[Federal Register: December 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 236)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 74408-74426]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08de08-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child
Support Enforcement (OCSE).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: These proposed regulations would revise 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). The proposed changes
would: Revise current interstate requirements to apply to case
processing in all intergovernmental cases; require the responding State
IV-D agency to pay the cost of genetic testing; clarify responsibility
for determining in which State tribunal a controlling order
determination is made where multiple support orders exist; recognize
and incorporate electronic communication advancements; and make
conforming changes to the Federal substantial-compliance audit and
State self-assessment requirements.
DATES: Consideration will be given to written comments received by
February 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and
Human Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC
20447, Attention: Director, Division of Policy, Mail Stop: OCSE/DP.
Comments will be available for public inspection Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the 4th floor of the Department's offices at the
above address. You may also transmit written comments electronically
via the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov. To download an
electronic version of the rule, you may access http://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvette Hilderson Riddick, OCSE
Division of Policy, 202-401-4885, e-mail: Yvette.Riddick@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) of the Act addresses interstate cooperation. This
notice of proposed rulemaking is 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 he is responsible under the Act. The
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) of 1996 amended the Act by adding section 466(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, 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. Further,
section 455(f) of the Act, which authorized direct funding of Tribal
Child Support Enforcement (IV-D) 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 program was created over 30 years ago
in response to the rise in welfare costs resulting from increasing
nonmarital birth rates and parental desertion of families, and to the
growing demand to relieve taxpayers of the financial burden of
supporting these families. Child support is no longer primarily a
welfare
[[Page 74409]]
reimbursement, revenue-producing device for the Federal and State
governments; it is a family-first program, intended to ensure families'
self-sufficiency by making child support a more reliable source of
income. In addition to serving those parents and children with child
support cases in which divorced or never married parents live in the
same State, IV-D agencies are also responsible for cases where one of
the parents resides outside its borders.
The problems of support enforcement are compounded when parents
reside in different jurisdictions and the interjurisdictional caseload
is substantial. In FY 2006, over a million cases were sent from one
State to another. See, Child Support Enforcement FY 2006 Preliminary
Report (March 2007), Figure 10 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/
pubs/2007/preliminary_report/. 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,
interstate collections showed a 19 percent increase over those obtained
in FY 2002.
The universal enactment by States of UIFSA and close to a decade of
State experience under this uniform law has served to harmonize the
interjurisdictional legal framework. Use of long-arm jurisdiction,
administrative processes, and direct income withholding has gone a long
way to break down barriers. Nevertheless, many still exist.
We believe that interstate case processing still can and must be
improved. This has been and remains one of OCSE's top priorities.
Current regulations governing interstate cases are outdated. While they
broadly address UIFSA, they do 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.
Therefore, this regulation proposes changes and clarifies
responsibilities for State IV-D agencies and emphasizes the need for
States to be responsive to working intergovernmental IV-D cases to
ensure that all children receive the support they deserve. We have
received support from our State partners in focusing on this effort.
Although our regulatory authority extends only to States and to
Tribes operating a Tribal IV-D program, the IV-D caseload includes IV-D
cases received from or initiated by other States, Tribes, and
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 Interstate Case Processing
1. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)
UIFSA is a comprehensive model Act focusing on the interstate
establishment, modification, and enforcement of child support
obligations. It was first passed by the NCCUSL in 1992, amended in 1996
and again in 2001. 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 the NCCUSL. There is as yet no
requirement that all States enact the 2001 version of UIFSA (UIFSA
2001), although States may request an exemption under section 466(d) of
the Act should they choose to enact UIFSA 2001. (See OCSE-AT-02-02)
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/AT/2002/at-02-02.htm).
Accordingly, unless otherwise specified, as used in this preamble,
``UIFSA'' means the 1996 version of UIFSA (UIFSA 1996). Section 101(19)
of UIFSA defines ``State'' to include States, Indian Tribes, and ``a
foreign jurisdiction that has 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).''
Many of UIFSA's provisions represent solutions to the problems
inherent with the interstate establishment and enforcement of child
support obligations. For example, UIFSA covers all cases where the
custodial and noncustodial parents reside in different States. In
addition to traditional state-to-state legal actions, it provides for
long-arm jurisdiction to establish paternity or child support,
continuing exclusive jurisdiction by a State to modify an order where a
support order already exists, and one-state enforcement remedies such
as direct income withholding. UIFSA contains enhanced evidentiary
provisions, including use of teleconferencing, electronic transmission,
and use of federally-mandated forms. It precludes the entry of a new
(de novo) support order where a valid order exists, ending the
longstanding practice of multiple support orders, and strictly
proscribes 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. Only one valid current support
order may be in effect at any one time. This is UIFSA's keystone. 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 the
contrary, the issuing tribunal's authority to modify its order is
continuing and exclusive. UIFSA attempts to be even-handed--the
identity of the party residing in the State (whether the obligor or
obligee) does not matter. Jurisdiction to modify an order may be lost
only if all the relevant persons have permanently left the issuing
State. This is logical because the issuing State would no longer have
an appropriate nexus with the parties or child to justify exercise of
jurisdiction to modify the order. However, it is important to note that
the original order of the issuing State remains in effect, until
modified, not only in the issuing State and those States in which the
order has been registered, but also in additional States following
registration, even after the issuing State has lost its power to modify
its order. By this means, UIFSA allows the one order to remain 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 procedure designed to identify a
single viable order that will be entitled to prospective enforcement in
every State. This process is referred to as the 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 54 States and jurisdictions.
Twenty States have adopted the 2001 amendments passed by the NCCUSL and
received a State Plan exemption under section 466(d) of the Act from
OCSE allowing use of the 2001 provisions.
[[Page 74410]]
2. One-State Interstate
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. Current regulations explicitly encourage the assertion of
long-arm jurisdiction to establish paternity [see, 45 CFR 303.7(b)(1)].
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 statute,
containing both an expansive long-arm provision (section 201), and
continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to both enforce and modify an
existing support order (see, e.g., sections 205 and 206). Since 1984,
States have been required to adopt procedures for enforcing the income
withholding orders of another States [section 466(b)(9) of the Act)].
Article 5 of 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. The employer must honor the out-
of-state withholding order/notice to the same extent it would an in-
state order/notice. These provisions afford IV-D agencies a greater
opportunity to use one-state interstate remedies in factually-
appropriate cases, rather than involving a second State. As discussed
later, cooperation among States in requesting and providing limited
services, such as locate assistance, coordination of genetic testing,
and facilitation of gathering and transmitting evidence, makes the use
of one-state remedies more robust and equitable.
3. Tribal IV-D and International Child Support Enforcement
UIFSA recognizes the importance and sovereignty of the Tribal
organization to provide for its children and provides specifically by
definition that the term ``State'' includes an Indian tribe in section
101(19) [renumbered by the 2001 amendments as section 102(21)(A)]. As
described earlier in this preamble, foreign countries may also be
``States'' for UIFSA purposes. While UIFSA directs State child support
activities, it does not govern child support activities in other
countries or Tribes.
States generally have referred to cross-border child support cases
as interstate matters. However, the IV-D program is committed to
establishing and enforcing child support for children in Tribal IV-D
and international cases as well. Recognizing the broadened range of
cases, and for reasons detailed in this preamble, we have changed the
scope of these regulations from interstate to intergovernmental.
Essential to the Federal-State-Tribal effort to ensure that
noncustodial parents support their children is coordination and
partnership, especially in the processing of intergovernmental cases.
For the first time in the history of the IV-D program, PRWORA
authorized direct funding of Tribes and Tribal organizations for
operating child support enforcement programs under section 455 of the
Act. The Department recognizes the unique relationship between the
Federal government and federally-recognized Indian Tribes and
acknowledges this special government-to-government relationship 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. Also, as stated in 45 CFR 302.36(a)(2), the State will extend
the full range of services available under its IV-D plan to all Tribal
IV-D programs.
Likewise, 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 Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders
Act, 28 U.S.C. 1738B. See 45 CFR 309.120.
As to international cases, section 459A of the Act 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 Australia, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Finland, Hungary, Ireland,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Switzerland,
the United Kingdom and the Canadian provinces/territories of Alberta,
British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland/Labrador,
Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and
Yukon. On November 23, 2007 the United States signed a Hague Convention
that addresses the International Recovery of Child Support and other
Forms of Family Maintenance. For those States that sign the Hague
Convention, ratification of the Convention is projected to take 2-3
years.
C. Need for and Purpose of This Regulation
In accordance with current title IV-D regulations at 45 CFR
303.7(c)(7), when a State receives a request to take action on an
interstate case from another State, it must take all appropriate
action, treating it just as if the case were an intrastate case.
Because families may move and receive Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) or other public assistance benefits in multiple States,
more than one State may have an interest in the child support
arrearages because the custodial parent assigned support rights to more
than one State as a condition of receiving public assistance.
The interstate regulations that currently appear in 45 CFR 303.7
were originally effective February 22, 1988. Many changes have taken
place in child support since 1988 when these regulations were
published, including the passage of UIFSA, PRWORA, and the Federal Full
Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act of 1994 (FFCCSOA).
FFCCSOA, as amended by PRWORA, requires each State to enforce,
according to its terms, a child support order issued by a court or
administrative authority of another State. See 28 U.S.C. 1738B. FFCSOA
rules are consistent with UIFSA on which State has jurisdiction to
prospectively modify a support order and which of multiple valid
support orders controls current support.
State IV-D agencies have authority to take actions directly across
State lines, bypassing IV-D agencies in other States. That ability,
coupled with the powerful new tools at the disposal of IV-D agencies,
such as the National Directory of New Hires and expanded Federal Parent
Locator Service, could lead States to taking direct action to collect
on arrearages owed under multiple orders in different States. This
could lead, in turn, to confusion 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 outdated interstate regulations
that we are revising 45 CFR 303.7.
OCSE realized several years ago that it was necessary to revise the
regulations to recognize UIFSA requirements to the extent possible
within the constraints of title IV-D of the Act, to address Tribal and
international cases, and to improve
[[Page 74411]]
customer service and satisfaction. The current regulations were built
on a two-state, one-by-one, paper-oriented interstate case processing
model. State experience, however, has shown that taking actions to
establish and secure support directly across State lines, using a
State's long-arm jurisdiction, as well as electronic communication and
mass case processing, often increase support collections for children.
