Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, 93492-93569 [2016-29598]

Agencies

• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
• Administration for Children and Families

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 93492-93569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29598]



[[Page 93491]]

Vol. 81

Tuesday,

No. 244

December 20, 2016

Part VII





Department of Health and Human Services





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





Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services





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





42 CFR Part 433





Administration for Children and Families





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

45 CFR Parts 301, 302, 303, et al.





Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement 
Programs; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 93492]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

42 CFR Part 433

[CMS-2343-F]
RIN 0938-AR92

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Parts 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308, and 309

RIN 0970-AC50


Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support 
Enforcement Programs

AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for 
Children and Families (ACF) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule is intended to carry out the President's directives 
in Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. 
The final rule will make Child Support Enforcement program operations 
and enforcement procedures more flexible, more effective, and more 
efficient by recognizing the strength of existing State enforcement 
programs, advancements in technology that can enable improved 
collection rates, and the move toward electronic communication and 
document management. This final rule will improve and simplify program 
operations, and remove outmoded limitations to program innovations to 
better serve families. In addition, the final rule clarifies and 
corrects technical provisions in existing regulations. The rule makes 
significant changes to the regulations on case closure, child support 
guidelines, and medical support enforcement. It will improve child 
support collection rates because support orders will reflect the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay support, and more noncustodial 
parents will support their children.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 19, 2017. States may 
comply any time after the effective date, but before the final 
compliance date, except for the amendment to Sec.  433.152, which is 
effective on January 20, 2017. The compliance dates, or the dates that 
States must comply with the final rule, vary for the various sections 
of the Federal regulations. The reasons for delaying compliance dates 
include State legislative changes, system modifications, avoiding the 
need for a special guidelines commission review, etc.
    The compliance date, or the date by which the States must follow 
the rule, will be February 21, 2017 except, as noted below:
     Guidelines for setting child support orders [Sec.  
302.56(a)-(g)], Establishment of support obligations [Sec.  303.4], and 
Review and adjustment of child support orders [Sec.  303.8(c) and (d)]: 
The compliance date is 1 year after completion of the first quadrennial 
review of the State's guidelines that commences more than 1 year after 
publication of the final rule.
     The requirements for reviewing guidelines for setting 
child support awards [Sec.  302.56(h)]: The compliance date is for the 
first quadrennial review of the guidelines commencing after the State's 
guidelines have initially been revised under this final rule.
     Continuation of service for IV-E cases [Sec.  
302.33(a)(4)], Location of noncustodial parents in IV-D cases [Sec.  
303.3], Mandatory notice under Review and adjustment of child support 
orders [Sec.  303.8(b)(7)(ii)], Mandatory provisions of Case closure 
criteria [Sec.  303.11(c) and (d)], and Functional requirements for 
computerized support enforcement systems in operation by October 1, 
2000 [Sec.  307.11(c)(3)(i) and (ii)]: The compliance date is 1 year 
from date of publication of the final rule, or December 20, 2017. 
However, if State law changes are needed, then the compliance date will 
be the first day of the second calendar quarter beginning after the 
close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins 
after the effective date of the final rule.
     Optional provisions (such as Paternity-only Limited 
Service [Sec.  302.33(a)(6)], Case closure criteria [Sec.  303.11(b)], 
Review and adjustment of child support orders [Sec.  303.8(b)(2)], 
Availability and rate of Federal financial participation [Sec.  
304.20], and Topic 2 Revisions): There is no specific compliance date 
for optional provisions.
     Payments to the family [Sec.  302.38], Enforcement of 
support obligations [Sec.  303.6(c)(4)], and Securing and enforcing 
medical support obligations [Sec.  303.31]: If State law revisions are 
needed, the compliance date is the first day of the second calendar 
quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the 
State legislature that begins after the effective date of the 
regulation. If State law revisions are not needed, the compliance date 
is 60 days after publication of the final rule.
     Collection and disbursement of support payments by the IV-
D agency [Sec.  302.32], Required State laws [Sec.  302.70], Procedures 
for income withholding [Sec.  303.100], Expenditures for which Federal 
financial participation is not available [Sec.  304.23], and Topic 3 
revisions: The compliance date is the same as the effective date for 
the regulation since these revisions reflect existing requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The OCSE Division of Policy and 
Training at OCSE.DPT@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

    This final rule is published under the authority granted to the 
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services by section 
1102 of the Social Security Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 1302. Section 1102 of 
the Act 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. Additionally, the Secretary has authority under section 
452(a)(1) of the Act to ``establish such standards for State programs 
for locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and 
obtaining child support . . . as he[she] determines to be necessary to 
assure that such programs will be effective.'' Rules promulgated under 
section 452(a)(1) must meet two conditions. First, the Secretary's 
designee must find that the rule meets one of the statutory objectives 
of ``locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and 
obtaining child support.'' Second, the Secretary's designee must 
determine that the rule is necessary to ``assure that such programs 
will be effective.''
    Section 454(13) requires a State plan to ``provide that the State 
will comply with such other requirements and standards as the Secretary 
determines to be necessary to the establishment of an effective program 
for locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining 
support orders, and collecting support payments and provide that 
information requests by parents who are residents of other States be 
treated with the same priority as requests by parents who are residents 
of the State submitting the plan.''
    This final rule is published in accordance with the following 
sections of the Act: Section 451--Appropriation;

[[Page 93493]]

section 452--Duties of the Secretary; section 453--Federal parent 
locator service; section 454--State plan for child and spousal support; 
section 454A--Automated data processing; section 454B--Collection and 
disbursement of support payments; section 455--Payments to States; 
section 456--Support obligations; section 457--Distribution of 
collected support; section 458--Incentive payments to States; section 
459--Consent by the United States to income withholding, garnishment, 
and similar proceedings for enforcement of child support and alimony 
obligations; section 459A--International support enforcement; section 
460--Civil actions to enforce support obligations; section 464--
Collection of past-due support from Federal tax refunds; section 466--
Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve 
effectiveness of child support enforcement; and section 467--State 
guidelines for child support awards.

II. Background

    The Child Support Enforcement program was established to hold 
noncustodial parents accountable for providing financial support for 
their children. Child support payments play an important role in 
reducing child poverty, lifting approximately one million people out of 
poverty each year. In 2014, the Child Support Enforcement program 
collected $28.2 billion in child support payments for the families in 
State and Tribal caseloads. During this same period, 85 percent of the 
cases had child support orders, and nearly 71 percent of cases with 
support orders had at least some payments during the year. For current 
support, 64 percent of current collections are collected on time every 
month.
    This final rule makes changes to strengthen the Child Support 
Enforcement program and update current practices in order to increase 
regular, on-time payments to all families, increase the number of 
noncustodial parents working and supporting their children, and reduce 
the accumulation of unpaid child support arrears. These changes remove 
regulatory barriers to cost-effective approaches for improving 
enforcement consistent with the current knowledge and practices in the 
field, and informed by many successful state-led innovations. In 
addition, given that almost three-fourths of child support payments are 
collected by employers through income withholding, this rule 
standardizes and streamlines payment processing so that employers are 
not unduly burdened by this otherwise highly effective support 
enforcement tool. The rule also removes outdated barriers to electronic 
communication and document management, updating existing child support 
regulations, which frequently limit methods of storing or communicating 
information to a written or paper format. Finally, the rule updates the 
program to reflect the recent Supreme Court decision in Turner v. 
Rogers, 564 U.S. __, 131 S Ct. 2507 (2011).
    Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to increase retrospective 
analysis of existing rules to determine whether they should be 
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's 
regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving 
regulatory objectives.\1\ In response to Executive Order 13563, OCSE 
conducted a comprehensive review of existing regulations to identify 
ways to improve program flexibility, efficiency, and responsiveness; 
promote technological and programmatic innovation; and update outmoded 
ways of doing business. Some of these regulations had not been updated 
in a generation. Regulatory improvements include: (1) Procedures to 
promote program flexibility, efficiency, and modernization; (2) updates 
to account for advances in technology; and (3) technical corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/18/improving-regulation-and-regulatory-review-executive-order. Also, the OMB Memorandum related to Executive Order 13563 is 
available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11-10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule recognizes and incorporates policies and practices 
that reflect the progress and positive results from successful program 
implementation by States and Tribes.
    The section-by-section discussion below provides greater detail on 
the provisions of the rule. All references to regulations are related 
to 45 CFR Chapter III, except as specified in sections relating to the 
CMS regulations (42 CFR part 433). In general, this final rule only 
affects regulations governing State IV-D programs, and does not impact 
Tribal IV-D program rules under 45 CFR part 309, except for some minor 
technical changes.

III. Summary Descriptions of the Regulatory Provisions

    The following is a summary of the regulatory provisions included in 
the final rule and how these provisions differ from what was initially 
included in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM was 
published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2014 (79 FR 68548 
through 68587). The comment period ended January 16, 2015. We received 
more than 2,000 sets of public comments. Although the NPRM was strongly 
supported, we received numerous comments on specific provisions. We 
made a number of adjustments to the final rule in response to those 
comments.
    This final rule includes (1) procedures to promote program 
flexibility, efficiency, and modernization; (2) updates to account for 
advances in technology; and (3) technical corrections. The following is 
a discussion of all the regulatory provisions included in this rule. 
Please note the provisions are discussed in order by category. We 
present the revisions in these three categories to assist the reader in 
understanding the major concepts and rationale for the changes.

Topic 1: Procedures To Promote Program Flexibility, Efficiency, and 
Modernization (Sec. Sec.  302.32; 302.33; 302.38; 302.56; 302.70; 
303.3; 303.4; 303.6; 303.8; 303.11 (Including revisions to 42 CFR 
433.152); 303.31; 303.72; 303.100; 304.20; 304.23; and 307.11)

Section 302.32--Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments by the 
IV-D Agency
    Section 302.32 mirrors Federal law which requires State 
Disbursement Units (SDUs) to collect and disburse child support 
payments in accordance with support orders in IV-D cases. Additionally, 
SDUs must collect and disburse child support payments in non-IV-D cases 
in which the support order was initially issued on or after January 1, 
1994, and the income of the noncustodial parent is subject to 
withholding in accordance with section 466(a)(8)(B) of the Act. The 
provision also specifies timeframes for the disbursement of support 
payments.
    Paragraph (a) describes the basic IV-D State plan requirement that 
each State must establish and operate an SDU for the collection and 
disbursement of child support payments.
    Paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) identify the types of child support cases 
for which support payments must be collected and disbursed through the 
SDU. Paragraph (a)(1) specifies that support payments under support 
orders in all cases under the State IV-D plan must be collected and 
disbursed through the SDU. Paragraph (a)(2) requires that support 
payments under support orders in all cases not being enforced under the 
State IV-D plan (non-IV-D cases) in which the support order is 
initially issued in the State on or after January 1, 1994, and

[[Page 93494]]

in which the income of the noncustodial parent is subject to 
withholding in accordance with section 466(a)(8)(B) of the Act must be 
collected and disbursed through the SDU.
    Paragraph (b) is introductory language preceding timeframes for 
disbursement of various types of child support collections. Paragraph 
(b)(1) requires that in intergovernmental IV-D cases, child support 
collected on behalf of the initiating agency must be forwarded to the 
initiating agency within 2 business days of the date of receipt by the 
SDU in the responding State. The provision also includes an updated 
reference to the intergovernmental child support regulations at Sec.  
303.7(d)(6)(v) of this chapter. In response to comments regarding 
paragraph (b)(1), in the final rule we changed the term interstate to 
intergovernmental. We also used the term initiating agency instead of 
initiating State, recognizing that intergovernmental IV-D cases may be 
initiated by Tribal or foreign child support programs and not only 
States.
Section 302.33--Services to Individuals Not Receiving Title IV-A 
Assistance
    Section 302.33(a)(4) requires that whenever a family is no longer 
eligible for State's Title IV-A and Medicaid assistance, the IV-D 
agency must notify the family, within 5 working days of the 
notification of ineligibility, that IV-D services will be continued 
unless the family notifies the IV-D agency that it no longer wants 
services but instead wants to close the case. This notice must inform 
the family of the benefits and consequences of continuing to receive 
IV-D services, including the available services and the State's fees, 
cost recovery, and distribution policies. This notification requirement 
also applies when a child is no longer eligible for IV-E foster care, 
but only in those cases that the IV-D agency determines that such 
services and notice would be appropriate.
    Under Sec.  302.33(a)(6), the State has the option of providing 
limited services for paternity-only services in intrastate cases to any 
applicant who requests such services. In response to comments, we 
narrowed the scope of limited services to paternity-only intrastate 
cases, instead of allowing a wide range of limited services. Although 
several commenters expressed support for increasing the flexibility of 
services offered to applicants, the revisions are based on other 
comments expressing concerns about the difficulty and cost for States 
to implement a menu of limited services in the context of 
intergovernmental enforcement. Some commenters also expressed concerns 
about how limited enforcement services options might impact Federal 
reporting and the performance measures used for incentive payments.
    In the preamble to the NPRM, OCSE specifically requested feedback 
from commenters regarding whether there are additional domestic 
violence safeguards that should be put in place with respect to limited 
services. Some commenters emphasized the need for domestic violence 
safeguards in this area. In response to these commenters, we added 
language to the final rule requiring States to include domestic 
violence safeguards when establishing and using paternity-only limited 
services procedures.
Section 302.38--Payments to the Family
    Section 302.38 reinforces the requirements found in section 
454(11)(B) of the Act. The provision in the rule requires that a 
State's IV-D plan ``shall provide that any payment required to be made 
under Sec. Sec.  302.32 and 302.51 to a family will be made directly to 
the resident parent, legal guardian, caretaker relative having custody 
of or responsibility for the child or children, conservator 
representing the custodial parent and child directly with a legal and 
fiduciary duty, or alternate caretaker designated in a record by the 
custodial parent. An alternate caretaker is a nonrelative caretaker who 
is designated in a record by the custodial parent to take care of the 
children for a temporary time period. Based on comments received, we 
added ``judicially-appointed conservator with a legal and fiduciary 
duty to the custodial parent and the child'' and ``alternate caretaker 
designated in a record by the custodial parent'' to the list of 
individuals to whom payments can be made. We also clarified what is 
meant by an alternate caretaker.
Section 302.56--Guidelines for Setting Child Support Orders
    Section 302.56(a) requires each State to establish one set of 
guidelines by law or by judicial or administrative action for setting 
and modifying child support order amounts within 1 year after 
completion of the State's next quadrennial review of its child support 
guidelines, that commences more than 1 year after publication of the 
final rule, in accordance with Sec.  302.56(e), as a condition of 
approval of its State plan. Considering public comments requesting 
additional time to implement revised guidelines, we added ``that 
commences more than 1 year after publication of the final rule'' to 
provide more time to do research and prepare for those States that have 
a quadrennial review that would initiate shortly after the issuance of 
this final rule.
    Section 302.56(b) requires the State to have procedures for making 
guidelines available to all persons in the State. Based on comments, we 
removed the phrase ``whose duty it is to set child support award 
amounts'' at the end of the sentence.
    The introductory paragraph for section 302.56(c) indicates the 
minimum requirements for child support guidelines. Paragraph (c)(1) 
indicates that child support guidelines must provide the child support 
order is based on the noncustodial parent's earnings, income, and other 
evidence of ability to pay that: (i) Takes into consideration all 
earnings and income of the noncustodial parent (and at the State's 
discretion, the custodial parent); (ii) takes into consideration the 
basic subsistence needs of the noncustodial parent (and at the State's 
discretion, the custodial parent and children) who has a limited 
ability to pay by incorporating a low-income adjustment, such as a 
self-support reserve or some other method determined by the State; and 
(iii) if imputation of income is authorized, takes into consideration 
the specific circumstances of the noncustodial parent (and at the 
State's discretion, the custodial parent) to the extent known, 
including such factors as the noncustodial parent's assets, residence, 
employment and earnings history, job skills, educational attainment, 
literacy, age, health, criminal record and other employment barriers, 
and record of seeking work, as well as the local job market, the 
availability of employers willing to hire the noncustodial parent, 
prevailing earnings level in the local community, and other relevant 
background factors in the case.
    Responding to comments, we made major revisions in paragraph 
(c)(1). We moved the phrase ``and other evidence of ability to pay'' 
from paragraph (c)(4) to paragraph (c)(1) based on comments to require 
child support guidelines to provide that the child support order is 
based on the noncustodial parent's earnings, income, and other evidence 
of ability to pay. This provision codifies the basic guidelines 
standard for setting order amounts, reflecting OCSE's longstanding 
interpretation of statutory guidelines requirements (See AT-93-04 and 
PIQ-00-03).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ AT-93-04, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/presumptive-guidelines-establishment-support-unreimbursed-assistance and PIQ-00-03, available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/state-iv-d-program-flexibility-low-income-obligors.

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

[[Page 93495]]

    In paragraph (c)(1)(i), based on comments, we retained ``all income 
and earnings'' and did not change ``all'' to ``actual'' income and 
earnings as we had proposed in the NPRM. Based on comments, we also 
added ``(and at the State's discretion, the custodial parent).''
    Based on comments, we made the following revisions in paragraph 
(c)(1). We revised proposed paragraph (c)(4) and redesignated it as 
(c)(1)(ii). We added ``basic'' before subsistence needs to clarify 
scope. We also added ``(and at the State's discretion, the custodial 
parent and children),'' giving States the option of considering the 
custodial parent's and children's basic subsistence needs in addition 
to the subsistence needs of the noncustodial parent. We also granted 
more flexibility to States in how they will consider basic subsistence 
needs by adding ``who has a limited ability to pay by incorporating a 
low-income adjustment, such as a self-support reserve or some other 
method determined by the State.'' We also removed language from the 
NPRM that the guidelines ``provide that any amount ordered for support 
be based upon available data related to the parent's actual earnings, 
income, assets, or other evidence of ability to pay, such as testimony 
that income or assets are not consistent with a noncustodial parent's 
current standard of living.'' We also added paragraph (c)(1)(iii) 
related to imputed income.
    We redesignated proposed paragraph (c)(3) as (c)(2). This provision 
requires that State child support guidelines address how the parents 
will provide for the child's health care needs through private or 
public health care coverage and/or through cash medical support. To 
conform to other medical support revisions in this final rule, we 
replaced ``health insurance coverage'' in the NPRM with ``private or 
public health care coverage.'' Based on comments, we also removed ``in 
accordance with Sec.  303.31 of this chapter'' that was in the NPRM 
because Sec.  303.31 only pertains to IV-D cases and this provision of 
the rule applies to both IV-D and non-IV-D cases.
    OCSE redesignated proposed paragraph (c)(5) as paragraph (c)(3) in 
the final rule. This paragraph prohibits the treatment of incarceration 
as ``voluntary unemployment'' when establishing or modifying support 
orders because State policies that treat incarceration as voluntary 
unemployment effectively block application of the Federal review and 
adjustment law in section 466(a)(10) of the Act. This section of the 
Act requires review, and if appropriate, adjustment of an order upward 
or downward upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances.
    This rule redesignated proposed paragraph (c)(2) as (c)(4), which 
requires that the guidelines be based on specific descriptive and 
numeric criteria and result in a computation of the support obligation. 
Paragraph (d) requires States to include a copy of the guidelines in 
the State plan. Paragraph (e) requires that each State review, and 
revise its guidelines, if appropriate, at least once every 4 years to 
ensure that their application results in the determination of 
appropriate child support order amounts. Responding to comments, we 
added a sentence that requires each State to publish on the Internet 
and make accessible to the public all reports of the child support 
guidelines reviewing body, the membership of the reviewing body, the 
effective date of the guidelines, and the date of the next quadrennial 
review.
    Paragraph (f) requires States to provide for a rebuttable 
presumption, in any judicial or administrative proceeding for the 
establishment and modification of a child support order, that the 
amount of the order which would result from the application of the 
child support guidelines established under paragraph (a) is the correct 
amount of child support to be ordered. We made a minor technical 
revision to both paragraphs (f) and (g) to specify that these 
paragraphs apply to the establishment and modification of a child 
support order.
    Under paragraph (g) in this rule, a written or specific finding on 
the record of a judicial or administrative proceeding for the 
establishment or modification of a child support order that the 
application of the child support guidelines established under paragraph 
(a) of this section would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular 
case will be sufficient to rebut the presumption in that case, as 
determined under criteria established by the State. Such criteria must 
take into consideration the best interests of the child. Findings that 
rebut the child support guidelines shall state the amount of support 
that would have been required under the guidelines and include a 
justification of why the child support order varies from the 
guidelines.
    In response to comments, we deleted proposed paragraph (h), which 
would have allowed States to recognize parenting time provisions in 
child support orders pursuant to State guidelines or when both parents 
have agreed to the parenting time provisions.
    In the final rule, we redesignated proposed paragraph (i) as 
paragraph (h) and subdivided this paragraph into paragraphs (h)(1) 
through (h)(3) to make it easier to read. Paragraph (h)(1) requires, as 
part of the review of a State's child support guidelines required under 
paragraph (e) of this section, that a State must consider economic data 
on the cost of raising children, labor market data (such as 
unemployment rates, employment rates, hours worked, and earnings) by 
occupation and skill-level for the State and local job markets, the 
impact of guideline policies and amounts on custodial and noncustodial 
parents who have family incomes below 200 percent of the Federal 
poverty level, and factors that influence employment rates among 
noncustodial parents and compliance with current support orders. Based 
on comments, we added all of the factors to the existing requirement to 
consider the economic data on the cost of raising children.
    Paragraph (h)(2) requires the State to analyze case data, gathered 
through sampling or other methods, on the application of and deviations 
from the child support guidelines, as well as the rates of default and 
imputed child support orders and orders determined using the low-income 
adjustment required under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. The 
analysis must also include a comparison of payments on child support 
orders by case characteristics, including whether the order was entered 
by default, based on imputed income, or determined using the low-income 
adjustment required under paragraph (c)(1)(ii). The analysis of the 
data must be used in the State's review of the child support guidelines 
to ensure that deviations from the guidelines are limited and guideline 
amounts are appropriate based on criteria established by the State 
under paragraph (g). Based on comments, we added ``as well as the rates 
of default and imputed child support orders and orders determined using 
the low-income adjustment required under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this 
section.'' We also added ``and guideline amounts are appropriate based 
on criteria established by the State under paragraph (g).''
    Considering public comments, we added the provisions in paragraph 
(h)(3) that the State's review of the child support guidelines must 
provide a meaningful opportunity for public input, including input from 
low-income custodial and noncustodial parents and their 
representatives. The State must also obtain the views and advice of the 
State child support agency funded under title IV-D.
    Finally, OCSE made a technical change in the title and throughout 
this

[[Page 93496]]

section to replace ``award'' with ``order.''
Section 302.70--Required State Laws
    Section 302.70(d)(2) provides the basis for granting an exemption 
from any of the State law requirements discussed in paragraph (a) of 
this section and extends the exemption period from 3 to 5 years.
    In this section, OCSE maintains the authority to review and to 
revoke a State's exemption at any time [paragraphs (d)(2) and (3)]. 
States may also request an extension of an exemption 90 days prior to 
the end of the exemption period [paragraph (d)(4)].
Section 302.76--Job Services
    This proposed provision received overwhelming support from states, 
Members of Congress, and the public, but it also was opposed by some 
Members of Congress who did not think the provision should be included 
in the final rule. While we appreciate the support the commenters 
expressed, we think allowing for federal IV-D reimbursement for job 
services needs further study and would be ripe for implementation at a 
later time. Therefore, we are not proceeding with finalizing the 
proposed provisions at Sec. Sec.  302.76, 303.6(c)(5), and 
304.20(b)(viii).
Section 303.3--Location of Noncustodial Parents in IV-D Cases
    Section 303.3 requires IV-D agencies to attempt to locate all 
noncustodial parents or sources of income and/or assets where that 
information is necessary. Paragraph (b)(1) requires States to use 
appropriate location sources such as the Federal PLS; interstate 
location networks; local officials and employees administering public 
assistance, general assistance, medical assistance, Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and social services (whether such 
individuals are employed by the State or a political subdivision); 
relatives and friends of the noncustodial parent; current or past 
employers; electronic communications and Internet service providers; 
utility companies; the U.S. Postal Service; financial institutions; 
unions; corrections institutions; fraternal organizations; police, 
parole, and probation records if appropriate; and State agencies and 
departments, as authorized by State law, including those departments 
which maintain records of public assistance, wages and employment, 
unemployment insurance, income taxation, driver's licenses, vehicle 
registration, and criminal records and other sources.
    In response to comments, we made the following technical revisions 
to the list of locate sources in paragraph (b)(1): Changing ``food 
stamps'' to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); adding 
``utility companies;'' changing ``the local telephone company'' to 
``electronic communications and Internet service providers ;'' and 
changing ``financial references'' to ``financial institutions.''
Section 303.4--Establishment of Support Obligations
    The NPRM did not include any revisions to Sec.  303.4; however, 
because we had numerous comments related to the general applicability 
of State guidelines, we moved the requirements specifically related to 
State IV-D agencies to Sec.  303.4. We also had many comments related 
to the IV-D agency responsibilities in determining the noncustodial 
parent's income and imputation of income when establishing child 
support orders. Following this line of comments, we made revisions to 
Sec.  303.4 that require State IV-D agencies to implement and use 
procedures in IV-D cases related to applying the guidelines regulation. 
To address several comments received in response to proposed changes to 
Sec.  302.56 regarding establishment of support orders and imputation 
of income, we revised this section to address requirements for the 
State IV-D agencies when establishing support orders in IV-D cases that 
would not be applicable to non-IV-D cases.
    In Sec.  303.4(b), States are required to use appropriate State 
statutes, procedures, and legal processes in establishing and modifying 
support obligation in accordance with Sec.  302.56 of this chapter. We 
added ``procedures,'' as well as ``and modifying,'' to the former 
paragraph. We also replaced ``pursuant to'' with ``in accordance with'' 
in this same paragraph.
    We also added paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) to provide 
additional requirements that State IV-D agencies must meet in 
establishing and modifying support obligations. Paragraph (b)(1) 
requires States to take reasonable steps to develop a sufficient 
factual basis for the support obligation, through such means as 
investigations, case conferencing, interviews with both parties, appear 
and disclose procedures, parent questionnaires, testimony, and 
electronic data sources. Paragraph (b)(2) requires States to gather 
information regarding the earnings and income of the noncustodial 
parent and, when earning and income information is unavailable in a 
case, gather available information about the specific circumstances of 
the noncustodial parent, including such factors as listed under Sec.  
302.56(c)(iii).
    Additionally, paragraph (b)(3) requires basing the support 
obligation or recommended support obligation amount on the earnings and 
income of the noncustodial parent whenever available. If evidence of 
earnings and income is not available or insufficient to use as the 
measure of the noncustodial parent's ability to pay, then the support 
obligation or recommended support obligation amount should be based on 
available information about the specific circumstances of the 
noncustodial parent, including such factors as those listed under Sec.  
302.56(c)(iii).
    Finally, paragraph (b)(4) requires documenting the factual basis 
for the support obligation or the recommended support obligation in the 
case record.
Sec.  303.6--Enforcement of Support Obligations
    In the final rule, we amended Sec.  303.6(c)(4) to require States 
to establish guidelines for the use of civil contempt citations in IV-D 
cases. The guidelines must include requirements that the IV-D agency 
must screen the case for information regarding the noncustodial 
parent's ability to pay or otherwise comply with the order. The IV-D 
agency must also provide the court with such information regarding the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay, which may assist the court in 
making a factual determination regarding the noncustodial parent's 
ability to pay the purge amount or comply with the purge conditions. 
Finally, the IV-D agency must provide clear notice to the noncustodial 
parent that ability to pay constitutes the critical question in the 
civil contempt action.
    We amended Sec.  303.6 to remove ``and'' at the end of paragraph 
(c)(3) and redesignated paragraph (c)(4) as paragraph (c)(5). We made 
significant revisions to the NPRM for the final rule based on comments. 
As a result of comments, we revised the proposed new paragraph (c)(4) 
to require that State IV-D agencies must establish guidelines for the 
use of civil contempt citations in IV-D cases.
    Based on these comments, we deleted the entire proposed paragraph 
(c)(4) that would have required procedures that would ensure that 
enforcement activity in civil contempt proceedings takes into 
consideration the subsistence needs of the noncustodial parent, and 
ensure that a purge amount the noncustodial parent must pay in order to 
avoid incarceration takes into consideration actual earnings and income 
and the subsistence needs of the noncustodial parent. We also

[[Page 93497]]

deleted that a purge amount must be based upon a written evidentiary 
finding that the noncustodial parent has the actual means to pay the 
amount from his or her current income or assets.
    Instead we added that IV-D agency must provide the court with such 
information regarding the noncustodial parent's ability to pay, which 
may assist the court in making a factual determination regarding the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay the purge amount or comply with 
the purge conditions. Finally, the IV-D agency must provide clear 
notice to the noncustodial parent that ability to pay constitutes the 
critical question in the civil contempt action. The Response to 
Comments section for Civil Contempt Proceedings [Sec.  303.6(c)(4)] 
provides further details on the reasons for these revisions.
Section 303.8--Review and Adjustment of Child Support Orders
    We redesignated former Sec.  303.8(b)(2) through (5) as (b)(3) 
through (6). A new paragraph (b)(2) allows the IV-D agency to elect in 
its State plan the option to initiate the review of a child support 
order, after learning that a noncustodial parent will be incarcerated 
for more than 180 calendar days, without the need for a specific 
request, and upon notice to both parents, review and, if appropriate, 
adjust the order, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 
section. Based on comments, we revised the proposed regulatory language 
``after being notified'' to ``after learning'' and increased the number 
of days from 90 to 180 days. We also added the word ``calendar'' after 
``180'' to distinguish between calendar and business days.
    In addition, we redesignated former paragraph (b)(6) which requires 
notice ``not less than once every three years,'' to paragraphs (b)(7) 
and (b)(7)(i). We added a new paragraph (b)(7)(ii) that indicates if a 
State has not elected to initiate review without the need for a 
specific request under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, within 15 
business days of when the IV-D agency learns that the noncustodial 
parent will be incarcerated for more than 180 calendar days, the IV-D 
agency must send a notice to both parents informing them of the right 
to request a review and, if appropriate, adjust the order. The notice 
must specify, at minimum, the place and manner in which the parents 
must make the request for review.
    Based on comments, we revised the proposed language in paragraph 
(b)(2) to: Add that the IV-D agency must send the notice within 15 
business days of learning that the noncustodial parent will be 
incarcerated, add an incarceration timeframe of more than 180 calendar 
days to be consistent with paragraph (b)(2); and replace the phrase 
``upon request'' with ``if appropriate.'' We also revised the proposed 
provision to use the phrase ``both parents'' instead of ``incarcerated 
noncustodial parent and the custodial parent'' for consistency with 
paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii). In response to comments, we added a 
sentence at the end of paragraph (b)(7)(ii), based on comments, that 
recognizes existing comparable State law or rule that modifies child 
support obligations upon incarceration of the noncustodial parent.
    Based on comments, we added a sentence to paragraph (c) to address 
incarceration as a significant change in circumstance when determining 
the standard for adequate grounds for petitioning review and adjustment 
of a child support order.
    Finally, OCSE amends Sec.  303.8(d) to make conforming changes with 
our revisions in Sec.  303.31 to remove a previous requirement that, 
for purposes of review or adjustment of a child support order, a 
child's eligibility for Medicaid could not be considered sufficient to 
meet the child's health care needs. The final rule indicates that the 
need to provide for the child's health care needs in an order, through 
health insurance or other means, must be an adequate basis under State 
law to initiate an adjustment of an order, regardless of whether an 
adjustment in the amount of child support is necessary.
Section 303.11--Case Closure Criteria
    Section 303.11(b) adds language to clarify that a IV-D agency is 
not required to close a case that is otherwise eligible to be closed 
under that section. Case closure regulations in paragraph (b) are 
designed to give a State the option to close cases, if certain 
conditions are met, and to provide a State flexibility to manage its 
caseload. If a State elects to close a case under one of these 
criteria, the State must maintain supporting documentation for its 
decision in the case record.
    Paragraph (b)(1) indicates that a case may be closed when there is 
no longer a current support order and arrearages are under $500 or 
unenforceable under State law. New paragraph (b)(2) adds a case closure 
criterion to permit a State to close a case where there is no current 
support order and all arrearages are owed to the State.
    Paragraph (b)(3) adds a criterion to allow the IV-D agency to close 
an arrearages-only case against a noncustodial parent who is entering 
or has entered long-term care placement, and whose children have 
reached the age of majority if the noncustodial parent has no income or 
assets available above the subsistence level that could be levied or 
attached for support.
    Paragraph (b)(4) permits closure of a case when the noncustodial 
parent or alleged father is deceased and no further action, including a 
levy against the estate, can be taken. Paragraph (b)(5) adds a 
criterion to allow a State to close a case when the noncustodial parent 
is either living with the minor children as the primary caregiver or is 
a part of an intact two-parent household, and the IV-D agency has 
determined that services either are not appropriate or are no longer 
appropriate. We added ``or no longer appropriate'' to the proposed 
language as a technical revision.
    Paragraph (b)(6) indicates that a case may be closed when paternity 
cannot be established because: (i) The child is at least 18 years old 
and an action to establish paternity is barred by a statute of 
limitations that meets the requirements of Sec.  302.70(a)(5) of this 
chapter; (ii) a genetic test or a court or an administrative process 
has excluded the alleged father and no other alleged father can be 
identified; (iii) in accordance with Sec.  303.5(b), the IV-D agency 
has determined that it would not be in the best interests of the child 
to establish paternity in a case involving incest or rape, or in any 
case where legal proceedings for adoption are pending; or (iv) the 
identity of the biological father is unknown and cannot be identified 
after diligent efforts, including at least one interview by the IV-D 
agency with the recipient of services. Minor technical changes were 
made to this paragraph.
    Paragraph (b)(7) allows case closure when the noncustodial parent's 
location is unknown, and the State has made diligent efforts using 
multiple sources, in accordance with Sec.  303.3, all of which have 
been unsuccessful, to locate the noncustodial parent: Over a 2-year 
period when there is sufficient information to initiate an automated 
locate effort; over a 6-month period when there is not sufficient 
information to initiate an automated locate effort; or after a 1-year 
period when there is sufficient information to initiate an automated 
locate effort, but locate interfaces are unable to verify a Social 
Security Number.
    Paragraph (b)(8) states that case closure is permitted when a IV-D 
agency has determined that throughout the duration of the child's 
minority (or after the child has reached the age of majority), the 
noncustodial parent cannot pay support and shows no

[[Page 93498]]

evidence of support potential because the parent has been 
institutionalized in a psychiatric facility, is incarcerated, or has a 
medically-verified total and permanent disability. The State must also 
determine that the noncustodial parent has no income or assets 
available above the subsistence level that could be levied or attached 
for support. Based on comments, we deleted from the NPRM ``or has had 
multiple referrals for services by the State over a 5-year period which 
have been unsuccessful.''
    Section 303.11(b)(9) adds a new case closure criterion to permit a 
State to close a case when a noncustodial parent's sole income is (i) 
from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments, or (ii) from both SSI 
payments and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits under 
title II of the Act. In paragraph (b)(9)(ii), we added ``payments'' 
after ``SSI'' and, in response to comments, clarified that SSDI is the 
Title II benefit. Also, in paragraph (b)(9)(iii), we deleted the phrase 
``or other needs-based benefits'' because these benefits may have 
limited duration and do not reflect a determination of an inability to 
work. In the absence of a disability that impairs the ability to work, 
the ability of the noncustodial parent to work and earn income may also 
fluctuate with time. Thus, it is important for the child support 
agencies to take efforts on these cases to remove the barriers to 
nonpayment and build the capacity of the noncustodial parents to pay by 
using tools such as referring noncustodial parents for employment 
services provided by another State program or community-based 
organization.
    Paragraph (b)(10) allows case closure when the noncustodial parent 
is a citizen of, and lives in, a foreign country, does not work for the 
Federal government or a company with headquarters or offices in the 
United States, and has no reachable domestic income or assets; and 
there is no Federal or State reciprocity with the country. The final 
rule makes a technical change in this paragraph to clarify that 
reciprocity with a country could be through either a Federal or State 
treaty or reciprocal agreement. We added ``treaty or'' to the proposed 
language as a technical change.
    Paragraph (b)(11) permits case closure if the IV-D agency has 
provided location-only services as requested under Sec.  302.35(c)(3) 
of this chapter.
    Paragraph (b)(12) indicates that a case may be closed where the 
non-IV-A recipient of services requests closure and there is no 
assignment to the State of medical support under 42 CFR 433.146 or of 
arrearages which accrued under a support order. Paragraph (b)(13) adds 
a criterion to allow the State to close a non-IV-A case after 
completion of a paternity-only limited service under Sec.  302.33(a)(6) 
without providing the notice in accordance with Sec.  303.11(d)(4).
    Paragraph (b)(14) states that case closure is allowed if there has 
been a finding by the IV-D agency, or at the option of the State, by 
the responsible State agency of good cause or other exceptions to 
cooperation with the IV-D agency and the State or local assistance 
program, such as IV-A, IV-E, SNAP, and Medicaid, which has determined 
that support enforcement may not proceed without risk of harm to the 
child or caretaker relative. We added ``IV-D agency, or at the option 
of the State, by the'' as a technical change because this tracks the 
language of the statute. In response to comments, we also added SNAP to 
the list of assistance programs referenced in this paragraph.
    Paragraph (b)(15) allows case closure in a non-IV-A case receiving 
services under Sec.  302.33(a)(1)(i) or (iii) of this chapter, or under 
Sec.  302.33(a)(1)(ii) when cooperation with the IV-D agency is not 
required of the recipient of services, when the IV-D agency is unable 
to contact the recipient of services despite a good faith effort to 
contact the recipient through at least two different methods.
    Paragraph (b)(16) also permits closure when the IV-D agency 
documents the circumstances of the recipient's noncooperation and an 
action by the recipient is essential for the next step in providing IV-
D services in a non-IV-A case receiving services under Sec.  
302.33(a)(1)(i) or (iii) of this chapter, or under Sec.  
302.33(a)(1)(ii) when cooperation with the IV-D agency is not required 
of the recipient of services.
    Paragraphs (b)(17) through (b)(19) identify the case closure 
criteria when the responding State IV-D agency may close a case. 
Paragraph (b)(17) allows the responding agency to close a case when it 
documents failure by the initiating agency to take an action that is 
essential for the next step in providing services. We revised ``IV-D'' 
agency from the NPRM to ``responding'' agency to make the language more 
consistent with paragraphs (b)(18) and (b)(19). We also made a small 
editorial change for plain English to this paragraph.
    Paragraph (b)(18) also allows the responding IV-D agency to close a 
case when the initiating agency has notified the responding State that 
the initiating State has closed its case under Sec.  303.7(c)(11).
    Paragraph (b)(19) indicates that the responding State may close a 
case if the initiating agency has notified the responding State that 
its intergovernmental services are no longer needed.
    Paragraph (b)(20) adds a new criterion to provide a State with 
flexibility to close a case referred inappropriately by the IV-A, IV-E, 
SNAP, and Medicaid programs. In response to comments, SNAP is added to 
the list of referring agencies.
    Paragraph (b)(21) adds a criterion to permit a State flexibility to 
close a case if the State has transferred it to a Tribal IV-D agency, 
regardless of whether there is a State assignment of arrears, based on 
the following procedures. First, before transferring the case to a 
Tribal IV-D agency and closing the State's case, either the recipient 
of services requested the State to transfer its case and close the 
State's case or the IV-D agency notified the recipient of its intent to 
transfer the case to the Tribal IV-D agency and the recipient did not 
respond to the notice within 60 calendar days of the date of the 
notice. Next, the State IV-D agency completely and fully transferred 
and closed the case. Third, the State IV-D agency notified the 
recipient that the case has been transferred to the Tribal IV-D agency 
and closed. Finally, paragraph (b)(21)(iv) indicates that if the Tribal 
IV-D agency has a State-Tribal agreement approved by OCSE to transfer 
and close case, this agreement must include a provision for obtaining 
the consent from the recipient of services to transfer and close the 
case.
    Responding to comments, we added ``including a case with arrears 
assigned to the State'' to the introductory sentence of paragraph 
(b)(21). We also clarified that the case transfer process includes 
transfer and closure. As a technical change, we added ``State'' before 
IV-D agency throughout this paragraph to clarify which IV-D agency had 
the responsibility. In response to comments, the rule added paragraph 
(b)(21)(iv) related to allowing a permissible case transfer in 
accordance with an OCSE-approved State-Tribal agreement that includes 
consent from the recipient of services.
    Paragraph (c) adds a criterion to require a State IV-D agency to 
close a Medicaid reimbursement referral based solely upon health care 
services provided through an Indian Health Service Program, including 
through the Purchased/Referred Care program. Unlike the case closure 
criteria under paragraph (b), which are permissive, the case closure 
criterion under paragraph (c) is mandatory. In the final rule, we

