)(1). The language at Sec.  303.70(d)(2), which requires that a 
parent's or putative father's Social Security Number (SSN) be provided 
to the State PLS or Federal PLS for purposes of locating parents, 
putative fathers, or children for purposes related to title IV-D, IV-A, 
IV-B and IV-E was not changed. This also requires that the IV-D agency 
must make reasonable efforts to ascertain the individual's SSN before 
making the submittal to the Federal PLS. It was not appropriate to add 
``non-parent relative'' to this section because the IV-D agency is not 
required to ascertain the SSN of a non-parent relative prior to making 
a submittal to the Federal PLS. A new Sec.  303.70(d)(3) was added to 
require that the submittal request contain the non-parent relative's 
SSN, if known. Former Sec.  303.70(d)(3) is thus renumbered to Sec.  
303.70(d)(4).
    Some commenters suggested changes to the Appendices based on 
changes in the proposed regulatory language. We amended the Appendices 
in three areas: one change was made to Appendix A and two changes were 
made to Appendix C. A suggestion was made that we include language in 
the ``Limitations'' column in Appendix A as it relates to the State 
agency administering IV-B and IV-E programs in accordance with sections 
453(c)(4), 453(j)(3) and 454(8) of the Act. We agree and added language 
that indicates that any use of the information from the Federal PLS and 
the State PLS outside the purposes of section 453(a)(2) and 453(j)(3) 
of the Act requires independent verification. The first change in 
Appendix C was to modify the term ``food stamps'' to ``SNAP'' for 
consistency with the regulatory language and the rest of the Appendix. 
This change was in the ``Authorized person/program'' under the portion 
of Appendix C that listed the authority for sections 453A(h)(2) and 
1137 of the Act. The second change to the Appendix was to add a 
footnote. Commenters correctly noted that Appendix C did not reference 
the domestic violence language referenced in both Appendices A and B. 
This prohibition against the disclosure of information if there is a 
reasonable evidence of domestic violence or child abuse and the 
disclosure of such information would be harmful to the custodial parent 
(also referred to as resident parent) or child is required by sections 
453(b)(2) and (3), 454(8) and (26) of the Act.

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments

    This section provides a detailed discussion of comments received on 
the proposed rule, and describes changes made to the proposed rule. We 
referred generally to actions of the ``Department'' pursuant to the 
rule. The rule itself refers to actions of the ``Secretary,'' however, 
the day-to-day activities of the Secretary's functions have been 
delegated and are exercised by other Department officials, primarily in 
the Administration for Children and Families. ``Office'' refers to the 
Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). We received 
comments from 26 commenters including 12 State agencies, nine advocacy 
groups, two organizations, and three private citizens. The majority of 
comments related to State Parent Locator Service, Sec.  302.35.

General Comments

    Several comments not attributable to specific sections of the 
regulation are discussed below.
    1. Comment: All commenters supported the prohibition of disclosing 
confidential and personally identifiable information to private child 
support collection agencies (PCAs).
    Response: We agree that the prohibition of disclosing confidential 
and personally identifiable information to PCAs is an appropriate 
change to the regulation. The final rule reflects that position.
    2. Comment: All commenters supported the expansion of released 
information to title IV agencies, including IV-B and IV-E.
    Response: This final rule mandates the expansion provided in the 
proposed rules consistent with section 453(j)(3) of the Social Security 
Act, permitting disclosure of information to IV-B and IV-E agencies for 
a broader range of authorized purposes that was not fully addressed in 
the September 26, 2008 regulation. Program responsibilities include 
locating relatives of children removed from parental custody in order 
to identify potential placements for the child and assist the State 
agency in permanency planning. Communication involving data matches and 
shared data between IV-D, IV-B, and IV-E programs serves the best 
interests of children and their families.
    3. Comment: One commenter stated that for child welfare purposes, 
noncustodial parents should be notified and considered as potential 
placements. This would occur when identifying

[[Page 81897]]

