Child Support Enforcement Program; Intergovernmental Child Support, 38612-38644 [2010-15215]

Agencies

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

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



[[Page 38611]]

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

Part II





Department of Health and Human Services





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



Administration for Children and Families



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



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



Child Support Enforcement Program; Intergovernmental Child Support; 
Final Rule

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

[[Page 38612]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

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

RIN 0970-AC-37


Child Support Enforcement Program; Intergovernmental Child 
Support

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaShawn Williams, OCSE Division of 
Policy, 202-401-9386, e-mail: Lashawn.williams@acf.hhs.gov. Deaf and 
hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay 
Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. eastern time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Statutory Authority

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

II. Background

A. Nature of the Problem

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

B. Current Law on Intergovernmental Case Processing

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

[[Page 38613]]

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

C. Need for and Purpose of This Rule

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

[[Page 38614]]

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

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

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

Part 301--State Plan Approval and Grant Procedures

Section 301.1--General Definitions

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

[[Page 38615]]

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

Part 302--State Plan Requirements

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

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

Part 303--Standards for Program Operations

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

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

[[Page 38616]]

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

[[Page 38617]]

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

[[Page 38618]]

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

Part 303--Standards for Program Operation

Section 303.11--Case Closure Criteria

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

[[Page 38619]]

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

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

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

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

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

Section 308.2--Required Program Compliance Criteria

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

IV. Response to Comments

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

General Comments

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

[[Page 38620]]

    Response: The parameter of Quick Locate was broadened after PRWORA 
to include noncustodial parents and custodial parents, and the existing 
Quick Locate transaction is used for both noncustodial parent and 
custodial parent location. OCSE will conduct outreach in this area to 
determine if the single transaction is meeting States' needs.
    7. Comment: One commenter suggested that OCSE develop a secure 
network that would allow States to send electronic documents to another 
State via the internet, similar to the way documents are filed 
electronically with the courts. The commenter said that this would 
allow States to accept referrals electronically and save on postage and 
worker time. Alternatively, the commenter suggested States obtain email 
encryption software and be able to certify that their emails are 
encrypted, thus allowing States to communicate case processing 
information by email correspondence and document exchange.
    Response: OCSE does encourage email encryption and secure networks, 
including Internet-based solutions to facilitate electronic 
communications and to protect personally identifiable information. OCSE 
is considering providing the capability for States to electronically 
transmit documents to other States using the Federal Parent Locator 
Service (FPLS). As enhancements are made to FPLS systems, OCSE will 
continue to partner with States for input and pilot activities.
    8. Comment: One commenter noted that while he knows of nothing 
better than CSENet for communications, the Interstate Data Exchange 
Consortium (IDEC), a group of States whose common objective is to pool 
resources to provide cost-effective solutions for interstate and 
intrastate child support issues, has also been very useful for 
processing transactions such as Automated, High-Volume Administrative 
Enforcement in Interstate Cases (AEI). IDEC is also effective for 
processing locate requests because it includes Social Security numbers, 
addresses, employment history, and demographic information. According 
to the commenter, however, IDEC is limited by the number of States that 
subscribe.
    Response: OCSE agrees that consortia such as IDEC can be very 
useful, especially in processing requests for functions such as limited 
service requests, which cannot be processed using most statewide 
automated systems. However, since there are competing State consortia, 
OCSE cannot promote one group over another.
    9. Comment: One commenter expressed that she had hoped the 
intergovernmental NPRM would have taken a stronger position on 
requiring States to adopt processes to accept electronic documents and 
signatures, noting that her State has made extraordinary progress in 
the area of electronic documentation, which has resulted in greater 
efficiency. The commenter believes that some States will never adopt 
electronic processing unless required to by OCSE.
    Response: OCSE appreciates the comment and commends the innovation 
of the commenter's State. As discussed later in this section, while 
OCSE encourages all States to adopt electronic capabilities, OCSE has 
not mandated this because of the varying capabilities among IV-D 
agencies.
    10. Comment: One commenter was concerned that the changes in 
terminology in the proposed regulation, such as using 
``intergovernmental'' instead of ``interstate'' and adding the terms 
Tribal and international, will require numerous changes to forms and 
procedural manuals used by the States.
    Response: OCSE is sympathetic to the commenter's concern that some 
changes to State forms and procedures may be necessary following 
publication of this rule. However, OCSE notes that current mandatory 
intergovernmental forms already use many of these terms. OCSE also 
believes that these terms accurately state specific requirements in the 
new intergovernmental rule and believes States will, as a result of 
these changes, be able to process i