[[Page 93499]]

replaced ``contract health services'' with ``the Purchased/Referred 
Care program'' because the Indian Health Service (IHS) program was 
formally renamed.
    In this joint rule, we also amend 42 CFR 433.152(b)(1), consistent 
with IHS policy, to require that State Medicaid agencies not refer 
cases for medical support enforcement services when the Medicaid 
referral is based solely upon health care services, including the 
Purchased/Referred Care program, provided through an Indian Health 
Program (as defined at 25 U.S.C. 1603(12) to a child who is eligible 
for health care services from the IHS. This policy remedies the current 
inequity of holding noncustodial parents personally liable for services 
provided through the Indian Health Programs to IHS-eligible families 
that qualify for Medicaid. The revision to 42 CFR 433.152(b)(1) also 
eliminates reference to 45 CFR part 306, which was repealed in 1996.
    In the final rule, paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) had minor 
stylistic edits from the NPRM. Paragraph (d)(1) requires that a State 
must notify the recipient of services in writing 60 calendar days prior 
to closing a case of the State's intent to close the case meeting the 
criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (10) and (b)(15) through (16) of 
this section. Paragraph (d)(2) adds provisions that in an 
intergovernmental case meeting the criteria for closure under paragraph 
(b)(17), the responding State must notify the initiating agency 60 
calendar days prior to closing the case of the State's intent to close 
the case.
    Paragraph (d)(3) states that the case must be kept open if the 
recipient of services or the initiating agency supplies information, in 
response to the notice provided under paragraph (d)(1) or (2), which 
could lead to paternity or support being established or an order being 
enforced, or, in the instance of paragraph (b)(15) of this section, if 
contact is reestablished with the recipient of services.
    Based on comments, we removed proposed paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) 
regarding the notice requirements for inappropriate referrals under 
paragraphs (b)(20) and (c).
    Section 303.11(d)(4), which was proposed as (d)(6) in the NPRM, 
requires that for a case to be closed in accordance with paragraph 
(b)(13), the State must notify the recipient of services, in writing, 
60 calendar days prior to closure of the case of the State's intent to 
close the case. This paragraph also specifies the notice content and 
lists steps the recipient must take if the recipient reapplies for 
child support services. Responding to comments, we revised the proposed 
language to require the notice prior to closure rather than after the 
limited services case has been closed. We also removed references to 
proposed paragraph (d)(5) and changed the number of days to 60 calendar 
days from 30 calendar days.
    Section 303.11(d)(5) permits a former recipient of services to re-
open a closed IV-D case by reapplying for IV-D services.
    Finally, paragraph (e) requires a IV-D agency to retain all records 
for cases closed for a minimum of 3 years.
Section 303.31--Securing and Enforcing Medical Support Obligations
    In this final rule OCSE amends Sec.  303.31 to provide a State with 
flexibility to permit parents to meet their medical support obligations 
by providing health care coverage or payments for medical expenses that 
are reasonable in cost and best meet the health care needs of the 
child. In paragraph (a)(2), we clarify that health care coverage 
includes public and private insurance.
    In paragraph (a)(3), we delete the requirement that the cost of 
health insurance be measured based on the marginal cost of adding the 
child to the policy. Therefore, this change gives a State additional 
flexibility to define reasonable medical support obligations.
    Next, Sec.  303.31(b) requires the State IV-D agency to petition 
the court or administrative authority to include health care coverage 
that is accessible to the parent and can be obtained for the child at a 
reasonable cost. OCSE removes the limitation in paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(2), (3)(i), and (4) restricting this to private health insurance to 
allow a State to take advantage of both private and public health care 
coverage options to meet children's health care needs, and emphasize 
the role of State child support guidelines in setting child support 
orders that address how parents will share the costs associated with 
covering their child. We also made an editorial change in paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii).
Section 303.72--Requests for Collection of Past-Due Support by Federal 
Tax Refund Offset
    To be consistent with Department of Treasury regulations at 31 CFR 
285.3(c)(6), the rule amends Sec.  303.72(d)(1) to require the 
initiating State to notify other States only if it receives an offset 
amount. This change amends the former Sec.  303.72(d)(1) by eliminating 
the phrase, ``when it submits an interstate case for offset.''
Section 303.100--Procedures for Income Withholding
    We are adding a new paragraph (h) in section 303.100(e) to require 
use of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved form to 
implement withholding for all child support orders regardless of 
whether the case is IV-D or non-IV-D. Section 303.100(e) clarifies that 
``the required OMB-approved Income Withholding for Support form'' must 
be used when sending notice to employers to initiate income withholding 
for child support. Finally, the rule adds a new paragraph (i), which 
explicitly states that income withholding payments on non-IV-D cases 
must be directed through the State Disbursement Unit.
Section 304.20--Availability and Rate of Federal Financial 
Participation
    In the final rule, we are amending Sec.  304.20 to increase the 
flexibility of State IV-D agencies to receive Federal reimbursement for 
cost-effective practices that increase the effectiveness of standard 
enforcement activities. We amend Sec.  304.20(a)(1) to clarify that 
Federal financial participation (FFP) is available for expenditures for 
child support services and activities that are necessary and reasonable 
to carry out the State title IV-D plan. This change reflects 45 CFR 
part 75, ``Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and 
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,'' subpart E--Cost Principles, 
which all State child support agencies must use in determining the 
allowable costs of work performed under Federal grants.
    In paragraph (b), we added the phrase ``including but not limited 
to'' to make clear that FFP is available for, but not limited to, the 
activities listed in the regulation, consistent with OMB cost 
principles that allow for expenditures that are necessary and 
reasonable and can be attributed to the child support enforcement 
program.
    Paragraphs (b)(1)(viii) and (ix) address the establishment of 
agreements with other agencies administering the titles IV-D, IV-E, XIX 
(Medicaid), and XXI (Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)) 
programs, to recognize activities related to cross-program 
coordination, client referrals, and data sharing when authorized by 
law. The provisions also include minor technical changes and specify 
the criteria States may include in these agreements. In paragraphs 
(b)(1)(viii)(A) and (b)(1)(ix)(A), we are adding ``and from'' before 
IV-D agency to provide States more flexibility to refer a case to and 
from the IV-D agency

[[Page 93500]]

when working with these Federal programs.
    For agreements with IV-A and IV-E agencies under paragraph 
(b)(1)(viii), we added paragraphs (b)(1)(viii)(D) and (E) to the list 
of criteria to include procedures to coordinate services and agreements 
to exchange data as authorized by law, respectively. The rule also adds 
these two new criteria under paragraph (b)(1)(ix) for agreements with 
State agencies administering Medicaid or CHIP programs as paragraphs 
(b)(1)(ix)(B) and (C).
    In response to comments, under paragraph (b)(1)(ix), we added 
``appropriate'' before criteria to provide States greater flexibility 
in which criteria or activities to include in their agreements with 
Medicaid or CHIP agencies. Also based on comments, we retained the 
provision regarding the transfer of assigned medical support 
collections to the Medicaid agency now at paragraph (b)(1)(ix)(D), and 
formerly at paragraph (b)(1)(ix)(C).
    Section 304.20(b)(2) clarifies that FFP is available for services 
and activities for the establishment of paternity including, but not 
limited to the specific activities listed in paragraph (b)(2). The rule 
adds educational and outreach activities to Sec.  304.20(b)(2)(vii) to 
explain that FFP is available for IV-D agencies to educate the public 
and to develop and disseminate information on voluntary paternity 
establishment.
    In accordance with the requirement in section 454(23) of the Act to 
regularly and frequently publicize the availability of child support 
enforcement services, including voluntary paternity services, paragraph 
(b)(3) clarifies that FFP is available for services and activities for 
the establishment and enforcement of support obligations including, but 
not limited to the specific activities listed in paragraph (b)(3). The 
rule adds allowable services and activities under paragraph (b)(3) 
related to the establishment and enforcement of support obligations. A 
new paragraph (b)(3)(v) allows FFP for bus fare or other minor 
transportation expenses to allow participation by parents in child 
support proceedings and related activities such as genetic testing 
appointments. We redesignated the former Sec.  304.20(b)(3)(v) as Sec.  
304.20(b)(3)(vii).
    In addition, new paragraph (b)(3)(vi) recognizes that FFP is 
available to increase pro se access to adjudicative and alternative 
dispute resolution processes in IV-D cases related to the provision of 
child support services. We added a clarification in the final rule that 
this paragraph only applies when the expenses are related to the 
provision of child support services.
    In response to comments, we deleted the proposed paragraph 
(b)(3)(vii), which would have specifically allowed States to claim FFP 
for ``de minimis'' costs for including parenting time provisions in 
child support orders. (For further details, see Comment/Response 9 in 
Sec.  304.20.)
    We also made minor editorial changes in paragraph (b)(5)(v) by 
deleting ``;'' and adding ``.'' at the end of the paragraph, and in 
paragraphs (b)(9) and proposed (b)(11) by deleting ``; and'' and adding 
``.'' at the end of the sentence.
    Finally, we added a new paragraph (b)(12) to allow FFP for the 
educational and outreach activities intended to inform the public, 
parents and family members, and young people who are not yet parents 
about the Child Support Enforcement program, responsible parenting and 
co-parenting, family budgeting, and other financial consequences of 
raising children when the parents are not married to each other.
Section 304.23--Expenditures for Which Federal Financial Participation 
Is Not Available
    Section 304.23(a) through (c) of the rule indicates that Federal 
financial participation at the applicable matching rate is not 
available for: (a) Activities related to administering titles I, IV-A, 
IV-B, IV-E, X, XIV, XVI, XIX, XX, or XXI of the Act or 7 U.S.C. Chapter 
51; (b) purchased support enforcement services which are not secured in 
accordance with Sec.  304.22; and (c) construction and major 
renovations.
    For Sec.  304.23(d), we added ``State and county employees and 
court personnel'' as a technical clarification that Federal financial 
participation is not available for the education and training of 
personnel except direct costs of short-term training provided to IV-D 
agency staff in accordance with Sec.  304.20(b)(2)(vii) and Sec.  
304.21. This provision does not apply to other types of education and 
training activities (such as those provided to parents that are 
addressed in other rules) in this part. We also made a minor editorial 
change from the proposed language.
    The final rule also clarifies that FFP is not available for any 
expenditures which have been reimbursed by fees collected as required 
by this chapter (Sec.  304.23(e)); any costs of those caseworkers 
described in Sec.  303.20(e) of this chapter (Sec.  304.23(f)); any 
expenditures made to carry out an agreement under Sec.  303.15 of this 
chapter (Sec.  304.23(g)); and the costs of counsel for indigent 
defendants in IV-D actions (Sec.  304.23(h)).
    Paragraph (i) indicates that FFP is prohibited for any expenditures 
for the jailing of parents in child support enforcement cases. In the 
NPRM, OCSE inadvertently removed this restriction; however, we are 
correcting this error in the final rule. As a result, proposed 
paragraph (i), which addresses that costs of guardians ad litem are 
prohibited in IV-D actions, was redesignated as paragraph (j).
Section 307.11--Functional Requirements for Computerized Support 
Enforcement Systems in Operation by October 1, 2000
    In the final rule, we amend Sec.  307.11(c)(3)(i) to include 
provisions requiring States to build automatic processes designed to 
preclude garnishing financial accounts of noncustodial parents who are 
recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments or 
individuals concurrently receiving both SSI and Social Security 
Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits under title II of the Act. We also 
amended Sec.  307.11(c)(3)(ii) to provide that funds must be returned 
to a noncustodial parent's financial account, within 5 business days 
after the agency determines that SSI payments or concurrent SSI 
payments and SSDI benefits under title II of the Act, have been 
inappropriately garnished. Responding to comments, we increased the 
timeframe from 2 days in the NPRM to 5 business days.

Topic 2: Updates To Account for Advances in Technology (Sec. Sec.  
301.1, 301.13, 302.33, 302.34, 302.50, 302.65, 302.70, 302.85, 303.2, 
303.5, 303.11, 303.31, 304.21, 304.40, 305.64, 305.66, and 307.5)

    In this final rule, the revisions remove barriers to using 
electronic communication and document management. Throughout the 
regulation, where appropriate, we removed the words ``written'' and 
``in writing'' and insert ``record'' or ``in a record.'' These simple 
changes will allow OCSE, States, and others the flexibility to use 
cost-saving and efficient technologies, such as email or electronic 
document storage, wherever possible. The revisions to the regulation do 
not require a State to use electronic records for the specified 
purpose, but instead provide a State with the option to use electronic 
records, in accordance with State laws and procedures.
    The definition of ``record'' used in this final regulation is taken 
from the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) 2008, section 
102(20). The

[[Page 93501]]

UIFSA drafters adopted the definition from another uniform law, the 
Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (1999). ```Record' means 
information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in 
an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.'' 
The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act describes this definition 
further:

    This is a standard definition designed to embrace all means of 
communicating or storing information except human memory. It 
includes any method for storing or communicating information, 
including ``writings.'' A record need not be indestructible or 
permanent, but the term does not include oral or other 
communications which are not stored or preserved by some means. 
Information that has not been retained other than through human 
memory does not qualify as a record. As in the case of the terms 
``writing'' or ``written,'' the term ``record'' does not establish 
the purposes, permitted uses or legal effect which a record may have 
under any particular provision of substantive law.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See comments to the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act 
(1999), section 2, Definitions, available at: https://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Electronic%20Transactions%20Act 
(quoting ABA Report on Use of the Term ``Record,'' October 1, 1996).

    Substituting the phrase ``in a record'' for ``in writing'' allows 
more flexibility for electronic options by preventing a record from 
being automatically denied legal effect or enforceability just because 
it is in an electronic format. In addition, the use of the word 
``record'' is designed to be technologically neutral; the word equates 
an electronic signature with a hand signature and an electronic 
document (whether scanned or created electronically) with a paper 
document. It neither means that electronic documents or electronic 
signatures will be required, nor will it affect any Federal 
requirements for what documents must contain to be valid or 
enforceable, such as a signature.
    We are aware that not everyone has access to the latest technology. 
For that reason, wherever individual members of the public are 
involved, we generally are not removing requirements that the 
information is provided in a written, paper format [i.e., pre-offset 
notices to obligors for Federal tax refund offset (Sec.  303.72(e)(1)]. 
In addition, we are not changing regulatory language where written 
formats are required by statute.
Section 301.1--General Definitions
    This final rule amends the definition of ``Procedures'' in Sec.  
301.1 by changing the phrase ``written set of instructions'' to 
``instructions in a record.'' This will allow instructions set forth 
under the State's child support plan to be made in an electronic form 
that is retrievable and perceivable within the meaning of the Uniform 
Electronic Transactions Act, and is not limited to a written format.
    In addition, we are inserting the definition for the term 
``record'' in this section. The use of the term ``record'' is broader 
than the term ``written'' and encompasses different ways of storing 
information, including, for example, in a written or an electronic 
document.
Section 301.13--Approval of State Plans and Amendments
    In the first sentence of the introductory paragraph of Sec.  
301.13, we replace the words ``written documents'' with the word 
``records.'' The intent of this change is to allow for electronic 
submission, transmission, and storage of the State child support plan. 
When a State submits a new State child support plan or plan 
amendment(s) electronically, it must ensure electronic signature(s) 
accompany the document(s).
    In paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, ``Prompt approval of the 
State plan'' and ``Prompt approval of plan amendments,'' respectively, 
we change the words ``a written agreement'' in both provisions to ``an 
agreement, which is reflected in a record.'' These changes will enable 
OCSE regional program offices to secure from IV-D agencies agreements 
to extend an approval deadline for either a State plan or State plan 
amendment(s) in an electronic record format. In addition, we are making 
a technical change to paragraph (f) to change ``Regional Commissioner'' 
to ``Regional Office'' for consistency with other references to the 
``Regional Office'' in this section.
Section 302.33--Services to Individuals Not Receiving Title IV-A 
Assistance
    In Sec.  302.33(d)(2), we change the phrase ``written methodology'' 
to ``methodology, which is reflected in a record.'' This change will 
afford a State record-keeping flexibility in maintaining the 
methodology developed for recovering standardized costs.
Section 302.34--Cooperative Arrangements
    The first sentence under Sec.  302.34 requires a State to enter 
into written agreements for cooperative arrangements under Sec.  
303.107 with appropriate courts, law enforcement officials, Indian 
tribes, or tribal organizations. The rule edits the phrase ``written 
agreements'' to read ``agreements, which are reflected in a record.'' 
This will ensure that any cooperative arrangements entered into by the 
IV-D agency can be maintained in a manner that is not limited to a 
written format. This amendment does not change any of the requirements 
for the document to be legally effective or enforceable, such as a 
signature.
Section 302.50--Assignment of Rights to Support
    In this final rule, we replace the word ``writing'' with the term 
``a record'' in Sec.  302.50(b)(2) so the State has greater flexibility 
in determining the format of the obligation amount, when there is no 
court or administrative order, and such amount is based on other legal 
process established under State law in accordance with State guidelines 
procedures.
Section 302.65--Withholding of Unemployment Compensation
    This rule amends Sec.  302.65(b) by changing the phrase ``a written 
agreement'' to ``an agreement, which is reflected in a record.'' 
Additionally, in paragraph (c)(3), we replaced the words ``written 
criteria'' with ``criteria, which are reflected in a record.'' These 
changes will establish that the agreements States develop with State 
workforce agencies (SWAs) and the criteria for selecting cases in which 
to pursue withholding of unemployment compensation are not limited to 
written agreements or written criteria. Again, these amendments do not 
impact any of the requirements for the documents to be legally 
effective or enforceable, such as a signature.
Section 302.70--Required State Laws
    Section 302.70(a)(5) describes the procedures for paternity 
establishment. In the final rule, paragraph (a)(5)(v) discusses 
requirements for objecting to genetic testing results and states that 
if no objection is made, a report of the test results, which is 
reflected in a record, is admissible as evidence of paternity without 
the need for foundation testimony or other proof of authenticity or 
accuracy. We are changing the phrase ``a written report of the test 
results'' to ``a report of the test results, which is reflected in a 
record'' to provide greater flexibility and efficiency in admitting 
evidence of paternity. Please note that in this same paragraph, we are 
not eliminating the phrase ``in writing'' in the requirement regarding 
the notice to parents about the consequences of acknowledging 
paternity, paragraph (a)(5)(iii), and the requirement that any 
objection to genetic testing results must be made in writing within a 
specified number of days before any hearing at which such results may 
be introduced into evidence, paragraph (a)(5)(v). In these instances, 
the phrase ``in writing'' is statutorily prescribed, according to

[[Page 93502]]

sections 466(a)(5)(C)(i) and 466(a)(5)(F)(ii) of the Act, respectively.
Section 302.85--Mandatory Computerized Support Enforcement System
    This section describes the basis for OCSE to grant State waivers in 
regard to the mandatory computerized support enforcement system. 
Section 302.85(b)(2)(ii) requires the State to provide assurances, 
which are reflected in a record, that steps will be taken to otherwise 
improve the State's IV-D program. This change provides a State the 
option of communicating with OCSE electronically, rather than only in 
writing, when providing the required assurances under this provision.
Section 303.2--Establishment of Cases and Maintenance of Case Records
    In this rule, Sec.  303.2(a)(2), requires the State IV-D agency to 
send an application to an individual within no more than 5 working days 
of a request received by telephone or in a record. We are replacing the 
phrase ``a written or telephone request'' with ``a request received by 
telephone or in a record,'' in order to allow for any requests for 
applications that are received by telephone or transmitted 
electronically, for example, by email or text message. In response to 
comments, we also changed the word ``made'' to ``received'' to clarify 
when the 5 working day timeframe begins.
    Under paragraph (a)(3), the rule changes the requirements for 
applications for IV-D services, to define an application as a record 
provided by the State which is signed, electronically or otherwise, by 
the individual applying for IV-D services. We are lifting the 
restriction that applications only be in a written or paper format, as 
well as allowing for electronic signature, by inserting the phrase 
``electronically or otherwise'' after the word ``signature.'' The 
acceptance of electronic signature is in accordance with PIQ 09-02,\4\ 
which allows States to use electronic signatures on applications, as 
long as it is allowable under State law. As noted in PIQ 09-02, the 
appropriateness of the use of electronic signatures must be carefully 
determined by States. In making this determination, States should 
consider the reliability of electronic signature technology and the 
risk of fraud and abuse, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ PIQ-09-02 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/use-of-electronic-signatures-on-applications-for-iv-d-services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 303.5--Establishment of Paternity
    Section 303.5(g)(6) requires the State to provide training, 
guidance, and instructions, which are reflected in a record, regarding 
voluntary acknowledgment of paternity to hospitals, birth record 
agencies, and other entities that participate in the State's voluntary 
acknowledgment program. The rule changes the phrase ``written 
instructions'' to ``instructions, which are reflected in a record'' to 
allow a State the flexibility to provide program instructions in 
electronic formats, in addition to, or in place of, written 
instructions.
Section 303.11--Case Closure Criteria
    Paragraph (d) describes the requirements for case closure 
notification and case reopening. Paragraph (d)(1) indicates that for 
cases meeting the case closure requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (10) and (b)(15) and (16) of this section, the State must 
notify service recipients in writing 60 calendar days prior to closure 
of the cases of the State's intent to close a case.
    In order to allow for greater efficiency and flexibility, paragraph 
(d)(2) allows electronic notification in the instance of 
intergovernmental IV-D case closure when the responding agency is 
communicating with the initiating agency.
    Paragraph (b)(4) states that for cases to be closed in accordance 
with paragraph (b)(13), the State must notify the recipient of 
services, in writing, 60 calendar days prior to closure of the case of 
the State's intent to close the case. In response to comments, we added 
the phrase ``in writing'' to clarify how the notices should be sent to 
the recipient.
    We are not changing the State's ``written'' notification 
requirements to the recipients of services because of our general 
approach not to remove requirements to provide formal notices for all 
applicants and recipients of services in writing. However, as discussed 
in response to comments under Sec.  303.11, Case Closure Criteria 
section in Topic I of this rule, we added paragraph (d)(6) for notices 
required under paragraphs (d)(1) and (4), if the recipient of services 
specifically authorizes consent for electronic notifications, the IV-D 
agency may elect to notify the recipient of services electronically of 
the State's intent to close the case. The IV-D agency is required to 
maintain documentation of the recipient's consent in the case record.
Section 303.31--Securing and Enforcing Medical Support Obligations
    We amend the introductory language in Sec.  303.31(b)(3) by 
changing the phrase ``written criteria'' to ``criteria, which are 
reflected in a record,'' so that criteria established to identify cases 
where there is a high potential for obtaining medical support can be 
either in an electronic or written format.
Section 304.21--Federal Financial Participation in the Costs of 
Cooperative Arrangements With Courts and Law Enforcement Officials
    This rule amends paragraph (a) of Sec.  304.21 by changing the 
words ``written agreement'' to ``agreement, which is reflected in a 
record,'' to provide flexibility in the format of the agreements 
between a State and courts or law enforcement officials.
Section 304.40--Repayment of Federal Funds by Installments
    Section 304.40(a)(2) requires a State to notify the OCSE Regional 
Office in a record of its intent to make installment repayments. We are 
changing the phrase ``in writing'' to ``in a record'' to give a State 
the option of notifying the Regional Office electronically of its 
intent to repay Federal funds in installments.
Section 305.64--Audit Procedures and State Comments
    In Sec.  305.64(c), we removed the phrase ``by certified mail'' 
from the second sentence of this paragraph since OCSE currently sends 
these reports electronically and by overnight mail. In this same 
paragraph, we change ``written comments'' to ``comments, which are 
reflected in a record,'' allowing IV-D agencies to submit comments on 
an interim audit report in an electronic format, if appropriate.
Section 305.66--Notice, Corrective Action Year, and Imposition of 
Penalty
    Paragraph Sec.  305.66(a) replaces ``in writing'' with ``in a 
record'' so that OCSE can notify the State that it is subject to a 
penalty in an electronic format, not just in a written format.
Section 307.5--Mandatory Computerized Support Enforcement Systems
    The rule amends paragraph (c)(3) of Sec.  307.5 by changing 
``written assurance'' to ``assurance, which is reflected in a record,'' 
so that a State can provide assurance in an electronic format, if it so 
chooses.

[[Page 93503]]

Topic 3: Technical Corrections (Sec. Sec.  301.15; 302.14; 302.15; 
302.32; 302.34; 302.65; 302.70; 302.85; 303.3; 303.7; 303.11; 304.10; 
304.12; 304.20; 304.21; 304.23; 304.25; 304.26; 305.35; 305.36; 305.63; 
308.2; 309.85; 309.115; 309.130; 309.145; and 309.160)

    We made a number of technical corrections that update, clarify, 
revise, or delete former regulations to ensure that the child support 
enforcement regulations are accurate, aligned, and up-to-date. In the 
NPRM, we proposed to update or replace obsolete references to 
administrative regulations by replacing 45 CFR part 74 with 45 CFR part 
92 throughout the child support regulations. However, an Interim Final 
Rule effective December 26, 2014 (79 FR 75871),\5\ issued jointly by 
OMB, HHS, and a number of Federal agencies, implements for all Federal 
award-making agencies the final guidance ``Uniform Administrative 
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal 
Awards'' (Uniform Guidance) published by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) on December 26, 2013. The Interim Final Rule is necessary 
in order to incorporate the Uniform Guidance into regulation at 45 CFR 
75 and thus bring into effect the Uniform Guidance as required by OMB. 
The Uniform Guidance in part 75 supersedes and streamlines requirements 
from several OMB circulars, including OMB Circulars A-87 and A-133 and 
applies to all HHS grantees, including State and Tribal child support 
programs funded under title IV-D of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Uniform Guidance interim final rule is available at: 
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-19/pdf/2014-28697.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, HHS issued an Interim Final Rule, effective January 
20, 2016 (81 FR 3004),\6\ that contains technical amendments to HHS 
regulations regarding the Uniform Guidance. The regulatory content 
updates cross-references within HHS regulations to replace part 74 with 
part 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Uniform Guidance HHS technical corrections are available 
at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-20/pdf/2015-32101.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, it is no longer necessary to make the proposed revisions 
and we will delete these proposed revisions in the final rule, except 
as otherwise noted.
Section 301.15--Grants
    This rule renames paragraph (a) as Financial reporting forms and 
deletes paragraph (a)(3). We are replacing paragraph (a)(1) Time and 
place and paragraph (a)(2) Description of forms with the title and 
description of Form OCSE-396 and Form OCSE-34, respectively. In 
response to comments, we eliminated the ``A'' from the forms OCSE-396A 
and Form OCSE-34A to reflect the current title of these forms.
    We are also renaming paragraph (b) Review as Submission, review, 
and approval and adding under paragraph (b) the following paragraphs: 
(b)(1) Manner of submission; (b)(2) Schedule of submission; and (b)(3) 
Review and approval. To provide a State more time to submit its 
financial reports, we are modifying the Schedule of submission 
paragraph to require the financial forms be submitted no later than 45 
days following the end of each fiscal quarter. Further revisions in 
this paragraph reflect the current operating procedures and processes 
that are currently in place.
    Additionally, we are revising paragraph (c) Grant award by deleting 
its former language and replacing it with three paragraphs (c)(1) Award 
documents; (c)(2) Award calculation; and (c)(3) Access to funds.
    Finally, we are also deleting paragraphs (d) Letter of credit 
payment system and redesignating paragraph (e) General administrative 
requirements as paragraph (d) and revising this paragraph to add a 
reference to part 95 of this title, establishing general administrative 
requirements for grant programs, moving ``with the following 
exceptions'' to the end of the paragraph, and adding paragraph levels: 
(1) 45 CFR 75.306, Cost sharing or matching; and (2) 45 CFR 75.341, 
Financial reporting.
    In the NPRM, we had incorrectly added reference to parts 74 and 95 
as exceptions. In this rule, we are correcting this paragraph by adding 
the reference to part 95 in paragraph (d) and indicating that this part 
establishes general administrative requirements for grants. We also 
moved the phrase ``with the following exceptions'' to the end of the 
paragraph to make it easier to understand.
    In paragraph (d), as discussed in the introductory paragraph of 
Topic 3 in this section, the rule deletes the proposed revision in the 
NPRM to reference part 92. However, we are updating the Interim Final 
Rule technical corrections discussed in the introductory paragraph of 
Topic 3 to add paragraph levels for the regulatory cites that are 
excluded. Specifically, we added ``(1)'' before 45 CFR 75.306, and 
added ``,'' before the title, Cost sharing or matching and added 
``(2)'' before 45 CFR 75.341 and added ``,'' before the title, 
Financial reporting.
Section 302.14--Fiscal Policies and Accountability
    As discussed in the introductory paragraph of Topic 3 in this 
section, we are deleting our proposed revision in the NPRM related to 
updating the reference to part 74 since this has been corrected. 
However, we are updating the reference in Sec.  302.14 from 45 CFR 75 
to 45 CFR 75.361 through 75.370 to specifically address the retention 
and custodial requirements for the fiscal records.
Section 302.15--Reports and Maintenance of Records
    For clarity, we are redesignating the undesignated concluding 
paragraph of this section as Sec.  302.15(a)(8). In paragraph (a)(8), 
as discussed in the introductory paragraph of Topic 3 in this section, 
we are deleting our proposed revision in the NPRM related to updating 
the reference to part 74 since this has been corrected. However, we are 
updating the reference in paragraph (8) from 45 CFR 75 to 45 CFR 75.361 
through 45 CFR 75.370 to specifically address the retention and 
custodial requirements of the records.
Section 302.32--Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments by the 
IV-D Agency
    In this final rule, we remove the outdated timeframes in the 
introductory paragraph. We also revise paragraph (b) to replace ``State 
Disbursement Unit (SDU)'' with ``SDU'' because the term was defined in 
paragraph (a). In response to comments, we replaced ``interstate'' with 
``intergovernmental'' and ``initiating State'' with ``initiating 
agency.'' Finally, we replace an incorrect cross-reference in paragraph 
(b)(1) from Sec.  303.7(c)(7)(iv) to Sec.  303.7(d)(6)(v).
Section 302.34--Cooperative Arrangements
    In the final rule we are clarifying that the term law enforcement 
officials includes ``district attorneys, attorneys general, and similar 
public attorneys and prosecutors,'' and adding ``corrections 
officials'' to the list of entities with which a State may enter into 
agreements for cooperative arrangements.
Section 302.65-- Withholding of Unemployment Compensation
    We replace the term ``State employment security agency'' with 
``State workforce agency,'' and the term ``SESA'' with ``SWA'' 
throughout this regulation for consistency with the terminology used by 
the Department of Labor.

[[Page 93504]]

Section 302.70--Required State Laws
    We are making a technical correction in paragraph (a)(8) by 
revising the cross-reference to Sec.  303.100(g).
Section 302.85--Mandatory Computerized Support Enforcement System
    We are making a technical correction in paragraph (a)(1) by 
removing an out-of-date address. To be more user-friendly, we are 
indicating that the guide is available on the OCSE Web site.
Section 303.3--Location of Noncustodial Parents in IV-D Cases
    In paragraph (b)(5), we are replacing the term ``State employment 
security'' with ``State workforce'' for consistency with revisions made 
elsewhere in the final rule.
Section 303.7--Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-D Cases
    Under this rule, as discussed under Topic 1, we renumber paragraphs 
in Sec.  303.11 and update the cross references in paragraph (d)(10).
    Additionally, we add paragraph (f), ``Imposition and reporting of 
annual $25 fee in interstate cases,'' to provide that the title IV-D 
agency in the initiating State must impose and report the annual $25 
fee in accordance with Sec.  302.33(e). This provision was added in the 
final rule related to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (73 FR 74898, 
dated December 9, 2008), but it had been inadvertently omitted in the 
final intergovernmental child support regulation, published in the 
Federal Register on July 2, 2010 and effective on January 3, 2011.
    Finally, we are making a conforming technical change to add Sec.  
302.38 to the list of regulatory sections cited related to the 
initiating State IV-D responsibilities to distribute and disburse any 
support collections received. This technical change was not proposed in 
the NPRM, but was recommended by a commenter.
Section 303.11--Case Closure
    We are making several technical changes to Sec.  303.11, in 
addition to the numerous changes discussed under topics 1 and 2 of the 
final rule. In redesignated paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(6)(ii), formerly 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3)(ii), respectively, we replace the outdated 
term ``putative father'' with the term ``alleged father.'' We also 
remove the word ``or'' at the end of the sentence in paragraph 
(b)(6)(ii) and add the word ``or'' to the end of the new paragraph 
(b)(6)(iii). Finally, in paragraph (e) we are updating our reference to 
45 CFR 75.361.
    As discussed earlier in the introductory paragraph of Topic 3 in 
this section, we are deleting our proposed revision in the NPRM related 
to updating the reference to part 74 since this has been corrected. 
However, we are updating the reference in paragraph (e) from 45 CFR 75 
to 45 CFR 75.361 to specifically address the 3-year retention 
requirements for records.
Section 304.10--General Administrative Requirements
    We are adding after 45 CFR 75.306 ``, Cost sharing or matching'' 
and after 45 CFR 75.341 ``, Financial reporting''.
    As discussed earlier in the introductory paragraph of Topic 3 in 
this section, we are deleting our proposed revision in the NPRM related 
to updating the reference to part 74 since this has been corrected. 
However, we are adding the titles for clarity for 45 CFR 75.306 through 
75.341.
Section 304.12--Incentive Payments
    In the final rule, we delete outdated paragraphs 304.12(c)(4) and 
(5) as they applied to fiscal years 1985, 1986, and 1987.
Section 304.20--Availability and Rate of Federal Financial 
Participation
    In Sec.  304.20(b)(1)(iii), we revised the language to allow FFP 
for the establishment of all necessary agreements with other Federal, 
State, and local agencies or private providers to carry out Child 
Support Enforcement program activities in accordance with Procurement 
Standards. Additionally, we deleted paragraphs (c) and (d), which apply 
to fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
    As discussed in the introductory paragraph of Topic 3 in this 
section, we are deleting our proposed revision in the NPRM related to 
updating the reference to part 74 since this has been corrected.
Section 304.21--Federal Financial Participation in the Costs of 
Cooperative Arrangements With Courts and Law Enforcement Officials
    We are clarifying in paragraph (a) that the term law enforcement 
officials includes ``corrections officials'' to be consistent with 
Sec.  302.34.
    Section 304.21(a)(1) lists activities for which FFP at the 
applicable matching rate is available in the costs of cooperative 
agreements with appropriate courts and law enforcement officials. We 
modified this section to include a reference to Sec.  304.20(b)(11), 
regarding medical support activities.
    In response to comments, we further revised Sec.  304.21(a)(1) to 
cross reference Sec.  304.20(b)(12) which allows FFP for education and 
outreach activities provided by the courts and law enforcement 
officials through cooperative agreements.
Section 304.23--Expenditures for Which Federal Financial Participation 
Is Not Available
    Section 304.23(a) lists various programs for which FFP is not 
available for administering these programs. We add the following Social 
Security Act programs to the list: Title IV-B, the Child Welfare 
Program; Title IV-E, the Foster Care Program; and Title XXI, the 
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). We also add SNAP, which is 
administered under 7 U.S.C. Chapter 51.
    In addition, we delete Sec.  304.23(g) of the former rule because 
it is outdated. Paragraph (h) is redesignated as (g).
Section 304.25--Treatment of Expenditures; Due Date
    In Sec.  304.25(b), we lengthen the timeframe from 30 to 45 days 
after the end of the quarter for States to submit quarterly statements 
of expenditures under Sec.  301.15.
    As discussed in the introductory paragraph of Topic 3 in this 
section, we are deleting our proposed revision in the NPRM related to 
updating the reference to part 74 since this has been corrected.
Section 304.26--Determination of Federal Share of Collections
    In this rule, Sec.  304.26(a)(1) clarifies that the Federal medical 
assistance percentage rate is 75 percent for the distribution of 
retained IV-A collection. This paragraph also adds that the Federal 
medical assistance percentage rate is 55 percent for the distribution 
of retained IV-E Foster Care Program collections for Puerto Rico, the 
Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa 
and 70 percent of retained IV-E collections for the District of 
Columbia. We also delete paragraphs (b) and (c) of the former rule 
related to incentive and hold harmless payments to be made from the 
Federal share of collections because this requirement is outdated.
Section 305.35--Reinvestment
    Section 305.35 requires State IV-D agencies to reinvest the amount 
of Federal incentive payments received into their child support 
programs. We are making several technical changes to this section.
    To clarify the potential consequences of a State not maintaining 
the baseline expenditure level, we are amending paragraph (d) by adding 
a sentence to

[[Page 93505]]

the end of the paragraph to read: ``Non-compliance will result in 
disallowances of incentive amounts equal to the amount of funds 
supplanted.''
    We redesignated paragraph (e) as paragraph (f) and added a new 
paragraph (e) to clarify how the State Current Spending Level should be 
calculated. Using the Form OCSE-396, ``Child Support Enforcement 
Program Financial Report,'' the State Current Spending Level will be 
calculated by determining the State Share of Total Expenditures Claimed 
for all four quarters of the fiscal year minus State Share of IV-D 
Administrative Expenditures Made Using Funds Received as Incentive 
Payments for all four quarters of the fiscal year, plus the Federal 
Parent Locator Service (FPLS) fees for all four quarters of the fiscal 
year.
    The equation for calculating the State Share of Total Expenditures 
Claimed is: Total Expenditures Claimed for the Current Quarter and the 
Prior Quarter Adjustments minus the Federal Share of Total Expenditures 
Claimed for the Current Quarter and Prior Quarter Adjustments. Using 
the Form OCSE-396, this equation can also be translated as: State Share 
of Expenditure = Line 7 (Columns A + C)-Line 7 (Columns B + D) for all 
four quarters of the fiscal year.
    The equation for calculating the State Share of IV-D Administrative 
Expenditures Made Using Funds Received as Incentive Payments is: IV-D 
Administrative Expenditures Made Using Funds Received as Incentive 
Payments for the Current Quarter and the Prior Quarter Adjustments 
minus the Federal Share of IV-D Administrative Expenditures Made Using 
Funds Received as Incentive Payments for the Current Quarter and Prior 
Quarter Adjustments. Using the Form OCSE-396, this equation can also be 
translated as: State Share of IV-D Administrative Expenditures Made 
Using Funds Received as Incentive Payments = Line 1a (Columns A + C)-
Line 1a (Columns B + D) for all four quarters of the fiscal year.
    The Fees for the Use of the FPLS can be computed by adding the FPLS 
fees claimed on the Form OCSE-396 for all four quarters of the fiscal 
year. Using the Form OCSE-396, this equation can also be translated as: 
Fees for the Use of the FPLS = Line 10 (Columns B) for all four 
quarters of the fiscal year.
Section 305.36--Incentive Phase-In
    While we did not propose changes to this section in the NPRM, in 
response to comments, we deleted this section in the final rule since 
it is outdated.
Section 305.63--Standards for Determining Substantial Compliance with 
IV-D Requirements
    Section 305.63(d) erroneously cross references paragraph (b). We 
replace that cross reference with a reference to paragraph (c).
Section 308.2--Required Program Compliance Criteria
    The term ``State employment security agency'' is removed wherever 
it appeared and is replaced by ``State workforce agency.'' In addition, 
in subparagraph (c)(3)(i), we capitalize Department of Motor Vehicles 
and use the section symbol for consistency.
Section 309.85--What records must a Tribe or Tribal organization agree 
to maintain in a Tribal IV-D Plan?
    As discussed in the introductory paragraph of Topic 3 in this 
section, we are deleting our proposed revision in the NPRM related to 
updating the reference to part 74 since this has been corrected.
Section 309.115--What procedures governing the distribution of child 
support must a Tribe or Tribal organization include in a Tribal IV-D 
Plan?
    We are making two technical changes, not originally proposed in the 
NPRM, by fixing the reference in paragraph (b)(2) from ``Sec.  9.120'' 
to ``Sec.  309.120'' and in paragraph (c)(2) from ``303.52'' to 
``302.52.''
Section 309.130--How will Tribal IV-D programs be funded and what forms 
are required?
    We update Sec.  309.130(b)(3) to reference Standard Form (SF) 425, 
``Federal Financial Report,'' which is the new OMB approved form. In 
response to comments, in paragraph (b)(4), we eliminated the ``A'' from 
Form OCSE-34A to reflect the current title of the form. Additionally, 
in paragraph (b)(4), to be consistent with revision to Sec.  
301.15(b)(2), we revise the submission requirements for the OCSE-34, 
``Quarterly Report of Collections,'' including extending the due date 
from 30 to 45 days from the end of the fiscal quarter.
    In paragraphs (d)(3) and (h), as discussed in the introductory 
paragraph of Topic 3 in this section, we are deleting our proposed 
revision in the NPRM related to updating the reference to part 74 since 
this has been corrected.
Section 309.145--What costs are allowable for Tribal IV-D programs 
carried out under 309.65(a) of this part?
    As discussed in the introductory paragraph of Topic 3 in this 
section, we are deleting our proposed revision in the NPRM related to 
updating the reference to part 74 since this has been corrected. 
However, because this paragraph addresses the Procurement Standards, 
for clarity we are updating our reference from 45 CFR 75 to specify 45 
CFR 75.326 through 75.340.
Section 309.160--How will OCSE determine if Tribal IV-D program funds 
are appropriately expended?
    As discussed in the introductory paragraph of Topic 3 in this 
section, we are deleting our proposed revision in the NPRM related to 
updating the reference to part 74 since this has been corrected. 
However, we are updating the reference to the audit requirements by 
adding ``, Subpart F--Audit Requirements under'' after 45 CFR part 75.

IV. Response to Comments

    We received 2,077 sets of comments from States, Tribes, and other 
interested individuals. We posted 2,017 sets of comments on 
www.regulations.gov; 60 sets of comments were not posted because they 
were either not related to the NPRM or contained personally 
identifiable information.
    Using a text analytic software technology, we were able to detect 
duplicate and near duplicate documents. Of the 2,077 set of comments, 
we identified 1,679 sets of comments that were received from either 
mass-mail campaigns (when commenters provided the same or similar 
responses from the members of the same organization) or were duplicate 
responses (when the same commenter submitted the same response more 
than once).
    The comments we received were from the following groups:
     34 State child support agencies;
     10 Tribes or Tribal organizations
     9 National or State child support organizations;
     6 judicial district offices;
     5 counties/local child support offices;
     2 judicial organizations;
     2 prosecuting attorney office or organization;
     50 organizations such as community-based, fatherhood, 
research, domestic violence, access to justice, parent, re-entry, court 
reform, and employment services organizations; and
     Remaining comments from private citizens representing 
custodial and

[[Page 93506]]

noncustodial parents, former child support workers, attorneys, a 
retired judge, etc.
    Although we had a range of comments on specific provisions, the 
NPRM was strongly supported by State agencies, court associations, 
advocacy groups, parent groups, and researchers, and reflected broad 
consensus in the field. In drafting the final rule, we closely reviewed 
the comments and made a number of adjustments to the final rule in 
response to comments.