relatives, providing notice to relatives, and placing siblings 
together. If the noncustodial parent is not an appropriate placement, 
the noncustodial parent may still be able to provide critical 
information to aid in making prompt and appropriate arrangements for 
children.
    Response: We agree that it may be appropriate for children to be 
placed with their biological (both custodial and noncustodial) parents, 
consistent with child welfare program policies and the best interests 
of the children. This regulation provides for information concerning 
relatives, including the noncustodial parent under Sec.  305.35(d)(1), 
to be released to the IV-B and IV-E agencies.
    4. Comment: One commenter was supportive of restricting access to 
PCAs, but questioned the policy in PIQ 02-02 that, as written, would 
allow custodial parents to change their addresses to a PCA address.
    Response: As discussed in the preamble to the NPRM, PIQ-02-02, 
Requests by Custodial Parents for a Change of Address for the 
Disbursement of the Custodial Parent's Share of Child Support 
Collections allowed a custodial parent to change his or her address to 
that of a PCA. The redirection of payments by a PCA and the policy to 
allow a custodial parent to change his or her address to that of a PCA, 
will be considered under a separate rulemaking authority.
    On August 14, 2009, OCSE issued DCL-09-22, Private Collection 
Agencies and Redirection of Payments. This DCL indicated that OCSE had 
been alerted to the fact that some PCAs have instructed employers to 
redirect child support payments away from a State Disbursement Unit 
(SDU) to a PCA. In accordance with sections 454B, 466(a)(1)(A), 
466(a)(8), and 466(b)(5) of the Act, payments in all IV-D cases and in 
non-IV-D cases in which the initial support order was issued on or 
after January 1, 1994 and in which the obligor's income is subject to 
wage withholding must be paid through the SDU.
    5. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the answer to 
question one in PIQ 03-05 conflicts with the NPRM, and should be 
changed.
    Response: We agree. PIQ-03-05, Guidance on Private Collection 
Agencies--Agent of a Child and Third Party Address for Correspondence 
addressed inquiries requesting clarification on issues related to PCAs. 
The PIQ indicated that because ``agent of a child'' was not defined, a 
``for profit, private collection agency or private attorney could act 
as an `agent of a child' provided it has a valid contract that meets 
the State's statutory and regulatory requirements for acting as an 
agent, if any,'' and was thus authorized, under section 453(b)(1) and 
(c), to access confidential information from the Federal and State PLS.
    This final rule adds a definition of ``agent of a child.'' Under 
the definition of ``agent of a child,'' a PCA no longer qualifies as an 
authorized person to receive confidential and personally identifiable 
information. In the final rule ``agent of a child'' means a caretaker 
relative having custody of or responsibility for the child. We will 
revise the PIQ after publication of the final rule to ensure 
consistency with the regulation.
    6. Comment: The proposed effective date for changes is not 
sufficient time to implement the changes. The commenter expressed 
concerns about the difficulty for States to implement the final rule as 
published on September 26, 2008 and then implement this final rule.
    Response: The delay in implementation of the final rule published 
on September 26, 2008 was necessitated by the concerns raised by 
Departmental officials and commenters. We believe that the differences 
in the proposed and final regulation are not so great that the 
implementation cannot be accomplished. OCSE is prepared to provide 
assistance to States as needed.

Section 301.1, ``Agent of a Child'' Definition

    1. Comment: Many commenters agreed with the inclusion of 
``caretaker relative'' in the definition of ``agent of a child.'' Other 
commenters suggested removing ``relative'' from the definition, and a 
few commenters proposed narrowing the definition to include only a 
court-appointed conservator or guardian ad litem. One commenter 
suggested adding ``non-parent relative'' to the definition.
    Response: As noted in the preamble to the NPRM, ``caretaker 
relative'' is a longstanding term used in the TANF program and 
recognizes the practical reality that children are sometimes left in 
the care of a relative even though the relative may not have been 
appointed by a court. This language allows appropriate family members 
to advocate for the child's best interests. The definition also 
prohibits PCAs, which may have financial motives separate, or even 
adverse to the child's best interests, from acting as the child's 
agent. We did not see the need to provide a specific definition for 
legal guardian.
    2. Comment: One commenter agreed with our definition, but 
questioned whether a Tribal IV-D agency's ability to access the Federal 
PLS is supported by the definition of ``agent of a child.''
    Response: We agree and have revised the final rule to clarify that 
a Tribal IV-D agency's authority to access information contained in the 
Federal PLS and State PLS is at newly added language at Sec.  
302.35(c)(1) which includes a Tribal IV-D agency as an authorized 
program.

Section 301.1, ``Attorney of a Child'' Definition

    1. Comment: In the NPRM, we specifically sought comments on whether 
to add a definition of ``attorney of a child'' to the final rule. 
Several commenters thought a definition was necessary for ``attorney of 
a child'' for various reasons. Some commenters thought that it was 
important to clarify that attorney, as referenced in section 453(c)(3) 
of the Act refers to attorney of a child, not an attorney for either 
parent. Other commenters thought it was important that OCSE adopt a 
definition that requires assurance of a genuine attorney-client 
relationship that creates an ethical obligation to represent the best 
interests of the child. Another commenter stated that the language in 
the NPRM regarding the phrase ``attorney of a child,'' was too broad 
and needed to be defined.
    Response: We are persuaded that a definition is necessary, and we 
have revised Sec.  301.1 to provide the following definition: 
``Attorney of a child means a licensed lawyer who has entered into an 
attorney-client relationship with either the child or the child's 
resident parent to provide legal representation to the child or 
resident parent related to the establishment of paternity, or the 
establishment, modification, or enforcement of child support. An 
attorney-client relationship imposes an ethical and fiduciary duty upon 
the attorney to represent the client's best interests under applicable 
rules of professional responsibility.'' (Please note that ``resident 
parent'' is also referred to as ``custodial parent''.)

