[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38612-38644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15215]



[[Page 38611]]

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

Part II





Department of Health and Human Services





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



Administration for Children and Families



45 CFR Parts 301, 302, 303, 305, and 308



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



Child Support Enforcement Program; Intergovernmental Child Support; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 38612]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Parts 301, 302, 303, 305, and 308

RIN 0970-AC-37


Child Support Enforcement Program; Intergovernmental Child 
Support

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule revises Federal requirements for establishing and 
enforcing intergovernmental support obligations in Child Support 
Enforcement (IV-D) program cases receiving services under title IV-D of 
the Social Security Act (the Act). This final rule revises previous 
interstate requirements to apply to case processing in all 
intergovernmental cases; requires the responding State IV-D agency to 
pay the cost of genetic testing; clarifies responsibility for 
determining in which State tribunal a controlling order determination 
is made where multiple support orders exist; recognizes and 
incorporates electronic communication advancements; and makes 
conforming changes to the Federal substantial compliance audit and 
State self-assessment requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaShawn Williams, OCSE Division of 
Policy, 202-401-9386, e-mail: [email protected]. 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

    Section 454(9), 42 U.S.C. 654(9), of the Act addresses interstate 
cooperation. These final rules are published under the authority 
granted to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services (the Secretary) by section 1102 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1302. 
Section 1102 authorizes the Secretary to publish regulations, not 
inconsistent with the Act, which may be necessary for the efficient 
administration of the functions for which the Secretary is responsible 
under the Act. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) (Pub.L. 104-193), amended the Act 
by adding section 466(f), 42 U.S.C. 666(f), which mandated that all 
States have in effect by January 1, 1998, the Uniform Interstate Family 
Support Act (UIFSA) as approved by the American Bar Association on 
February 9, 1993, and as in effect on August 22, 1996, including any 
amendments officially adopted as of such date by the National 
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). PRWORA also 
added sections 454(32) and 459A of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 654(32) and 659a, 
requiring State IV-D agencies to provide services in international 
cases and authorizing the Secretary of the Department of State (DOS), 
with the concurrence of the Secretary, to enter into bilateral 
arrangements with foreign countries for child support enforcement, 
respectively. The Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support 
Orders Act of 1994 (FFCCSOA), 28 U.S.C. 1738B, as amended by PRWORA, 
requires each State and Tribe to enforce, according to its terms, a 
child support order issued by a court or administrative authority of 
another State or Tribe (See OCSE-AT-02-03). Further, section 455(f) of 
the Act, 42 U.S.C. 655(f), which authorized direct funding of Tribal 
Child Support Enforcement programs, was added by PRWORA and amended by 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

II. Background

A. Nature of the Problem

    The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program is a Federal/State/
Tribal/local partnership established to help families by ensuring that 
parents support their children even when they live apart. Payment of 
child support increases family income and promotes child well-being. 
Child support has become one of the most substantial income supports 
for low-income families who receive it. All States and territories run 
a IV-D program.
    On March 30, 2004, the IV-D program expanded its scope to include 
federally-recognized American Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations 
with approved Tribal IV-D programs through the Final Rule on Tribal 
Child Support Enforcement Programs (45 CFR part 309). Currently, 
thirty-six Tribes operate a comprehensive child support program and 
nine Tribes operate a start-up program funded under title IV-D of the 
Social Security Act. From 2004 to 2008, Comprehensive Tribal IV-D 
programs collected more than $83.3 million in child support. The Tribal 
IV-D program continues to grow as more federally-recognized Tribes and 
Tribal organizations apply for OCSE funding to operate Tribal IV-D 
programs.
    The complexities of child support enforcement are compounded when 
parents reside in different jurisdictions and the interjurisdictional 
caseload is substantial. In FY 2008, over a million cases were sent 
from one State to another. This number does not include cases where a 
single State established or enforced a support obligation against a 
nonresident using long-arm jurisdiction or direct enforcement remedies 
without involving another IV-D agency. Additionally, in FY 2008, 
interstate collections increased 13.2 percent over FY 2004 collections.
    The enactment of UIFSA by States and nearly a decade of State 
experience under this uniform law, as well as the passage of FFCCSOA, 
have served to harmonize the interjurisdictional legal framework. 
Expanded use of long-arm jurisdiction, administrative processes, and 
direct income withholding have been instrumental in breaking down 
barriers and improving interstate child support. As a result, the 
former regulations governing interstate cases are outdated. While they 
broadly addressed UIFSA, they did not fully reflect the legal tools 
available under that Act, other Federal mandates and remedies, improved 
technology, or IV-D obligations in Tribal and international cases.
    Additionally, although our regulatory authority extends only to 
States and Tribes operating IV-D programs, the IV-D caseload includes 
cases from Tribal IV-D programs, other States, and other countries. The 
creation of the Tribal IV-D program pursuant to section 455(f) of the 
Act and implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 309, and the central 
role of OCSE and State IV-D agencies in international cases under 
section 459A of the Act, highlight the need to refocus interstate 
regulations to address requirements for State IV-D programs' processing 
of intergovernmental IV-D cases.

B. Current Law on Intergovernmental Case Processing

1. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)
    UIFSA is a comprehensive model Act focusing on the interstate 
establishment, modification, and enforcement of support obligations. As 
indicated earlier, section 466(f) of the Act requires all States to 
enact UIFSA as approved by the American Bar Association on February 9, 
1993, as in effect on August 22, 1996, including any amendments 
officially adopted as of such date by NCCUSL.

[[Page 38613]]

    Many of UIFSA's provisions provide solutions to the problems 
inherent with the interstate establishment and enforcement of child 
support obligations. For example, UIFSA covers all cases where the 
custodial and noncustodial parents reside in different States. In 
addition to traditional State-to-State legal actions, it provides for 
long-arm jurisdiction to establish paternity or child support, 
continuing jurisdiction by a State to enforce an existing support 
order, and one-state enforcement remedies such as direct income 
withholding. UIFSA contains enhanced evidentiary provisions, including 
use of teleconferencing, electronic transmission, and federally-
mandated forms. It precludes the entry of a new (de novo) support order 
where a valid order exists, ending the longstanding practice of 
establishing multiple support orders, and strictly prescribes when a 
State has the authority to modify the child support order of another 
State, Tribe, or country.
    UIFSA introduced the principle of continuing, exclusive 
jurisdiction (CEJ) to child support. CEJ requires that only one valid 
current support order may be in effect at any one time. As long as one 
of the individual parties or the child continues to reside in the 
issuing State, and as long as the parties do not agree to transfer the 
case to another jurisdiction, the issuing tribunal's authority to 
modify its order is continuing and exclusive. Jurisdiction to modify an 
order may be lost only if all the relevant persons have permanently 
left the issuing State or if the parties file a written consent to 
transfer jurisdiction of the case to the tribunal of another State. 
UIFSA provides that the one order remains in effect as the family or 
its individual members move from one State to another.
    UIFSA includes a transitional procedure for the eventual 
elimination of existing multiple support orders in an expeditious and 
efficient manner. To begin the process toward a one-order system, UIFSA 
provides a relatively straight-forward decision matrix designed to 
identify a single valid order that is entitled to prospective 
enforcement in every State. This process is referred to as 
determination of controlling order (DCO). UIFSA specifies in detail how 
the DCO should be made. If only one child support order exists, it is 
the controlling order irrespective of when and where it was issued and 
whether any of the individual parties or the child continues to reside 
in the issuing State.
    UIFSA is currently State law in all 50 States, the District of 
Columbia and the territories. Twenty-one States have adopted the 2001 
amendments and received a State Plan exemption under section 466(d) of 
the Act, 42 U.S.C. 666(d), from OCSE allowing use of the 2001 
provisions. Currently, three States have adopted UIFSA (2008), with the 
effective date of the amendments delayed until the Hague Convention on 
the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family 
Maintenance, Nov. 23, 2007, is ratified and the U.S. deposits its 
instrument of ratification. OCSE does not require that these States 
request an exemption.
2. One-State Approaches to Interstate Case Processing
    Historically, IV-D agencies have sought to resolve cases involving 
nonresident noncustodial parents by using the State's statutory 
authority to obtain or retain personal jurisdiction over the out-of-
state party. The authority of a State to subject a nonresident to its 
laws is set out in State statutes, subject to the due process 
provisions of the U.S. Constitution. As described earlier, UIFSA is a 
State law, containing both an expansive long-arm provision (section 
201), continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify an existing support 
order, and continuing, although not exclusive, jurisdiction to enforce 
an existing order (e.g. sections 205 and 206). Since 1984, States have 
been required to adopt procedures for enforcing the income withholding 
orders of another State (section 466(b)(9) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 
466(b)(9)). UIFSA authorizes direct income withholding, allowing a 
State to serve directly the obligor's employer in the other State with 
the income withholding order/notice (e.g. sections 501 and 502). These 
provisions afford IV-D agencies a greater opportunity to use one-state 
remedies in factually-appropriate cases, rather than involving a second 
State. As discussed later, cooperation among States in requesting and 
providing limited services, such as quick locate, coordination of 
genetic testing, and facilitation of gathering and transmitting 
evidence, makes the use of one-state remedies more robust.
3. Tribal IV-D and International Child Support Enforcement
    PRWORA authorized direct funding of Tribes and Tribal organizations 
for operating child support enforcement programs under section 455(f) 
of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 655(f). The U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services (the Department) acknowledges the special government-to-
government relationship between the Federal Government and federally-
recognized Tribes in the implementation of the Tribal provisions of 
PRWORA. The direct Federal funding provisions provide Tribes with an 
opportunity to administer their own IV-D programs to meet the needs of 
children and their families. A Tribal IV-D agency must specify in its 
Tribal IV-D plan that the Tribal IV-D agency will:
     Extend the full range of services available under its IV-D 
plan to respond to all requests from, and cooperate with, State and 
other Tribal IV-D agencies; and
     Recognize child support orders issued by other Tribes and 
Tribal organizations, and by States, in accordance with the 
requirements under the FFCCSOA, 28 U.S.C. 1738B. (See 45 CFR 309.120).
    Likewise, as stated in 45 CFR 302.36(a)(2), a State must extend the 
full range of services available under its IV-D plan to cases referred 
from Tribal IV-D programs.
    Regarding international cases, section 459A of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 
659a authorizes the Department of State (DOS), with the concurrence of 
the Secretary, to enter into bilateral arrangements with foreign 
countries for child support enforcement. To date, the U.S. has Federal-
level arrangements with fourteen countries and eleven Canadian 
Provinces and Territories. Information about these arrangements and 
guidance on working international cases is on the OCSE international 
Web site: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/international/.
    UIFSA recognizes the importance of the Tribes and foreign countries 
to provide for their children. Under UIFSA the term ``State'' includes 
Indian Tribes (section 101(19)). The definition of ``State'' in UIFSA 
(2001) (section 102(21)) also includes foreign countries or political 
subdivisions that have been declared to be a foreign reciprocating 
country or political subdivision under Federal law or that have 
established a reciprocal agreement for child support with a U.S. State. 
While UIFSA governs State child support proceedings, it does not govern 
child support activities in other countries or Tribes.

C. Need for and Purpose of This Rule

    The interstate regulations that appeared in 45 CFR 303.7 prior to 
the publication of this rule were originally effective February 22, 
1988. Many changes have taken place in the IV-D program since 1988, 
including the passage of UIFSA, PRWORA, and FFCCSOA (28 U.S.C. 1738B).
    State IV-D agencies have more authority to take actions directly 
across State lines than they used to. Because they have the authority 
to bypass IV-D

[[Page 38614]]

agencies in other States, confusion can sometimes arise on the part of 
custodial and noncustodial parents, employers, and State IV-D workers 
about correct arrearage balances and how to account for collections. It 
is to address these issues and otherwise update the interstate 
regulations that we revised 45 CFR 303.7.
    This rule extensively reorganizes the 1988 interstate regulations 
at 45 CFR 303.7 to clarify and streamline case processing 
responsibilities in intergovernmental cases, incorporating both 
optional and required procedures under PRWORA and enhanced technology, 
particularly in the area of communications. We also responded to 
specific changes requested by State IV-D agencies, for example, by 
revising responsibility for advancing the cost of genetic testing. The 
rule addresses case processing ambiguities raised by practitioners 
regarding determination of controlling orders, interstate income 
withholding, and case closure rules in 45 CFR 303.11. Finally, the rule 
makes conforming changes to the Federal substantial compliance audit 
(45 CFR 305.63) and State self-assessment requirements (45 CFR 308.2).

III. Provisions of the Regulation and Changes Made in Response to 
Comments

    The following is a summary of the regulatory provisions included in 
this final rule. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published 
in the Federal Register on December 8, 2008 (73 FR 74408). The comment 
period ended February 6, 2009. During the comment period, we received 
25 sets of comments. In general, the commenters were supportive of 
changes in the proposed rule to update and revise the rules for 
intergovernmental cases.
    With a few exceptions explained in the applicable sections, we have 
substituted ``intergovernmental'' in lieu of ``interstate'' throughout 
these provisions. The term encompasses not only IV-D cases between 
States, but also all IV-D cases where the parents reside in different 
jurisdictions, including cases between a State and Tribal IV-D program, 
cases between a State and a foreign country under sections 454(32) and 
459A of the Act, and cases where the State has asserted authority over 
a nonresident under long-arm jurisdiction. Please note that while this 
intergovernmental regulation applies to all cases involving referrals 
for services between States and other States, Tribes, or countries, the 
intergovernmental rule also applies more broadly to include some cases 
where a referral has not been made. Specifically, the rule also applies 
to instances when an initiating agency is either engaging in 
preliminary fact-finding activities, such as taking steps toward 
getting a determination of controlling order, or is deciding whether to 
use a one-State approach and/or has requested services from another 
agency using a one-state approach.
    Specific changes made in response to comments are discussed in more 
detail under the Response to Comments section of this preamble.

Part 301--State Plan Approval and Grant Procedures

Section 301.1--General Definitions

    This rule adds definitions of terms used in program regulations. In 
this section of the preamble, we have grouped the new definitions by 
topic for a more coherent discussion, rather than alphabetically as 
they will appear in Sec.  301.1.
    Two definitions pertain particularly to international child support 
case processing. We define Country to include both a foreign 
reciprocating country (FRC) and any foreign country (or political 
subdivision thereof) with which a State has entered into a reciprocal 
arrangement pursuant to section 459A(d) of the Act. We also define 
Central Authority as the agency designated by a government to 
facilitate support enforcement with an FRC. The Federal statute 
requires that the country with which a Federal-level agreement is 
entered establish a central authority to facilitate implementation of 
support establishment and enforcement in cases involving residents of 
the U.S.
    In the final rule, in response to comments, we edited the proposed 
definition of Intergovernmental IV-D case to make the wording parallel 
to the definition for Interstate IV-D case, discussed below, since the 
concepts are similar. Also in response to comments, we clarified that 
an intergovernmental IV-D case also may include cases in which the 
State is seeking only to collect assigned arrearages, and may no longer 
involve the parents and children. In this final rule, the definition 
for Intergovernmental IV-D case reads as follows: ``Intergovernmental 
IV-D case means a IV-D case in which the noncustodial parent lives and/
or works in a different jurisdiction than the custodial parent and 
child(ren) that has been referred by an initiating agency to a 
responding agency for services. An intergovernmental IV-D case may 
include any combination of referrals between States, Tribes, and 
countries. An intergovernmental IV-D case also may include cases in 
which a State agency is seeking only to collect support arrearages, 
whether owed to the family or assigned to the State.''
    To identify cases in which the State IV-D agency's responsibility 
extends only to cases involving two or more States, we define 
Interstate IV-D case. In response to comments, we made several changes 
to the definition of Interstate IV-D case by removing the concept of 
one-state interstate from the definition, clarifying that there has to 
be a referral between States, and including cases in which the State is 
seeking only to collect assigned arrearages. In this final rule, 
Interstate IV-D case means ``a IV-D case in which the noncustodial 
parent lives and/or works in a different State than the custodial 
parent and child(ren) that has been referred by an initiating State to 
a responding State for services. An interstate IV-D case also may 
include cases in which a State is seeking only to collect support 
arrearages, whether owed to the family or assigned to the State.''
    In response to comments, OCSE omitted the proposed definition for 
One-state interstate IV-D case and removed reference to the phrase in 
the final rule. We have added, however, the definition for One-state 
remedies, which includes both long-arm and direct enforcement 
techniques. In the final rule, use of One-state remedies means ``the 
exercise of a State's jurisdiction over a non-resident parent or direct 
establishment, enforcement, or other action by a State against a non-
resident parent in accordance with the long-arm provision of UIFSA or 
other State law.''
    Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) means ``the model act 
promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 
State Laws (NCCUSL) and mandated by section 466(f) of the Act to be in 
effect in all States.''
    The definitions of Initiating agency and Responding agency 
establish a common understanding in the context of all 
intergovernmental IV-D cases. In response to comments, Initiating 
agency is no longer defined as an agency that has referred a case to 
another agency; but instead as an agency in which an individual has 
applied for or is receiving services. The definition now reads, ``a 
State or Tribal IV-D agency or an agency in a country, as defined in 
this rule, in which an individual has applied for or is receiving 
services.''
    Responding agency means ``the agency that is providing services in 
response to a referral from an initiating agency in an 
intergovernmental IV-D case.'' Although the definitions are inclusive, 
the requirements in this rule only apply to

[[Page 38615]]

State IV-D programs, not Tribal IV-D programs or other countries.
    Two other terms flow principally from UIFSA: Tribunal and 
Controlling Order State. Tribunal means ``a court, administrative 
agency, or quasi-judicial entity authorized under State law to 
establish, enforce, or modify support orders or to determine 
parentage.''
    Because of the need to determine the controlling order in multiple 
order situations, we responded to requests from our partners to set out 
State IV-D responsibilities when multiple support orders exist in an 
interstate case. The rules regarding determination of controlling order 
(DCO) are contained in Sec.  303.7. We define Controlling Order State 
as ``the State in which the only order was issued or, where multiple 
orders exist, the State in which the order determined by a tribunal to 
control prospective current support pursuant to the UIFSA was issued.''
    The definition of Form accommodates new storage and transmission 
technologies as they become available. In response to comments, we 
updated the name of the income withholding form that is mentioned 
within the definition. The definition reads, ``Form means a federally-
approved document used for the establishment and enforcement of support 
obligations whether compiled or transmitted in written or electronic 
format, including but not limited to the Income Withholding for Support 
form, and the National Medical Support Notice. In interstate IV-D 
cases, such forms include those used for child support enforcement 
proceedings under UIFSA. Form also includes any federally-mandated IV-D 
program reporting form, where appropriate.'' Current versions of these 
forms are located on the OCSE Web site at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/forms/.

Part 302--State Plan Requirements

Section 302.36--Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-D Cases

    Former Sec.  302.36 addressed State plan requirements in interstate 
and Tribal IV-D cases. We made changes to both the heading and the body 
of the section to address international IV-D cases. The changes clarify 
that a State must provide services in all intergovernmental IV-D cases 
as we defined that term in Sec.  301.1.
    Paragraph (a)(1) requires the State plan to: ``provide that, in 
accordance with Sec.  303.7 of this chapter, the State will extend the 
full range of services available under its IV-D plan to: (1) Any other 
State.'' Paragraph (a)(2) requires States to provide services to Tribal 
IV-D programs. Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the full range of 
services also be provided to: ``Any country as defined in Sec.  301.1 
of this chapter.'' In the final rule, we corrected the regulatory 
citation for the definition of the term ``Country'' by replacing Sec.  
303.1 with Sec.  301.1. Section 302.36(b) is revised by substituting 
``intergovernmental'' for ``interstate'' and amending the reference to 
State central registry responsibilities to Sec.  303.7(b), consistent 
with changes we made to Sec.  303.7.

Part 303--Standards for Program Operations

Section 303.7--Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-D Cases

    We reorganized Sec.  303.7 to clarify IV-D agency responsibilities 
and to expand the scope from interstate to all intergovernmental IV-D 
cases, as defined by Sec.  301.1. In many cases, existing paragraphs 
were moved with minor language changes only to improve readability. 
Other paragraphs of this section were revised to either shift 
responsibility between the initiating and responding agencies or 
address new case processing responsibilities.
    The heading of Sec.  303.7 substitutes ``intergovernmental'' for 
``interstate.''
    (a) General responsibilities
    Paragraph (a) contains requirements that apply to States, 
irrespective of the IV-D agency's role in the case as either an 
initiating or responding agency.
    Paragraph (a)(1) requires a IV-D agency to: ``Establish and use 
procedures for managing its intergovernmental IV-D caseload that ensure 
provision of necessary services as required by this section and include 
maintenance of necessary records in accordance with Sec.  303.2 of this 
part.'' This is a general responsibility of all IV-D agencies.
    Similarly, Sec.  303.7(a)(2) and (3) require the IV-D agency to 
periodically review program performance for effectiveness and to ensure 
adequate organizational structure and staffing to provide services in 
intergovernmental cases.
    Section 303.7(a)(4) requires the IV-D agency to: ``Use federally-
approved forms in intergovernmental IV-D cases, unless a country has 
provided alternative forms as part of a chapter of A Caseworker's Guide 
to Processing Cases with Foreign Reciprocating Countries. When using a 
paper version, this requirement is met by providing the number of 
complete sets of required documents needed by the responding agency, if 
one is not sufficient under the responding agency's law.'' In response 
to comments, we now mention the possibility that an FRC may request a 
State use a particular FRC-specific form. Also in response to comments, 
we added the second sentence of Sec.  303.7(a)(4) to require the 
initiating State IV-D agency, when it sends a paper version of the 
required documents, to send the number of sets needed by the responding 
State if one copy is not sufficient under the responding State's law.
    Section 303.7(a)(5) requires IV-D agencies to: ``Transmit requests 
for information and provide requested information electronically to the 
greatest extent possible.'' In response to comments, we removed the 
proposed phrase ``in accordance with instructions issued by the 
Office.'' Nevertheless, OCSE may provide instructions to States if 
deemed necessary and appropriate.
    In response to State comments, we clarified in the rule the 
responsibilities of IV-D agencies to determine which of multiple 
current support orders is controlling prospectively. Section 
303.7(a)(6) includes a general responsibility which requires all IV-D 
agencies to: ``Within 30 working days of receiving a request, provide 
any order and payment record information requested by a State IV-D 
agency for a controlling order determination and reconciliation of 
arrearages, or notify the State IV-D agency when the information will 
be provided.'' In response to concerns by commenters that 30 working 
days may be inadequate, we added an option in Sec.  303.7(a)(6) to 
notify the State IV-D agency when the information will be provided if 
there is a delay.
    Section 303.7(a)(7) requires IV-D agencies to: ``Notify the other 
agency within 10 working days of receipt of new information on an 
intergovernmental case.''
    Section 303.7(a)(8) requires all IV-D agencies to: ``Cooperate with 
requests for the following limited services: quick locate, service of 
process, assistance with discovery, assistance with genetic testing, 
teleconferenced hearings, administrative reviews, high-volume automated 
administrative enforcement in interstate cases under section 466(a)(14) 
of the Act, and copies of court orders and payment records. Requests 
for other limited services may be honored at the State's option.'' In 
response to comments, the final rule specifies the limited services 
that State IV-D agencies must provide if requested and adds that State 
IV-D agencies have the option to honor requests for other types of 
limited services.
    (b) Central registry
    Section 303.7(b)(1) provides: ``The State IV-D agency must 
establish a central registry responsible for receiving, transmitting, 
and responding