DATES: 
    1. Comment: While many commenters appreciated OCSE's suggestion 
that the proposed effective date for Guidelines for setting child 
support awards (Sec.  302.56) coincides with the next quadrennial 
review, States whose quadrennial review will commence shortly after the 
rule is finalized will need time to conduct further analysis and 
research on implementation issues and potential system changes. They 
recommended an additional extension of one year. In other words, the 
guideline changes would be required to be in effect within one year 
after completion of the first quadrennial review of its guidelines that 
commences more than one year after the adoption of the final rule.
    Response: We agree with this suggestion and have made this change 
in the compliance date for Sec.  302.56.
    2. Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns regarding the length 
of time needed to implement the revisions in the final rule. A few 
commenters thought that one year would be adequate, while others 
believed that a 2-year effective date would be more reasonable period 
because of the significant changes in State law and policy, as well as 
numerous system changes will be needed. A few commenters believed that 
more than 2 years would be necessary to implement some of the 
revisions.
    Response: While we understand the complexity of implementing 
several of the revisions in the final rule, there are some revisions 
that can be implemented immediately upon issuance of this final rule. 
Also, many of the revisions are optional requirements, so the 
compliance dates can vary State by State as the child support agencies 
elects to implement the optional rules, or allow Federal financial 
participation (FFP) for additional allowable expenditures. As a result, 
we are varying the compliance dates for the various Federal 
requirements. Generally, the compliance date for the final rule will be 
within 60 days after publication. However, if State law revisions are 
needed, the compliance date will be the first day of the second 
calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session 
of the State legislature that begins after the effective date of the 
final rule.
    In response to comments, the final rule also revises the effective 
date for Establishment of support obligations (Sec.  303.4) and Review 
and adjustment of support order (Sec.  303.8) to allow States adequate 
time to incorporate the new rule requirements into the State's 
guidelines and order enforcement and modification procedures. For 
implementing the revisions under Sec.  302.56(a) through (g), Sec.  
303.4, and Sec.  303.8, the compliance date will be one year after 
completion of the first quadrennial review of its guidelines that 
commences more than one year after the adoption of the final rule.
    3. Comment: A few commenters thought they would need more than one 
year to implement the Case Closure (Sec.  303.11) because they need 
time to make legislative changes, substantial programming enhancements, 
and policy changes.
    Response: Because many of the changes for Case Closure are optional 
requirements, we have made the compliance date 60 days after enactment 
of the final rule. For the mandatory changes required under Sec.  
303.11(c) and (d), we have extended the compliance date for these 
provisions to be one year from date of issuance of the final rule. 
However, if State law changes are needed, then the compliance date will 
be the first day of the second calendar quarter beginning after the 
close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins 
after the effective date of the final rule.
    4. Comment: Several commenters requested that if States will no 
longer be held harmless from complying with the 2008 medical support 
final rules upon issuance of the final rule, the effective date for 
Sec.  303.31 should take this into consideration.
    Response: For the medical support provisions under Sec.  303.31, 
the compliance date for the new Sec.  303.31 provisions will be 60 days 
from the date of the final rule unless statutory changes are required. 
If State law revisions are needed, the compliance date is the first day 
of the second calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first 
regular session of the State legislature that begins after the 
effective date of the regulation. We believe that this is sufficient 
time for the States to implement the new revisions in Sec.  303.31. 
Upon issuance of this rule, OCSE will work with States in developing 
guidance related to the new rule requirements and AT-10-02.

Topic 1: Procedures To Promote Program Flexibility, Efficiency, and 
Modernization (Sec. Sec.  302.32; 302.33; 302.38; 302.56; 302.70; 
303.3; 303.4; 303.6; 303.8; 303.11 (Including Revisions to 42 CFR 
433.152); 303.31; 303.72; 303.100; 304.20; 304.23; and 307.11)

Section 302.32--Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments by the 
IV-D Agency
    1. Comment: A few commenters suggested that the ongoing issues and 
concerns raised by employers should be addressed through guidance and 
outreach to specific States rather than a proposed regulation, given 
that only a few States are noncompliant. Another commenter suggested 
that States and OCSE make additional efforts to educate parents, family 
law lawyers, and judges about the State Disbursement Unit (SDU) law.
    Response: Although this requirement has been a Federal law for 
almost two decades, issues persist. OCSE's Employer Services team has 
provided extensive technical assistance related to persistent 
noncompliance issues. Additionally, OCSE regularly holds employer 
symposia to bring together child support professionals and employers to 
identify issues of mutual concerns and work on ways to resolve these 
issues. In addition to providing continued outreach, technical 
assistance, and policy guidance to all stakeholders, we find it is 
necessary to regulate this requirement.
    2. Comment: One commenter suggested that SDUs be required to 
continue processing spousal support payments after their associated 
child support payments are released. The commenter indicated that under 
current practice, spousal payments are paid through the SDU when they 
are included with child support payments. Once the child support 
payment ends, the SDU ceases processing the spousal support payments. 
Having the SDU continue to process such spousal payments will ensure 
that there is no disruption in payments to the custodial parent. 
Another commenter requested that the final rule clarify that an Income 
Withholding Order (IWO) and/or payment through the SDU for maintenance-
only cases is not allowed.
    Response: In accordance with PIQ-11-01,\7\ if the child support 
portion of a support order that includes spousal

[[Page 93507]]

support ends, the IV-D case may continue to qualify for collection 
services at State option. If a State chooses to continue IV-D 
collection services for the spousal support portion of the support 
order, it may continue to collect spousal support through the income 
withholding process with receipt and disbursement of support 
collections through the SDU. However, we want to clarify that FFP for 
enforcement of spousal support-only cases beyond collection and 
disbursement of payments is not eligible for FFP under title IV-D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ PIQ-11-01 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/spousal-support-only-cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in accordance with Sec.  303.72(a)(3)(i), past-due 
spousal support is only eligible for Federal tax refund offset in cases 
where the parent is living with the child and the spousal support and 
child support obligations are included in the same support order. OCSE 
Action Transmittal (AT) 10-04 \8\ also indicates that past-due spousal 
support-only cases certified for any of the Federal collection and 
enforcement programs (i.e., Federal tax refund and administrative 
offset, passport denial, multistate financial institution data match, 
and insurance match) are only eligible when the parent is living with 
the child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ AT-10-04 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/collection-and-enforcement-of-past-due-child-support-obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For reporting purposes on the OCSE-157, Child Support Enforcement 
Annual Data Report, once the child is emancipated or otherwise no 
longer involved, the State has the option of whether or not to continue 
to collect spousal support through the income withholding process with 
receipt and disbursement of support collections for these spousal 
support only cases. States that opt to continue to collect spousal 
support through income withholding must report the income withholding 
collections received and disbursed on these spousal support-only cases 
for all lines that apply.
    3. Comment: One commenter suggested that OCSE mandate that non-IV-D 
families that seek to have child support payments processed through the 
SDU must sign up for limited payment processing-only services. This 
would enable States to assist these families and provide authorization 
for States to work the cases. In addition, this would strengthen the 
IV-D program overall by offering a broader service, collecting more 
support, and assisting more families in the way they request.
    Response: The final rule only allows the States the option to 
provide paternity-only limited services, and we decided not to include 
an option in this rule for families to sign up for limited payment 
processing-only services at this time due to complex administrative 
issues related to interstate cases.
    4. Comment: One commenter indicated that while IV-D programs, SDUs, 
and employers should not pass off their responsibilities for having 
order and location information by relying on parents for the 
information, they should be able to ask parents for information as a 
last resort.
    Response: There is no prohibition against a IV-D program asking 
parents for information to ensure the prompt disbursement of support 
payments.
    5. Comment: One commenter requested that OCSE revisit OCSE-PIQ-10-
01 \9\ to allow Federal financial participation (FFP) for non-employer-
processed payments on non-IV-D orders. The commenter believed that 
expanding the IV-D program to process other non-IV-D payments, not just 
income withholding cases, would be more efficient because the IV-D 
program would not have to obtain payment records from counties when a 
case moves from non-IV-D to IV-D status. In addition, directing the 
obligor to make payments to one location would likely lead to greater 
compliance with the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ PIQ-10-01 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/federal-financial-participation-and-non-iv-d-activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: OCSE appreciates this comment; however, under 45 CFR 
304.20(b), FFP is limited to services and activities under the approved 
title IV-D State plan which are determined by the Secretary to be 
necessary expenditures properly attributable to the IV-D program.
    6. Comment: One commenter suggested that Sec.  302.32(b)(1) be 
changed to replace ``interstate'' with ``intergovernmental'' and 
``State'' with ``agency.''
    Response: OCSE agrees, with the first suggested change, and revised 
Sec.  302.32(b)(1) by replacing the word ``interstate'' with the word 
``intergovernmental.'' Additionally, we have revised the term 
initiating State to initiating agency, since intergovernmental IV-D 
cases may be initiated by Tribal or foreign child support programs. 
However, we retained the phrase ``responding State,'' since only States 
are required to meet the 2 day timeframe for forwarding collections 
under paragraph (b)(1).
    7. Comment: One commenter asked about the IV-D procedure when the 
support payment has insufficient identifying information resulting in 
an undistributed and often unidentified collection until the case 
information is provided. Another commenter's State does not have a 
working interface with the court system, and wanted to know how the 
State can process payments if they do not have a copy of the order. An 
additional commenter indicated that direct referrals of non-IV-D child 
support orders to the IV-D agency would result in a large number of 
orders that cannot be registered until further identifying information 
is received from the parties or their attorneys.
    Response: We acknowledge that States sometimes need to hold support 
payments until they receive the needed case information. We encourage 
States to work with courts and attorneys to develop processes that 
ensure that complete case information is received expeditiously and 
support payments can be disbursed within statutory timeframes.
    In addition, sometimes it may be necessary to perform routine 
location services if the non-IV-D custodial parent has an invalid 
address and undistributable payments. As indicated in PIQ-10-01,\10\ 
Question and response 9, FFP is available for location services in non-
IV-D cases only if location services are used to locate the custodial 
parent for disbursement of a collection. FFP is not available for non-
IV-D cases if location services are used to establish and/or enforce a 
support order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ PIQ-10-01 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/federal-financial-participation-and-non-iv-d-activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 454B(b) of the Act requires that the ``State disbursement 
unit shall use automated procedures, electronic processes, and 
computer-driven technology . . . for the collection and disbursement of 
support payments. . . .'' This includes the use of automated location 
services to locate the custodial parent for prompt disbursement of 
support payments. IV-D agencies are not responsible for providing other 
services or taking enforcement actions in non-IV-D cases. In some 
instances, the State may have to go back to the party and request the 
information the State needs to disburse the support payments.
    8. Comment: One commenter asked if one-time costs incurred by the 
courts to permit the electronic exchange of non-IV-D information with 
the State case registry (e.g., through portal or interface) would be 
eligible for FFP.
    Response: Yes, FFP is available for the courts to provide 
information to the

[[Page 93508]]

SDU. OCSE-Action Transmittal (AT) 97-13 \11\ indicates that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ AT-97-13 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/collection-and-disbursement-of-support-payments.

    FFP . . . is available for the cost of establishing an automated 
interface with the non-IV-D systems to transmit data to the State 
CSE automated system. . . . The costs associated with establishing 
and maintaining the State Case Registry and the SDU, including the 
costs of maintaining non-IV-D support order records in the State 
case registry and necessary identification and [support] payment 
information in the State Disbursement Unit, are eligible for 
reimbursement at the applicable rate of FFP. FFP is available for 
the cost of converting non-IV-D case information (not payment 
records) necessary to process collections required to be paid 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
through the SDU.

    9. Comment: Two commenters asked if this provision will apply to 
all child support payments.
    Response: This provision applies to child support payments in all 
IV-D cases and in non-IV-D cases in which the support order is 
initially issued in the State on or after January 1, 1994, and in which 
the income of the noncustodial parent is subject to withholding in 
accordance with sections 454B, 454(27), and 466(a)(8)(B) of the Act.
    10. Comment: One commenter asked who is responsible for obtaining 
information on non-IV-D cases in a purely private matter.
    Response: It is the State's responsibility to secure the 
information needed to disburse support payments in non-IV-D cases.
    11. Comment: One commenter requested clarification about the term 
``maintenance.'' The commenter suggested that it should be very broad 
to include all actions and information gathering to ensure compliance.
    Response: The NPRM indicates that FFP is generally available for 
the submission and maintenance of data in the State Case Registry (SCR) 
with respect to non-IV-D support orders established or modified on or 
after October 1, 1998. Maintenance in this context refers to updating 
the support order information in the SCR as needed.
    PIQ-10-01 states that FFP is available for the costs of entering 
into the SCR the data elements listed in the regulations under Sec.  
307.11(e)(3) and (f)(1). Specifically, Sec.  307.11(e)(3) specifies the 
following data elements for each participant in the case: Name, social 
security number, date of birth, case identification number, other 
uniform identification number, data elements required under paragraph 
(f)(1) of this section necessary for the operation of the Federal case 
registry, issuing State of an order, and any other information that the 
Secretary may require. Section 307.11(f)(1) indicates the additional 
elements required for the Federal Case Registry, which include the 
following data elements: State Federal Information Processing Standard 
(FIPS) code and optionally county code; State case identification 
number; State member identification number; case type (IV-D, non-IV-D); 
social security number and any necessary alternative social security 
number; name including first, middle, and last name and any alternative 
name; sex (optional); date of birth; participant type (custodial party, 
noncustodial parent, putative father, child); family violence indicator 
(domestic violence or child abuse); indication of an order; locate 
request type (optional); locate source (optional); and any other 
information that the Secretary may require.
    FFP is available for the State child support agency to update 
address changes as reported by the non-IV-D custodial parent and 
noncustodial parent to ensure prompt disbursement of support payments.
    12. Comment: One commenter stated that this provision does not 
address Tribal use of their own income withholding form, as Tribal 
entities without a IV-D program do not currently use the OMB-approved 
Income Withholding for Support form, and Tribal employers do not 
consistently honor the Federal form.
    Response: While the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) 
compels an employer subject to State jurisdiction to honor an income 
withholding order sent directly from another State or an Indian Tribe, 
Tribes are not subject to UIFSA. However, the Full Faith and Credit for 
Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), 28 U.S.C. 1738B, requires Tribes to 
enforce child support orders made by a court or administrative agency 
that had appropriate jurisdiction and afforded the parties a reasonable 
opportunity to be heard. This would include enforcement of orders 
providing for income withholding.
    The regulation at Sec.  309.110(d) of this chapter states that the 
income withholding must be carried out in compliance with the 
procedural due process requirements established by the Tribe or Tribal 
organization. Accordingly, Tribes may conduct preliminary reviews of 
foreign orders to ensure that the court or administrative authority 
properly entered the order, but such processing of orders must be done 
expeditiously to ensure that orders are promptly served on employers 
within the Tribe's jurisdiction in accordance with the regulations at 
Sec.  309.110(n). In accordance with Sec.  309.110(j), the only basis 
for contesting a withholding order is a mistake of fact, which means an 
error in the amount of current or overdue support or in the identity of 
the alleged noncustodial parent.
    While the regulations do not require Tribes to have laws and 
procedures which mandate that employers subject to the Tribe's 
jurisdiction must honor direct income withholding orders from another 
State or Tribe, a Tribe may choose to permit direct withholding as a 
matter of administrative efficiency or comity between the Tribe and 
other Tribes and States.
    As indicated in PIQT-05-04,\12\ Tribes that do not receive funding 
to operate IV-D programs are not required to use or recognize the OMB-
approved Income Withholding for Support form. However, the Tribal child 
support regulation at Sec.  309.110(l) requires Tribes that receive 
Federal funding to operate IV-D programs to use and recognize the OMB-
approved form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ PIQT-05-04 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/state-iv-d-agencies-use-of-federal-income-withholding-form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Comment: One commenter was concerned that the proposed 
provision does not sufficiently incorporate Tribal IV-D programs into 
the calculus. While a case and its corresponding child support order 
that was entered in the State courts may be a non-IV-D case for the 
State, this same case may be a IV-D case in the Tribal IV-D caseload. 
The Tribal IV-D agency may have served the employer with an income 
withholding for support order and directed the employer to send 
payments to the Tribe. The commenter suggested that the rule be 
broadened to acknowledge the appropriateness of employers sending 
payments to Tribal IV-D agencies or Tribal SDUs; otherwise State IV-D 
agencies may resist transferring such cases and/or support orders to 
Tribal IV-D agencies.
    Response: This issue arises when a Tribe is enforcing an underlying 
State child support order. In those instances, the IWO issued by the 
Tribe often incorrectly indicates that remittance should be made to the 
Tribe instead of to the SDU of the order-issuing State, in accordance 
with Sec.  309.115(d). The instructions for the OMB-approved IWO form, 
however, may cause confusion by referring generically to the ``order.'' 
The instructions read: ``Payments are forwarded to the SDU in each 
State, unless the order was issued by a Tribal CSE agency. If the order 
was issued by a Tribal CSE agency, the employer/income withholder must 
follow the

[[Page 93509]]

remittance instructions on the form.'' The term ``order'' in these 
instructions refers to the underlying State support order and not the 
tribal IWO. Tribes have interpreted these instructions, however, as 
meaning that payment is to be remitted to the Tribe.
    Because the IWO is an OMB-approved form, OCSE will consider 
reviewing these issues further and clarifying the form and instructions 
to the form in future revisions. In addition, we will continue to 
provide technical assistance to Tribes so that the remittance section 
of the IWO form is completed correctly and in accordance with existing 
regulations.
    14. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposal to require 
States to distribute non-IV-D payments the same as IV-D payments fails 
to address the impact of this policy on the Federal performance 
measures by which the States derive incentive payments. The commenter 
noted that this requirement diverts State resources to process and 
collect non-IV-D payments that do not affect the State's overall 
performance, and detracts from work on IV-D cases.
    Response: The requirement for SDUs to process non-IV-D income 
withholding collections is required by title IV-D of the Act as amended 
by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 
of 1996. In addition, the performance incentive measures were mandated 
by the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998. Since the 
definition of the performance measures are a statutory requirement, 
OCSE does not have authority to revise how these measures are 
calculated.
    15. Comment: One commenter noted that in his State, the county 
clerks are allowed to implement and manage their own case management 
and e-filing systems. There is neither statewide authority nor any law 
that creates a centralized authority that could mandate that a 
particular system or system requirements are put in place for 
implementing this requirement. Because of this, there is no standard 
process to digitally and automatically transmit case information on 
non-IV-D domestic cases to the IV-D agency. Another commenter asserted 
that, in her State, local child support agencies are not privy to 
information on the establishment of non-IV-D court orders and such 
information is not entered into the State's automated child support 
enforcement system.
    Response: The requirement that support payments made through income 
withholding on non-IV-D cases be processed through the SDU has been in 
place for over 20 years. It is important that States work with courts 
to set up processes that are efficient and that States follow Federal 
income withholding and SDU requirements. Over the years OCSE has 
provided technical assistance to States and will continue to do so upon 
request.
Section 302.33--Services to Individuals Not Receiving Title IV-A 
Assistance Former Child Welfare Recipients: Sec.  302.33(a)(4)
    1. Comment: One commenter urged OCSE to clarify that, when a State 
has opted to implement the limited services option authorized in Sec.  
302.33(a)(6), the notice to former recipients of State assistance under 
Sec.  302.33(a)(4) shall include information about the family's option 
of seeking limited services rather than the binary option of continuing 
full services or closing the case.
    Response: In the final rule, paternity establishment is the only 
limited service available to individuals receiving child support 
services. States may include this option in their notice, but it is not 
required.
    2. Comment: One commenter stated that further language may be 
needed to determine if this flexibility applies to both Federal and 
State foster care scenarios. In addition, the commenter noted that 
closing foster care cases with arrears owed to the State may result in 
unintended negative consequences if the cases are later reopened with 
arrears balances and interest still owing (if applicable).
    Response: The Federal government does not have authority to 
regulate the State-funded foster care program (other than to define 
child support family distribution requirements under section 457 of the 
Act.) Therefore, this regulation applies to federally-funded foster 
care cases. However, States have discretion to apply this language to 
State-funded foster care cases as well. If there is no longer a current 
support order and arrearages are under $500 or unenforceable under 
State law, the State may close the case pursuant to 45 CFR 
303.11(b)(1). If there is no longer a current support order and all 
arrearages in the case are assigned to the State, the case may be 
closed pursuant to 45 CFR 303.11(b)(2). Additionally, for arrears 
assigned to the State, the State has the authority to compromise the 
arrearages. It is the State, and not the Federal government, that has 
the authority to compromise the arrearages since the State has the 
financial interest in the money.
    3. Comment: One commenter asked if the State is still required to 
collect assigned child support when a child is no longer eligible for 
IV-E foster care services and the IV-D agency determines closure is 
appropriate. The commenter indicated that it would reduce strain on a 
newly reunified family if the State could stop collecting the assigned 
arrears.
    Response: In this situation, the case has been referred by the IV-E 
agency and can be closed in accordance with Sec.  303.11(b)(20) if the 
IV-D agency determines that it is inappropriate to continue to enforce 
the order.
    4. Comment: According to one commenter, the wording of the 
provision suggests that if both the custodial parent and the 
noncustodial parent owe arrears to the State foster care agency 
pursuant to a valid support order, and then the child is returned to 
the custodial parent's home, enforcement would discontinue against the 
custodial parent, but not the noncustodial parent.
    Response: In this scenario, there are two orders, one for the 
custodial parent, who was referred to the IV-D agency when the child 
was removed from the home, and one for the noncustodial parent. For the 
custodial parent that was referred and to whom the child is being 
returned, the IV-D agency can close the case pursuant to Sec.  
303.11(b)(20) of this chapter once the parent resumes custody of the 
child. For the noncustodial parent, the case should remain open if 
there is an order for current support and arrearages.
    5. Comment: One commenter asked that consideration also be given to 
allowing States to close cases instead of continuing services to former 
Medicaid-only cases in which the IV-D agency determines that continued 
services would be inappropriate.
    Response: OCSE appreciates this comment; however, we need to gather 
additional information before proposing this change.
    6. Comment: One commenter recommended that OCSE clarify how States 
determine whether child support services continue to be appropriate for 
the family once the child is no longer eligible for foster care. 
Specifically, the commenter suggested additional language that would 
permit States to establish in regulation, rule, or procedure a category 
of cases that, based on criteria chosen by the IV-D agency, would not 
be appropriate for continued services.
    Response: States have discretion to establish criteria for 
determining when continued services and notice are not appropriate.
Limited Services: Sec.  302.33(a)(6)
    1. Comment: We received a substantial amount of feedback

[[Page 93510]]

regarding the concept of limited services. Most of the commenters 
expressed support for offering limited services to applicants. A number 
of commenters indicated that allowing parents to have more ability to 
select the services they need would make the child support program more 
family-friendly and increase program efficiency. In particular, 
commenters identified the need to offer paternity establishment as a 
limited service. However, commenters also raised various implementation 
concerns about limited services, including challenges in the context of 
intergovernmental cases, the range and types of limited services 
options offered, the need for domestic violence safeguards, system 
programming needs, and reporting and performance issues. With regard to 
offering limited services in interstate cases, commenters raised issues 
such as difficulty in tracking which limited services are offered by 
each State and the ability of a responding State to accommodate an 
intergovernmental limited services request. Some commenters were also 
confused regarding which types of limited enforcement services would be 
offered and how competing limited enforcement services requests between 
parties would be handled.
    Response: We are persuaded that the potential intergovernmental 
challenges involved with implementing a menu of limited enforcement 
services warrants rolling back the scope of the option proposed in the 
NPRM. We decided to move forward by only giving States the option to 
offer paternity establishment as a limited service in an intrastate 
case. In response to these and other concerns addressed above by 
commenters, we amended Sec.  302.33(a)(6). This paragraph indicates 
that the State may elect in its State plan to allow an individual under 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section who files an application to request 
paternity-only limited services in an intrastate case. If the State 
chooses this option, the State must define how this process will be 
implemented and must establish and use procedures, including domestic 
violence safeguards, which are reflected in a record, that specify when 
paternity-only limited services will be available. An application will 
be considered full-service unless the parent specifically applies for 
paternity-only limited services in accordance with the State's 
procedures. If one parent specifically requests paternity-only limited 
services and the other parent in the State requests full services, the 
case will automatically receive full services. The State will be 
required to charge the application and service fees required under 
paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section for paternity-only limited 
services cases, and may recover costs in accordance with paragraph (d) 
of this section if the State has chosen this option in its State plan. 
The State must provide the applicant an application form with 
information on the availability of paternity-only limited services, 
consequences of selecting this limited service, and an explanation that 
the case will be closed when the limited service is completed.
    2. Comment: Commenters raised concerns regarding what would happen 
if an applicant in an intrastate case applied for and was receiving 
limited services and one of the parties later moved out of state and 
that State did not include the option to provide limited services in 
its State plan.
    Response: As noted above, in response to comments we narrowed the 
scope of limited services to paternity establishment services only and 
only in intrastate cases. Therefore, if, during the course of providing 
paternity-only limited services, one of the parties moves out of state, 
the State may pursue paternity establishment using long-arm \13\ 
procedures. If this is not appropriate, then the State should contact 
the applicant to determine whether to pursue a full-services 
intergovernmental case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Long-arm'' refers to State laws that allow the State to 
exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant in 
situations when the defendant has had sufficient minimum contacts 
with the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Comment: One commenter noted that the language in paragraph 
(a)(6) reads as if the option of limited services is available only to 
nonpublic assistance recipients, i.e., those eligible under paragraph 
(a)(1)(i). The commenter asked for clarification regarding whether the 
intent of this language is to disallow the option of limited services 
to former Medicaid, former TANF, and/or former IV-E foster care 
recipients.
    Response: After reviewing the regulatory text, we think that it is 
clear that the intent of this provision to allow those individuals 
under Sec.  302.33(a)(1)(i) who file an application for IV-D services 
to request and receive paternity-only limited services. Further, 
paternity-only limited services are restricted to intrastate cases 
only. An individual who has been receiving IV-D services and is no 
longer eligible for assistance under title IV-A, IV-E foster care, or 
Medicaid programs and has not had paternity established while his/her 
case was open under paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) or (iii), may choose to close 
his/her existing case once he/she is no longer receiving public 
assistance and may submit a new application under paragraph (a)(1)(i) 
for paternity-only limited services, along with any applicable fees.
    4. Comment: A few commenters opposed the inclusion of paternity-
only limited services in the provision because applicants may simply 
request closure of their case with the State child support agency after 
genetic testing results are provided. Another commenter felt that 
paternity-only services should not be offered because, if a support 
order is not obtained, we are neglecting one of the key tenants of our 
mission statement to obtain meaningful support for the child. This 
commenter also noted that establishing the support order at the time 
paternity is determined will likely result in more accurate income 
information and less default orders, as initial cooperation has already 
been gained from the noncustodial parent.
    Response: We disagree with the comments that paternity-only 
services should not be offered because of the possibility of case 
closure. While some State child support agencies may currently have 
policies that allow applicants to request closure of their case after 
obtaining genetic testing results, other State child support agencies' 
policies do not allow the applicants to request closure of their cases 
until after an order for paternity and support has been legally 
established or determination made that paternity cannot be established. 
The addition of this rule provides all States with the authority to 
allow either the custodial or the noncustodial parent to request 
paternity-only services without also requiring the establishment of an 
order for support, thus giving States increased flexibility to be 
responsive to a family's specific circumstances.
    We also disagree with the notion that paternity-only services 
should not be offered in cases where there is to be no support order 
established. While we acknowledge that establishing a child support 
order at the time paternity is determined may result in more accurate 
income information and less default orders, provided that there is 
continued cooperation from the noncustodial parent, there are benefits 
to paternity determination even if a support order is not established. 
A key component of encouraging responsible parenting is accomplished 
through the establishment of paternity for a child. Whether or not an 
unwed biological father is currently living with the biological mother 
and children in an intact household, he has no legal standing as the 
children's father unless paternity is legally established.

[[Page 93511]]

Establishing paternity also serves to clarify the birth record of the 
child and establishes possible eligibility for dependents' benefits--
all without subjecting the intact family unit to an unwanted and 
unnecessary order for child support.
    5. Comment: In regard to the requirement under paragraph (a)(6) 
that a case will automatically receive full services in the event that 
one parent specifically requests paternity-only limited services and 
the other parent requests full services, one commenter asked who, in 
this instance, would be the applicant and who could close the case or 
request a change in services. Another commenter asked whether a new 
case would be opened when a request is made to change from limited 
services to full services, or if the existing case would instead be 
modified.
    Response: If a State chooses to offer a paternity-only limited 
services option, the State must define how this process will be 
implemented. The State must establish and follow policy and procedures 
regarding appropriate case management protocol when applications from 
both parties are received with differing requests for services or when 
a case is moving from paternity-only limited services to a full 
services case.
    6. Comment: Several commenters requested clarification regarding 
how an application for full services should be handled when received 
after a case was previously opened for limited services only. Questions 
were posed such as: Would a new application be required? Would an 
additional full application fee be required or would it be a reduced 
fee for the subsequent application? Does this decision change if it is 
the same parent now requesting full services versus if it is the other 
parent making the subsequent request?
    Response: As we indicated above in the discussion of how States 
should handle competing applications received from both parties in a 
case, it is up to each State child support agency to determine specific 
paternity-only limited services policy and procedures. Although a full 
new application may not be necessary, States are encouraged to require 
some type of written documentation (for example, an addendum to the 
original application) when a subsequent request is made to change a 
case previously opened for paternity-only limited services to a full-
services case.
    7. Comment: One commenter voiced concern that the changing of an 
applicant's limited services selection may cause disruption in the 
streamlined delivery of services, causing delays and increased staff 
time. For example, if paternity-only limited services were requested 
and the applicant later requests full services before the paternity 
establishment process has been completed, the State child support 
agency would be required to amend, re-serve, and refile the summons and 
complaint to include the establishment of child support. Several 
commenters expressed concern over potential system programming 
difficulty and costs associated with offering limited services, stating 
that system changes may be problematic for State child support agencies 
with older systems and may require longer than one year to complete. 
Finally, one commenter noted that, as current statutes and procedures 
are designed around a full-service approach to establishment and 
enforcement, it will be necessary for States to review their current 
laws to determine if a limited services option can be provided within 
existing judicial framework or whether statutory changes may be 
required to accommodate a limited services option.
    Response: If a State chooses to offer paternity-only limited 
services as an option, that State has the ability to make provisions in 
its policies and procedures regarding how to address changes that 
applicants make in service selections. Additionally, if a State chooses 
to offer this option, the State has flexibility in how and when to 
implement the changes. In this rule, OCSE has not mandated if, how, or 
when States should upgrade the functionality of their automated child 
support enforcement systems to accommodate a paternity-only limited 
services option. As indicated in the preamble to the NPRM, as States 
modernize their statewide automated systems, it will be easier to 
implement and manage paternity-only limited services in their 
caseloads, and at the same time will provide States additional 
flexibility to offer child support services that meet the needs of 
modern families. Finally, as State child support programs continue to 
evolve to provide services that are tailored to meet the needs of 
modern families, OCSE will continue to provide outreach and technical 
assistance on an individual basis to States needing support with the 
passage and implementation of necessary statutory changes.
    8. Comment: One commenter was concerned that if a father applies 
for paternity-only limited services and the mother does not want to 
cooperate, there would be nothing further a State could do to compel 
her to comply and thus the State could never close the case since the 
paternity-only limited service will not have been completed.
    Response: We disagree. It is common practice for State child 
support agencies to file a judicial motion requesting the court's 
assistance when a custodial parent refuses to cooperate with the 
paternity establishment process. A court order requiring the custodial 
parent to cooperate with genetic testing may then be issued, and 
contempt of court sanctions are possible if the custodial parent 
continues to be noncompliant. However, prior to taking the above 
actions, we encourage State child support agencies to work with 
custodial parents to explain the benefits of having paternity 
established for their children, unless there is good cause for refusal 
to cooperate, such as domestic violence, as discussed later in this 
section (see Comment/Response 12).
    9. Comment: One commenter suggested that a pamphlet or some other 
document accompany child support applications to provide information on 
the paternity-only limited services option. The commenter felt that 
providing this information on a separate but accompanying document 
would be more effective than if it were to appear in the application 
itself.
    Response: States electing to provide paternity-only services are 
required under Sec.  302.33(a)(6) to provide applicants with 
information on the availability of paternity-only limited services, the 
consequences of selecting this limited service, and an explanation that 
the case will be closed when the limited service is completed. 
Providing information on the application about paternity-only limited 
services is necessary to document that the applicant has obtained this 
information and requested this service. However, a State may supplement 
the information on the application with a brochure, pamphlet, or any 
other type of document that the applicant could maintain if the State 
believes that this is a better way to convey the information.
    10. Comment: One State inquired whether Federal financial 
participation (FFP) will be available for States to make the necessary 
system changes to support the implementation of limited services.
    Response: Yes. As outlined in 45 CFR 307.35, FFP at the applicable 
matching rate is available for computerized support enforcement system 
expenditures related to, among other things, system enhancements 
related to the establishment of paternity. Section 304.20 of this final 
rule also clarifies that FFP is available for necessary and reasonable 
expenditures properly

[[Page 93512]]

attributed to the Child Support Enforcement program for services and 
activities to carry out the title IV-D State plan, including obtaining 
child support, locating noncustodial parents, and establishing 
paternity.
    11. Comment: There were a number of comments from States expressing 
concern over how limited services would affect reporting requirements 
and performance measures. More specifically, questions were raised 
regarding how paternity-only cases may impact the order establishment 
performance measure and whether paternity-only cases will be excluded 
from the case count for the total number of ``Cases Open at the End of 
the Fiscal Year'' denominator for that measure.
    Response: We recognize that reporting changes on the OCSE-157 
report may be necessary to accommodate the addition of a paternity-only 
limited services option so that these cases do not negatively impact 
the support order establishment performance measure. OCSE will work to 
implement the necessary changes to the form after this rule is 
published as final.
    12. Comment: Several commenters expressed the need for sound 
domestic violence safeguards when offering limited services. One 
commenter specifically suggested that language be added to the 
regulation requiring the inclusion of domestic violence safeguards when 
States establish procedures for paternity-only limited services. One 
commenter raised the possibility that a parent could be pressured or 
coerced by the other parent into pursuing paternity-only limited 
services but no support order so that there would be no responsibility 
for supporting the child. Another commenter felt that offering 
paternity-only limited services may be a barrier that keeps a custodial 
parent and child in an abusive relationship, requiring the custodial 
parent to take some later affirmative step in requesting and obtaining 
a support order and thus potentially provoking his or her abuser. Other 
commenters recommended that OCSE work with domestic violence experts to 
develop procedures and training resources, and that State child support 
agencies be required to assess domestic violence status multiple times 
throughout the life of a case versus the current practice, which 
typically occurs only at the beginning of a case. A few commenters 
recommended practices that child support workers could take to mitigate 
potential domestic violence issues. One commenter asked whether there 
are good cause procedures that would be applicable in nonpublic 
assistance cases. For example, if a noncustodial parent requests 
paternity-only services but the custodial parent does not wish to 
comply due to domestic violence concerns, and it is a nonpublic 
assistance case, would the State child support agency then be 
responsible for determining if the paternity-only limited service 
should be denied?
    Response: OCSE appreciates commenters' concern for the safety of 
domestic violence victims. We encourage States to consider developing 
domestic violence safeguards throughout every step in case processing. 
In response to these specific comments, we amended the final regulation 
at Sec.  302.33(a)(6) to require that States include domestic violence 
safeguards when establishing and using limited services processes and 
procedures. As discussed in the preamble to the NPRM, OCSE is acutely 
aware of the risk of domestic violence in the general operation of the 
child support program and, in particular, as it relates to this limited 
services provision. Supporting families who have experienced domestic 
violence is essential to a successful child support program. All State 
child support agencies are required, under Sec.  303.21(e), to 
establish domestic violence safeguards pertaining to the disclosure of 
information and these procedures must be followed for paternity-only 
limited services cases, as well. In addition, IM-14-03 \14\ provides an 
array of resources and tools child support programs can use to help 
victims safely and confidentially obtain child support services. It 
includes training tools for child support professionals, emphasizes the 
critical role of confidentiality, and describes existing domestic 
violence resources for parents, child support professionals, and the 
courts. The IM also outlines the importance of, and opportunities for, 
collaboration with domestic violence programs and coalitions as a means 
to improve the safe, efficient delivery of child support services. 
Child support establishment and enforcement can heighten the risk of 
domestic violence.\15\ OCSE coordinates closely with ACF's Family and 
Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) to support implementation of recognized 
domestic violence protocols in child support programs and to conduct 
training and technical assistance. OCSE is committed to continuing to 
work with FYSB, States, and advocates to ensure that best practices are 
in place to safeguard the families we serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/ocse-domestic-violence-awareness-month.
    \15\ Pearson, Jessica and Esther Ann Griswold, ``Child Support 
Policies and Domestic Violence,'' Public Welfare, (Winter 1997), 
preview available at: https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-19354300/child-support-policies-and-domestic-violence; and Pearson, Jessica 
and Esther Ann Griswold, Child Support Policies And Domestic 
Violence: A Preliminary Look at Client Experiences with Good Cause 
Exemptions to Child Support Cooperation Requirements, prepared under 
a grant from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (Grant 
No. 90-FF-0027) to the Colorado Department of Human Services for the 
Model Office Project, Center for Policy Research, January 1997, 
available at: https://childsupport.state.co.us/siteuser/do/vfs/Read?file=/cm:Publications/cm:Reports/cm:Model_x0020_Office_x0020_Project_x0020_Grant/cm:Child_x0020_support_x0020_policies_x0020_and_x0020_dv.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By identifying and responding effectively to domestic violence, 
providing safe opportunities to disclose domestic violence, and 
developing safe and confidential responses to domestic violence, child 
support programs can put the safety of families and program staff at 
the forefront of child support work. There are a number of points of 
heightened domestic violence risks during the establishment and 
enforcement process, and States should be providing domestic violence 
safeguards throughout the process. We encourage States to work with 
their local domestic violence programs and coalitions to establish 
appropriate safeguards. It is the responsibility of each State to 
ensure that their domestic violence provisions are adequate for both 
paternity-only limited services and full services application requests.
    Historically, the custodial parent has typically been the applicant 
for State child support services. However, in providing an avenue for 
fathers to establish paternity for their child, we recognize that the 
potential exists for a noncustodial father to apply for paternity-only 
limited services without the cooperation or consent of the custodial 
parent mother due to domestic violence concerns. Clearly, it is never 
OCSE's intent to create a dangerous situation for a parent who is a 
victim of domestic violence. Although Federal law is silent on this 
specific scenario, there is nothing in Federal statute or regulation 
that would preclude States from developing additional policies and 
procedures to address the safety needs of custodial parents in non-
public assistance cases who are found to have good cause for refusing 
to cooperate with the State child support agency in establishing 
paternity, or for whom the State child support agency determines it is 
against the best interest of the child to pursue paternity issues. 
Under section 454(29) of the Act, it is up to each State to define the 
criteria for ``good cause'' and to choose which

