Rule2022-11391
Paternity Establishment Percentage Performance Relief
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 27, 2022
Effective
May 27, 2022
Issuing agencies
Health and Human Services DepartmentChildren and Families Administration
Abstract
Due to the impact of the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) on State child support program operations, OCSE modifies the Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP) from the 90 percent performance threshold to 50 percent for Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2020, 2021, and 2022 in order for a State to avoid a financial penalty. OCSE also provides that adverse findings of data reliability audits of a State's paternity establishment data will not result in a financial penalty in FFYs 2020, 2021, and 2022.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 103 (Friday, May 27, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32090-32094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11391]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Part 305
RIN 0970-AC86
Paternity Establishment Percentage Performance Relief
AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for
Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Due to the impact of the COVID-19 public health emergency
(PHE) on State child support program operations, OCSE modifies the
Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP) from the 90 percent
performance threshold to 50 percent for Federal Fiscal Years (FFY)
2020, 2021, and 2022 in order for a State to avoid a financial penalty.
OCSE also provides that adverse findings of data reliability audits of
a State's paternity establishment data will not result in a financial
penalty in FFYs 2020, 2021, and 2022.
DATES: This rule is effective on May 27, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Smith, Senior Advisor, OCSE
Division of Policy and Training, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#76191505135812060236171510581e1e0558111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="127d7161773c766266527371743c7a7a613c757d64">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 401-
5679. Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual
Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern
Time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Authority
This rule is published under the authority granted to the Secretary
of Health and Human Services by section 1102 of the Social Security Act
(the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1302). Section 1102 of the Act authorizes the
Secretary to publish regulations not inconsistent with the Act as may
be necessary for the efficient administration of the functions with
which the Secretary is responsible under the Act. The relief from the
PEP performance penalty under this rule is based on statutory authority
granted under section 452(g)(3)(A) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 652(g)(3)(A)).
II. Background
This rule provides targeted and time-limited relief to States from
penalties due to the impact of the national PHE caused by COVID-19 on
State program performance. The pandemic has had an enormous adverse
impact on child support services delivered by States under title IV-D
of the Act, especially on paternity/parentage establishment, a core
function of the child support program under section 452(a)(1) of the
Act.
A State's paternity establishment performance, measured using the
PEP, is a federally required performance measure under section 452(g)
of the Act. Penalties related to the PEP performance measure are
imposed as a reduction in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) program funding to States.
Section 452(g)(3) of the Act authorizes the Secretary ``to take
into account such additional variables as the Secretary
[[Page 32091]]
identifies (including the percentage of children in a State who are
born out of wedlock or for whom support has not been established) that
affect the ability of a State to meet the [PEP performance measures]
requirements of [section 452(g) of the Act].'' The effect of the COVID-
19 PHE on States is one such additional variable due to the
unprecedented nature and scope of the pandemic's impact on the child
support program.
FFY 2020 data indicated PEP performance declined for 41 States
during the pandemic, with approximately one-third of States subject to
a financial penalty if they did not take sufficient corrective action
in FFY 2021. FFY 2021 preliminary data indicate that nine of the States
that faced a financial penalty for PEP performance for FFY 2020, along
with four new States, would be assessed penalties without this rule.
In this rule, OCSE modifies the required PEP to a lower performance
threshold of 50 percent for FFYs 2020, 2021, and 2022 and sets aside
adverse data reliability audit findings related to PEP. This allows
States that are not able to meet the PEP performance measure and data
reliability audit requirements to avoid the financial penalty for FFYs
2020, 2021, and 2022 when the pandemic had its greatest impact on the
child support program. Based on preliminary performance data submitted
by States for FFY 2020 and 2021, a PEP level of 50 percent will ensure
that no State will be subject to a financial penalty while State agency
operations are disrupted due to the ongoing PHE.
This rule is time-limited and data-informed to provide relief
narrowly and specifically in response to the ongoing PHE for FFYs 2020,
2021, and 2022. After the relief period, starting for FFY 2023, the PEP
performance thresholds will revert back to the usual levels described
under section 452(g) of the Act and 45 CFR 305.40(a)(1), and States
will once again be subject to penalties for adverse data reliability
audit findings related to the PEP measure after an automatic corrective
action year as specified in 45 CFR 305.42.