This has, in fact, been the case as States and the general public have
seen collections increase when these powerful tools are put into
action.
In writing this regulation, one of our primary goals is to ensure
that States can take full advantage of all available automation and
communication techniques, such as the Child Support Enforcement Network
(CSENet), whenever possible. CSENet is both a state-of-the-art
telecommunication network and a software application that plays a
pivotal role in transmitting interstate case information between IV-D
agencies. CSENet has been designed to receive, edit, store, and
transmit the defined standardized batch transactions from one State
child support enforcement automated system, through the CSENet server,
to another State child support enforcement automated system. We are
interested in hearing from States if there are other communication
techniques that would work as well or better than CSENet to foster
improved communication between States. Automated communication is
essential to making interstate case processing work.
Additionally, there is an electronic communication called QUICK
(Query Interstate Cases for Kids) that allows caseworkers to view
interstate case information in real time. In States that use QUICK,
workers can view financial and case status data in other participating
QUICK States. With this capability, a caseworker can provide immediate
response to a customer or quickly determine the next case action.
We propose to reorganize 45 CFR 303.7 extensively to clarify and
streamline case processing responsibilities in intergovernmental cases,
incorporating both optional and required procedures under PRWORA and
enhanced technology. We have responded to specific changes requested by
State IV-D agencies, for example, by revising responsibility for
advancing the cost of genetic testing and addressing responsibility for
credit bureau reporting. The proposed regulations address case
processing ambiguities raised by practitioners around determination of
controlling orders, interstate income withholding, and case closure. We
have made corresponding changes to the case closure rules in 45 CFR
303.11. Finally, the proposed regulations make 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 Regulations
The following is a discussion of all the regulatory provisions
included in this NPRM. 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.
Part 301--State Plan Approval and Grant Procedures
Proposed Section 301.1--General Definitions
The proposed rules add definitions of terms used in program
regulations. Some terms exist in current regulations but have not been
defined; others represent new concepts. In drafting this section, we
have defined those terms used in the proposed rule that must be
understood consistently by all who use these regulations. The existing
definitions remain unchanged. In this section of the preamble, we have
grouped the proposed new definitions by topic for a more coherent
discussion, rather than alphabetically, as they will appear in Sec.
301.1.
Two definitions pertain particularly to international child support
case processing as discussed earlier in this preamble. We define
Country to include both a foreign reciprocating country (FRC) and any
foreign country (or political subdivision thereof) with which the State
has entered into a reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section 459A of
the Act. We also propose defining 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.
OCSE is the Central authority for the United States under Federal
reciprocal arrangements. If the State in which the obligor is living is
unknown, pursuant to section 459A(c)(2) of the Act, an FRC may send a
request to OCSE, which will use the Federal Parent Locator Service to
try to locate the State in which the obligor resides. Otherwise, cases
move directly between the Central Authority of the FRC and the State
which has case processing authority.
As discussed earlier, current regulations envision state-to-state
case processing. The proposed regulation reflects a IV-D agency's
responsibilities whether the nonresident parent resides in another
State, a federally-recognized Tribe with a IV-D program, or another
country. Accordingly, we have added three definitions for terms used
throughout the proposed regulations. ``Intergovernmental IV-D case''
means a case in which the dependent child(ren) and the noncustodial
parent live in different jurisdictions 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. Generally, throughout the
proposed regulation, we substitute ``intergovernmental'' where
``interstate'' is used in the current regulation.
As discussed later, there are some provisions where we believe the
IV-D agency's responsibility extends only to cases involving two or
more States. To delineate such situations, we propose adding a
definition for ``Interstate IV-D case'' meaning, a IV-D case in which
the noncustodial parent lives and/or works in a different State than
the custodial parent and child(ren). Unless otherwise specified, the
term applies both to one-State and to two-State interstate cases. We
believe the proposed definition provides clarity in the context of
these regulations.
There are several circumstances in proposed 45 CFR 303.7, detailed
later, that only pertain to cases and actions where a State asserts its
authority over a person or entity outside its borders in another State.
So we propose adding a definition of a ``One-State interstate IV-D
case'' as an interstate case where a State exercises its jurisdiction
over the nonresident parent or otherwise takes direct establishment,
enforcement, or other action, in accordance with the long-arm
provisions of the UIFSA or other State law. We welcome comments on
whether this latter definition is helpful and, if so, appropriate and
sufficient.
Five definitions in the proposed regulations relate to UIFSA.
``Uniform
[[Page 74412]]
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.
Although used in current interstate regulations, we propose adding
definitions of Initiating agency and Responding agency to establish a
common understanding in the context of all intergovernmental IV-D
cases. ``Initiating agency'' means the agency from which a referral for
action is forwarded to a responding agency and could include a State
IV-D agency, a Tribal IV-D agency, or a country as defined in these
regulations. ``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,
these regulations only govern State IV-D programs, not Tribal IV-D
programs or other countries.
The broadened scope covers State IV-D program responsibilities with
respect to Tribal IV-D and international cases. However, while
initiating and responding agency definitions reflect the involvement of
two governmental entities, we use ``referral for action'' and
``providing services'' to reflect that a State IV-D agency may ask for
assistance from another jurisdiction, without referring the case to
another State for all necessary IV-D services. States have found that
the provision of limited services, such as performing ``quick locate''
(of a person and/or assets), serving process, and identifying and
seizing assets across State lines, holds much promise in terms of
saving time and enhancing collections.
Two other terms flow principally from UIFSA: ``Tribunal'' and
``controlling order state.'' Encompassing the widest range of expedited
and administrative procedures, we propose to define ``Tribunal'' in
these regulations as a court, administrative agency, or quasi-judicial
entity authorized under State law to establish, enforce, or modify
support orders or to determine parentage.
A keystone of both UIFSA and FFCCSOA, 28 U.S.C. 1738B, was an end
to multiple support orders existing simultaneously. Both laws prohibit
entry of a new support order where a valid one exists. However, neither
invalidates a support order created under earlier laws. Instead, both
FFCCSOA and UIFSA contain rules for determining which of the several
orders validly established by different States is controlling and
governs prospective support. 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 proposed rules
regarding Determination of Controlling Order (DCO) are contained in
Sec. 303.7, discussed later in this preamble. For clarity in the
context of those regulations, we propose defining ``Controlling order
State'' as the State in which the only order was issued or, where
multiple orders existed, the State in which the order determined by a
tribunal to control prospective current support pursuant to the UIFSA
was issued.
As earlier noted, technology has been enhanced almost exponentially
since the interstate regulations were revised 20 years ago. Today
electronic transmission of information (and payments) is preferred and
electronic filing of documents is rapidly becoming the norm. OCSE has
committed considerable resources to enhancing electronic communication.
A guiding principle in the National Child Support Enforcement Strategic
Plan (FY2005-2009) is that: ``Policy and technology decisions are
interdependent and coordinated to achieve high performance.'' The
exchange of information is critical to successful intergovernmental
child support litigation. Yet even with uniform mandated Federal
interstate forms, it is often considered burdensome, particularly
compared with the more automated, streamlined case processing that
State and Federal systems permit in intrastate cases.
Forms are a necessary part of intergovernmental case processing and
resolution. To foster uniformity, UIFSA section 316(b) affords enhanced
evidentiary weight to pleadings and supporting documents submitted on
or incorporated into ``federally-mandated forms.'' However, where
available, the transmission of such information electronically clearly
serves to expedite case processing. UIFSA 2001 amendments explicitly
allow for electronic transmission as well as electronic record keeping
by substituting ``in a record'' for ``in writing'' and defining record
as ``information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is
stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in
perceivable form [(UIFSA 2001 section 102(15)].'' OCSE is working with
States to expand and improve electronic transmissions. Standardization
of data elements is an ongoing OCSE/State initiative and key to this
effort. The Office of Management and Budget has reauthorized the use of
the federally-mandated interstate forms until January 31, 2011 and they
have been renamed Intergovernmental Child Support Enforcement Forms.
In furtherance of these goals, we propose adding a definition for
form that accommodates new storage and transmission technologies as
they become available. ``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 Order/Notice to Withhold Income for
Child Support, and the National Medical Support Notice. In interstate
IV-D cases, such forms include those used for child support enforcement
proceedings under UIFSA. Form also includes any federally-mandated IV-D
program reporting forms 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
Proposed Section 302.36--Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-
D Cases
Current Sec. 302.36 addresses State plan requirements in
interstate and Tribal IV-D cases. We propose changes to both the
heading and the body of the section to address international IV-D
cases. The proposed changes clarify that a State must provide services
in all intergovernmental IV-D cases as we have defined that term in
proposed Sec. 301.1.
First, the caption to this subsection currently references both
``interstate and intergovernmental IV-D cases.'' The use of interstate
is now duplicative and we propose deleting ``interstate'' from the
title. For clarity, we have revised current Sec. 302.36(a)(1) and (2).
Although the structure is amended slightly, the substance remains the
same. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) requires the State plan to ``provide
that, in accordance with Sec. 303.7 of this chapter, the State will
extend the full range of services available under its IV-D plan'' to
any other State. Paragraph (a)(2) similarly restates the existing
requirement to provide services to Tribal IV-D programs. We have added
a reference to Sec. 309.65(a) under which Tribal IV-D programs
operate. We also propose minor language changes, solely for ease of
reading.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, Congress specifically
authorized Federal-level agreements regarding child support enforcement
in 1996.
[[Page 74413]]
Section 459A(a) of title IV-D of the Act provides the Secretary of DOS,
with the concurrence of the Secretary, the authority to declare any
foreign country to be a foreign reciprocating country under certain
conditions. Section 459A(d) provides for State-level ``reciprocal
arrangements for the establishment and enforcement of support
obligations with foreign countries that are not the subject of a
declaration pursuant to subsection (a), to the extent consistent with
Federal law.'' We propose to add Sec. 302.36(a)(3) requiring that the
full range of services also be provided to: ``Any country as defined in
Sec. 303.1 of this chapter.'' As defined in Sec. 301.1 and discussed
previously, ``country'' encompasses both FRCs and countries with state-
level arrangements.