[[Page 38616]]

to inquiries on all incoming intergovernmental IV-D cases.''
    Paragraph (b)(2) requires that the State's central registry must: 
``Within 10 working days of receipt of an intergovernmental IV-D 
case,'' take the following four actions: ``(i) Ensure that the 
documentation submitted with the case has been reviewed to determine 
completeness; (ii) Forward the case for necessary action either to the 
central State Parent Locator Service for location services or to the 
appropriate agency for processing; (iii) Acknowledge receipt of the 
case and request any missing documentation; and (iv) Inform the 
initiating agency where the case was sent for action.''
    Paragraph (b)(3) requires: ``If the documentation received with a 
case is incomplete and cannot be remedied by the central registry 
without the assistance of the initiating agency, the central registry 
must forward the case for any action that can be taken pending 
necessary action by the initiating agency.'' In response to comments, 
we replaced ``inadequate'' with ``incomplete.''
    Paragraph (b)(4) requires the central registry to: ``respond to 
inquiries from initiating agencies within 5 working days of receipt of 
the request for a case status review.''
    (c) Initiating State IV-D agency responsibilities
    The first step in deciding whether a determination of controlling 
order (DCO) is necessary is to identify all support orders. 
Accordingly, Sec.  303.7(c)(1) adds the requirement that an initiating 
agency must first: ``Determine whether or not there is a support order 
or orders in effect in a case using the Federal and State Case 
Registries, State records, information provided by the recipient of 
services, and other relevant information available to the State.''
    In paragraph (c)(2), the initiating agency must: ``Determine in 
which State a determination of the controlling order and reconciliation 
of arrearages may be made where multiple orders exist.'' If more than 
one State tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine the controlling 
order, pursuant to paragraph (c)(4)(i), the initiating agency must 
decide which State IV-D agency should file for such relief.
    Under paragraph (c)(3), the initiating agency must: ``Determine 
whether the noncustodial parent is in another jurisdiction and whether 
it is appropriate to use its one-state remedies to establish paternity 
and establish, modify, and enforce a support order, including medical 
support and income withholding.''
    Under Sec.  303.7(c)(4), in response to comments, we made 
additional clarifying changes. The final rule specifies that: ``Within 
20 calendar days of completing the actions required in paragraphs (1) 
through (3), and, if appropriate, receipt of any necessary information 
needed to process the case,'' the initiating agency must under 
paragraph (c)(4)(i), if multiple orders are in existence and identified 
under paragraph (c)(1), ``ask the appropriate intrastate tribunal, or 
refer the case to the appropriate responding State IV-D agency, for a 
determination of the controlling order and a reconciliation of 
arrearages if such a determination is necessary.'' In addition, within 
the 20-calendar-days time frame, under paragraph (c)(4)(ii), the 
initiating agency must ``refer any intergovernmental IV-D case to the 
appropriate State Central Registry, Tribal IV-D program, or Central 
Authority of a country for action, if one-state remedies are not 
appropriate.''
    Section 303.7(c)(5) requires the initiating agency to: ``Provide 
the responding agency sufficient, accurate information to act on the 
case by submitting with each case any necessary documentation and 
intergovernmental forms required by the responding agency.'' Similarly, 
Sec.  303.7(c)(6) requires the initiating agency to: ``Within 30 
calendar days of receipt of the request for information, provide the 
responding agency with an updated intergovernmental form and any 
necessary additional documentation, or notify the responding agency 
when the information will be provided.''
    Section 303.7(c)(7) requires the initiating agency to: ``Notify the 
responding agency at least annually, and upon request in an individual 
case, of interest charges, if any, owed on overdue support under an 
initiating State order being enforced in the responding jurisdiction.'' 
In response to comments on the proposed rule, we added a requirement to 
provide notice annually, rather than quarterly as previously proposed 
in the NPRM, and upon request in an individual case.
    Under paragraph (c)(8), the initiating State agency must: ``Submit 
all past-due support owed in IV-D cases that meet the certification 
requirements under Sec.  303.72 of this part for Federal tax refund 
offset.'' As explained under the discussion in response to comments, we 
deleted the proposed requirement that only the initiating State could 
submit past-due support for other Federal remedies, such as 
administrative offset or passport denial. In the proposed rule, we 
expressly assigned responsibility in an interstate case to the 
initiating agency to submit qualifying past-due support for all Federal 
remedies, consistent with submittal rules for Federal tax refund offset 
under Sec.  303.72(a)(1). Our intent was to avoid both States 
submitting the same arrearage in a single case; however, we have 
learned that there may be situations where the responding State IV-D 
agency may submit the case that it is working on behalf of the 
initiating State IV-D agency for administrative offset, passport 
denial, Federal insurance match, and Multi State Financial Institution 
Data Match (MSFIDM) on its own, or at the initiating State IV-D 
agency's request. Therefore, under paragraph (c)(8) in the final rule, 
the initiating State IV-D agency must: ``Submit all past-due support 
owed in IV-D cases that meet the certification requirements under Sec.  
303.72 of this part for Federal tax refund offset.''
    Section 303.7(c)(9) requires that the initiating State must send a 
request for a review of a support order and supporting documentation 
within 20 calendar days of determining that such a request is required.
    Section 303.7(c)(10) requires the initiating State to: ``Distribute 
and disburse any support collections received in accordance with this 
section and Sec. Sec.  302.32, 302.51, and 302.52 of this chapter, 
sections 454(5), 454B, 457, and 1912 of the Act, and instructions 
issued by the Office.''
    Section 303.7(c)(11) requires an initiating State agency to: 
``Notify the responding agency within 10 working days of case closure 
that the initiating State IV-D agency has closed its case pursuant to 
Sec.  303.11 of this part, and the basis for case closure.'' In 
response to comments, we added the phrase, ``and the basis for case 
closure.''
    Paragraph (c)(12) addresses the issue of duplicate withholding 
notices/orders for the same obligor being sent to the obligor's 
employer by both the initiating and responding States in the same 
interstate case. We are requiring the initiating agency under paragraph 
(c)(12) to: ``Instruct the responding agency to close its interstate 
case and to stop any withholding order or notice the responding agency 
has sent to an employer before the initiating State transmits a 
withholding order or notice, with respect to the same case, to the same 
or another employer unless the two States reach an alternative 
agreement on how to proceed.'' The phrase ``with respect to the same 
case'' was added to the final rule for clarity. This procedure will 
avoid duplicate State income withholding orders or notices; however, 
there is nothing in

[[Page 38617]]

this rule that authorizes a State to change the payee on another 
State's order through direct income withholding. This prohibition is 
addressed in Policy Interpretation Question PIQ-01-01, which states, 
``if a support order or income withholding order issued by one State 
designates the person or agency to receive payments and the address to 
which payments are to be forwarded, an individual or entity in another 
State may not change the designation when sending an Order/Notice to 
Withhold [Income for] Child Support.'' (The Order/Notice to Withhold 
Income for Child Support form is now referred to as the ``Income 
Withholding for Support'' form.) While we recognize that section 466(f) 
of the Act requires States to enact UIFSA 1996, section 319(b) of UIFSA 
(2001) provides a mechanism for redirection of payments when neither 
the obligor, obligee, nor child reside in the State that issued the 
controlling order.
    The final requirement on initiating IV-D agencies, Sec.  
303.7(c)(13) addresses concerns about undistributed collections in a 
responding State because the initiating State closed its case and 
refuses to accept any collections in that case from the responding 
State. Section 303.7(c)(13) requires the initiating State to: ``If the 
initiating agency has closed its case pursuant to Sec.  303.11 and has 
not notified the responding agency to close its corresponding case, 
make a diligent effort to locate the obligee, including use of the 
Federal Parent Locator Service and the State Parent Locator Service, 
and accept, distribute and disburse any payment received from a 
responding agency.''
    (d) Responding State IV-D agency responsibilities
    In the final rule, we have revised the introductory language from 
the proposed rule to clarify that the requirements in section 303.7(d) 
apply to State IV-D agencies specifically. The introductory language 
now reads as follows: ``Upon receipt of a request for services from an 
initiating agency, the responding State IV-D agency must* * *.'' 
Section 303.7(d)(1) requires a responding agency to: ``Accept and 
process an intergovernmental request for services, regardless of 
whether the initiating agency elected not to use remedies that may be 
available under the law of that jurisdiction.''
    The opening sentence in Sec.  303.7(d)(2) states that: ``Within 75 
calendar days of receipt of an intergovernmental form and documentation 
from its central registry* * *'' the responding agency must take the 
specified action.
    Paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires the responding State IV-D agency to: 
``Provide location services in accordance with Sec.  303.3 of this part 
if the request is for location services or the form or documentation 
does not include adequate location information on the noncustodial 
parent.'' Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) provides: ``If unable to proceed with 
the case because of inadequate documentation, notify the initiating 
agency of the necessary additions or corrections to the form or 
documentation.'' Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) provides: ``If the documentation 
received with a case is incomplete and cannot be remedied without the 
assistance of the initiating agency, process the case to the extent 
possible pending necessary action by the initiating agency.'' In 
response to comments, we replaced ``inadequate'' with ``incomplete.''
    In the proposed rule, OCSE requested feedback regarding actions 
that should be taken when a noncustodial parent is located in a 
different State. Based on the comments received, Sec.  303.7(d)(3) was 
revised to replace the phrase ``initiating State'' with ``initiating 
agency,'' and the term ``forward'' with ``forward/transmit.'' In 
response to comments, we also have clarified that the responding 
State's own central registry should be notified where that case has 
been sent. The paragraph now reads as follows: ``Within 10 working days 
of locating the noncustodial parent in a different State, the 
responding agency must return the forms and documentation, including 
the new location, to the initiating agency, or, if directed by the 
initiating agency, forward/transmit the forms and documentation to the 
central registry in the State where the noncustodial parent has been 
located and notify the responding State's own central registry where 
the case has been sent.''
    Paragraph (d)(4) requires the responding State IV-D agency to: 
``Within 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent in a 
different political subdivision within the State, forward/transmit the 
forms and documentation to the appropriate political subdivision and 
notify the initiating agency and the responding State's own central 
registry of its action.'' Again, we changed ``initiating State'' to 
``initiating agency,'' and clarified that the central registry in the 
responding State also should be notified where the case has been sent. 
In addition, to avoid ambiguity, we replaced the term ``jurisdiction'' 
with ``political subdivision.''
    Paragraph (d)(5) adds a notice requirement where the initiating 
State agency has requested a controlling order determination. In this 
case, the responding agency must under paragraph (d)(5)(i): ``File the 
controlling order determination request with the appropriate tribunal 
in its State within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request or 
location of the noncustodial parent, whichever occurs later.'' In 
response to comments we increased the time frame from 10 working days 
to 30 calendar days. Under paragraph (d)(5)(ii), the responding State 
must: ``Notify the initiating State agency, the Controlling Order State 
and any State where a support order in the case was issued or 
registered, of the controlling order determination and any reconciled 
arrearages within 30 calendar days of receipt of the determination from 
the tribunal.'' The 30-calendar-days time frame in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) 
is identical to that included under section 207(f) of UIFSA, under 
which the party obtaining the order shall file a certified copy of the 
order with each tribunal that issued or registered an earlier order of 
child support, within 30 calendar days after issuance of an order 
determining the controlling order.
    Section 303.7(d)(6) requires the responding agency to: ``Provide 
any necessary services as it would in an intrastate IV-D case,'' 
including 6 specific services. Paragraph (d)(6)(i) requires responding 
State agencies to provide services including: ``Establishing paternity 
in accordance with Sec.  303.5 of this part and, if the agency elects, 
attempting to obtain a judgment for costs should paternity be 
established.'' Paragraph (d)(6)(ii) requires responding State agencies 
to provide services including: ``Establishing a child support 
obligation in accordance with Sec.  302.56 of this chapter and 
Sec. Sec.  303.4, 303.31 and 303.101 of this part.'' In response to 
comments, paragraph (d)(6)(i) allows State IV-D agencies to attempt to 
obtain a judgment for costs when paternity is established.
    In response to comments, we moved the responsibility to report 
overdue support to Consumer Reporting Agencies, in accordance with 
section 466(a)(7) of the Act and Sec.  302.70(a)(7), from initiating 
State IV-D agencies, as suggested in the proposed rule, to responding 
State IV-D agencies under paragraph (d)(6)(iii).
    Paragraph (d)(6)(iv) addresses a responding State agency's 
responsibility for processing and enforcing orders referred by an 
initiating agency. In response to comments to the initiating State 
agency's responsibility under paragraph (c)(8), to submit past due 
support for Federal enforcement remedies, we have added language to

[[Page 38618]]

indicate that the responding State agency may submit cases for other 
Federal enforcement remedies such as administrative offset and passport 
denial. The paragraph now reads as follows: ``Processing and enforcing 
orders referred by an initiating agency, whether pursuant to UIFSA or 
other legal processes, using appropriate remedies applied in its own 
cases in accordance with Sec. Sec.  303.6, 303.31, 303.32, 303.100 
through 303.102, and 303.104 of this part, and submit the case for such 
other Federal enforcement techniques as the State determines to be 
appropriate, such as administrative offset under 31 CFR 285.1 and 
passport denial under section 452(k) of the Act.''
    Paragraph (d)(6)(v) requires the responding agency to provide any 
necessary services as it would in an intrastate IV-D case including: 
``Collecting and monitoring any support payments from the noncustodial 
parent and forwarding payments to the location specified by the 
initiating agency. The IV-D agency must include sufficient information 
to identify the case, indicate the date of collection as defined under 
Sec.  302.51(a) of this chapter, and include the responding State's 
case identifier and locator code, as defined in accordance with 
instructions issued by this Office.'' This change allows OCSE greater 
flexibility to define consistent identifier and locator codes, 
including ones for FRCs (International Standards Organization (ISO) 
codes) and Tribal IV-D programs (Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) codes). 
OCSE DCL-07-02 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/2007/dcl-07-02.htm) provides locator code instructions, including for Tribal IV-
D and international cases.
    Under paragraph (d)(6)(vi), the responding State IV-D agency is 
responsible for: ``Reviewing and adjusting child support orders upon 
request in accordance with Sec.  303.8 of this part.''
    Paragraph (d)(7) requires the responding State IV-D agency to: 
``Provide timely notice to the initiating agency in advance of any 
hearing before a tribunal that may result in establishment or 
adjustment of an order.''
    In the NPRM, we added proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(8) to address 
allocation of collections in interstate cases with arrearages owed by 
the same obligor and assigned to the responding State in a different 
case. In response to comments, however, this requirement was removed 
from the final rule. Given the lack of consensus reflected in the 
comments, we believe the issue of how a responding State should 
allocate collections between assigned arrearages on its own case and an 
interstate case may better be addressed in the context of meetings on 
intergovernmental cooperation rather than by regulation.
    Section 303.7(d)(8) requires the responding State agency to: 
``Identify any fees or costs deducted from support payments when 
forwarding payments to the initiating agency in accordance with 
paragraph (d)(6)(v) of this section.''
    Section 303.7(d)(9) details the actions a responding State must 
take when an initiating State has elected to use direct income 
withholding in an existing intergovernmental IV-D case. The initiating 
State is authorized to use direct income withholding only where it 
follows requirements to instruct the responding agency to close its 
corresponding case under Sec.  303.7(c)(12). In the final rule, 
paragraph (d)(9) requires the responding agency to: ``Within 10 working 
days of receipt of instructions for case closure from an initiating 
agency under paragraph (c)(12) of this section, stop the responding 
State's income withholding order or notice and close the 
intergovernmental IV-D case, unless the two States reach an alternative 
agreement on how to proceed.'' In response to comments, the time frame 
by which a responding State must stop their income withholding order 
and close the intergovernmental case is clarified to be ``working'' 
days. Also in response to comments, we replaced the words ``a request'' 
in the proposed rule with ``instructions'' to emphasize that this 
requirement is mandatory, not optional, and to be consistent with the 
language in the corresponding initiating State responsibilities 
section, under paragraph (c)(12), which uses the word ``instruct.''
    In the final rule, requirement (d)(10) requires the responding 
State IV-D agency to: ``Notify the initiating agency when a case is 
closed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  303.11(b)(12) through (14) and 
303.7(d)(9) of this part.'' We added the reference to Sec.  303.7(d)(9) 
and the applicable paragraphs in Sec.  303.11 to clarify the authority 
under which a responding State IV-D agency may close an 
intergovernmental case and is required to notify the initiating agency.
    (e) Payment and recovery of costs in intergovernmental IV-D cases
    Section 303.7(e)(1) reads: ``The responding IV-D agency must pay 
the costs it incurs in processing intergovernmental IV-D cases, 
including the costs of genetic testing. If paternity is established, 
the responding agency, at its election, may seek a judgment for the 
costs of testing from the alleged father who denied paternity.''
    Paragraph (e)(2) reads as follows: ``Each State IV-D agency may 
recover its costs of providing services in intergovernmental non-IV-A 
cases in accordance with Sec.  302.33(d) of this chapter, except that a 
IV-D agency may not recover costs from an FRC or from a foreign obligee 
in that FRC, when providing services under sections 454(32) and 459A of 
the Act.'' The limitation on cost recovery has been added as required 
by PRWORA. Services between FRCs must be cost free. States entering a 
state-level arrangement with a non-FRC country under section 459A may 
elect to provide cost-free services, but are not mandated to do so. 
Accordingly, this section refers to FRCs rather than using the more 
inclusive term ``country.'' However, there is no similar prohibition to 
charging fees or recovering costs in cases with Tribal IV-D agencies. 
In addition, Tribal IV-D agencies have the option under Sec.  309.75(e) 
to charge fees and recover costs.

Part 303--Standards for Program Operation

Section 303.11--Case Closure Criteria

    Section 303.11(b)(12) allows a State IV-D agency to close a case 
if: ``The IV-D agency documents failure by the initiating agency to 
take an action which is essential for the next step in providing 
services.''
    Paragraph (b)(13) adds a case closure criterion under which the 
responding State agency is authorized to close its intergovernmental 
case based on a notice under Sec.  303.7(c)(11) from the initiating 
agency that it has closed its case. Under Sec.  303.7(c)(11), an 
initiating State agency must: ``Notify the responding agency within 10 
working days of case closure that the initiating State IV-D agency has 
closed its case pursuant to Sec.  303.11 of this part, and the basis 
for case closure.'' Paragraph (b)(13) provides, ``The initiating agency 
has notified the responding State that the initiating State has closed 
its case under Sec.  303.7(c)(11).''
    In response to comments, paragraph (b)(14) adds a case closure 
criterion under which the responding State is authorized to close its 
intergovernmental case based on a notice from the initiating agency 
that the responding State's intergovernmental services are no longer 
needed.
    For consistency with the language in Sec.  303.11(b)(12), which 
allows a State IV-D agency to close a case if the IV-D agency documents 
failure by the initiating agency to take an action which is essential 
for the next step in case

[[Page 38619]]

processing, there is a technical change to Sec.  303.11(c) to 
substitute the word ``intergovernmental'' for ``interstate'' and 
``initiating agency'' for ``initiating State.'' Since Sec.  
303.11(b)(12) may be used in both intergovernmental cases received from 
Tribal IV-D programs and other countries, the requirement for pre-
notice of closure applies to these cases as well. Therefore, the case 
closure notice that responding States must give if they intend to close 
a case under Sec.  303.11(b)(12) must be provided to all initiating 
agencies, and the responding State must keep the case open if that 
initiating agency supplies useable information in response to the 
notice.

Part 305--Program Performance Measures, Standards, Financial 
Incentives, and Penalties

Section 305.63--Standards for Determining Substantial Compliance With 
IV-D Requirements

    We have made conforming changes to Part 305 at Sec.  305.63 to 
correct outdated cross-references and to revise cross-references to 
Sec.  303.7.

Part 308--Annual State Self-Assessment Review and Report

Section 308.2--Required Program Compliance Criteria

    We have made conforming changes to Part 308 at Sec.  308.2 to 
correct outdated cross-references and to revise cross-references to 
Sec.  303.7. The language in paragraph (g) has been revised to reflect 
the corresponding changes to referenced provisions in Sec.  303.7, and 
we also added two new program compliance criteria for State Self-
Assessments.
    First, there is a performance criterion for both initiating (Sec.  
308.2(g)(1)(vi)) and responding (Sec.  308.2(g)(2)(vi)) cases under 
which, in accordance with the time frame under Sec.  303.7(a)(6), the 
initiating and responding State IV-D agencies must, within 30 working 
days of receipt of a request, provide: ``any order and payment record 
information requested by a State IV-D agency for a controlling order 
determination and reconciliation of arrearages, or notify the State IV-
D agency when the information will be provided.'' The phrase: ``or 
notify the State IV-D agency when the information will be provided,'' 
was added in response to comments.
    A second new performance area involves case closure criteria. As 
discussed previously under Sec.  303.7 and Sec.  303.11, there are 
time-measured requirements for notification of the other State when 
closing a case. Measurable performance criteria are established where 
we impose time frames. Accordingly, we add notification regarding case 
closure in both initiating (Sec.  308.2(g)(1)(iv)) and responding 
(Sec.  308.2(g)(2)(vii)) cases.

IV. Response to Comments

    We received 25 sets of comments from States, Tribes, and other 
interested individuals. Below is a summary of the comments and our 
responses.

General Comments

    1. Comment: One commenter pointed out that the acronym SCR is used 
for both State Case Registry and State Central Registry in the NPRM.
    Response: OCSE agrees that using the same acronym for two different 
terms in the preamble is confusing. Typically we use the acronym SCR to 
stand for State Case Registry. The final rule text does not use an 
acronym for either term.
    2. Comment: The same commenter also raised concern about the lack 
of recourse for States that are trying to process intergovernmental 
cases when other States are not meeting mandated processing deadlines. 
The commenter suggested that OCSE add a Sec.  303.7(f) to the 
intergovernmental regulation to set out responsibilities for the 
Federal Government to help States resolve complex intergovernmental 
case issues.
    Response: OCSE acknowledges that intergovernmental case processing 
can be challenging and is concerned that some States may not be meeting 
processing deadlines. A procedure currently exists for States to work 
with OCSE in situations where they may need assistance resolving 
intergovernmental case issues with other States. The current procedure 
allows States to contact their Federal regional program manager, report 
the issue and then work with the program manager and other States to 
resolve the issue. In addition, case closure regulations under Sec.  
303.11(b)(12) offer responding States the option to close cases without 
permission from the initiating agency by documenting lack of 
cooperation by the initiating agency. This criterion was devised so 
that responding States would have grounds to close unworkable cases, 
provided the 60-calendar-day notice is given to the initiating agency, 
as required under Sec.  303.11(c). Also the responding State should 
make a thorough, good faith effort to communicate with the State before 
initiating case closure procedures.
    3. Comment: In the preamble to the NPRM, OCSE specifically 
requested feedback from States regarding other communication techniques 
for interstate case processing that would work as well as or better 
than the Child Support Enforcement Network (CSENet) to foster improved 
communication between States. In response, one commenter suggested that 
OCSE encourage more States to adopt Query Interstate Cases for Kids 
(QUICK) to improve interstate case processing communication.
    Response: OCSE agrees that QUICK, an electronic communication 
format that allows caseworkers to view interstate case information in 
real time, can be an important interstate communication tool and 
encourages State use. As of November 2009, 21 States are in production 
with QUICK, 10 States are in the development phase, and more States are 
in the pre-development stage. These numbers demonstrate that many 
States recognize the benefits of utilizing QUICK for interstate 
communications. OCSE will continue its outreach and technical 
assistance efforts to further encourage and support States' development 
of QUICK for their use.
    4. Comment: The same commenter also suggested an enhancement to 
CSENet to allow States to include electronic documents in CSENet 
transactions.
    Response: Electronic transmission of intergovernmental forms, court 
orders and other supporting documentation was assessed by OCSE within 
the last several years. While technically feasible, States' comments 
during this assessment process indicated that their statewide systems 
were not prepared to transmit those documents or that their courts 
would not accept those documents. OCSE will revisit this issue with 
States in 2010 when we review the intergovernmental forms as required 
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    5. Comment: Another commenter suggested that OCSE add more CSENet 
functions, specifying that all States should have the same functions 
with correct information, such as telephone numbers, FIPS codes, and 
fax numbers.
    Response: OCSE has encouraged States to develop programs for all 
CSENet functional areas for several years. We continue outreach efforts 
on an individual basis with States that do not have all seven 
functional areas (Quick Locate, Case Status Information, Enforcement, 
Managing State Cases, Paternity, Establishment and Collections) 
programmed. Finally, we continue to focus interstate meetings, training 
sessions and end-user support activities on efforts to improve data 
quality and accuracy of transaction content.
    6. Comment: The same commenter asked that the Quick Locate CSENet 
transaction not be limited to the noncustodial parent.