[[Page 93513]]

agency will determine if the good cause exception is warranted. Section 
303.11(b)(14) provides that a good cause determination can be made by 
either the IV-A, IV-D, IV-E, Medicaid or SNAP agency. Section 
305.2(a)(1) reiterates this, declaring that the count of children in 
establishing paternity performance levels shall not include ``. . . any 
child whose parent is found to have good cause for refusing to 
cooperate with the State agency in establishing paternity, or for whom 
the State agency determines it is against the best interest of the 
child to pursue paternity issues.'' Lastly, Sec.  302.31(b) and (c) 
mandate that the State child support agency suspend all activities to 
establish paternity or secure support until notified of a final 
determination by the appropriate agency, and will not undertake to 
establish paternity or secure support in any case for which it receives 
notice that there has been a finding of good cause unless there has 
been a determination that support enforcement may safely proceed 
without the participation of the caretaker or other relative.
Section 302.38--Payments to the Family
    1. Comment: One commenter stated that by preventing assignments to 
attorneys, we could limit custodial parents' ability to find legal 
representation. Another commenter stated that the NPRM as written 
appears to prohibit the disbursement of payments to anyone other than 
the payee. Several commenters suggested that the provision be changed 
so that disbursements to a third party, such as a private attorney or 
conservator representing custodial parents in child support collection 
actions or relatives or guardians, are authorized at the request of the 
custodial parent. Another commenter stated that States should retain 
the right to send payments to a conservator or private attorney 
representing the custodial parent and child with a legal fiduciary duty 
to act in the child's best interest.
    Response: OCSE agrees that States should retain the right to send 
payments to a judicially-appointed conservator with a legal and 
fiduciary duty to the custodial parent and the child; however, we do 
not view private attorneys in this same category, particularly when 
collecting fees. Based on the American Bar Association Model Code of 
Professional Responsibility, many States disfavor contingency fees in 
child support cases because they would reduce support to the child and 
could adversely affect family relationship.
    We have revised Sec.  302.38 to expand the list of entities to whom 
child support payments under Sec. Sec.  302.32 and 302.51 can be made. 
The provision now requires that a State's IV-D plan ``shall provide 
that any payment required to be made under Sec. Sec.  302.32 and 302.51 
to a family will be made directly to the resident parent, legal 
guardian, caretaker relative having custody of or responsibility for 
the child or children, judicially-appointed conservator with a legal 
and fiduciary duty to the custodial parent and the child, or alternate 
caretaker designated in a record by the custodial parent. An alternate 
caretaker is a nonrelative caretaker who is designated in a record by 
the custodial parent to take care of the children for a temporary time 
period.
    2. Comment: One commenter believed that private attorneys should be 
in the same category as a collection agency.
    Response: We agree. Therefore, this rule does not authorize 
payments to be made directly to a private attorney or a private 
collection agency.
    3. Comment: Several commenters recommended that we modernize the 
rule to refer to caretaker rather than relative caretaker to 
accommodate nonrelative caretakers and guardians. In addition, the 
commenters recommended expanding the definition of ``to a family'' 
because custodial parents may need the ability to designate an 
alternate recipient in situations where doing so may benefit the 
family, which is common. Another commenter asked if OCSE meant to 
disallow situations in which the mother requests payments be directed 
to caretakers who are not relatives and not legal guardians.
    Response: OCSE agrees and updated the language in Sec.  302.38 to 
include an alternate caretaker designated in a record by the custodial 
parent in those circumstances when the parent does not obtain a formal 
court order to change custody, for example, before going into the 
hospital or jail, or being deployed. An alternate caretaker is a 
nonrelative caretaker who is designated in a record by the custodial 
parent to take care of the children for a temporary time period.
    4. Comment: One commenter asked that we clarify that payments must 
be made to the resident parent, legal guardian, or caretaker relative 
who is the petitioner or named custodial parent obligee in the petition 
for support and the support order. According to the commenters, this 
would ensure that the proposed revision to Sec.  302.38 is not read as 
authority for State IV-D agencies to unilaterally amend the obligee in 
a child support case when custody changes.
    Response: This provision only addresses a IV-D agency's 
requirements when disbursing child support payments. Section 302.38 
does not authorize child support agencies to unilaterally change a 
child support order when custody changes. State laws govern such 
changes.
    5. Comment: Two commenters suggested changing the language to 
specifically prohibit disbursements to private collection agencies if 
that is the sole intent.
    Response: Section 454(11)(A) and (B) of the Act clearly provides 
that a State plan for child support must provide that amounts collected 
as support shall be distributed as provided in section 457; and provide 
that any payment required to be made under section 456 or 457 to a 
family shall be made to the resident parent, legal guardian, or 
caretaker relative having custody of or responsibility for the child or 
children. The intent of this rule is to disburse child support payments 
directly to families.
    Our intent is not to regulate private collection agencies, but 
rather to ensure that child support programs are not facilitating, and 
the taxpayer is not subsidizing, potentially inappropriate business 
practices of some private collection agencies not under contract to 
States. In addition, the ethics codes of most state bar associations 
prohibit private attorneys from taking fees from current child support, 
and several prohibit fees from arrears on public policy grounds. In 
order to provide protections for families and fulfill the intent of the 
original child support legislation and subsequent amendments, Sec.  
302.38 requires that child support payments owed and payable to 
families be disbursed directly to families.
    6. Comment: One commenter suggested changing case closure 
provisions to authorize case closure if the IV-D applicant contracts 
with a private collection agency or there is no longer a resident 
parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to whom the IV-D agency can 
disburse payments.
    Response: We do not agree that the case closure provisions should 
be changed to authorize case closure if the IV-D applicant contracts 
with a private collection agency because there is no prohibition 
against a custodial parent contracting with a private collection 
agency. If there is no longer a resident parent, legal guardian, or 
caretaker relative having custody of or responsibility for the child or 
children, judicially-appointed conservator with a legal and fiduciary 
duty to the custodial parent and the child, or alternate caretaker 
designated in a record by the custodial parent to whom the IV-D agency 
can disburse payments, the State

[[Page 93514]]

may close the case if it meets any of the case closure criteria in 
Sec.  303.11(b).
    7. Comment: Two commenters suggested that OCSE encourage States to 
help custodial parents obtain bank accounts so they can avoid predatory 
fees from check-cashing businesses and not lose considerable shares of 
their payments to fees.
    Response: We support States' issuance of debit cards, which will 
help custodial parents avoid predatory fees from check-cashing 
businesses. We encourage States to provide training or technical 
assistance to custodial and noncustodial parents to improve financial 
literacy, financial management, and financial responsibility.
    8. Comment: One commenter suggested OCSE should clarify that IV-D 
agencies are not responsible to confirm that payments deposited 
directly to bank accounts are bank accounts under the control of the 
parent or caretaker. If the parent enrolls in direct deposit, the IV-D 
agency permits it without further confirmation.
    Response: Child support agencies are not required to confirm that 
the bank accounts, to which the State sends payments, are under the 
control of the parent or caretaker. We are not making this a new 
requirement. However, States are required to establish a mechanism to 
identify payments through the SDU that are going to private collection 
agencies. See Comments/Responses 15 and 16.
    9. Comment: One commenter suggested that the rule requires States 
to presume that the TANF recipient is the legal guardian in such 
instances.
    Response: We disagree. The State determines whether the TANF 
recipient is the legal guardian.
    10. Comment: Several commenters were concerned with the use of the 
term ``directly'' and felt it may cause issues with the arrangements 
that families have in order to care for their children. Some commenters 
feel that the proposed regulation omits other, less formal, requests 
from custodial parents to disburse funds to a relative or family friend 
with whom the child may be living on a temporary basis. Several 
commenters recommended that OCSE not use the term ``directly.''
    Response: We have expanded the list of entities to whom child 
support payments under Sec. Sec.  302.32 and 302.51 can be made to 
allow for alternate caretakers designated in writing or in a record by 
custodial parents.
    11. Comment: One commenter suggested that a clear definition of the 
term ``private collection agency'' should be provided by OCSE for 
purposes of uniformity.
    Response: OCSE notes that the Department of Treasury defines a 
private collection agency as a private sector company specializing in 
the collection of delinquent debt. A private collection agency will 
attempt to find and contact a debtor by searching various databases, 
making telephone calls, and sending collection letters. Once the debtor 
is located and contacted, the private collection agency will encourage 
the debtor to satisfy the debt.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Further information is available at: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/debtColl/dms/xservg/pca/debt_pca.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Comment: One commenter asked that OCSE address the treatment of 
interstate/Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) cases where 
money is sent to the initiating State's SDU and international cases, 
which may order support payment directly to the child and/or to other 
caretaker situations.
    Response: In interstate cases, Sec.  303.7(d)(6)(v) requires the 
responding State IV-D agency to collect and forward child support 
payments to the location specified by the initiating agency. The 
initiating State IV-D agency must specify its SDU as the location for 
receiving payments in intergovernmental cases in accordance with 
section 454B of the Act and Sec.  303.7(d)(6)(v) and is responsible for 
distributing and disbursing child support payments in accordance with 
Sec.  303.7(c)(10) and as directed in Sec.  302.38 in the same manner 
it handles intrastate cases.
    Similarly, in an international case where the State is enforcing 
and collecting child support payments (in accordance with section 
454(32) and 459A of the Act) as the responding State IV-D agency, the 
payment processing requirements in Sec.  303.7(d)(6)(v) apply. State 
IV-D agencies, as responding agencies in international child support 
cases, are required to forward child support payments ``to the location 
specified by the initiating agency.'' The term ``initiating agency'' is 
defined in Sec.  301.1 to include an agency of a country that is either 
a foreign reciprocating country or a country with which the State has 
entered into a reciprocal arrangement and in which an individual has 
applied for or is receiving child support enforcement services. In 
international cases, the Central Authority or its designee in the 
foreign country will identify where payments should be sent, for 
example, to the Central Authority, court, custodial parent, caretaker, 
emancipated child, etc. In these cases, the responding State IV-D 
agency satisfies title IV-D requirements by collecting and forwarding 
collections as directed by the Central Authority in the foreign country 
in accordance with Sec.  303.7(d)(6)(v).
    13. Comment: The commenter asked that OCSE clarify if this 
provision only applies to IV-D agencies and if it applies to child 
support payments that are subject to income withholding, not subject to 
income withholding, or both.
    Response: This provision applies to all payments that flow through 
the SDU.
    14. Comment: One commenter asked how States should handle existing 
cases that have been set up to send payments to the private collection 
agencies. For example, should States now ignore the contracts and 
alternate payee forms submitted by the collection agencies and send any 
collections directly to the custodial parent? Another commenter asked 
if States will be obligated to notify obligees that the IV-D agency 
will no longer disburse his/her payments to a private collection agency 
as the obligee previously. One commenter indicated that requiring 
disbursement directly to a family is contrary to existing contracts 
that custodial parents have signed with private collection agencies.
    Response: It is not the responsibility of the child support agency 
to enforce private contracts. Private contracts are between the parent 
and the private entity. State child support agencies should notify 
obligees that the agency will no longer disburse child support 
collections to private collection agencies. However, the custodial 
parent can negotiate with private collection agencies, as this 
provision only deals with the child support agency's disbursement of 
child support collections. Once the SDU disburses the child support 
collections to the obligee, the obligee still has the ability to pay 
the private collection agency's fees for contractual services.
    15. Comment: One commenter asked for detail on how local child 
support agencies might identify cases in which the payment is being 
disbursed to a private collection agency and how they would identify 
the collection agency.
    Response: Each State will be required to set up its own mechanisms 
to identify cases in which the payment is being disbursed to a private 
collection agency and to identify the collection agency.
    16. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that it will be 
difficult for States to ensure that payments are made directly to the 
family for non-IV-D SDU cases.
    Response: States are required to ensure that payments are made 
directly to the family for all non-IV-D

[[Page 93515]]

collections being disbursed by the SDU. States should put the necessary 
policies and procedures in place to ensure that this provision is 
followed in all applicable cases. States need to develop procedures to 
obtain information from the custodial parents to ensure that payments 
for non-IV-D cases are sent directly to the family.
    17. Comment: A few commenters opposed the provision, indicating 
that they had personal experience working with private collection 
agencies, and proposed that custodial parents should be able to choose 
where their child support payments are disbursed. One commenter 
indicated that some States have laws that allow a private collection 
agency to contract directly with a custodial parent.
    Response: This provision does not prohibit custodial parents from 
entering into agreements with private collection agencies. As noted 
above, the rule does not prevent companies from charging and collecting 
fees for services rendered. Parents may pay private collection agencies 
directly for provided services once they receive disbursement of their 
child support payments.
Section 302.56--Guidelines for Setting Child Support Orders
General Comments
    1. Comment: Several commenters requested public hearings around the 
country on the proposed changes to the child support guidelines so 
noncustodial parents could get their chance to tell OCSE what they 
think.
    Response: While the Administrative Procedures Act provides agencies 
with discretion on whether to hold public hearings, OCSE determined 
that the opportunity to submit written comments during the comment 
period provided effective opportunity for public input. Therefore, OCSE 
did not hold hearings on the NPRM. We received over 2,000 sets of 
comments from State and county agencies, child support organizations, 
court associations, advocacy groups, parent groups, researchers, 
noncustodial parents, and custodial parents, which we carefully 
considered in developing this final rule.
    2. Comment: Several commenters suggested that at high incomes, 
there should be a fixed dollar cap on child support orders. Their 
rationale for the dollar cap is that it would reduce conflict, reduce 
the need to hire lawyers and other professionals, and ultimately 
increase resources available for the children. Also, they indicated 
that many studies show that reasonable amounts of child support are 
more likely to be paid regularly and the amount of unpaid arrearages 
will be substantially reduced. Another commenter suggested that the 
maximum amount of the support obligation should be no more than 20 
percent of the obligor's income.
    Response: We do not agree that the Federal government should set a 
cap (either a fixed dollar amount or a maximum percentage rate) on 
child support payments. States determine the numeric criteria included 
in their guidelines.
    3. Comment: A few commenters proposed that guidelines should call 
for prompt modification of existing child support orders upon filing of 
a complaint for modification, if there has been a significant change of 
circumstances. They thought that ``significant change of 
circumstances'' should be defined to include a change in the income and 
earnings of either parent of 5 percent or more.
    Response: The commenters are correct that Federal statute, section 
466(a)(10) of the Act, requires review and, if appropriate, adjustment 
of a child support order upon request of either parent if there is a 
substantial change of circumstances. However, the NPRM did not propose 
a change to the existing provision in Sec.  303.8(c) that the ``State 
may establish a reasonable quantitative standard based upon either a 
fixed dollar amount or percentage, or both. . . .'' OCSE already has 
established timeframes for review and adjustment in Sec.  303.8(e), 
which indicates that within 180 calendar days of receiving a request 
for a review or locating the non-requesting parent, whichever occurs 
later, a State must conduct a review of the child support order and 
adjust the order upward or downward, upon a showing that there has been 
a substantial change of circumstances, in accordance with this section. 
We encourage States to streamline their procedures in order to promptly 
modify child support orders upward or downward when there are 
significant changes of circumstances.
    4. Comment: Several commenters proposed that guidelines should 
terminate child support at age 19 or upon graduation from secondary 
school, whichever occurs earlier. One commenter added that one 
exception should be if the child who is the subject of the order has 
special medical or educational needs. The commenter also thought that 
State statutes providing for the support of older children of intact 
marriages should be applied identically to parents who are not married. 
One commenter further explained that married parents are under no legal 
obligation in most States to support their children beyond age 19, 
except in extraordinary circumstances. This commenter questioned why 
any State has an interest in mandating support for children of divorced 
and separated parents up to age 23, but not for those of married 
parents; the commenter found such requirements discriminatory on their 
face. The commenter also stated that when he last checked, 33 States 
terminate the child support obligation upon the child's attaining age 
19.
    Response: While we understand the commenters' point, States have 
discretion and flexibility in defining the age of emancipation for 
child support orders. In accordance with the Child Support Enforcement 
Amendments of 1984, Congress has mandated that States must have 
procedures that permit the establishment of the paternity of any child 
at any time prior to such child's 18th birthday. However, it is a 
matter to be determined by the State in accordance with State law.
Compliance Date [Sec.  302.56(a)]
    1. Comment: While many commenters appreciated that OCSE's proposed 
revision in Sec.  302.56(a) coincided with the next quadrennial review, 
for States whose quadrennial reviews commence shortly after the rule is 
finalized, the commenters indicated that they needed additional time to 
conduct further analysis and research on implementation issues and 
potential system changes. They recommended an additional extension of 1 
year. In other words, the guideline changes would be required to be in 
effect within 1 year after completion of the first quadrennial review 
of its guidelines that commences more than 1 year after the publication 
of the final rule.
    Response: We agree with this suggestion and have made this change 
in Sec.  302.56(a). We understand that States will need additional time 
to do research and prepare for the quadrennial review based on the 
revisions in the final rule. Therefore, we are revising the language in 
paragraph (a) to indicate that within 1 year after completion of the 
State's next quadrennial review of its child support guidelines, that 
commences more than 1 year after publication of the final rule, in 
accordance with Sec.  302.56(e), as a condition of approval of its 
State plan, the State must establish one set of guidelines by law or by 
judicial or administrative action for setting and modifying child 
support order amounts within the State that meet the requirements in 
this section.
    2. Comment: A few commenters recommended a faster implementation 
date than what was proposed in the

[[Page 93516]]

NPRM. They recommended that the new revisions be effective ``within 1 
year after publication of the final rule.''
    Response: As a result of the final rule, States must review, and if 
necessary, revise their guidelines. A 1-year implementation date would 
be unrealistic since it would be a time-consuming and costly process 
for States to review their guidelines outside of the required 4-year 
review cycle. We believe that the revisions will require the States to 
do extensive research and analysis of case data, economic factors, and 
other factors in developing guidelines that meet the revised Federal 
requirements.
    3. Comment: A few other commenters recommended that States would 
need two quadrennial reviews to implement the final rule. They thought 
that one quadrennial review period was not sufficient time to obtain 
new data, complete new economic studies based on that data, build new 
guidelines tables, and enact the required legislation to approve the 
new tables.
    Response: A two-quadrennial review period, or 8 years, is an 
unreasonable length of time to delay implementation of these new 
revisions. States should implement the guidelines, review and 
adjustment, and civil contempt provisions within a reasonable period of 
time to ensure that child support orders do not exceed a noncustodial 
parent's ability to pay. Most commenters either agreed that conforming 
guidelines during the next quadrennial review was sufficient time, or 
commented that the implementation period should be shorter.
Availability of the Guidelines [Sec.  302.56(b)]
    1. Comment: We had many commenters suggest that the guidelines be 
made available to all persons in the State who request them, rather 
than only to the persons in the State whose duty it is to set child 
support award amounts. They thought that the guidelines are a matter of 
enormous public and individual import and therefore must be freely 
available to all who request them.
    Response: We agree that child support guidelines should be readily 
available to all persons in the State through such means as posting on 
their Web sites, child support brochures, or some other method for 
disseminating educational materials. In fact, most States already make 
their guidelines available on their Web sites. We also agree that 
principles of government transparency would indicate that the 
guidelines should be available to the general public since the 
guidelines impact citizen rights and responsibilities. As a result, we 
have removed the phrase ``whose duty it is to set child support award 
amounts'' from the end of the sentence in Sec.  302.56(b).
Ability To Pay [Sec.  302.56(c)(1)]
    1. Comment: Many commenters agreed that guidelines should result in 
child support orders based on the noncustodial parent's ability to pay. 
One commenter indicated that setting right-sized orders is as much an 
art as it is a science. Each State has its own set of constituencies 
and circumstances that influence how guidelines are set. The commenters 
also thought that the court should have the ability to look at all 
factors, including the lifestyle of the noncustodial parent, testimony 
provided in court, previous work history, education and training, and 
any information provided by the custodial parent. They thought the 
proposed regulation limited the discretion of the court, and could have 
a negative impact on the program.
    Response: The ``ability to pay'' standard for setting orders has 
been Federal policy for almost 25 years,\17\ and many existing State 
guidelines explicitly incorporate the ``ability to pay'' standard. 
Consistent with comments, we have redrafted the rule to codify this 
standard. We also added language that States consider the noncustodial 
parent's specific circumstances in making an ability to pay 
determination when evidence of income is limited, and added language 
more clearly articulating the basis upon which States may use imputed 
income to calculate an order. These revisions are discussed in more 
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ AT-93-04, available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/presumptive-guidelines-establishment-support-unreimbursed-assistance and PIQ-00-03, available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/state-iv-d-program-flexibility-low-income-obligors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over time, we have observed a trend among some States to reduce 
their case investigation efforts and to impose high standard minimum 
orders without developing any evidence or factual basis for the child 
support ordered amount. Our rule is designed to address the concern 
that in some jurisdictions, orders for the lowest income noncustodial 
parents are not set based upon a factual inquiry into the noncustodial 
parent's income and ability to pay, but instead are routinely set based 
upon a standardized amount well above the means of those parents to pay 
it. The Federal child support guidelines statute requires guidelines 
that result in ``appropriate child support award'' and is based on the 
fundamental principle that each child support order should take into 
consideration the noncustodial parent's ability to pay.\18\ Therefore, 
we have codified this longstanding policy guidance as the leading 
guidelines principle in Sec.  302.56(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section 467(a) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 
667(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research suggests that setting an accurate child support order 
based upon the noncustodial parent's ability to pay improves the 
chances that the noncustodial parent will continue to pay over 
time.\19\ Compliance with support orders is strongly linked to actual 
income and ability to pay.\20\ Many low-income noncustodial parents do 
not meet their child support obligations because they do not earn 
enough to pay what is ordered.\21\ Orders set beyond a noncustodial 
parents' ability to pay can result in a number of deleterious effects, 
including unmanageable debt, reduced low-wage employment, increased 
underground activities, crime, incarceration, recidivism, and reduced 
contact with their children.\22\ Research consistently finds that 
orders set too high are associated with less consistent payments, lower 
compliance, and increased child support debt.\23\ In fact,

[[Page 93517]]

studies find that orders set above 15 to 20 percent of a noncustodial 
parent's income increases the likelihood that the noncustodial parent 
will pay less support and pay less consistently, resulting in increased 
arrears.\24\ The conclusion from this research is that families do not 
benefit from orders that noncustodial parents cannot comply with 
because of their limited income. High orders do not translate to higher 
payments when the noncustodial parent has limited income.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ HHS Office of Inspector General, The Establishment of Child 
Support Orders for Low-Income Non-custodial Parents, OEI-05-99-
00390, (2000), available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-99-00390.pdf.
    \20\ Meyer, Daniel, R. Yoonsook Ha, and Mei[hyphen]Chen Hu, ``Do 
High Child Support Orders Discourage Child Support Payments?'' 
Social Service Review, (2008), 82(1): 93-118; Huang, Chien-Chung, 
Ronald B. Mincy, and Irwin Garfinkel, ``Child Support Obligations 
and Low-Income Fathers'' Journal of Marriage and Family, (2005), 
67(5): 1213-1225.
    \21\ Kathryn Edin and Timothy J. Nelson, Doing the Best I Can: 
Fatherhood in the Inner City, University of California Press, 
(2013); Pearson, Jessica, Nancy Thoennes, Lanae Davis, Jane C. 
Venohr, David A. Price, and Tracy Griffith, 2003, OCSE responsible 
fatherhood programs: Client characteristics and program outcomes, 
available at: https://www.frpn.org/file/61/download?token=CNMvAIQn.
    \22\ Pamela Holcomb, Kathryn Edin, Jeffrey Max, Alford Young, 
Jr., Angela Valdovinos D'Angelo, Daniel Friend, Elizabeth Clary, 
Waldo E. Johnson, Jr. (2015), In Their Own Voices: The Hopes and 
Struggles of Responsible Fatherhood Program Participants in the 
Parents and Children Together Evaluation. Report submitted to the 
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. OPRE Report #2015-67 
available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/resource/in-their-voices-hopes-struggles-responsible-fatherhood-parents-children-evaluation; and Maureen Waller and Robert Plotnick. (2001). 
``Effective child support policy for low-income families: Evidence 
from street level research'' Journal of Policy Analysis and 
Management 20(1): 89-110.
    \23\ Meyer, Daniel, R. Yoonsook Ha, and Mei[hyphen]Chen Hu 
(2008) ``Do High Child Support Orders Discourage Child Support 
Payments?'' Social Service Review, 82(1): 93-118; Huang, Chien-
Chung, Ronald B. Mincy, and Irwin Garfinkel. (2005) ``Child Support 
Obligations and Low-Income Fathers'' Journal of Marriage and Family, 
67(5): 1213-1225; Carl Formoso, Determining the Composition and 
Collectibility of Child Support Arrearages: Final Report, Volume 1: 
The Longitudinal Analysis, Washington State Division of Child 
Support (2003), available at: https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ESA/dcs/documents/cvol1prn.pdf; Mark Takayesu, How Do Child 
Support Order Amounts Affect Payments and Compliance? Orange County, 
CA Department of Child Support Services, (2011), available at: 
https://ywcss.com/sites/default/files/pdf-resource/how_do_child_support_orders_affect_payments_and_compliance.pdf.
    \24\ HHS Office of Inspector General, The Establishment of Child 
Support Orders for Low-Income Non-custodial Parents, OEI-05-99-
00390, (2000), available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-99-00390.pdf; Carl Formoso, Determining the Composition and 
Collectibility of Child Support Arrearages: Final Report, Volume 1: 
The Longitudinal Analysis, Washington State Division of Child 
Support (2003), available at: https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ESA/dcs/documents/cvol1prn.pdf; and Mark Takayesu, How Do 
Child Support Order Amounts Affect Payments and Compliance? Orange 
County, CA Department of Child Support Services, (2011), available 
at: https://ywcss.com/sites/default/files/pdf-resource/how_do_child_support_orders_affect_payments_and_compliance.pdf.
    \25\ National Women's Law Center and the Center on Fathers, 
Families, and Public Policy, Dollars and Sense: Improving the 
Determination of Child Support Obligations for Low-Income Mothers, 
Fathers, and Children (2002), available at: https://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/CommonGroundDollarsandSense.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule added paragraph (c)(1) to provide that the child 
support order is based on the noncustodial parent's earnings, income, 
and other evidence of ability to pay. Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) requires 
consideration of the specific circumstances of the noncustodial parent 
when imputing income. This will be discussed in further detail later in 
this section.
    2. Comment: One commenter recommended that a sentence be added to 
the regulation stating that the receipt of Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) or combined SSI and Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) 
benefits establishes a prima facie case that the individual does not 
have the ability to pay child support unless the presumption of 
insufficient means and inability to work is successfully rebutted by 
submission of opposing evidence.
    Response: When the noncustodial parent is receiving SSI or 
concurrent SSI and SSDI benefits, the State has flexibility on whether 
and how to address the receipt of such benefits in its guidelines. We 
encourage States to consider receipt of SSI and concurrent SSDI 
benefits as a part of the circumstances in the case that they will 
consider in ensuring that support orders are based on ``ability to 
pay.'' In order to receive these benefits, an individual must have a 
significant disability that prevents or limits work, and in the case of 
SSI (including concurrent receipt), eligibility is also based on an 
individual's basic needs. Regardless of whether the State considers SSI 
and concurrent SSDI benefits as income for purposes of order 
establishment, it may not garnish these benefits in accordance with 
Sec.  307.11.
All Income [Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(i)]
    1. Comment: Several commenters were opposed to our proposed 
revisions in Sec.  302.56(c)(1), which has been redesignated as 
paragraph (c)(1)(i) because they questioned the difference between 
``actual'' earnings and income and ``all'' earnings and income. They 
thought that ``actual'' income was too restrictive. They were concerned 
that the NPRM would introduce uncertainty into State guidelines 
definitions of ``income'' if the provision requiring ``all income'' to 
be considered were eliminated. One commenter asked whether replacing 
the term ``all'' with the term ``actual'' prevented States from 
considering depreciation as an adjustment to a parent's income. The 
commenter thought that the revision would make it difficult to 
determine the income of contractors and the self-employed. Other 
commenters thought that our proposed revision only allowed 
consideration of the use of the noncustodial parent's ``actual'' income 
in calculating child support obligations, in other words, the State 
could never use imputed income, but would be limited to actual income 
in every factual situation, despite evidence of ability to pay.
    Response: Based on the comments that we received on proposed 
paragraph (c)(1), redesignated as paragraph (c)(1)(i), we did not make 
the proposed revision, but instead codified the longstanding guidelines 
standard that orders be based upon ``earnings, income, and other 
evidence of ability to pay.'' We also retained the provision in the 
former rule to require consideration of ``all earnings and income'' in 
paragraph (c)(1). To be clear, the guidelines must provide that orders 
must be based upon evidence of the noncustodial parent's earnings and 
income and other evidence of ability to pay in the specific case. In 
addition, the guidelines must provide that if income is imputed, the 
amount must reflect the specific circumstances of the noncustodial 
parent to the extent known, and may not order a standard amount imposed 
in lieu of fact-gathering in the specific case. The expectation is that 
in IV-D cases, the IV-D agency will investigate each case sufficiently 
to base orders on evidence of the noncustodial parent's ability to pay. 
Orders issued in IV-D cases should not reflect a lower threshold of 
evidence than applied in private cases represented by legal counsel.
    2. Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding what 
constitutes ``actual'' earnings and income in the proposed paragraph 
(c)(1). For example, would it be permissible under the proposed 
regulatory revisions for a noncustodial parent to allocate a greater 
percentage of his/her earnings as voluntary contributions to a deferred 
compensation plan and thereby minimize ``actual'' earnings? Many 
commenters suggested that the Federal government define income as the 
Federal Adjusted Gross Income, while others suggested that we consider 
the household income of the custodial parent. Other commenters 
suggested that Smith-Ostler orders \26\ be eliminated or better reflect 
the tax consequences of the payor. One commenter also suggested that 
the noncustodial parent's ability to pay be calculated after mandatory 
deductions, such as taxes. Another commenter was concerned about how 
actual earnings and income would be determined and what benefits, 
resources, and sources of income would be considered for the purpose of 
this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Sometimes one or both parents have income that varies, 
fluctuates, or is otherwise unpredictable. When calculating child 
support, the court often uses a ``Smith-Ostler order'' to account 
for commissions, bonuses, or overtime income. In these cases, the 
court will set an amount for child support and issue a Smith-Ostler 
order to account for overtime and bonus income. The Smith-Ostler 
order will set a fixed percentage of all bonus income to be paid as 
additional child support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: In response to comments, the final rule requires States 
to consider all earnings and income for the noncustodial parent under 
paragraph (c)(1)(i), subject to the requirement that orders be based on 
earnings, income, and other evidence of ability to pay. We are 
establishing only minimum components for child support guidelines. 
States have the discretion and responsibility to define earnings and 
income, for example in the manner proposed by commenters, since they 
are in a better position to evaluate the economic factors within their 
States and

[[Page 93518]]

have broad discretion to set guidelines policies.
    3. Comment: One commenter suggested that guidelines be required to 
take into consideration the assets of the noncustodial parent, in 
addition to earnings and income.
    Response: We have decided to retain the former language in the rule 
that ``all'' earnings and income be taken into consideration in Sec.  
302.56(c)(1)(i). This language has been extensively interpreted and 
applied in every State for over two decades. Retaining the term ``all 
income'' allows States to consider depreciation, deferred income, or 
other financial mechanisms used by self-employed noncustodial parents 
to adjust their actual income. In addition, we added ``assets'' to the 
list of specific circumstances in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) that the State 
must consider when the State guidelines authorize imputation of income. 
States have discretion to determine whether to add assets or define 
which assets should be considered in their child support guidelines as 
a basis for determining child support amounts.
    4. Comment: Many commenters proposed that actual income and 
earnings should be considered for both parents. In support, they 
pointed out that the 1988 Advisory Panel on Child Support Guidelines 
(on which the original Sec.  302.56 language was based) recommended 
that: ``Both parents should share legal responsibility for support of 
their children, with the economic responsibility divided between the 
parents in proportion to their income.'' This recommendation was never 
incorporated into the Federal regulations at Sec.  302.56. The 
commenters believed that now was the time to include a requirement to 
consider the income and earnings of both parents.
    Response: We agree that both noncustodial and custodial parents 
have a responsibility to support their children. However, the NPRM did 
not propose that States revise this aspect of their child support 
guidelines, which impacts the particular guidelines model a State has 
adopted. Some States do not explicitly take the custodial parent's 
income into account in the guidelines model they have adopted. The NPRM 
did not address State guidelines models. Therefore, the adoption of a 
guidelines model continues to be a matter of State determination.
    However, in Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(i) through (iii), we have added a 
parenthetical to indicate that at the State's discretion, the State may 
consider the circumstances of the custodial parent if it is required or 
applicable in their guidelines computation. We encourage States that 
use the income shares model for guidelines, which considers the 
custodial parent's earnings and income, to also consider it for 
applying Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
    5. Comment: One commenter indicated that we should require States 
to have laws that require the parties (who have the best access to 
their own income information) to provide financial data so as to ensure 
accurate and appropriate orders.
    Response: We have revised Sec.  303.4, Establishment of support 
obligations, to require State IV-D agencies to investigate earnings and 
income information through a variety of sources, for example, by 
expanding data sources and implementing the use of parent 
questionnaires, ``appear and disclose'' procedures, and case 
conferencing. Often, better investigations would enable States to 
obtain more accurate information needed in establishing and modifying 
child support orders. We know that many States already have procedures 
in place to obtain financial information from the parents. In fact, in 
cases where the noncustodial parent does not receive a salary or wages, 
income, assets, and standard of living information can often be 
obtained directly through contact with both parents. State law may 
require the parties to provide this information to the child support 
agency.
    6. Comment: One commenter stated that instead of changing the laws 
on how courts establish child support, the National Directory of New 
Hires (NDNH) should provide more timely and accurate information. The 
commenter recommended its expansion to include data on Form 1099 
payments as well as assets and income sources. The commenter also 
stressed the need for States to enforce laws requiring the timely and 
complete reporting of information to the State Directory of New Hires 
(SDNH). The commenter noted that consistent receipt of this information 
would assist IV-D agencies in establishing support based on ``actual'' 
income.
    Response: We appreciate the suggested improvements; however, 
expanding the NDNH to include Form 1099 payments requires statutory 
changes by Congress. Regarding the SDNH, section 453A of the Social 
Security Act authorizes States to impose civil money penalties on 
noncomplying employers. Specifically, a State has the option to set a 
State civil money penalty which shall not exceed (1) $25 per failure to 
meet the requirements of this section with respect to a newly hired 
employee; or (2) $500 if, under State law, the failure is the result of 
a conspiracy between the employer and the employee to not supply the 
required report or to supply a false or incomplete report.
Subsistence Needs of the Noncustodial Parents [Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(ii)]
    1. Comment: There were many suggestions related to the requirement 
that State guidelines ``[t]ake into consideration the noncustodial 
parent's subsistence needs'' in proposed Sec.  302.56(c)(4), which was 
redesignated as (c)(1)(ii) in the final rule. Many commenters requested 
more guidance on subsistence needs or wanted OCSE to develop an 
operational definition. Others asked what the State should do when the 
noncustodial parent is making less than the subsistence needs. Many 
commenters thought that the States need discretion to carefully weigh 
and balance the considerations of low-income obligors and the needs of 
the children and the custodial parents' households. Other commenters 
requested that OCSE also consider the subsistence needs of the 
custodial parent. Some were opposed to the proposed revision because 
they did not think that Federal regulations were necessary since many 
States already have low-income formulas. However, many more commenters 
indicated that we need stronger protections to recognize the 
subsistence needs of very poor noncustodial parents.
    Response: We considered these comments in revising the NPRM. In the 
final rule in paragraph (c)(1)(ii), we require that child support 
guidelines must ``[t]ake into consideration the basic subsistence needs 
of the noncustodial parent (and at the State's discretion, the 
custodial parent and the children) who has a limited ability to pay by 
incorporating a low-income adjustment, such as a self-support reserve 
or some other method determined by the State.'' A low-income adjustment 
is the amount of money a parent owing support needs to support him or 
herself at a minimum level. It is intended to ensure that a low-income 
parent can meet his or her own basic needs as well as permit continued 
employment. A low-income adjustment is a generic term. A self-support 
reserve is an example of a low-income adjustment that is commonly used 
by the States.
    The revision allows States' flexibility to determine the best 
approach to adjusting their guidelines to take into consideration the 
basic subsistence needs of low-income noncustodial parents. All but 
five States have already incorporated such low-income adjustments such 
as self-support reserves into their child support

[[Page 93519]]

guidelines.\27\ We encourage States to continue to review their 
policies affecting low-income parents during each quadrennial review to 
assure that the policies are working as intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Venohr, Jane, ``Child Support Guidelines and Guidelines 
Reviews: State Differences and Common Issues,'' Family Law 
Quarterly, 47(3), Fall 2013, pages 327-352, available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5154a075e4b08f050dc20996/t/54e34dd2e4b04c0eab578456/1424182738603/3fall13_venohr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our goal is to establish and enforce orders that actually produce 
payments for children. Both parents are expected to put their children 
first and to take the necessary steps to support them. However, if the 
noncustodial parent cannot support his or her own basic subsistence 
needs, it is highly unlikely that an order that ignores the need for 
basic self-support will actually result in sustainable payments. One of 
the unintended, but pernicious, consequences of orders that are not 
based on ability to pay is that some noncustodial parents will exit low 
wage employment and either avoid the system entirely or turn to the 
drug trade or other illegal activities to pay support obligations and 
contempt purge payments.\28\ It is not in children's best interests and 
counterproductive to have their parents engage in a cycle of 
nonpayment, illegal income generation, and incarceration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Mincy, Ronald et al, Failing Our Fathers: Confronting the 
Crisis of Economically Vulnerable Nonresident Fathers, Oxford 
University Press, 2014; Kotloff, Lauren, J., Leaving the Street: 
Young Fathers Move From Hustling to Legitimate Work, Public/Private 
Ventures (2005), available at https://hmrf.acf.hhs.gov/resources/fathers-at-work-initiative-reports/leaving-the-street-young-fathers-move-from-hustling-to-legitimate-work/; and Rich, Lauren, M., 
``Regular and Irregular Earnings of Unwed Fathers: Implications for 
Child Support Practices.'' Children and Youth Services Review, 
April-May 2001, 23(\4/5\): 353-376, which is available at: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiq2fW_i8nKAhXEtIMKHabpD5gQFggmMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS0190740901001396%2Fpdf%3Fmd5%3D7f4e344844155112ff3e1b55528fbde6%26pid%3D1-s2.0-S0190740901001396-main.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHlcgoC8Zj_abOHen6w2LXDgEtMYA&sig2=LOBYbUWWp2UgHBqV5BD-Og&bvm=bv.112766941,d.dmo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Comment: A few commenters indicated that they thought State laws 
must be flexible enough to address both low-income situations and those 
situations where noncustodial parents use creative means to avoid their 
responsibility.
    Response: We agree with these comments and have revised the child 
support guidelines requirements to more clearly reflect some of the 
commenters' concerns. The order establishment process must be able to 
hold noncustodial parents accountable when they have the means to pay 
support but attempt to withhold their resources from their children. 
The challenge is distinguishing between cases in which the noncustodial 
parent has the means to pay and those in which the noncustodial parent 
is unable to pay much. More contact with both parents and investigation 
into the facts will help the child support agency learn more about the 
noncustodial parent's specific circumstances. Custodial parents can be 
a particularly good source of information. Imputation should not serve 
as a substitute for fact-gathering.
    3. Comment: Several commenters suggested that we define subsistence 
needs or low-income in this rule.
    Response: OCSE does not agree with this suggestion. States should 
use their discretion and flexibility to define these terms based on the 
economic and demographic factors in their State.
Imputing Income [Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(iii)]
    1. Comment: Many commenters agreed that child support guidelines 
should reflect the basic statutory principle that child support orders 
are based on the noncustodial parent's ability to pay. However, many 
commenters opposed this aspect of the NPRM because they believed we 
were eliminating the practice of imputing income to the noncustodial 
parent to establish orders. Although our NPRM preamble indicated 
otherwise, several commenters thought that imputed income would only be 
allowed when a noncustodial parent's standard of living was 
inconsistent with reported income. Commenters articulated three types 
of circumstances where they believed imputation is appropriate and 
grounded in case law: (1) When a parent is voluntarily unemployed, (2) 
when there is a discrepancy between reported earnings and standard of 
living, and (3) when the noncustodial parent defaults, refusing to show 
up or provide financial information to the child support agency. Some 
commenters thought that the courts should be able to evaluate the 
circumstances of the case when imputing income for the noncustodial 
parent.
    One commenter referenced the National Child Support Enforcement 
Association policy statement, issued on January 30, 2013, that 
indicated: ``As a general rule, child support guidelines and orders 
should reflect actual income of parents and be changed proactively to 
ensure current support orders reflect current circumstances of the 
parents and to encourage regular child support payments.''
    Response: There was considerable misunderstanding about the scope 
and intent on this aspect of the NPRM. Our intent was to require a 
stronger focus on fact-gathering and setting orders based on evidence 
of the noncustodial parent's actual income and ability to pay, rather 
than based on standard imputed (presumed) \29\ amounts applied across 
the board. However, we also intended to recognize certain established 
grounds for imputation when evidentiary gaps exist, including voluntary 
unemployment and discrepancies between reported income and standard of 
living.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ OCSE views presumed income and imputed income similarly 
since they are both based on fictional income. Therefore, we use 
these terms interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering commenters' concerns and suggested revisions, we made 
significant revisions in paragraph (c) to clearly articulate the 
longstanding requirement that State guidelines must provide that child 
support orders are based on the noncustodial parent's earnings, income, 
and other evidence of ability to pay. We have also added in paragraph 
(c)(1)(iii) providing that when imputation of income is authorized, the 
guidelines must take into consideration the specific circumstances of 
the noncustodial parent (and at the State's discretion, the custodial 
parent) to the extent known.
    Presently, some State guidelines allow income to be imputed without 
evidence that the noncustodial parent has or can earn a standard amount 
of income. Although the original use of imputation was to fill specific 
evidentiary gaps in a particular case, over time we have observed a 
trend among some States of reducing their case investigation efforts 
and imposing high standard minimum child support orders across-the-
board in low-income IV-D cases, setting orders without any evidence of 
ability to pay.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ According to a report recently released by the National 
Center for State Courts on civil litigation generally (and not 
specifically child support litigation), recent studies have found 
widespread instances of judgments entered in high-volume, civil 
cases in which the defendant did not receive notice of the complaint 
or the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an adequate basis for relief 
sought. The report ``strongly endorsed'' by State chief justices, in 
July 2016, recommends that courts must implement systems to ensure 
that the entry of final judgments complies with basic procedural 
requirements for. . .sufficiency of documentation supporting the 
relief sought. For further information, see Call to Action: 
Achieving Civil Justice for All, Recommendations to the Conference 
of Chief Justices by the Civil Justice Improvements Committee, pp. 
33-34, available at: https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/
Civil-Justice/NCSC-CJI-Report-Web.ashx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many States do take steps to determine the factual circumstances in 
a particular case and build an