We propose revising current Sec. 302.36(b) by substituting
``intergovernmental'' for ``interstate'' and amending the reference to
State Central Registry responsibilities to Sec. 303.7(b), consistent
with changes we propose for that section.
Part 303--Standards for Program Operations
Proposed Section 303.7--Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-D
Cases
We propose to reorganize current Sec. 303.7 to more clearly lay
out IV-D agency responsibilities and to expand the scope of the
existing section from interstate to all intergovernmental IV-D cases,
as defined by proposed Sec. 301.1. Frequently, existing paragraphs
have merely been moved in this proposed rule with minor language
changes to improve readability. Other paragraphs of this section
represent either a shift in responsibility between the initiating and
responding agencies or address new case processing responsibilities.
State IV-D programs have identified barriers to effective
interstate child support enforcement posed by regulations and by
inconsistent practices among the States and requested changes to
current interstate regulations on genetic testing costs, credit bureau
reporting, and interstate income withholding. States also have
requested that OCSE delineate responsibilities around determination of
the controlling order (DCO) in multiple order cases. This Office
considered all issues raised and, as revised, proposed Sec. 303.7
would address them.
The proposed heading of Sec. 303.7 substitutes
``intergovernmental'' for ``interstate.''
(a) General Responsibilities
We believe many IV-D agency responsibilities apply generally in an
intergovernmental IV-D case. To avoid unnecessary repetition, we
propose that subsection (a) (currently setting out the responsibilities
of the interstate central registry) will now contain all generally
applicable mandates, irrespective of the IV-D agency role in the case
as either an initiating or responding agency.
Current Sec. 303.7(c)(1) requires a responding IV-D agency to
``establish and use procedures for managing its interstate IV-D
caseload which ensure provision of necessary services and include
maintenance of case records in accordance with Sec. 303.2 of this
part.'' We propose moving this paragraph to Sec. 303.7(a)(1) as a
general responsibility of all IV-D agencies to their
``intergovernmental IV-D caseload.'' This paragraph also applies to the
IV-D agencies' one-state interstate cases.
Similarly, existing Sec. 303.7(c)(2) and (3) have been moved from
a responding agency responsibility to a universal IV-D agency
responsibility in intergovernmental cases, now located in proposed
paragraphs (a)(2) and (3). These paragraphs require the IV-D agency to
periodically review program performance for effectiveness and to ensure
adequate staffing to provide services in interstate cases. With the
exception of substituting ``intergovernmental'' for ``interstate''
these sections are unchanged. Again, these revisions are proposed
because we believe the requirements to review program performance and
to ensure adequate staffing are not properly restricted to responding
State IV-D agencies.
Existing Sec. 303.7(b)(3) requires the initiating State IV-D
agency to: ``Provide the IV-D agency in the responding State
sufficient, accurate information to act on the case by submitting with
each case any necessary documentation and federally-approved interstate
forms. The State may use computer-generated replicas in the same format
and containing the same information in place of the Federal forms.'' We
have divided this provision into two parts, proposed paragraphs (a)(4)
and (c)(5). The first part of the existing paragraph has been revised
and moved under the general responsibilities of IV-D agencies in
intergovernmental cases.
Proposed Sec. 303.7(a)(4) requires all State IV-D agencies to:
``Use federally-approved forms in intergovernmental IV-D cases. When
using a paper version, providing one copy of each form and supporting
documentation meets this requirement.'' State agencies now use a
package consisting of nine federally-mandated forms titled: Provision
of Services in Intergovernmental Child Support Enforcement: Standard
Forms in all interstate cases. Although not mandatory, Tribal IV-D
programs sometimes use them. States also use these forms for
international cases.
At or soon after the time a country becomes an FRC, OCSE works with
the FRC to prepare the country's chapter for A Caseworker's Guide to
Processing Cases with Foreign Reciprocating Countries, available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/international/policy.html. Because
the proposed definition for ``form'' includes that it may be ``compiled
or transmitted in written or electronic format,'' we have deleted the
second sentence of current Sec. 303.7(b)(3) concerning computer-
generated replicas of forms as superfluous. We recognize that there
will be cases in which use of an electronic form or transmission is not
feasible. State IV-D agencies have requested that States be required to
send only one paper version of the federally-mandated interstate forms
and any order or supporting document that accompanies such a referral.
Therefore, the second sentence of proposed Sec. 303.7(a)(4) provides
that one copy is sufficient to meet the requirements of this section.
We propose adding Sec. 303.7(a)(5), requiring IV-D agencies to:
``Transmit requests for information and provide requested information
electronically to the greatest extent possible in accordance with
instructions issued by the Office.'' Given advances in technology and
in the interest of reducing paper and paperwork, we explicitly favor
electronic transmission. Electronic filing is increasingly recognized
by courts and the amended language acknowledges new technologies and
accommodates future changes in technologies and legally-acceptable
methods of submitting documents.
A consistent request from our State partners has been to clarify
the responsibilities of IV-D agencies to determine which of multiple
current support orders is controlling prospectively. Several changes to
Sec. 303.7 address the determination of the controlling order. We
start by proposing a new Sec. 303.7(a)(6), adding a general
responsibility on 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.''
[[Page 74414]]
The first step in a DCO is to locate all child support orders that
may exist in a particular case. While searching the Federal Case
Registry (FCR) is the obvious and critical first step, a State also
needs to search its own records and other relevant information
available. The FCR contains data identifying cases and orders
transmitted electronically from the State Case Registries (SCR). The
FCR does not provide a copy of the order. Non-IV-D orders issued or
modified before October 1, 1998, and any closed IV-D cases are not
required to be placed on the SCR, and, therefore, will not be reported
to the FCR. The State responsible for providing information on existing
orders for a DCO would need to contact the other State(s) listed in the
FCR to determine if there is a support order in the State(s) and to
request a copy of the order and related payment records.
We heard varying suggestions about how long a IV-D agency should
have to obtain and forward such order and accounting information. We
believe a search of court or agency records may be time consuming. We
propose ``30 working days'' from receipt of request to parallel the
current obligation on the initiating agency to provide additional
information. Since 2002, OCSE's Interstate Case Reconciliation
initiative, aimed at correcting and standardizing IV-D case
identifiers, has proven tremendously successful in reconciling
interstate caseloads across all of the States. We believe that case
identifiers for interstate cases have, for the most part, been
established so that both State automated systems and caseworkers
recognize shared cases. We also are mindful that OCSE has participated
in several Federal/State initiatives to improve interagency
communication to expedite interstate case processing. For example, the
Federal OCSE Query Interstate Cases for Kids (QUICK) project, currently
implemented in nine States, allows IV-D workers real-time access to
another participating State's payment records and case status
information. We anticipate response times will be greatly reduced as a
result. We invite comments on the timeframe proposed in this section.
Proposed Sec. 303.7(a)(7) consolidates existing requirements on
the initiating agency [current Sec. 303.7(b)(5)] and the responding
agency [current Sec. 303.7(c)(9)] to provide new information to each
other. This revision requires IV-D agencies to ``[n]otify the other
agency within 10 working days of receipt of new information on an
intergovernmental case.'' Existing language has been changed from
``interstate'' to ``intergovernmental.'' In light of proposed
requirements in Sec. 303.7(a)(4) and (5), governing use of forms and
transmission of information, we also have deleted ``by submitting an
updated form and any necessary documentation'' as superfluous.
The final provision under IV-D agencies' general responsibilities
in intergovernmental cases is proposed new Sec. 303.7(a)(8). As
discussed earlier in this preamble, many cases where the parties reside
in different jurisdictions may be handled by one State, especially if
another State provides limited assistance. Section 303.7(a)(8)
reinforces the longstanding policy that authorizes a State to request
from and provide to other States limited services. For example, a
``quick locate'' may be requested to find or verify if a parent or
alleged father is in another State. One may also search for sources of
income, wages, and assets of the parent. (See OCSE AT-98-06 (http://
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/AT/1998/at-9806.htm) and OCSE AT-91-09
(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/AT/1991/at-9109.htm). States
also provide other limited services, e.g., service of process, high-
volume automated administrative enforcement in interstate cases (AEI),
and coordination of genetic testing. Section 303.7(a)(8) requires all
IV-D agencies to ``[c]ooperate with requests for limited services,
including 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.''
(b) Central Registry
Existing responsibilities of the central registry now in Sec.
303.7(a) have been renumbered as paragraph (b). To a significant extent
current language remains unchanged. For reasons explained previously
``interstate'' has been replaced by ``intergovernmental'' where the
former appears throughout this paragraph. The few additional changes
from the existing regulation are described below.
Current Sec. 303.7(a)(1) provides: ``The State IV-D agency must
establish an interstate central registry responsible for receiving,
distributing and responding to inquiries on all incoming interstate IV-
D cases.'' To add clarity, we substitute ``transmitting'' for
``distributing'' and renumber this section as proposed Sec.
303.7(b)(1). We make this change solely to avoid confusion, as
``distribution'' is used throughout Federal IV-D regulations to mean
the financial distribution of child support collections. Also, as all
functions assigned to the State Central Registry (SCR) must be
integrated into the statewide automated system, nothing in this
regulation requires physical mailing to an SCR. Initiating and
responding IV-D agencies may electronically transmit cases directly to
a responding agency's statewide automated system.
Proposed Sec. 303.7(b)(2) is identical to existing paragraph
(a)(2) except we have deleted ``from an initiating State.'' An
intergovernmental case may come from another State, Tribal IV-D
program, FRC or country with which the State has a reciprocal
arrangement under section 459A(d) of the Act. Except for the move to
paragraph (b), current Sec. 303.7(a)(2)(i) and (ii) are unchanged.
The substance of current Sec. 303.7(a)(2)(iii) addressing
responsibilities of the central registry to acknowledge the case has
been moved to paragraph (b). The language has been slightly revised, to
remove reference to ``the initiating State,'' again recognizing that
the central registry handles cases in addition to those forwarded from
another State. Proposed Sec. 303.7(b)(2)(iii) requires the central
registry to ``acknowledge receipt of the case and request any missing
documentation.'' We have similarly streamlined proposed Sec.