Section 302.35--Parent Locator Service

    1. Comment: One commenter correctly noted that although Sec. Sec.  
302.35(a) and (b) were not open for comment, a clarification was 
necessary to add ``non-parent relative'' to authorize disclosure of 
locate information for title IV-B and title IV-E purposes in Sec.  
302.35(a)(2) consistent with the change made to Sec.  302.35(d)(2).
    Response: We agree with this comment and made this technical 
correction to the final rule at Sec.  302.35(a)(2)(i) to read, ``The 
State PLS

[[Page 81898]]

shall access and release information authorized to be disclosed under 
section 453(a)(2) and 453(j)(3) of the Act from the Federal PLS and, in 
accordance with State law, information from relevant in-State sources 
of information and records, as appropriate, for locating custodial 
parents, noncustodial parents, non-parent relatives, and children upon 
request of authorized individuals specified in paragraph (c) of this 
section, for authorized purposes specified in paragraph (d) of this 
section.'' An additional change was made to Sec.  302.35(a)(2)(i) that 
authorizes disclosure of information about relatives of children 
involved in IV-B and/or IV-E cases in accordance with the Fostering 
Connections Act.
    2. Comment: One commenter said that the language at Sec.  302.35(c) 
and Appendix A indicates that a request involving a child not receiving 
IV-A assistance is a non-IV-D requests. Many children who are not 
receiving IV-A assistance are participants in a IV-D case.
    Response: We agree that many children who are not receiving IV-A 
assistance may be participants in a IV-D case. However, this authorized 
purpose of the request example is specific to non-IV-D child support 
cases. The language is based on section 453(c)(3) of the Act.
    3. Comment: One commenter, although supportive of the goal of 
denying access to Federal PLS information to a PCA, proposed that we do 
not delete Sec.  302.35(c)(3)(iii) since it did not solely apply to 
PCAs, and also required evidence of a relationship between the 
requestor and the child. Another commenter suggested that it is not 
burdensome to request an attestation that the requestors are who they 
purport to be, especially when it comes to releasing confidential 
information. This same commenter suggested that we add ``resident'' to 
the regulatory language.
    Response: We agree with the commenters and have added Sec.  
302.35(c)(3)(iii) requiring an attestation from a resident parent, 
legal guardian, attorney, or agent of a child. The addition of 
``resident'' is appropriate as it is consistent with the statutory 
language. Section 453(c)(3) of the Act includes the definition of 
``authorized person'' as a resident parent. The final rule at Sec.  
302.35(c)(3)(iii) is amended to read: ``Attests that the requestor is 
the resident parent, legal guardian, or attorney, or agent of a child 
not receiving assistance under title IV-A.''
    4. Comment: Many commenters were pleased with broadened disclosure 
of information allowed by Sec.  302.35(d) for the disclosure of an 
individual's location, income, employment benefits, assets, debts, 
child support history, Family Violence Indicator (FVI), and other 
confidential information not only for parents, but non-parent relatives 
as well. One commenter explained that the broadened purposes will 
assist in carrying out IV-B and IV-E's responsibility to administer 
their programs.
    Other commenters wanted to limit disclosure to non-parent relatives 
and were primarily concerned with privacy for family violence victims. 
One commenter who wanted to limit disclosure expressed concern that the 
option for State IV-D agencies to share with other child welfare 
agencies a broader range of data elements than available in the Federal 
PLS raises safety, information reliability, and privacy concerns for 
domestic violence victims.
    One commenter prefers limiting data access to ``the extent 
necessary'' to achieve an authorized purpose. The commenter elaborated 
that this language would protect the privacy rights of individuals as 
information regarding an individual's assets and debts would rarely be 
necessary to establish parental rights, and the availability of health 
insurance would not be relevant towards locating a non-parent relative 
for placement of a child.
    Response: Section 105 of the Fostering Connections Act amended 
section 453(j)(3) of the Social Security Act to expand the authority 
for information comparisons and disclosures of information from the 
Federal PLS for title IV program purposes to include child welfare and 
foster care programs funded under IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security 
Act. The law authorizes disclosure of information in the Federal PLS 
and State PLS to conduct data matches and share data with child welfare 
agencies ``to the extent and with the frequency that the Secretary 
determines to be effective in assisting States to carry out their 
responsibilities under this part [D], part B or E, and programs funded 
under part A.'' This final rule reflects the extent to which that data 
matching and sharing is appropriate in assisting States to carry out 
their responsibilities.
    The purpose of broadening disclosure of information about non-
parent relatives is to promote communication and efficiency between 
title IV agencies. Many of the commenters realized this and were 
pleased with the policy. Some commenters were justifiably concerned 
about disclosing information in family violence cases. The Act 
addresses their concerns. Under sections 453(b)(2) and (3), 454(8), and 
454(26) of the Act, no information may be disseminated regarding a 
family violence case. Section 453(b)(2) of the Act states that ``* * * 
No information shall be disclosed if the State has notified the 
Secretary that the State has reasonable evidence of domestic violence 
or child abuse and the disclosure of such information could be harmful 
to the custodial parent or the child of such parent * * *.'' Please 
refer to the ``Limitations'' column in Appendices A, B, and C. This 
statutory limitation is reflected in Appendices A, B, and C. 
Additionally, the final rule at sections 302.35(e) and 303.21(e) 
published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2008 [73 FR 56422] 
prohibits the release of information when the State has reasonable 
evidence of domestic violence or child abuse.
    We take these requirements very seriously and are committed to 
ensuring that information is not shared that might jeopardize the 
safety of an individual thought to be a victim of family violence or 
child abuse. The intention of the FVI is to protect the victim whether 
the victim is the child, the custodial parent or the noncustodial 
parent. We are working closely with the Family and Youth Services 
Bureau, Family Violence Prevention and Services Program in the 
Administration for Children and Families on this critical issue. We 
also plan to reach out to domestic violence programs in developing 
guidance and training. In fact, we currently lead a Domestic Violence 
Collaboration Work Group which includes representatives from the 
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and the Family Violence 
Prevention and Services Program.
    5. Comment: Two commenters stated that these final regulations 
should clarify that States will provide assurances that their title IV-
D and IV-E agencies will collaborate, through an interagency agreement, 
to ensure that child welfare agencies safely and appropriately handle 
cases with an FVI flag. These agreements should address the manner and 
information to be shared. In addition, required training should address 
confidentiality, the impact of family violence, post-traumatic stress 
disorder, and cultural competency. OCSE and the Children's Bureau 
should consider issuing a joint guidance to assist States in crafting 
interagency agreements.
    Response: We agree that when there is data sharing between two 
agencies, an interagency agreement strengthens the integrity of 
safeguarding the information between the agencies involved. Interagency 
training between IV-D, IV-B and IV-E agencies is appropriate to