[[Page 93520]]

evidentiary basis for the order, imputing income on a case-by-case 
basis when there is an evidentiary gap. However, some jurisdictions set 
high minimum orders across the board in low-income cases, regardless of 
available evidence of the noncustodial parent's specific circumstances. 
Others do so, except under a very narrow set of circumstances, for 
example, a demonstrated disability. In fact, some States impute 
standard amounts of income even when there is evidence of involuntary 
unemployment, part-time employment, and low earnings.
    Overuse of imputed income frequently results in IV-D orders that 
are not based on a realistic or fair determination of ability to pay, 
leading to unpaid support, uncollectible debt, reduced work effort, and 
underground employment. Because such orders are not based on the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay, as required by Federal guidelines 
law, they typically do not yield consistent payments to children.
    While States have discretion to determine when imputation of income 
is appropriate and allowed, section 467 of the Act indicates that ``a 
written finding or specific finding that the application of the 
guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case, as 
determined under criteria established by the State, shall be sufficient 
to rebut the presumption in that case.'' Thus, we encourage States to 
establish deviation criteria when to impute income and document the 
deviation in a finding on the record that is rebuttable. Many, but not 
all, States currently use deviation criteria and make a rebuttable 
finding on the record when they impute income as the basis for an order 
in a particular case. Fictional income should not be imputed simply 
because the noncustodial parent is low-income, but instead only used in 
limited circumstances when the facts of the case justify it.
    We revised Sec.  302.56(c)(1) to clarify that the child support 
guidelines established under paragraph (a) must provide that the child 
support order is based on the noncustodial parent's earnings, income, 
and other evidence of ability to pay. The guidelines must take into 
consideration all earnings and income, the basic subsistence needs of 
the noncustodial parent who has a limited ability to pay, and if income 
is being imputed, the specific circumstances of the noncustodial parent 
(and at the State's discretion, the custodial parent) to the extent 
known, including such factors as the noncustodial parent's assets, 
residence, employment and earnings history, job skills, educational 
attainment, literacy, age, health, criminal record and other employment 
barriers, and record of seeking work, as well as the local job market, 
the availability of employers willing to hire the noncustodial parent, 
prevailing earnings level in the local community, and other relevant 
background factors in the case.
    This approach emphasizes the expectation that support orders will 
be based upon evidence to the extent available, while recognizing that 
in limited circumstances, income imputation allows the decision-maker 
to address evidentiary gaps and move forward to set an order. While we 
recognize that most State IV-D agencies have limited resources, case 
investigation to develop case-specific evidence is a basic program 
responsibility. The revised final rule is closely aligned with many of 
the comments we received. Imputed or default orders should occur only 
in limited circumstances.\31\ We also revised paragraph (c)(1)(iii) to 
address concerns about the need for State guidelines to consider the 
specific circumstances of the noncustodial parent when imputing income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The National Child Support Enforcement Association policy 
statement, Setting Current Support Based on Ability to Pay, dated 
January 30, 2013, is available at: https://www.ncsea.org/documents/Ability_to_Pay-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Comment: Most commenters were concerned that the proposed 
revisions in Sec.  302.56(c)(4), which has been redesignated and 
revised as paragraph (c)(1), related to exceptions to the ``actual'' 
income provisions were too vague, restrictive, and did not sufficiently 
provide for a broad range of circumstances where it may be appropriate 
to impute income, such as when the noncustodial parent is working in 
the underground economy or failing to provide sufficient evidence to 
the court. Many commenters were concerned that the NPRM curtailed the 
ability of States to impute income to ensure support for children. One 
commenter supported reducing the use of default orders; however, the 
commenter stated that default orders continue to be necessary when the 
noncustodial parent refuses to appear and participate, despite multiple 
opportunities provided by the court and the IV-D agency. Many 
commenters further indicated that while the NPRM did not expressly 
prohibit default orders, there appeared to be no ability within the 
framework of the rule to impute income based on other types of 
evidence--such as the noncustodial parent's past income, employment 
history, and/or employment available in the local community. They also 
read the NPRM to mean that if the IV-D agency could not obtain current 
income information or evidence of current lifestyle, then the NPRM 
would prohibit an entry of a support order altogether. These commenters 
stated that such a result could give parents with reported income an 
incentive to intentionally end employment after being notified of the 
support proceedings and refuse to appear in court in order to force a 
zero dollar order. They considered this a perverse incentive to avoid 
support that was not in the best interest of the child and the family. 
While many commenters were in favor of right-sized orders, they 
believed the proposed language was too limiting to allow setting a fair 
order in many circumstances.
    Response: As we have previously discussed in response to comments, 
it was not OCSE's intention in the NPRM to limit imputation of income 
only to situations where there is evidence that the noncustodial 
parent's standard of living is inconsistent with reported income. The 
State has the discretion to determine when it is appropriate to impute 
income consistent with guidelines requirements. Therefore, we revised 
the proposed language in Sec.  302.56(c)(1) to clearly indicate that a 
child support order must be based on the noncustodial parent's ability 
to pay using evidence of the parent's earnings, income, and other 
evidence of ability to pay whenever available. We have also added Sec.  
302.56(c)(1)(iii) to indicate that if imputation is authorized in the 
State's guidelines, the State's guidelines must require the State to 
consider evidence of the noncustodial parent's specific circumstances 
in determining the amount of income that may be imputed, including such 
factors as the noncustodial parent's assets, residence, employment and 
earnings history, job skills, educational attainment, literacy, age, 
health, criminal record and other employment barriers, and record of 
seeking work, as well as the local job market, the availability of 
employers willing to hire the noncustodial parent, prevailing earnings 
level in the local community, and other relevant background factors.
    If the State IV-D agency has no evidence of earnings and income or 
insufficient evidence to use as the measure of the noncustodial 
parent's ability to pay, then we have added in Sec.  303.4(b)(3) that 
the State's IV-D agency's recommended support obligation amount should 
be based on available information about the specific circumstances of 
the noncustodial parent, including such factors as those listed in 
Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(iii). It is the IV-

[[Page 93521]]

D agency's responsibility to conduct an investigation, including 
contact with the custodial parent to seek information. At a minimum, 
child support agencies generally will know the noncustodial parent's 
address.
    Imputed or default orders based on income imputation are disfavored 
and should only occur on a limited basis. Imputation does not by any 
means ensure support payments for children. In fact, an order based 
upon imputed income that is beyond the noncustodial parent's ability to 
pay typically results in more unpaid support and other unintended 
consequences that do not benefit children.\32\ It is critical for the 
integrity of the order-setting process that IV-D agencies put resources 
into case-specific investigations and contacting both parents in order 
to gather information regarding earnings, income, or other specific 
circumstances of the noncustodial parent when evidence of earnings and 
income is nonexistent or insufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Cammet, Ann, ``Deadbeats, Deadbrokes, and Prisoners,'' 
Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 18(2): 127-168, Spring, 
2011, which is available at: https://ywcss.com/sites/default/files/u258/deadbeats_deadbrokers_and_prisoners_university_of_las_vegas.pdf; 
Brito, Tonya, ``Fathers Behind Bars: Rethinking Child Support Policy 
Toward Low-Income Noncustodial Fathers and Their Families, The 
Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 15:617-673, Spring 2012, which is 
available at: https://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1514:fathersbehindbars&catid=53&Itemid=176&showall=1&limitstart=; and HHS Office of 
Inspector General, The Establishment of Child Support Orders for 
Low-Income Non-custodial Parents, OEI-05-99-00390, (2000), available 
at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-99-00390.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Comment: One commenter supported imputing income, when 
appropriate in an individual case, if there was evidence showing that 
either parent was employed voluntarily less than 30 hours of week. 
Moreover, if the noncustodial parent was gainfully employed for at 
least 30 hours per week, this commenter believed that no income should 
be imputed to the noncustodial parent if the custodial parent was 
working voluntarily less than 30 hours per week. Finally, the commenter 
believed that exceptions should be allowable if the custodial parent 
had children with special medical or educational needs or children less 
than 2 years of age.
    Response: We do not agree that these specific suggestions should be 
incorporated into Federal rules. The commenter suggests a generic ``30 
hour'' rule imposed without a case-by-case review of the specific 
circumstances of the noncustodial parent, evidence of the voluntariness 
of unemployment or underemployment, and a case-specific determination 
of the noncustodial parent's ability to pay. Also, as discussed 
previously, States may determine when imputation of income is allowed, 
so long as the resulting order considers the factors listed in Sec.  
302.56(c)(iii) and reflects a noncustodial parent's ability to pay it.
    4. Comment: One commenter was opposed to the proposed Sec.  
302.56(c)(4), which has been redesignated and revised as paragraph 
(c)(1), because the language would apply to both IV-D and non-IV-D 
cases, resulting in imposing substantial revisions on the private bar 
and judiciary without justification. Another commenter, noting that 
guidelines are used not only by the IV-D agency, but also by the entire 
private bar and pro se litigants, was concerned that most private 
attorneys would not have access to income reports for the parents. 
Another commenter indicated that many of the proposed requirements 
contained in the NPRM would not receive full support by non-IV-D 
representatives, particularly where the new requirements would have the 
effect of reducing and/or limiting the flexibility of attorneys, 
parties, and the judicial authority in non-IV-D matters. As an example, 
the commenter stated that imposing limitations on imputing income would 
affect all family cases and could be seen as a restriction on judicial 
authority. Finally, another commenter believed that child support 
guidelines have historically been a State issue with much flexibility, 
as the guidelines impact both IV-D and non-IV-D cases.
    Response: The final rule amends existing OCSE regulations 
implementing Federal statutory requirements. State child support 
guidelines were adopted pursuant to a title IV-D State plan requirement 
and a condition of Federal funding, and specific guidelines 
requirements derive from Federal law. Our rule is modeled on the best 
practices currently implemented in a number of States to improve order 
accuracy and basic fairness, and is based on OCSE's authority to set 
standards to establish requirements for effective program operation 
under section 452(a)(1) and State plan provision that the State will 
comply with such requirements and standards under section 454(13) of 
the Act. In promulgating these rules, our primary concern is that in 
some jurisdictions, orders are not based on a factual determination of 
a particular noncustodial parent's ability to pay, but instead are 
based upon on standardized amounts that are routinely imputed to 
indigent, typically unrepresented, noncustodial parents.\33\ Imputed 
income is fictional income, and without an evidentiary foundation of 
ability to pay, orders cannot be considered fair and accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Elaine Sorensen, Liliana Sousa, and Simon Schaner, 
Assessing Child Support Arrears in Nine Large States and the Nation 
(2007), available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/assessing-child-support-arrears-nine-large-states-and-nation; Mark Takayesu, 
How Do Child Support Order Amounts Affect Payments and Compliance? 
Orange County, CA Department of Child Support Services, (2011), 
available at: https://ywcss.com/sites/default/files/pdf-resource/how_do_child_support_orders_affect_payments_and_compliance.pdf; and 
Passarella, Letitia Logan and Catherine E. Born, Imputed Income 
Among Noncustodial Parents: Characteristics and Payment Outcomes, 
University of Maryland School of Social Work (2014), available at: 
https://www.familywelfare.umaryland.edu/cscaseloadspecialreports.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compared to IV-D cases, private cases are more likely to involve 
legal counsel, and result in child support orders based on actual 
income. When imputed income is used in private cases, it typically is 
used in the way originally intended--to fill evidentiary gaps in 
specific cases to support a reasonable inference of the noncustodial 
parent's ability to pay in situations of voluntary unemployment or 
discrepancies in reported income and standard of living. We point out 
that private litigants are expected to support their position with 
evidence. The majority of the NPRM comments, including comments from 
courts and attorneys, support the direction of our rules.
    To address the concerns related to the general applicability of 
State guidelines, we moved the requirements specifically related to 
State IV-D agencies under Sec.  303.4, Establishment of support 
obligations, and those requirements related to all cases in the State 
under Sec.  302.56, Guidelines for setting child support orders. 
Although the NPRM did not include any revisions to Sec.  303.4, we 
received numerous comments on IV-D agency responsibilities in 
determining the noncustodial parent's income and imputation of income 
when establishing child support orders pursuant to Sec.  303.4. Based 
on these comments, we made revisions to Sec.  303.4 that result in a 
more narrow application of the regulation. We revised Sec.  303.4(b) to 
require IV-D agencies to use appropriate State statutes, procedures, 
and legal processes in establishing the child support obligation and 
assist the decision-maker in accordance with Sec.  302.56 of this 
chapter, which must include, at a minimum:
    (1) Taking reasonable steps to develop a sufficient factual basis 
for the support obligation, through such means as investigations, case 
conferencing, interviews with both parties, appear and

[[Page 93522]]

disclose procedures, parent questionnaires, testimony, and electronic 
data sources;
    (2) Gathering information regarding the earnings and income of the 
noncustodial parent and, when earnings and income information is 
unavailable or insufficient in a case, gathering available information 
about the specific circumstances of the noncustodial parent, including 
such factors as those listed under Sec.  302.56(c)(iii);
    (3) Basing the support obligation or recommended support obligation 
amount on the earnings and income of the noncustodial parent whenever 
available. If earnings and income are unavailable or insufficient to 
use as the measure of the noncustodial parent's ability to pay, then 
the recommended support obligation amount should be based on available 
information about the specific circumstances of the noncustodial 
parent, including such factors as those listed in Sec.  302.56(c)(iii); 
and
    (4) Documenting the factual basis for the support obligation or 
recommended support obligation in the case record.
    IV-D agencies have a basic responsibility to take all necessary 
steps to investigate the case and provide the court or administrative 
authority information relating to the income, earnings, and other 
specific circumstances of the noncustodial parent so that the decision-
maker has an evidentiary foundation for establishing an order amount 
based on the noncustodial parent's ability to pay. These required steps 
merely specify the standard case review procedures that many States 
currently use to investigate and obtain income information for the 
parties.
    Since the beginning of the program, we have provided FFP to IV-D 
agencies undertaking investigation activities involving the development 
of evidence, and, when appropriate, bringing court actions for the 
establishment and enforcement of support obligations (Sec.  
304.20(b)(3)(i)), and determining the amount of the child support 
obligation including developing the information needed for a financial 
assessment (Sec.  304.20(b)(3)(ii)). However, over time, and as 
resources have become more constrained, we have found that some 
jurisdictions no longer put resources into case investigation, and 
instead rely on standard presumptions and fictional income to set 
orders.
    It is critical that a IV-D agency conducts investigative work prior 
to sending a case to the court since child support agencies have many 
tools available to gather the information. There are many procedural 
techniques and practices that help facilitate establishing an 
appropriate child support order.\34\ Many States have implemented early 
intervention, parental engagement, and information-gathering 
techniques, and we encourage all States to implement these successful 
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Setting Appropriate Child Support Orders: Practical 
Techniques Used in Child Support Agencies and Judicial Systems in 14 
States, Subcommittee Report, National Judicial-Child Support Task 
Force, Avoiding Inappropriate Orders Subcommittee, August 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule revises regulations governing the State's guidelines 
to focus on the fundamental principle that child support obligations 
are based on the noncustodial parent's ability to pay. This principle 
should be applied to both IV-D and non-IV-D cases in accordance with 
the Federal guidelines statute. The revisions have been addressed 
throughout this section.
    5. Comment: One commenter supported requiring States to consult and 
use all data sources available to determine income, such as quarterly 
wage and new hire data before imputing income (such as imputing a full-
time minimum wage salary). Commenters also suggested that States be 
required to have a methodology for imputing income and to record how 
and why imputation was done, similar to the requirement that there be a 
finding when an order deviates from the guideline amount. In this way, 
imputation would not be prohibited, but would further OCSE's goal to 
discourage routine use of imputation without sufficient investigation 
or consideration of the facts in a particular case.
    Response: As discussed previously, the final rule at Sec.  
302.56(g) reflects these comments by providing a framework for 
determining the amount of imputed income. A written or specific finding 
on the record that application of the guidelines would result in an 
inappropriate or unjust order is required to rebut the presumption that 
the application of the guidelines results in the correct child support 
amount. Findings that rebut the guidelines shall state the amount of 
support that would have been required under the guidelines and include 
a justification as to why the order varies from the guidelines. 
Therefore, support obligations can deviate from guidelines, but the 
decision-maker must state the reasons, on the record, that justify the 
deviation and consider the factors listed in Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(iii). 
Several States treat income imputation as a deviation from the 
guidelines, with a finding on the record.
    6. Comment: One commenter thought that there was conflict between 
the proposed Sec.  302.56(c)(1) requiring that orders be based on 
actual income and proposed paragraph (c)(4) requiring that any support 
ordered amounts be based on available data related to earnings, income, 
assets, or such testimony that income or assets are not consistent with 
the noncustodial parent's current standard of living. This commenter 
interpreted proposed paragraph (c)(1) as based on ``actual'' income 
only, while proposed paragraph (c)(4) appeared to provide for income 
imputation if evidence of ability to pay existed. The commenter noted 
that the actual income requirement could be used to argue against 
income imputation in cases where the parent was capable of earning 
income but was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed or where there 
was no evidence of income because the parent worked in the underground 
economy. The commenter explained that economists estimate that the 
underground economy amounts to $2 trillion. This volume and type of 
income should not be overlooked in the guidelines calculation. The 
commenter further indicated that evidence from a study conducted by 
Mincy and Sorensen (1998) found that 34 to 41 percent of young 
noncustodial fathers are not paying child support, but are actually 
able to pay.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Mincy, Ronald and Elaine J. Sorensen, ``Deadbeat and 
Turnips in Child Support Reform,'' Journal of Policy Analysis and 
Management, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Winter 1998), pp. 44-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: As we discussed under Comment/Response 1 in this 
subsection, States have discretion to determine the criteria on when to 
deviate from guidelines. Therefore, we have revised proposed paragraph 
Sec.  302.56(c)(4), which is redesignated as paragraphs Sec.  
302.56(c)(1)(ii) and (iii).
    It is important to note that the referenced study examined all 
young noncustodial fathers, not those with a child support order, and 
is based on data that are over 25 years old and reflect very different 
economic conditions than exist today. Studies that examine noncustodial 
parents with an obligation to pay find much lower percentages of 
obligors who do not pay and have an ability to pay.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Elaine Sorensen, Liliana Sousa, and Simon Schaner, 
Assessing Child Support Arrears in Nine Large States and the Nation 
(2007), available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/assessing-child-support-arrears-nine-large-states-and-nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Comment: One commenter indicated that about half of the States 
have guidelines that provide for a floor when imputing income (e.g., 
income realized from full-time employment at

[[Page 93523]]

minimum wage). This commenter was concerned about the presumption that 
a parent, at a minimum, is capable of working full-time (or nearly 
full-time in some States) at the minimum wage while many low-income 
parents cannot get a job or retain steady employment to realize full-
time employment. Therefore, the commenter recommended that we 
``prohibit the presumption of a minimum amount of income to a parent in 
excess of the parent's actual or potential income as verified or 
ascertained using state-determined evidence of income that must include 
income data from automated sources available to the IV-D agency in a 
IV-D case unless evidence is presented that the parent is voluntarily 
unemployed or underemployed and has the capacity to earn the minimum 
amount of income presumed or more.''
    Response: We considered this suggestion and revised the final rule 
to clarify that child support orders must be based on the noncustodial 
parent's earnings, income, and other evidence of ability to pay in 
Sec.  302.56(c)(1). We revised the rule to indicate that if income is 
imputed, the guidelines must provide that the order must be set based 
on a consideration of the specific circumstances of the noncustodial 
parent.
    Section 303.4(b)(3) requires that if information about earnings and 
income are not available, the amount of income imputed to the 
noncustodial parent must be based on factors listed in 
302.56(c)(1)(iii).
    8. Comment: One commenter indicated that OCSE should avoid using 
the term ``data'' when referring to ``income data'' since this is not a 
term common to private family law attorneys. The Merriam-Webster 
dictionary defines data as ``that is produced or stored by a 
computer.'' However, the most common sources of income verification in 
non-IV-D cases are tax returns and paystubs. According to the 
commenter, it is arguable whether these sources are stored in a 
computer.
    Response: In the final rule, we avoided using the term ``data'' 
when referring to income and earnings.
    9. Comment: One commenter stated that in most family law cases, 
courts are requiring evidence beyond the testimony of the custodial 
parent before it will impute income to a noncustodial parent and are 
demanding documentary evidence of the noncustodial parent's income or 
assets. The commenter believed that these requirements disadvantage 
low-income litigants who do not have the means to prove that a 
noncustodial parent has unreported employment (i.e., ``working under 
the table'') or is voluntarily participating in an underground economy. 
In these instances, the commenter noted, it is the child who is 
deprived of his or her basic subsistence because the noncustodial 
parent refuses to seek or obtain employment where his or her actual 
income and resources can be ascertained.
    Response: Taking this comment into consideration, we have revised 
the Sec.  303.4 regulatory text, as discussed in Comment/Response 5 in 
this subsection, to require the IV-D agency to take appropriate steps 
in building the documentary evidence related to the case so that this 
evidence can be used by the courts or administrative authorities in 
establishing or modifying child support obligations based on the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay.
    10. Comment: Several commenters had concerns about the proposed 
language in Sec.  302.56(c)(4) related to ``testimony that income or 
assets are not consistent with a noncustodial parent's current standard 
of living.'' One commenter asked us to define ``testimony'' for those 
agencies that use an administrative process rather than a judicial 
process to establish and modify orders. This commenter thought that the 
proposal would create a substantial burden of proof for child support 
agencies. A few commenters thought using the term ``testimony'' implied 
that if States wanted to impute income, they would have to take cases 
to court if they could not locate any financial history for the 
noncustodial parent. The commenters thought this would place an 
additional burden on the court system and cause delays in getting cases 
processed. For States that use an administrative process, commenters 
stated that the requirement would cause delays in case processing as 
well as place additional burdens on attorneys and judges. One commenter 
asked how agencies would set child support orders in default cases when 
there is neither evidence nor testimony from any source with regard to 
parents' subsistence needs or actual income. The commenter noted that a 
significant number of child support orders for very low-income families 
are set by default, and felt that Federal regulations should provide 
guidance to States for those situations. Several commenters suggested 
using the term ``documentary evidence'' rather than ``testimony.''
    Response: The use of ``testimony'' in the NPRM was intended to 
illustrate one form of evidence, not to limit evidence to testimony. We 
agree that most evidence will be documentary. In setting orders, States 
always have at least one piece of information about a noncustodial 
parent--they know where the noncustodial parent lives. Residence can 
provide some insight about the noncustodial parent's standard of 
living. In revising our proposed language for Sec.  302.56 and Sec.  
303.4(b), we have used terms that are appropriate for both judicial and 
administrative processes.
    11. Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns that 
substantially limiting the use of imputed income in guideline 
calculations would cause delays in the establishment and modification 
of child support orders.
    Response: In redrafting the guidelines provision, we looked to 
comments, existing State guidelines, and State best practices related 
to investigation and order-setting. We agree that the final rule may 
result in increased time to establish and modify a child support order, 
but it will also result in more orders that are legitimately based on a 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay, as required by Federal child 
support guidelines law and policy. Support orders based on ability to 
pay should result in better compliance rates and higher collections 
rates, saving time and resources required to enforce orders and 
resulting in actual payments to more children. One State told OCSE that 
by doing more investigative work to develop the evidence, it has 
experienced less conflict between the parents, fewer requests for 
hearings, and less time spent on enforcement. As a result, staff has 
more time to develop the documentary evidence needed to establish a 
child support order based on the noncustodial parent's ability to pay.
    12. Comment: Some commenters maintained that imputed income should 
only be used as a last resort, when evidence suggests that the 
noncustodial parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, or when 
the noncustodial parent's reported income or assets is inconsistent 
with the parent's standard of living. One commenter specifically noted 
that imputing income to a low-income, noncustodial parent who is acting 
in good faith often leads to a child support order that is based on 
unrealistic expectations and exceeds the noncustodial parent's ability 
to pay. This commenter further requested that the State guidelines give 
courts and administrative agencies the flexibility to use reliable, 
circumstantial evidence to establish and modify child support orders 
when traditional income information is not available and the 
noncustodial parent is acting in bad faith. The commenter stated this 
type of evidence does not lead to orders based on assumptions, but 
rather to orders grounded on reasonable inference given

[[Page 93524]]

the evidence presented. This commenter believed that there should be no 
automatic use of minimum wage or any other standardized metric to 
impute income.
    Response: We agree that imputed income should only be used as a 
last resort, and that States need to exercise discretion on a case-by-
case basis in determining a low-income noncustodial parent's ability to 
pay when evidence of earnings and income is not available. We encourage 
States to take this into consideration in developing the criteria for 
determining when to impute income.
    13. Comment: One commenter indicated that overuse of imputing 
income may be avoided by implementing other measures such as: Requiring 
that the support obligation not reduce the noncustodial parent's income 
below a subsistence level; requiring that all findings related to the 
calculation and imputation of income be based on the facts in the court 
record; requiring that all findings regarding the calculation or 
imputation of income be written and subject to appellate review; 
requiring that the court first consider all available direct evidence 
of income, earnings, assets or state what steps have been made to 
obtain such information before using direct or circumstantial proof of 
income or ability to earn; expanding the admissibility of income 
information from regular, reliable data sources (such as new hire and 
quarterly wage reports); and requiring mandatory financial disclosure 
in all cases with appropriate penalties for noncompliance.
    Response: We have evaluated research and practice in this area and 
have incorporated measures into our regulations to increase 
investigation and establish evidence-based orders, rather than 
routinely applying presumptions and imputing income. While State laws 
establish the admissibility of evidence, this does not lessen the IV-D 
agency's responsibility to conduct further investigation when evidence 
of earnings and income is not available. We are also aware of several 
States that mandate financial disclosure by parents with appropriate 
penalties for noncompliance, a practice that is intended to increase 
accurate order-setting and decrease overuse of imputation.
    14. Comment: One commenter suggested that in cases where the 
noncustodial parent has committed acts of domestic violence against the 
custodial parent or the children resulting in incarceration or the 
issuance of a protected order, the abuser should be subject to a 
support order that reflects income imputed to an abuser.
    Response: Under the rule, the court or administrative authority has 
the discretion to consider the specific circumstances of the case. 
However, in doing so, it is important to be clear that establishing, 
modifying, or enforcing a child support order is not a form of 
punishment for incarcerated noncustodial parents. ``The child support 
system is not meant to serve a punitive purpose. Rather, the system is 
an economic one, designed to measure the relative contribution each 
parent should make--and is capable of making--to share fairly the 
economic burdens of child rearing.'' \37\ Incarcerated parents have 
been sentenced for the crime they committed and are repaying their debt 
to society. Imputing income based upon the nature of the crime is 
considered an adverse collateral consequence of incarceration that 
imposes additional civil sanctions beyond the criminal sentence. Other 
examples of collateral consequences include denial of employment, 
housing, public benefits, student loans, and the right to vote. Such 
collateral consequences undermine successful reentry and 
rehabilitation. In 2011, the U.S. Attorney General wrote to every State 
Attorney General asking them to assess their State statutes and 
policies imposing collateral consequences to determine if any should be 
eliminated.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Lambert v. Lambert, Ind. Sup. Ct. (2007).
    \38\ White House Fact Sheet, Enhancing the Fairness and 
Effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System (July 14, 2015), 
available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/14/fact-sheet-enhancing-fairness-and-effectiveness-criminal-justice-system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Comment: One commenter thought that our proposed provision in 
Sec.  302.56(c)(4) would restrict a State's ability to establish child 
support orders when the noncustodial parent chose to avoid the legal 
process. The commenter further explained that, based on his experience 
in local child support operations, this provision would seriously 
disadvantage a custodial parent in a case where the noncustodial 
parent, despite being afforded due process, refused to participate in 
the administrative or judicial process, including fully disclosing 
income.
    Response: The final rule does not indicate when States are allowed 
to impute income; however, the final rule at Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(iii) 
indicates that if imputation of income is allowed, the child support 
order should be based on the specific circumstances of the noncustodial 
parent.
    16. Comment: One commenter stated that in one State, they assume 
that a noncustodial parent has an ability to pay unless there is 
information indicating otherwise, such as receipt of public assistance 
benefits, receipt of SSI payments, or a physician's statement 
indicating inability to work. The commenter stated that the proposed 
regulation would reverse this assumption and instead would presume that 
the noncustodial parent has no ability to pay unless data was available 
related to the parent's actual earnings, income, or assets, or if there 
was testimony that the noncustodial parent's income or assets were not 
consistent with the noncustodial parent's standard of living.
    Response: The amount of child support ordered should be based on 
facts, not assumptions. However, when support orders are based on broad 
(or general) assumptions and do not have a factual basis, they often do 
not result in payments and the children do not benefit. Such 
assumptions can be rooted in a lack of awareness about the availability 
of jobs in low-income communities that are open to parents with limited 
education and job history. The rule explicitly requires States to 
consider these factors in determining the circumstances in which 
imputing income is appropriate. In particular, an incarceration record 
is an important consideration in determining whether it is reasonable 
to impute earnings from a full-time job, as incarceration often serves 
as a barrier to employment. One study showed that after release from 
jail, formerly incarcerated men were unemployed nine more weeks per 
year, their annual earnings were reduced by 40 percent, and hourly 
wages were 11 percent less than if they had never been 
incarcerated.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The Pew Charitable Trusts, Collateral Costs: 
Incarceration's Effect on Economic Mobility, September 2010, 
available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/
pcs_assets/2010/collateralcosts1pdf.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many States work diligently to develop a factual basis for orders. 
However, in some jurisdictions, a two-tiered system exists with better-
off noncustodial parents receiving support orders based upon evidence 
and a determination of their individual income. Poor, low-skilled 
noncustodial parents, usually unrepresented by counsel, receive 
standard-issue support orders. Such orders lack a factual basis and are 
instead based upon fictional income, assumptions not grounded in 
reality, and beliefs that a full-time job is available to anyone who 
seeks it. Orders that routinely lack a factual basis and are based upon 
standard presumptions erode the sense of procedural fairness and the 
legitimacy of the orders, resulting in lower compliance. Thus, it is 
critically important that States take

[[Page 93525]]

reasonable efforts to develop a sufficient factual basis for all cases 
by fully investigating their cases.
    17. Comment: One commenter recommended that the NPRM be revised to 
allow States to use imputed income, such as State median wage, 
occupational wage rates, or other methods of imputation as defined by 
State law, as a last resort when the parent has not provided financial 
information and the agency cannot match to automated sources.
    Response: Imputing standard amounts in default cases based upon 
State median wage or statewide occupational wage rates does not comply 
with this rule because it is unlikely to result in an order that a 
particular noncustodial parent has the ability to pay. When other 
information about the noncustodial parent's ability to pay is not 
available, information about residence will often provide the decision-
maker with some basis for making this calculation. In addition, 
information provided by the custodial parent can provide the basis for 
a reasonable calculation, particularly in situations when the 
noncustodial parent fails to participate in the process. OCSE revised 
the final rule so that if there is no evidence or insufficient evidence 
of earnings and income, or it is inappropriate to use earnings and 
income as defined in Sec.  302.56(c)(1), then the State's guidelines 
must provide that the State take into consideration the specific 
circumstances of the noncustodial parent as delineated in Sec.  
302.56(c)(iii) and impute income under criteria developed by the State 
based upon the noncustodial parent's ability to pay the amount.
    18. Comment: One commenter asked if a person should be ordered to 
pay a minimum amount of support regardless of his or her circumstances 
to recognize the responsibility for the child's support, with less 
regard for the income capacity. The cases that the commenter noted 
included incarcerated individuals, minor parents, parents in drug or 
alcohol treatment programs, and others. The commenter further explained 
that while a strong argument can be made in these cases to set a 
minimum amount of support, setting a minimum order could be 
problematic. At one end is a token order ($1.00 per month); on the 
other hand is a true minimum order (such as $250 per month). This 
commenter suggested that these situations not be included in the 
``imputation of income'' arguments as they are different. The commenter 
was hopeful that the final regulation would leave setting the amount of 
a minimum order to State or local discretion and policy.
    Response: The foundation of Federal guidelines law and policy is 
the establishment of income-based orders. The rule is evidence-based 
and codifies longstanding Federal policy that orders must be based upon 
a determination of the noncustodial parent's ability to pay. High 
minimum orders that are issued across-the-board without regard to the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay the amount do not comply with 
these regulations.
    19. Comment: One commenter was concerned that the NPRM would unduly 
favor those obligors who attempt to avoid their obligations to their 
children by failing to respond or hiding assets, as well as favor 
incarcerated obligors simply because they are incarcerated.
    Response: We do not agree. The final rule requires States to 
investigate, not make assumptions. The rule removes a collateral 
consequence of incarceration by requiring that orders for incarcerated 
parents be set based on the same standard as every other parent: 
Ability to pay. We believe our rule will bolster a sense of fair play 
and compliance, and increase the likelihood that formerly incarcerated 
parents will engage in legitimate work and support their children upon 
release.
    20. Comment: One commenter indicated that the number of existing 
child support orders that are based on imputed income are evidence of 
child support agencies' and courts' difficulties with acknowledging the 
reality of chronic unemployment and adults with no or very low actual 
income.
    Response: OCSE also has these concerns and therefore is regulating 
to ensure that child support guidelines are based on the noncustodial 
parent's ability to pay. Some States need to do a better job in 
gathering information about the noncustodial parent's actual income or 
income history and developing the circumstantial evidence that can be 
used by the courts or the administrative authority in setting the child 
support orders.
    21. Comment: One commenter indicated that in IV-D cases when the 
noncustodial parent's income is unknown and the parent fails to provide 
information, one State's law currently requires child support to be 
based on ``presumed'' income. This is not ``actual income,'' but the 
State's law also requires that the order be set aside as soon as the 
noncustodial parent's actual income is determined. The commenter said 
that the NPRM references ``presumed'' income as a problem, but it is 
never a problem when the law is properly applied. Rather, according to 
the commenter, it is an efficient ``locate'' tool that encourages 
cooperation while not shifting unnecessary burden to the custodial 
parent.
    Response: We understand there will be situations where income must 
be imputed, but this should only occur after investigative efforts by 
the IV-D agency staff. The problem is that some States do not impute 
income based on the specific circumstances of the noncustodial parent 
to fill evidentiary gaps--instead, imputation has become the standard 
practice of first resort in lieu of fact-gathering. While this State's 
law sets aside an order when the actual income is determined, we are 
concerned that unrealistic and high arrearages will accumulate, 
particularly in cases involving indigent, unrepresented noncustodial 
parents prior to the order being set aside. When an arrearage 
accumulates, it often results in a low compliance rate over the life of 
the child support order, which does not benefit the children and 
families. For this reason, States should impute income to set child 
support order amounts only in limited situations.
    22. Comment: Some commenters indicated that in cases where there is 
domestic violence, it is particularly important that victims have 
access to the full range of tools courts use to argue for imputed 
earnings because in these cases, abusers often fail to comply with 
discovery, do not provide full disclosure to the courts, and otherwise 
engage in bad faith tactics designed to further harass the custodial 
parent. The commenters indicated they have found that in domestic 
violence cases, the courts routinely impute earnings in cases where the 
noncustodial parent is uncooperative for these reasons. Another 
commenter also discussed that the NPRM needs to provide judges more 
guidance on imputing income, especially in a case involving domestic 
violence when one parent refuses to comply with discovery, does not 
disclose income, or engages in bad faith tactics.
    Response: Domestic violence is one of the specific circumstances of 
the noncustodial parent that the State should consider when developing 
and investigating the case prior to establishing a support obligation. 
In accordance with Sec.  302.56(c), if the State is not able to obtain 
any income information for the noncustodial parent, and the parent has 
been uncooperative in the State's efforts, then the courts or 
administrative authority should attempt to analyze all the specific 
circumstances on which to base a child support obligation amount. If 
this information is

[[Page 93526]]

not available, the courts or administrative authority may impute income 
taking into consideration factors listed in Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(iii) 
such as economic data related to the noncustodial parent's residence.
    23. Comment: One commenter addressed the statewide standard that 
his State had used when imputing income. He commented that his State 
used to apply the Federal Minimum Basic Standard Adequate Care (MBSAC) 
to impute income. In 2003, that amount was an annual income of $26,400, 
yielding an order of $423. In today's dollars that would yield a 
presumptive order of $602 per month for one child. The State thought a 
responsible low-earnings noncustodial parent, upon learning of such a 
high ordered amount, would come forward for a modification. However, 
experience showed that the low-earnings noncustodial parents did not 
respond that way. Based on a recommendation of the Urban Institute in 
2003, the State abandoned the MBSAC standard in favor of a full-time 
minimum wage imputation. However, according to the commenter, economic 
events since 2003 (a significant decrease in true full-time jobs) would 
argue in favor of further reduction of that recommendation.
    Response: We agree that States need to evaluate the economic 
factors such as unemployment rates, prevalence of full-time job 
opportunities available to parents of similar skills and history, 
growth of part-time and contingent work. The job market for low-skilled 
men and women has changed since the 1990's, and incarceration policies 
have impacted the ability of many parents to find work. This is why we 
added a requirement that the guidelines committee must review these 
types of factors when reviewing their child support guidelines under 
Sec.  302.56(h). Based on comments, we revised the final rule at Sec.  
302.56(c)(iii) to require that if a State imputes income to a 
noncustodial parent, the guidelines must take into consideration the 
specific circumstances of the noncustodial parent including factors 
listed in Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(iii) even if only one source of 
information such as residence is available.
Health Care Needs [Sec.  302.56(c)(2)]
    1. Comment: Several commenters recommended that in proposed Sec.  
302.56(c)(3), which has been redesignated as Sec.  302.56(c)(2) in the 
final rule, we remove the phrase ``in accordance with Sec.  303.31 of 
this chapter.'' They indicated that Sec.  303.31 applies only to IV-D 
cases while the guidelines must apply to all child support cases, so 
the reference is inappropriate. Commenters also indicated that Sec.  
303.31 has not yet been revised to align with the provisions of the 
Affordable Care Act (ACA). Until this happens, and the related 
statutory provisions are revised, the current reference creates 
conflicts with ACA provisions.
    Response: We agree that because the child support guidelines apply 
to all cases, the reference to Sec.  303.31 should be removed since 
this section only applies to IV-D cases. Therefore, we made this 
revision in the final rule. Additionally, to conform to the changes we 
made in the final rule to align Sec.  303.31 with the ACA, we made 
conforming changes in Sec.  302.56(c)(2) to reference the health care 
needs through ``private or public health care coverage and/or cash 
medical support.''
Incarceration as Voluntary Unemployment [Sec.  302.56(c)(3)]
    1. Comment: Over 600 commenters supported the proposed Sec.  
302.56(c)(5), which has been redesignated as Sec.  302.56(c)(3), to 
prohibit the treatment of incarceration as ``voluntary unemployment.'' 
However, four commenters believed that such a limitation should not 
apply where the parent is incarcerated for a crime against the 
supported child or custodial parent. Some commenters also thought that 
this limitation should not apply where the parent has been incarcerated 
for intentional failure to pay child support. These commenters thought 
that strong public policy dictates against affording relief to an 
obligor who commits a violent crime against the custodial parent or 
child, or an obligor who has the means to pay child support but refuses 
to do so. The commenters urged OCSE to include these important 
exceptions in the final rule. One additional commenter indicated that 
support for a policy change in this area was based on the overwhelming 
consensus that this is the best practice for families and IV-D 
agencies, regardless of where they are located.
    Response: We agree with the overwhelming majority of commenters, 
and do not make changes in response to the four commenters' suggestion 
for an exception based on the nature of the crime. Three-quarters of 
States have eliminated treatment of incarceration as voluntary 
unemployment in recent years.
    As discussed in Comment/Response 13 in the Imputing Income [Sec.  
302.56(c)(1)(iii)] subsection, establishing, modifying, or enforcing a 
child support order is not a form of punishment for incarcerated 
noncustodial parents,\40\ and the collateral consequences of the 
treatment of incarceration as voluntary unemployment include 
uncollectible debt, reduced employment, and increased recidivism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Lambert v. Lambert, 861 NE. 2nd 1176 (Ind. 2007), available 
at: https://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02220701rts.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per section 466(a)(10) of the Social Security Act, all parents 
facing a substantial change of circumstances such as a substantial drop 
in income, through a loss of employment or otherwise, are entitled to 
request a review, and if appropriate, adjustment of their support 
orders. Incarceration surely qualifies as a substantial change in 
circumstances, yet State laws and policies--rooted in 19th century 
jurisprudence--that treat incarceration as ``voluntary unemployment'' 
in effect block the application of the statutory review and adjustment 
provision. In most cases, this practice results in child support orders 
that are unrealistically high, which research indicates undermine 
stable employment and family relationships, encourage participation in 
the underground economy, and increase recidivism.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of 
Child Support Enforcement, Incarceration, reentry and Child Support 
Issues: National and State Research Overview (2006), available at: 
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2006/reports/incarceration_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the significant research on the consequences of continuing 
the accrual of support when it is clear there is no ability to pay, 
one-quarter of States continue treating incarceration as ``voluntary 
unemployment.'' Failing to provide an opportunity for review and 
possible adjustment of a child support order when a parent is 
incarcerated does not mean that most noncustodial parents will have the 
ability to make payments to their children while in prison or after 
release.\42\ Studies find that incarcerated parents leave prison with 
an average of $15,000 to $30,000 or more in unpaid child support, with 
no means to pay upon release.\43\ Not