303.7(b)(2)(iv) by requiring the central registry to inform the
``initiating agency'' where the case was sent for action, in lieu of
the current requirement in paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to notify the ``IV-D
agency in the initiating State.'' As defined in Sec. 301.1,
``initiating agency'' means the agency from which a referral for action
is forwarded to a responding agency and could include a State IV-D
agency, a Tribal IV-D agency, or a country as defined in these
regulations.
Aside from substituting ``initiating agency'' for the current
``initiating State,'' Sec. 303.7(a)(3) has simply been renumbered as
proposed paragraph (b)(3). Some States have expressed concerns that the
existing requirement to ``forward the case for any action which can be
taken'' pending receipt of additional information the initiating agency
failed to provide is problematic and a central registry should be
allowed to hold any intergovernmental case referred to it until all
information is provided. The goal of the existing requirement is to
ensure that complex intergovernmental cases are not held up
unnecessarily over what may be a technicality, when some relief may be
available to the petitioner. On the other hand, we have heard concerns
that this provision allows initiating jurisdictions to be unresponsive
and frequently engenders double work by the
[[Page 74415]]
responding State agency because the initiating State agency fails to
provide information or documentation critical to resolving the matter.
In this NPRM, we are leaving this provision unchanged but invite
comments on the pros and cons of this case processing requirement.
The final central registry provision simply moves current Sec.
303.7(a)(4) to paragraph (b)(4) but again proposes to substitute
``initiating agencies'' for ``other States.'' The substance of the
requirement, to provide a case status within 5 working days of receipt
of the request, remains unchanged.
(c) Initiating State IV-D Agency Responsibilities
Readers are again reminded that these proposed regulations apply
only to State IV-D agencies. These requirements are not imposed on a
foreign country or a Tribal IV-D program that has forwarded a case to a
State.
Proposed Sec. 303.7(c) contains necessary revisions to initiating
State agency responsibilities currently in paragraph (b). As described
earlier, we propose moving initiating State responsibilities now in
paragraph (b)(4) (regarding providing necessary information) and (b)(5)
(notice of receipt of new information on a case) and the second half of
paragraph (b)(3) (permitting use of computer-generated replicas of
Federal forms) to proposed paragraph (a) as general responsibilities of
IV-D agencies in intergovernmental cases. These proposed paragraphs are
described earlier in this preamble under Sec. 303.7(a) General
Responsibilities.
In making the significant changes to Sec. 303.7, we consulted and
considered the varied opinions among our partners. We have proposed
only those changes we believe will improve intergovernmental child
support enforcement without placing an undue burden on States. To
streamline discussion of the proposed requirements for initiating State
IV-D agencies, we discuss them as they now appear in paragraph (c).
Determination of Controlling Order (DCO)
We discussed earlier in this preamble concern for assuming
responsibility to decide in which State tribunal a determination of
controlling order (DCO) and reconciliation of arrearages should be made
to improve interstate child support efforts. The first step in such a
decision is to identify all support orders. Accordingly, proposed Sec.
303.7(c)(1) adds the requirement that an initiating agency must first:
``Determine whether or not there is a support order or orders in effect
in a case using the Federal and State Case Registries, State records,
information provided by the recipient of services, and other relevant
information available to the State.'' Determining whether or not a
support order exists is required to understand whether a new support
order may be sought or an existing order enforced or modified.
We next propose in paragraph (c)(2) that the initiating agency
must: ``Determine in which State a determination of controlling order
and reconciliation of arrearages may be made where multiple orders
exist.'' Under UIFSA, a DCO identifies the one order to be
prospectively enforced. The law of the State that issued it governs the
nonmodifiable aspects of the support order. The issuing tribunal also
is where a modification must be sought unless all individual parties
and the child have left the issuing jurisdiction or the individual
parties have properly consented to another State assuming jurisdiction.
(See sections 205, 611, and 613 of UIFSA 1996.) However, for a
controlling order determination to be binding, it must be made by the
appropriate tribunal. The UIFSA 2001 amendments clarify in section
207(b) that personal jurisdiction over the individual parties is
required for a DCO.
Having ascertained under proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(1) that multiple
valid support orders exist, the initiating State would then ascertain
which of the several tribunals that issued a support order will be able
to obtain personal jurisdiction over both the obligor and obligee. If
more than one State tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine the
controlling order, pursuant to paragraph (c)(4)(i), the initiating
agency would be authorized to choose which State IV-D agency should
file for such relief.
Use of Long-Arm Jurisdiction
Existing regulations require a State IV-D agency to ``use its long-
arm statute to establish paternity, when appropriate.'' We believe that
the existing regulation at Sec. 303.7(b)(1) too narrowly focuses on
long-arm paternity litigation. Accordingly, we propose in Sec.
303.7(c)(3) that the initiating agency must ``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.'' We incorporate and build on
current paragraph (b)(1), expanding this section to potential one-state
resolution of a full range of child support establishment and
enforcement responsibilities.
We made clear in OCSE-AT-98-30, Question 1, (http://
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/AT/1998/at-9830.htm) that a responding
jurisdiction may not ``second guess'' the decision of the initiating
State with respect to use of long-arm jurisdiction. OCSE recognizes the
benefits of obtaining or retaining control of a case where the
responding party resides outside 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
to exercise long-arm jurisdiction that is available, or not. Nothing in
these proposed regulations modify 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.
Referring Cases to Another State for Action
Our proposed language retains the requirement to act ``within 20
calendar days of determining that the noncustodial parent is in another
jurisdiction and, if appropriate, receipt of any necessary information
needed to process the case.'' Proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(4) renumbers and
revises current Sec. 303.7(b)(2). However, the existing rule mandates
a referral of ``any interstate IV-D case'' to the responding State's
central registry ``for action, including requests for location,
document verification, administrative reviews in Federal tax refund
offset cases, income withholding, and State tax refund offset in IV-D
cases.''
In lieu of this requirement, we propose that within 20 calendar
days of determining that the noncustodial parent is in another
jurisdiction and, if appropriate, receipt of any necessary information
needed to process the case; the initiating agency must either, if
multiple orders are in existence and identified under paragraph (c)(1),
ask an intrastate tribunal for a DCO and reconciliation of arrearages,
or determine that a DCO and reconciliation will be requested in the
appropriate responding tribunal. Under paragraph (c)(4)(ii), if a one-
state interstate remedy will not be used and a DCO by an intrastate
tribunal is not required under paragraph (c)(4)(i), 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.'' We note that in international cases there may be
a need to translate the forms and necessary supporting documentation.
We invite comments regarding reasonable time requirements for such
[[Page 74416]]
translation, if necessary. In the proposed regulation, we have not
built in time for translation within the specified 20 calendar days
because we believe that, until the necessary translation is complete,
the initiating agency will not have ``any necessary information needed
to process the case'' under paragraph (4).
Necessary Information and Forms
Proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(5) mirrors the first part of current Sec.
303.7(b)(3), continuing the mandate on 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.'' As discussed previously, the remaining
part of current paragraph (b)(3), requiring the use of federally-
approved forms in hard or electronic format, is now a general
responsibility of all IV-D agencies in intergovernmental cases.
Similarly, proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(6) contains the existing
requirements of Sec. 303.7(b)(4), again revised to streamline
language. We substitute ``responding agency'' for ``IV-D agency or
central registry in the responding State'' and delete the now
extraneous language about the form of transmission. The latter deletion
is appropriate given both the general requirements on use of federally-
approved forms and preference for electronic transmission in proposed
Sec. 303.7(a)(4) and (5) as well as the proposed definition of
``form.'' The timeframe remains unchanged and the section would now
read: ``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.''
Interest
We add a new requirement in proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(7). States
often raise case processing difficulties caused by the wide range of
State policies around charging interest on arrearages. Where a State A
order is being enforced in State B, UIFSA section 604(a) provides that
the law of the issuing State governs ``the nature, extent, amount, and
duration of current payments and other obligations of support and the
payment of arrearages under the order.'' Therefore, in calculating the
sum due by the obligor, State B must apply the law of State A,
including the payment of interest charged by State A, if any.
Historically, automated calculation of interest charged by another
State is difficult for State automated CSE systems, especially for
older statewide CSE systems. The transferred case is so integrated into
the responding State's automated CSE system that if the responding
State also charged interest, State systems may incorrectly charge
interest at that rate, rather than following the law of the issuing
jurisdiction.
States have asked us to require States that charge interest to
periodically calculate the amount of interest owed and notify the
enforcing State. Therefore, we have added a provision we believe will
keep the arrearage balance in the responding State more accurate.
Proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(7) requires the initiating agency to ``[n]otify
the responding agency at least quarterly of interest charges, if any,
owed on overdue support under an initiating State order being enforced
in the responding jurisdiction.'' We invite comments on proposed
paragraph (c)(7), and on whether and how accounting records should be
updated when the controlling order was not issued by the initiating
State.
Initiating State Enforcement Activities
Federal enforcement techniques. Proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(8)
clarifies the responsibility of the initiating State IV-D agency when
submitting past-due support for administrative offset and passport
denial and addresses when a State may submit past-due support in
intergovernmental cases for Federal tax refund offset.
In proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(8), we expressly assign responsibility
to submit the qualifying past-due support in an interstate case to the
initiating agency, consistent with submittal rules for Federal tax
refund offset under Sec. 303.72(a)(1), i.e., a State with an
assignment of support rights or an application for IV-D services under
Sec. 302.33. In addition, OCSE-AT-98-17 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cse/pol/AT/1998/at-9817.htm) directs that in interstate cases,
the State in which the IV-A, IV-E, or Medicaid assignment of support
rights or nonassistance application for IV-D services has been filed
(i.e., the initiating State) must submit the past-due support for
Federal tax refund offset, administrative offset, or passport denial.
It is necessary to specify which State must submit the past-due support
debt for offset to avoid both States submitting the same arrearage in a
single case. Therefore, we propose that, under paragraph (c)(8), the
initiating State agency must: ``Submit all past-due support owed in IV-
D cases that meets the certification requirements under Sec. 303.72 of
this part 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 Part 285.3 and
passport denial under section 452(k) of the Act.''