The relief in this final rule maintains the integrity of the system
of performance, audit, penalties, and incentives that has driven
success and accountability in the child support program for over two
decades. The regulation provides relief from the PEP measure and data
reliability audit penalties but does not otherwise change the process
for other performance measures, data collection, and reporting, audits,
or incentives.
III. Summary Description of the Regulatory Provision
The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the
Federal Register on October 19, 2021 (86 FR 57770 through 57773). The
comment period ended November 18, 2021.
OCSE received 26 sets of comments from States, organizations, and
other interested entities and individuals, which were posted on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
Section 305.61: Penalty for Failure To Meet IV-D Requirements
In the NPRM, we proposed to add a new provision to Part 305,
``Program Performance Measures, Standards, Financial Incentives and
Penalties,'' to provide short-term relief from financial penalties
related to the PEP measure due to the impact of the COVID-19 PHE on
State IV-D operations. Specifically, we proposed adding a new paragraph
(e) to Sec. 305.61, ``Penalty for failure to meet IV-D requirements,''
to modify the criteria by which States are subject to financial
penalties for the PEP requirements. The modified criteria are that the
acceptable performance level of PEP measure under Sec. 305.40(a)(1) is
reduced from 90 percent to 50 percent and the adverse findings of data
reliability audits of a State's paternity establishment data under
Sec. 305.60 will not result in a financial penalty. The modifications,
as proposed, are applicable to FFYs 2020 and 2021. In the NPRM, we
specifically requested public comment on the timeframe for the relief
and whether the relief period should be extended to include FFY 2022.
The vast majority of commenters supported the proposed relief and
supported the extension of the timeframe to FFY 2022. We received one
comment from an individual opposed to the regulation all together and a
comment supporting the relief but not the extension of the relief
period to FFY 2022. In drafting the final rule, the following are
OCSE's Response to Comments including the rationale for any changes
made to the proposed rule and a final summary of regulatory changes. In
addition, for clarity and emphasis, in the final rule, OCSE also added
a reference to 452(g)(A) of the Act, which is the specific statutory
cite that provides the Secretary with discretionary authority to modify
the required PEP level.
IV. Response to Comments
Comment 1: State agencies, child support organizations, child
support professionals, and other entities and individuals who submitted
comments were unequivocal in their support of the proposed relief and
rationale described in the NPRM.
One commenter agreed with the conclusion in the NPRM that across-
the-board State reductions in the PEP levels in FFY 2020 are directly
attributable to the pandemic, based on performance trends for the last
10 years. Up until FFY 2020, almost all States achieved PEP levels
above 90 percent each year.
Most commenters mentioned the variety of impacts of the pandemic on
the ability to obtain voluntary acknowledgments of paternity. For
example, one commenter described multiple effects of the pandemic on
voluntary acknowledgment processes: (1) Restrictions preventing fathers
access to the hospital after a mother gives birth; (2) closure of local
vital statistics offices; (3) restrictions preventing hospital access
by State staff and contractors who provide training, technical
assistance, and monitoring to hospital staff administering voluntary
paternity programs; and (4) staffing shortages resulting in hospital
staff sending paternity acknowledgment paperwork home with the mother
rather than completing it at the hospital.
One commenter described the compounded performance problem in their
State because their program has historically had a very strong in-
hospital, voluntary acknowledgment program. In this State, children
whose paternity was not acknowledged through the in-hospital program
due to pandemic restrictions must now be acknowledged at the city or
town municipality or through the judicial process. These latter
processes are more complex, may involve fees, take longer, and also are
impacted by the pandemic.
Most commenters, especially from States with judicial-based child
support programs, described the large and ongoing impact of the
pandemic on court systems, where courts were initially closed and legal
actions delayed, and where backlogs persist. One commenter noted that
even as the courts and child support offices have shifted to virtual
processes, the new mode of working has reduced productivity in some
jurisdictions. Also, the pandemic has reduced in-person office visits,
administrative proceedings, and court hearings.
Several commenters noted the disruption to genetic testing programs
due to child support office closures, court closures, and staffing
shortages. One commenter noted the challenge of being able to access
alternate testing sites, such as prisons and correctional facilities. A
commenter described the
[[Page 32092]]
efforts to relocate their State's genetic testing services from
courthouses in response to the pandemic and noted that genetic testing
appointment attendance rates for alleged fathers declined 20 percent
and for mothers declined 24 percent, compared to pre-pandemic rates. A
commenter noted that genetic testing programs were also impacted
because clinical laboratory resources were diverted for pandemic-
related testing.