[[Page 93527]]

considering incarceration as a substantial change of circumstances 
makes it less likely that noncustodial parents will work and pay 
support upon release and more likely that they will recidivate.\44\ As 
a result, we have also revised Sec.  303.8(c) to indicate that the 
reasonable quantitative standards that the State develops for review 
and adjustment must not treat incarceration as a legal bar for 
petitioning for and receiving an adjustment of an order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Hager, Eli, ``For men in prison, child support debt becomes 
a crushing debt,'' The Washington Post and the Marshall Project, 
October 19, 2015, available at: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/10/18/for-men-in-prison-child-support-becomes-a-crushing-debt.
    \43\ See Esther Griswold and Jessica Pearson, ``Twelve Reasons 
for Collaboration Between Departments of Correction and Child 
Support Enforcement Agencies,'' Corrections Today (2003 which is 
available at: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Twelve+reasons+for+collaboration+between+departments+of+correction...-a0123688074; Jessica Pearson, ``Building Debt While Doing Time: 
Child Support and Incarceration,'' Judges' Journal (2004), which is 
available at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/courts/publications/building-debt-while-doing-time-child-support-and-incarceration-2/; 
Nancy Thoennes, Child Support Profile: Massachusetts Incarcerated 
and Paroled Parents (2002), which is available at: https://cntrpolres.qwestoffice.net/reports/profile%20of%20CS%20among%20incarcerated%20&%20paroled%20parents.pdf;
 and Pamela Ovwigho, Correne Saunders, and Catherine Born. The 
Intersection of Incarceration & Child support: A snapshot of 
Maryland's Caseload (2005), which is available at: https://www.familywelfare.umaryland.edu/reports1/incarceration.pdf. See also 
Federal Interagency Reentry Council, Reentry Myth Buster on Child 
Support (2011), available at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/documents/0000/1063/Reentry_Council_Mythbuster_Child_Support.pdf.
    \44\ Pearson, Jessica, ``Building Debt While Doing Time: Child 
Support and Incarceration,'' Judges' Journal 43:1, Winter 2004, 
which is available at: https://csdaca.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/1/Research/Arrears/BuildingDebt%20(2).pdf; and Harris, 
Alexes, Heather Evans, and Katherine Beckett, ``Drawing Blood from 
Stones: Legal Debt and Social Inequality in the Contemporary United 
States,'' American Journal of Sociology, 115:6, 1753-1799, May 2010, 
which is available at: https://faculty.washington.edu/kbeckett/articles/AJS.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Comment: Several commenters believed that the manner by which 
the child support system treats incarcerated obligors should be a State 
matter, not subject to any mandate. They stated that this is a 
significant public policy issue with considerable state-specific case 
law that is not appropriate for Federal regulation. Some commenters 
believed that reducing obligations was rewarding bad behavior, and it 
was not appropriate for the NPRM to attempt to override that State 
policy decision. In addition, they noted that the proposal would 
ultimately lead to a reduced child support obligation even if the 
reason for incarceration was willful failure to pay child support or 
some other heinous crime against the child. Other commenters believed 
that discretion in how to treat incarceration was at the core of 
judicial decision making, as reflected in the State's case law that 
almost uniformly affirms lower court rulings denying relief to the 
incarcerated obligor.
    Response: All but 14 States have eliminated this policy.\45\ In 
Lambert v. Lambert, the Indiana Supreme Court found that 
``incarceration does not relieve parents of their child support 
obligations. On the other hand, in determining support orders, courts 
should not impute potential income to an imprisoned parent based on 
pre-incarceration wages or other employment related income, but should 
rather calculate support based on the actual income and assets 
available to the parent.'' \46\ While some States have prior case law 
finding that incarceration should be considered voluntary unemployment, 
most States have updated case law, guidelines and court rules to allow 
for review of the specific facts of the case, and, if appropriate, 
adjustment of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ ``Voluntary Unemployment,'' Imputed Income, and 
Modification Laws and Policies for Incarcerated Noncustodial 
Parents, PAID--Child Support Fact Sheet #4 (companion piece), June 
20, 2012, available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/voluntary-unemployment-imputed-income-and-modification-laws-and-policies.
    \46\ Lambert v. Lambert, 861 NE. 2nd 1176 (Ind. 2007), available 
at: https://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02220701rts.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule does not provide special treatment for incarcerated 
parents. Rather, it requires application of Federal review and 
adjustment requirements, including that orders be reviewed and adjusted 
upward or downward in all cases upon a showing of any substantial 
change in circumstances, including a substantial change in 
circumstances due to unemployment or incarceration. Implementation of 
Sec.  302.56(c)(3) will ensure that States consider incarceration as a 
substantial change of circumstances that warrants the child support 
order to be reviewed and, if appropriate, adjusted based on the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay. If an incarcerated parent has 
income or assets, these can be taken into consideration in reviewing 
the order. However, States should not assume an ability to earn based 
on pre-imprisonment wages, particularly since incarceration typically 
results in a dramatic drop in income and ability to get a job upon 
release.
    Moreover, once released, noncustodial parents tend to view the 
methods employed to collect support and arrearages as a disincentive to 
seek legitimate gainful employment. Research suggests that using 
maximum-level income withholding rates and other enforcement mechanisms 
tend to discourage employment, particularly among individuals in low 
socioeconomic communities.\47\ When combined with the difficulty faced 
by formerly incarcerated parents in obtaining employment, there is a 
strong incentive to seek work in the ``underground economy'' where it 
is difficult for authorities and custodial parents to track earnings 
and collect payments.\48\ Research demonstrates that when high support 
orders continue through a period of incarceration and thus build 
arrearages, the response by the released obligor is to find more 
methods of avoiding payment, including a return to crime. It is 
unrealistic to expect that most formerly incarcerated parents will be 
able to repay high arrearages upon release. To the extent that an order 
fails to take into account the real financial capacity of a jailed 
parent, the system fails the child by making it more likely that the 
child will be deprived of adequate support over the long term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Harry J. Holzer and Paul Offner, ``The Puzzle of Black Male 
Unemployment,'' The Public Interest (2004) Spring, 74-84, which is 
available at: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080710_20041546thepuzzleofblackmaleunemploymentharryjholzer.pdf; 
Harry J. Holzer, Paul Offner, and Elaine Sorensen, ``Declining 
Employment among Young Black Less-Educated Men: The Role of 
Incarceration and Child Support,'' Journal of Policy Analysis and 
Management, (2005) 24(2): 329-35, which is available at: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/declining-employment-among-young-black-less-educated-men/view/full_report.
    \48\ Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy 
Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the 
Community (2005), Justice Center, available at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/reentry/publications/the-report-of-the-re-entry-policy-council-charting-the-safe-and-successful-return-of-prisoners-to-the-community/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The child support system is not meant to serve a punitive purpose. 
Rather, the system is an economic one, designed to measure the relative 
contribution each parent should make--and is capable of making--to 
share fairly in the economic burdens of child rearing.\49\ Considering 
the existing evidence, imposing high support payments on incarcerated 
parents serves as a punitive measure, becomes an additional collateral 
consequence of incarceration, and does not serve the best interests of 
the child by damaging the parent-child relationship and the prospect 
for consistent child support payments in the future.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Lambert v. Lambert, 861 NE. 2nd 1176 (Ind. 2007), available 
at: https://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02220701rts.pdf.
    \50\ Cammett, Ann, ``Expanding Collateral Sanctions: The Hidden 
Costs of Aggressive Child Support Enforcement Against Incarcerated 
Parents,'' Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 13:2, 312-
339, Summer 2006, which is available at: https://www.academia.edu/2582076/Expanding_Collateral_Sanctions_The_Hidden_Costs_of_Aggressive_Child_Support_Enforcement_Against_Incarcerated_Parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005, the Council of State Governments, a nonpartisan 
association of all three branches of State government, issued the 
Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful 
Return of Prisoners to the Community, which provided consensus-based 
recommendations to improve successful reentry of formerly incarcerated 
people into society. Many of these recommendations were subsequently 
incorporated into the

[[Page 93528]]

Second Chance Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-199).\51\ The report 
specifically identified child support obligations, especially 
arrearages, as a barrier to successful re-entry into society because 
they have a tendency to disrupt family reunification, parent-child 
contact, and the employment patterns of formerly incarcerated 
parents.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The text of the Pub. L. 110-199 is available at: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ199/PLAW-110publ199.pdf.
    \52\ Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-Entry Policy 
Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the 
Community, Justice Center, 2005, available at: https://www.csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/1694-11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marginal Cost To Raise a Child/Adjustment for Parenting Time [Sec.  
302.56(c)(4)]
    1. Comment: Several commenters suggested that proposed Sec.  
302.56(c)(2), which was redesignated in the final rule as Sec.  
302.56(c)(4), should be revised to indicate that the guidelines should 
be ``based on the statewide median marginal cost for the average family 
to raise a first, second, or subsequent child, and result in a 
computation of a the support obligation that does not exceed such 
median marginal cost by more than 20%.'' One commenter specifically 
indicated that they recommended that child support orders be based on 
the marginal cost to raise a child rather than parental income. Many 
other commenters suggested more detailed revisions related to the 
marginal cost to raise children. Some commenters suggested that, as 
part of the review of a State's guidelines, a State must consider 
economic data on the marginal cost of raising children, and the child 
support orders resulting from the guidelines must approximate the 
obligor's specified share of such marginal costs. These commenters 
believed that the objective is to establish child support orders that 
approximate the true cost of supporting children, over and above what 
it costs the parents to support themselves. They noted that if the 
amount of support ordered is too low, the child suffers. However, they 
noted, child support orders that constitute a windfall to the receiving 
parent are a potent cause of bitter custody battles, resentment, and 
hostility that can last throughout the years of childhood. Moreover, 
according to the commenters, if the child support order is too high, 
there is a built-in incentive for the parent who expects to win custody 
to resist shared parenting.
    Response: We do not agree with this suggestion. State child support 
guidelines are required to be based on the noncustodial parent's 
income, earnings, and other evidence of ability to pay. However, States 
have discretion and flexibility in defining the specific descriptive 
and numeric criteria used to compute the amount of the child support 
obligation. Once a parent's income is ascertained, the rule does not 
limit States' flexibility in defining the percentage or amount of 
income ordered to be paid as child support, so long as the resulting 
order takes into consideration the noncustodial parent's ability to pay 
it. State guidelines should not be based on the marginal cost of 
raising the child without taking into consideration the noncustodial 
parent's ability to pay. This rule only establishes minimum components 
for State child support guidelines consistent with Federal law, and 
does not impose more specific requirements, that are not inconsistent 
with Federal law and regulations.
    2. Comment: Many commenters recommended that proposed Sec.  
302.56(c)(2), which has been redesignated in the final rule as Sec.  
302.56(c)(4), include adjustments for the amount of parenting time each 
parent is willing and able to provide.
    Response: Currently, child support guidelines in 36 States provide 
for adjustments in the child support order for the amount of parenting 
time each parent has with the children. While we support this concept 
and recognize that in most State guidelines the consideration of 
parenting time is part of the support order establishment process, 
States are in the best position to determine how to consider parenting 
time in calculating the amount of the child support obligation since 
the child support guideline formula is at the discretion of the State.
Quadrennial Review [Sec.  302.56(e)]
    1. Comment: While most commenters generally supported the 
requirement in Sec.  302.56(e), that ``[t]he State must review, and 
revise, if appropriate, the guidelines established under paragraph (a) 
of this section at least once every 4 years to ensure that their 
application results in the determination of appropriate child support 
award amounts,'' a few commenters thought that the reports from the 
quadrennial review, the effective date of the guidelines, and the date 
of the next review should be published on the internet and made 
accessible to the public. They also made recommendations regarding who 
should be on the reviewing body. They specifically recommended that the 
following language be added to this provision indicating that the State 
shall publish on the internet and make accessible to the public all 
reports of the reviewing body, the membership of the reviewing body, 
when the guidelines became effective, and the date of the next 
quadrennial review.
    These commenters argued that child support guidelines are not a 
matter to be developed by a closed group. They viewed guidelines as a 
matter of immense public import with huge individual impact on millions 
of people. They recommended that the guideline committee include at 
least two members of the general public--one advocating for payors and 
one advocating for recipients. They believed that this was a first step 
towards bringing transparency to the creation of child support 
guidelines.
    They further commented that no reasonable objection could be raised 
to this provision. Commenters also indicated that possible objections 
to including members of the general public might be that such people 
could lack knowledge of the intricacies of child support or the law, 
could advocate for narrow interests, or could be disruptive. Given that 
the two members of the public would undoubtedly be outnumbered by those 
who traditionally are called upon to write child support guidelines, 
fear that these members could control the outcome is unreasonable.
    Response: OCSE agrees and we added at the end of Sec.  302.56(e) 
the following: ``The State shall publish on the internet and make 
accessible to the public all reports of the reviewing body, the 
membership of the reviewing body, the effective date of the guidelines, 
and the date of the next quadrennial review.'' We also agree that the 
quadrennial review process/report should be public information that is 
shared.
    Regarding the composition of the committee or body conducting the 
quadrennial review, we further agree that the quadrennial review should 
provide for a meaningful opportunity for participation by citizens and 
particularly low-income citizens, representing both custodial and 
noncustodial parents. The child support guidelines review body should 
also include participation by the child support agency. While we are 
not mandating the specific composition of the review body, we are 
requiring in Sec.  302.56(h)(3) meaningful opportunity for public 
input, including input from low-income custodial and noncustodial 
parents and their representatives, and the views and advice of the 
State IV-D agency.

[[Page 93529]]

Rebuttable Presumption [Sec.  302.56(f)]
    1. Comment: Over 500 commenters from private citizens, most of them 
identical comments from mass mailings, proposed that we add language at 
the end of Sec.  302.56(f) that indicates that the presumption can be 
rebutted successfully with genetic evidence that the obligor is not the 
biological parent of the child, and by the lack of written adoption 
records, in which case there will be no support obligation.
    They commented that this addition is meant to update our support 
laws to reflect the power of modern genetics. They cited the directives 
in Executive Order 13563 as controlling. Section 5 of that Executive 
Order states:

    Sec. 5. Science. Consistent with the President's Memorandum for 
the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, ``Scientific 
Integrity'' (March 9, 2009), and its implementing guidance, each 
agency shall ensure the objectivity of any scientific and 
technological information and processes used to support the agency's 
regulatory actions.

    The President's 2009 Memorandum referenced therein, states:

    To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in 
the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and 
technological information in policymaking.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The President's 2009 Memorandum is available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-3-9-09.

    The commenters further explained that DNA evidence is indisputable. 
They argued that it is time to update Federal regulations so that 
support obligations are not imposed on the wrong individuals.
    Response: Many States have legal provisions related to parentage in 
addition to genetic evidence and evidence of adoption records. Given 
how rapidly the fields of genetic testing and assisted reproduction are 
changing, OCSE agrees that this area is an appropriate area to review. 
However, a full discussion of the issues is required and beyond the 
scope of this rule. It is our view that changes to existing Federal 
regulations to address this important area would call for a specific 
notice in the Federal Register, to allow for a public comment period.
Written Findings [Sec.  302.56(g)]
    1. Comment: Some commenters recommended that we qualify in proposed 
Sec.  302.56(g) that a written finding or specific finding on the 
record of a judicial or administrative proceeding for the award of 
child support that the application of the guidelines established under 
paragraph (a) of this section would be unjust or inappropriate in a 
particular case will be sufficient to rebut the presumption in that 
case, as determined under criteria established by the State ``; but in 
no event shall the award exceed the limit specified in proposed 
paragraph (c)(2) unless the child has special needs as certified and 
quantified by a licensed medical doctor.''
    Response: We did not make this specific revision to Sec.  302.56(g) 
because the paragraph already requires that the criteria must take into 
consideration the best interest of the child. States have the 
flexibility and discretion to establish such criteria. Therefore, 
States may take into consideration a child with special needs as 
certified and quantified by a licensed medical doctor.
Parenting Time [Proposed Sec.  302.56(h)]
    1. Comment: The majority of commenters supported the proposed Sec.  
302.56(h), allowing States to recognize parenting time provisions when 
both parents have agreed to the parenting time provision or pursuant to 
State guidelines. Many commenters expressed support for improved 
coordination between child support and parenting time procedures, and 
were supportive of the proposed language. However, some commenters 
indicated confusion about the intended scope of the provision and 
raised a number of implementation questions. Some comments reflected a 
misunderstanding about the extent to which FFP would become available 
for parenting time activities and raised questions about cost 
allocation. Other commenters questioned the role of the child support 
program in creating, monitoring, and enforcing a parenting time order, 
and the legal relationship between child support payments and parenting 
time. Still other comments expressed concerns regarding the child 
support agency's lack of experience in handling complex family issues, 
such as domestic violence and encouraged us to take advantage of our 
parenting time pilot grant program to develop additional technical 
assistance resources. Commenters also sought clarity regarding the 
combination of child support and custody or visitation processes and 
monitoring compliance with parenting time orders. A number of State 
commenters suggested that a new rule was not necessary to affirm the 
general principle that States are not required to implement costly and 
complex cost allocation plans if such expenditures are de minimis and 
incidental to reimbursable child support program activities.
    Response: While expressing support for the rule, the commenters 
sought clarification about the intent, scope, and implementation of the 
proposed provision. Our intention in proposing Sec.  302.56(h) was not 
to open up child support funding for a new set of parenting time 
activities, which Congress must authorize, or to collapse separate 
child support and parenting time legal rights. Our intention was to 
acknowledge existing policies and practices in many States, and to 
provide a technical clarification that addressed audit and cost 
allocation questions arising from current practices in a number of 
States.
    IV-D program costs related to parenting time arrangements must 
continue to be minimal and incidental to IV-D child support order 
establishment activities and not have any impact on the Federal budget. 
In light of the comments received on the proposed parenting time 
provisions and the unintended confusion regarding these proposals, OCSE 
determined that new rules are not necessary. Therefore, we deleted the 
proposed paragraph (h).
    OCSE recognizes that the inclusion of an uncontested and agreed 
upon parenting time provision incidental to the establishment of a 
child support order aligns with Pub. L. 113-183, ``Preventing Sex 
Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act.'' \54\ Section 303 of this 
recent law indicated that it is the sense of the Congress that ``(1) 
establishing parenting time arrangements when obtaining child support 
orders is an important goal which should be accompanied by strong 
family violence safeguards; and (2) States should use existing funding 
sources to support the establishment of parenting time arrangements, 
including child support incentives, Access and Visitation Grants, and 
Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants.'' Any new 
costs related to parenting time provisions would require the State to 
identify and dedicate funds separate and apart from IV-D allowable 
expenditures consistent with HHS cost principles codified in 45 CFR 
part 75, subpart E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ183/pdf/PLAW-113publ183.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thirty-six States have adopted guidelines that recognize parenting 
time arrangements in establishing child support orders. In practical 
terms, parenting time is an important corollary to child support 
establishment because the child support agency, or finder of fact, 
needs information about the parenting time arrangements in order for 
the guideline amount to be effectively calculated. Other States have 
parenting time guidelines or have other procedures in place to 
coordinate child

[[Page 93530]]

support and parenting time processes. These longstanding practices have 
not changed the fact that parenting time is a legally distinct and 
separate right from the child support obligation.
    Including both the calculation of support and the amount of 
parenting time in the support order at the same time increases 
efficiency, and reduces the burden on parents of being involved in 
multiple administrative or judicial processes with no cost to the child 
support program.
    We encourage States to continue to take steps to recognize 
parenting time provisions in child support orders when both parents 
have agreed to the parenting time provision or in accordance with the 
State guidelines when the costs are incidental to the child support 
proceeding and there is no cost to the child support program.
Child Support Guidelines Review/Deviation Factors [Sec.  302.56(h)]
    1. Comment: While most commenters supported that States should 
maintain flexibility in defining deviation factors, one commenter 
recommended that proposed Sec.  302.56(i), which has been redesignated 
as Sec.  302.56(h), further specify that deviation factors established 
by the State must be ``in the best interest of the child.''
    Response: We do not agree. This section establishes steps a State 
must take when reviewing its child support guidelines. Section 
302.56(h)(2) provides that deviation from the presumptive child support 
amount may be based on factors established by the State. It is 
appropriate for the State to have discretion to establish such factors.
    Section 302.56(g) requires that a written finding or specific 
finding on the record of a judicial or administrative proceeding for 
the establishment or modification of a child support order that the 
application of the guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this 
section would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case will be 
sufficient to rebut the presumption in that case, as determined under 
criteria established by the State. Such criteria must take into 
consideration the best interests of the child. The requirement in Sec.  
302.56(g) relates to how the deviation may be applied on a case-by-case 
basis, including having a written finding or finding on the record 
justifying the deviation from the child support guidelines.
    2. Comment: Many commenters suggested additional factors that the 
State must consider during its guideline review such as economic data 
on the marginal cost of raising children and an analysis of case data, 
by gender, gathered through sampling or other methods, on the 
application of, and deviations from, the guidelines. The commenters 
thought that an analysis of case data by gender must be used in the 
State's review of the guidelines to ensure that gender bias is 
declining steadily, and that deviations from the guidelines are 
limited. Although not specifically related to this paragraph, 
throughout the comments to the proposed guideline regulation, 
commenters expressed concerns that: Guidelines needed to consider 
economic data on local job markets, guidelines did not take into 
consideration low-income noncustodial parents, and the rate of default 
orders were increasing inappropriately.
    Response: Considering all of the various concerns about how States 
were developing criteria for guidelines, we have revised proposed Sec.  
302.56(i), which has been redesignated as Sec.  302.56(h), to add 
factors that the States must consider when reviewing their guidelines 
for the required quadrennial review. We added paragraph (h)(1) to 
require that the States consider economic data on the cost of raising 
children, labor market data (such as unemployment rates, employment 
rates, hours worked, and earnings) by occupation and skill-level for 
the State and local job markets, the impact of guideline policies and 
amounts on custodial and noncustodial parents who have family incomes 
below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, and factors that 
influence employment rates among noncustodial parents and compliance 
with current child support orders.
    We also added paragraph (h)(2) to require the States to analyze 
case data, gathered through sampling or other methods, on the 
application of and deviations from the child support guidelines, as 
well as the rates of default and imputed orders and orders determined 
using the low-income adjustment required under paragraph (c)(1)(ii). 
The analysis must also include a comparison of payments on child 
support orders by case characteristics, including whether the order was 
entered by default, based on imputed income, or determined using the 
low-income adjustment required under paragraph (c)(1)(ii). The analysis 
of the data must be used in the State's review of the guidelines to 
ensure that deviations from the child support guidelines are limited 
and guideline amounts are appropriate based on criteria established by 
the State under paragraph (g).
    3. Comment: Several commenters questioned whether Sec.  302.56(i), 
redesignated as Sec.  302.56(h), was necessary. They thought that the 
proposed new sentence regarding deviations from child support 
guidelines appeared redundant with the reference to rebuttal criteria 
in paragraph (f). They suggested that the new language be deleted or 
clarified in the final rule.
    Response: We carefully reviewed the language to ensure it was not 
redundant. Section 302.56(h) lists steps a State must take as part of 
its review of the State's guidelines. The analysis of the data must be 
used to ensure that deviations are limited and guideline amounts are 
appropriate based on criteria established by the State under paragraph 
(g). The compliance date is for the first quadrennial review of the 
guidelines commencing after the State's guidelines have initially been 
revised under this final rule. However, proposed Sec.  302.56(g) 
requires a written finding or specific finding on the record of a 
judicial or administrative proceeding for the establishment or 
modification of a child support order that the application of the 
guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case in 
order to rebut the presumption that the guideline amount is the correct 
amount of child support to be awarded.
Section 302.70--Required State Laws
    1. Comment: Commenters overwhelmingly supported increasing the 
exemption period allowed under section 466(d) of the Act from 3 years 
to 5 years; however, one commenter suggested that consideration also be 
given to the development of an abridged submission process for 
renewals.
    Response: OCSE appreciates the suggestion; however, submission of 
the required information is statutory. Section 466(d) states that if a 
State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary, through the 
presentation to the Secretary of such data pertaining to caseloads, 
processing times, administrative costs, and average support 
collections, and such other data or estimates as the Secretary may 
specify, that the enactment of any law or the use of any procedure or 
procedures required by or pursuant to this section will not increase 
the effectiveness and efficiency of the State child support enforcement 
program, the Secretary may exempt the State, subject to the Secretary's 
continuing review and to termination of the exemption should 
circumstances change, from the requirement to enact the law or use the 
procedure or procedures involved.

[[Page 93531]]

Section 302.76--Job Services
    1. Comment: This proposed provision received overwhelming support 
from states, Members of Congress, and the public, but it also was 
opposed by some Members of Congress who did not think the provision 
should be included in the final rule. Many supportive commenters 
focused on ways to incorporate employment services for noncustodial 
parents within a broader workforce agenda. One commenter suggested that 
States that offer job services as part of their child support 
enforcement strategy should leverage funds to provide different, but 
complementary services while coordinating training costs with other 
Federal programs. Several commenters had questions about how States 
would coordinate with other Federal job services programs to ensure 
efficiency, reduce duplication, cover costs appropriately, and reduce 
administrative burden. One commenter suggested allowing braided funding 
for providing complementary services under different funding streams.
    Response: While we appreciate the support that the commenters 
expressed, we think allowing for federal IV-D reimbursement for job 
services needs further study and would be ripe for implementation at a 
later time. Therefore, we are not proceeding with finalizing the 
proposed provisions at Sec. Sec.  302.76, 303.6(c)(5), and 
304.20(b)(viii). We encourage State IV-D agencies to leverage other 
resources --e.g., job services provided under WIOA, TANF, and SNAP 
E&T--when developing strategies to improve consistent on-time payments 
of child support. In addition, states interested in providing job 
services not eligible for FFP continue to have the ability to submit a 
request for a waiver under section 1115 of the Act, or section 
458A(f)(2) of the Act with respect to use of incentive funds.
Section 303.3--Location of Noncustodial Parents in IV-D Cases
    1. Comment: While many commenters supported the proposed change to 
add ``corrections institutions'' to the list of locate sources, one 
commenter requested that OCSE specify ``Federal, State, and local'' 
correctional institutions and that automation be recommended where 
possible.
    Response: We would like to clarify that that the term ``corrections 
officials'' refers to Federal, State, tribal, and local corrections 
officials. However, this clarification was not added to the regulatory 
text since this is dependent upon what sources are available to the 
State for locate purposes. Section 303.3(b)(1) does not address whether 
or not the sources should be automated; this is based on availability 
of databases in the State and whether the IV-D agency has access to 
them.
    2. Comment: Another commenter suggested that we add ``utility 
companies'' to the list of locate sources. In addition, commenters 
recommended the following change in terminologies: ``food stamps'' to 
``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)''; ``the local 
telephone company'' to ``electronic communications and internet service 
providers''; and change ``financial references'' to ``financial 
institutions.''
    Response: We agree with the commenters' suggestions for technical 
revisions. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the 
official name of the food stamps program, and the two other revisions 
update classifications for communications and financial companies. In 
addition, we added utility companies to the list of locate sources 
since these companies have been valuable locate sources that many 
States use.
    3. Comment: One commenter requested OCSE assist IV-D agencies in 
working with correctional institutions to identify incarcerated 
parents. Incarcerated parents may be hesitant to acknowledge that they 
have children or child support orders, possibly due to misinformation 
about child support shared among prisoners. Also, people are convicted 
and imprisoned under alias names. Because of these challenges, the 
commenter stated that State IV-D programs and correctional institutions 
need to understand and share each other's data if IV-D programs are to 
be successful in locating noncustodial parents in jails or prisons. 
Another commenter discussed the challenges in trying to obtain timely 
information from county jails.
    Response: As a result of their efforts to collaborate, IV-D 
programs and correctional institutions often agree that they need to 
know more about the parents in each other's caseloads if both programs 
are to be successful in accomplishing their missions.\55\ Section 
453(e)(2) of the Act authorizes the Secretary of the Department of 
Health and Human Services to obtain information from Federal agencies 
including the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). OCSE currently has a match with 
BOP which covers 99 percent of the prison population. It includes 5,407 
correctional facilities, including Federal, State, county, and other 
local prisons. The information is provided to States in the Social 
Security Administration (SSA) State Verification and Exchange System 
(SVES) match--they can receive the information on request and 
proactively. Our match, however, does not have all the data a direct 
interface could offer States. For example, we do not receive updates on 
the release date. The release date is very important to States--and 
updates are even more important because they monitor when the 
noncustodial parent is released. Release typically triggers order 
modifications and enforcement actions. We are going to explore the 
option to interface directly with the BOP and/or State facilities in 
order to obtain additional or updated information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Jessica Pearson and Esther Ann Griswold, ``Lessons from 
Four Projects Dealing with Incarceration and Child Support,'' 
Corrections Today, July 1, 2005, 67(4): 92-95, which is available 
at: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lessons+from+four+projects+dealing+with+incarceration+and+child...-a0134293586; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Working 
with Incarcerated and Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and 
State Programs, 2006, available at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/working_with_incarcerated_resource_guide.pdf; and Council 
of State Governments, Report of the Re-entry Policy Council: 
Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the 
Community. Justice Center, 2005, available at https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Report-of-the-Reentry-Council.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is a system certification requirement to have automated 
interfaces with State sources, when appropriate, feasible, and cost 
effective, to obtain locate information, and this includes the 
Department of Corrections. We also encourage States to develop 
electronic interfaces with child support data being shared with 
Federal, State, Tribal, and local corrections institutions to maximize 
identification of incarcerated parents and program efficiency, and to 
establish practices for serving parents in correctional facilities. 
Identifying the fact of incarceration is important to set and keep 
support orders consistent with the parent's current ability to pay, 
avoid the accumulation of arrears, and increase the likelihood that 
support will be consistently paid after release.
    4. Comment: Another commenter was concerned that the addition of 
corrections institutions to the list of required locate sources will 
require an agreement with the corrections institutions in addition to 
enhancements to the locate interfaces to match corrections information 
with State child support information within the statewide automated 
child support enforcement system. If implemented, an understanding of 
any local agreements local child support agencies may have with their 
local law enforcement

[[Page 93532]]

partners would be appreciated. Also, a few commenters indicated that 
this was a list of required locate sources.
    Response: In this final rule, as we discussed above, we are 
encouraging States to include corrections institutions as a locate 
source, but we are not requiring it. This change is intended to 
encourage child support agencies to use available locate tools to 
identify incarcerated noncustodial parents and ensure that their orders 
are appropriate. Additionally, in Sec.  302.34 in this final rule, we 
have also added ``corrections officials'' to the list of entities with 
which a State may enter into agreements for cooperative arrangements. 
This addition encourages child support agencies to collaborate with 
corrections institutions and community corrections officials (probation 
and parole agencies).
    We do not consider the list of appropriate locate sources in Sec.  
303.3(b)(1) to be required locate sources, but rather an extensive 
nonexclusive list of sources that the State should consider using to 
locate noncustodial parents or their sources of income and/or assets 
when location is needed to take a necessary action. Additionally, after 
the State has determined what locate sources they have access to, the 
State will need to determine what locate sources should be used on a 
particular case. For example, some locate sources may not be able to be 
used if the noncustodial parent's social security number is unknown.
Section 303.6--Enforcement of Support Obligations
Civil Contempt Proceedings [Sec.  303.6(c)(4)]
    1. Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns about our proposed 
revisions related to civil contempt. These commenters believed that the 
proposed requirements went beyond the Turner v. Rogers decision.\56\ 
One commenter thought a regulation requiring that States must have 
procedures requiring that the courts take into consideration the 
subsistence needs of the noncustodial parent went beyond the Turner v. 
Rogers decision. Several commenters thought that the Turner decision 
merely requires a State either to provide legal counsel or alternative 
procedural safeguards. These commenters did not believe that any 
additional due process safeguards were required if counsel was being 
provided to the defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 564 U.S._, 131 S Ct. 2507 (2011). The question in Turner 
was whether the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 
the U.S. Constitution requires States to provide legal counsel to an 
unrepresented indigent defendant person at a child support civil 
contempt hearing that could lead to incarceration in circumstances 
where neither the custodial parent nor the State was represented by 
legal counsel. The U.S. Supreme Court decision held that under those 
circumstances, the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically 
require the States to provide counsel if the State has ``in place 
alternative procedures that assure a fundamentally fair 
determination of the critical incarceration-related question, 
whether the supporting parent is able to comply with the court 
order.'' The Court found that the Petitioner's incarceration 
violated due process because he received neither counsel in the 
proceedings nor the benefit of adequate alternative procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: After careful consideration of the comments, we have 
decided to refocus the regulation on the criteria that IV-D agencies 
use to determine which cases to refer and how they prepare cases for a 
civil contempt proceeding. As the Federal agency responsible for 
funding and oversight of State IV-D programs, OCSE has an interest in 
ensuring the constitutional principles articulated in Turner are 
carried out in the child support program, that child support case 
outcomes are just and comport with due process, and that enforcement 
proceedings are cost-effective and in the best interest of the child. 
The Turner case provides OCSE and State child support programs with an 
opportunity to evaluate the appropriate use of civil contempt in 
today's IV-D child support program. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 
Turner, a noncustodial parent's ability to pay constitutes ``the 
critical question'' in a civil contempt case, whether the State 
provides legal counsel or alternative procedures designed to protect 
the indigent obligor's constitutional rights.\57\ Contempt is an 
important tool for collection of child support when used in appropriate 
cases where evidence exists that the noncustodial parent has the income 
and assets to pay the ordered monthly support obligation, but willfully 
fails to do so, and the purge amount or conditions are within the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay or meet. The Turner opinion 
provides the child support program with a guide for conducting 
fundamentally fair and constitutionally acceptable proceedings. The 
revisions to Sec.  303.6(c)(4) are designed to reduce the risk of 
erroneous deprivation of the noncustodial parent's liberty in IV-D 
cases, without imposing significant fiscal or administrative burden on 
the State. Accordingly, in response to comments, the final rule 
requires that State IV-D agency must maintain and use an effective 
system for enforcing the support obligation by establishing guidelines 
for the use of civil contempt citations in IV-D cases. The guidelines 
must include requirements that the IV-D agency: (i) Screen the case for 
information regarding the noncustodial parent's ability to pay or 
otherwise comply with the order; (ii) provide the court with such 
information regarding the noncustodial parent's ability to pay, or 
otherwise comply with the order, which may assist the court in making a 
factual determination regarding the noncustodial parent's ability to 
pay the purge amount or comply with the purge conditions; and (iii) 
provide clear notice to the noncustodial parent that his or her ability 
to pay constitutes the critical question in the civil contempt action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 
Office for Access to Justice, Dear Colleague Letter, March 14, 2016, 
https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/832461/download, cited in OCSE Dear 
Colleague Letter, DCL-16-05, March 21, 2016, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/justice-department-annnounces-resources-to-reform-practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Comment: Some commenters felt that our proposed requirement 
related to civil contempt infringed on the inherent powers of the 
judiciary and would be unenforceable by the IV-D agency. Others 
commented that it was a violation of separation of powers. One 
commenter thought that the court should be the body to determine the 
requirements of Turner decision. Another commenter questioned our 
authority to regulate in this area.
    Response: As discussed above, we have revised the proposed Sec.  
303.6(c)(4) to focus on IV-D agency decisions made at an earlier point 
in civil contempt proceedings. The revised Sec.  303.6(c)(4) requires 
IV-D agencies to establish guidelines for the appropriate use of 
contempt in IV-D cases.
    OCSE, IV-D agencies, and courts under cooperative agreements to 
carry out the IV-D program are required to ensure that noncustodial 
parents receive the due process protections required by the 
Constitution. The Federal government has a substantial interest in the 
effective and equitable operation of the child support program, 
including the use of contempt proceedings in the enforcement of IV-D 
cases. In addition, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has 
authority under section 452(a)(1) of the Act to ``establish such 
standards for locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, 
and obtaining child support . . . as he determines to be necessary to 
assure that such programs will be effective.'' Section 454(13) provides 
that ``the State will comply with such other requirements and standards 
as the Secretary determines to be necessary to the establishment of an 
effective program for locating noncustodial parents, establishing 
paternity,

[[Page 93533]]

obtaining support orders, and collecting support payments.''
    Research shows that routine use of civil contempt is 
counterproductive to the goals of the child support program.\58\ All 
too often it results in the incarceration of noncustodial parents who 
are unable to pay to meet their purge requirements.\59\ A study that 
examined the Milwaukee County Jail system found that 58 percent of the 
individuals incarcerated between 2005 and 2010 for criminal nonsupport 
of child support had no reported earnings in the unemployment insurance 
system and 75 percent were African-American.\60\ This same study found 
that for those noncustodial parents with formal earnings, the average 
annual earnings were $4,396, and the average annual child support owed 
for all incarcerated noncustodial parents was $4,356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Elizabeth G. Patterson, Civil Contempt & the Indigent 
Child Support Obligor: The Silent Return of Debtor's Prison, 18 
Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy 95, 126 (2008) (Civil 
Contempt), available at: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/jlpp/upload/patterson.pdf.
    \59\ See Rebecca May & Marguerite Roulet, Ctr. for Family Policy 
& Practice, A Look at Arrests of Low-Income Fathers for Child 
Support Nonpayment: Enforcement, Court and Program Practices, 40 
(2005), which is available at: https://www.cffpp.org/publications/LookAtArrests.pdf.
    \60\ Cook, Steven, Child Support Enforcement Use of Contempt and 
Criminal Nonsupport Charges in Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin, 
Institute for Research on Poverty, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incarceration, in turn, means that the noncustodial parent loses 
whatever work he or she may have had, further reducing their ability to 
pay their child support. Once out, their ability to find work is 
negatively affected, resulting in some turning to the underground 
economy, which makes it even more difficult to collect child 
support.\61\ One study found that incarceration results in 40 percent 
lower earnings upon release.\62\ Moreover, contact between the parent 
and child is severed, which, generally, is detrimental to the 
child.\63\ And the custodial family loses any other form of support 
that this parent provided.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The Pew Charitable trusts. Collateral Costs: 
Incarceration's Effect on Economic Mobility, September 2010, 
available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/
pcs_assets/2010/collateralcosts1pdf.pdf; and Judi Bartfeld & Daniel 
R. Meyer, Child Support Compliance Among Discretionary and 
Nondiscretionary Obligors, 77 Soc. Serv. Rev. 347, 364-65 (2003).
    \62\ The Pew Charitable trusts. Collateral Costs: 
Incarceration's Effect on Economic Mobility, September 2010, 
available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/
pcs_assets/2010/collateralcosts1pdf.pdf.
    \63\ See Amanda Geller, Carey E. Cooper, Irwin Garfinkel, Ofira 
Schwartz-Soicher, and Ronald B. Mincy. ``Beyond Absenteeism: Father 
Incarceration and Child Development,'' Demography (2012) 49(1): 49-
76.
    \64\ Jeremy Travis and Bruce Western, Eds, The Growth of 
Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and 
Consequences, National Academy of Sciences, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most States use civil contempt as a last resort option, recognizing 
that routine use of this enforcement tool is not cost effective and can 
be counterproductive when the noncustodial parent is indigent.\65\ 
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Turner v. Rogers, some 
States have gone further and implemented significant changes to their 
contempt process to further ensure that indigent noncustodial parents 
are not wrongly incarcerated for child support debt.\66\ These changes 
include implementing case screening, new referral procedures, 
developing new information and forms, and requiring specific findings 
by the court on the present ability to pay the ordered purge amount to 
ensure accurate and defensible orders.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Carmen Solomon-Fears, Alison M. Smith, and Carla Berry, 
Child Support Enforcement: Incarceration, As the Last Resort Penalty 
For Nonpayment of Support, Congressional Research Service R42389, 
2012, which is available at: https://greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/2012/documents/R42389_gb.pdf.
    \66\ Mary Pat Gallagher, ``Court Takes Steps To Protect Rights 
of Poor Child-Support Delinquents'' New Jersey Law Journal, 2014; 
Ethan C. McKinney, ``Contempt After Turner'' Presentation at 2014 
Annual Conference, Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support 
Association, 2014, which is available at: https://www.ericsa.org/2014-conference-agenda-handouts; Pam Lowry, ``Rebalancing the 
Program Through Conversation with All Staff'' Child Support Report 
34(10): 1 (October-November 2012), which is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/csr1211.pdf.
    \67\ Pamela Lowry and Diane Potts, Illinois Update on Using 
Civil Contempt to Collect Child Support; Ethan C. McKinney (2014) 
``Contempt After Turner'' Presentation at 2014 Annual Conference, 
Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association, which is 
available at: https://www.ericsa.org/2014-conference-agenda-handouts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the government's interests also favor additional 
procedural safeguards to ensure that only those parents with a present 
ability to pay are confined for civil contempt. While the State has a 
strong interest in enforcing child support orders, it secures no 
benefit from jailing a noncustodial parent who cannot discharge his 
obligation. The period of incarceration makes it less, rather than 
more, likely that such parent will be able to pay child support.\68\ 
Meanwhile, the State incurs the substantial expense of confinement. 
While child-support recovery efforts once ``followed a business model 
predicated on enforcement'' that ``intervened only after debt, at times 
substantial, accumulated and often too late for collection to be 
successful, let alone of real value to the child,'' experience has 
shown that alternative methods--such as order modifications, increased 
contact with noncustodial parents, and use of ``automation to detect 
non-compliance as early as possible''--are more effective than routine 
enforcement through civil contempt.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Elizabeth G. Patterson, Civil Contempt & the Indigent 
Child Support Obligor: The Silent Return of Debtor's Prison, 18 
Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy 95, 126 (2008) (Civil 
Contempt), available at: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/jlpp/upload/patterson.pdf.
    \69\ See National Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Dep't of 
Health & Human Services, Strategic Plan: FY 2005-2009, at 2, 10 
(Strategic Plan), https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/national-child-support-enforcement-strategic-plan-fy2005-2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns that the proposed 
requirements related to civil contempt proceedings would reduce the 
efficiency and flexibility of the enforcement process through the 
courts. One commenter thought that the NPRM would weaken the 
enforcement remedy of contempt when used to enforce the obligation of 
contemnors who have an ability to arrange payments from assets held by 
others, even though the IV-D agency had been unable to affirmatively 
show the existence of income and assets. One commenter thought that the 
proposed requirements would be overly burdensome in civil contempt 
proceedings involving chronic nonpayers. Another commenter thought that 
the NPRM would result in increases in court and attorney time necessary 
to comply with all of the new requirements or would translate into less 
court resources available for other child support actions, such as 
establishment and modification actions.
    Response: We do not agree with these comments. Based on comments, 
the revisions to Sec.  303.6(c)(4) are designed to reduce the risk of 
an erroneous deprivation of liberty without imposing significant fiscal 
or administrative burden on the State.
    Research shows that implementing constitutional due process 
safeguards, such as those delineated in the Turner decision, increases 
compliance with court orders by increasing litigants' perception of 
fair treatment.\70\ Procedural fairness matters to litigants and 
influences their behavior. The safeguards included in Turner are 
designed to provide procedural fairness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Kevin Burke & Steve Leben's report ``Procedural 
Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction,'' A White Paper 
of the American Judges Association, Court Review 44:1/2, available 
at: https://www.proceduralfairness.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/
procedural-fairness/Burke_Leben.ashx.