Reporting Arrearages to Consumer Reporting Agencies. With respect
to responsibility for submitting arrearages to credit bureaus under
section 466(a)(7) of the Act, States have requested Federal regulations
to specify that the initiating State, rather than the responding State,
is responsible for credit bureau reporting. We concur that such a
requirement is appropriate to avoid duplicate enforcement efforts and
have added proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(9) mandating the initiating agency
to: ``[r]eport overdue support to Consumer Reporting Agencies, in
accordance with section 466(a)(7) of the Act and Sec. 302.70(a)(7) of
this chapter.''
Request for Review and Adjustment of a Support Order. Proposed
Sec. 303.7(c)(10) is simply a renumbering of existing Sec.
303.7(b)(6) under which 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. This
provision regarding federally-mandated review and adjustment of support
orders remains applicable only in an interstate case.
Initiating State Responsibility for Distribution and Disbursement of
Collections
Proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(11) requires that the initiating State:
Distribute and disburse any support collections received in accordance
with distribution and disbursement requirements in this section and
Sec. Sec. 302.32, 302.51 and 302.52 of this chapter, sections 454(5),
454B, 457, and 1912 of the Act, and instructions issued by the Office.
Current regulations at Sec. 303.7(c)(7)(iv) and proposed Sec.
303.7(d)(6)(iv) require the responding State to forward payments to the
location specified by the initiating State. However, there is no stated
responsibility in current Sec. 303.7 for distribution and disbursement
by the initiating agency. We believe it is appropriate to explicitly
include initiating State responsibility for distribution and
disbursement of collections in proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(11).
Initiating State Notice of Case Closure
We have proposed two new provisions under initiating State
responsibilities that are related to case closure. Proposed Sec.
303.7(c)(12) requires an initiating State agency to ``notify the
responding agency within 10 working
[[Page 74417]]
days of case closure that the initiating State IV-D agency has closed
its case pursuant to Sec. 303.11 of this part.'' This provision is
consistent with other requirements in proposed Sec. 303.7(c) to keep
the responding jurisdiction advised of the status of the
intergovernmental case. It is added for clarity; we believe that States
already are required to provide a change in case status as ``new
information'' under existing regulations. This provision ensures the
responding agency is notified of case closure in the initiating State.
The second case closure-related provision addresses direct income
withholding. Section 303.100(f)(1) and (2) contain current Federal
requirements for direct income withholding. In essence, State law must
require all employers in the State to comply with a properly-completed
withholding order/notice issued by another State. Article 5 of UIFSA,
enacted in every State, mirrors the choice of law requirements in
paragraph (f)(2) and provides procedures for direct income withholding.
While direct income withholding has proved to be effective, in
paragraph (c)(13) we address 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 propose requiring the initiating agency under
paragraph (c)(13) to ``instruct the responding State 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 initiating State would be required to notify another
State IV-D agency under Sec. 303.11(c)(13) to avoid duplicate State
income withholding orders or notices.
The use of direct income withholding under UIFSA offers an
excellent, streamlined process. It also affords protections for the
obligor and the employer. However, during the past decade of operating
under direct income withholding, State practitioners and employers have
raised concerns about the following situation: State A initiated a two-
state interstate case to State B, under which a State B income
withholding order is issued to the obligor's State B employer. The
withheld support payments flow from the employer to State B, which then
forwards the support to State A within 2 days of receipt. State A
distributes and disburses the child support. Subsequently, the obligor
changes employment, State A and B learn of the new employer through the
National Directory of New Hires or State Directory of New Hires, and
both States A and B send a withholding notice or order to the new
employer. State A directs the employer to send the child support
withheld in the same case to State A rather than State B. This can
result in errors in payment records.
Question and Answer 21 of OCSE-AT-98-30 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cse/pol/AT/1998/at-9830.htm) advises States that, while this
practice is not precluded by UIFSA or Federal regulation, ``pursuing
dual enforcement remedies could lead to confusion on the part of the
employer, the obligor and obligee, and the IV-D agencies. If a State
pursues direct income withholding after referring a case to another
State for enforcement, it must coordinate with the responding State and
notify that State of any direct withholding and collections from direct
withholding, in accordance with [current] 45 CFR 303.7(b)(5).
Communication between the two States is critical to ensure accurate
payment records and to avoid duplicative enforcement actions.'' Unless
initiating and responding agencies communicate with respect to direct
income withholding, problems may arise. Multiple income withholding
notices/orders for the same obligor and obligee may result in an
employer directing payment to two different locations. Payments made
directly to the initiating State may not be properly credited in the
responding State, which may take enhanced enforcement activities in
State B, despite the possibility that the obligated parent may be in
full compliance with the order.
In consideration of these possible consequences and consistent with
the expressed preference of IV-D Directors, we propose requiring an
initiating agency to choose between two-state enforcement and direct
income withholding in such circumstances. Proposed paragraph (c)(13)
would establish a clear delineation of responsibilities between States
and the critical need to ensure the arrearages and payment records are
accurate. It would reduce duplication and confusion. Rapidly-expanded
use of electronic payment processing should reduce the time it takes
for withheld amounts sent to State B (the responding State) to reach
State A, thereby reducing a State's preference for direct income
withholding and ensuring access to State enforcement techniques in a
responding State, e.g., State tax offset, lottery offset.
That said, it is important to note that, should the initiating
State make this choice under proposed paragraph (c)(13), the responding
State agency would be required to close its case under proposed Sec.
303.7(d)(11). However, because we believe States should have the
flexibility to agree that the responding State should continue to take
such limited enforcement actions only it can do, e.g., Automated
Enforcement of Interstate cases (AEI), State tax refund offset, lottery
offset, professional and recreational license revocation, while the
initiating State takes direct action, paragraph (c)(13) permits them to
jointly agree to an alternative arrangement that would allow the
responding State to continue such limited services.
The final proposed requirement on initiating IV-D agencies
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. We
propose to add Sec. 303.7(c)(14) providing: ``If the initiating agency
has closed its case pursuant to Sec. 303.11 and has not notified the
responding agency to close its corresponding case [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.'' See also Question and Answer 2 of
PIQ-00-02, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/PIQ/2000/piq-00-
02.htm, which addresses responding States sending collections in
interstate cases to initiating States for distribution when the
location of the custodial parent is unknown.
(d) Responding State IV-D Agency Responsibilities
As with the immediately preceding section on initiating State IV-D
agency responsibilities, we have reorganized requirements under current
Sec. 303.7(c) (addressing responding State responsibilities) and
revised language to streamline the section and to recognize the scope
of intergovernmental cases. We discuss the changes to responding agency
responsibilities, including the additions, in the order they appear in
proposed Sec. 303.7(d).
We have added introductory language immediately after the heading
to proposed paragraph (d): ``Upon receipt of a request for services
from an initiating agency, the responding agency must * * *.'' As
discussed earlier in the preamble, these regulations would
[[Page 74418]]
govern cases received not only from another State but also from a
Tribal IV-D program, from an FRC, or from a country with which the
State has entered into a reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section
459A(d) of the Act. With limited and explicit exceptions discussed
herein, the State requirements of Sec. 303.7(d) extend to all IV-D
intergovernmental cases, as defined by Sec. 301.1, received by a
State. Thus, ``intergovernmental'' has been substituted for
``interstate'' throughout paragraph (d). Where we have retained
``interstate'' the election is purposeful and explained below.
Proposed Sec. 303.7(d)(1) has been added to confirm explicitly in
this regulation what has been the longstanding OCSE policy, set out in
OCSE-AT-98-30 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/AT/1998/at-
9830.htm) Question and Answer 1. A responding agency may not
question the decision of an initiating agency to opt for a two-state
remedy. As reconfirmed by proposed Sec. 303.7(c)(3), the initiating
agency is responsible for determining if its use of a one-state remedy,
such as asserting jurisdiction over a nonresident or using direct
income withholding, is appropriate. Section 303.7(d)(1) requires a
responding agency to ``[a]ccept 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.''
Current Sec. 303.7(c)(4) has been renumbered Sec. 303.7(d)(2).
Current Sec. 303.7(c)(4) begins: ``Within 75 days of receipt of an
Interstate Child Support Transmittal Form and documents from its
interstate central registry:''. With the exception of the introductory
sentence, this provision has not been changed. The proposed opening
sentence now reads: ``Within 75 calendar days of receipt of an
intergovernmental form and documentation from its central registry * *
*'' the responding agency must take the specified action. We have
deleted the language ``Interstate Child Support Transmittal'' and
``interstate'' in the proposed (d)(2). Under proposed Sec. 303.7(b),
the central registry is obligated to handle all intergovernmental cases
in accordance with that section.
We have left in place existing requirements for specified actions
from existing paragraph (c)(4) in proposed paragraph (d)(2). Paragraph
(d)(2)(i) requires ``Provide location services in accordance with Sec.
303.3 of this part if the request is for location services or the form
or documentation does not include adequate location information on the
noncustodial parent.'' Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) provides, ``If unable to
proceed with the case because of inadequate documentation, notify the
initiating agency of the necessary additions or corrections to the form
or documentation.'' Finally, paragraph (d)(2)(iii) provides, ``If the
documentation received with a case is inadequate 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.''
We are particularly interested in comments on whether proposed
Sec. 303.7(d)(2)(iii) to ``process the case to the extent possible''
when documentation from the initiating agency is inadequate and cannot
be remedied without the assistance of the initiating agency remains
useful and serves to advance the effectiveness of case processing.
When Noncustodial Parent (NCP) Is Found in a Different State
Current regulation Sec. 303.7(c)(6) provides States the option to
either forward or return the interstate package to the initiating
jurisdiction within 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent
in a different State. Some States have asked that we eliminate this
option and adopt a regulation under which an interstate referral
received by the wrong tribunal must be forwarded to the appropriate
State where the NCP is located, if known, and the forwarding State must
notify the initiating State. The goal is to expedite interstate case
processing, avoiding the delay occasioned when the case documentation
is returned to the initiating State.
We propose to renumber current Sec. 303.7(c)(6) as Sec.