[[Page 81899]]

ensure proper implementation of this final regulation. As we work to 
operationalize these regulations, we will develop joint guidance with 
our Federal counterparts in the child welfare and domestic violence 
programs on interagency agreements and conduct extensive outreach to 
State child support and child welfare programs.
    6. Comment: Two commenters opposed establishing separate standards 
for disclosure for the Federal PLS and State PLS. One commenter 
requested that the regulations or other Federal guidance make clear, 
when referring to State IV-B and IV-E agencies for the purpose of 
receiving information under the proposed regulations, that political 
subdivisions of the State should be considered.
    Response: The Federal PLS is not part of the State PLS. Requests 
for information from the Federal PLS must flow through the State PLS, 
and each State's standards are different based on sources of 
information each State receives in accordance with the State's law. For 
example, some States may have additional enforcement remedies that do 
not exist in the Federal PLS, such as seizure of lottery or gambling 
winnings. In addition, States administer the placement of children 
involved in IV-B and IV-E cases, and must abide by minimum Federal 
guidelines. States have broad discretion to implement their IV-B and 
IV-E programs, as long as they comport with the minimum Federal 
guidelines.
    7. Comment: The regulation should acknowledge that establishing 
parental rights is part of assisting States to carry out their 
responsibilities under IV-B and IV-E.
    Response: We agree that establishing parental rights is part of 
assisting States to carry out their responsibilities under titles IV-B 
and IV-E of the Act. We will work with our IV-B and IV-E colleagues in 
defining States' program responsibilities.
    8. Comment: Two commenters raised a number of questions about 
information that is gathered as part of the application process for 
child support services and kept on file at the child support agency. 
These commenters wanted to know: What type of case-specific information 
is currently entered and retained in OCSE databases; whether location 
information could be separated from other types of information in the 
databases; if notice is provided to IV-D clients about the types of 
information entered and retained in the databases, and with whom and 
for what purposes may it be shared. The commenters also wanted to know 
whether there are opportunities available for the person providing the 
information to view and correct inaccuracies before sharing occurs; if 
informed consent is provided prior to OCSE sharing information with 
other agencies; if the client has the ability to limit any aspect of 
data sharing, and whether IV-D workers could be subject to a subpoena 
in child welfare cases in which decisions were made based on data 
secured from the OCSE database.
    Response: Applications for child support services, although 
developed by each State agency, must contain Federally required data 
elements which are uploaded onto the State's automated system. OCSE's 
databases, such as the National Directory of New Hires and the Federal 
Case Registry must have system of records notices that provide notice 
to the public with respect to the collection of information on 
individuals and procedures for contesting the accuracy of a record. The 
system of records notices are currently in the process of being updated 
and should be in effect prior to the effective date of this rule. Also, 
see the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act notice on the Internal 
Revenue Service form W-4 form, available at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf.
    Additionally, location information can be separated from other 
types of data. Many States have a generic disclosure statement 
regarding the information collected on individuals and with whom it may 
be shared. States also proactively urge clients to update demographic 
information. A growing trend among States is the establishment of 
customer service Web sites which permit and/or encourage clients to 
review and update other information in the State's database.
    Informed consent is not provided prior to OCSE sharing information 
with other agencies. Title IV-B and IV-E agencies are authorized by law 
to access this information under section 453(j)(3) of the Act for the 
purpose of carrying out their programs. Redisclosure of information is 
not addressed in this rule. Presently, such information must be 
independently verified before redisclosure by the IV-B or IV-E agency 
is permitted.
    9. Comment: One commenter stated that 42 U.S.C. 653(j) clearly 
seemed to contemplate that not only will the IV-D agency share 
matches--the pairing of a known identity with additional elements--but 
it also will disclose information, including the identity of a person 
who may not previously have been known, to the IV-B and IV-E agency.
    Response: This final regulation authorizes the sharing of 
information with IV-B and IV-E agencies available through the State PLS 
to locate relatives for potential placement of a child removed from 
parental custody, to place siblings in groups, and to otherwise assist 
State agencies in permanency planning activities. Information which may 
be disclosed about a child or a relative of children involved in IV-B 
and IV-E cases is limited to name, SSN, most recent address, employer 
name, and address and employer identification number. To the extent 
that a relative is ``identified'' through use of the Federal PLS and 
the State PLS, that information may be shared with IV-B and IV-E 
agencies. This final regulation also authorizes the sharing of 
information with IV-B and IV-E agencies available from the statewide 
automated system pursuant to section 454A(f)(3) of the Act, to assist 
such programs to carry out program functions.
    Child welfare agencies do not have direct access to statewide child 
support automated systems to permit IV-B and IV-E caseworkers to search 
for data. Only certain IV-D staff have direct access to the Federal 
PLS. Courts and other programs do not. State IV-A, IV-B, and IV-E 
agencies will work together to develop appropriate transactions for an 
automated information exchange between the agencies to ensure adherence 
to proper data safeguarding standards as set forth in this regulation.
    10. Comment: One commenter said that New York State is a State-
supervised, county administered State. The commenter would like to know 
explicitly how the process of access to information from the State PLS 
would function in that State. The commenter also asked whether the 
information would be available directly to the local departments of 
Social Services, and how requests for information would be transmitted 
and received.
    Response: We acknowledge that States organize and operate their 
programs differently. OCSE is currently in discussions with our Federal 
counterparts in the child welfare and domestic violence programs to 
develop broad based implementing guidance that States can use in their 
specific operational environments.
    11. Comment: One commenter asked if the final regulation imposes 
any limitations on redisclosure of information by local departments of 
social services in performing their child welfare functions.
    Response: We direct the commenter to Appendix A. Whether 
redisclosure is permitted depends upon the purpose of the inquiry, and 
the agency requesting the data. Title IV-B and IV-E agencies are 
authorized by law to access this