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

[[Page 93534]]

    In Turner, the Court noted ``the routine use of contempt for non-
payment of child support is likely to be an ineffective strategy'' over 
the long-term.\71\ Contempt actions are expensive and time consuming 
for courts, agencies, and parents, and do not typically result in 
ongoing support for children. One State finds that contempt is its 
least cost-effective enforcement tool, estimating that collections in 
contempt actions barely break even with the costs--for every dollar 
spent on contempt proceedings, the State collects $1.26.\72\ Another 
State found that when it cut back on its routine use of contempt 
hearings and increased use of administrative locate and enforcement 
remedies, total collections increased.\73\ Resources put into 
investigations, ``appear and disclose'' procedures, parent interviews, 
case conferencing, and expanded data sources are generally a more cost-
effective use of Federal and State dollars than using contempt hearings 
in order to discover information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Turner, 131 S. Ct. at 2516 (quoting Brief for United States 
as Amicus Curiae at 21-22, and n. 8), available at: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/2010/01/01/2010-0010.mer.ami.pdf.
    \72\ Ann Coffin, Florida's Data Analytics: Compliance of Support 
Orders, Presentation to the OCSE Strategic Planning Workgroup on 
Measuring Child Support Performance, 2014.
    \73\ Lowry, Pamela and Diane Potts, ``Illinois Update On Using 
Civil Contempt To Collect Child Support.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States must provide adequate safeguards to ensure that the 
noncustodial parent has the ability to comply with the order. The 
revised language in paragraph (c)(4) sets out minimum requirements that 
IV-D agencies must meet when bringing a civil contempt action involving 
parties in a IV-D case and ensures that contempt is used in appropriate 
cases where evidence exists that the noncustodial parent has the income 
and assets to pay the ordered monthly support obligation, but willfully 
fails to do so, and the purge amount or conditions are within the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay or meet.
    It is the responsibility of the IV-D agency to ensure that prior to 
filing for civil contempt that could result in incarceration, the IV-D 
agency has carefully reviewed each case to ascertain whether the facts 
would support a finding that the noncustodial parent has the ``actual 
and present'' ability to comply with the support order, and the 
requested purge amount or condition, and to bring those facts to the 
court's attention.\74\ States must also provide clear notice to the 
noncustodial parent that his or her ability to pay constitutes the 
critical question in the contempt action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 
Office for Access to Justice, Dear Colleague Letter, March 14, 2016, 
https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/832461/download, cited in OCSE Dear 
Colleague Letter, DCL-16-05, March 21, 2016, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/justice-department-annnounces-resources-to-reform-practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCSE strongly encourages State child support agencies to consider 
some of the innovative alternatives to incarceration put into practice 
by a number of States and discussed in OCSE IM-12-01.\75\ In addition, 
it is the noncustodial parent, not other relatives, friends, or the 
custodial parent, who is responsible for child support based upon his 
or her ability to pay it. A procedure that pressures family members and 
friends to pay in order to keep the noncustodial parent out of jail is 
inconsistent with constitutional principles, damaging to family 
relationships, and ultimately ineffective and counterproductive in 
obtaining ongoing support for children. As a practical matter, reliance 
on relatives and friends likely will not result in regular support 
payments for the families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ IM-12-01 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/alternatives-to-incarceration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Comment: One commenter indicated that any reference in Sec.  
303.6 to the noncustodial parent's subsistence needs or actual 
earnings/income should be replaced with a reference to the noncustodial 
parent's ability to pay.
    Response: In Sec.  303.6(c)(4), we have revised the proposed 
language to delete reference to the noncustodial parent's subsistence 
needs as a separate determination, and instead reference to the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay the child support order or ability 
to comply with the order. However, subsistence needs are an inherent 
factor in determining a noncustodial parent's ability to pay. Everyone, 
even noncustodial parents, have basic self-support needs, including 
food and shelter that cannot be ignored when determining ability to 
pay.
    5. Comment: One commenter indicated that States do not file 
contempt proceedings as fishing expeditions, but rather file them 
solely to use the jail power to coerce compliance with a support order 
after the agency has exhausted administrative enforcement remedies and 
has screened the case for contempt. States often file contempt 
proceedings against noncustodial parents who hide income, are willing 
to lie in court, work at cash jobs, and have other ways to make 
themselves look unable to pay support. The commenter believed that our 
proposed requirements would actually serve to limit child support 
collections on the tough to collect cases.
    Response: State practice related to contempt proceedings varies 
widely. We are encouraged that some States are already using 
administrative enforcement remedies and case screening prior to 
initiating civil contempt proceedings. Contempt actions should be used 
selectively in those cases when the facts warrant its use, not 
routinely, especially in nonpaying cases where the reason for 
nonpayment is low income. Contempt is an important tool for collection 
of child support when used in appropriate cases where evidence exists 
that the noncustodial parent has the income and assets to pay the 
ordered monthly support obligation, but willfully fails to do so, and 
the purge amount or conditions are within the noncustodial parent's 
ability to pay or meet. However, routine contempt actions and the 
threat of jail are not a cost-effective way to conduct discovery. The 
Turner opinion provides the child support program with a guide for 
conducting fundamentally fair and constitutionally acceptable 
proceedings. The revisions to Sec.  303.6(c)(4) are designed to reduce 
the risk of erroneous deprivation of the noncustodial parent's liberty 
in IV-D cases consistent with the Turner decision, without imposing 
significant fiscal or administrative burden on the State.
    We agree that filing for contempt may be the right remedy in some 
difficult to collect cases--those where there is evidence that the 
noncustodial parent has the ability to pay, but chooses to ignore child 
support obligations. However, if a case is difficult to collect because 
the noncustodial parent lacks the ability to pay support, there are 
more effective and less costly tools that meet due process 
requirements. Sometimes, the IV-D agency does not have sufficient facts 
to determine the difference. We recognize that it is difficult to build 
a case. It is our position, however, that State IV-D agencies have the 
responsibility to investigate and screen the case for ability to pay 
before bringing a civil contempt action that can lead to jail. States 
need to develop and implement procedures and protocols for determining 
when it is effective to use contempt proceedings in IV-D cases. States 
need to ensure that the tools or mechanisms they use to enforce cases 
are cost-effective, productive, and in the best interest of the 
children.
    6. Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns that the proposed 
provision related to civil contempt

[[Page 93535]]

proceedings inappropriately shifts the burden of proof. They believed 
that the noncustodial parent would no longer have to prove his or her 
inability to pay; rather, the IV-D agency would have to prove the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay. Another commenter thought that a 
rule shifting the burden to the IV-D agency to show evidence of ability 
to pay would necessitate more discovery that would increase the expense 
of and slow down the completion of IV-D enforcement judicial actions. 
This same commenter indicated that even if the noncustodial parent is 
an employee paid in a documented form, the State staff cannot use 
records of wages as documentary evidence due to limitations on the use 
of workforce wage records by State law.
    Response: We appreciate the difficulty of discovering information 
regarding ability to pay in some cases. However, State practices 
related to the use of contempt actions vary widely. We point out that 
many States build cases by using sound investigative practices and 
making efforts to talk with both parents before scheduling court 
hearings. All States should maximize their use of automated data 
sources. Additionally, many States use clear, easy to read forms 
seeking financial information from the parents. Other States routinely 
interview the parents, either through phone contacts, case 
conferencing, or compelled ``appear and disclosure'' administrative 
procedures, all of which impose little expense on the State or burden 
on the proceedings, but would help increase the accuracy of the court's 
determination. These simple, minimally burdensome procedures would 
enable the IV-D agency to evaluate whether the noncustodial parent has 
the ability to comply with the support obligation.
    The final rule does not address burden of proof. Rather, when the 
State considers bringing a civil contempt action in a IV-D case that 
can result in incarceration, often against an unrepresented, indigent 
noncustodial parent, the rule requires the IV-D agency to screen the 
case for ability to pay and, if proceeding with the contempt action, 
provide such evidence for the court to consider, in conjunction with 
any other evidence, in making a factual determination about the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay child support.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 
Office for Access to Justice, Dear Colleague Letter, March 14, 2016, 
https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/832461/download, cited in OCSE Dear 
Colleague Letter, DCL-16-05, March 21, 2016, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/justice-department-annnounces-resources-to-reform-practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Comment: One commenter thought that the proposed amendment 
related to civil contempt was irreconcilable with the intent and other 
terms of Sec.  303.6, which provides State agencies with authority to 
take certain enforcement actions. The commenter believed that the 
proposed amendment unduly restricts judicial enforcement actions in 
civil contempt cases and requested OCSE to strike the proposed 
provision.
    Response: As we indicated in AT-12-01,\77\ the Federal government 
has ``an interest in ensuring the constitutional principles articulated 
in Turner are carried out in the child support program, that child 
support case outcomes are just and comport with due process, and that 
enforcement proceedings are cost-effective and in the best interest of 
the children.'' Civil contempt is different from other enforcement 
actions. It can lead to a loss of liberty through incarceration. Due 
process safeguards related to contempt actions are particularly 
important when the noncustodial parent is unrepresented, and has 
limited income and education. Too often, civil contempt proceedings are 
brought in some jurisdictions to enforce an underlying support order 
based on fictitious income that has been imputed to the noncustodial 
parent. Additionally, since the noncustodial parents often face 
attorneys in court, it is especially important that the State ensures 
that appropriate procedural safeguards are provided in IV-D cases 
enforced through contempt proceedings. Our objective is to prevent a 
cascade of legal consequences that begins with an order based on 
imputed income and ends in nonpayment and incarceration. For some 
defendants, what is missing at critical points in the process is 
evidence of ability to pay. Given the importance of the interest at 
stake in civil contempt proceedings, it is especially important that 
IV-D case procedures promote a fair hearing and accurate determination 
supported by the facts with respect to the key question in the case, 
ability to pay, such that any confinement imposed on a noncustodial 
parent is remedial rather than punitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ AT-12-01 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/turner-v-rogers-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Comment: One commenter suggested the following revision to our 
NPRM: ``Have procedures ensuring that civil contempt proceedings are 
initiated after considering the noncustodial parent's ability to earn 
income and that parent's subsistence needs, if known. IV-D agencies 
shall provide the court with information regarding the noncustodial 
parent's ability to comply when requesting a finding of contempt and a 
purge amount.''
    Response: We agree. The revision to proposed Sec.  303.6(c)(4) 
reflects this suggestion but we deleted the reference to the 
noncustodial parent's subsistence needs as a separate determination 
from ability to pay.
    9. Comment: One commenter questioned how to proceed in a case where 
there is no evidence that the defendant has the ability to pay either 
the ordered amount or the purge amount. Another commenter asked how the 
State IV-D agency will initiate a civil contempt if it has no earnings 
information on the noncustodial parent.
    Response: If the noncustodial parent has no earnings or there is no 
evidence that the noncustodial parent has the ability to pay, the IV-D 
agency should not initiate civil contempt proceedings, but should 
investigate further, consider whether the support obligation should be 
modified, and refer the parent to employment or other services when 
available. See also the response to Comment 6 above regarding State 
strategies and practices for the appropriate use of contempt in IV-D 
cases.
    10. Comment: What is the process by which a noncustodial parent 
would be ordered to participate in an ``alternative to incarceration'' 
program if his lack of actual income precludes the possibility of 
incarceration for contempt?
    Response: The language of the rule includes the clause ``ability to 
pay or otherwise comply with the order.'' If the order requires the 
noncustodial parent to participate in services, and the court finds 
based on the evidence, after notice and other safeguards, that the 
noncustodial parent is able to comply with the order, the requirements 
of the rule have been met. Several child support agency programs have 
implemented proactive and early intervention practices to address the 
underlying reasons for unpaid child support and avoid the need for 
civil contempt proceedings leading to jail time. In OCSE IM-12-01,\78\ 
we describe promising and evidence-based practices to help States 
increase reliable child support payments, improve access to justice to 
parents without attorneys, and reduce the need for jail time. 
Incarceration may be appropriate in those cases where noncustodial 
parents have the means to support their

[[Page 93536]]

children but willfully evade their parental responsibilities by hiding 
income and assets. However, several innovative strategies can reduce 
the need for routine civil contempt proceedings in cases involving low-
income noncustodial parents, increase ongoing collections, and reduce 
costs to the public. Research suggests that such practices can actually 
improve compliance with child support orders, increasing both the 
amount of child support collected and the consistency of payment.\79\ 
These practices include early engagement and efforts to contact and 
talk with both parents, increasing investigative and locate efforts, 
and setting accurate orders based upon the noncustodial parent's actual 
income,\80\ improving review and adjustment processes,\81\ developing 
debt management programs,\82\ implementing work-oriented programs for 
unemployed noncustodial parents who are behind in their child 
support,\83\ working with fatherhood and other community based programs 
as intermediaries, and encouraging mediation and case conferencing to 
resolve issues that interfere with consistent child support 
payments.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ OCSE-IM-12-01 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/alternatives-to-incarceration.
    \79\ See Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, and Lanae Davis, Early 
Intervention in Child Support. Center for Policy Research, 2007, 
which is available at: https://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Publications/tabid/233/Default.aspx.
    \80\ Mark Takayesu, How Do Child Support Order Amounts Affect 
Payments and Compliance?, Orange County Child Support Services, 
2011, which is available at: https://www.wuss.org/proceedings12/37.pdf..
    \81\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Using 
Automated Data Systems To Establish and Modify Child Support Orders, 
November 2006, which is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocse/dcl_07_32a.pdf.
    \82\ Carolyn Heinrich, Brett Burkhardt, and Hilary Shager, 
Reducing Child Support Debt and Its Consequences: Can Forgiveness 
Benefit All?, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(4); 755-
774, 2011, which is available at: https://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/images/publications/workingpapers/heinrich2010-018.pdf.
    \83\ Daniel Schroeder and Nicholas Doughty, Texas Non-Custodial 
Parent Choices: Program Impact Analysis, Ray Marshall Center for the 
Study of Human Resources, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public 
Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, 2009, which is available 
at: https://www.utexas.edu/research/cshr/pubs/pdf/NCP_Choices_Final_Sep_03_2009.pdf. Also see Kye Lippold and Elaine 
Sorensen's report, Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers: 
Final Impact Report for the Pilot Employment Programs, Urban 
Institute, 2011, which is available at: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/strengthening-families-through-stronger-fathers-final-impact-report-pilot-employment-programs/view/full_report.
    \84\ Elaine Sorensen and Tess Tannehil, Preventing Child Support 
Arrears in Texas by Improving Front-end Processes, Urban Institute, 
2006, which is available at: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/preventing-child-support-arrears-texas-improving-front-end-processes/view/full_report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purge Amounts: [Sec.  303.6(c)(4)]
    1. Comment: One commenter thought that requiring purges be based on 
an evidentiary finding is unnecessary, beyond the scope of Turner, and 
has an unintended effect of delaying the efficiency of an expedited 
child support proceeding. Two other commenters thought that the 
proposed purge language was too restrictive and added unnecessary 
complexity to a fairly simple process.
    Response: Although we have revised Sec.  303.6(c)(4) significantly 
based on our consideration of the comments related to civil contempt, 
we do not necessarily agree with the interpretation of Turner presented 
in some of these comments. At issue are safeguards of obligors' 
constitutionally-protected liberty and property interests. We are 
requiring that State IV-D agencies provide the court with available 
information, which may assist the court in making a factual 
determination regarding the obligor's ability to pay the purge amount 
or comply with the purge conditions. As noted in Turner, under 
established Supreme Court principles, ``[a] court may not impose 
punishment in a civil contempt proceeding when it is clearly 
established that the alleged contemnor is unable to comply with the 
terms of the order.'' \85\ The Court found that the noncustodial 
parent's ability to pay constitutes ``the critical question in the 
case.'' The revisions to Sec.  303.6(c)(4) require the IV-D agency to 
assist the court by providing such information, thereby reducing the 
risk of erroneous deprivation of the noncustodial parent's liberty in 
IV-D cases, without imposing significant fiscal or administrative 
burden on the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Turner, 131 S. Ct. at 2516 (quoting Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U. 
S. 624, 638, n. 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Comment: Several commenters stated that the court makes the 
determination of what amount a noncustodial parent must pay to avoid 
incarceration. They indicated that the IV-D agency cannot control what 
the court ultimately sets as the amount. Two commenters believed that 
the proposed requirement related to a purge amount usurped the court's 
authority and discretion.
    Response: We expect that State courts will adhere with the 
constitutional due process principles. However, in most States, it is 
the IV-D agency or the court, through cooperative agreement with the 
IV-D agency that initiates contempt actions in IV-D cases. Before 
filing a contempt action, the IV-D agency has a responsibility to the 
parties and to the court to screen the IV-D case for ability to pay, 
and if proceeding with the contempt action, provide the court with such 
evidence. In addition, the IV-D agency may be able to contribute to 
judicial educational efforts to foster awareness of the need to set 
purge amounts based on ability to pay and enter an express finding that 
the noncustodial parent has the ability to pay the purge amount or 
comply with the purge conditions, consistent with the Turner decision.
    3. Comment: Several commenters stated that they thought purge 
amounts should not be based on actual income. One commenter thought 
that the proposed language related to purge amounts disregarded the 
many cases in which the noncustodial parent is voluntarily unemployed 
and is being provided living expenses by another person; the commenter 
thought the language should focus on ``all available income'' instead 
of ``actual income.'' Another commenter indicated that the proposed 
provision could consistently hamper a judge's ability to enforce child 
support orders intended to benefit children. One commenter thought that 
requiring IV-D agencies to consider actual earnings prior to filing a 
contempt motion or recommending a purge amount limited agencies' 
options, especially in regards to parents who work in the underground 
economy or refuse to work. This commenter also thought that although a 
nonmonetary purge condition requiring participation in a job search or 
other similar activity was certainly appropriate in a situation when 
there is significant question as to a noncustodial parent's ability to 
comply with a financial purge, but the availability of a monetary purge 
remained essential for individuals who will only take support 
obligations seriously when a monetary purge is set and their freedom is 
at risk.
    Response: We have revised the proposed language. The revised rule 
focuses on ensuring that the State IV-D agency establishes guidelines 
for the appropriate use of contempt in IV-D cases to ensure that 
constitutional procedural safeguards are provided in all IV-D cases by 
requiring that such guidelines include that the State screens the case 
for information regarding the obligor's ability to pay or otherwise 
comply with the order. The State must also provide the court with such 
information regarding the noncustodial parent's ability to pay, or 
otherwise comply with the order, to assist the court in making a 
factual determination regarding the noncustodial parent's ability to 
pay the purge amount or comply with any other purge conditions that may 
be set by the court. The State child support agency could provide the

[[Page 93537]]

court with financial information received from financial forms sent to 
both parents, automated quarterly wage information from the National 
Directory of New Hires, as well as other relevant information that the 
State has ascertained through testimony, case conferencing, and 
investigations. Alternatively, the State could recommend to the court 
alternative purge conditions, such as conducting a job search, 
obtaining counseling for substance abuse, or obtaining job 
training.\86\ The State must also ensure that the noncustodial parent 
is provided clear notice that his or her ability to pay constitutes the 
critical question in the contempt action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ In Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), the U.S. 
Supreme Court held that a State determines a fine or restitution to 
be an appropriate penalty, it may not thereafter imprison a person 
solely because he lacked the resources to pay for it, but should 
instead consider alternative measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Comment: A few commenters suggested alternative language 
proposals to what we had in the NPRM. One commenter suggested that: ``A 
purge amount must be based upon a court finding that the noncustodial 
parent has the actual means to pay the amount.'' Another suggested 
revision included: ``A purge amount must be based upon a written 
evidentiary finding that the noncustodial parent has the actual means 
to pay the amount from his or her current income or assets, including 
but not limited to any hidden income or assets of the noncustodial 
parent, or upon a written evidentiary finding that the noncustodial 
parent has failed to make reasonable and diligent efforts to seek 
employment.''
    Response: OCSE has considered all of the suggested revisions. We 
have incorporated into the revised language a requirement that the 
purge amount be based upon the defendant's ``ability to pay,'' 
consistent with the principles articulated in the Turner decision. We 
have also incorporated that information about the circumstances of the 
cases be provided to the courts based on the State IV-D efforts related 
to screening the case. For specifics related to the revised language, 
please see Comment/Response 3 in this section.
Section 303.8--Review and Adjustment of Child Support Orders
    1. Comment: A few commenters stated that if incarceration is 
recognized as a change in circumstance, then the changes to Sec.  303.8 
are not necessary because current Federal law and regulation allow 
States to conduct accelerated reviews in circumstances that are 
identified by States as the most beneficial.
    Response: The revisions in this section are necessary to require 
all States to either implement Sec.  303.8(b)(2) or (b)(7)(ii) and 
provide more specificity regarding review and adjustment and 
incarceration. Section 303.8(b)(2) allows States to elect in their 
State plan, the option to initiate review and adjustment, without the 
need for a specific request, after learning that the noncustodial 
parent is incarcerated for more than 180 calendar days. We encourage 
States to implement this proactive approach to ensure that orders are 
based on the noncustodial parent's ability to pay during his or her 
incarceration. A number of States, including Arizona, California, 
Michigan, Vermont, and the District of Columbia have enacted State laws 
that permit their child support agency to initiate review and 
adjustment upon notification that the noncustodial parent has been 
incarcerated.\87\ Additionally, if a State does not elect in its State 
plan to implement paragraph (b)(2) of this section, then we are 
requiring the State, under paragraph (b)(7)(ii), within 15 business 
days of when the IV-D agency learns that a noncustodial parent will be 
incarcerated for more than 180 calendar days, to send a notice to both 
parents informing them of the right to request the State to review and, 
if appropriate, adjust the order, consistent with this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ In 2012, Vermont enacted Senate Bill 203 that allows the 
child support program to file a motion to modify child support if a 
party is incarcerated from more than 90 days. For information about 
the other jurisdictions, see Department of Health and Human 
Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, ``Voluntary 
Unemployment,'' Imputed Income, and Modification Laws and Policies 
for Incarcerated Noncustodial Parents (2012), Project to Avoid 
Increasing Delinquencies--Child Support Fact Sheet, available at: 
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocse/paid_no4_companion.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, we agree that incarceration is a factor in determining a 
substantial change in circumstance. As such, we have revised Sec.  
303.8(c) to indicate that: (c) . . . [s]uch reasonable quantitative 
standard must not exclude incarceration as a basis for determining 
whether an inconsistency between the existing child support order 
amount and the amount of support determined as a result of a review is 
adequate grounds for petitioning for adjustment of the order.
    2. Comment: A few commenters noted that section 466(10) of the 
Social Security Act (the Act) refers to periodic reviews and 
establishes a minimum 3-year review cycle ``or such shorter cycles as 
the State may determine'' which empowers the States, not OCSE, to 
create exceptions to the 3-year review process.
    Response: The Secretary of Health and Human Services has authority 
under section 452(a)(1) of the Act to ``establish such standards for 
locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining 
child support . . . as he determines to be necessary to assure that 
such programs will be effective.'' Section 454(13) provides that ``the 
State will comply with such other requirements and standards as the 
Secretary determines to be necessary to the establishment of an 
effective program for locating noncustodial parents, establishing 
paternity, obtaining support orders, and collecting support payments.''
    3. Comment: A few commenters asked that we clarify the term 
``incarceration'' and specify if it includes individuals who are 
sentenced, pending trial, on parole, or in a supervised release program 
(e.g., half-way house).
    Response: Black's Law Dictionary defines ``incarcerated'' as 
confined in a jail or penitentiary. Therefore, the review and 
adjustment notification requirements do not include noncustodial 
parents who are on parole or in a supervised release program. If the 
individual has been sentenced, the State may take steps to implement 
the notification requirement if the noncustodial parent will be 
incarcerated for more than 180 calendar days.
    4. Comment: Many commenters had concerns that the proposed 90-day 
timeframe was too short and did not allow enough time to review and 
modify an order. Commenters requested the timeframe be increased to at 
least 6 months.
    Response: Consistent with comments, we have extended the timeframe 
to 6 months. The current timeframe for review and adjustment, in Sec.  
303.8(e), allows 180 calendar days to conduct the review and, if 
appropriate, adjust the support order; therefore, in the final rule, we 
have increased the incarceration timeframe to 180 calendar days in 
Sec.  303.8(b)(2) and added it to paragraph (b)(7)(ii) to align with 
the current review and adjustment timeframe.
    5. Comment: A few commenters requested that the provision specify a 
timeframe when the child support agency has to initiate the review and 
adjustment process after learning of the incarceration.
    Response: We agree that a timeframe may advance the review and 
modification of the child support order process. Therefore, we revised 
proposed Sec.  303.8(b)(7)(ii) to include a timeframe of 15 business 
days to initiate the review and adjustment process after

[[Page 93538]]

learning that the noncustodial parent is incarcerated.
    6. Comment: One commenter indicated that the proposed Sec.  
303.8(b)(7)(ii) requires the State to send notice of the parents' right 
to review their order when the IV-D agency learns of the noncustodial 
parent's incarceration without any minimum time period. For instance, 
the State could learn of the noncustodial parent's incarceration on day 
88 of a 90-day sentence and, under the NPRM, the IV-D agency would need 
to send notice to both parties even though the potential reason for the 
modification ends 2 days later. According to the commenter, the 
provision should include a minimum time period before the IV-D agency 
is required to give notice of the right to review and any timeframe 
should begin only after the State learns of the incarceration. 
Regardless of the length of incarceration, it only matters how much 
time remains once the State learns of the incarceration, since the 
modification can only apply going forward.
    Response: The timeframe ``more than 180 calendar days'' in both 
Sec.  303.8(b)(2) and (b)(7)(ii) is applicable based on the date the 
IV-D agency learns the noncustodial parent is incarcerated. For 
instance, if the State learns of the noncustodial parent's 
incarceration on day 8 of a 200-day sentence, then this provision would 
apply since the noncustodial parent still has 192 days remaining in his 
or her sentence. However, if the State learns of the noncustodial 
parent's incarceration on day 178 of an 180-day sentence, then this 
provision would not apply because the State could not reasonably 
complete a review and adjustment process before the parent's release.
    7. Comment: A few commenters suggested the requirement to 
automatically review and adjust orders, or automatically notify 
noncustodial parents of their right to request a review, be expanded to 
apply to disabled noncustodial parents receiving SSI, military service 
members, and disabled veterans, in addition to incarcerated 
noncustodial parents.
    Response: The review and adjustment statute at section 
466(a)(10)(B) of the Act requires States to review and, if appropriate, 
adjust orders following a request by either parent based upon a 
substantial change in circumstances--whether due to unemployment, 
disability, military service, or incarceration. However, provisions in 
Sec.  303.8(b)(2) and (b)(7)(ii) that specifically address automatic 
review and adjustment, or automatic notification of the right to a 
review and adjustment specifically for incarcerated parents because few 
incarcerated parents currently request for their child support orders 
to be reviewed and modified. Because incarcerated parents are 
involuntarily confined, unlike the other groups of parents mentioned in 
the comments, their access to the internet or cell phones often is 
restricted due to security concerns. They may not have access to legal 
counsel or other community-based resources that could provide timely 
information.\88\ In many prisons, incarcerated parents do not know 
their rights to request review and adjustment of their orders and 
cannot easily contact the child support office. Consequently, their 
opportunity to seek information and request a review in time to prevent 
the accumulation of unmanageable debts often is limited or non-
existent.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ ``Computer use for/by inmates,'' Corrections Compendium 34 
(2): 24-31, Summer 2009 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Computer+use+for%2fby+inmates.-a0208273651.
    \89\ Gorgol, Laura E., and Brian A. Sponsler, Ed.D., Unlocking 
Potential: Results of a National Survey of Postsecondary Education 
in State Prisons, Institute for Higher Education Policy, May 2011, 
available at: https://www.ihep.org/research/publications/unlocking-potential-results-national-survey-postsecondary-education-state; 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Working with 
Incarcerated and Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and 
State Programs, 2006, available at: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/working_with_incarcerated_resource_guide.pdf; and Council 
of State Governments, Report of the Re-entry Policy Council: 
Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the 
Community, Justice Center, 2005, available at https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Report-of-the-Reentry-Council.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research finds that many incarcerated parents do not understand the 
child support system and do not know their rights.\90\ Most 
incarcerated people prior to incarceration lack a high-school diploma 
and are functionally illiterate.\91\ It is important that noncustodial 
parents know about their right to request a review and adjustment early 
in their prison term because of the direct relationship among 
unmanageable child support debt, unemployment, nonpayment, and 
recidivism. Because of this, many State child support programs have 
implemented outreach strategies designed to educate incarcerated 
parents of their rights to request reviews of their support orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Jessica Pearson and Esther Ann Griswold, ``Lessons from 
Four Projects Dealing with Incarceration and Child Support,'' 
Corrections Today, July 1, 2005, 67(4): 92-95, which is available 
at: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lessons+from+four+projects+dealing+with+incarceration+and+child...-a0134293586 and Council of State Governments, Report of the Re-entry 
Policy Council: Charting the Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners 
to the Community, Justice Center, 2005, available at https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Report-of-the-Reentry-Council.pdf.
    \91\ Harlow, Caroline Wolf Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics 
Special Report: Education and Correctional Populations, U.S. 
Department of Justice (September 2003), available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf; and Literacy Behind Prisoner 
Walls, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of 
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1994), 
available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs94/94102.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, the rule does not preclude States from using 
automatic review and adjustment, or automatic notices regarding the 
right to request a review and adjustment, in other situations, such as 
for disabled noncustodial parents receiving SSI, military service 
members, and disabled veterans who experience a substantial change in 
circumstances.
    8. Comment: Several commenters indicated that changes to State 
statutes, administrative rules, and court rules will be required to be 
in compliance with this provision. Specifically, one commenter 
suggested OCSE align Sec.  302.56, Guidelines for setting child support 
orders and this section.
    Response: We agree that Sec. Sec.  302.56 and 303.8 are closely 
related and both sections may require State statutes, administrative 
rules, and court rules changes; therefore, we are delaying the date by 
which the States must be in compliance with changes to these sections. 
The compliance date for these provisions will be within 1 year after 
completion of the State's next quadrennial review of its guidelines, 
that commences more than 1 year after publication of the final rule, in 
accordance with Sec.  302.56(e), as a condition of approval of its 
State plan.
    9. Comment: Multiple commenters believed the provision should 
exclude persons incarcerated as a result of nonpayment of child 
support, a crime committed against any child, or a crime committed 
against a party in the child support case.
    Response: We do not agree. As discussed in Comment/Response 14 in 
Sec.  302.56(d)--Imputing Income subsection, the child support program 
is not an extension of the criminal justice system. Establishing, 
modifying, or enforcing a child support order is not a form of 
punishment for incarcerated noncustodial parents. Parents have a 
statutory right to request a review and adjustment of their orders 
based on a substantial change of circumstances.
    10. Comment: Several commenters noted there is no corresponding 
requirement in Sec.  303.8 to notify the parties of the right to 
request a review when the obligor has been released from incarceration.

[[Page 93539]]

    Response: States have the flexibility to develop procedures for 
shorter cycles to review and adjust, if appropriate, the child support 
order, including notice to the parties upon release from incarceration. 
We strongly encourage States to review child support orders after the 
noncustodial parent is released to determine whether the parent has 
been able to obtain employment and to set the orders based on the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay. States should not automatically 
reinstate the order established prior to incarceration because it may 
no longer be based on the noncustodial parent's ability to pay, 
especially if the noncustodial parent is not able to find a job or find 
a job similar to pre-incarceration employment. A recent study found 
that incarceration results in 40 percent lower earnings upon 
release.\92\ Instead, the order should be reviewed and adjusted 
according to the State's guidelines under Sec.  302.56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ The Pew Charitable Trusts, Collateral Costs: 
Incarceration's Effect on Economic Mobility, September 2010, 
available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/
pcs_assets/2010/collateralcosts1pdf.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that learning of 
noncustodial parents' incarceration or locating noncustodial parents in 
correctional facilities would require some sort of interface with 
Federal, State, local, and private prisons.\93\ According to the 
commenters, the new requirements also presume that there would be some 
sort of Federal match with Federal prisons. A few commenters also asked 
whether they had to actively seek out incarcerated noncustodial parents 
for review and adjustment and send notifications as required in 
paragraph (b)(7)(ii), as this may be difficult since inmates move to 
different facilities throughout their incarceration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Private prison or for-profit prison is a place in which 
individuals are physically confined or incarcerated by a third party 
that is contracted by a government agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We encourage, but are not requiring, States to actively 
establish and maintain partnerships with Federal, State, local, and 
private prisons to conduct matches to locate, as well as to educate 
incarcerated parents about the child support program. As discussed in 
more detail in Comment/Response 3 in Sec.  303.3--Location of 
Noncustodial Parents in IV-D Cases, currently, section 453(e)(2) of the 
Act authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
Services to obtain information from Federal agencies including the 
Bureau of Prisons (BOP). However, this match does not provide States 
with needed information regarding release dates. We are going to 
explore the option to interface directly with the BOP and/or State 
facilities in order to obtain additional or updated information. We 
encourage States to develop electronic interfaces with corrections 
institutions to maximize identification of incarcerated parents and 
program efficiency.
    12. Comment: A commenter stated that ``upon request'' in proposed 
Sec.  303.8(b)(7)(ii) is unnecessary because it implies that a party 
must request an adjustment following completion of the review.
    Response: We agree and have replaced ``upon request'' with ``if 
appropriate.'' This revision aligns paragraph (b)(7)(ii) with the 
language in paragraph (b)(2).
    13. Comment: One commenter indicated that, under one State's law, 
arrears that accrued during incarceration are modified as needed after 
the parent is released.
    Response: Section 466(a)(9)(c) of the Act prohibits retroactive 
modification of child support orders except that such procedures may 
permit modification with respect to any period when there is a petition 
pending for modification, but only from the date that notice of such 
petition has been given to the parties. In situations where a parent 
requests a review and adjustment of the order, States may modify, if 
appropriate, the order back to the date the request is made to avoid 
the accumulation of arrearages. States need to ensure that their State 
laws are consistent with the provisions of the Act.
    14. Comment: A commenter requested that OCSE provide guidance on 
whether a State that is taking steps under Sec.  303.11(b)(8) to close 
a case due to the incarceration status of the noncustodial parent 
should first modify the child support obligation.
    Response: Closing a case does not affect the legality of the 
underlying child support order and the order, including any payment or 
installment of support such as payment on arrearages due under the 
order, remains in effect and legally binding. Therefore, based on the 
reasons that a case is being closed, it may be appropriate in a 
specific case for the IV-D agency to take steps to review and adjust an 
order, if appropriate, prior to closing the child support case. See 
Comment/Response 5 in Sec.  303.11, Case Closure Criteria.
    15. Comment: A couple of commenters stated that it is too time 
consuming and costly to close a case under Sec.  303.11(b)(8) and then 
initiate a new case once a parent is released.
    Response: The review and adjustment revisions under Sec.  303.8 are 
not intended to encourage States to close cases when the noncustodial 
parent is incarcerated and reopen them when parents are out of prison. 
Rather, the provisions pertain to child support order review and 
adjustment when the noncustodial parent is incarcerated and based on 
the parent's ability to pay. Cases should not be closed under Sec.  
303.11(b)(8) when the noncustodial parent is incarcerated and then 
reopened when the noncustodial parent is released. A case can only be 
closed under Sec.  303.11(b)(8) if the noncustodial parent is 
incarcerated throughout the duration of the child's minority (or after 
the child has reached the age of majority) and there is no income or 
assets available above the subsistence level that could be levied or 
attached. If the noncustodial parent is incarcerated for only a limited 
period of time, the case should not be closed. States can only close 
cases in accordance with the criteria under Sec.  303.11(b) and (c).
    16. Comment: Multiple commenters feel there should still be a 
burden of proof and believe that just because the noncustodial parent 
is incarcerated does not mean that the noncustodial parent has no 
resources. The parent's ability to pay may change multiple times while 
incarcerated, for example, when the parent is on work release.
    Response: Some States automatically reduce a support order when a 
parent is incarcerated, while other States consider incarceration as 
one factor in determining whether to adjust a support order.\94\ States 
should apply their child support guidelines, based on the noncustodial 
parent's ability to pay, and determine whether the parent has income or 
assets available that could be levied or attached for support, whether 
or not a parent is incarcerated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Jennifer L. Noyes, Maria Cancian, and Laura Cuesta, Holding 
Child Support Orders of Incarcerated Payers in Abeyance: Final 
Evaluation Report, 2012, available at: https://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/childsup/cspolicy/pdfs/2009-11/Task1_CS2009-11-MPP-Report.pdf; in addition, see related PowerPoint presentation 
available at https://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/childsup/cspolicy/pdfs/2009-11/Task1-CS2009-11-MPP-PPT.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Comment: A few commenters noted that if the notification in 
Sec.  303.8(b)(7)(ii) is separate and distinct from the 3-year review, 
this will require a system change and incur costs.
    Response: We agree this will require a State to make a minor system 
change; these costs were considered in the development of this rule.
    18. Comment: Several commenters indicated that the requirement in 
Sec.  303.8(b)(7)(ii) is redundant since their existing State statute, 
administrative rules, and court rules allow for the

[[Page 93540]]

modification of a child support obligation upon incarceration by 
operation of law.
    Response: We agree. Therefore, we added a sentence to the end of 
Sec.  303.8(b)(7)(ii) to acknowledge that neither the notice nor a 
review is required under this paragraph if the State has a comparable 
State law or rule that modifies a child support obligation upon 
incarceration by operation of State law.
    19. Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the NPRM at Sec.  
303.8(d) indicating a need for a threshold for when to review and 
adjust an order for health care needs similar to those used by States 
to require a review and adjustment for the child support awards. 
Without these thresholds, the commenter suggests that State child 
support agencies will face heavy workloads to modify these orders.
    Response: OCSE has historically left the particular criteria for 
support order modifications up to States and their child support 
guidelines. However, when an order lacks a medical support provision, 
the situation warrants immediate attention for modification to remedy 
the medical support issue. By removing the sentence in Sec.  303.8(d) 
which previously required States to review and adjust support orders to 
address health care coverage for child(ren) eligible for or receiving 
Medicaid benefits, we are making the requirement for review and 
adjustment less restrictive.
    20. Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed 
revision in Sec.  303.8(d) will require significant legislative, 
guidelines, and policy changes which will impact on its ability to 
implement this revision.
    Response: We understand the commenters concerns that this will 
require changes. Therefore, we have made the effective dates for this 
section the same as the dates for Guidelines for setting child support 
awards. For further details see Comment/Response 2 in the Dates 
section.
    21. Comment: Some commenters expressed their dissatisfaction with 
the deletion of the last sentence in Sec.  303.8(d) feeling that it was 
an inadequate approach to aligning child support regulations fully with 
the Affordable Care Act.
    Response: OCSE recognizes the tensions between the Social Security 
Act and provisions in the ACA when it comes to medical support. We 
aligned our regulatory requirements as closely as possible with the ACA 
within existing authority. In this particular section, we simply 
removed the last sentence in paragraph (d), which conflicted with the 
ACA notion of what constitutes medical coverage and to conform to our 
revisions in Sec.  303.31. The final regulations allow States more 
flexibility to coordinate medical support practices with the 
requirements of the ACA.
    22. Comment: One State expressed the need for clarification on 
whether the proposed changes require the State to modify the language 
in an order to indicate that Medicaid coverage was sufficient for 
meeting the child's medical needs.
    Response: Eliminating the provision that indicates that Medicaid 
cannot be considered sufficient does not necessarily mean that Medicaid 
must be considered sufficient in every case. There are circumstances in 
which Medicaid coverage may not be sufficient to meet a child's full 
needs. Therefore, OCSE has chosen not to prescribe how State child 
support agencies address medical support provisions in their orders. 
However, OCSE encourages States to consider adopting a broad medical 
support provision that encompasses all of the medical coverage options 
available to families under the ACA.
    23. Comment: One State concluded their comment by requesting OCSE 
wait to modify medical support regulations until the time that the 
Social Security Act is consistent with the ACA.
    Response: While we understand the frustration in the child support 
community regarding the inconsistencies between the ACA and the Social 
Security Act regarding medical enforcement, we have tried to align our 
regulations as much as possible with the new policy environment under 
the ACA, consistent with title IV-D. However, sections 452(f) and 
466(a)(19) of the Social Security Act require specific medical support 
activities to be performed by State child support agencies.
    24. Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed changes to the 
regulations in Sec.  303.8(d) citing that private insurance should be 
enforced when it becomes available to an obligated parent and the 
child(ren) is(are) receiving public forms of coverage like Medicaid.
    Response: See Comment/Response 2 in Sec.  303.31, Securing and 
Enforcing Medical Support Obligations of this final rule.
Section 303.11--Case Closure Criteria (Including 45 CFR 433.152(b)(1))
    1. Comment: Several commenters indicated their preference for 
keeping case closure optional, especially for a State that recoups 
assigned arrears. Some commenters expressed concerns about how the 
greater flexibility to close cases would impact intergovernmental 
consistency and program performance. A few commenters recommended 
making case closure mandatory or requiring States to have a process for 
examining their cases to determine if they meet one of the case closure 
criteria and then consider closing them.
    Response: The goal of the case closure regulation is not to mandate 
that cases be closed, but rather to clarify conditions under which 
States may close cases. The changes to the case closure regulation 
allows a State to direct resources to cases where collections are 
possible and to ensure that families have more control over whether to 
receive child support services. A decision to close a case is linked 
with notice to the recipient of services of the intent to close the 
case and an opportunity to respond with information or a request that 
the case be kept open.
    OCSE has determined that this final rule strikes the appropriate 
balance between providing States with additional flexibility in closing 
cases that are unlikely to result in successful child support actions 
and ensuring families receive effective child support enforcement 
services. We do not agree with the commenters' concerns that the 
expanded case closure criteria will put some States at a competitive 
disadvantage. States make many decisions that affect their performance 
rates. For example, one State might charge interest and another might 
not or one State might adopt family-first distributions and another 
might not. The decision to close or not close cases with assigned 
arrears is at the State's discretion. As we indicated in the NPRM, the 
National Council of Child Support Directors provided OCSE with 
recommendations for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
case closure criteria, ensuring that resources are directed to working 
cases and that children receive services whenever there is any 
reasonable likelihood for collections in the future. Since case closure 
is permissive, a State has the discretion to develop a process for 
examining its cases to determine whether case closure is warranted.
    2. Comment: One commenter recommended that OCSE limit case closure 
to intrastate cases and a decision by the UIFSA initiating State. 
Another commenter indicated that the responding State should not 
enforce an intergovernmental case that the initiating State would close 
if it were an intrastate case.

