38612 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 selfassessment requirements. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LaShawn Williams, OCSE Division of 

Policy, 202–401–9386, e-mail: 

Lashawn.williams@acf.hhs.gov. Deaf 

and hearing impaired individuals may 

call the Federal Dual Party Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 

a.m. and 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 wellbeing. 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 federallyrecognized 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 federallyrecognized 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 Stateto-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 federallymandated 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 factuallyappropriate 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38614 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 factfinding 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 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 federallymandated 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 § 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 § 301.1. 

Paragraph (a)(1) requires the State 

plan to: ‘‘provide that, in accordance 

with § 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 

§ 301.1 of this chapter.’’ In the final rule, 

we corrected the regulatory citation for 

the definition of the term ‘‘Country’’ by 

replacing § 303.1 with § 301.1. Section 

302.36(b) is revised by substituting 

‘‘intergovernmental’’ for ‘‘interstate’’ and 

amending the reference to State central 

registry responsibilities to § 303.7(b), 

consistent with changes we made to 

§ 303.7. 

Part 303—Standards for Program 

Operations 

Section 303.7—Provision of Services in 

Intergovernmental IV–D Cases 

We reorganized § 303.7 to clarify IV– 

D agency responsibilities and to expand 

the scope from interstate to all 

intergovernmental IV–D cases, as 

defined by § 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 § 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 

§ 303.2 of this part.’’ This is a general 

responsibility of all IV–D agencies. 

Similarly, § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38616 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 

§ 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 § 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, § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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, § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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, § 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 § 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 § 302.56 of this 

chapter and §§ 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 § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38618 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§§ 303.11(b)(12) through (14) and 

303.7(d)(9) of this part.’’ We added the 

reference to § 303.7(d)(9) and the 

applicable paragraphs in § 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 § 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 § 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 § 303.7(c)(11) from the 

initiating agency that it has closed its 

case. Under § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 38619 

processing, there is a technical change 

to § 303.11(c) to substitute the word 

‘‘intergovernmental’’ for ‘‘interstate’’ and 

‘‘initiating agency’’ for ‘‘initiating State.’’ 

Since § 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 

§ 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 § 305.63 to correct outdated 

cross-references and to revise crossreferences to § 303.7. 

Part 308—Annual State SelfAssessment Review and Report 

Section 308.2—Required Program 

Compliance Criteria 

We have made conforming changes to 

Part 308 at § 308.2 to correct outdated 

cross-references and to revise crossreferences to § 303.7. The language in 

paragraph (g) has been revised to reflect 

the corresponding changes to referenced 

provisions in § 303.7, and we also added 

two new program compliance criteria 

for State Self-Assessments. 

First, there is a performance criterion 

for both initiating (§ 308.2(g)(1)(vi)) and 

responding (§ 308.2(g)(2)(vi)) cases 

under which, in accordance with the 

time frame under § 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 § 303.7 and 

§ 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 (§ 308.2(g)(1)(iv)) and 

responding (§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 predevelopment 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38620 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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, HighVolume 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 § 303.7(d) apply to the 

State, while the rules for initiating 

States under § 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 § 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. § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38622 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Onestate 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 § 303.7(c)(3) also 

was modified to use the term One-state 

remedies. See discussion of the 

comments on proposed § 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 Onestate interstate case asked for 

clarification in regard to reporting on 

the Form OCSE–157, ‘‘Child Support 

Enforcement Annual Data Report.’’ The 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 Onestate 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 § 303.7. 

OCSE reminds States that the first 

three requirements for initiating State 

agencies under § 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 § 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 § 303.7(a)(4) to include this 

authority. 

2. Comment: Several commenters 

appreciated the change under proposed 

§ 303.7(a)(4) to require agencies to send 

only one copy of each federallyapproved 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38624 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

§ 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 § 303.7(a)(8), and if so, should 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 38625 

added requests for copies of orders and 

payment records to the list of limited 

services to § 303.7(a)(8). 

In response to all of the above 

comments, § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38626 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

be taken pending necessary action by 

the initiating agency,’’ in proposed 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 303.7(b)(2)(i), the 

central registry determines, on a caseby-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 § 303.11(b)(12), as long as the 

required notice of potential closure 

under § 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 § 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 § 303.11(b)(12), we 

encourage States and agencies to work 

together so as not to initiate case closure 

proceedings prematurely. 

Under § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 303.11(b)(12), and provide a 60- 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 38627 

calendar-day notice to the initiating 

agency, as required by § 303.11(c). 

Case closure rules at § 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 

§ 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 § 303.7(b)(3) and, 

correspondingly, in § 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 

§ 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 § 303.7(d), as 

a responding State responsibility. 