Commenters also described other kinds of barriers that impacted PEP
performance. One State commenter described that they are unable to
legally serve parties by mail, as certified mail is now being marked
``COVID-19'' and found insufficient for legal service. Two commenters
noted that the pandemic suspension of cooperation requirements for TANF
recipients has removed an important tool that incentivized recipients
to attend appointments necessary for paternity establishment.
Notably, several States that will not be subject to PEP penalties,
either because they met PEP performance during the pandemic or they
expect to meet performance in the corrective action year, support
providing the relief to other States under these pandemic
circumstances.
Several commenters particularly noted the need for the relief to be
finalized as soon as possible to help States plan resources during
these challenging times. One commenter discussed the additional costs
to programs to respond to the disaster and that the demand of meeting
PEP standards, which has always been challenging, places further stress
on the programs. Confirmation of penalty relief in this rule would
allow programs to focus on recovery and restoration of pre-pandemic
performance. One commenter noted their State had requested PEP penalty
relief from OCSE early in the pandemic under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) (See OCSE
Dear Colleague Letter 20-04: Flexibilities for State and Tribal Child
Support Agencies during COVID-19 Pandemic). However, the Stafford Act
flexibilities do not extend to relief for financial penalties related
to performance or adverse data reliability audit findings.
Response 1: Based on the overwhelming support for the proposed
relief from penalties related to the PEP measure, for the reasons
described in the NPRM and by the majority of commenters, OCSE agrees
that this relief is needed and should be provided. The COVID-19
pandemic is unprecedented; time-limited, targeted relief from PEP-
related performance penalties is appropriate.
Comment 2: One individual opposed the relief, disagreeing that
COVID-19 was a reason for reducing the PEP performance threshold to 50
percent. The commenter stated that this relief was not needed in other
pandemics and State child support agencies should try like everyone
else to work virtually or even go back to mailing in the genetic tests.
Finally, the commenter stated this relief is unfair to children who
would be left without a sense of comfort.
Response 2: We disagree. As noted by the majority of commenters,
there are a number of operational challenges that justify this
temporary modification of the required PEP levels.
Comment 3: In support of the proposed relief, two commenters stated
that States should not be subject to PEP performance penalties during
the pandemic because these are circumstances beyond the States'
control.
Response 3: OCSE clarifies that this relief is appropriate in
response to the nationwide COVID-19 pandemic. Other future events or
actions, including future pandemics, that create circumstances beyond a
State's control may not necessarily require this extraordinary
regulatory response. The current child support performance, audit,
penalties, and incentives system is designed to drive performance.
States that experience individual challenges that impact performance,
whether these challenges are within or outside the States' immediate
control, are motivated to recover from setbacks and strive to achieve
performance goals, as States have over the last two decades. This time-
limited and targeted relief is a one-time response to the unprecedented
COVID-19 pandemic.
Comment 4: A few States noted the importance of not imposing PEP
penalties because of the direct impact on State TANF funds that support
families who may be especially in need during the pandemic. One State
TANF agency commented on how the reduction in the TANF grant will
directly harm families, despite the TANF agency's continued efforts to
work closely with the State's child support agency to facilitate
paternity establishment for their service recipients.
Response 4: Under section 409(a)(12) of the Act and 45 CFR
262.1(e)(1), a performance penalty imposed against a State's TANF grant
would not result in an overall reduction in the State's TANF funding
that is available to public assistance recipients because the state is
required to make up the missing federal dollars with State funds.
Rather, the requirement on States to make up this funding will put a
strain on State public assistance and social services budgets overall,
which will impact families needing assistance.
Comment 5: Twenty-three commenters supported extending the
timeframe for the relief from penalties related to PEP performance and
from adverse findings of data reliability audits of a State's paternity
establishment data. The majority supported the extension as described
in the proposed rule to include FFY 2022.
Most commenters noted that the pandemic continues to impact child
support operations, especially the operations necessary for paternity
establishment, and expected the impact to last well into FFY 2022. One
commenter expected the following issues to persist into FFY 2022:
Backlogs with courts and vital statistics agencies; low DNA sample
collection due to families missing appointments; suspension of TANF
recipient cooperation requirements; and disruption of voluntary
acknowledgment processes at hospitals and birthing centers, resulting
in paperwork being sent home and delays in families processing them.