[[Page 38620]]

    Response: The parameter of Quick Locate was broadened after PRWORA 
to include noncustodial parents and custodial parents, and the existing 
Quick Locate transaction is used for both noncustodial parent and 
custodial parent location. OCSE will conduct outreach in this area to 
determine if the single transaction is meeting States' needs.
    7. Comment: One commenter suggested that OCSE develop a secure 
network that would allow States to send electronic documents to another 
State via the internet, similar to the way documents are filed 
electronically with the courts. The commenter said that this would 
allow States to accept referrals electronically and save on postage and 
worker time. Alternatively, the commenter suggested States obtain email 
encryption software and be able to certify that their emails are 
encrypted, thus allowing States to communicate case processing 
information by email correspondence and document exchange.
    Response: OCSE does encourage email encryption and secure networks, 
including Internet-based solutions to facilitate electronic 
communications and to protect personally identifiable information. OCSE 
is considering providing the capability for States to electronically 
transmit documents to other States using the Federal Parent Locator 
Service (FPLS). As enhancements are made to FPLS systems, OCSE will 
continue to partner with States for input and pilot activities.
    8. Comment: One commenter noted that while he knows of nothing 
better than CSENet for communications, the Interstate Data Exchange 
Consortium (IDEC), a group of States whose common objective is to pool 
resources to provide cost-effective solutions for interstate and 
intrastate child support issues, has also been very useful for 
processing transactions such as Automated, High-Volume Administrative 
Enforcement in Interstate Cases (AEI). IDEC is also effective for 
processing locate requests because it includes Social Security numbers, 
addresses, employment history, and demographic information. According 
to the commenter, however, IDEC is limited by the number of States that 
subscribe.
    Response: OCSE agrees that consortia such as IDEC can be very 
useful, especially in processing requests for functions such as limited 
service requests, which cannot be processed using most statewide 
automated systems. However, since there are competing State consortia, 
OCSE cannot promote one group over another.
    9. Comment: One commenter expressed that she had hoped the 
intergovernmental NPRM would have taken a stronger position on 
requiring States to adopt processes to accept electronic documents and 
signatures, noting that her State has made extraordinary progress in 
the area of electronic documentation, which has resulted in greater 
efficiency. The commenter believes that some States will never adopt 
electronic processing unless required to by OCSE.
    Response: OCSE appreciates the comment and commends the innovation 
of the commenter's State. As discussed later in this section, while 
OCSE encourages all States to adopt electronic capabilities, OCSE has 
not mandated this because of the varying capabilities among IV-D 
agencies.
    10. Comment: One commenter was concerned that the changes in 
terminology in the proposed regulation, such as using 
``intergovernmental'' instead of ``interstate'' and adding the terms 
Tribal and international, will require numerous changes to forms and 
procedural manuals used by the States.
    Response: OCSE is sympathetic to the commenter's concern that some 
changes to State forms and procedures may be necessary following 
publication of this rule. However, OCSE notes that current mandatory 
intergovernmental forms already use many of these terms. OCSE also 
believes that these terms accurately state specific requirements in the 
new intergovernmental rule and believes States will, as a result of 
these changes, be able to process intergovernmental cases more 
efficiently. OCSE will allow adequate time for States to make needed 
changes to their internal manuals and forms by extending the effective 
date of the final rule from the usual 60 days to 6 months after 
publication.
    11. Comment: In regard to the background section addressing 
``Tribal IV-D and International Child Support Enforcement'' in the 
preamble of the proposed rule, one commenter asked for clarification 
that, in the context of discussion about the ``States'' ratifying the 
Hague Convention for the International Recovery of Child Support and 
Other Forms of Family Maintenance, the term State refers to countries 
and that individual U.S. States will not sign the convention.
    Response: In the context of the Hague Convention, the U.S. 
Government and other foreign countries sign the treaty. The term 
``State'' in the context of the treaty does not refer to individual 
U.S. States. In the preamble to the final rule, we used the term 
``foreign country'' instead of ``State'' for clarity.
    12. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule violates 
the HHS consultation policy, since OCSE did not follow the requirements 
for Tribal consultation mandated by its own Department according to 
Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, HHS Tribal Consultation Policy. The commenter believes the 
proposed rule may have enormous Tribal implications, and that now there 
can be no meaningful dialogue between Tribal governments and OCSE 
because the proposed rule has already been published. Finally, the 
commenter asked for clarification as to whether the proposed 
intergovernmental regulation applies to all Tribal child support 
enforcement programs or only to Tribal IV-D programs established under 
45 CFR part 309.
    Response: This rule places no requirements on Tribal programs, IV-D 
or otherwise. The only Federal child support regulations that apply to 
Tribes are 45 CFR part 309, Tribal Child Support Enforcement (IV-D) 
Program, and 45 CFR part 310, Computerized Tribal IV-D Systems and 
Office Automation. 45 CFR parts 309 and 310 apply only to Tribal IV-D 
programs.
    One of the major reasons for revising the intergovernmental rule 
was to recognize and account for the increasing diversity of partners 
involved in case processing, including Tribal and international 
agencies. However, while these rules address State case processing 
requirements in this larger context, the rules themselves only apply to 
State IV-D agencies.
    For example, if a Tribal IV-D program is the initiating agency and 
a State is a responding agency in an intergovernmental context, the 
intergovernmental rules for responding States under Sec.  303.7(d) 
apply to the State, while the rules for initiating States under Sec.  
303.7(c) do not apply to the Tribal IV-D program.
    13. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification as to which 
parts of the proposed rules apply to a State IV-D program's 
interactions with a Tribe and which ones apply to a State IV-D 
program's interactions with a Tribal IV-D program.
    Response: Under the Federal statute and regulations, there is no 
mandate that States provide services to non-IV-D Tribes. However, as 
described below, if a State decides to cooperate with a non-IV-D Tribe 
to provide child support services, then the intergovernmental rules do 
apply to the State. Also, applicants who apply directly to a State 
program must be served by the State, regardless of where they live.

[[Page 38621]]

Part 301--State Plan Approval and Grant Procedures

Section 301.1--General Definitions

    While several commenters agreed with one or all of the proposed 
definitions in the General definitions section of Sec.  301.1, most of 
those who commented expressed a variety of questions and concerns 
regarding specific definitions and terms.
    1. Comments: In regard to the definition of Country, one commenter 
asked for confirmation that the term does not include countries with 
which no Federal or State-level reciprocal agreement exists; and that 
services to these countries are not mandated. The commenter asked to 
what extent the intergovernmental rule applies to those situations in 
which a State and a foreign country not included in the definition of 
Country in the regulation are cooperating to handle a shared case on 
the basis of comity as specified in UIFSA, or some other informal 
arrangement.
    Response: The definition of Country does not include foreign 
countries with which no Federal or State-level reciprocal agreement 
exists; and IV-D services to these foreign countries are not federally 
mandated. However, if a State opts to cooperate with such a foreign 
country, as we understand is fairly routine, then the case becomes an 
intergovernmental IV-D case and this rule applies.
    2. Comment: One commenter stated that proposed Sec.  301.1 includes 
a referral requirement within the definition of an Initiating agency; 
however, the term Initiating agency also is used in the regulation to 
refer to an agency that takes unilateral action, such as direct income 
withholding. The commenter suggests that if the intent is to limit the 
initiating agency definition to those agencies that refer a case to the 
responding agency, then another term and definition should be developed 
for those agencies that take unilateral action.
    Response: OCSE did not intend to limit the definition of Initiating 
agency to only refer to agencies that have sent a case to a responding 
agency. The term is intended to include agencies that make case 
referrals as well as take unilateral actions, such as direct income 
withholding.
    In order to define the term more accurately, OCSE changed the 
definition of Initiating agency in this final rule to emphasize the 
relationship of the applicant or recipient of services to the agency, 
rather than focusing on the referral from the agency to a responding 
agency. By changing the definition, the term is inclusive of whatever 
actions an agency may take to process a case. The revised definition 
for initiating agency now reads:

    ``Initiating agency means a State or Tribal IV-D agency or an 
agency in a country, as defined in this rule, in which an individual 
has applied for or is receiving services.''

    In addition, this revised definition clarifies that State IV-D 
agencies must fulfill their responsibilities as initiating agencies 
under Sec.  303.7(c) of the rules, particularly paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (3), even if no referral has been made to a responding agency.
    3. Comment: The intergovernmental NPRM states that an Initiating 
agency, as defined, could include a State IV-D agency, a Tribal IV-D 
agency, or a country as defined by this rule. Responding agency is 
defined as ``the agency that is providing services in response to a 
referral from an initiating agency in an intergovernmental IV-D case.'' 
In regard to both definitions, one commenter asked why all Tribal 
agencies were not referenced. In addition, the commenter asked whether 
a State could have a reciprocal case with a Tribe that does not have a 
IV-D program.
    Response: This rule applies only to State IV-D programs, and State 
IV-D programs are only required to provide services to other State IV-D 
programs, Tribal IV-D programs, and countries with Federal or State-
level agreements, not to all Tribes. However, a State may choose to 
open a reciprocal case with a Tribe that does not operate a IV-D 
program, so long as the State complies with this rule.
    4. Comment: A commenter asked if all Tribes are bound by FFCCSOA.
    Response: Yes, all Tribes are bound by FFCCSOA, 22 U.S.C. Sec.  
1738B. As explained in OCSE-AT-02-03: ``FFCCSOA requires courts of all 
United States territories, states and tribes to accord full faith and 
credit to child support orders issued by another state or tribe that 
properly exercised jurisdiction over the parties and the subject 
matter.'' According to the Action Transmittal, ``FFCCSOA defines 
``state'' to include ``Indian Country'' as this term is defined in 18 
U.S.C. section Sec.  1151. This means that whenever the term is used in 
[FFCCSOA], it includes tribe as well.''
    5. Comment: One commenter pointed out that in the definition for 
Form, the income withholding form is improperly referred to by its 
former title, ``Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support,'' 
rather than its new title, ``Income Withholding for Support.''
    Response: The commenter is correct. Since publication of AT-07-07, 
the name of the income withholding form is ``Income Withholding for 
Support.'' In the final rule, the definition of Form has been updated 
to reflect the correct title.
    6. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification for the 
definition of ``State'' with regard to the new definitions for 
Intergovernmental IV-D case and Interstate IV-D case. The commenter 
stated that Section 101(19) of UIFSA 1996 defines ``State'' to include 
States and territories, Indian Tribes, and foreign jurisdictions that 
have ``enacted a law or established procedures for issuance and 
enforcement of support orders which are substantially similar to the 
procedures under [UIFSA], the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support 
Act (URESA) or the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support 
Act (RURESA).'' The commenter suggested OCSE address whether the term 
``State'' in the definition of Interstate IV-D case retains the broad 
definition as defined by UIFSA or refers more narrowly to one of the 
United States or its territories only.
    Response: For the purposes of the IV-D program, State is defined in 
Sec.  301.1 as ``the several States, the District of Columbia, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American 
Samoa,'' and does not include Tribes or foreign jurisdictions. 
Therefore, the definition of State in Sec.  301.1 of this rule, and not 
the UIFSA definition, applies to the use of the term in the definition 
of Intergovernmental IV-D case and Interstate IV-D case in this rule.
    7. Comment: One commenter believes that the proposed definition for 
Intergovernmental IV-D case leaves out cases in which the child has 
emancipated but the custodial and noncustodial parents live in 
different jurisdictions, and those cases in which a State is attempting 
to collect State debt from an obligor in another State. In these state-
debt cases, the commenter said the State often does not know the 
location of the custodial parent or the child.
    Response: We agree that there are cases in which the IV-D agency is 
only attempting to collect arrearages owed to the State, and therefore 
we have added the following additional sentence to the definition for 
Intergovernmental IV-D case: ``An intergovernmental IV-D case also may 
include cases in which a State agency is seeking only to collect 
support arrearages, whether owed to the family or assigned to the 
State.'' Since this scenario exists in interstate cases as well, we 
have added a similar sentence to the definition for Interstate IV-D 
case. For the final text of the definitions

[[Page 38622]]

of Intergovernmental IV-D case and Interstate IV-D case, see the next 
comment.
    8. Comment: One commenter asked what the differences are between an 
Intergovernmental IV-D case and an Interstate IV-D case.
    Response: OCSE intended that the only distinction between an 
intergovernmental IV-D case and an interstate IV-D case was the type of 
jurisdictions involved: An interstate case involves States, while an 
intergovernmental IV-D case could involve any combination of referrals 
between States, Tribes or countries (as defined in the regulations). 
OCSE acknowledges that the NPRM definitions suggested another 
distinction between the terms: That an intergovernmental IV-D case 
required a referral to a responding agency, while an interstate case 
did not require a referral to another State. In response to this 
comment, OCSE revised the definitions to clarify that both terms 
include a referral requirement and that the only distinction is the 
kinds of jurisdictions involved in the case. To do this, we changed the 
first sentence of the definition of Intergovernmental IV-D case for 
consistency and clarity to more clearly follow the wording used in the 
first sentence of the definition of Interstate IV-D case.
    Regarding the definition for Interstate IV-D case, we revised the 
second half of the first sentence to clarify that the term refers only 
to cases that have been sent by a State to a responding State.
    The revised definitions for Intergovernmental IV-D case and 
Interstate IV-D case, which include these changes as well as the change 
from the previous comment, read as follows:

    ``Intergovernmental IV-D case means a IV-D case in which the 
noncustodial parent lives and/or works in a different jurisdiction 
than the custodial parent and child(ren) that has been referred by 
an initiating agency to a responding agency for services. An 
intergovernmental IV-D case may include any combination of referrals 
between States, Tribes, and countries. An intergovernmental IV-D 
case also may include cases in which a State agency is seeking only 
to collect support arrearages, whether owed to the family or 
assigned to the State.''
    ``Interstate IV-D case means a IV-D case in which the 
noncustodial parent lives and/or works in a different State than the 
custodial parent and child(ren) that has been referred by an 
initiating State to a responding State for services. An interstate 
IV-D case also may include cases in which a State is seeking only to 
collect support arrearages, whether owed to the family or assigned 
to the State.''

    9. Comment: One commenter observed that an Intergovernmental IV-D 
case is defined as a case where the noncustodial parent lives in a 
different jurisdiction from the child(ren), while an Interstate IV-D 
case is defined as a case where the noncustodial parent lives and/or 
works in a different State than the child(ren) and the custodial 
parent. The commenter asked why the former definition omits mentioning 
the custodial parent.
    Response: As stated above, OCSE intended the only difference 
between intergovernmental and interstate cases to be that of the types 
of jurisdictions involved in a case. The status or any other features 
of the custodial and noncustodial parents or children, other than the 
jurisdictions where they may live or work, does not impact whether the 
case falls under the interstate or intergovernmental definition.
    10. Comment: One commenter was concerned that the definition of 
Interstate IV-D case is too far-reaching. The commenter asked OCSE to 
consider, for example, the scenario in which a custodial parent living 
in Minnesota applies for IV-D services in North Dakota because the 
noncustodial parent is living and working in North Dakota and the 
support order was issued in North Dakota. Under the proposed 
definition, this would be considered an interstate IV-D case merely 
because the parties live in different States. However, this case would 
have no interstate implications--e.g., enforcement would occur in North 
Dakota according to North Dakota law, North Dakota would have 
continuing exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of review and 
adjustment, and the State would not treat this case as an interstate 
case for purposes of OCSE-157 reporting. The commenter is concerned 
that applying the definition of Interstate IV-D case to such a case 
could have unforeseen and unintended consequences.
    Response: As noted above, the definition for Interstate IV-D case 
has been revised in the final rule to pertain only to cases that have 
been referred for services from one State to another State. According 
to the revised definition, Interstate IV-D case does not include a case 
that is being processed by an initiating agency using one-state actions 
nor does it include a case that involves an applicant from one State 
applying directly for services in another State, as described in the 
commenter's scenario.
    The revised definition for Interstate IV-D case now aligns with the 
instructions for reporting interstate cases on Form OCSE-157, ``Child 
Support Enforcement Annual Data Report.'' The instructions for Form 
OCSE-157 describe interstate cases as those cases either ``sent to 
another State'' or ``received from another State.''
    11. Comment: OCSE welcomed comments on whether the proposed 
definition of One-state interstate IV-D case is helpful, and if so, 
appropriate and sufficient. While we received one comment in support of 
the proposed definition of One-state interstate IV-D case, we received 
two comments in opposition to the definition, and approximately a half-
dozen comments asking for clarification.
    The commenters in opposition believe the term is not useful, 
especially in the broader context of interstate case processing and as 
included in the proposed definition of the term Interstate IV-D case. 
One commenter explained that the word interstate is commonly understood 
to mean ``between'' or ``among'' States, so that combining 
``interstate'' and ``one-state'' in the same term is fundamentally 
problematic. The commenter felt that the definition for Interstate IV-D 
case should be limited to those cases where there has been a referral 
from one State IV-D program to another and that the one-state concept 
should not be included in the regulation. Another commenter disagreed 
with the use of the term ``long-arm'' in the proposed definition, while 
another pointed out that the definition could be read to apply to any 
case with a parent outside the State's borders, not just in another 
State.
    Response: While the concept and use of the term One-state 
interstate IV-D case has grown over the last twenty years, OCSE notes 
that inclusion of the definition in this rule may have generated 
confusion. As a result, we have removed the definition of One-state 
interstate IV-D case from the regulation, and added the definition for 
One-state remedies. In addition, as noted above, we revised the 
definition of Interstate IV-D case so that it no longer includes the 
concept of one-state interstate. Proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(3) also was 
modified to use the term One-state remedies. See discussion of the 
comments on proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(3) below. In the final rule, One-
state remedies means ``the exercise of a State's jurisdiction over a 
non-resident parent or direct establishment, enforcement, or other 
action by a State against a non-resident parent in accordance with the 
long-arm provision of UIFSA or other State law.''
    12. Comment: Several of the comments on the proposed term One-state 
interstate case asked for clarification in regard to reporting on the 
Form OCSE-157, ``Child Support Enforcement Annual Data Report.'' The

[[Page 38623]]

commenters asked whether such cases should be reported as interstate 
cases or local cases on Form OCSE-157. One commenter asked if OCSE 
would be creating a new reporting category for these kinds of cases.
    Response: OCSE will not create a new case type for reporting 
requirements associated with a State's use of One-state remedies. In 
reporting on Form OCSE-157, States should only consider the reporting 
instructions included on the form.
    13. Comment: One commenter asked if one-state interstate cases 
should be treated as local cases or interstate cases in terms of case 
processing requirements.
    Response: In general, cases that involve one-state remedies should 
be treated as local cases. Only when a State makes a referral for 
services to another jurisdiction, turning the case into an interstate 
or intergovernmental case, must the State follow the intergovernmental 
case processing rules under Sec.  303.7.
    OCSE reminds States that the first three requirements for 
initiating State agencies under Sec.  303.7(c) apply to States that may 
ultimately use a one-state approach on a case. These requirements 
describe the pre-referral steps an initiating State takes to decide how 
and whether to determine a controlling order and whether or not the 
State will employ a one-state strategy or refer the case. Once the 
State decides to process the case using one-state remedies, the rest of 
the responsibilities under this section do not apply, and the State 
would process the case under regular case processing rules.
    14. Comment: One commenter was concerned that the proposed 
definition of Tribunal, ``a court, administrative agency, or quasi-
judicial entity authorized under State law to establish, enforce, or 
modify support orders or to determine parentage,'' did not allow States 
the option to choose the entity to serve as their Tribunal, as provided 
under Section 103 of UIFSA 1996 and 2001.
    Response: OCSE believes that the phrase ``authorized under State 
law'' in the definition of Tribunal affords the States the same 
flexibility to choose the entity to serve as their Tribunal as provided 
under UIFSA. Therefore, we have not changed the definition in the final 
rule.

Part 302--State Plan Requirements

Section 302.36--Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-D Cases

    1. Comment: While OCSE received a couple of comments in support of 
the changes to Sec.  302.36, one commenter stated that his State's 
automated system is not equipped to add Tribal cases and does not have 
Tribal FIPS codes, etc. The commenter wondered if this would be a 
problem for other States as well.
    Response: OCSE has given States several years notice about the 
requirement to start reporting Tribal and international cases. Form 
OCSE-157, ``Child Support Enforcement Annual Data Report,'' as revised 
on September 6, 2005 by AT-05-09, requires States to report 
intergovernmental cases shared with Tribal IV-D programs (and with 
other countries) by October 30, 2009. In addition, DCL-08-35 reminded 
States to collect case data on Tribal and international cases for 
Fiscal Year 2009, in addition to collecting several other new 
categories of data. FIPS codes for use with Tribal and International 
cases are described in DCL-07-02 and DCL-08-04.

Part 303--Standards for Program Operations

Section 303.7--Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-D Cases

Section 303.7(a)--General Responsibilities

Section 303.7(a)(4)--Mandatory Use of Federally-Approved Forms
    1. Comment: One commenter indicated that some countries provide the 
forms they require in A Caseworker's Guide to Processing International 
Cases. The commenter went on to ask if States should use the forms in A 
Caseworker's Guide to Processing International Cases.
    Response: We believe it is appropriate for a State to use forms 
provided by a country in a chapter of A Caseworker's Guide to 
Processing Cases with Foreign Reciprocating Countries. As a result, we 
have revised Sec.  303.7(a)(4) to include this authority.
    2. Comment: Several commenters appreciated the change under 
proposed Sec.  303.7(a)(4) to require agencies to send only one copy of 
each federally-approved form in a case to the other jurisdiction. 
However, commenters noted that this change potentially conflicts with 
UIFSA (1996) and (2001). Section 304 of UIFSA (1996) requires agencies 
to send three copies of the petition. Section 602(a)(2) of UIFSA (2001) 
requires agencies to send two copies of the order to be registered, 
including a certified one.
    Another commenter also suggested clarifying our terminology by 
referring to the forms as a ``complete set of required forms'' rather 
than as ``copies'' of forms, since at least some of the forms may be 
originals.
    Response: In response to comments, OCSE notes that the required 
number of copies of forms and/or supporting documents will depend not 
on the initiating agency but on the needs of the responding agency 
receiving the forms. While OCSE's intent was to shift the burden of 
making copies onto the responding agency, we acknowledge UIFSA's 
requirements and have decided to change the rule to reduce confusion. 
We also agree with the request to clarify terminology and not use the 
word ``copies.''
    In response, we have changed Sec.  303.7(a)(4) to read: ``When 
using a paper version, this requirement is met by providing the number 
of complete sets of required documents needed by the responding agency, 
if one is not sufficient under the responding agency's law.''

Section 303.7(a)(5)--Use of Electronic Transmission

    1. Comment: With respect to section Sec.  303.7(a)(5), which 
requires State IV-D agencies to transmit requests for information and 
provide requested information electronically to the greatest extent 
possible, one commenter indicated that there are many ways to 
electronically transmit requests and provide information and expressed 
concern that use of the phrase, ``in accordance with instructions 
issued by the office'' is redundant and can be confusing.
    Response: Issuance of instructions is discretionary for the Federal 
government; however, we agree that the language is not necessary. We 
have removed the language from the regulation.
    2. Comment: One commenter indicated that the commenter's State 
cannot accept a new case without a paper copy of the forms. Another 
commenter asked that OCSE consider stating in this rule more 
explicitly, and any future proposed rules where electronic transactions 
and/or case records are referenced, that automated transactions may or 
may not be accompanied by paper documents and that the lack of paper 
documentation for an automated transaction is an expected and allowable 
occurrence.
    Response: OCSE recognizes that all State systems do not function at 
the same level of automation, which is why we reiterate that electronic 
submission is encouraged, but not mandatory. Whether or not the lack of 
paper documentation for an automated transaction is allowable depends 
on whether or not the receiving State can

[[Page 38624]]

accept electronic transmissions. Some States are not as advanced in 
this area as other States; however, cases should be worked to the 
greatest extent possible based upon the electronic information 
received.