[[Page 81900]]

information for the purpose of carrying out their programs. 
Redisclosure of information is not addressed in this rule. Presently, 
such information needs to be independently verified before redisclosure 
is permitted. OCSE and its counterparts in Federal child welfare and 
domestic violence programs will provide instructions in the future.
    12. Comment: One commenter noted that currently there is a jointly-
issued administrative directive which references how referrals for 
locating absent parents travel from child welfare to local IV-D units. 
The local IV-D units access Federal PLS and State PLS and return 
information back to local child welfare agencies. The commenter would 
like to see a new jointly-issued administrative directive as a result 
of the publication of this final rule.
    Response: We agree that the jointly issued directive: ACYF-CB-IM-
07-06/OCSE-IM-07-06, Appropriate Referrals, Requests for Location 
Services, Child Support Applications, and Electronic Interface between 
Child Welfare and Child Support Enforcement Agencies, issued on 
September 6, 2007, is an important document for the interoperability of 
the child support, domestic violence, and child welfare programs. We 
will collaborate with the Administration on Children, Youth and 
Families of HHS to update this joint document as appropriate.
    13. Comment: One commenter suggested that the purpose of disclosure 
should guide the amount of information disclosed rather than the 
specific relative relationship between the requester and the child. The 
commenter supported the broader disclosure regulated at Sec.  
302.35(d)(1) and the more limited disclosure regulated at Sec.  
302.35(d)(2).
    Response: We agree with the commenter. As provided in the 
regulation, the purpose of a request does control the nature of the 
data disclosed. The Appendices provide guidance as to the information 
that may be disclosed and the agencies to which the information may be 
disclosed depending on the purpose for which the information is being 
requested.
    14. Comment: One commenter stated that title IV-B and IV-E agencies 
should be provided with at least the six pieces of information [name, 
Social Security Number, address, employer's name, employer's address, 
and employer identification number]. The commenter also encouraged the 
sharing of additional contact information, such as telephone numbers 
and e-mail addresses, if the Federal PLS or State PLS maintains these 
sources of information.
    Response: The final regulation at Sec.  302.35(d)(2) clearly 
establishes that for the purposes of assisting States to carry out 
their responsibilities to administer the IV-B and IV-E programs, the 
information that may be disclosed with respect to a child or relative 
of a child involved in a IV-B or IV-E case is limited to: Name, SSN, 
most recent address, employer name and address, and employer 
identification number. The Federal PLS does not maintain additional 
contact information such as telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. 
Additionally, if the case has an FVI marker, then no information about 
the case may be shared for any reason. Section 453(b)(2) of the Act 
says: ``no information shall be disclosed if the State has reasonable 
evidence of domestic violence or child abuse and the disclosure of such 
information could be harmful to the custodial parent or the child.'' 
Information from cases marked with the FVI may be released to a court 
or an agent of a court pursuant to the procedure set forth in section 
453(b)(2)(A) and (B).
    15. Comment: One commenter stated that child welfare agencies do 
not need extensive information if their intent is to locate 
noncustodial parents, or to identify and/or locate grandparents or 
other relatives to carry out the purpose of the IV-B or IV-E program. 
The commenter encourages sharing any other contact information such as 
telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, if they are maintained on the 
State PLS or Federal PLS.
    Response: As stated above, the information that may be disclosed 
about a child or relative of a child involved in a IV-B or IV-E case is 
limited to name, SSN, most recent address, employer name and address, 
and employer identification number.
    16. Comment: One commenter noted that section 453(j)(3) of the Act 
directs the Secretary to disclose Federal PLS information to State 