303.7(d)(3) and to revise it to read as follows: ``Within 10 working
days of locating the noncustodial parent in a different State, the
responding agency must forward/transmit the forms and documentation to
the central registry in the State where the noncustodial parent has
been located and notify the initiating agency and central registry
where the case has been sent.''
We note that the obligation to forward/transmit the ``forms and
documentation'' applies only if the respondent is located in another
State. This action is not mandated where the respondent is located in a
Tribal territory or in another country. However, the proposed
responding State requirement to notify the initiating agency does apply
regardless of whether the case was initiated from another State, IV-D
Tribe, or country.
The existing regulation also requires notice to both the State and
the interstate central registry in the initiating State. We have
changed the language ``State'' in the current paragraph to ``initiating
agency'' in proposed paragraph (d)(3). As the central registry
functions must be integrated into the State CSE automated system, we
are requesting comments as to whether there is a need to notify both
the initiating agency and the central registry. If not, where should
the notice be directed?
Proposed Sec. 303.7(d)(4) is based on and is substantially similar
to current Sec. 303.7(c)(5). Applicable to the situation where the
noncustodial parent is located in another jurisdiction within the
State, we propose that paragraph (d)(4) require the responding agency
to: ``[w]ithin 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent in a
different jurisdiction within the State, forward or transmit the forms
and documentation to the appropriate jurisdiction and notify the
initiating agency and central registry of its action;'', changing
``State'' to ``initiating agency.'' Again, we have left the current
notice requirements in place but invite comments as to whether the
notice should be to the initiating agency, the central registry, or to
both.
Determination of Controlling Order (DCO)
Proposed Sec. 303.7(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
(d)(5)(i), ``File the controlling order determination 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'' and under (d)(5)(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.''
Performance incentives and penalties permit us to move away from
measuring process; therefore we hesitate to impose additional time
standards. As proposed, States must look at these timeframes as part of
the self-assessment process under Sec. 308.2 as revised by these
proposed regulations. We particularly want States to comment on the
timeframe in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii). Since the initiating agency
is required to provide all documentation, we believe 10 working days
under paragraphs (d)(5)(i) is sufficient time for
[[Page 74419]]
the responding agency to file the request for a DCO with the
appropriate tribunal. The 30 day timeframe 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 it 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.
Provide Necessary Services
Current Sec. 303.7(c)(7) has been renumbered as proposed Sec.
303.7(d)(6) and requires the responding agency to provide any necessary
services, including establishing paternity and/or a support order,
enforcing another State's order, collecting and monitoring payments,
and reviewing and adjusting orders. Minor language changes have been
made to the introductory sentence to fit the revised structure of the
section and to clarify that the list is not intended to be exhaustive.
A responding State is required, under proposed paragraph (d)(6), to
``[p]rovide any necessary services as it would in an intrastate IV-D
case including * * *.''
The one substantive change to current paragraph (c)(7) in proposed
paragraph (d)(6) occurs in paragraph (d)(6)(iv). To conform to other
OCSE efforts around systems and interstate communication standards, we
propose deleting the following current paragraph (c)(7)(iv) language:
``and include the responding State's identifying code as defined in the
Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS) issued by
the National Bureau of Standards or the Worldwide Geographic Location
Codes issued by the General Services Administration.''
Proposed paragraph (d)(6)(iv) would require the responding agency
to provide any necessary services as it would in an intrastate IV-D
case including: ``(iv) Collecting and monitoring any support payments
from the noncustodial parent and forwarding payments to the location
specified by the initiating agency. The IV-D agency must include
sufficient information to identify the case, indicate the date of
collection as defined under Sec. 302.51(a) of this chapter, and
include the responding State's case identifier and locator code, as
defined in accordance with instructions issued by this Office.'' This
change allows OCSE greater flexibility to define consistent identifying
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.dhhs.gov/programs/
cse/pol/DCL/2007/dcl-07-02.htm) provides locator code instructions,
including for Tribal IV-D and international cases.
Notice of Hearings
We propose moving current Sec. 303.7(c)(8), which requires the
responding IV-D agency to notify the initiating State agency of any
formal hearing in the responding State, to paragraph (d)(7). Proposed
paragraph (d)(7) would read: ``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.'' The language is
substantially similar; however we have deleted ``formal'' before
``hearing.'' Given the primary use of expedited quasi-judicial and
administrative hearings, and the growing use of alternative dispute
resolution proceedings, we believe the proposed language clarifies that
notice should be given of any hearing at which a support order is
established or modified.
Allocation of Collections
Some State IV-D directors expressed concerns about interstate cases
in which a State may allocate collections among multiple orders and
cases. Two scenarios are most frequently raised. Scenario One: The
responding State makes a collection in an interstate Case A, retains
some or all of the collection to satisfy arrearages assigned to the
responding State and owed by the same obligor in Case B, and does not
transmit the entire collection to the initiating State for distribution
and disbursement. Scenario Two: A responding State makes a collection
in interstate Case A, credits the payment to that 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.
We recognize these concerns; however, practice with respect to
allocation varies significantly among States and there is no consensus
on a solution. We believe that to a significant extent concerns raised
by the second scenario are resolved by ensuring that the initiating
agency refers all cases involving the obligor to the responding agency
rather than just one case. Enhanced communication and QUICK also should
address issues about conflicting arrearages in the initiating and
responding States. We propose adding Sec. 303.7(d)(8) to address
allocation of collections in interstate cases with arrearages owed by
the same obligor and assigned to the responding State in a different
case. Under proposed paragraph (d)(8), responding States would be
required to: ``(8) When there is an arrearage assigned to the
responding State in a separate case, establish and use procedures to
allocate collections, proportionately, between arrearages assigned to
the responding State in that separate case and to arrearages owed to an
obligee in, or assigned to, the initiating State, when the initiating
State has requested assistance from the responding State in collecting
those arrearages.'' Of course, payment of current support has priority
over payment of arrearages.
Notice of Fees and Costs Deducted
We propose moving current Sec. 303.7(d)(5), currently under
Payment and recovery of costs in interstate IV-D cases to proposed
Sec. 303.7(d)(9) under responding State duties. Current Sec.
303.7(d)(5) requires the IV-D agency in the responding State to
identify any fees or costs deducted from support payments when
forwarding payments to the IV-D agency in the initiating State in
accordance with Sec. 303.7(c)(7)(iv). We believe the requirement to
``identify any fees or costs deducted from the support payments when
forwarding payments to the IV-D agency in the initiating State'' is
more appropriately placed under responding State responsibilities. We
propose only minor changes for readability. Specifically, we have
changed the language ``the IV-D agency in the initiating State'' in
current paragraph (d)(5) to ``the initiating agency'' in proposed
paragraph (d)(9) and corrected the cross-reference from the current
language Sec. 303.7(c)(7)(iv) to reflect the appropriate cross-
reference in these proposed regulations, Sec. 303.7(d)(6)(iv).
Proposed paragraph (d)(9) would therefore read that the responding
State agency must ``[i]dentify any fees or costs deducted from support
payments when forwarding payments to the initiating agency in
accordance with paragraph 303.7(d)(6)(iv) of this section.''
Case Closure in Direct Income Withholding Cases
We propose adding a new Sec. 303.7(d)(10) detailing the actions a
responding agency must take when an initiating State has elected to use
direct income withholding in an existing intergovernmental IV-D case.
The initiating State would be authorized to use direct income
withholding only where it follows requirements to instruct the
responding agency to close its corresponding case under proposed
[[Page 74420]]
Sec. 303.7(c)(13). Accordingly, proposed paragraph (d)(10) requires
the responding agency to: ``Within 10 days of receipt of a request for
case closure from an initiating agency under paragraph (c)(13) 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.'' The rationale for this
proposal is discussed earlier under proposed paragraph (c)(13). Again,
we note that the election to close an interstate case involving two
States belongs exclusively to the initiating agency. If an alternate
agreement has been reached between the initiating and responding
agencies to stop the withholding in the responding jurisdiction but
continue limited services in the responding State, the agencies should
document the terms of any alternate agreement and ensure that employers
are not faced with conflicting income withholding orders.
Current Sec. 303.7(c)(10) requires the IV-D agency to notify the
interstate central registry in the responding State when a case is
closed. Renumbered as proposed paragraph (d)(11), it reads as follows:
``Notify the initiating agency when a case is closed pursuant to Sec.
303.11 of this part.'' The current paragraph (c)(10) phrase `interstate
central registry' has been changed in proposed paragraph (d)(11) to
`initiating agency' because these regulations cover the full range of
intergovernmental cases. We propose that the IV-D agency send notice to
the initiating agency to ensure both jurisdictions in an
intergovernmental case are aware of case status. This provision is
consistent with other requirements in proposed Sec. 303.7 to keep the
involved jurisdictions advised of the status of a case. It is added for
clarity; States already are required to provide a change in case status
upon receipt of new information under existing regulations.
(e) Payment and Recovery of Costs in Intergovernmental IV-D Cases
Current Sec. 303.7(d) governing Payment and recovery of costs in
interstate cases, with the exception of current paragraph (d)(5), has
been moved to proposed paragraph (e), reorganized, and revised. Current
paragraph (d)(5), requiring the responding State to notify the
initiating State of fees deducted by a responding State is moved to
proposed Sec. 303.7(d)(9), under responding agency responsibilities
and described above. Current paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) require the
responding State to pay the costs it incurs in processing interstate
IV-D cases except for genetic testing costs, which are paid by the
initiating agency. Current paragraph (d)(3) directs the responding
State, if paternity is established in the responding State, to attempt
to obtain a judgment for costs of genetic testing ordered by the IV-D
agency from the alleged father who denied paternity. If the costs of
initial or additional genetic testing are recovered, the responding
State must reimburse the initiating State.
These provisions have been consolidated and revised, primarily to
shift the advancement of genetic testing costs from the initiating to
the responding agency. As required by Federal law, we also limit the
authority of a IV-D agency to recover costs in international cases.
Accordingly, we propose deleting current paragraphs (d)(1)-(3) and
including as Sec. 303.7(e)(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 must seek a judgment for the costs of testing
from the alleged father who denied paternity.''