Section 303.7(a)(6)--Providing Order and Payment Record Information 
Upon Request

    1. Comment: OCSE asked for comments on the proposed 30-day time 
frame within which a State IV-D agency must provide order and payment 
information as requested by a State IV-D agency for a DCO and 
reconciliation of arrearages. Several commenters supported increasing 
the timeframe to 60 days; however, there was an equal amount of support 
expressed for keeping the time frame at 30 days with the option to 
notify the initiating State if there is a delay.
    Response: Thirty working days is the equivalent of six weeks, 
which, in most cases, should be a sufficient amount of time to provide 
any order and payment record information requested by a State IV-D 
agency. However, we have added an option in section Sec.  303.7(a)(6) 
to notify the State IV-D agency when the information will be provided 
if there is a delay.

Section 303.7(a)(7)--Providing New Information on a Case

    1. Comment: One commenter requested that OCSE provide clarification 
on the definition of ``new information.''
    Response: We encourage initiating States to send new information 
that is needed and necessary for the responding State to establish or 
manage the interstate case, including data necessary to process or take 
action on the case. If it is information that a State would find 
valuable in managing an intrastate case, then it is probably 
information that the responding State also would find helpful. If the 
noncustodial parent already has been identified and has a verified 
Social Security Number (SSN), then it is not necessary to send that 
information because it is not new information. Similarly, a responding 
State should send new information about a case that would assist the 
initiating State in responding to customer service inquiries.

Section 303.7(a)(8)--Provision of Limited Services Upon Request

    1. Comment: In regard to 45 CFR 303.7(a)(8), which requires State 
IV-D agencies to cooperate in the provision of certain limited 
services, one commenter suggested that OCSE include the requirement 
that States provide the same legal representation to an initiating 
State that would be available to the responding State's IV-D agency in 
intrastate litigation.
    Response: We do not agree that we should specifically address legal 
representation, because States handle contested issues differently and 
it would be inappropriate to create a mandate in such circumstances.
    2. Comment: One commenter indicated that the requirement for State 
IV-D agencies to respond to requests for the specified limited services 
in Sec.  303.7(a)(8) will cause a major impact on automated systems 
modifications. The commenter also stated that the requirement will 
require ``pseudo'' cases that are only on State systems for a specific 
service or limited assistance to a requesting agency, and these cases 
would not be counted as cases in any statistics or management 
reporting.
    Response: With the evolution of the IV-D program and authority for 
States to take action across State lines, the provision of limited 
services is fairly common. States currently perform limited services; 
e.g., quick locate and service of process in intergovernmental child 
support cases. While the performance of limited services upon request 
is required, a modification to a statewide IV-D system is not mandated. 
OCSE recognizes that some statewide IV-D systems have difficulty 
accepting and processing limited service requests. Some States do 
utilize pseudo cases, while others process these requests outside of 
the statewide automated systems using outside consortia (e.g., IDEC, 
the Michigan Financial Institute Data Match Alliance). While it is true 
that these activities would not be counted as cases on any statistics 
or management reporting, the provision of limited services is addressed 
in UIFSA, is a common State practice, and is reciprocal.
    3. Comment: One commenter asked if ``limited services'' only refers 
to the ones listed in Sec.  303.7(a)(8), and if so, should Sec.  
303.7(a)(8) be changed to read: ``Cooperate with requests for limited 
services (quick locate, service of process, assistance with discovery, 
teleconferenced hearings, administrative reviews, and high volume 
automated administrative enforcement) in interstate cases under section 
466(a)(14) of the Act.'' The commenter also asked, if ``limited 
services'' includes more than those listed in Sec.  303.7(a)(8), can an 
initiating State ask another State to take only specific actions, such 
as initiate contempt of court proceedings, income withholding orders, 
or license sanction, while the initiating State handles all other 
enforcement activity?
    Response: Yes, in response to this comment, the final rule includes 
a list of limited services in Sec.  303.7(a)(8) that are mandatory. In 
addition, language was added to allow a State to provide other types of 
limited services, if requested by an initiating agency. (Please see the 
revised requirement below.) It would be inappropriate to include an 
open-ended mandate and we believe that the listed services are those 
that can most often be provided by State IV-D agencies upon request. In 
addition, an initiating agency may not direct a responding State IV-D 
agency to take specific actions in an intergovernmental IV-D case; that 
determination is up to the responding State IV-D agency.
    4. Comment: One commenter recommended that the definition of 
limited services in proposed section 303.7(a)(8) be expanded to include 
review and adjustment, because there are some instances in which the 
appropriate jurisdiction for adjustment is not the enforcing State, and 
some States are reluctant to perform the necessary review and 
adjustment action without taking over the enforcement as a two-State 
interstate case.
    Response: Most State child support automated systems do not have 
the capability of providing a single service or doing just one 
function. A State can provide the locate, financial, and asset 
information without opening a full case on the system, but very few 
have the capability of completing the entire review and adjustment 
function without establishing a full case on its automated system. 
Limited services are activities that an initiating agency requests a 
State IV-D agency to perform to assist the initiating agency in 
establishing, adjusting, or enforcing a child support order. We are 
concerned about adding this provision in the final rule without having 
provided States the opportunity to comment on its inclusion in advance. 
In addition, the provision in Sec.  303.7(a)(8) gives States the option 
to honor requests for other limited services that are not listed. Under 
that provision, if a State is willing and able to honor a request for a 
review and adjustment, it may do so. Therefore, we do not agree that it 
is appropriate to add a request for review and adjustment of an order 
to the list of required limited services.
    5. Comment: One commenter suggested that Sec.  303.7(a)(8) include 
requests for court orders and payment records as a limited service.
    Response: Section 303.7(a)(6) requires States to provide a copy of 
the payment record and a support order, thus we

[[Page 38625]]

added requests for copies of orders and payment records to the list of 
limited services to Sec.  303.7(a)(8).
    In response to all of the above comments, Sec.  303.7(a)(8) now 
reads as follows: A State IV-D agency must ``Cooperate with requests 
for the following limited services: quick locate, service of process, 
assistance with discovery, assistance with genetic testing, 
teleconferenced hearings, administrative reviews, high-volume automated 
administrative enforcement in interstate cases under section 466(a)(14) 
of the Act, and copies of court orders and payment records. Requests 
for other limited services may be honored at the State's option.''
    6. Comment: A commenter also suggested that State IV-D agencies 
have agreements with their courts to provide a copy of the court order 
to other States at no cost.
    Response: While we encourage States to work with their courts to 
provide copies of orders at no cost, we do not believe it is 
appropriate to remove States' discretion to recover costs.

Section 303.7(b)--Central Registry

Section 303.7(b)(1)--Establishment of State Central Registry

    1. Comment: In regard to the requirement under Sec.  303.7(b)(1) 
for State IV-D agencies to establish a central registry responsible for 
receiving, transmitting, and responding to inquiries on 
intergovernmental IV-D cases, one commenter asked if case information 
should go directly into the statewide automated system rather than 
through the State Central Registry. The commenter also asked for 
specific guidance on how case information should be processed on 
statewide systems, for example, if the system needed to be able to 
``flag'' a case pending review by State staff or if the system could 
require a certified copy of an order.
    Response: According to OCSE statewide systems requirements, all 
State Central Registry functions must be integrated into the statewide 
system. Therefore, when an initiating agency sends an intergovernmental 
case to a responding State, the data will transmit to both the 
responding State's statewide system and the State Central Registry, 
although the State must have procedures so that it is the State Central 
Registry that initially processes the new case, as required by Sec.  
303.7(b)(1). OCSE does not mandate how States should integrate State 
Central Registry functions with their statewide system functions, so 
States will have different approaches. In addition, OCSE does not 
mandate how States develop their case processing workflows with respect 
to their systems. OCSE, for example, does not require that a statewide 
system be able to ``flag'' a case pending review by State staff or that 
documents such as certified copies of orders be in hard copy. States 
determine these issues.
    2. Comment: One commenter requested clarification that OCSE is not 
mandating that responding jurisdictions accept electronically 
transmitted cases from initiating jurisdictions in lieu of mailing 
cases to the State Central Registry. The commenter referenced the 
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) 
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ229.106), saying the law gives electronic 
signatures the same legal effect as written signatures. However, the 
commenter indicated that the law only sets a baseline standard for what 
is required in an electronic signature. The commenter was concerned 
that many jurisdictions do not have the technical ability to accept 
electronic signatures and would be unable to process electronic 
transmissions if mandated.
    Response: As we indicated above in the discussion of the general 
responsibility for States to transmit and provide information 
electronically to the greatest extent possible under Sec.  303.7(a)(5), 
electronic transmissions, including electronic signatures, are 
encouraged, but not mandated. The initiating agency must provide the 
responding agency with the information that it needs in the format that 
is acceptable to the responding agency. Nevertheless, OCSE reiterates 
that electronic transmissions will be an increasingly important tool 
for doing business and encourages jurisdictions to adopt new 
technologies. (See PIQ-09-02, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/PIQ/2009/piq-09-02.htm)

Section 303.7(b)(2)--Initial Required Activities Upon Receipt of a Case

    1. Comment: Section 303.7(b)(2) requires State Central Registries 
to complete several tasks within 10 working days of receipt of an 
intergovernmental case, including reviewing documentation for 
completeness, forwarding the case for action either to the State Parent 
Locator Service or another agency for processing, acknowledging receipt 
of the case or requesting missing documentation, and informing the 
initiating agency where the case was forwarded.
    In regard to Sec.  303.7(b)(2), several commenters requested more 
guidance on requirements to open and close cases when the initiating 
agency does not provide complete information. One commenter asked for 
clarification regarding whether the regulation required States to open 
cases based on the CSENet transaction alone, especially in the absence 
of complete case information or paper documents. Another commenter was 
concerned that agencies would send only CSENet transactions without 
following up with required documents such as certified copies of court 
orders.
    Response: In general, while the CSENet application is often used to 
request services on intergovernmental cases, some of the forms, such as 
the General Testimony Form, must be sent in a paper format. When 
sending a request for services through CSENet, the initiating State 
must indicate whether attachments in a paper format are to follow. Upon 
receipt of a CSENet transaction, OCSE guidance has always been that if 
a State can proceed without the paper documents, it should move 
forward. If the State determines that critical information is missing, 
it will notify the initiating agency that documents are missing and 
forward the case for any action that can be taken pending necessary 
action by the initiating agency.
    In order to clarify that it is the initiating State's 
responsibility to provide information and documentation in the format 
required by the responding agency, we have changed the initiating State 
responsibility under Sec.  303.7(c)(5). This responsibility now reads: 
the initiating State IV-D agency must: ``provide the responding agency 
sufficient, accurate information to act on the case by submitting with 
each case any necessary documentation and intergovernmental forms 
required by the responding agency'' (emphasis added). This change 
addresses the commenters' concern that initiating agencies would not 
follow-up with documentation in paper format, in the instances where 
the responding State requires that format.
    OCSE encourages States to work with each other to ensure the 
transfer of case information is efficient and meets mutual needs. 
Further, we encourage States to work with OCSE on continuing to develop 
CSENet capabilities to meet those needs with even greater 
effectiveness.

Section 303.7(b)(3)--Forwarding the Case for Action

    1. Comment: Thirteen commenters responded to OCSE's specific 
request for input on the pros and cons of the current central registry 
requirement ``to forward the case for any action that can

[[Page 38626]]

be taken pending necessary action by the initiating agency,'' in 
proposed Sec.  303.7(b)(3).
    Eight commenters supported the current rule, saying that forwarding 
the case is more efficient for the central registry and for case 
processing, ultimately resulting in support reaching children faster. 
Commenters said that local offices often are better able to judge if 
the case can be processed even with partial information, preventing 
workable cases from being put on hold only for technical reasons. This 
is particularly significant if a case has been referred for two 
distinct activities. By forwarding the case, caseworkers can proceed 
with one activity even as they await necessary information to move 
forward with the other activity. One commenter noted how being able to 
pass along cases to local offices as soon as they are entered onto the 
automated system reduces the burden on the central registry, which is 
not equipped to manage this process, since its resources are focused on 
meeting the Federal time frames associated with otherwise reviewing and 
acknowledging incoming cases.
    Five commenters objected to the requirement, saying that if the 
initiating agency never provides the missing or incomplete information, 
forwarding the case would be a waste of time and resources. One 
commenter suggested that the rule be revised to leave the decision of 
forwarding cases pending receipt of complete information from the 
initiating agency to the discretion of the States, which could base the 
decision on the size of their central registries.
    Response: We agree with the majority of the comments in support of 
keeping the requirement in Sec.  303.7(b)(3), for central registries to 
forward the case for any action that can be taken pending necessary 
action by the initiating agency if the documentation received with a 
case is incomplete and cannot be remedied by the central registry 
without the assistance of the initiating agency. As a result, this 
requirement will remain the same.
    2. Comment: Several commenters asked for clarification on the 
minimum amount of information that would be required for a central 
registry to open an incoming case, perhaps provided as a checklist of 
required documents or data elements. In addition, one of these 
commenters also requested that the corresponding authority be 
authorized to reject cases not meeting a standard threshold of 
information or documentation. One commenter suggested that the central 
registry be allowed to ``return'' a case within 60 days under case 
closure criterion Sec.  303.11(b)(12), which allows for case closure if 
the initiating agency fails ``to take an action which is essential for 
the next step in providing services.''
    Response: As stated above, a State Central Registry is required to 
complete the activities described in Sec.  303.7(b)(2), (e.g., ensure 
documentation has been reviewed, forward the case for action to either 
the State Parent Locator Service or the appropriate agency) within 10 
working days of receipt of an intergovernmental IV-D case. As part of 
this process, under Sec.  303.7(b)(2)(i), the central registry 
determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether it is in receipt of 
complete documentation in the required format in order to proceed with 
the case. Because each case and the information sent with each case by 
the initiating agency is different, we believe it would be 
inappropriate to establish a checklist or a minimum standard of 
required information without which central registries could reject or 
return cases.
    OCSE does not want States to approach intergovernmental case 
processing with the notion that incoming cases can be rejected or 
returned. The intent of this rule is to surmount barriers to 
intergovernmental case processing with the ultimate goal of providing 
support to children as soon as possible. However, if the central 
registry documents the failure by the initiating agency to take an 
action essential for the next step in providing services, the State 
would have grounds to close the case under Sec.  303.11(b)(12), as long 
as the required notice of potential closure under Sec.  303.11(c) is 
provided to the initiating agency.
    3. Comment: In a related comment, a commenter requested 
clarification on the time frame for case closure for the failure of the 
initiating agency to act in response to requests for more information 
under Sec.  303.11(b)(12), noting that the time frame policy on this 
case closure criterion varies widely among States.
    Response: While there is no designated timeframe for how long a 
responding State IV-D agency must wait for information from an 
initiating agency before starting case closure actions under Sec.  
303.11(b)(12), we encourage States and agencies to work together so as 
not to initiate case closure proceedings prematurely.
    Under Sec.  303.7(c)(6), when an initiating State is in receipt of 
a request for case information from a responding agency, the initiating 
State has 30 calendar days to provide the information or to give notice 
as to when it will provide the information. If those 30 calendar days 
elapse with no response from the initiating agency, OCSE strongly 
encourages the responding State to follow-up with the initiating agency 
rather than automatically proceeding with case closure.
    In addition, according to case closure rules stated in Sec.  
303.11(c), in order for a responding State to close a case for the 
failure of an initiating agency to take action pursuant to Sec.  
303.11(b)(12), the State must notify the initiating agency in writing 
60 calendar days before closing the case.
    4. Comment: One commenter also would like to be able to reject a 
case where there is no recently verified address or there does not 
appear to be a relationship between the obligor and the responding 
State.
    Response: Sending a verified address is not a pre-requisite to 
forwarding a case for action to another jurisdiction. As stated 
previously, a State is required to start the activities described under 
Sec.  303.7(b)(2) (e.g., ensure documentation has been reviewed, 
forward the case for action to either the State Parent Locator Service 
or the appropriate agency) as soon as its central registry is in 
receipt of an intergovernmental IV-D case. If the relationship between 
the obligor and the State is not evident, States should request 
additional information from the initiating State to clarify the link.
    5. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of the responding 
State's responsibility to continue to perform locate activities as it 
would for an in-state case (three years if there is a verified SSN) 
even if the initiating agency cannot provide a recently verified 
address. The commenter noted that States that have strict requirements 
for current locate information on the noncustodial parent before they 
begin work on the case may close the case too quickly. The result is 
that the initiating agency has to make a second referral by the time 
the requested information is available, wasting time and resources.
    Response: As noted above, sending a verified address is not a 
prerequisite to forwarding a case for action to another jurisdiction. 
In general, the initiating agency, not the responding State, decides 
whether to open or close an intergovernmental case. A responding State 
may not apply case closure criteria under Sec.  303.11(b)(1) through 
(11), or any other criteria, to close intergovernmental cases 
unilaterally. In order for a responding State to close an 
intergovernmental case without permission from the initiating agency, 
the responding State must document lack of cooperation by the 
initiating agency, as required under Sec.  303.11(b)(12), and provide a 
60-

[[Page 38627]]

calendar-day notice to the initiating agency, as required by Sec.  
303.11(c).
    Case closure rules at Sec.  303.11(b)(4) establish time frames for 
closing a case if the noncustodial parent's location is unknown. The 
time frames are three years when there is sufficient information to 
initiate an automated locate effort or one year when there is 
insufficient information to perform automated location services. These 
time frames are applicable in the intergovernmental context. Even in 
the absence of a recently verified address, a responding agency can 
perform location services. For example, a State can perform automated 
location services with minimal data, such as a date of birth and name 
or a Social Security number and name. Please see the additional 
discussion of case closure requirements later in this section.
    6. Comment: In proposed Sec.  303.7(b)(3), if the documentation 
received with a case is inadequate and cannot be remedied by the 
central registry without the assistance of the initiating agency, the 
central registry must forward the case for any action that can be taken 
pending necessary action by the initiating agency. One commenter 
recommended substituting the word ``incomplete'' for ``inadequate'' 
when describing the problematic documentation because, by definition, 
inadequate documentation is insufficient for its intended purpose.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and substituted 
``incomplete'' for ``inadequate'' in the regulatory language at Sec.  
303.7(b)(3) and, correspondingly, in Sec.  303.7(d)(2)(iii), which uses 
the same word.

Section 303.7(b)(4)--Responding to Case Status Inquiries

    1. Comment: The provision under Sec.  303.7(b)(4) requires the 
central registry to ``respond to inquiries from initiating agencies 
within five working days of receipt of the request for a case status 
review.'' One commenter expressed agreement with the time frame, while 
another commenter felt that 10 working days would be more appropriate. 
Two commenters suggested that this requirement be moved to Sec.  
303.7(d), as a responding State responsibility.
    Response: This requirement has been in effect since interstate 
regulations were implemented at Sec.  303.7 in 1988. As we indicated in 
1988, the requirement for central registries to respond to inquiries 
from other States is intended for situations in which an initiating 
agency loses track of a case or is unable to determine whether any 
action is being taken on a case. Inquiries to the central registry 
should, therefore, be limited to instances where direct contact between 
the initiating agency and the responding State IV-D agency is 
ineffective or impossible. In regard to the time frame, OCSE does not 
have enough evidence to suggest that five working days is insufficient 
for this requirement; therefore, the time frame is unchanged.

Section 303.7(c)--Initiating State IV-D Agency Responsibilities

Section 303.7(c)(1)--Identifying Whether There are Multiple Orders in a 
Case

    1. Comment: Section 303.7(c)(1) requires initiating State agencies 
to ``determine whether or not there is a support order or orders in 
effect in a case using the Federal and State Case Registries, State 
records, information provided by the recipient of services, and other 
relevant information available to the State.''
    One commenter asked if initiating States, in fulfilling their 
responsibility for determining whether there is a support order or 
orders in effect in a case, would be required to use their statewide 
automated systems.
    Response: There is no explicit requirement for States to use their 
statewide automated systems to determine whether there is a support 
order or orders in effect for a case. States are required to use 
Federal and State case registries, State records, information provided 
by recipients, and other available information to determine whether 
there is a support order or orders in effect.
    2. Comment: One commenter stated that the determination of 
controlling order may be made by any forum that has personal 
jurisdiction over the necessary individual parties and does not have to 
be a tribunal that has issued a support order. The commenter went on to 
say that UIFSA section 207(b)(3) contemplates that this may be a State 
that has not issued an order as it requires that a tribunal issue its 
own replacement order when all parties have left all of the States that 
have issued orders as part of the determination of controlling order 
process. According to the commenter, Sec.  303.7(c)(2) provides the 
flexibility needed by the initiating agency to select the State to 
determine the controlling order and reconcile the arrears when multiple 
orders exist, including a State that has not issued a support order. 
The commenter asked that OCSE revise the commentary to not restrict the 
initiating State's selection of the DCO State to only a State where 
that State's tribunal issued a support order.
    Response: OCSE agrees that when ascertaining in which State(s) a 
determination of controlling order may be made, an initiating agency is 
not limited to those tribunals that issued one of the support orders. 
UIFSA 2001 clarifies that a tribunal must have personal jurisdiction 
over both the obligor and individual obligee when determining which of 
the multiple orders is the controlling order. Section 302.7(c)(2) 
requires an analysis of what jurisdiction or jurisdictions have or may 
obtain personal jurisdiction over both individuals and the selection of 
the forum if there is an option to proceed in more than one State.

Section 303.7(c)(2)--Determination of Appropriate State To Make DCO

    1. Comment: Under Sec.  303.7(c)(2), an initiating State agency 
must: ``determine in which State a determination of controlling order 
and reconciliation of arrearages may be made where multiple orders 
exist.'' One commenter said that a determination of controlling order 
is only necessary when there are multiple orders that also are 
``valid'' orders. The commenter explained that since the effective date 
of FFCCSOA on October 20, 1994, there are fewer and fewer cases with 
legitimate multiple orders. Rather, additional orders issued since 
FFCCSOA are void. The commenter asked OCSE to clarify this point and to 
remind States to make sure orders are ``valid'' before pursuing a 
determination of controlling order.
    Response: Section 303.7(c)(1) requires initiating State IV-D 
agencies to identify existing support orders. Section 303.7(c)(1) does 
not require initiating State IV-D agencies to decide on their validity 
under FFCCSOA. In cases involving multiple orders, the initiating State 
IV-D agency must determine which State should determine the controlling 
order. Once the State makes this determination, the State must ``ask 
the appropriate intrastate tribunal or refer the case to the 
appropriate responding State IV-D agency, for a determination of the 
controlling order and a reconciliation of arrearages'' as required in 
Sec.  303.7(c)(4)(i). The tribunal within the State or in the 
responding State IV-D agency will address the issue of validity at that 
point.
    2. Comment: One commenter stated that Sec.  303.7(c)(2) indicates 
that the proper tribunal to make a determination of controlling order 
is the tribunal that is able to obtain personal jurisdiction over both 
the obligor and obligee; however, the rule does not address what the 
procedure should be if no tribunal is able to obtain personal 
jurisdiction

[[Page 38628]]

over both parties, which will often be the case in intergovernmental 
cases.
    Response: The commenter is correct that a tribunal requires 
personal jurisdiction over both parties to make a DCO. If neither the 
issuing nor initiating State has personal jurisdiction over both 
parties because the initiating tribunal did not issue one of the 
multiple orders and neither the custodial parent, noncustodial parent, 
nor child remain in a State where one of the multiple orders was 
issued, then personal jurisdiction may always be obtained by referring 
the case to the State in which the opposing party resides. Section 207 
of UIFSA provides the proper procedures to follow to obtain a DCO in 
this situation.

