Final TANF Rule as published in the Federal Register 4/12/1999

17848 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 1999 / Rules and Regulations
subjected to battery or extreme cruelty.
However, as we discussed in the
preamble section entitled ‘‘Treatment of
Domestic Violence Victims,’’ we have
revised the final rules to recognize a
broader array of good cause domestic
violence waivers to extend the time
limit in determining whether a State
that exceeds the 20-percent limitation
will receive penalty relief. Accordingly,
States may be able to extend the time
limits for additional families, including
victims of domestic violence.
Comment: A commenter asked how
the 20-percent hardship extension
applies when a State has a shorter time
limit than 60 months.
Response: A State with a shorter time
limit can establish its own policies for
extending assistance under its State
time limit. The State can extend
assistance beyond its (shorter) time limit
based on hardship or for other reasons.
However, if a State extends its time
limit and continues to provide
assistance to a family, the additional
months count toward the Federal time
limit as they ordinarily would.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed the view that our provisions
for how States’ section 1115 waivers
affect the time limit are confusing and
improper.
Response: We have made some minor
adjustments to these provisions. Please
refer to subpart C of part 260 and the
earlier preamble discussion entitled
‘‘Waivers.’’
Section 264.2—What Happens if a State
Does Not Comply with the Five-Year
Limit? (§ 274.2 of the NPRM)
Congress created the penalty under
section 409(a)(9) to ensure that States
comply with the five-year restriction on
the receipt of federally funded TANF
assistance. If we determine that a State
has not complied with the five-year time
limit during a fiscal year, then we will
reduce the SFAG payable for the
immediately succeeding fiscal year by
five percent of the adjusted SFAG.
Five years is the maximum period of
time permitted under the statute for
families to receive federally funded
TANF assistance. Therefore, the penalty
under this section does not apply if the
State exceeds any shorter time limits on
the receipt of federally funded
assistance that it may choose to impose.
It also does not apply to any time limits
on receipt of State-funded assistance or
the receipt of noncash WtW assistance.
In defining the requirement, section
409(a)(9) refers to section 408(a)(7). This
latter section identifies the
circumstances under which assistance
may be provided for longer than five
years. It provides exceptions to the time-
limit requirement for minors, hardship,
or families living in Indian country or
in an Alaskan Native village with adult
unemployment above 50 percent.
Therefore, we will take into account the
exceptions described under paragraphs
(B), (C), or (D) of section 408(a)(7) when
deciding whether the State complied
with the five-year time limitation. We
will use the information required to be
reported in part 265 to learn whether a
State is complying with the five-year
time restriction on the receipt of
federally funded assistance.
We do not intend to hold States
immediately accountable for knowing
about and verifying all months of
assistance received in other States, since
we are aware that, in general, States’
data processing systems are not
currently capable of accomplishing
interstate tracking of the number of
months an individual has received
TANF assistance.
We received a few comments on this
section, as discussed below. We made
only one minor editorial change to the
regulations. This change clarifies that, if
a State failed to comply with the timelimit
requirements, in order to avoid a
penalty, it must demonstrate to our
satisfaction that it had reasonable cause,
or it must correct or discontinue the
violation under the provisions of an
approved corrective compliance plan.
Comment: A couple of commenters
asked for guidance on how States
should count months when a family
received assistance in another State.
Other commenters asked us to regulate
that States will not be held accountable
for knowing about a family’s receipt of
TANF assistance in another State.
Response: Each State must keep track
of the number of months it provides
TANF assistance that count towards the
Federal time limit. As part of its
application process, a State should ask
a family whether it has lived in any
other States. If the family has, the new
State should contact the other State(s) to
find out whether the family received
assistance that counts toward the
Federal time limit. We expect a State to
do its best to gather this information,
but will not hold the State accountable
if its information about what happened
in another State is not accurate, as long
as the State has made a good faith effort
to gather complete and accurate
information. We have decided not to
include this specific guidance in the
regulations because our expectations for
State accountability will change over
time as technology improves and the
State’s ability to do interstate tracking of
families increases.
Comment: A commenter asked
whether a State with a State time limit
that is shorter than the Federal time
limit would be penalized if it fails to
meet the requirements of its State time
limit.
Response: The penalty at § 262.1(a)(9)
only applies if the State fails to meet the
Federal five-year time limit.
Section 264.3—How Can a State Avoid
a Penalty for Failure to Comply With the
Five-Year Limit? (§ 274.3 of the NPRM)
In § 262.5, we include general
circumstances under which we may
find reasonable cause to waive potential
penalties. We also will consider an
additional factor in determining
whether there is reasonable cause for
failure to meet the five-year limit. The
additional factor relates to a State’s
implementation of the Family Violence
Option and its provision of temporary
waivers of time limits, when necessary,
for victims of domestic violence.
We will grant a State reasonable cause
for failing to meet the 60-month time
limit, if it adequately demonstrates that
it has exceeded the 20-percent
limitation on exceptions because it
granted individuals federally recognized
good cause domestic violence waivers
pursuant to subpart B of part 260. To
qualify for reasonable cause based on
this factor, a State would have to show
that, if families with such waivers were
disregarded, the number of families that
received assistance did not exceed 20
percent. A State must substantiate its
case for all claims of reasonable cause.
You can find additional discussion of
our domestic violence policies in the
preamble section entitled ‘‘Treatment of
Domestic Violence Victims.’’
We received a number of comments
on this section and made changes to the
regulations, as discussed below.
Comment: Several commenters asked
us to permit States to claim reasonable
cause based on additional factors, such
as the State’s good faith effort to comply
with the time limit, a hard-to-serve
population, high unemployment or
other adverse economic conditions, and
other factors that are beyond the control
of the State.
Response: As we discussed in the
preamble to § 262.5, we believe it is
sounder policy to encourage a State to
correct problems and find solutions
than to excuse a State’s inability to meet
the statutory requirements. Accordingly,
we are not adding reasonable cause
factors that we will consider if a State
fails to meet the time-limit requirement
of the statute. (However, we have
revised the language at § 262.5 to allow
more discretion to grant reasonable
cause when a State faces special,
unforeseen circumstances.)