State IV-D directors and interstate caseworkers have long requested
that we change the current obligation for the initiating State to pay
the cost of genetic testing in interstate cases in current Sec.
303.7(d)(2) to require the responding State to pay these costs, as is
the case with any other costs responding States incur in interstate
cases. Charging and collecting genetic testing costs from initiating
States has proven administratively burdensome to responding States. In
addition, the cost of genetic testing has decreased dramatically from
$1000 or more to as little as $150 under State contracts.
Both State agencies retain the right to charge fees and recover
costs in interstate cases. However, in international cases receiving
services under section 454(32)(C) of the Act, States must provide
services without requiring an application or charging fees to the FRC
or foreign obligee. Therefore, we have renumbered current paragraph
(d)(4) as proposed paragraph (e)(2) and revised it to read as follows:
``Each State IV-D agency may recover its costs of providing services in
intergovernmental non-IV-A cases in accordance with Sec. 302.33(d) of
this chapter, except that a IV-D agency may not recover costs from an
FRC or from a foreign obligee in that FRC, when providing services
under sections 454(32) and 459A of the Act.'' The limitation on cost
recovery has been added as required by Federal law. Services between
FRCs must be cost free. States entering a state-level arrangement with
a non-FRC country under section 459A may elect to provide cost-free
services but are not mandated to do so. Accordingly, this section
refers to FRCs rather than using the more inclusive term ``country.''
However, there is no similar prohibition to charging fees or recovering
costs in cases with Tribal IV-D agencies. In addition, Tribal IV-D
agencies have the option under Sec. 309.75(e) to charge fees and
recover costs.
Proposed Section 303.11--Case Closure Criteria
In intergovernmental cases, a responding State IV-D agency may
apply any of the criteria for case closure set out in current
regulations at 45 CFR 303.11. Existing paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(11) pertain to all IV-D cases. Current Sec. 303.11(b)(12) allows a
case to be closed when the initiating State fails to take an action
essential for the responding State to provide services. This provision
currently is the only existing criterion specifically applicable in
interstate cases. We propose revising Sec. 303.11(b)(12) to read as
follows: ``The IV-D agency documents failure by the initiating agency
to take an action which is essential for the next step in providing
services.'' Therefore, this case closure criterion would apply to all
intergovernmental IV-D cases.
We have added a new paragraph Sec. 303.11(b)(13) providing an
additional case closure criterion under which the responding State
agency is authorized to close its intergovernmental case based on a
notice under Sec. 303.7(c)(12) from the initiating agency that it has
closed its case. Under proposed paragraph Sec. 303.7(c)(12), as
discussed above, an initiating State agency must notify the responding
agency ``within 10 working days of case closure that the initiating
State IV-D agency has closed its case pursuant to Sec. 303.11.'' It is
not relevant to the responding State agency under which case closure
provision of Sec. 303.11(b) the initiating agency has closed its case;
it is relevant only that it has done so and timely notified the
responding agency. Upon receipt of such a notice, the responding agency
would have authority to correspondingly close its case, without having
another basis.
The proposed changes to Sec. 303.11 provide a basis for the
responding agency to close an intergovernmental case due to lack of
necessary action by the initiating agency or upon notice that the
initiating agency has closed its case.
[[Page 74421]]
Part 305--Program Performance Measures, Standards, Financial
Incentives, and Penalties
Proposed Section 305.63--Standards for Determining Substantial
Compliance With IV-D Requirements
We have made conforming changes to Part 305 at Sec. 305.63 to
correct outdated cross-references and to include cross-references to
the new proposed Sec. 303.7.
Part 308--Annual State Self-Assessment Review and Report
Proposed Section 308.2--Required Program Compliance Criteria
We have made conforming changes to Part 308 at Sec. 308.2 to
correct outdated cross-references and to include cross-references to
the new proposed requirement in Sec. 303.7. While the language has
been revised to reflect the corresponding changes to referenced
provisions in Sec. 303.7, we only have added two new program
compliance criteria for State Self-Assessments.
First, as discussed earlier, we propose a timeframe under Sec.
303.7(a)(6): 30 days for a State to provide ``any information requested
* * * for a controlling order determination and reconciliation of
arrearages.'' We propose to add this measurable requirement as a
performance criterion in both initiating (Sec. 308.2(g)(1)(vi)) and
responding (Sec. 308.2(g)(2)(vi)) cases.
A second new performance area involves case closure criteria. As
discussed previously under Sec. 303.7 and Sec. 303.11, we impose
time-measured requirements for notification of the other State when
closing a case. Measurable performance criteria are established where
we impose timeframes. Accordingly, we add notification regarding case
closure in both initiating (Sec. 308.2(g)(1)(iv)) and responding
(Sec. 308.2(g)(2)(vii)) cases.
IV. Impact Analysis
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
There is a new requirement imposed by these regulations. Proposed
Sec. 303.7(d)(5) adds a notice requirement where the initiating agency
has requested a controlling order determination. In this case, the
responding agency must:
``(i) File the controlling order determination request with the
appropriate tribunal in its State within 10 working 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 would be considered a minor change or
enhancement to a statewide CSE system.
Under paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of the section, the responding Agency
must: ``(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.''
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.
Annual Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average burden hours per
Instrument respondents 54 response Total burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems modification................... One time system 60 labor hours per State 3,240 hours.
enhancement to modify statewide CSE
system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the information collection burden associated with
proposed Sec. 303.7(d)(5)(i), the Administration for Children and
Families will consider comment by the public on this proposed
collection of information in the following areas:
1. Evaluating whether the proposed collection is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of ACF, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluating the accuracy of ACF's estimate of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and the assumptions used;
3. Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
4. Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic mechanical, or other technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the
deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the proposed
regulations. Written comments to OMB for the proposed information
collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of
Management and Budget, either by fax to 202-395-6974 or by e-mail to
OIRA submission@omb.eop.gov. Please mark faxes and emails to the
attention of the desk officer for ACF.
It should be noted that the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 [(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)], regarding reporting and
recordkeeping, apply to the federally-mandated intergovernmental forms
referenced in the regulations, (OMB No. 0970-0085). The Office of
Management and Budget has reauthorized the use of these forms until
January 31, 2011.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Secretary certifies that, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), this 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 Act.
[[Page 74422]]
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. These proposed rules provide 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.
These regulations are significant under section 3(f) of the
Executive Order because they raise novel policy issues and therefore
have been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
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 $130 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 proposed 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 $130 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.
Congressional Review
This notice of proposed rule making 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 proposed
policy or regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the
agency's determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an
impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. The
required review of the regulations and policies to determine their
effect on family well-being has been completed and these regulations
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 proposed regulation does not have federalism
impact as defined in the Executive Order. However, consistent with
Executive Order 13132, the Department specifically solicits comments
from State and local government officials on this proposed rule.
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)
Daniel C. Schneider,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
For the reasons discussed above, title 45 CFR chapter III is
proposed to be 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 Sec. 301.1 by republishing the introductory text and
adding the following definitions alphabetically:
Sec. 301.1 General definitions.
When used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates:
* * * * *
Central authority means the agency designated by a government to
facilitate support enforcement with a foreign reciprocating country
(FRC) pursuant to section 459A of the Act.
* * * * *
Controlling order state means the State in which the only order was
issued or, where multiple orders existed, 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
Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support, 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 the agency from which a referral for action
is
[[Page 74423]]
forwarded to a responding agency and could include a State IV-D agency,
a Tribal IV-D agency or a country as defined in these regulations.
Intergovernmental IV-D case means a case in which the dependent
child(ren) and the noncustodial parent live in different jurisdictions
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.
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). Unless otherwise specified, the term applies
both to one-state and to two-state interstate cases.
* * * * *
One-state interstate IV-D case means an interstate case where a
State exercises its jurisdiction over the nonresident parent or
otherwise takes direct establishment, enforcement or other action, in
accordance with the long-arm provisions of the 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 Sec. 302.36 to read as follows:
Sec. 302.36 Provision of services in intergovernmental IV-D cases.
(a) The State plan shall provide that, in accordance with Sec.
303.7 of this chapter, the State will extend the full range of services
available under its IV-D plan to:
(1) Any other State;
(2) Any Tribal IV-D program operating under Sec. 309.65(a) of this
chapter; and
(3) Any country as defined in Sec. 303.1 of this chapter.
(b) The State plan shall provide that the State will establish a
central registry for intergovernmental IV-D cases in accordance with
the requirements set forth in Sec. 303.7(b) of this chapter.
PART 303--STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM OPERATIONS
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 Sec. 303.7 to read as follows:
Sec. 303.7 Provision of services in intergovernmental IV-D cases.
(a) General Responsibilities. A State IV-D agency must:
(1) Establish and use procedures for managing its intergovernmental
IV-D caseload that ensure provision of necessary services as required
by this section and include maintenance of necessary records in
accordance with Sec. 303.2 of this part;
(2) Periodically review program performance on intergovernmental
IV-D cases to evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures established
under this section;
(3) Ensure that the organizational structure and staff of the IV-D
agency are adequate to provide for the administration or supervision of
the following functions specified in Sec. 303.20(c) of this part for
its intergovernmental IV-D caseload: intake; establishment of paternity
and the legal obligation to support; location; financial assessment;
establishment of the amount of child support; collection; monitoring;
enforcement, review and adjustment, and investigation;
(4) Use federally-approved forms in intergovernmental IV-D cases.
When using a paper version, providing one copy of each form and
supporting documents meets this requirement;
(5) Transmit requests for information and provide requested
information electronically to the greatest extent possible in
accordance with instructions issued by the Office;
(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;
(7) Notify the other agency within 10 working days of receipt of
new information on an intergovernmental case; and
(8) Cooperate with requests for limited services, including 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.
(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 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.