Section 303.7(c)(3)--Determine if Use of One-State Remedies Is 
Appropriate and Section 303.7(c)(4)--Actions Required Within 20 
Calendar Days of Completing Requirements in Paragraphs (c)(1)-(3)

    1. Comment: Section 303.7(c)(3) requires the initiating State 
agency to: ``Determine the appropriateness of using its one-state 
interstate remedies to establish paternity and establish, modify, and 
enforce a support order, including medical support and income 
withholding.'' One commenter suggested replacing the term ``one-state 
interstate'' with the term ``intrastate'' because the commenter felt 
this would be consistent with terminology in Sec.  303.7(c)(4)(i) and 
(ii), which discusses, in part, a State taking ``intrastate'' action 
for getting a determination of controlling order or referring a case.
    Response: As indicated in the discussion above regarding the 
definition of the term ``one-state interstate,'' we replaced the 
definition of that type of case with a definition of ``one-state 
remedies.'' ``One-state remedies'' are defined as the exercise of a 
State's jurisdiction over a non-resident parent or direct 
establishment, enforcement, or other action by a State against a non-
resident parent in accordance with the long-arm provision of UIFSA or 
other State law. In Sec.  303.7(c)(3), we have removed the word 
``interstate'' so that the regulation now reads: ``Determine whether 
the noncustodial parent is in another jurisdiction and whether it is 
appropriate to use its one-state remedies to establish paternity and 
establish, modify, and enforce a support order, including medical 
support and income withholding.''
    2. Comment: One commenter agreed that one-state interstate actions 
be up to the initiating State. However, the commenter asked OCSE to 
clarify in the rule that States should not send cases to responding 
States for establishment when an adjustment is appropriate, 
particularly in regard to establishing cash medical support.
    Response: OCSE agrees States should be careful to ask for 
establishment of an order only if there is no order in existence and 
should otherwise ask for an adjustment of the order. For example, if a 
State has an order that does not include cash medical support, and, 
later, an initiating State wants to add cash medical support to that 
first State's order, the initiating State should seek an adjustment of 
the order.
    3. Comment: One commenter asked for agencies that decide to enforce 
an order through direct income withholding in another State to be 
required to notify the jurisdiction with the order that they are taking 
this action and also specify the arrears balance being enforced.
    Response: A State may not use direct income withholding to collect 
payments and have them forwarded directly to the State Disbursement 
Unit rather than sending payments to the designation specified in the 
order. As mentioned in the preamble, this is prohibited by PIQ-01-01. 
Therefore, OCSE does not believe further notification requirements or 
statements of arrears balances are necessary.
    4. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that reading Sec.  
303.7(c)(3) and Sec.  303.7(c)(4)(ii) together, which discuss the 
State's decision to use one-state remedies and the State's decision to 
take intrastate action on a case, respectively, may be interpreted to 
mean that States must take direct action in cases where a noncustodial 
parent lives or works on the reservation of a Tribal IV-D program 
before referring the case to the appropriate Tribal IV-D program.
    Response: The decision as to whether a State uses one-state 
remedies or refers a case to another State IV-D agency is entirely up 
to the initiating State agency. There is no Federal mandate that States 
use any one approach first. Because the language under proposed Sec.  
303.7(c)(4)(ii) may have been interpreted to mean that States were 
obligated to use one-state remedies first, we have changed and 
simplified this paragraph. The final language requires the initiating 
State IV-D agency to refer an intergovernmental case, within the 20-
calendar-days time frame, to the appropriate State Central Registry, 
Tribal IV-D program, or Central Authority of a country for action, if 
the initiating agency has determined that use of one-state remedies are 
not appropriate.
    5. Comment: Proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(4) required the initiating 
State agency to ask the appropriate intrastate tribunal for a DCO and 
reconciliation of arrearages or determine the request for such a 
determination will be made through the appropriate responding agency. 
One commenter asked that OCSE clarify when the initiating State must 
make a DCO and when the initiating State must request the responding 
agency to make a DCO.
    Response: If the initiating State has personal jurisdiction over 
both parties, it is the initiating State's election whether it should 
proceed with a DCO or request a responding State with personal 
jurisdiction to make a DCO. The conditions under which a State may make 
a DCO are set out in section 207 of UIFSA.
    6. Comment: Several commenters asked for clarification about the 
20-calendar-days time frame, and indicated confusion over the 
complexity of proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(4).
    Response: In response to the numerous requests for clarity in 
regard to this section, OCSE made a number of changes to simplify and 
refine the language. First, we moved the clause regarding the State 
determination that the noncustodial parent is in another jurisdiction 
from Sec.  303.7(c)(4) to Sec.  303.7(c)(3). It is logical for the 
State to identify that the noncustodial parent is in another 
jurisdiction before the State decides whether to use one-state remedies 
under Sec.  303.7(c)(3), rather than afterwards, as previously 
constructed in the NPRM.
    Section 303.7(c)(3) now reads: ``Determine whether the noncustodial 
parent is in another jurisdiction and whether it is appropriate to use 
its one-state remedies, as defined in Sec.  301.1 of this chapter, to 
establish paternity and establish, modify, and enforce a support order, 
including medical support and income withholding.''
    Also, in Sec.  303.7(c)(4), we clarified the two triggers for the 
start of the 20-calendar-days time frame. The first trigger of the time 
frame is the completion of the actions required in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (c)(3), which are, respectively, determining existing support 
orders, determining in which State a DCO and reconciliation of 
arrearages may be made in a case with multiple orders, and determining 
the location of the noncustodial parent and whether or not to use one-
state remedies. The second trigger of the 20-calendar-days time frame 
is the receipt of any necessary information needed to process the case. 
One example of necessary information is copies of

[[Page 38629]]

orders in a case where multiple orders exist.
    In addition, we simplified paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii). Under 
paragraph (c)(4)(i), we removed ``If the agency has determined there 
are multiple orders in effect under paragraph (c)(1) of this section * 
* *, '' because the change specified above requires that this 
determination is completed before a State takes the actions under 
paragraph (4). Similarly, under paragraph (c)(4)(ii), we removed the 
clause, ``unless the case requires intrastate action in accordance with 
paragraphs (c)(3) or (4)(i) of this section * * *, '' because it is 
redundant, given the previous changes. Finally, in paragraph (c)(4)(i) 
we added the phrase ``State IV-D'' to ``responding agency.'' Since 
``responding agency'' can include States, Tribes and countries, we 
wanted to be clear that, with respect to DCOs, only States are 
involved. The full text of Sec.  303.7(c)(4) now reads:

    ``(4) Within 20 calendar days of completing the actions required 
in paragraphs (1) through (3) and, if appropriate, receipt of any 
necessary information needed to process the case:
    (i) Ask the appropriate intrastate tribunal, or refer the case 
to the appropriate responding State IV-D agency, for a determination 
of the controlling order and a reconciliation of arrearages, if such 
a determination is necessary; and
    (ii) Refer any intergovernmental IV-D case to the appropriate 
State Central Registry, Tribal IV-D program, or Central Authority of 
a country for action, if one-state remedies are not appropriate;''

    The use of ``and'' between the two paragraphs is intentional 
because States should proceed to enforce an existing support order, 
pending a DCO. Enforcement of support obligations should not stop while 
tribunals make DCOs. To do otherwise would deprive children of the 
support they need on an on-going basis.
    7. Comment: OCSE invited comments regarding reasonable time 
requirements for translation if needed. The majority of the commenters 
expressed agreement with the 20-calendar-days time frame, because Sec.  
303.7(c)(4) is qualified with the receipt of any necessary information 
needed to process the case. One commenter requested that the time frame 
be extended to 90 days so that the initiating State can locate a 
translation resource and enter into a necessary contract for the 
translation.
    Response: OCSE has not built in time for translation within the 
specified 20 calendar days because we believe that, until the necessary 
translation is completed, the initiating agency will not have all 
``necessary information needed to process the case'' under paragraph 
(4). OCSE agrees with the majority of the commenters who stated that 
the 20-calendar-days time frame to refer a case to another State is 
adequate.
    8. Comment: One commenter requested that OCSE clarify how the 20-
calendar-days time frame in Sec.  303.7(c)(4) fits with the 30-working-
days time frame in Sec.  303.7(a)(6) to provide any order and payment 
record information requested by a State IV-D agency for a DCO and 
reconciliation of arrearages.
    Response: The 30-working-days time frame for a State IV-D agency to 
provide any order and payment record information in Sec.  303.7(a)(6) 
is a general responsibility; thus, it could apply to both initiating 
and responding State IV-D agencies. The order and payment information 
requested in Sec.  303.7(a)(6) may very well be a part of the necessary 
information that the initiating State requires once it has determined 
that a noncustodial parent is in another jurisdiction in Sec.  
303.7(c)(3). Therefore, the 20-calendar-days time frame in Sec.  
303.7(c)(4) could be triggered after receipt of order and payment 
record information another State must provide to the initiating State 
IV-D agency under Sec.  303.7(a)(6).
    9. Comment: One commenter asked if 45 CFR 303.7(c)(4)(i) requires a 
Tribal IV-D program to complete a DCO and reconciliation of arrearages 
when the Tribal IV-D program is the ``appropriate intrastate 
tribunal,'' or whether a Tribal IV-D program would not be the 
appropriate intrastate tribunal in such a situation.
    Response: This rule does not apply to Tribes or Tribal IV-D 
programs.

Section 303.7(c)(7)--Notice of Interest Charges

    1. Comment: With regard to Sec.  303.7(c)(7), which requires the 
initiating State IV-D agency to notify the responding agency of 
interest charges, several commenters pointed out that programming for 
QUICK is a better use of their limited systems programming resources 
and provides better and timelier information on interest for interstate 
cases.
    Response: While QUICK does provide an interest amount on the 
financial summary screen, it is an individual query by case and does 
not specify interest charged for a specified period. OCSE will evaluate 
whether this enhancement can be made to the application so case-
specific queries can be made to obtain information about interest 
charged during a specified period of time.
    2. Comment: Another commenter asked what type of CSENet transaction 
should be used to notify the responding agency quarterly of the 
interest amount.
    Response: OCSE will also determine the feasibility of adding a 
specific transaction to CSENet to periodically advise States of the 
interest charged on a case. This type of proactive information-sharing 
lends itself well to the batch processing supported by CSENet. Periodic 
reporting could be timed with the initiating State's interest-charging 
frequency.
    3. Comment: Seven commenters expressed that notifying the 
responding agency at least quarterly of the interest charges owed on 
overdue support is too frequent and would place a burden on States. 
Several commenters recommended changing the time frame to annually, and 
one commenter proposed that the annual date be uniform.
    Response: We agree that requiring the initiating IV-D State agency 
to notify the responding agency quarterly of interest owed on overdue 
support may cause a burden on State IV-D agencies. We believe that 
providing interest charges annually, and upon request in an individual 
case, in those instances in which the information may be needed more 
frequently than annually, will still address States' concerns with case 
processing difficulties that are caused by the wide range of State 
policies on interest. We have changed the language in the regulation to 
``annually and upon request in an individual case.'' With respect to 
the suggestion for a uniform date for the interest information to be 
reported annually, we can identify no compelling reason to do so and 
leave it up to the States to decide.
    4. Comment: OCSE requested comments on whether and how accounting 
records should be updated when the controlling order was not issued by 
the initiating State. Several commenters indicated that if the 
initiating agency is requesting enforcement of a third State's order, 
it should be the initiating State's responsibility to provide a 
calculation of the interest based on the issuing State's law.
    Response: We agree that in situations where the initiating State is 
requesting enforcement of a third State's order, the initiating State 
should provide the amount of interest owed based on the issuing State's 
law.
    5. Comment: One commenter indicated that the initiating agencies 
should report accumulated interest owed by obligors to responding 
agencies, but in an automated fashion. The commenter further stated 
that otherwise, the quarterly reporting would require manual updates to 
the

[[Page 38630]]

responding State's IV-D automated system.
    Response: While we agree that electronic communication is more 
efficient, it is not mandated.
    6. Comment: One commenter asked if the responding agency can refuse 
to collect interest for the initiating State or close its case if the 
initiating State fails to provide the quarterly interest calculation as 
required.
    Response: A responding agency cannot refuse to collect interest for 
the initiating State if the interest is a part of the child support 
order that the responding State is enforcing. Section 453(p) of the Act 
defines the term ``support order'' as: ``A judgment, decree, or order, 
whether temporary, final, or subject to modification, issued by a court 
or an administrative agency of competent jurisdiction, for the support 
and maintenance of a child, including a child who has attained the age 
of majority under the law of the issuing State, or of the parent with 
whom the child is living, which provides for monetary support, health 
care, arrearages, or reimbursement, and which may include related costs 
and fees, interest and penalties, income withholding, attorneys' fees, 
and other relief.''
    Without the interest calculation, the responding State may be 
unable to collect any interest earned. However, the responding State 
may not close its case due to the initiating State's failure to provide 
the interest calculation as required. The responding State must 
continue to enforce the initiating State's case, collecting current 
support and arrearages.

Section 303.7(c)(8)--Submitting Past-due Support for Federal 
Enforcement Remedies

    1. Comment: One commenter asked that OCSE consider adding language 
that would allow the responding State to submit cases for passport 
denial or other Federal enforcement techniques at the initiating 
State's request. Another commenter asked if it would be possible to add 
MSFIDM as one of the Federal enforcement techniques that the initiating 
State IV-D agency will use when submitting past-due support as required 
in Sec.  303.7(c)(8).
    Response: OCSE proposed that the initiating State IV-D agency 
submit all past-due support owed in IV-D cases for administrative 
offset and passport denial because those Federal-level remedies are 
triggered by States' data on the Federal income tax refund offset file. 
However, we have been convinced that it may be in the best interest of 
the child and family, in certain circumstances, for a responding State 
to submit past-due support using the Federal administrative offset, 
passport denial, MSFIDM, and/or Federal insurance match remedies. For 
example, because the administrative offset remedy is optional for 
States, the responding State may choose to certify a case where the 
initiating State does not. This would allow a collection from an 
administrative offset to be received and distributed to the family 
where otherwise it would not have been, or similarly, if a responding 
State requires full payment for a passport denial release where the 
initiating State does not.
    This flexibility provides a greater opportunity for a collection, 
so we have removed the requirement from this rule that the initiating 
State IV-D agency submit past-due support for other Federal enforcement 
techniques, such as administrative offset, under 31 CFR 285.1, and 
passport denial under section 452(k) of the Act. However, the 
requirement for the initiating State IV-D agency to submit for Federal 
tax refund offset remains because that is the State with the assignment 
of support rights or request for IV-D services.
    Federal insurance match and MSFIDM are also Federal enforcement 
techniques that fall into the category of cases that we prefer to have 
submitted by the initiating State IV-D agency, but also may be 
submitted by the responding State IV-D agency if deemed appropriate.
    2. Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the 
requirement in Sec.  303.7(c)(8) that the initiating State submit 
arrearages for Federal tax refund offset. One commenter asked, if there 
are arrearages in multiple States, which State is allowed to submit for 
Federal tax refund offset and how are the States supposed to know about 
another State's submittal.
    Response: Section 303.72(d)(1) specifies that: ``the State 
referring past-due support for offset must, in interstate situations, 
notify any other State involved in enforcing the support order when it 
submits an interstate case for offset and when it receives the offset 
amount from the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.'' Since all Federal 
remedies, including administrative offset of other Federal payments, 
are initiated based on the Federal income tax refund offset file 
submitted by each State, any State submitting past-due support for 
federal-level remedies should notify the other State in an interstate 
situation.
    3. Comment: One commenter asked that OCSE specify that Sec.  
303.7(c)(8) is applicable even when the initiating State is submitting 
arrearages due under an order from another State. Proposed Sec.  
303.7(c)(8) would have required a State to submit all past-due support 
owed in IV-D cases that meets the certification requirements under 
Sec.  303.72 for Federal tax refund offset, and such past-due support, 
as the State determines to be appropriate, for other Federal 
enforcement techniques, such as administrative offset under 31 CFR 
285.1, and passport denial under section 452(k) of the Act.
    Response: This requirement applies to all interstate cases in which 
the initiating agency is submitting a case for Federal tax refund 
offset, including cases in which the initiating State is submitting 
arrearages due under an order from another State. The requirement in 
section Sec.  303.72(d)(1), to notify any other State involved in 
enforcing the order when past-due support is submitted and when any 
offset is received, applies to these cases as well.
    4. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that there is a 
probability that some States will adopt the option under the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) under which collections through Federal tax 
refund offset are distributed first to satisfy current support, while 
other States will continue to follow pre-DRA tax offset distribution 
under which collections are applied to satisfy only past-due and not 
current support. The commenter indicated that this will confuse amounts 
applied to current support and past-due amounts between States that opt 
for different approaches.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter. In interstate cases, the 
initiating State IV-D agency is responsible for submitting past-due 
support owed in a IV-D case that meets the certification requirements 
under Sec.  303.72 for Federal tax refund offset. The initiating State 
is similarly responsible for distribution. (See AT-07-05, Q & A 34, 
citing former paragraph Sec.  303.7(c)(7)(iv) and 45 CFR 303.7(c)(11)). 
Distribution and disbursement will be made in accordance with the 
initiating State's rules. In interstate cases, Sec.  303.72(d)(1) 
requires the submitting State to notify any other State involved in 
enforcing the support order when it receives the offset amount from the 
Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.
    5. Comment: One commenter asked that we clarify that when the 
initiating jurisdiction is not a State within the United States, the 
responding jurisdiction should submit these cases under Sec.  
303.7(c)(8).
    Response: There is currently no statutory authority for Tribal IV-D

[[Page 38631]]

programs to directly submit past-due support for Federal tax refund 
offset. However, past-due support owed to individuals receiving 
services from Tribal IV-D programs may be submitted for Federal tax 
refund offset by a State IV-D agency if the individual files an 
application for services from the State and the Tribal IV-D agency has 
a cooperative agreement with the State. See PIQT-07-02. Under current 
law at section 464(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, only past-due support owed 
in cases with an assignment of support rights or application for IV-D 
services under Sec.  302.33(a)(1)(i) may be submitted for Federal tax 
refund offset; therefore, without an application for services from the 
State, past-due support owed in a case from another country cannot be 
submitted.
    6. Comment: Proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(8) and (9) require the 
initiating State IV-D agency to submit cases with qualified past-due 
support for Federal tax refund offset and other Federal enforcement 
remedies and to report overdue support to Consumer Reporting Agencies. 
One commenter asked if proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(8) and (9) are any 
different than the current rules or if the paragraphs just clarify the 
initiating State responsibilities.
    Response: As we indicated in the preamble to the NPRM, proposed 
Sec.  303.7(c)(8), specifically addresses the responsibility of the 
initiating State IV-D agency to submit past-due support for Federal tax 
refund offset, administrative offset, and passport denial. The 
reference to administrative offset and passport denial is new, while 
the responsibility for Federal tax refund offset was clarified. 
However, the requirement for the initiating State to submit for any 
other Federal remedies, other than Federal tax refund offset, has been 
removed in the final regulation.

Proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(9), Renumbered as (d)(6)(iii)--Submitting 
Arrearages to Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs)

    1. Comment: Some commenters expressed agreement with the 
requirement in proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(9) for initiating State IV-D 
agencies to report overdue support to CRAs. Other commenters suggested 
that reporting overdue support to CRAs should be the responding State 
IV-D agency's responsibility because the responding State is already 
providing due process and enforcement services, and challenges to these 
enforcement actions occur in the obligor's home State.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that suggest the responding 
State IV-D agency should report overdue support to CRAs. In AT-98-30, 
the answer to question 33 states, ``from an interstate 
perspective, the responding State is responsible for pursuing all 
appropriate enforcement activities (except for Federal Income Tax 
Refund Offset). Placing responsibility for reporting delinquencies to 
consumer reporting agencies upon the responding State follows the 
general rule in interstate enforcement, as opposed to the limited 
exception. In addition, having only one State responsible for such 
reporting eliminates the potential confusion in interstate cases 
associated with double reporting.'' AT-98-30 also points out that since 
the responding State will generally be the State of residence for the 
obligor, it is in the best position to efficiently handle any contest 
that may occur as a result of credit bureau reporting. OCSE agrees that 
this is a service best provided by the responding State IV-D agency, so 
proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(9), has been renumbered as Sec.  
303.7(d)(6)(iii) and moved to the responding State responsibilities. 
Section 303.7(d)(6)(iii) assigns the responsibility of: ``Reporting 
overdue support to Consumer Reporting Agencies, in accordance with 
section 466(a)(7) of the Act and Sec.  302.70(a)(7) of this chapter'' 
to responding State IV-D agencies.
    2. Comment: One commenter suggested that both the initiating and 
responding State IV-D agency should be able to report overdue support 
to CRAs.
    Response: We disagree with this comment because, as indicated in 
the preamble to the NPRM, it is necessary to specify which State must 
submit the overdue debt to CRAs to avoid both States submitting the 
same arrearage in a single case. Having both the initiating and 
responding State IV-D agency report overdue support to CRAs could 
result in the misconception that an obligor's child support debt is 
greater than it actually is. There are three major CRAs, Experian, 
Equifax, and TransUnion, and one State reporting arrearages is adequate 
and appropriate.

Proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(10) Renumbered as (c)(9)--Request for Review of 
Support Order

    1. Comment: One commenter asked that OCSE clarify that the 
requirement in proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(10), to send a request for 
review of a support order to another State within 20 calendar days of 
determining that review is appropriate and receipt of the information 
necessary to conduct the review, means that the request should be sent 
to a State having continuing exclusive jurisdiction (CEJ) to modify an 
order.
    Response: This requirement, renumbered as Sec.  303.7(c)(9), has 
been retained from the previously existing regulation under initiating 
State responsibilities. The only change is adding a reference to 
section 466(a)(10) of the Act, as the timing and requirements for 
review and adjustment have changed over the years. If the initiating 
State has the legal authority to adjust the order, 45 CFR 303.8(f)(1) 
requires it to: ``conduct the review and adjust the order pursuant to 
this section.'' Otherwise, a review request must be sent to a State 
that has legal authority to adjust the support order. This may be 
either the State with CEJ to modify its controlling order or, where 
everyone has left the State that issued the controlling order, the non-
requesting party's State.

Proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(11) Renumbered as (c)(10)--Distribution and 
Disbursement

    1. Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement in proposed 
Sec.  303.7(c)(11) for the initiating State to distribute and disburse 
support collections received should be strengthened to prohibit direct 
withholding by a State for arrearages assigned to that State when the 
obligee is receiving services in another State or when support is due 
to the family under the ``families first'' distribution provisions of 
PRWORA. Another commenter gave the following scenarios:
Scenario 1
    The custodial party is receiving services in one State [the first 
State], the obligor lives in a second State, and assigned arrearages 
are owed to a third State for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(TANF) paid to the family. The second State will only accept a 
reciprocal case from the first State, and will tell the third State to 
send its case to the first State to collect the third State's 
arrearages because the first State (the initiating State) is 
responsible for distribution.
Scenario 2
    The commenter stated that there are also situations in which the 
custodial parent is not receiving services from any State IV-D agency, 
and a responding State will not accept another State's case for 
collection of assigned arrearages only, indicating that the responding 
State must collect both current support and arrearages, not just 
arrearages.
    Response: Arrearage-only IV-D cases have long been a part of the 
child support program. Instructions to the Federal annual statistical 
reporting form OCSE-157 in AT-05-09 recognize and define an arrears-
only case as: ``A IV-D case in which the only reason the case

[[Page 38632]]

is open is to collect child or medical support arrearages owed to the 
state or to the family.'' Therefore, we believe it would be a 
significant change in this final regulation, without an opportunity for 
further discussion and comment, to prohibit direct withholding by a 
State for arrearages assigned to that State when the obligee is 
receiving services in another State or when support is due to the 
family under the ``families first'' distribution provisions of PRWORA. 
However, if a custodial parent is receiving IV-D services in another 
State, we would encourage States to work together to ensure that 
families receive adequate services, including current support and 
arrears owed to them.
    With respect to the first scenario, a responding State IV-D agency 
may not refuse to accept an interstate case from a State with an 
arrears-only IV-D case and tell that State to send its case to collect 
the assigned arrearages to a State in which the custodial parent is 
currently receiving IV-D services. A responding State must accept and 
process an intergovernmental request for services regardless of the 
existence of a separate interstate case from a different State. As 
indicated in the definition section of this rule, an intergovernmental 
IV-D case and an interstate IV-D case may include cases in which a 
State/Agency is seeking only to collect support arrearages, whether 
owed to the family or assigned to the State.
    In the second scenario, we do not agree with the commenter that the 
responding State may not accept an intergovernmental request for 
collection of only arrearages assigned to a State. If the custodial 
parent is not receiving IV-D services from any State, the responding 
State that receives a request from a State to collect assigned 
arrearages may not refuse to process that case. States with assigned 
arrearages from a former assistance case may not be providing services 
to the custodial parent if the custodial parent refuses continued IV-D 
services in response to the notice under Sec.  302.33(a)(4) when the 
family stopped receiving assistance.
    These comments address the complex issue of States with an interest 
in assigned arrearages, different State policy with respect to 
distribution, more than one IV-D case existing with respect to the same 
parties, and parents' choice about whether or not to receive IV-D 
services. In the DRA of 2005, Congress adopted family distribution 
options to encourage States to pay more support collections to 
families. As States expand their distribution policies, some of the 
inherent tensions involved in allocating collections among States with 
an interest in assigned arrearages, or between States with differing 
distribution policies, should begin to resolve themselves.

Proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(12), Renumbered as (c)(11)--Notice of Case 
Closure

    1. Comment: One commenter indicated that while the change in 
proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(12), now paragraph (c)(11), which requires the 
initiating State IV-D agency to notify the responding agency within 10 
working days of case closure that the initiating State IV-D agency has 
closed its case pursuant to Sec.  303.11, addresses the issue of 
overlapping enforcement efforts in a two-state interstate case, it does 
not address the problem of some States operating under UIFSA 1996 and 
others under UIFSA 2001. For example, an order is entered in State A, 
which has an open IV-D case. The custodial parent moves to State B and 
the noncustodial parent remains in State A. State B begins direct 
enforcement of State A's order and the employer begins remitting 
payments to State B, which disburses payments to the custodial parent. 
State A continues with enforcement provisions and becomes aware that 
State B has been receiving payments directly, generally when aggressive 
enforcement remedies are being taken against the noncustodial parent.
    Response: State B would not be authorized under UIFSA 1996 or 2001 
to take the action described. Although not all States have received 
waivers to adopt UIFSA (2001), section 319(b) offers a mechanism for 
State B to ask State A for redirection of payments if the custodial 
parent, noncustodial parent, and child have all left the State.
    2. Comment: One commenter supported the change in proposed Sec.  
303.7(c)(12), now paragraph (c)(11), because, with notice that the 
initiating State had closed its case, the responding agency could close 
its case without having a basis for closure other than notice that the 
initiating agency closed its case. However, the commenter recommended 
that the initiating agency provide the responding State with the 
specific reason for which the initiating agency closed its case. The 
commenter noted that this information can be relevant to the responding 
State if the responding State has obtained and is enforcing its own 
State's order.
    The commenter notes the example of a responding State that is 
enforcing its own State's order using income withholding, at the 
request of an initiating State. If the initiating agency closes its 
case without explanation, the responding State might be compelled to 
continue enforcement based on the order itself. In this situation, the 
responding State might close the intergovernmental IV-D case, and then 
open a non-IV-D case to continue collections, based on the support 
order, if it is under income withholding. However, information about 
the case closure from the initiating agency, such as that the custodial 
parent had died, would allow the responding State to appropriately 
close out the order.
    Response: OCSE agrees that it may be important for a responding 
State to know the reason why an initiating State closes its case. 
Therefore, we are adding this requirement to the initiating State's 
responsibilities under Sec.  303.7(c)(11) in the final rule. The 
revised rule reads as follows:

    ``Notify the responding agency within 10 working days of case 
closure that the initiating State IV-D agency has closed its case 
pursuant to Sec.  303.11 of this part, and the basis for case 
closure;''

Proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(13), Renumbered as (c)(12)--Instruct Responding 
Agency To Close its Case

    1. Comment: One commenter expressed agreement with the theory of 
the requirement in proposed paragraph (c)(13), now (c)(12), under which 
the initiating State IV-D agency must instruct the responding agency to 
close its interstate case and to stop any withholding order or notice 
the responding agency has sent to an employer before the initiating 
State transmits a withholding order or notice to the same or another 
employer unless the two States reach an alternative agreement on how to 
proceed. However, the commenter felt that the reality of the situation 
is different. The commenter provided the following scenarios:
     A case has recently been sent to another State and that 
State does not yet have the case initiated. The initiating State 
receives information regarding a new employer. It sometimes takes the 
responding State months to initiate the case and collections would be 
lost during this time, not benefiting the child, obligee, or obligor. 
In these situations, we instruct our caseworkers to issue the income 
withholding order, but inform the responding State and agree to 
terminate the income withholding order when the responding State is 
ready to issue its income withholding order.
     The interstate case may have been open for some time and 
both States receive the new employer information. If the responding 
State fails to issue the income withholding order in a timely fashion, 
our caseworkers may again issue the income withholding order but

[[Page 38633]]

inform the other State and agree to terminate the income withholding 
order when the responding State is ready to issue its withholding 
notice. Especially if the obligor is a ``job hopper,'' timely issuance 
of income withholding orders is critical.
    Response: The central registry in the responding State is required 
to open an interstate case within 10 working days of receipt of the 
case in accordance with 45 CFR 303.7(b)(2). Therefore, it is not 
acceptable for States to take months to open a case or initiate income 
withholding. However, we believe that the provision in Sec.  
303.7(c)(12) that allows States to reach an alternative agreement could 
address these situations. The language allows both scenarios to exist 
under this rule if both States agree to the approach.
    2. Comment: One commenter expressed disagreement with the provision 
in proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(13), renumbered as (c)(12), under which the 
initiating State IV-D agency must instruct the responding agency to 
close its interstate case and to stop any withholding order or notice 
the responding agency has sent to an employer before the initiating 
State transmits a withholding order or notice to the same or another 
employer unless the two States reach an alternative agreement on how to 
proceed. The commenter recommended that States be encouraged to 
communicate more effectively and not interrupt the flow of money to the 
family.
    Response: Again, we believe that the commenter's recommendation can 
be achieved through the language in paragraph (c)(12) that allows 
States to agree to an alternative agreement.
    3. Comment: One commenter indicated that proposed case closure 
criterion at Sec.  303.11(b)(13) states that: ``The initiating agency 
has notified the responding State that the initiating State has closed 
its case under [proposed] Sec.  303.7(c)(12),'' and suggested that 
Sec.  303.11(b)(13) also refer to proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(13), which 
required that the initiating State IV-D agency instruct the responding 
agency to close its interstate case and to stop any withholding order 
or notice the responding agency has sent to an employer before the 
initiating State transmits a withholding order or notice to the same or 
another employer unless the two States reach an alternative agreement 
on how to proceed.
    Response: The aforementioned requirement in proposed Sec.  
303.7(c)(12), which has been renumbered as (c)(11), corresponds 
directly with the case closure criteria found in proposed Sec.  
303.11(b)(13) as mentioned above. The requirement in proposed Sec.  
303.7(c)(13), which has been renumbered as (c)(12), provides the steps 
the initiating State should take after notifying the responding agency 
that the initiating agency has closed its case. Therefore, we do not 
believe this change is necessary.

Proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(14), Renumbered as (c)(13)--Accept Collections 
if Responding State was not Notified Initiating State had Closed its 
Case

    1. Comment: Several commenters expressed agreement with the 
provision in proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(14), now (c)(13), that the 
initiating State IV-D agency must make a diligent effort to locate the 
obligee, including use of the Federal Parent Locator Service and the 
State Parent Locator Service, and accept, distribute and disburse any 
payment received from a responding agency if the initiating agency has 
closed its case pursuant to Sec.  303.11 and has not notified the 
responding agency to close its corresponding case. However, one 
commenter read the provision to imply that closing a IV-D case somehow 
stops the child support obligation.
    Response: Closing a IV-D case does not impact or eradicate a 
support order or obligation; it merely means that the IV-D agency is no 
longer working the case. Closing the IV-D case has no impact on any 
existing order in the case.
    2. Comment: One commenter recommended that OCSE amend proposed 
Sec.  303.7(c)(14), now (c)(13), to mandate that if no IV-D agency is 
providing IV-D services, support must be redirected to the State 
Disbursement Unit (SDU) of the State that issued the order, and that 
the issuing State's SDU must accept and distribute payments received 
under such orders.
    Response: Whether or not there is a IV-D case, support payments 
must be directed to the person or entity specified in the support 
order. This is a matter of State and not Federal law. However, under 
section 454B and 466(b)(5) of the Act, support payments in IV-D cases 
and non-IV-D income withholding cases must be sent to the SDU. 
Therefore, in these situations, States need to ensure that the support 
order specifies that payments be sent to the SDU.
    3. Comment: One commenter indicated that, if the location of the 
custodial parent is unknown and the initiating State does not have the 
controlling order, the initiating State should be prohibited from 
sending the money directly back to the obligor instead of returning it 
to the responding agency so the correct pay records can be preserved.
    Response: The initiating agency is responsible for the distribution 
and disbursement of child support collections in intergovernmental 
cases, in accordance with Sec.  303.7(c)(13). States must communicate 
with one another to ensure that payment records are consistent and 
accurate.
    4. Comment: One commenter indicated support for proposed Sec.  
303.7(c)(14), now (c)(13), which requires the initiating State IV-D 
agency to accept, distribute and disburse payments from a responding 
agency when the initiating State IV-D agency fails to notify the 
responding agency that it has closed its case. However, the commenter 
suggested removing the phrase ``make a diligent effort to locate the 
obligee, including use of the Federal Parent Locator Service and the 
State Parent Locator Service,'' which lists specific resources that 
operationally cannot be used if the initiating State IV-D agency has 
already closed its case.
    Response: We believe it is appropriate to include this language. 
The initiating State IV-D agency's use of the Federal Parent Locator 
Service and the State Parent Locator Service is appropriate and 
necessary because it is for a IV-D purpose, as is distributing and 
disbursing the collections.

Section 303.7(d)--Responding State IV-D Agency Responsibilities

Section 303.7(d)(1)--Accept Referred Cases
    1. Comment: One commenter expressed a belief that the requirement 
in Sec.  303.7(d)(1), that responding State IV-D agencies accept and 
process an intergovernmental request for services, regardless of 
whether the initiating agency elected not to use remedies that may be 
available under the law of that jurisdiction, runs counter to the 
general notion that States should fully use their remedies in the first 
instance without involving another State. The commenter requested that 
OCSE consider clarifying that the initiating State must exhaust all in-
State remedies that it determines may be effective before referral to 
the responding State. Then, once the matter is referred, the responding 
State must accept and process the referral.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter. In AT-98-30, the answer 
to question 1 states that: ``a responding State may not refuse 
to accept a two-state request for order establishment because it 
believes that the initiating State could exercise long-arm 
jurisdiction.'' As indicated in the preamble to the NPRM, OCSE 
recognizes the benefits of obtaining or retaining control of a case 
where the

[[Page 38634]]

responding party resides outside of State borders. Indeed, we encourage 
one-state solutions; however, the initiating State agency is free to 
weigh the legal and factual circumstances of a case and select whether 
it is appropriate to exercise long-arm jurisdiction or not. Nothing in 
this rule infringes upon a State's decision-making authority to select 
a one-state or two-state approach in interstate cases. The choice 
remains within the purview of the initiating State IV-D agency.

Section 303.7(d)(2)(iii)--Process Case to Extent Possible Pending 
Receipt of Additional Information

    1. Comment: Some commenters agreed with the requirement in Sec.  
303.7(d)(2)(iii) that the responding State should process the case to 
the greatest extent possible, even if all necessary documentation has 
not been received, while a few commenters suggested that the case be 
returned to the initiating agency.
    Response: OCSE continues to believe that this provision remains 
useful and serves to advance the effectiveness of case processing. A 
major focus of the National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan is 
to ensure that more children and families can rely on child support 
payments. Our goal is children's financial security.
    2. Comment: One comment indicated that a time frame should be 
established in Sec.  303.7(d)(2)(iii) for the initiating agency to 
provide the documentation needed to process a case when a responding 
State IV-D agency is prothe case to the fullest extent possible pending 
necessary action by the initiating agency.
    Response: Under Sec.  303.7(c)(6) the initiating State must provide 
the responding agency with an updated intergovernmental form and any 
necessary additional documentation within 30 calendar days of receipt 
of the request for information, or notify the responding agency when 
the information will be provided.
    3. Comment: One commenter recommended substituting the word 
``incomplete'' for ``inadequate'' in Sec.  303.7(d)(2)(iii), when 
describing missing documentation, because by definition, inadequate 
documentation is insufficient for its intended purpose.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and revised the regulatory 
language at Sec.  303.7(b)(3) and Sec.  303.7(d)(2)(iii) to reflect 
this change.

Section 303.7(d)(3)--Noncustodial Parent is Found in a Different State

    1. Comment: We received a number of comments on the proposed 
requirement in Sec.  303.7(d)(3) for the responding agency to, within 
10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent in a different 
State, forward/transmit forms and documentation to the central registry 
in the State where the noncustodial parent is located and notify the 
initiating agency and central registry where the case has been sent. 
The majority of the commenters preferred that the forms and 
documentation be returned to the initiating agency.
    Response: In response to the majority of the commenters, we will 
keep the requirement in Sec.  303.7(c)(6) of the previously existing 
rule, which requires the responding State IV-D agency to return the 
forms and documentation, including the new location, to the initiating 
agency, unless directed to do otherwise by the initiating agency. We 
agree that forwarding the case directly to the State in which the 
noncustodial parent has been located reduces the initiating agency's 
control of the case and choice of whether it will use a one-state or 
two-state remedy in the State where the noncustodial parent has been 
located. Paragraph (d)(3) now reads as follows:

    ``(3) Within 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent 
in a different State, the responding agency must return the forms 
and documentation, including the new location, to the initiating 
agency, or, if directed by the initiating agency, forward/transmit 
the forms and documentation to the central registry in the State 
where the noncustodial parent has been located, and notify the 
responding State's own central registry where the case has been 
sent.''

    2. Comment: We requested comments as to whether there is a need to 
notify both the initiating agency and the central registry, as required 
under Sec.  303.7(d)(3), and if not, where the notice of the State's 
action should be directed; the majority of the commenters felt that the 
notice should only go to the initiating agency.
    Response: We believe the language was confusing. It is important 
for a responding agency to notify the initiating agency and the 
responding State's own central registry (rather than the initiating 
State's central registry) where the case has been sent. We changed the 
language in the regulation in paragraph Sec.  303.7(d)(3) to include 
this clarification, as indicated above.

Section 303.7(d)(4)--Locating the Noncustodial Parent in a Different 
Political Subdivision Within the Responding State

    1. Comment: The provision in proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(4) stated that 
within 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent in a 
different jurisdiction within the State, the responding State IV-D 
agency must forward/transmit the forms and documentation to the 
appropriate jurisdiction and notify the initiating agency and central 
registry of its action. We received several comments, the majority of 
which suggested that only the initiating agency be notified.
    Response: In response to the commenters above, we believe the 
responding State's central registry must be informed if a case is sent 
to another jurisdiction in the responding State. In addition, to avoid 
ambiguity, we replaced the term ``jurisdiction'' with ``political 
subdivision.'' As such, Sec.  303.7(d)(4) has been clarified to read as 
follows:

    ``(4) Within 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent 
in a different political subdivision within the State, forward/
transmit the forms and documentation to the appropriate political 
subdivision and notify the initiating agency and the responding 
State's own central registry of its action;''

    2. Comment: One commenter asked if the 10 working days referenced 
in Sec.  303.7(d)(4) is in addition to the 10 working days under 
paragraph Sec.  303.7(b)(2), in which the central registry in the 
responding State agency must process the request.
    Response: Yes, the 10 working days under Sec.  303.7(d)(4) within 
which the responding State agency must forward/transmit the forms and 
documentation to the appropriate political subdivision within the 
State, is in addition to the 10 working days in which the central 
registry must process the request under Sec.  303.7(b)(2).
    3. Comment: One commenter questioned whether Tribal IV-D programs 
should be included in the definition of ``appropriate tribunal'' and 
``appropriate jurisdiction'' and expected to comply with this directive 
and time frame in Sec.  303.7(d)(4).
    Response: As indicated previously in this preamble, while the 
intergovernmental child support rule recognizes that States will 
receive requests to work cases from Tribal IV-D agencies as well as 
other countries, it applies to State IV-D programs only. This rule does 
not apply to Tribes. By use of the phrase ``a different jurisdiction 
within the State,'' proposed section 303.7(d)(4) referred to county-
operated IV-D programs, in which a noncustodial parent is located in 
another county and the case is then forwarded from the receiving 
responding local IV-D agency to that other county. It does not include 
Tribal or foreign jurisdictions. As noted earlier, to avoid ambiguity, 
in the final rule we

[[Page 38635]]

replaced the term ``jurisdiction'' with ``political subdivision.''
    It is possible, although unlikely, that a responding State IV-D 
agency may locate a noncustodial parent on Tribal land or in another 
country. However, in such instances, the responding agency should 
return the case to the initiating State IV-D agency. If a noncustodial 
parent is located in a foreign country, we believe it is more 
appropriate for the initiating State to prepare and send the case to 
another country, in accordance with guidance in the appropriate 
caseworker's guide.

Section 303.7(d)(5)--Time Frame for Filing a DCO Request

    1. Comment: OCSE asked for comments on the time frame in proposed 
Sec.  303.7(d)(5)(i), which requires a responding State IV-D agency to 
file the DCO request with the appropriate tribunal in its State within 
10 working days of receipt of the request or location of the 
noncustodial parent, whichever occurs later. The majority of the 
commenters felt that the 10-day time frame was too short for the 
following reasons: Caseload sizes, tribunal involvement, and the fact 
that the IV-D agency has no control over court scheduling. Most 
suggested that the time frame be extended to 30 calendar days.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that 10 working days might 
be an inadequate amount of time to prepare and file documents necessary 
to request a DCO. We have changed the time frame in Sec.  
303.7(d)(5)(i) to within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request for 
a DCO or location of the noncustodial parent, whichever occurs later.

Section 303.7(d)(6)(i)--Seeking a Judgment for Genetic Testing Costs

    1. Comment: One commenter disagreed with retaining existing 
language in Sec.  303.7(d)(6)(i), which provides that a responding IV-D 
agency must attempt to obtain a judgment for costs if paternity is 
established, and suggested that the language be revised to allow the 
responding IV-D agency the option to attempt to recover its costs 
without it being a mandate.
    Response: We agree with the commenter. Now that the responding, 
rather than initiating State is responsible for the cost of genetic 
testing in intergovernmental IV-D cases, we agree that the responding 
State should be able to determine if it will or will not recover the 
costs of genetic testing. Therefore, we have changed the language in 
this paragraph to clarify that responding States may elect to attempt 
to obtain a judgment for genetic testing costs should paternity be 
established. Section 303.7(d)(6)(i) now reads as follows: 
``Establishing paternity in accordance with Sec.  303.5 of this part 
and, if the agency elects, attempting to obtain a judgment for costs 
should paternity be established.''

Proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(6)(iv), Renumbered as Sec.  303.7(d)(6)(v)--
Collecting, Monitoring, and Forwarding Support Payments

    1. Comment: One commenter indicated that Sec.  303.7(d)(6)(v) will 
require changes to the Automated Clearinghouse formats as currently 
outlined by Federal banking guidelines. Section 303.7(d)(6)(v) requires 
that the responding State IV-D agency collect and monitor any support 
payments from the noncustodial parent; forward payments to the location 
specified by the initiating agency; include sufficient information to 
identify the case, indicate the date of collection as defined under 
Sec.  302.51(a) of this chapter, and include the responding State's 
case identifier and locator code, as defined in accordance with 
instructions issued by OCSE.
    Response: The ``sufficient information'' referenced in the 
paragraph is identical to the information required in National 
Automated Clearinghouse Association's interstate Electronic Data 
Interchange transaction, and States are currently required to transmit 
and receive information in this format.

Section 303.7(d)(7)--Notice of Hearings

    1. Comment: Section 303.7(d)(7) requires responding agencies to 
provide timely notice to the initiating agency in advance of any 
hearing before a tribunal that might result in establishment or 
adjustment of an order. One commenter asked if the section would apply 
in the instance of an administrative review and adjustment, if no one 
requests a hearing to dispute the findings. The commenter also asked 
how the section applies to States that automatically issue cost-of-
living adjustment (COLA) increases.
    Response: The requirement under Sec.  303.7(d)(7) for the 
responding State to provide timely notice to the initiating agency in 
advance of a hearing applies only if there is a hearing scheduled. If a 
responding State does not schedule hearings as part of its 
administrative review and adjustment process or its automatic COLA 
increase process, the requirement for the responding agency to provide 
notice of hearings under Sec.  303.7(d)(7) does not apply.
    The rules for review and adjustment of child support orders under 
Sec.  303.8(b)(2) require that a State have procedures which permit 
either party to contest certain automatic adjustments, including a COLA 
increase, within 30 days after the date of the notice of the 
adjustment. If a party to the order contested the adjustment in 
response to the initial notice of the adjustment and a hearing before a 
tribunal in the responding State is scheduled as a result, the 
requirement under Sec.  303.7(d)(7) would apply, and the responding 
State would be required to provide timely notice to the initiating 
agency.
    2. Comment: Another commenter suggested that the requirement for a 
responding State to provide timely notice to the initiating State be 
placed in Sec.  303.7(a), under general responsibilities. The commenter 
suggested that making this a general responsibility is appropriate 
since such hearings could take place in the initiating State, as well 
as in the responding State.
    Response: OCSE agrees that a hearing that might result in the 
establishment or adjustment of an order that is associated with an 
interstate case could take place in the initiating or responding State, 
or even in a third State, depending on which State has been determined 
as having the controlling order. The requirement under Sec.  
303.7(d)(7) was designed to address the problem of responding agencies 
establishing or adjusting orders without providing both parents the 
opportunity to participate in the process. That remains its purpose.
    In regard to the inverse scenario, when an initiating State is 
establishing or adjusting an order and an obligor is in a responding 
State, we do not believe there is a similar problem, i.e., that the 
obligor will not be notified. A State, in this case an initiating 
State, that holds a hearing for establishment or adjustment of an order 
must ensure due process and provide notice to the obligated parent. 
Therefore, the requirement under Sec.  303.7(d)(7) is appropriately 
listed as a responding State responsibility rather than a general 
responsibility of both responding and initiating States.
    3. Comment: Section 303.7(d)(7) requires responding States to 
provide ``timely notice'' of review and adjustment hearings to 
initiating States. Two commenters requested clarification as to whether 
this requirement had a time frame. One commenter asked for a definition 
of the term ``timely.'' Another commenter suggested that the notice be 
sent to the initiating State at the same

[[Page 38636]]

time it is provided to the parties to the child support order.
    Response: In Sec.  303.7(d)(7), the term ``timely'' in the phrase 
``provide timely notice'' means sufficiently in advance so as to allow 
the initiating agency to provide information for the hearing and the 
opportunity to participate and to ensure that the custodial parent has 
also received notice and has the opportunity to participate. We defer 
to State procedures to define adequate notice of hearings, as we 
generally defer to States to follow their own due process requirements.

Proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(8)--Allocation of Collections

    1. Comment: OCSE received nearly a dozen comments on proposed Sec.  
303.7(d)(8) requiring responding States to allocate collections 
proportionately between arrearages assigned to the responding State in 
a separate case and to arrearages owed in an interstate case, either to 
an obligee in the initiating State or the initiating State itself.
    All but one of the commenters on this provision appeared to be in 
opposition. Many were confused by the provision and preamble language 
and asked for clarification. A number of commenters objected to the 
practice that payments collected on a specific order could be allocated 
to other orders. The commenters questioned the legality of such an 
action, as well as the adverse impact it would have on maintaining 
correct arrearages and payment records and therefore ensuring proper 
enforcement in the responding State (e.g., incorrect payment records 
could result in States erroneously reporting the obligor for tax 
offset, passport denial, or credit bureau reporting). Other commenters 
felt that this provision conflicted with or confused distribution 
requirements, and at least one was concerned about how the provision 
would impact its statewide automated system.
    Response: The proposed requirement was designed to address a narrow 
interstate circumstance where a responding State retains a collection 
to satisfy its own assigned arrearages under the same support order on 
its own case before sending collections to an initiating State. In 
consideration of the commenters' strong opposition, OCSE has eliminated 
proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(8). The issue of how responding States should 
allocate collections between assigned arrearages on its own case and 
support owed in an interstate case may better be addressed in the 
context of meetings on intergovernmental cooperation, rather than in 
regulation. However, it is important to note that, with the exception 
of Federal tax refund offset collections (unless the initiating State 
has opted to pay the offset collections to families first), any 
collection must first be applied to satisfy current support in 
accordance with Sec.  302.51(a) before it is applied to satisfy 
arrearage.
    It is also important to note that the rules on income withholding 
address the issue of allocating payments across multiple cases and 
apply in interstate as well as intrastate cases. Section 303.100(a)(5) 
states that: ``If there is more than one notice for withholding against 
a single noncustodial parent, the State must allocate amounts available 
for withholding giving priority to current support up to the limits 
imposed under section 303(b) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 
U.S.C. 1673(b)). The State must establish procedures for allocation of 
support among families, but in no case shall the allocation result in a 
withholding for one of the support obligations not being implemented.''
    2. Comment: In regard to this same proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(8), 
several commenters discussed the second interstate ``allocation'' 
scenario described in the preamble of the proposed rule, involving an 
initiating State sending only one case to a responding State but then 
allocating collections from that one case across multiple cases with 
the same obligor in the initiating State. As stated in the preamble, 
this scenario is as follows: ``A responding State makes a collection in 
an interstate Case A, credits the payment to the case, and forwards the 
money to the initiating State for distribution and disbursement. The 
initiating State receives the collection for Case A but applies it, in 
part, to support due by the same obligor to several families in Cases B 
and C. The initiating State may not advise the responding State how the 
payment was allocated and distributed.''
    Several commenters acknowledged the problems created for the 
responding State when payments collected by the responding State and 
sent to the initiating State on a specific order are allocated by the 
initiating State to other orders. At least one commenter supported 
OCSE's suggestion for an initiating State to send all cases to a 
responding State, while one commenter, from a State with a county-based 
child support system, strongly objected to this practice.
    Response: We reiterate that States should refer all cases involving 
an obligor to a responding State. However, there is no consensus on 
this issue. Because statewide automated systems and current practices 
regarding the handling of multiple cases vary so broadly across States, 
and because the Federal statute only addresses distribution within a 
case, other than with respect to income withholding, we believe this 
issue may better be addressed in the context of meetings on 
intergovernmental cooperation, rather than in this rule.

Proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(9), Renumbered as Sec.  303.7(d)(8)--Notice of 
Fees and Costs Deducted

    1. Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement, under 
proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(9), for the responding State to identify fees 
or costs deducted from support payments when forwarding payments to the 
initiating agency, citing the impact on statewide automated systems. In 
a similar statement, another commenter voiced concern about the impact 
this requirement would have on the statewide systems considering the 
commenter's State does not currently charge any fees on interstate 
cases.
    Response: This requirement should not have an impact on statewide 
automated systems because it is not a new requirement. This requirement 
has been in effect since the 1988 publication of the former interstate 
regulations and since the issuance of system certification requirements 
under PRWORA. Statewide automated systems must be able to record the 
receipt of payments on fees, including interest or late payment 
penalties, in the automated case record, whether or not the State 
practices cost recovery or imposes fees.
    2. Comment: One commenter asked how the responding State would 
notify the initiating State of deducted fees and costs under proposed 
Sec.  303.7(d)(9).
    Response: Section 303.7(d)(8) of the final rule [proposed Sec.  
303.7(d)(9)] requires that the responding State identify any fees or 
costs deducted from support payments when forwarding the payments to 
the initiating State, but does not mandate any one approach or method 
for doing this. OCSE leaves it to States to develop their own best 
practices for how responding States share this information in 
intergovernmental cases.
    3. Comment: The same commenter also asked whether the responding 
State could deduct fees before sending current support under proposed 
Sec.  303.7(d)(9).
    Response: No, in accordance with Sec.  302.33(d)(3), the IV-D 
agency ``shall not treat any amount collected from the individual as a 
recovery of costs * * * except amounts which exceed the current support 
owed by the individual

[[Page 38637]]

under the obligation.'' In other words, a responding State may not 
deduct costs before sending current support.

Proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(10), Renumbered as Sec.  303.7(d)(9)--Case 
Closure in Direct Income Withholding Cases

    1. Comment: We received a half dozen comments on the responding 
State requirement, under proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(10), to stop an income 
withholding order and close the intergovernmental IV-D case within 10 
days of receipt of a request for case closure from an initiating 
agency, under proposed Sec.  303.7(c)(13) [final rule Sec.  
303.7(c)(12)], unless the States reach an alternative agreement.
    Two commenters remarked on the 10-day time frame. One suggested 
using ``working'' days to make the time frame consistent with other 
similar time frames in the rule. Another said the time frame was too 
short, particularly for States that implement income withholding 
through a judicial process as opposed to administratively.
    Response: OCSE agrees that, for clarity and consistency, the time 
frame in the final rule Sec.  303.7(d)(9) [proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(10)] 
should be changed to ``working'' days. While this change does clarify 
the time frame, OCSE does not agree that a longer time frame is 
necessary to accommodate States with judicial income withholding 
processes. Income withholding procedures are designed to be an 
efficient enforcement tool and are required by statute and regulation 
to be applied and terminated quickly without the need for court 
involvement. As stated in section 466(b)(2) of the Act, and reiterated 
in 45 CFR 303.100(a)(4), income ``withholding must occur without the 
need for any amendment to the support order involved or any other 
action by the court or entity that issued [the order] * * *.'' Further, 
the ``Expedited Procedures'' section of section 466(c)(1) of the Act 
requires States to enact laws under which State agencies have the 
authority to take certain actions, including income withholding, 
``without the necessity of obtaining an order from any other judicial 
or administrative tribunal.''
    2. Comment: One commenter emphasized that the requirement to stop 
income withholding and close an intergovernmental case under proposed 
Sec.  303.7(d)(10) would not apply in instances where the responding 
State held the controlling order because the responding State must 
determine when its own order is paid in full and the case should be 
closed. In addition, the commenter believed that the initiating State 
should not be issuing direct withholding orders to employers for a case 
that is already being enforced by the State that has the controlling 
order.
    Response: OCSE disagrees that the requirement to close the 
responding State IV-D case would not apply when the responding State 
holds the controlling order underlying the interstate case. The 
location of the controlling order has no bearing on the application of 
this rule, since the support order is not affected by the opening or 
closing of any IV-D case associated with it. Therefore, while a 
responding State may hold the controlling order, the responding State 
may still receive, work, and must, when instructed, close an 
intergovernmental IV-D case sent from an initiating agency based on 
that same order.
    For example, a responding State could be using income withholding 
to collect assigned past-due support owed to the responding State in an 
arrears-only case and to collect on a case sent by an initiating State 
providing services to the custodial parent based on his or her 
application for IV-D services under Sec.  302.33. In this instance, 
Sec.  303.7(d)(9) of the final rule allows the initiating State to 
instruct the responding State to close its interstate case so that the 
initiating State can use direct withholding to collect support under 
the same order for the custodial parent. By closing the interstate IV-D 
case, the responding State does not have to close its separate IV-D 
arrears-only case, but could continue to collect on that case. 
Coordination between States which are both enforcing the same order, 
albeit for different purposes, is essential. In fact, Sec.  303.7(d)(9) 
allows States to reach an alternative agreement if that will better 
serve the States in processing their cases. In response to the 
commenter's statement that the initiating State should not issue direct 
withholding orders to employers for a case that is already being 
enforced by the State with the controlling order, Section 466(b)(9) of 
the Act and UIFSA authorize direct income withholding. As stated in the 
preamble of the proposed rule: ``the election to close an interstate 
case involving two States belongs exclusively to the initiating 
agency.'' The majority of States encouraged OCSE to take the approach 
in this rule under Sec.  303.7(d)(9) rather than have duplicate income 
withholding orders in place against the same wages.
    3. Comment: Another commenter requested that the regulation 
establish a time frame for the initiating State to issue the new income 
withholding order under proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(10).
    Response: OCSE does not agree a time frame is required. An 
initiating State that requests that the responding State stop its 
income withholding order and close its case is motivated to enforce its 
own case. We believe, in these circumstances, that the initiating State 
will issue a direct income withholding order in an appropriate time 
frame.
    4. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification that the 
requirement to stop income withholding and close an intergovernmental 
case under proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(10) applies in cases when the 
responding agency is only taking an income withholding action and is 
not also involved in a pending contempt proceeding for avoiding 
employment. The commenter is concerned about the effect this rule may 
have on the responding agencies' use of contempt proceedings as an 
enforcement tool in interstate cases, since an initiating State may 
elect to close the interstate case before the responding agency is able 
to complete the contempt process.
    Response: The responding State requirement to stop income 
withholding and close an interstate IV-D case under Sec.  303.7(d)(9) 
of the final rule applies in any interstate IV-D case, unless the 
States involved reach an alternative agreement. While an initiating 
State may ask a responding State to close its interstate case before 
the responding State can complete contempt proceedings in the case, the 
States may reach an alternative agreement that allows the contempt 
proceeding to ensue.
    5. Comment: One commenter asked for confirmation that, while case 
closure criteria listed under Sec.  303.11(b), which uses permissive 
language, give States the option to close cases, the requirement for 
responding States to close interstate IV-D cases at the request of the 
initiating State under proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(10) [final rule Sec.  
303.7(d)(9)] is a mandate.
    Response: The commenter's understanding is correct. The case 
closure rules under Sec.  303.11(b) give States the option to close 
cases if certain conditions are met, but does not require States to 
close these cases. In contrast, Sec.  303.7(d)(9) requires the 
responding State to stop the income withholding order and close its 
corresponding case within 10 working days of receipt of such 
instructions from the initiating State. Because this requirement is 
mandatory, OCSE purposely placed it in the intergovernmental regulation 
rather than under the case closure rule.
    In the final rule Sec.  303.7(d)(9), OCSE has replaced the words 
``a request'' with the word ``instructions,'' so that Sec.  303.7(d)(9) 
now reads, in part: ``Within 10 working days of receipt of instructions 
for case closure from an

[[Page 38638]]

initiating State agency under paragraph (c)(12) of this section * * 
*.'' OCSE replaced the word ``request'' to avoid any confusion that the 
requirement is optional when, in fact, it is mandatory. In addition, 
using the word ``instructions'' is consistent with the language in the 
corresponding initiating State responsibilities section, under final 
rule paragraph (c)(12), which uses the word ``instruct.'' We also 
inserted the term ``State'' to clarify that the instructions for case 
closure under paragraph (c)(12) come from an initiating State agency.

Section 303.7(e)--Payment and Recovery of Costs in Intergovernmental 
IV-D Cases

Section 303.7(e)(1)--Payment and Recovery of Costs
    1. Comment: Approximately eight commenters submitted their 
reactions to proposed Sec.  303.7(e)(1), which reorganized and revised 
requirements for the payment and recovery of costs in former Sec.  
303.7(d). This section requires responding IV-D agencies to pay the 
costs of processing intergovernmental cases, including the costs of 
genetic testing. In the former rule, the initiating State had been 
responsible for these costs. Five commenters supported shifting the 
responsibility to pay for the costs of genetic testing from the 
initiating State to the responding State. One of these commenters said 
she believed the change would make intergovernmental case processing 
more efficient and effective.
    A few commenters, however, were concerned about the impact the 
shift in responsibility for the costs of genetic testing would have on 
statewide automated systems. One of these commenters requested that 
OCSE recognize the time and cost associated with implementing this 
change on statewide systems. At least one of these commenters objected 
to the change entirely, citing an undue burden on larger States and a 
disincentive for initiating States to opt for long-arm solutions in 
establishing paternity.
    Response: OCSE agrees with the majority of the commenters that 
requiring responding States to pay genetic testing costs, in addition 
to other costs in processing intergovernmental cases, is responsive to 
State concerns and in the long run simplifies interstate case 
processing. As stated earlier under the general comments section, 
States will have time to make needed adjustments to their statewide 
systems in order to implement changes associated with this part of the 
rule.
    OCSE appreciates concerns that this change may burden some larger 
States. However, because the costs of genetic testing are low and 
States receive Federal reimbursement on two-thirds of program costs, 
and also may choose to recover costs, this should not be an undue 
burden on States. OCSE does not anticipate that this change will cause 
initiating States to choose a two-State solution for establishing 
paternity over possible long-arm solutions.
    2. Comment: Two commenters objected to the mandate in proposed 
Sec.  303.7(e)(1) that a responding agency must seek a judgment for the 
costs of paternity testing. These commenters argued that the 
responsibility for responding agencies to recover costs for genetic 
testing by obtaining a judgment should be optional. Commenters made the 
same argument concerning Sec.  303.7(d)(6)(i), which required 
responding States to provide any necessary services as it would in an 
intrastate case, including ``attempting to obtain a judgment for costs 
should paternity be established.'' One of these commenters pointed out 
that section 466(a)(5)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act states that while the State 
agency must pay for genetic testing, the State may ``elect'' to recoup 
those costs and thus is not required to do so. The commenters suggested 
revising Sec.  303.7(e)(1) by substituting the term ``may'' for 
``must.''
    Response: OCSE agrees that responding States should not be required 
to seek a judgment for the costs of genetic testing from the alleged 
father once his paternity is established, since responding States are 
now responsible for absorbing these costs under the new section 
303.7(e)(1). Therefore, we have changed the language in this paragraph 
to read, in part: ``[hellip]If paternity is established, the responding 
agency, at its election, may seek a judgment for the costs of testing 
from the alleged father who denied paternity.'' This change also 
conforms to the change made in proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(6)(i), which 
clarified that responding States may elect to obtain a judgment for 
genetic testing costs should paternity be established.
Section 303.7(e)(2)--Recovery of Costs
    1. Comment: In regard to the prohibition under proposed Sec.  
303.7(e)(2) from recovering costs from an FRC or from a foreign 
obligee, one commenter questioned why international cases were treated 
differently from interstate cases in this context.
    Response: Section 454(32)(A) of the Act requires that States 
``provide that no applications will be required from, and no costs will 
be assessed for * * * services against, the foreign reciprocating 
country or foreign obligee (but costs may, at State option, be assessed 
against the obligor).'' Therefore, as required by Federal law, States 
may not collect fees from foreign obligees or FRCs, which are countries 
with which the United States has a reciprocal agreement under section 
459A of the Act.
Section 303.11--Case Closure Criteria
    1. Comment: One commenter requested an additional case closure 
criterion under Sec.  303.11(b) that permits responding States to close 
interstate cases in instances when initiating States have made requests 
that cannot be completed. The commenter offered two examples. In one 
example, the initiating State has asked the responding State to 
establish paternity in the case of a man and a woman; however, the 
woman was previously married to another man whom the court had found to 
be the father during the divorce proceedings. In a second example, the 
initiating State has erroneously sent an interstate case for 
establishment when the case is really a modification case.
    Response: In general, if a case is sent to a responding State in 
error or the responding State cannot take the action requested, we 
believe that the responding State should be able to resolve the issue 
by communicating directly with the initiating agency and asking the 
agency to revise the request or rescind the referral entirely. With 
respect to the second example, rather than closing this case, we 
believe it is more appropriate for States to communicate with each 
other to secure the necessary documentation to proceed to modify the 
support order, if the responding State has the jurisdiction to do so.
    If the initiating agency is not responsive to requests for more or 
accurate information, the responding State has grounds to close the 
case under the case closure criterion in Sec.  303.11(b)(12): ``the IV-
D agency documents failure by the initiating agency to take an action 
which is essential for the next step in providing services.'' Before 
closing the case, however, the responding State must follow the 
procedure described under Sec.  303.11(c) that requires the responding 
State to notify the initiating agency in writing 60 calendar days prior 
to closure of the case of its intent to close the case.
    2. Comment: One commenter took issue with the statement in the 
preamble of the proposed rule that: ``[i]n intergovernmental cases, a 
responding State IV-D agency may apply any of the criteria for case 
closure set out in

[[Page 38639]]

current regulations at 45 CFR 303.11. Existing paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (b)(11) pertain to all IV-D cases.'' The commenter said that 
responding States have previously only been allowed to close cases with 
the permission of the initiating State and could not unilaterally close 
cases under criteria in Sec.  303.11(b)(1) through (11). In fact, the 
commenter points out, case closure criterion under Sec.  303.11(b)(12) 
was created (as noted in the final rule on case closure, OCSE-AT-99-04) 
to address the problem that responding States had been required to keep 
cases open if the initiating State did not grant permission to close 
the case, even when conditions existed that fit other case closure 
criteria, such as the responding State was not able to locate the 
noncustodial parent or had located him or her in another State.
    In summary, the commenter asked for clarification as to whether a 
responding State may close a case based on criteria set out in current 
regulations at 45 CFR 303.11(b)(1) through (b)(11), or must the 
responding State use Sec.  303.11(b)(12) to document lack of 
cooperation by the initiating State in order to close the case.
    Response: The commenter is correct. A State may not unilaterally 
close intergovernmental cases under case closure criteria in Sec.  
303.11(b)(1) through (11) without the permission of the initiating 
agency. In general, the initiating agency decides whether to open or 
close an intergovernmental case. In order for a responding State to 
close an intergovernmental case, without permission from the initiating 
agency, the responding State must use Sec.  303.11(b)(12) and document 
lack of cooperation by the initiating agency. This case closure 
criterion, which enables a responding State to close a case when it 
documents failure by the initiating agency to take an action essential 
for providing services, was devised so that responding States would 
have grounds to close cases on which they could not proceed, provided 
they give 60 calendar days notice to the initiating agency, as required 
under Sec.  303.11(c).
    This new rule provides three new case closure criteria that also 
apply to responding States, in addition to Sec.  303.11(b)(12). The 
first of these new criteria is Sec.  303.11(b)(13), which allows the 
responding State to close a case when the initiating agency provides 
notification that it has closed its case under proposed Sec.  
303.7(c)(12) [(c)(11) in the final rule]. This new criterion formalizes 
and provides a 10-working-days time frame under Sec.  303.7(c)(11) for 
the well-established practice of a responding State closing 
intergovernmental cases when permitted by the initiating agency, in 
this instance, due to the closure of the initiating State's case.
    In consideration of this comment, the second of the new case 
closure criteria addresses the situation where an initiating agency 
desires to keep its case open, but no longer needs the responding 
State's intergovernmental services. Section 303.11(b)(14) allows the 
responding State to close its case when: ``the initiating agency has 
notified the responding State that its intergovernmental services are 
no longer needed.''
    The third new case closure rule applicable to responding States is 
the requirement under Sec.  303.7(d)(9) for a responding State to stop 
an income withholding order and close an intergovernmental case within 
10 working days of receipt of instructions from an initiating agency to 
do so. Unlike the criteria under case closure Sec.  303.11(b)(12) 
through (14), this interstate case closure rule is mandatory.
    In consideration of this comment, OCSE has made a change to Sec.  
303.7(d)(10) in the final rule [proposed Sec.  303.7(d)(11)]. The 
proposed rule required a responding State to notify an initiating 
agency when a case was closed pursuant to Sec.  303.11, implying 
incorrectly that a responding State could close an intergovernmental 
case under any of the case closure criteria under this part. The final 
rule clarifies the exact criteria under which a responding State may 
close a case and would, therefore, be required to notify the initiating 
agency. The final regulation under Sec.  303.7(d)(10) now reads:

    ``Notify the initiating agency when a case is closed pursuant to 
Sec.  303.11(b)(12) through (14) and Sec.  303.7(d)(9).''
Section 303.11(b)(12)--Lack of Cooperation by Initiating Agency
    1. Comment: One commenter was in support of the case closure 
criterion under proposed Sec.  303.7(b)(12), which allows responding 
States to close cases based on lack of cooperation by the initiating 
agency. However, the commenter asked OCSE to establish a time frame for 
when the responding States should implement closing cases under this 
criterion.
    Response: A time frame is currently established under Sec.  
303.11(c) of the regulations: ``the [responding] State * * * in an 
interstate case, meeting the criteria under (b)(12), [must notify] the 
initiating State, in writing 60 calendar days prior to closure of the 
case of the State's intent to close the case. The case must be kept 
open if the * * * initiating State supplies information in response to 
the notice which could lead to the establishment of paternity or a 
support order or enforcement of an order * * *.''
    We realize conforming changes to Sec.  303.11(c) are necessary to 
indicate that responsibility for a responding State to provide case 
closure notice under Sec.  303.11(b)(12) to an initiating agency, which 
could be a country or Tribe as well as another State, and that the 
responding State must keep the case open if that initiating agency 
supplies useable information in response to the notice. Therefore, in 
Sec.  303.11(c), we have substituted the word ``intergovernmental'' for 
``interstate'' and ``initiating agency'' for ``initiating State.''
    The revised Sec.  303.11(c) now reads: ``In cases meeting the 
criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) and (10) through (12) of this 
section, the State must notify the recipient of services, or in an 
intergovernmental case meeting the criteria for closure under (b)(12), 
the initiating agency, in writing 60 calendar days prior to closure of 
the case of the State's intent to close the case. The case must be kept 
open if the recipient of services or the initiating agency supplies 
information in response to the notice * * * .''
    2. Comment: One commenter said that responding States are 
consistently closing interstate cases without the direction of the 
initiating State, or under case closure Sec.  303.11(b)(12), without 
following proper procedures. In order to provide clear instruction to 
responding State caseworkers as to their role in case closure, the 
commenter asked that OCSE re-publish the following statement from the 
preamble of the proposed rule: ``Again, we note that the election to 
close an interstate case involving two States belongs exclusively to 
the initiating agency.''
    Response: OCSE agrees that the decision to close an 
intergovernmental case should only be made by the initiating agency, 
with the noted exception, under Sec.  303.11(b)(12), of cases for which 
the State IV-D agency documents failure by the initiating agency to 
take an action essential to the responding State's ability to provide 
services. If a responding State does move to close a case as allowed 
under Sec.  303.11(b)(12), it must provide 60-calendar-days written 
notice to the initiating agency, as required under Sec.  303.11(c).
Section 303.11(b)(13)--Closing a Case Already Closed by Initiating 
State
    1. Comment: Proposed Sec.  303.11(b)(13) allows the responding 
State to close its

[[Page 38640]]

interstate case provided the initiating State notified the responding 
State that it had closed its case pursuant to proposed Sec.  
303.7(c)(12) [final rule, Sec.  303.7(c)(11)]. (Final rule, Sec.  
303.7(c)(11) requires the initiating State to notify the responding 
agency of case closure within 10 working days of closing a case under 
Sec.  303.11 and the basis for this case closure.)
    One commenter requested clarification that upon receipt of 
notification that an initiating State had closed its case pursuant to 
Sec.  303.11, the responding State would have authority, under Sec.  
303.11(b)(13), to close its case without having another basis, such as 
a court order.
    Response: Yes, a responding State would have the authority to close 
its IV-D case upon receipt of notification that an initiating State had 
closed its case pursuant to Sec.  303.11.
Section 308.2--Required Program Compliance Criteria
    1. Comment: One commenter suggested that OCSE make conforming 
changes to Sec.  308.2 if any changes are made to Sec.  303.7 based on 
comments made.
    Response: In the final rule, we made conforming changes to 
Sec. Sec.  308.2(b)(1), (c)(1) and (2), and (f)(1) and (g) for 
consistency with changes made in response to comments to proposed Sec.  
303.7.