agencies and the regulation directs the State PLS to disclose 
confidential information only from in-State sources regarding non-
parent relatives; the regulation also excludes IV-B and IV-E agencies 
from receiving Federal PLS information regarding non-parent relatives. 
The commenter questioned the statutory authority for Sec.  
302.35(d)(2). The commenter recommended deleting Sec.  302.35(d)(2) 
because the lack of a clear statutory basis creates liability for State 
IV-D agencies.
    Response: We disagree that there is not a clear statutory basis for 
the disclosure of information at Sec.  302.35(d)(2). The Fostering 
Connections Act amended section 453(j)(3) of the Act to include IV-B 
and IV-E agencies. While certain IV-D staff have direct access to the 
Federal PLS; courts and other programs do not have access. Requests for 
information from the Federal PLS must flow through the State PLS. 
Federal PLS information is not excluded.
    17. Comment: Two commenters said that if data was exchanged between 
child support and child welfare agencies through an interagency 
agreement, provisions for implementation and enforcement of privacy and 
family violence safety protections should be required. This final rule 
should mandate the provisions to be included in the interagency 
agreements to facilitate compliance with the safeguarding rules. Those 
agreements should also contain provisions for informed consent to 
disclosures.
    Response: As stated earlier in this preamble, when there is data 
sharing between two agencies, an interagency agreement strengthens the 
integrity of the agencies involved to safeguard the information. 
Intergovernmental agreements support the integrity and security of an 
intergovernmental system when data is shared. Any interagency agreement 
should contain provisions that comport with this final rule. 
Disclosures under section 453 of the Act do not require consent of the 
individual. Such disclosures are considered to be a routine use of the 
information collected under the Privacy Act.
    18. Comment: One commenter noted that the Children's Bureau 
recently issued guidance on The Fostering Connections Act, encouraging 
States to employ a consistent definition of ``relative'' for the 
purposes of any guardianship assistance program and any notification 
that is carried out pursuant to The Fostering Connections Act. States 
are permitted to include non-blood relatives or ``fictive kin'' when 
defining ``relative.'' The commenter suggests States be provided the 
latitude to use ``fictive kin'' when implementing this rule.
    Response: OCSE defers to States' definitions of ``relative.''

Section 303.21--Safeguarding and Disclosure of Confidential Information

    1. Comment: One commenter stated that under Sec.  303.21(d)(1), the 
IV-D agency is not required to provide locate services to other State 
agencies performing duties under title IV, XIX, XXI, and SNAP if it is 
determined that doing so would interfere with the IV-D agency meeting 
its own obligations. The commenter said that the same provision should 
apply when providing location

[[Page 81901]]

information to authorized individuals in non-IV-D cases under section 
Sec.  302.35.
    Response: The statutory change made by The Fostering Connections 
Act contemplates that child support agencies will exchange data with 
IV-B and IV-E programs.
    2. Comment: One commenter said that the response to comment 32, 
page 56437 of the final rule, published on September 26, 2008, implies 
that before IV-D agencies can disclose address or employment 
information received from the FCR or NDNH to the Medicaid agency, the 
IV-D agency is expected to verify the information through postal 
verifications or wages.
    Response: The response to comment 32 in the final rule published on 
September 26, 2008, was meant as an example. We used postal 
verification in that instance for illustrative purposes only. 
Independent verification, as defined in Sec.  303.21(a)(2), is still 
valid: ``Independent verification is the process of acquiring and 
confirming confidential information through the use of a second source. 
The information from the second source, which verifies the information 
about NDNH or FCR data, may be released to those authorized to inspect 
and use the information as authorized under the regulations or the 
Act.'' This final rule did not change Sec.  303.21(a)(2).