Two commenters noted that an extension is appropriate since the
national PHE currently extends to January 2022 (at the time of the
comment).
Commenters stated that there is no definitive end to the pandemic
in the foreseeable future, that the end of the pandemic is uncertain,
and that States being able to return to 90 percent PEP levels in FFY
2022 is not realistic, given the ongoing challenges. According to one
commenter, it will take at least the remainder of FFY 2022 to work
through backlogs in courts and agency offices of paternity cases, and
this situation is especially acute in court systems where other types
of cases have been prioritized over child support cases. According to
another commenter, some States have indicated that the cumulative
effects of the pandemic may result in a further decrease in their PEP
levels in FFY 2021, and this negative momentum is likely to carry over
in FFY 2022 and possibly beyond.
One State commented that because the PHE has been extended to at
least the beginning of the second quarter of FFY 2022, the impact of
the pandemic will affect States' abilities to establish paternity for
at least half of the performance year. The Delta variant, according to
several commenters, is adversely impacting State programs into FFY
2022. One commenter stated that the Delta variant appeared just as the
[[Page 32093]]
pandemic seemed to be abating, caused a spike in cases and reimposition
of pandemic restrictions, and that it is too early to tell if a new
variant will surface and cause more disruption.
Several State commenters from States that did not expect to be
subject to PEP penalties during the pandemic period strongly supported
or saw no harm in extending the relief to FFY 2022 for other States.
Response 5: OCSE supports extending the proposed relief period to
include FFY 2022 for the reasons described by the commenters due to
initial indications from FFY 2021 performance data that the pandemic
continues to adversely affect paternity establishment performance, and
in order to give States more time to plan and adjust for the resumption
of operation and performance standards.
According to OCSE's preliminary FFY 2021 data, 13 of the 54 State
child support programs (the 54 programs include the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) appear
to have failed to meet the 90 percent PEP performance threshold. These
include 9 States that previously failed to meet the 90 percent
threshold in FFY 2020 and 4 new States that met PEP performance
thresholds in FFY 2020 but failed in FFY 2021.
These data show that the pandemic continues to have an oversized
and ongoing impact on States' abilities to establish paternity and meet
performance thresholds. Not only were half of the 18 States that failed
to meet performance in FFY 2020 unable to recover their performance in
the subsequent year, but four additional States failed, despite having
achieved PEP performance thresholds the year before. In addition, the
PHE, first declared on January 31, 2020, was extended again on January
14, 2022, effective January 16, 2022.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The determination that a PHE exists due to COVID-19 was
first issued on January 31, 2020 and has been renewed every 90 days
under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d).
See Renewal of Determination That A Public Health Emergency Exists,
dated January 14, 2022, available at: <a href="https://aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PHE/Pages/COVID19-14Jan2022.aspx">https://aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PHE/Pages/COVID19-14Jan2022.aspx</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to allow States more time to plan and adjust to regain
performance standards, given the ongoing, unpredictable nature of the
pandemic, including the fast spread of successive COVID-19 variants,
OCSE agrees it is appropriate to extend the relief period to include
performance for FFY 2022.
Comment 6: One commenter opposed the relief entirely for any time
period, as noted in comment 2, and one commenter, who supported the
relief for the proposed period of FFYs 2020 and 2021, opposed the
extension to FFY 2022. According to this latter commenter, States
inform them that paternity establishment operations are fully
operational and that it is incumbent on HHS to return to normal
operations and hold States accountable for program operations,
including paternity establishment, which is a central function. The
commenter recommended limiting relief to when State operations were
most impacted by pandemic restrictions.
Response 6: OCSE disagrees and will extend the relief to FFY 2022
due to the unprecedented nature of the pandemic and to allow States
more time to plan and adjust. However, after the relief period,
starting for FFY 2023, the PEP performance thresholds will revert back
to the usual levels, and States will again be responsible for
performance and subject to penalties for adverse data reliability audit
findings related to the PEP measure after an automatic corrective
action year.
