Child Support Enforcement Program; Intergovernmental Child Support, 74408-74426 [E8-28812]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
• Administration for Children and Families
• Children and Families Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 236 (Monday, December 8, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74408-74426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28812]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: https://www.regulations.gov. To download an 
electronic version of the rule, you may access https://
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 https://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) 
https://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 https://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 
https://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 (https://
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/AT/1998/at-9806.htm) and OCSE AT-91-09 
(https://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, (https://
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 (https://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).
Initi