Section 303.70--Procedures for Submissions to the State Parent Locator 
Service (State PLS) or the Federal Parent Locator Service (Federal PLS)

    1. Comment: One commenter noted that although not open for comment, 
Sec.  303.70(d)(1) needs to be revised to correspond with the change 
intended to permit location information for non-parent relatives. The 
paragraph refers to information to be provided to parents and putative 
parents. Without corresponding changes, the commenter noted conflicts 
may arise in providing non-parent relative information to IV-D and IV-B 
agencies.
    Response: We agree that a conforming change is appropriate and have 
made the corresponding change. The final regulation at Sec.  
303.70(d)(1) now reads: ``The parent's, putative father's or non-parent 
relative's name; * * *.''
    2. Comment: One commenter observed that State IV-D directors are 
required to annually attest that the State IV-D agency only will obtain 
information from the Federal PLS that meets Federal requirements. Any 
conflict in requirements for State PLS and Federal PLS increases the 
risks for States that must interpret and apply the law correctly.
    Response: States should continue to be diligent in meeting 
requirements and assessing risks. States are responsible for applying 
these laws.

Section 307.13--Security and confidentiality for computerized support 
enforcement systems in operation after October 1, 1997

    1. Comment: One commenter stated that the automated systems guide 
requires States to have data exchanges with title XXI for establishing 
and enforcing medical support. The elements include address, name, 
employer, and employer address. In Florida, all SSNs are verified by 
the Federal Case Registry (FCR). The FCR is the only verification 
source used for SSNs. Under the new requirements, States will be 
required to reprogram systems to identify each data element's 
verification source, isolate National Directory for New Hires (NDNH) 
and FCR sources and only exchange data that does not have a 
verification source of NDNH and FCR. The commenter further explained 
that the final rule in 2008 (73 FR 56437, response to comment 42) 
stated that independent verification is not required but ``is merely a 
condition that must be met if the State wishes to use or disclose 
information for non-IV-D purposes to non-authorized persons. There is 
no such restriction in IV-D cases.'' That rule says that IV-D agencies 
are required to exchange information with title XIX and SSI using the 
automated system and would not require independent verification because 
it was used for IV-D purposes. Is that still the case or does this new 
rule supersede that?
    Response: This rule revised only certain sections of the State 
Parent Locator Services, Safeguarding Child Support Information; Final 
Rule that was published on September 26, 2008. This final rule does not 
change the fact that child support agencies may exchange data from the 
automated child support system with title XIX and title IV programs 
under section 454A(f)(3) of the Act, and sections 303.21(d)(1) and 
307.13(a)(3) and (4), without independent verification. The only 
limitation in the final rule is that IRS information must be 
independently verified before being exchanged with title IV or title 
XIX programs and MSFIDM data may not be shared, even if independently 
verified. Therefore, this final rule does not supersede the final rule 
published on September 26, 2008 [73 FR 56422] as it relates to data 
exchanges with title XIX agencies. Regarding the SSI program, SDNH 
information may be shared for benefits eligibility verification 
pursuant to section 453A(h)(2)
    2. Comment: One commenter was pleased to see the inclusion of SNAP 
on the list of authorized recipients of child support information. 
Another commenter questioned the different requirements for disclosure 
in Sec.  307.13(a)(3) and Sec.  307.13(a)(4)(iii) and Sec.  
307.13(a)(4)(iv).
    Response: The commenter was correct that there are different 
requirements for disclosure under Sec.  307.13(a)(3) and Sec.  
307.13(a)(4)(iii) and Sec.  307.13(a)(4)(iv). Under Sec.  307.13(a)(3), 
information may be disclosed to Medicaid, SNAP, and CHIP to the extent 
necessary to carry out their program responsibilities to the extent 
that the information disclosure does not interfere with the IV-D 
program meeting its own obligations. Under Sec.  307.13(a)(4), the 
disclosure of NDNH, FCR, FIDM, and IRS information may not be shared 
outside the program except with IV-B and IV-E agencies. Under section 
454A(f)(3) of the Act, the Secretary has designated the title IV 
programs and thus authorized the release of that information to title 
IV programs. Title IV-B and IV-E programs are within the scope of the 
authority as set forth by those delegations.

Appendices

    1. Comment: One commenter said that in the final rule published on 
September 26, 2008, the response to comment 39 stated that not all 
information received from the FCR is part of the FCR database and not 
subject to independent verification. Appendix A does not specify which 
data elements available from the FCR are subject to independent 
verification and which are not subject to independent verification. The 
commenter further explained that States need specific information on 
which data elements in which automated files are subject to independent 
verification.
    Response: The data that is subject to independent verification is 
dependent upon several factors. The charts in the Appendices to this 
final rule are intended to assist the States in determining what data 
can be shared with which agencies from the different systems of 
information available to the State. i.e., the automated statewide child 
support enforcement system, the State PLS, or the State Directory of 
New Hires, and for which purposes. OCSE will continue to assist States 
in ensuring that their statewide child support enforcement systems are 
programmed to be compliant with these data safeguarding rules.
    2. Comment: One commenter said that the language in the 
``Limitations'' column in Appendix A that states, ``no

[[Page 81902]]