Response: This requirement has been 

in effect since interstate regulations 

were implemented at § 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, § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38628 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 303.7(c)(3) and § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 303.7(c)(4) to 

§ 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 § 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 onestate remedies, as defined in § 301.1 of 

this chapter, to establish paternity and 

establish, modify, and enforce a support 

order, including medical support and 

income withholding.’’ 

Also, in § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 303.7(c)(4) fits with the 30-workingdays time frame in § 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 § 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 § 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 § 303.7(c)(3). Therefore, 

the 20-calendar-days time frame in 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 interestcharging 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38630 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Pastdue 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 § 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 § 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 pastdue 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 federallevel remedies should notify the other 

State in an interstate situation. 

3. Comment: One commenter asked 

that OCSE specify that § 303.7(c)(8) is 

applicable even when the initiating 

State is submitting arrearages due under 

an order from another State. Proposed 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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, § 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 § 303.7(c)(8). 

Response: There is currently no 

statutory authority for Tribal IV–D 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 303.7(c)(9), has been 

renumbered as § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 303.7(c)(11) Renumbered as 

(c)(10)—Distribution and Disbursement 

1. Comment: One commenter stated 

that the requirement in proposed 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38632 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 303.7(c)(12), Renumbered as 

(c)(11)—Notice of Case Closure 

1. Comment: One commenter 

indicated that while the change in 

proposed § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 303.11 of this part, and the 

basis for case closure;’’ 

Proposed § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 § 303.11(b)(13) states that: 

‘‘The initiating agency has notified the 

responding State that the initiating State 

has closed its case under [proposed] 

§ 303.7(c)(12),’’ and suggested that 

§ 303.11(b)(13) also refer to proposed 

§ 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 § 303.7(c)(12), 

which has been renumbered as (c)(11), 

corresponds directly with the case 

closure criteria found in proposed 

§ 303.11(b)(13) as mentioned above. The 

requirement in proposed § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 twostate 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38634 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 303.7(b)(3) and 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 onestate 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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, 

§ 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 

§ 303.7(d)(4) is in addition to the 10 

working days under paragraph 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 countyoperated 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 303.5 of this part and, 

if the agency elects, attempting to obtain 

a judgment for costs should paternity be 

established.’’ 

Proposed § 303.7(d)(6)(iv), Renumbered 

as § 303.7(d)(6)(v)—Collecting, 

Monitoring, and Forwarding Support 

Payments 

1. Comment: One commenter 

indicated that § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 303.7(d)(7) does not apply. 

The rules for review and adjustment 

of child support orders under 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38636 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

time it is provided to the parties to the 

child support order. 

Response: In § 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 § 303.7(d)(8)—Allocation of 

Collections 

1. Comment: OCSE received nearly a 

dozen comments on proposed 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 303.7(d)(9), Renumbered as 

§ 303.7(d)(8)—Notice of Fees and Costs 

Deducted 

1. Comment: One commenter objected 

to the requirement, under proposed 

§ 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 § 303.7(d)(9). 

Response: Section 303.7(d)(8) of the 

final rule [proposed § 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 

§ 303.7(d)(9). 

Response: No, in accordance with 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 38637 

under the obligation.’’ In other words, a 

responding State may not deduct costs 

before sending current support. 

Proposed § 303.7(d)(10), Renumbered as 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 303.7(c)(13) [final rule 

§ 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 § 303.7(d)(9) [proposed 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 302.33. In this instance, § 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, 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 303.7(d)(10) [final rule § 303.7(d)(9)] is 

a mandate. 

Response: The commenter’s 

understanding is correct. The case 

closure rules under § 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, 

§ 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 § 303.7(d)(9), OCSE 

has replaced the words ‘‘a request’’ with 

the word ‘‘instructions,’’ so that 

§ 303.7(d)(9) now reads, in part: ‘‘Within 

10 working days of receipt of 

instructions for case closure from an 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38638 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 303.7(e)(1), which 

reorganized and revised requirements 

for the payment and recovery of costs in 

former § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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: ‘‘...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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 303.11(b)(1) through (11). In fact, the 

commenter points out, case closure 

criterion under § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 303.11(c). 

This new rule provides three new 

case closure criteria that also apply to 

responding States, in addition to 

§ 303.11(b)(12). The first of these new 

criteria is § 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 § 303.7(c)(12) [(c)(11) in 

the final rule]. This new criterion 

formalizes and provides a 10-workingdays time frame under § 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 § 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 

§ 303.11(b)(12) through (14), this 

interstate case closure rule is 

mandatory. 