IV. Impact Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    There is a new requirement imposed by this rule. Proposed Sec.  
303.7(d)(5) adds a notice requirement where the initiating agency has 
requested a controlling order determination. In this case, the 
responding agency must: ``(i) File the controlling order determination 
request with the appropriate tribunal in its State within 30 calendar 
days of receipt of the request or location of the noncustodial parent, 
whichever occurs later.''
    For this new regulatory requirement statewide Child Support 
Enforcement systems are already required to have the functionality to 
generate the documents necessary to establish an order of support. This 
new regulatory requirement is considered a minor change or enhancement 
to a statewide IV-D system.
    Under paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of the section, the responding agency 
must: ``Notify the initiating State agency, the Controlling Order State 
and any State where a support order in the case was issued or 
registered, of the controlling order determination and any reconciled 
arrearages within 30 calendar days of receipt of the determination from 
the tribunal.''
    This provision should not increase the information collection 
burden on the State(s) because a Child Support Enforcement Network 
(CSENet) transaction for transmitting information about the 
determination of the controlling order to other States already exists. 
CSENet already has a transaction: ENF Provide--GSCOE-enforcement-- 
Provision of information, new controlling order. It is sent by the 
responding State--the transaction is used to reply to an enforcement 
request notifying the initiating jurisdiction that a new controlling 
support order is in effect. The amount of the reconciled arrearages can 
also be transmitted via CSENet in an information data block.
    There were no public comments regarding this impact analysis 
following the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 
Federal Register on December 8, 2008 (73 FR 74408). The estimated 
burden has not changed in the final rule.
    The total estimated burden for the change described above is:
    Annual Burden Estimates

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Average burden hours per    Total burden
               Instrument                 Number of respondents 54            response                hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems modification...................  One time system             60 labor hours per State       3,240 hours.
                                          enhancement.                to modify statewide IV-D
                                                                      system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3507(d)], regarding reporting and recordkeeping, 
apply to the federally-mandated intergovernmental forms referenced in 
the regulations, (OMB No. 0970-0085). The Office of Management and 
Budget has reauthorized the use of these forms until January 31, 2011.

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 final 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 Order 12866 requires that regulations be reviewed to 
ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set 
forth in the Executive Order. This final rule provides solutions to 
problems in securing child support and paternity determinations for 
children in situations where the parents and children live apart and in 
different jurisdictions and the Department has determined that they are 
consistent with the priorities and principles of the Executive Order. 
There are minimal costs associated with these proposed rules.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 
that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before 
promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in 
the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year.
    If a covered agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement, 
section 205 further requires that it select the most cost-effective and 
least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rules 
and is consistent with the statutory requirements. In addition, section 
203 requires a plan for informing and advising any small governments 
that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the proposed rule.
    The Department has determined that this rule is not an economically 
significant rule and will not result in the expenditure by State, 
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of more than $100 million in any one year. Accordingly, we have 
not prepared a budgetary impact statement, specifically addressed the 
regulatory alternatives considered, or prepared a plan for informing 
and advising any significantly or uniquely impacted small government.

[[Page 38641]]

Congressional Review

    This final rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. chapter 
8.

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 policy or 
regulation may negatively 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. The required 
review of the regulations and policies to determine their effect on 
family well-being has been completed, and this rule will have a 
positive impact on family well-being as defined in the legislation by 
helping to ensure that parents support their children, even when they 
reside in separate jurisdictions, and will strengthen personal 
responsibility and increase disposable family income.

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 or 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 final rule does not have federalism impact as 
defined in the Executive Order.

List of Subjects

45 CFR Part 301

    Child support, Grant programs/social programs, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 302

    Child support, Grant programs/social programs, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 303

    Child support, Grant programs/social programs, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 305

    Child support, Grant programs/social programs, Accounting.

45 CFR Part 308

    Auditing, Child support, Grant programs/social programs, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs No. 93.563, Child 
Support Enforcement Program.)

    Dated: April 7, 2010.
Carmen R. Nazario,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    Approved: June 17, 2010.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary of Health and Human Services.

0
For the reasons discussed above, title 45 CFR chapter III is amended as 
follows:

PART 301--STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 301 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 664, 666, 667, 
1301, and 1302.

0
2. Amend Sec.  301.1 by republishing the introductory text and adding 
the following definitions alphabetically:


Sec.  301.1  General definitions.

    When used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates:
* * * * *
    Central authority means the agency designated by a government to 
facilitate support enforcement with a foreign reciprocating country 
(FRC) pursuant to section 459A of the Act.
* * * * *
    Controlling order State means the State in which the only order was 
issued or, where multiple orders exist, the State in which the order 
determined by a tribunal to control prospective current support 
pursuant to the UIFSA was issued.
    Country means a foreign country (or a political subdivision 
thereof) declared to be an FRC under section 459A of the Act and any 
foreign country (or political subdivision thereof) with which the State 
has entered into a reciprocal arrangement for the establishment and 
enforcement of support obligations to the extent consistent with 
Federal law pursuant to section 459A(d) of the Act.
* * * * *
    Form means a federally-approved document used for the establishment 
and enforcement of support obligations whether compiled or transmitted 
in written or electronic format, including but not limited to the 
Income Withholding for Support form, and the National Medical Support 
Notice. In interstate IV-D cases, such forms include those used for 
child support enforcement proceedings under the UIFSA. Form also 
includes any federally-mandated IV-D reporting form, where appropriate.
    Initiating agency means a State or Tribal IV-D agency or an agency 
in a country, as defined in this rule, in which an individual has 
applied for or is receiving services.
    Intergovernmental IV-D case means a IV-D case in which the 
noncustodial parent lives and/or works in a different jurisdiction than 
the custodial parent and child(ren) that has been referred by an 
initiating agency to a responding agency for services. An 
intergovernmental IV-D case may include any combination of referrals 
between States, Tribes, and countries. An intergovernmental IV-D case 
also may include cases in which a State agency is seeking only to 
collect support arrearages, whether owed to the family or assigned to 
the State.
    Interstate IV-D case means a IV-D case in which the noncustodial 
parent lives and/or works in a different State than the custodial 
parent and child(ren) that has been referred by an initiating State to 
a responding State for services. An interstate IV-D case also may 
include cases in which a State is seeking only to collect support 
arrearages, whether owed to the family or assigned to the State.
* * * * *
    One-state remedies means the exercise of a State's jurisdiction 
over a non-resident parent or direct establishment, enforcement, or 
other action by a State against a non-resident parent in accordance 
with the long-arm provision of UIFSA or other State law.
* * * * *
    Responding agency means the agency that is providing services in 
response to a referral from an initiating agency in an 
intergovernmental IV-D case.
* * * * *
    Tribunal means a court, administrative agency, or quasi-judicial 
entity authorized under State law to establish, enforce, or modify 
support orders or to determine parentage.
    Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) means the model act 
promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 
State Laws (NCCUSL) and mandated by section 466(f) of the Act to be in 
effect in all States.

PART 302--STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 302 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 664, 666, 667, 
1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).

0
4. Revise Sec.  302.36 to read as follows:


Sec.  302.36  Provision of services in intergovernmental IV-D cases.

    (a) The State plan shall provide that, in accordance with Sec.  
303.7 of this chapter, the State will extend the full

[[Page 38642]]

range of services available under its IV-D plan to:
    (1) Any other State;
    (2) Any Tribal IV-D program operating under Sec.  309.65(a) of this 
chapter; and
    (3) Any country as defined in Sec.  301.1 of this chapter.
    (b) The State plan shall provide that the State will establish a 
central registry for intergovernmental IV-D cases in accordance with 
the requirements set forth in Sec.  303.7(b) of this chapter.

PART 303--STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM OPERATIONS

0
5. The authority citation for part 303 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 663, 664, 666, 
667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p) and 
1396(k).


0
6. Revise Sec.  303.7 to read as follows:


Sec.  303.7  Provision of services in intergovernmental IV-D cases.

    (a) General responsibilities. A State IV-D agency must:
    (1) Establish and use procedures for managing its intergovernmental 
IV-D caseload that ensure provision of necessary services as required 
by this section and include maintenance of necessary records in 
accordance with Sec.  303.2 of this part;
    (2) Periodically review program performance on intergovernmental 
IV-D cases to evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures established 
under this section;
    (3) Ensure that the organizational structure and staff of the IV-D 
agency are adequate to provide for the administration or supervision of 
the following functions specified in Sec.  303.20(c) of this part for 
its intergovernmental IV-D caseload: Intake; establishment of paternity 
and the legal obligation to support; location; financial assessment; 
establishment of the amount of child support; collection; monitoring; 
enforcement; review and adjustment; and investigation;
    (4) Use federally-approved forms in intergovernmental IV-D cases, 
unless a country has provided alternative forms as part of its chapter 
in A Caseworker's Guide to Processing Cases with Foreign Reciprocating 
Countries. When using a paper version, this requirement is met by 
providing the number of complete sets of required documents needed by 
the responding agency, if one is not sufficient under the responding 
agency's law;
    (5) Transmit requests for information and provide requested 
information electronically to the greatest extent possible;
    (6) Within 30 working days of receiving a request, provide any 
order and payment record information requested by a State IV-D agency 
for a controlling order determination and reconciliation of arrearages, 
or notify the State IV-D agency when the information will be provided;
    (7) Notify the other agency within 10 working days of receipt of 
new information on an intergovernmental case; and
    (8) Cooperate with requests for the following limited services: 
Quick locate, service of process, assistance with discovery, assistance 
with genetic testing, teleconferenced hearings, administrative reviews, 
high-volume automated administrative enforcement in interstate cases 
under section 466(a)(14) of the Act, and copies of court orders and 
payment records. Requests for other limited services may be honored at 
the State's option.
    (b) Central registry.
    (1) The State IV-D agency must establish a central registry 
responsible for receiving, transmitting, and responding to inquiries on 
all incoming intergovernmental IV-D cases.
    (2) Within 10 working days of receipt of an intergovernmental IV-D 
case, the central registry must:
    (i) Ensure that the documentation submitted with the case has been 
reviewed to determine completeness;
    (ii) Forward the case for necessary action either to the central 
State Parent Locator Service for location services or to the 
appropriate agency for processing;
    (iii) Acknowledge receipt of the case and request any missing 
documentation; and
    (iv) Inform the initiating agency where the case was sent for 
action.
    (3) If the documentation received with a case is incomplete and 
cannot be remedied by the central registry without the assistance of 
the initiating agency, the central registry must forward the case for 
any action that can be taken pending necessary action by the initiating 
agency.
    (4) The central registry must respond to inquiries from initiating 
agencies within 5 working days of receipt of the request for a case 
status review.
    (c) Initiating State IV-D agency responsibilities. The initiating 
State IV-D agency must:
    (1) Determine whether or not there is a support order or orders in 
effect in a case using the Federal and State Case Registries, State 
records, information provided by the recipient of services, and other 
relevant information available to the State;
    (2) Determine in which State a determination of the controlling 
order and reconciliation of arrearages may be made where multiple 
orders exist;
    (3) Determine whether the noncustodial parent is in another 
jurisdiction and whether it is appropriate to use its one-state 
remedies to establish paternity and establish, modify, and enforce a 
support order, including medical support and income withholding;
    (4) Within 20 calendar days of completing the actions required in 
paragraphs (1) through (3) and, if appropriate, receipt of any 
necessary information needed to process the case:
    (i) Ask the appropriate intrastate tribunal, or refer the case to 
the appropriate responding State IV-D agency, for a determination of 
the controlling order and a reconciliation of arrearages if such a 
determination is necessary; and
    (ii) Refer any intergovernmental IV-D case to the appropriate State 
Central Registry, Tribal IV-D program, or Central Authority of a 
country for action, if one-state remedies are not appropriate;
    (5) Provide the responding agency sufficient, accurate information 
to act on the case by submitting with each case any necessary 
documentation and intergovernmental forms required by the responding 
agency;
    (6) Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request for 
information, provide the responding agency with an updated 
intergovernmental form and any necessary additional documentation, or 
notify the responding agency when the information will be provided;
    (7) Notify the responding agency at least annually, and upon 
request in an individual case, of interest charges, if any, owed on 
overdue support under an initiating State order being enforced in the 
responding jurisdiction;
    (8) Submit all past-due support owed in IV-D cases that meet the 
certification requirements under Sec.  303.72 of this part for Federal 
tax refund offset,
    (9) Send a request for review of a child support order to another 
State within 20 calendar days of determining that a request for review 
of the order should be sent to the other State and of receipt of 
information from the requestor necessary to conduct the review in 
accordance with section 466(a)(10) of the Act and Sec.  303.8 of this 
part;
    (10) Distribute and disburse any support collections received in 
accordance with this section and Sec. Sec.  302.32, 302.51, and 302.52 
of this chapter, sections 454(5), 454B, 457, and

[[Page 38643]]

1912 of the Act, and instructions issued by the Office;
    (11) Notify the responding agency within 10 working days of case 
closure that the initiating State IV-D agency has closed its case 
pursuant to Sec.  303.11 of this part, and the basis for case closure;
    (12) Instruct the responding agency to close its interstate case 
and to stop any withholding order or notice the responding agency has 
sent to an employer before the initiating State transmits a withholding 
order or notice, with respect to the same case, to the same or another 
employer unless the two States reach an alternative agreement on how to 
proceed; and
    (13) If the initiating agency has closed its case pursuant to Sec.  
303.11 and has not notified the responding agency to close its 
corresponding case, make a diligent effort to locate the obligee, 
including use of the Federal Parent Locator Service and the State 
Parent Locator Service, and accept, distribute and disburse any payment 
received from a responding agency.
    (d) Responding State IV-D agency responsibilities. Upon receipt of 
a request for services from an initiating agency, the responding State 
IV-D agency must:
    (1) Accept and process an intergovernmental request for services, 
regardless of whether the initiating agency elected not to use remedies 
that may be available under the law of that jurisdiction;
    (2) Within 75 calendar days of receipt of an intergovernmental form 
and documentation from its central registry:
    (i) Provide location services in accordance with Sec.  303.3 of 
this part if the request is for location services or the form or 
documentation does not include adequate location information on the 
noncustodial parent;
    (ii) If unable to proceed with the case because of inadequate 
documentation, notify the initiating agency of the necessary additions 
or corrections to the form or documentation;
    (iii) If the documentation received with a case is incomplete and 
cannot be remedied without the assistance of the initiating agency, 
process the case to the extent possible pending necessary action by the 
initiating agency;
    (3) Within 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent in a 
different State, the responding agency must return the forms and 
documentation, including the new location, to the initiating agency, 
or, if directed by the initiating agency, forward/transmit the forms 
and documentation to the central registry in the State where the 
noncustodial parent has been located and notify the responding State's 
own central registry where the case has been sent.
    (4) Within 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent in a 
different political subdivision within the State, forward/transmit the 
forms and documentation to the appropriate political subdivision and 
notify the initiating agency and the responding State's own central 
registry of its action;
    (5) If the request is for a determination of controlling order:
    (i) File the controlling order determination request with the 
appropriate tribunal in its State within 30 calendar days of receipt of 
the request or location of the noncustodial parent, whichever occurs 
later; and
    (ii) Notify the initiating State agency, the Controlling Order 
State and any State where a support order in the case was issued or 
registered, of the controlling order determination and any reconciled 
arrearages within 30 calendar days of receipt of the determination from 
the tribunal;
    (6) Provide any necessary services as it would in an intrastate IV-
D case including:
    (i) Establishing paternity in accordance with Sec.  303.5 of this 
part and, if the agency elects, attempting to obtain a judgment for 
costs should paternity be established;
    (ii) Establishing a child support obligation in accordance with 
Sec.  302.56 of this chapter and Sec. Sec.  303.4, 303.31 and 303.101 
of this part;
    (iii) Reporting overdue support to Consumer Reporting Agencies, in 
accordance with section 466(a)(7) of the Act and Sec.  302.70(a)(7) of 
this chapter;
    (iv) Processing and enforcing orders referred by an initiating 
agency, whether pursuant to UIFSA or other legal processes, using 
appropriate remedies applied in its own cases in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  303.6, 303.31, 303.32, 303.100 through 303.102, and 303.104 
of this part, and submit the case for such other Federal enforcement 
techniques as the State determines to be appropriate, such as 
administrative offset under 31 CFR 285.1 and passport denial under 
section 452(k) of the Act;
    (v) Collecting and monitoring any support payments from the 
noncustodial parent and forwarding payments to the location specified 
by the initiating agency. The IV-D agency must include sufficient 
information to identify the case, indicate the date of collection as 
defined under Sec.  302.51(a) of this chapter, and include the 
responding State's case identifier and locator code, as defined in 
accordance with instructions issued by this Office; and
    (vi) Reviewing and adjusting child support orders upon request in 
accordance with Sec.  303.8 of this part;
    (7) Provide timely notice to the initiating agency in advance of 
any hearing before a tribunal that may result in establishment or 
adjustment of an order;
    (8) Identify any fees or costs deducted from support payments when 
forwarding payments to the initiating agency in accordance with 
paragraph (d)(6)(v) of this section;
    (9) Within 10 working days of receipt of instructions for case 
closure from an initiating State agency under paragraph (c)(12) of this 
section, stop the responding State's income withholding order or notice 
and close the intergovernmental IV-D case, unless the two States reach 
an alternative agreement on how to proceed; and
    (10) Notify the initiating agency when a case is closed pursuant to 
Sec. Sec.  303.11(b)(12) through (14) and 303.7(d)(9) of this part.
    (e) Payment and recovery of costs in intergovernmental IV-D cases.
    (1) The responding IV-D agency must pay the costs it incurs in 
processing intergovernmental IV-D cases, including the costs of genetic 
testing. If paternity is established, the responding agency, at its 
election, may seek a judgment for the costs of testing from the alleged 
father who denied paternity.
    (2) Each State IV-D agency may recover its costs of providing 
services in intergovernmental non-IV-A cases in accordance with Sec.  
302.33(d) of this chapter, except that a IV-D agency may not recover 
costs from an FRC or from a foreign obligee in that FRC, when providing 
services under sections 454(32) and 459A of the Act.

0
7. Amend Sec.  303.11 by revising paragraph (b)(12), adding new 
paragraphs (b)(13) and (b)(14), and revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  303.11  Case closure criteria.

* * * * *
    (b)* * *
    (12) The IV-D agency documents failure by the initiating agency to 
take an action which is essential for the next step in providing 
services;
    (13) The initiating agency has notified the responding State that 
the initiating State has closed its case under Sec.  303.7(c)(11); and
    (14) The initiating agency has notified the responding State that 
its intergovernmental services are no longer needed.
    (c) In cases meeting the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 
and (10) through (12) of this section, the State must notify the 
recipient of services, or

[[Page 38644]]

in an intergovernmental case meeting the criteria for closure under 
(b)(12), the initiating agency, in writing 60 calendar days prior to 
closure of the case of the State's intent to close the case. The case 
must be kept open if the recipient of services or the initiating agency 
supplies information in response to the notice which could lead to the 
establishment of paternity or a support order or enforcement of an 
order, or, in the instance of paragraph (b)(10) of this section, if 
contact is reestablished with the recipient of services. If the case is 
closed, the former recipient of services may request at a later date 
that the case be reopened if there is a change in circumstances which 
could lead to the establishment of paternity or a support order or 
enforcement of an order by completing a new application for IV-D 
services and paying any applicable application fee.
* * * * *

PART 305--PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES, STANDARDS, FINANCIAL 
INCENTIVES, AND PENALTIES

0
8. The authority citation for part 305 is revised to read:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 609(a)(8), 652(a)(4) and (g), 658 and 
1302.


Sec.  305.63  [Amended]

0
9. Amend Sec.  305.63 by:
0
a. Removing ``interstate'' and adding ``intergovernmental'' in its 
place wherever it occurs in paragraphs (c)(2) through (5) and 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4);
0
b. Removing ``Sec.  303.7(a), (b) and (c)(1) through (6) and (8) 
through (10)'' and adding ``Sec.  303.7(a), (b), (c), (d)(1) through 
(5) and (7) through (10), and (e)'' in its place wherever it occurs in 
paragraphs (c)(2) through (5); and
0
c. Removing ``Sec.  303.7(a), (b) and (c)(4) through (6), (c)(8) and 
(9)'' and adding ``Sec.  303.7(a)(4) through (8), (b), (c), (d)(2) 
through (5) and (7) and (10)'' in its place wherever it occurs in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4).

PART 308--ANNUAL STATE SELF-ASSESSMENT REVIEW AND REPORT

0
10. The authority citation for part 308 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 654(15)(A) and 1302.

0
11. Amend Sec.  308.2 by:
0
a. Removing ``interstate'' and adding ``intergovernmental'' in its 
place wherever it occurs in paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1) and (2), and 
(f)(1);
0
b. Removing ``Sec.  303.7(a), (b) and (c)(4) through (6), (c)(8) and 
(9)'' and adding ``Sec.  303.7(a)(4) through (8), (b), (c), (d)(2) 
through (5) and (7) and (10)'' in its place wherever it occurs in 
paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1) and (2), and (f)(1); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  308.2  Required program compliance criteria.

* * * * *
    (g) Intergovernmental services. A State must have and use 
procedures required under this paragraph in at least 75 percent of the 
cases reviewed. For all intergovernmental cases requiring services 
during the review period, determine the last required action and 
determine whether the action was taken during the appropriate time 
frame:
    (1) Initiating intergovernmental cases:
    (i) Except when a State has determined that use of one-state 
remedies is appropriate in accordance with Sec.  303.7(c)(3) of this 
Chapter, within 20 calendar days of completing the actions required in 
Sec.  303.7(c)(1) through (3) of the Chapter, and, if appropriate, 
receipt of any necessary information needed to process the case, ask 
the appropriate intrastate tribunal or refer the case to the responding 
State agency, for a determination of the controlling order and a 
reconciliation of arrearages if such a determination is necessary, and 
refer any intergovernmental IV-D case to the appropriate State Central 
Registry, Tribal IV-D program, or Central Authority of a country for 
action, if one-state remedies are not appropriate;
    (ii) If additional information is requested, providing the 
responding agency with an updated form and any necessary additional 
documentation, or notify the responding agency when the information 
will be provided, within 30 calendar days of the request pursuant to 
Sec.  303.7(c)(6) of this chapter;
    (iii) Within 20 calendar days after determining that a request for 
review of the order should be sent to another State IV-D agency and of 
receipt of information necessary to conduct the review, sending a 
request for review and adjustment pursuant to Sec.  303.7(c)(9) of this 
chapter;
    (iv) Within 10 working days of closing its case pursuant to Sec.  
303.11 of this chapter, notifying the responding agency pursuant to 
Sec.  303.7(c)(11) of this chapter;
    (v) Within 10 working days of receipt of new information on a case, 
notifying the responding State pursuant to Sec.  303.7(a)(7) of this 
chapter;
    (vi) Within 30 working days of receiving a request, providing any 
order and payment record information requested by a responding agency 
for a controlling order determination and reconciliation of arrearages, 
or notify the State IV-D agency when the information will be provided 
pursuant to Sec.  303.7(a)(6) of this chapter.
    (2) Responding intergovernmental cases:
    (i) Within 10 working days of receipt of an intergovernmental IV-D 
case, the central registry reviewing submitted documentation for 
completeness, forwarding the case to the State Parent Locator Service 
(SPLS) for location services or to the appropriate agency for 
processing, acknowledging receipt of the case, and requesting any 
missing documentation from the initiating agency, and informing the 
initiating agency where the case was sent for action, pursuant to Sec.  
303.7(b)(2) of this chapter;
    (ii) The central registry responding to inquiries from initiating 
agencies within 5 working days of a receipt of request for case status 
review pursuant to Sec.  303.7(b)(4) of this chapter;
    (iii) Within 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent in 
a different jurisdiction within the State or in a different State, 
forwarding/transmitting the forms and documentation in accordance with 
Federal requirements pursuant to Sec.  303.7(d)(3) and (4) of this 
chapter;
    (iv) Within two business days of receipt of collections, forwarding 
any support payments to the initiating jurisdiction pursuant to section 
454B(c)(1) of the Act;
    (v) Within 10 working days of receipt of new information notifying 
the initiating jurisdiction of that new information pursuant to Sec.  
303.7(a)(7) of this chapter;
    (vi) Within 30 working days of receiving a request, providing any 
order and payment record information requested by an initiating agency 
for a controlling order determination and reconciliation of arrearages, 
or notify the State IV-D agency when the information will be provided 
pursuant to Sec.  303.7(a)(6) of this chapter;
    (vii) Within 10 working days of receipt of instructions for case 
closure from an initiating agency under Sec.  303.7(c)(12) of this 
chapter, stopping the responding State's income withholding order or 
notice and closing the responding State's case, pursuant to Sec.  
303.7(d)(9) of this chapter, unless the two States reach an alternative 
agreement on how to proceed.

[FR Doc. 2010-15215 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P