Internal Revenue Service information provided for non-IV-D cases unless 
independently verified'' should be eliminated because IRS tax 
information cannot be disclosed for any reason, IV-D or non-IV-D, 
unless obtained by a third party. The preamble to the rule published on 
September 26, 2008 states: ``There is no way to independently verify 
Federal Tax refund offset information. We continue to work with the 
Department of Treasury and the Congress to resolve this issue.''
    Response: We are not persuaded that this language should be 
eliminated from the Appendix. Independent verification, as defined in 
Sec.  303.21(a)(2), is still valid and reads: ``Independent 
verification is the process of acquiring and confirming confidential 
information through the use of a second source. The information from 
the second source, which verifies the information about NDNH or FCR 
data, may be released to those authorized to inspect and use the 
information as authorized under the regulations or the Act.''
    3. Comment: One commenter requested changes to the ``Limitations'' 
column in Appendix A. The commenter said that multi-State and in-State 
financial institution information is not available for non-IV-D cases. 
The wording in the Limitation ``provide for non-IV-D cases'' implies 
that State IV-D agencies are required to disclose Financial Institution 
Data Match (FIDM) information for non-IV-D cases. The suggestion was to 
revise the text to clarify that FIDM information cannot be disclosed 
outside of the IV-D program to any entity for any purpose. The same 
comment applies to resident parents, legal guardians, and attorneys.
    Response: We disagree and have not amended the ``Limitations'' 
column. Please note that the column states ``no multistate institution 
data match (MSFIDM) and no State Financial Institution Data Match 
(FIDM) provided for non-IV-D cases.''
    4. Comment: One commenter stated that the last row of the Appendix 
A, which refers to IV-B and IV-E receiving information on relatives of 
children, include both Federal PLS and State PLS as sources, but the 
regulatory language at Sec.  302.35(d)(2) does not include Federal PLS.
    Response: The regulatory language at Sec.  302.35(d)(2) references 
Sec.  302.35(d)(1) which states that information through the Federal 
PLS may be provided. The Appendix is accurate as it relates to Federal 
and State PLS as sources of information.
    5. Comment: One commenter suggests that Tribal IV-D agencies be 
listed as a separate ``authorized person/program'' in Appendix A 
because it appears as if Tribal agencies have different access and 
limitations than those who would fall under ``non-IV-D requests.''
    Response: Tribal IV-D agencies may acquire FIDM information through 
their State counterparts provided they have an interagency agreement in 
effect with the State. Many Tribal IV-D programs have these agreements 
in place and are receiving the information. We do not agree that Tribal 
IV-D agencies should be listed as a separate ``authorized person/
program'' and have not made that change to the Appendix.
    6. Comment: One commenter noted that PIQ-07-02/PIQT-07-02, FFP for 
State Automated Systems Costs related to Service Agreements with Tribal 
IV-D Programs; Submitting Tribal IV-D cases for Federal Tax Refund 
Offset; and Submitting Requests to the Federal Parent Locator Service 
(FPLS) in Tribal IV-D states that access to information from a source 
other than the IRS can be provided to Tribal IV-D programs. However, 
Appendix A indicates that no MSFIDM can be provided for non-IV-D cases. 
Can that information be disclosed to Tribal agencies?
    Response: Tribal IV-D programs do not have direct access to the 
Federal PLS. However, Tribal IV-D programs may access information from 
the Federal PLS through an interagency agreement with the State in 
accordance with the change made to section 302.35(c)(1). Should a 
Tribal IV-D program enter into an interagency agreement with the State 
for access to this information, it is bound by these safeguarding 
regulations as noted in Footnote 2 to Appendix A. For additional 
information, see PIQT 10-01.
    7. Comment: One commenter noted that the Appendix A limitations 
include ``child not receiving IV-A benefits'' and that attestation and 
evidence are required for Tribal IV-D programs. Is the intent that a 
Tribal IV-D program request associated with a child not receiving 
benefits not be honored? Is the intent that attestation, evidence, and 
a fee, be required for Tribal IV-D program access?
    Response: The commenter correctly points out that Tribal IV-D 
programs should be included in the list of those considered as an 
authorized program. We agree and added new language to Sec.  
302.35(c)(1) which indicates that a Tribal IV-D agency that provides 
child support services under an approved Tribal IV-D plan and has an 
intergovernmental agreement in place with a State for the provision of 
Federal PLS services, is an authorized program and may request locate 
information from the State PLS. For additional information, see PIQT 
10-01.
    8. Comment: One commenter noted that Appendix C describes the 
disclosure of broader information to potentially multiple agencies. The 
Appendix does not include ``Footnote 1'' on limitations that is in both 
Appendices A and B. That footnote should be in Appendix C.
    Response: We agree. In this final rule, the footnote was added to 
Appendix C and now reads: ``No information shall be disclosed if the 
disclosure of such information would contravene the national policy or 
security interests of the United States or the confidentiality of 
census data. No information shall be disclosed if the State has 
reasonable evidence of domestic violence or child abuse and the 
disclosure of such information could be harmful to the CP or child. See 
sections 453(b)(2) and 454(26) of the Act for the process of releasing 
information to a court or agent of a court.''

[[Page 81903]]



                                          Appendix A--Locating Individuals Through the State PLS Sec.   302.35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Persons about whom
     Authorized person/program        Authorized purpose of    information may b