In consideration of this comment, 

OCSE has made a change to 

§ 303.7(d)(10) in the final rule [proposed 

§ 303.7(d)(11)]. The proposed rule 

required a responding State to notify an 

initiating agency when a case was 

closed pursuant to § 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 § 303.7(d)(10) now 

reads: 

‘‘Notify the initiating agency when a case 

is closed pursuant to § 303.11(b)(12) through 

(14) and § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 303.11(c) are necessary to indicate that 

responsibility for a responding State to 

provide case closure notice under 

§ 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 § 303.11(c), we 

have substituted the word 

‘‘intergovernmental’’ for ‘‘interstate’’ and 

‘‘initiating agency’’ for ‘‘initiating State.’’ 

The revised § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 303.11(b)(12), it must provide 60- 

calendar-days written notice to the 

initiating agency, as required under 

§ 303.11(c). 

Section 303.11(b)(13)—Closing a Case 

Already Closed by Initiating State 

1. Comment: Proposed § 303.11(b)(13) 

allows the responding State to close its 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38640 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

interstate case provided the initiating 

State notified the responding State that 

it had closed its case pursuant to 

proposed § 303.7(c)(12) [final rule, 

§ 303.7(c)(11)]. (Final rule, § 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 § 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 § 303.11, the 

responding State would have authority, 

under § 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 § 303.11. 

Section 308.2—Required Program 

Compliance Criteria 

1. Comment: One commenter 

suggested that OCSE make conforming 

changes to § 308.2 if any changes are 

made to § 303.7 based on comments 

made. 

Response: In the final rule, we made 

conforming changes to §§ 308.2(b)(1), 

(c)(1) and (2), and (f)(1) and (g) for 

consistency with changes made in 

response to comments to proposed 

§ 303.7. 

IV. Impact Analysis 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

There is a new requirement imposed 

by this rule. Proposed § 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 

Instrument Number of respondents 54 Average burden hours per response Total burden 

hours 

Systems modification ............................. One time system enhancement ............. 60 labor hours per State to modify 

statewide IV–D system.

3,240 hours. 

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 federallymandated 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 wellbeing 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. 

■ For the reasons discussed above, title 

45 CFR chapter III is amended as 

follows: 

PART 301—STATE PLAN APPROVAL 

AND GRANT PROCEDURES 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 301.1 by republishing the 

introductory text and adding the 

following definitions alphabetically: 

§ 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 

■ 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). 

■ 4. Revise § 302.36 to read as follows: 

§ 302.36 Provision of services in 

intergovernmental IV–D cases. 

(a) The State plan shall provide that, 

in accordance with § 303.7 of this 

chapter, the State will extend the full 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38642 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

range of services available under its IV– 

D plan to: 

(1) Any other State; 

(2) Any Tribal IV–D program 

operating under § 309.65(a) of this 

chapter; and 

(3) Any country as defined in § 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 § 303.7(b) of this chapter. 

PART 303—STANDARDS FOR 

PROGRAM OPERATIONS 

■ 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). 

■ 6. Revise § 303.7 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 303.8 of this 

part; 

(10) Distribute and disburse any 

support collections received in 

accordance with this section and 

§§ 302.32, 302.51, and 302.52 of this 

chapter, sections 454(5), 454B, 457, and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 302.56 

of this chapter and §§ 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§§ 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 § 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. 

■ 7. Amend § 303.11 by revising 

paragraph (b)(12), adding new 

paragraphs (b)(13) and (b)(14), and 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
38644 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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. 

§ 305.63 [Amended] 

■ 9. Amend § 305.63 by: 

■ a. Removing ‘‘interstate’’ and adding 

‘‘intergovernmental’’ in its place 

wherever it occurs in paragraphs (c)(2) 

through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (4); 

■ b. Removing ‘‘§ 303.7(a), (b) and (c)(1) 

through (6) and (8) through (10)’’ and 

adding ‘‘§ 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 

■ c. Removing ‘‘§ 303.7(a), (b) and (c)(4) 

through (6), (c)(8) and (9)’’ and adding 

‘‘§ 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 

■ 10. The authority citation for part 308 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 11. Amend § 308.2 by: 

■ a. Removing ‘‘interstate’’ and adding 

‘‘intergovernmental’’ in its place 

wherever it occurs in paragraphs (b)(1), 

(c)(1) and (2), and (f)(1); 

■ b. Removing ‘‘§ 303.7(a), (b) and (c)(4) 

through (6), (c)(8) and (9)’’ and adding 

‘‘§ 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 

■ c. Revising paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 303.7(c)(3) of this Chapter, within 

20 calendar days of completing the 

actions required in § 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 

§ 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 § 303.7(c)(9) of 

this chapter; 

(iv) Within 10 working days of closing 

its case pursuant to § 303.11 of this 

chapter, notifying the responding 

agency pursuant to § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 303.7(a)(6) of this chapter; 

(vii) Within 10 working days of 

receipt of instructions for case closure 

from an initiating agency under 

§ 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 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2