(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
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 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;
(4) Within 20 calendar days of determining that the noncustodial
parent is in another jurisdiction and, if appropriate, receipt of any
necessary information needed to process the case:
(i) If the agency has determined there are multiple orders in
effect under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, ask the appropriate
intrastate tribunal for a determination of the controlling order
[[Page 74424]]
and for a reconciliation of arrearages or determine the request for
such a determination will be made through the appropriate responding
agency; and
(ii) Unless the case requires intrastate action in accordance with
paragraphs (c)(3) or (4)(i) of this section, refer any
intergovernmental IV-D case to the appropriate State central registry,
Tribal IV-D program, or central authority of a country for action;
(5) Provide the responding agency sufficient, accurate information
to act on the case by submitting with each case any necessary
documentation and intergovernmental forms;
(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 quarterly of interest
charges, if any, owed on overdue support under an initiating State
order being enforced in the responding jurisdiction;
(8) Submit all past-due support owed in IV-D cases that meet the
certification requirements under Sec. 303.72 of this part for Federal
tax refund offset, and such past-due support, as the State determines
to be appropriate, for other Federal enforcement techniques, such as
administrative offset under 31 CFR 285.3 and passport denial under
section 452(k) of the Act.
(9) Report overdue support to Consumer Reporting Agencies, in
accordance with section 466(a)(7) of the Act and Sec. 302.70(a)(7) of
this chapter;
(10) Send a request for review of a child support order to another
State within 20 calendar days of determining that a request for review
of the order should be sent to the other State and of receipt of
information from the requestor necessary to conduct the review in
accordance with section 466(a)(10) of the Act and Sec. 303.8 of this
part;
(11) Distribute and disburse any support collections received in
accordance with this section and Sec. Sec. 302.32, 302.51, and 302.52
of this chapter, sections 454(5), 454B, 457, and 1912 of the Act, and
instructions issued by the Office;
(12) Notify the responding agency within 10 working days of case
closure that the initiating State IV-D agency has closed its case
pursuant to Sec. 303.11 of this part;
(13) 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; and
(14) If the initiating agency has closed its case pursuant to Sec.
303.11 and has not notified the responding agency to close its
corresponding case, make a diligent effort to locate the obligee,
including use of the Federal Parent Locator Service and the State
Parent Locator Service, and accept, distribute and disburse any payment
received from a responding agency.
(d) Responding State IV-D agency responsibilities. Upon receipt of
a request for services from an initiating agency, the responding agency
must:
(1) Accept and process an intergovernmental request for services,
regardless of whether the initiating agency elected not to use remedies
that may be available under the law of that jurisdiction;
(2) Within 75 calendar days of receipt of an intergovernmental form
and documentation from its central registry:
(i) Provide location services in accordance with Sec. 303.3 of
this part if the request is for location services or the form or
documentation does not include adequate location information on the
noncustodial parent;
(ii) If unable to proceed with the case because of inadequate
documentation, notify the initiating agency of the necessary additions
or corrections to the form or documentation;
(iii) If the documentation received with a case is inadequate 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 forward/transmit the forms
and documentation to the central registry in the State where the
noncustodial parent has been located and notify the initiating agency
and central registry where the case has been sent;
(4) Within 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent in a
different jurisdiction within the State, forward/transmit the forms and
documentation to the appropriate jurisdiction and notify the initiating
agency and 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 10 working days of receipt of
the request or location of the noncustodial parent, whichever occurs
later; and
(ii) Notify the initiating State agency, the Controlling Order
State and any State where a support order in the case was issued or
registered, of the controlling order determination and any reconciled
arrearages within 30 calendar days of receipt of the determination from
the tribunal;
(6) Provide any necessary services as it would in an intrastate IV-
D case including:
(i) Establishing paternity in accordance with Sec. 303.5 of this
part and attempting to obtain a judgment for costs should paternity be
established;
(ii) Establishing a child support obligation in accordance with
Sec. 302.56 of this chapter and Sec. Sec. 303.4, 303.31 and 303.101
of this part;
(iii) Processing and enforcing orders referred by an initiating
agency, whether pursuant to UIFSA or other legal processes, using
appropriate remedies applied in its own cases in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 303.6, 303.31, 303.32, 303.100 through 303.102, and 303.104
of this part;
(iv) Collecting and monitoring any support payments from the
noncustodial parent and forwarding payments to the location specified
by the initiating agency. The IV-D agency must include sufficient
information to identify the case, indicate the date of collection as
defined under Sec. 302.51(a) of this chapter, and include the
responding State's case identifier and locator code, as defined in
accordance with instructions issued by this Office; and
(v) Reviewing and adjusting child support orders upon request in
accordance with Sec. 303.8 of this part;
(7) Provide timely notice to the initiating agency in advance of
any hearing before a tribunal that may result in establishment or
adjustment of an order;
(8) When there is an arrearage assigned to the responding State in
a separate case, establish and use procedures to allocate collections,
proportionately, between arrearages assigned to the responding State in
that separate case and to arrearages owed to an obligee in, or assigned
to, the initiating State, when the initiating State has requested
assistance from the responding State in collecting those arrearages;
(9) Identify any fees or costs deducted from support payments when
forwarding payments to the initiating agency in accordance with
paragraph (d)(6)(iv) of this section;
(10) Within 10 days of receipt of a request for case closure from
an initiating agency under paragraph (c)(13) of this section, stop the
[[Page 74425]]
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
(11) Notify the initiating agency when a case is closed pursuant to
Sec. 303.11 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 must seek a
judgment for the costs of testing from the alleged father who denied
paternity.
(2) Each State IV-D agency may recover its costs of providing
services in intergovernmental non-IV-A cases in accordance with Sec.
302.33(d) of this chapter, except that a IV-D agency may not recover
costs from an FRC or from a foreign obligee in that FRC, when providing
services under sections 454(32) and 459A of the Act.
7. Amend Sec. 303.11 by revising paragraph (b)(12) and adding a
new paragraph (b)(13) to read as follows:
Sec. 303.11 Case closure criteria.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(12) The IV-D agency documents failure by the initiating agency to
take an action which is essential for the next step in providing
services; and
(13) The initiating agency has notified the responding State that
the initiating State has closed its case under Sec. 303.7(c)(12).
* * * * *
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.
Sec. 305.63 [Amended]
9. Amend Sec. 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 ``Sec. 303.7(a), (b) and (c)(1) through (6) and (8)
through (10)'' and adding ``Sec. 303.7 (a), (b), (c), (d)(1) through
(5) and (7) through (12), and (e)'' in its place wherever it occurs in
paragraphs (c)(2) through (5); and
c. Removing ``Sec. 303.7(a), (b) and (c)(4) through (6), (c)(8)
and (9)'' and adding ``Sec. 303.7 (a)(4) through (8), (b), (c), (d)(2)
through (5) and (7) and (12)'' 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 Sec. 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 ``Sec. 303.7(a), (b) and (c)(4) through (6), (c)(8)
and (9)'' and adding ``Sec. 303.7 (a)(4) through (8), (b), (c), (d)(2)
through (5) and (7) and (12)'' 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:
Sec. 308.2 Required program compliance criteria.
* * * * *
(g) Intergovernmental services. A State must have and use
procedures required under this paragraph in at least 75 percent of the
cases reviewed. For all intergovernmental cases requiring services
during the review period, determine the last required action and
determine whether the action was taken during the appropriate
timeframe:
(1) Initiating intergovernmental cases:
(i) Except when a State has determined that one-state action is
required in accord with Sec. 303.7(c)(2), (3) or (4)(i), within 20
calendar days of determining that the noncustodial parent is in another
jurisdiction and, if appropriate, receipt of any necessary information
needed to process the case, referring that case to the appropriate
State Central Registry, Tribal IV-D program, or central authority of
the country for action pursuant to Sec. 303.7(c)(4)(ii) of this
chapter;
(ii) If additional information is requested, providing the
responding agency with an updated form and any necessary additional
documentation, or notify the responding agency when the information
will be provided, within 30 calendar days of the request pursuant to
Sec. 303.7(c)(6) of this chapter;
(iii) Within 20 calendar days after determining that a request for
review of the order should be sent to the other State IV-D agency and
of receipt of information necessary to conduct the review, sending a
request for review and adjustment pursuant to Sec. 303.7(c)(10) of
this chapter;
(iv) Within 10 working days of closing its case pursuant to Sec.
303.11 of this chapter, notifying the responding agency pursuant to
Sec. 303.7(c)(12) of this chapter;
(v) Within 10 working days of receipt of new information on a case,
notifying the responding State pursuant to Sec. 303.7(a)(7) of this
chapter;
(vi) Within 30 working days of receiving a request, providing any
order or payment record requested by a responding agency for
controlling order determination and reconciliation of arrears pursuant
to Sec. 303.7(a)(6) of this chapter.
(2) Responding intergovernmental cases:
(i) Within 10 working days of receipt of an intergovernmental IV-D
case, the central registry reviewing submitted documentation for
completeness, forwarding the case to the State Parent Locator Service
(SPLS) for location services or to the appropriate agency for
processing, acknowledging receipt of the case, and requesting any
missing documentation from the initiating agency, and informing the
initiating agency where the case was sent for action, pursuant to Sec.
303.7(b)(2) of this chapter;
(ii) The central registry responding to inquiries from initiating
agencies within five working days of a receipt of request for case
status review pursuant to Sec. 303.7(b)(4) of this chapter;
(iii) Within 10 days of locating the noncustodial parent in a
different jurisdiction within the State or in a different State,
forwarding/transmitting the forms and documentation in accordance with
Federal requirements pursuant to Sec. 303.7(d)(3) and (4) of this
chapter;
(iv) Within two business days of receipt of collections, forwarding
any support payments to the initiating jurisdiction pursuant to section
454B(c)(1) of the Act;
(v) Within 10 working days of receipt of new information notifying
the initiating jurisdiction of that new information pursuant to Sec.
303.7(a)(7) of this chapter;
(vi) Within 30 working days of receiving a request, providing any
order or payment record requested by an initiating agency for
controlling order determination and reconciliation of arrears pursuant
to Sec. 303.7(a)(6) of this chapter;
(vii) Within 10 days of receipt of a notice or request for case
closure from an initiating agency under Sec. 303.7(c)(13) of this
chapter, stopping the responding State's income withholding order or
notice and closing the responding State's case, pursuant to Sec.
303.7(d)(10) of this chapter, unless the two States
[[Page 74426]]
reach an alternative agreement on how to proceed.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-28812 Filed 12-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P