Comment 7: Several commenters suggested extending the relief beyond
FFY 2022. One commenter suggested an option for an extension into FFY
2023 if circumstances warrant, and others requested flexibility to
extend the relief into the future as needed or for any future FFY in
which the country remains under a PHE due to COVID-19. Another, citing
the possibility of the rise of a new variant and general uncertainty,
suggested that the Secretary of HHS be given the authority to extend
penalty relief in future years without the need to issue another
regulation. This commenter said that there is strong justification to
extend the relief through FFY 2022, after which we can review the need
for further action and whether the Secretary could continue to extend
the relief if the pandemic and States' need for relief are ongoing.
Response 7: OCSE agrees to extend the relief through FFY 2022 to
provide States one additional year. However, the relief must be time-
limited and targeted.
Comment 8: One State suggested that for the extension year, FFY
2022, the PEP threshold be modified from 90 percent to 75 percent,
instead of the 50 percent proposed in the rule. The commenter reasoned
that 75 percent is at the low end of the level just below 90 percent in
45 CFR 305.40(a)(1) and allows States that are still working through
paternity establishment challenges to gradually increase performance
rather than meet a more rigorous 90 percent level.
Response 8: For the reasons discussed in the previous comments and
responses and for simplicity, OCSE will provide the same modification
levels in extending the relief to FFY 2022 as provided for the first 2
years of the relief.
Comment 9: A commenter suggested that States that have met or
exceeded the 90 percent performance threshold during the pandemic
period receive an incentive, such as not having a full paternity
establishment audit for FFY 2021 and FFY 2022.
Response 9: OCSE proposed regulatory relief in response to COVID-19
that is narrowly targeted towards relieving States of PEP-related
penalties and does not include other forms of relief or incentives.
Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described above and
in careful consideration of the comments, we finalize 45 CFR 305.61(e)
by extending the relief period to FFY 2022 and referencing the specific
statutory cite that provides the Secretary with discretionary authority
to modify the required PEP level, 452(g)(A) of the Act.
V. Regulatory Review
Paperwork Reduction Act
No new information collection requirements are imposed by these
regulations.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Secretary certifies that, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), this rule will not
result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The primary impact is on State governments. State governments
are not considered small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule meets the standards of Executive Order 13563
because it creates a short-term public benefit, at minimal cost to the
Federal Government, by not imposing penalties against a State's TANF
grant, during a time when public assistance funds are critically
needed.
[[Page 32094]]
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this final
rule is significant and was accordingly reviewed by OMB.
ACF determined that the costs to title IV-D agencies as a result of
this rule will not be ``economically significant'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866 (have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities). Accordingly, OIRA has determined that this
rulemaking is ``not major'' under Subtitle E of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the
Congressional Review Act).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires
agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits
before issuing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation). That threshold level is currently approximately $164
million. This rule does not impose any mandates on State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector, that will result in an
annual expenditure of $164 million or more.
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a proposed
policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's
determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact
assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. This
regulation does not impose requirements on States or families. This
regulation will not have an adverse impact on family well-being as
defined in the legislation.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 prohibits an agency from publishing any rule
that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not
required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency
meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism impact as defined
in the Executive Order.
January Contreras, Assistant Secretary of the Administration for
Children and Families, approved this document on May 5, 2022.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 305
Child support, Program performance measures, standards, financial
incentives, and penalties.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs No. 93.563, Child
Support Enforcement Program.)
Dated: May 23, 2022.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Health
and Human Services amends 45 CFR part 305 as set forth below:
PART 305--PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES, STANDARDS, FINANCIAL
INCENTIVES, AND PENALTIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 305 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 609(a)(8), 652(a)(4) and (g), 658a, and
1302.
0
2. In Sec. 305.61 add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 305.61 Penalty for failure to meet IV-D requirements.
* * * * *
(e) COVID-19 paternity establishment percentage penalty relief. Due
to the adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on State IV-D
operations, the criteria by which States are subject to financial
penalties for the paternity establishment percentage under paragraph
(a) of this section are modified for fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022,
in accordance with section 452(g)(A) of the Act, as follows:
(1) The acceptable level of paternity establishment percentage
performance under Sec. 305.40(a)(1) is modified for fiscal years 2020,
2021, and 2022 from 90 percent to 50 percent, and
(2) The adverse findings of data reliability audits of a State's
paternity establishment data under Sec. 305.60 will not result in a
financial penalty for fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-11391 Filed 5-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-42-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 27, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.