[[Page 93541]]

    Response: A State has the authority to determine when and whether 
to close its cases, both intrastate and intergovernmental cases, under 
Sec.  303.11. The responding State may not unilaterally or 
automatically close its responding case. Rather, the initiating State 
makes the case management decisions on its own cases, including its 
initiating intergovernmental cases. A responding State may only close a 
case under the following circumstances: If it can document 
noncooperation by the initiating agency, and provides proper notice to 
the initiating agency per paragraph (b)(17); if it is notified that the 
initiating State has closed its case per paragraph (b)(18); or if it is 
notified that the initiating agency no longer needs its services per 
paragraph (b)(19).
    3. Comment: A few commenters recommended adding a closure criterion 
for when a State no longer has legal jurisdiction in a case.
    Response: We disagree with this suggestion because the State must 
keep the case open to provide IV-D services, such as to disburse child 
support payments when the custodial parent resides in the State.
    4. Comment: One commenter recommended deleting the proposed 
requirement to maintain supporting documentation in the case record per 
Sec.  303.11(b) and allowing a State the flexibility to maintain 
information as it determines appropriate.
    Response: OCSE disagrees with this recommendation. The requirement 
to keep supporting documentation on the case closure decision in a case 
record is necessary because it documents whether the case has been 
closed appropriately and is evaluated as part of the State's annual 
self-assessment reviews.
    5. Comment: A commenter requested clarification on whether Sec.  
303.11(b)(2) applies to a case in which the recipient of services does 
not want the State to collect recipient-owed arrears and there are 
state-owed arrearages. Another commenter requested clarification on 
using this provision when it conflicts with State law on collecting 
state-owed arrears. Another commenter requested guidance on how to 
address custodial parent-owed arrears (i.e., unassigned debt) and 
noncooperation with the State IV-D agency. Another commenter disagreed 
that the State IV-D agency needs approval from TANF or IV-E to close 
the case that has an assignment owed to them.
    Response: The State cannot use Sec.  303.11(b)(2) to close a case 
that has arrearages owed to the State and the recipient of services 
(i.e., assigned and unassigned debt). If the arrearages are under $500 
and there is no longer a current support order, the State may close the 
case in accordance with paragraph (b)(1). Unassigned debt is settled 
only at the discretion of the custodial parent by a specific agreement 
of the parties. Without this agreement, the State cannot compromise or 
remove unassigned debt owed to the custodial parent. When the recipient 
of services no longer wants IV-D services, the State may close the case 
if it meets one of the case closure criteria under Sec.  303.11. Case 
closure does not affect the legality of the underlying order. The child 
support order, including any payment or installment of support such as 
arrearages due under the order, remains in effect and legally binding 
after a case is closed. Since the case closure criterion is optional, 
States always have the discretion to keep cases open when there is an 
assignment or arrears owed to the State. The decision of whether to 
close a case belongs to the State IV-D agency.
    6. Comment: Several commenters recommended that OCSE describe the 
difference between case closure and order modification, and encourage 
States to modify orders to zero before closure pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
303.11(b)(5), (8), and (9) to avoid the accrual of arrearages if the 
case is reopened.
    Response: These case closure provisions provide States with the 
flexibility to close uncollectible cases and to direct resources for 
cases where collections are possible. When appropriate and after 
determining whether the custodial parent wants to continue the case, 
the State should consider reviewing and, if appropriate under 
Sec. Sec.  303.8 and 302.56, adjusting the order to stop the accrual of 
uncollectible debt before closing the case under the appropriate case 
closure criterion. Although the IV-D case is closed and no longer 
receiving IV-D services, the custodial parent may still pursue 
enforcement of the support obligation separately.
    7. Comment: Several commenters requested that OCSE define certain 
terms used in Sec. Sec.  303.11(b)(3) and (b)(8) and describe the 
required documentation to justify closure. One commenter requested 
clarification on how States should determine the cost of the care 
facility and whether to factor that cost and the receipt of SSA into 
the subsistence level under Sec.  303.11(b)(3). The same commenter also 
questioned whether the State should investigate or consider the 
possibility of retirement plans or financial institution assets and how 
to treat combined income (e.g., partial disability, VA disability). 
Another commenter questioned whether Sec.  303.11(b)(3) included aging 
noncustodial parents requiring minimal services such as meal 
preparation or housekeeping. Another commenter questioned whether the 
provision for senior citizens might create a special right for a 
specific group of noncustodial parents.
    Response: OCSE does not plan to define subsistence level, home 
health care, or residential facility in the rule. States have the 
flexibility and discretion to define these terms. However, please note 
that we reference ``subsistence level'' in Sec.  303.11 in a consistent 
manner. As we indicated in PIQ-08-02,\95\ States have the discretion to 
determine the appropriate methods for verifying whether a case meets 
the conditions for case closure. States should use basic audit 
standards to determine how to document that a case meets the criteria 
for closure. If a State finds that the noncustodial parent has income 
or assets which may be levied or attached for support, then the case 
must remain open. We disagree with the comment that a case closure 
provision that targets low-income residents of long-term care provides 
them with a special right. There have been reported instances of old 
child support debt, carried well after the children have become adults 
and sometimes parents themselves, posing a barrier for aging parents to 
obtain assisted housing, basic income, and health care. We believe 
enforcement efforts against these noncustodial parents, who have no 
income or assets available above the subsistence level that could be 
levied or attached for support, are not only ineffective, but are also 
an inefficient way to expend child support resources. Case closure is 
permissive and the decision should be done on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ PIQ-08-02 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/noncustodial-receiving-ssi-benefits-and-unable-to-pay-child-support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Comment: One commenter suggested Sec.  303.11(b)(3) be expanded 
to include additional programs that serve individuals with significant 
and long-term disabilities and limited income or employment prospects, 
such as noncustodial parents who are receiving Adult Protective 
Services.
    Response: We are not expanding Sec.  303.11(b)(3) to include 
additional programs because there are other case closure criteria, such 
as paragraph (b)(8) that allows cases to be closed when the 
noncustodial parent has a medically-verified total and permanent 
disability that will occur throughout the duration of the child's 
minority (or after the child has reached the age of majority) if there

[[Page 93542]]

is no income or assets available that could be levied or attached for 
support, or paragraph (a)(9) relating to when the noncustodial parent's 
income is from SSI payments or from concurrent SSI payments and SSDI 
benefits.
    9. Comment: One commenter questioned whether an intact two-parent 
family referred in Sec.  303.11(b)(5) includes a family that receives 
TANF or that has one parent in prison. Another commenter recommended 
deleting the phrase ``intact two-parent'' since ``primary caregiver'' 
was sufficient.
    Response: There is no child support eligibility when the family is 
intact, whether or not the parent is temporarily physically away from 
the family, for example, when one of the parents has found work in 
another State. When the State IV-D agency receives a referral involving 
an intact two-parent family, the State may close the case based on the 
criterion under Sec.  303.11(b)(20). We do not agree with the 
recommendation to delete ``intact two-parent'' household because we 
believe that it addresses the situation when the custodial and 
noncustodial parent continue to function as an intact family or 
reconciles, whereas the primary caregiver addresses the situation when 
the noncustodial parent becomes the custodial parent.
    10. Comment: One commenter questioned whether a State could close a 
case in accordance with Sec.  303.11(b)(5) when there is a current 
support obligation or arrearage due. Another commenter requested 
clarification on how a State should address a case where the custodial 
parent in an intact two-parent family wants to keep the case open.
    Response: A State may close a case under Sec.  303.11(b)(5) when 
there is current support and/or an arrearage due. However, when the 
recipient of services wants to continue receiving IV-D services, the 
case must remain open.
    11. Comment: One commenter questioned whether legal or physical 
custody was sufficient to determine that the noncustodial parent is the 
primary caregiver, particularly for audit purposes.
    Response: A State has the discretion to determine the circumstances 
in which a case meets the conditions for closure in accordance with 
Sec.  303.11.
    12. Comment: Many commenters questioned whether States had the 
discretion to add more restrictive language to the case closure 
criteria, such as no payments received in the previous six months. A 
few commenters requested clarification on whether States have the 
flexibility to use longer periods for locating noncustodial parents 
than the times specified in Sec.  303.11(b)(7).
    Response: Yes, States have such flexibility. As we stated in OCSE 
AT-99-04 \96\ and AT-89-15,\97\ there is nothing to prohibit a State 
from establishing criteria that make it harder to close a case than 
those established under Sec.  303.11. For example, a State may specify 
a timeframe in which no payments are received before closing a case to 
ensure that all viable cases remain open. The State also has 
flexibility to use longer periods for locating noncustodial parents 
than the times specified in Sec.  303.11(b)(7). The case closure 
provision sets the minimum criteria for determining when a case is 
eligible for closure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ AT-99-04 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/final-rule-case-closure-criteria-45-cfr-part-303.
    \97\ AT-89-15 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/standards-for-program-operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Comment: One commenter requested clarification about verifying 
the Social Security Number (SSN) per Sec.  303.11(b)(7)(iii) and 
handling new leads that do not result in locating the noncustodial 
parent.
    Response: Although the State has sufficient information to initiate 
an automated locate effort, locate interfaces (e.g., Federal Parent 
Locator Service (FPLS) and Enumeration and Verification System (EVS)) 
may not be able to confirm or correct the SSN-name combination for the 
person sent. As we stated in the Case Closure Criteria Final Rule, 64 
FR 11814, March 10, 1999, Comment/Response 5,\98\ States are required 
to comply with Federal locate requirements in Sec.  303.3 and make a 
serious and meaningful attempt to identify the biological father (or 
any individual sought by the IV-D agency). If the State has made a 
diligent effort using multiple sources in accordance with Sec.  303.3, 
all of which have been unsuccessful to locate the noncustodial parent, 
then the State may close the case in accordance with Sec.  
303.11(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ This is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/final-rule-case-closure-criteria-45-cfr-part-303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Comment: Because the case closure provision Sec.  303.11(b)(7) 
shortens the length of time for locate attempts, one commenter 
recommended expanding locate resources to include verification of 
Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs), driver's licenses, or 
other unique identifiers.
    Response: An analysis is currently underway to assess whether 
private sources can identify locate information and/or individuals with 
ITINs and locate information associated with ITINs. Additionally, OCSE 
is evaluating the possibility of using ITINs to obtain locate 
information from current FPLS locate sources, such as Multistate 
Financial Institution Data Match (MSFIDM).
    15. Comment: One commenter recommended removing the language 
``child has reached the age of majority'' in Sec.  303.11(b)(8) and 
replacing it with ``after support is no longer due.'' Many commenters 
requested clarification regarding what OCSE meant by multiple referrals 
for services. One commenter thought that this criterion was too 
ambiguous. One commenter opposed adding multiple referrals for service 
as a case closure criterion and another commenter recommended removing 
the requirement for multiple referrals for services.
    Response: OCSE disagrees with the first suggestion regarding the 
child reaching the age of majority since the language as written 
conveys the intent of the provision under Sec.  303.11(b)(8). However, 
because of the confusion and opposition regarding the multiple referral 
case closure criterion, we have removed this from the proposed 
criterion in paragraph (b)(8).
    16. Comment: Several commenters requested clarification regarding 
the documentation needed to justify case closure based on disability in 
accordance with Sec.  303.11(b)(8).
    Response: In OCSE PIQ-08-02,\99\ we indicate that States have the 
discretion to determine what circumstances can result in a ``medically 
verified total and permanent disability'' in accordance with Sec.  
303.11(b)(8). States also have the discretion to determine appropriate 
methods of medically verifying that a disability is total and 
permanent. Refer to PIQ-04-03 \100\ for information regarding how 
States may access Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 
(HIPAA) privacy-protected information when the agency has issued a 
National Medical Support Notice. The State can also request the 
noncustodial parent to obtain his or her medical records in accordance 
with 45 CFR 164.524(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ PIQ-08-02 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/noncustodial-receiving-ssi-benefits-and-unable-to-pay-child-support.
    \100\ PIQ-04-03 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/medical-support-enforcement-under-iv-d-program-phi-hipaa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Comment: One commenter recommended that OCSE create a separate 
case closure criterion for incarceration and requested clarification 
about how to treat partial disability.

[[Page 93543]]

    Response: We disagree with creating a separate case closure 
criterion for incarceration. We note that incarceration has been 
included as a criterion with psychiatric institutionalization and 
medically-verified total and permanent disability since the 
promulgation of the Federal case closure regulation on August 4, 1989. 
A State may not close a case under Sec.  303.11(b)(8) based on the 
noncustodial parent's partial disability. The State should determine 
whether such a case meets another case closure criteria under Sec.  
303.11.
    18. Comment: One commenter recommended removing the language 
``needs-based'' and replacing it with ``means-tested'' in Sec.  
303.11(b)(9)(iii). Another commenter requested clarification on using 
the receipt of needs-based benefits as the basis for case closure, 
asking whether such benefits pertain to federally-funded programs, 
TANF, or time-limited benefits.
    Response: Both ``needs-based benefits'' and ``means-tested 
benefits'' are the same. However, upon further consideration, we 
deleted ``needs-based benefits'' because these benefits are often time-
limited and are not permanent. In the absence of a disability that 
impairs the ability to work, the ability of a parent to work and earn 
income may also fluctuate with time. Therefore, it is important for the 
child support agencies to take efforts on these cases to remove the 
barriers to nonpayment and build the capacity of the noncustodial 
parents to pay by using tools such as referring noncustodial parents to 
employment services provided by another State program or community-
based organization.
    19. Comment: Several commenters indicated that title II benefits 
are subject to income withholding and recommend that receipt of such 
benefits not be the basis for closing cases.
    Response: There is a misunderstanding regarding how we are 
addressing title II benefits in this criterion. Title II benefits, such 
as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, are considered 
remuneration from employment (based on how many work credits the person 
has earned during his or her time in the workforce), and therefore, the 
benefits may be garnished for child support directly from the Federal 
payor as authorized under section 459(h)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the Social 
Security Act (see DCL-13-06; PIQ-09-01; DCL-00-103).\101\ However, the 
case closure criterion at Sec.  303.11(b)(9)(ii) only addresses a 
noncustodial parent who is receiving concurrent Supplemental Security 
Income (SSI) and SSDI benefits under title II of the Act, which means 
the disabled noncustodial parent qualifies for means-tested SSI 
benefits on the basis of his or her income and assets, but also 
qualifies for SSDI benefits. In that case, the Social Security 
Administration pays a combination of benefits up to the SSI benefit 
level. Concurrent benefits are means-tested on the same basis as SSI 
benefits. In other words, a concurrent SSI and SSDI beneficiary has no 
more income, and is no better off, than a beneficiary receiving SSI 
alone. A beneficiary of concurrent benefits has equally low income and 
an equal inability to pay support as an SSI recipient. Given that a 
noncustodial parent who is eligible for concurrent benefits meets SSI 
means-tested criteria and receives the same benefit amount as an SSI 
beneficiary, it is appropriate to close these cases on the same basis 
as an SSI case. Under Sec.  303.11(b)(9)(ii), States have the 
flexibility to close such cases. As a result of comments, we added in 
paragraph (b)(9)(ii) the phrase ``Social Security Disability Insurance 
(SSDI)'' before benefits under title II. For further explanation 
regarding these concurrent benefits, please see Comment/Response 3 in 
Sec.  307.11, Functional Requirements for Computerized Support 
Enforcement Systems in Operation by October 1, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ DCL-13-06 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/garnishment-of-supplemental-security-income-benefits; PIQ-09-01 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/garnishment-of-federal-payments-for-child-support-obligations; DCL-00-103 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/attachment-of-social-security-benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Comment: One commenter suggested that OCSE instruct the Social 
Security Administration (SSA) not to honor Income Withholding Orders 
(IWOs) against SSI benefits, similar to how the VA will not honor IWOs 
against service-connected disability benefits.
    Response: SSA does not implement IWOs for individuals who are 
receiving SSI benefits.
    21. Comment: One commenter questioned whether a State is permitted 
to close a case under Sec.  303.11(b)(9) without establishing a child 
support order when the noncustodial parent is receiving SSI.
    Response: Yes, the case may be closed. If the noncustodial parent's 
only income is SSI, the State may close the case under paragraph (b)(9) 
without establishing a support order because SSI is not subject to 
garnishment. Additionally, the State can close a case at any time that 
it meets a case closure criterion regardless of where the case is in 
the child support process.
    However, this does not preclude a State from establishing a $0 
support order (based on inability to pay), which could be modified 
later if the noncustodial parent went off SSI and began work or 
inherited assets. If States choose to establish an order prior to 
closing a case under Sec.  303.4, States should use caution about 
establishing an order based on imputed income or a minimum ordered 
amount (other than $0) because the child support order, including any 
payment or installment of support such as arrearages due under the 
order, remains in effect and legally binding after a case is closed. In 
these cases, we are allowing States to close cases when the 
noncustodial parent's income is SSI because SSI is not subject to 
garnishment.
    22. Comment: Many commenters recommended sending closure notices 
under Sec.  303.11(d)(6) in a limited services case to the recipient 
before the limited service case closes, not after. They stated that the 
earlier notice would be more effective and less burdensome on both the 
recipient and the IV-D agency, would allow the recipient to contact the 
IV-D agency should he/she have any questions or disagree with case 
closure, and would make it easier to address any issues prior to case 
closure.
    Response: We are persuaded that giving advance notice of case 
closure when a limited service under Sec.  302.33(a)(6) has been 
completed will eliminate potential confusion or case closure issues and 
will maintain uniformity with existing case closure processes that 
require a 60 calendar day advance notice. Therefore, the final rule at 
Sec.  303.11(d)(4) requires that for cases closed under paragraph 
(b)(13) of this section, the IV-D agency must send a written notice to 
the recipient of services 60 days prior to closure of the case of the 
State's intent to close the case.
    23. Comment: Some commenters asked for clarification regarding when 
a paternity-only limited services case is considered completed and can 
be closed under Sec.  303.11(b)(13). They asked whether the case would 
be considered completed after an Acknowledgment of Paternity has been 
signed, after genetic testing has been completed and results obtained, 
after a court order establishing paternity has been entered, or after a 
birth certificate has been amended to reflect the new legal father.
    Response: We acknowledge that there may be varying opinions on when 
paternity-only services should be

[[Page 93544]]

considered completed and the limited services case closed. We therefore 
recommend that States make this determination individually according to 
when paternity is legally determined under applicable State law.
    24. Comment: One commenter was concerned that if a parent refuses 
to cooperate with genetic testing in a paternity-only limited services 
case, States will not have the ability to close that case under Sec.  
303.11(b)(13) because the limited service will never be completed.
    Response: IV-D agencies typically have methods of recourse when a 
parent refuses to cooperate with genetic testing. This usually involves 
a court's ordering the parent to submit to genetic testing; if the 
parent remains uncooperative, the parent may be found in contempt of 
that court order. Additionally, we encourage States to screen for 
domestic violence before initiating a paternity testing enforcement 
action. OCSE defers to States' existing legal process and operating 
procedures to address this situation.
    25. Comment: One State commented that system changes to implement a 
new limited services closure code per Sec.  303.11(b)(13) would be cost 
prohibitive.
    Response: As discussed in this final rule, paternity-only limited 
service is optional.
    26. Comment: Two commenters questioned the removal of SNAP from the 
list of assistance programs described in Sec.  303.11(b)(14) and 
recommended OCSE include it in the provision.
    Response: We concur with these comments and have added SNAP to the 
list of assistance programs referenced in both paragraphs (b)(14) and 
(20).
    27. Comment: One commenter questioned whether Sec.  303.11(b)(15) 
applies to cases when payments are being disbursed on an unpinned debit 
card and the funds have not been spent.
    Response: Yes. Although many State child support programs 
distribute payments through debit cards, it remains extremely important 
for the recipient of services to keep the State informed of his or her 
current mailing address to ensure that the case can be processed 
effectively. When the State disburses payments on an unpinned debit 
card and is unable to contact the custodial parent, the State should 
make a good faith effort to contact the recipient of services through 
at least two different methods to ensure that the child support 
payments are properly disbursed and received by the family. If the 
criteria under Sec.  303.11(b)(15) are met, the State may close the 
case.
    28. Comment: A few commenters expressed concerns about the 
requirement for two different methods of communication and recommended 
that OCSE require only one method of communication under Sec.  
303.11(b)(15).
    Response: We disagree with this recommendation. With today's 
technology, there are many different options to notify clients, such as 
first-class mail, electronic mail, text messaging, and telephone calls. 
The best notice to recipients of IV-D services is information provided 
through multiple methods. For example, a voice message and a text 
message count as two different methods of communication. However, we 
understand the difficulty in meeting the requirement to use two 
different methods of communication when the State child support agency 
has incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated contact information for the 
recipient of services. When the State only has an outdated or 
inaccurate address, the State IV-D agency should send the case closure 
notice to the last known address (see OCSE AT-93-03 and AT-99-04).\102\ 
Additionally, under Sec.  303.6(d)(6) with the specific consent of the 
recipient of services, States are permitted to use electronic means to 
send case closure notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ AT-93-03 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/clarification-of-case-closure-criteria; AT-99-04 is 
available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/final-rule-case-closure-criteria-45-cfr-part-303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Comment: One commenter questioned whether Sec.  303.11(b)(20) 
only applied to the assistance programs described in the provision. Two 
commenters requested guidance for determining an inappropriate referral 
and additional examples.
    Response: Section 303.11(b)(20) is not limited to the assistance 
programs listed as examples. In addition to IV-A, IV-E, SNAP, and 
Medicaid, the State has the flexibility to close a case referred from 
other means-tested assistance programs if the IV-D agency deems it 
inappropriate to establish, enforce, or continue to enforce a child 
support order in the case and the custodial parent has not applied for 
IV-D services. Section 454(4)(A) of the Act requires State IV-D 
agencies to provide services as appropriate. A State should determine 
whether child support enforcement services are appropriate in a 
referred case, as it would with any other case. This provision provides 
States with the flexibility to close inappropriate referrals on a case-
by-case basis. Case closure is permissive. Our understanding is that 
inappropriate referrals are limited in number. An example of an 
inappropriate TANF, Medicaid, etc. referral is one involving an intact 
family where there is no parent living apart or a widowed custodial 
parent.
    30. Comment: One commenter suggested OCSE include language to 
indicate that a IV-A agency should not consider case closure under 
Sec.  303.11(b)(20) as noncooperation by the recipient of services.
    Response: As indicated in the NPRM, the State IV-D agency should 
communicate with the IV-A agency to ensure that the decision to close 
the IV-D case will not be viewed by the IV-A agency as noncooperation 
by the recipient of services.
    31. Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed Sec.  
303.11(b)(21) was too restrictive, based on outdated guidance (e.g., 
PIQT-05-01), and hindered the case transfer processes established 
through existing State-Tribal agreements. One commenter suggested 
expanding the provision to including case transfer processes developed 
under OCSE approved State-Tribal agreements.
    Response: OCSE acknowledges the concerns expressed in these 
comments. We developed the guidance in PIQT-05-01\103\ in the early 
stages of the Tribal IV-D program. The final rule builds upon and 
revises this guidance to increase the flexibility for the transfer and 
closure of cases between State and Tribal IV-D programs. However, we 
retain the consent requirement of the recipient of services. The 
recipient of services must provide his or her consent to transfer and 
close the case because, as both a member of the Tribe and a resident of 
the State, the recipient has the right to determine the agency that 
provides the IV-D services. However, based on comments, we have added 
Sec.  303.11(b)(21)(iv) to address State-Tribal agreements regarding 
the transfer and closure of cases. OCSE must review and approve these 
State-Tribal agreements and they must include consent from the 
recipient of services to transfer the case. The agreements should also 
address enforcement of state-owed arrears, repayment agreements, and 
arrears adjustment and compromise when applicable. Any State debt owed 
under the preexisting order remains in effect and legally binding. Once 
the case is transferred and closed, Tribal IV-D programs must extend 
the full range of services under their IV-D plan as required by Sec.  
309.120(a). As such, a Tribe must enforce any state-owed debt

[[Page 93545]]

when there is not an agreement to permit the Tribe to compromise any 
state-assigned arrearages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ PIQT-05-01 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/transfer-of-cases-to-tribal-iv-d-agencies-case-closure-criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Comment: Several commenters described the problems with or 
importance of requiring consent from the recipient of service to 
transfer of the case to the Tribe. Other commenters questioned the 
exclusion of consent from the other party involved in the IV-D case and 
suggested removing the consent requirement under Sec.  303.11(b)(21).
    Response: Under section 454(4) of the Act, the IV-D agency is 
required to provide services related to the establishment of paternity 
or the establishment, modification, or enforcement of child support 
obligations when (1) an individual applies for, and receives, certain 
forms of public assistance (TANF, IV-E foster care, medical assistance 
under Title XIX, and when cooperation with IV-D is required of a SNAP 
recipient), unless good cause or another exception to cooperation with 
IV-D exists; or (2) an individual files an application for IV-D 
services. Once a IV-D case is established, the recipient of services is 
the individual who either received the aforementioned form of public 
assistance or applied for IV-D services. As a tribal member and State 
resident, the recipient of services has the right to decide whether to 
continue receiving services from the State or to begin receiving 
services from the Tribal IV-D agency. Therefore, the State IV-D agency 
must obtain the recipient of services' consent before transferring the 
recipient's case to a Tribal IV-D agency and then closing the State 
case. There is no requirement that the other party or parent also 
consent to the transfer and closure of the case when requested by the 
recipient of services.
    33. Comment: One commenter questioned whether Sec.  303.11(b)(21) 
would resolve all of the issues regarding when a State IV-D agency 
should transfer versus refer a case to a Tribal IV-D agency. Another 
commenter requested OCSE to define the process for transferring cases 
from a State IV-D agency to a Tribal IV-D agency.
    Response: OCSE encourages State and Tribal IV-D agencies to work 
together to resolve the various issues around transferring or referring 
cases that involve Tribal members, particularly when there are arrears 
owed to the State, and to develop specific procedures for transferring 
cases based on the case closure requirements found in the regulations 
at Sec.  303.11. When there are arrears owed to the State, a State IV-D 
agency may decide to only refer the case to a Tribal IV-D agency for 
assistance in securing current support and arrears owed to the family 
and/or arrears owed to the State. In this circumstance, the State and 
Tribe would each have an intergovernmental case involving the same 
participants. When the recipient of services requests that his or her 
case be transferred to a Tribal IV-D agency and there are State-owed 
arrears, the State should inform the recipient of the State's 
discretion to transfer or refer the case when there is a State 
assignment and of the State's decision. However, if the recipient of 
services requests that the case be transferred to a Tribal IV-D agency 
and there are no State arrears, then the State must transfer the case 
to the Tribe.
    34. Comment: Several commenters described the problems regarding 
the notice requirements of Sec.  303.11(b)(21). Some recommended a 
shorter timeframe for the recipient of services to respond and 
elimination of the second notice that indicates closure under Sec.  
303.11(b)(21)(B).
    Response: Notices act as important safeguards that keep the 
recipient of services informed of case closure actions. They provide 
the opportunity for the recipient to respond with information and to 
request that the case be kept open or, after the case is closed, to 
reopen the case. The 60-calendar day timeframe is consistent with the 
notice response timeframe that has been required under Federal case 
closure regulations since the original final rule was promulgated on 
August 4, 1989. The 60-calendar day timeframe has worked well for over 
26 years and it would not be appropriate to change it at this time. 
However, a State IV-D agency may send the final notice of transfer and 
closure when, or immediately before, it closes the case, as long as the 
60-day timeframe for a response has been met. The final notice should 
provide the contact information of the Tribal IV-D agency receiving the 
case.
    35. Comment: A few commenters described issues related to Public 
Law 280 and the transfer of legal jurisdiction between State and Tribal 
courts. They requested the case closure regulation address these 
jurisdictional issues.
    Response: It is inappropriate to address in the Federal case 
closure regulation the complex issues around jurisdiction and Public 
Law 280. State and Tribal IV-D programs are in the best position to 
address and resolve these issues in their State-Tribal agreements.
    36. Comment: One commenter questioned whether a State IV-D agency 
could still provide Federal Tax Refund Offset services on a case that 
has been transferred to a Tribal IV-D agency and closed by the State 
IV-D agency.
    Response: It is OCSE's position that transfer of a case to a Tribal 
IV-D agency and closure of that case by the State does not preclude the 
State from submitting that case for Federal Tax Refund Offset when a 
Tribal IV-D agency submits the case under a State-Tribal agreement for 
Federal Tax Refund Offset in accordance with OCSE PIQT-07-02.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ PIQT-07-02 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/state-automated-systems-costs-service-agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. Comment: One commenter indicated that Sec.  303.11(b)(21) does 
not specify that a State IV-D agency may transfer a case to a Tribal 
IV-D agency regardless of whether there are arrears owed to the State.
    Response: Section 303.11(b)(21) has been revised to explicitly 
allow the State IV-D agency to transfer cases that have arrears owed to 
the State. The State has the discretion to transfer the case to the 
Tribal IV-D agency when there are state-owed arrears. When such cases 
are transferred, the Tribe must extend the full range of services under 
its IV-D plan as required by Sec.  309.120(a) and enforce the state-
assigned arrearages.
    38. Comment: One commenter urged OCSE not to use the word 
``transfer'' since a case cannot be considered transferred until the 
original State no longer has an open case.
    Response: This suggestion was not incorporated into the regulation. 
However, Sec.  303.11(b)(21) has been revised to include, where 
appropriate, the word ``close'' to explicitly indicate the closure of 
the case with the State. This revision makes it clear that case 
transfer involves transferring the case to the Tribal IV-D agency and 
then closing the case with the State.
    39. Comment: One commenter asked whether Sec.  303.11(c) prohibits 
a State IV-D agency from providing full services, including medical 
support, to an Indian Health Service (IHS) Medicaid recipient who 
requests a full service IV-D case.
    Response: Based on the revisions to the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services (CMS) regulations, which are also in this final rule, 
State IV-D agencies should no longer be sent referrals for these cases. 
Indians may receive health care services without charge from the IHS. 
To receive State IV-D services, an IHS eligible recipient would need to 
apply for IV-D services. However, no medical support enforcement 
services need to be provided to the extent that the individual is 
receiving all needed care through the IHS. At the time of application, 
if the State is aware that the applicant is a Medicaid recipient, then

[[Page 93546]]

the State should not charge an application fee per Sec.  302.33(a)(2). 
The provision of Sec.  303.11(c) would not apply for the custodial 
parent with IHS-eligible children who applies directly with the State 
child support agency to receive all child support services.
    40. Comment: One commenter suggested that OCSE revise the language 
in Sec.  303.11(c)(2) to read, ``The IV-D case was opened as a non-IV-A 
Medicaid referral. . . .'' This would ensure consistency with the case-
type language in Sec.  302.33(a)(1)(ii). Additionally, the same 
commenter questioned the value added by the following language in the 
same paragraph and suggested removing it, ``. . . health care services, 
including the Purchased/Referred Care program, provided through an 
Indian Health Program (as defined at 25 U.S.C. 1603(12))''.
    Response: OCSE does not agree with these suggestions to revise the 
regulatory text. The regulatory text makes it clear that this case 
closure provision is related to Medicaid referrals based solely upon 
health care services provided through an Indian Health Program (as 
defined at 25 U.S.C. 1603(12), including through the Purchased/Referred 
Care program. However, we would like to clarify that this case type is 
consistent with the case type language in Sec.  302.33(a)(1)(ii). OCSE 
retained the language in this paragraph to ensure consistency between 
the language in Sec.  303.11(c)(2) and the revised Medicaid regulations 
at 42 CFR 433.152(b)(1)(i).
    41. Comment: One commenter suggested that OCSE change the mandatory 
closure criterion in Sec.  303.11(c) to an optional closure criterion.
    Response: We disagree with this suggestion. Section 303.11(c) 
describes the circumstances under which a State IV-D agency must close 
a case. This provision makes it clear that State IV-D agencies should 
not seek medical support when the child is eligible for health care 
services from IHS and the case is a Medicaid referral based solely upon 
such health services. In order to better serve Indian families, Sec.  
303.11(c) requires a State IV-D agency to close a Medicaid 
reimbursement referral based solely upon health care services provided 
through an Indian Health Program, including through the Purchased/
Referred Care program.
    The IHS is responsible for providing health care to American 
Indians and Alaska Natives under the Snyder Act. See 25 U.S.C. Section 
13 (providing that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) will expend funds 
as appropriated for, among other things, the ``conservation of health'' 
of Indians); and 42 U.S.C. Section 2001(a) (transferring the 
responsibility for Indian health care from BIA to IHS). The IHS 
provides such care directly through Federal facilities and clinics, and 
also contracts and compacts with Indian tribes and tribal organizations 
to provide care pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Public Law 93-638 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.). In 
addition, the Snyder Act authorizes IHS to pay for medical care 
provided to IHS beneficiaries by other public and private providers as 
the Purchased/Referred Care program. The term ``Indian Health 
Program,'' defined at 25 U.S.C. 1603(12), encompasses the different 
ways health care is provided to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
    In light of the IHS's policy, OCSE and CMS require that State 
Medicaid agencies not refer such cases and that IV-D agencies that 
receive Medicaid reimbursement referrals based solely on health care 
services, including the Purchased/Referred Care program, provided to 
IHS-eligible children through an Indian Health Program, be required to 
close such cases, as these cases will have been inappropriately 
referred. Pursuant to IHS' policy and CMS' policy, there would be no 
medical child support reimbursement obligation to pursue against any 
custodial or noncustodial parents, and any recovery from insurance 
policies would be outside the scope of the State IV-D agencies' 
authority. It is our understanding that such Medicaid referrals are 
common. This child support case closure rule makes it clear that State 
IV-D agencies should not seek medical child support based on such 
Medicaid referrals.
    42. Comment: One commenter asked whether the proposed revision to 
42 CFR 433.152(b)(2) requires the Medicaid agency to reimburse 100 
percent of State- or county-funded title IV-D expenditures that are not 
reimbursable by OCSE and are not necessary for the collection of 
amounts for the Medicaid program.
    Response: The proposed changes to 42 CFR 433.152(b)(2) do not 
change current regulatory requirements for the Medicaid agency 
regarding reimbursement of the IV-D agency.
    43. Comment: One commenter indicated that it was unclear what the 
following language in 42 CFR 433.152(b)(1)(i) (and repeated in Sec.  
303.11) means: Medicaid referral is based solely upon health care 
services, including contract health services, provided through an 
Indian Health Program (as defined at 25 U.S.C. 1603(12).
    Response: CMS regulation 42 CFR 433(b)(1)(i) refers to Medicaid 
referrals from an Indian Health Program, such as programs operated by 
the Indian Health Service (IHS) or Tribes and Tribal organizations 
under Public Law 93-638 (Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act). In that instance, the child would need to be eligible 
for Medicaid and services from IHS. Medicaid referrals would include 
referrals made under the IHS/Tribal Purchased/Referred Care program, 
formerly known as Contract Health Services.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ For more information about the relationship between IHS 
and Medicaid, please visit go.cms.gov/AIAN or https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/American-Indian-Alaska-Native/AIAN/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. Comment: One commenter asked whether there are any issues that 
need to be addressed in the current Medicaid assignment language at 42 
CFR 433.145 since there is a prohibition of referral of certain cases.
    Response: At this time, the assignment of rights to benefits 
requirements in 42 CFR 433.145 is not impacted by the language in Sec.  
433.152(b)(1)(i). A State plan must still meet all the requirements 
outlined in Sec.  433.145.
    45. Comment: One commenter asked whether the placement of the 
prohibition of Medicaid referrals in IHS cases in the ``requirements 
for cooperative agreements for third party collections'' section (45 
CFR 433.152) is appropriate.
    Response: Yes, the prohibition against referring a medical support 
enforcement case when the Medicaid referral is based on services 
received from an Indian Health Program (Sec.  433.152(b)(1)(i)) is 
appropriately placed in Sec.  433.152 because the prohibition directly 
relates to agreements with title IV-D agencies and third-party 
collections, such as Indian Health Programs.
    46. Comment: All of the comments received on the notification 
requirements under the proposed Sec. Sec.  303.11(d)(4) through (d)(6) 
were either opposed to or expressed concerns regarding the pre- and 
post-closure notices to the referring agency and the closure notice to 
the recipient of services. The commenters indicated that they were 
unnecessary and an inefficient use of limited State resources.
    Response: We concur with these recommendations and have removed 
notification requirements in the proposed Sec. Sec.  303.11(d)(4) and 
(d)(5). Additionally, the case closure

[[Page 93547]]

requirement in proposed paragraph (d)(6), redesignated as paragraph 
(d)(4) was retained, but the notice requirement of proposed paragraph 
(d)(5) was removed. However, if the number of inappropriate referrals 
begins to increase, the State IV-D agency should work with the 
referring agency, discuss referral policies, and revise such policies 
as needed to avoid inappropriate referrals.
    47. Comment: One commenter suggested that the notice requirement 
under proposed Sec.  303.11(d)(6), redesignated as Sec.  303.11(d)(4), 
include location-only cases closed under Sec.  303.11(b)(11) because 
such cases could be considered a limited service.
    Response: We disagree with this recommendation and have determined 
that such a change is not warranted. Location-only cases are often used 
when the initiating State is attempting to verify whether or not the 
noncustodial parent is living in another State. Often States receiving 
these requests do not actually open a case, but only use their 
automated locate sources to determine whether the noncustodial parent 
lives, works, or has assets in their State.
    48. Comment: One commenter indicated that it was unclear what 
``recipient'' is referenced in the proposed Sec.  303.11(d)(6).
    Response: The rule revised the language in Sec.  303.11(d)(6), 
redesignated as Sec.  303.11(d)(4), to clarify the reference to the 
recipient of services.
    49. Comment: One commenter suggested that the closure notice for 
the proposed Sec.  303.11(d)(6), redesignated as Sec.  303.11(d)(4), be 
simple, indicating the case has been closed and the recipient of 
services should go online or contact the State agency for an 
application or additional information.
    Response: We disagree with this suggestion because it does not 
provide the recipient of services with information regarding 
reapplication for services and the consequences of receiving IV-D 
services, such as any State fees for services, cost recovery, and 
distribution policies. One of the basic responsibilities of a child 
support agency is to provide timely, accurate, and understandable 
notice to parents about their child support cases.
    50. Comment: One commenter suggested that OCSE consider adding 
language to the proposed Sec.  303.11(d)(7), redesignated as Sec.  
303.11(d)(5), to allow the other parent, as well as the former 
recipient of services, to request reopening the IV-D case.
    Response: We disagree with this suggestion. In this circumstance, 
the other parent has the option to submit an application to receive IV-
D services at any time.
    51. Comment: In response to our request for comments in the NPRM 
regarding whether a recipient of services should be provided the option 
to request case closure notices in a record, such as emails, text 
messaging, or voice mail, some commenters requested the ability to 
notify the recipient of services by mail or electronic means if the 
recipient of services has authorized electronic notifications. We 
received no comments in opposition.
    Response: In the final rule, for notices under Sec.  303.11(d)(1) 
and (4), the State must notify the recipient of services, in writing, 
60 calendar days prior to closure of the case of the State's intent to 
close the case. However, as discussed under Sec.  303.11 in Topic 2 of 
the preamble, we considered the commenters' request and added paragraph 
(d)(6), which will permit States to issue case closure notifications 
electronically for the above-mentioned notices if the recipient of 
services specifically authorizes consent to electronic notifications. 
The State must keep documentation of the recipient's consent in the 
case record.
    While an electronic case closure notice may be an appropriate, and 
even the preferred, method of notification for many custodial parents, 
it may not be an effective means to notify some parents. Many parents 
in the child support caseload have limited incomes. They may not have 
convenient access to a computer, the internet, or mobile communication. 
We revised Sec.  303.11(d)(6) to reflect this flexibility in issuing 
electronic notifications.
Section 303.31--Securing and Enforcing Medical Support Obligations
    1. Comment: One commenter expressed their understanding that the 
proposed revisions in Sec.  303.31 eliminate the need for Medicaid 
referrals to the IV-D program.
    Response: We disagree. OCSE's policy surrounding Medicaid referrals 
has remained consistent over the years: there is no requirement for 
State Medicaid agencies to refer all Medicaid cases to the State IV-D 
agency.\106\ State child support and Medicaid agencies will need to 
continue to work together to refer appropriate cases from Medicaid to 
the child support agency for child support services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See OCSE-IM-14-01, available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/medicaid-referrals-to-the-iv-d-agency; OCSE-
IM-08-03, available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/guidance-on-referral-of-medicaid-cases-to-title-iv-d-child-support; and OCSE-AT-10-10, available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/cse-flexibility-to-improve-interoperability-with-medicaid-chip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Comment: While the majority of comments supported our revisions, 
many commenters noted an apparent discrepancy between language used in 
the preamble about State flexibility and options concerning the 
proposed definition of health insurance in Sec.  303.31(a)(2) and the 
definition language in the regulation. Many of these comments concluded 
that their reading of both the preamble language and the NPRM suggested 
that including public health options, such as Medicaid, was optional 
for States in their efforts to meet the health care needs of children. 
One commenter specifically recommended that the regulatory text be 
revised to indicate that it was a State option to consider public 
coverage as health insurance.
    Response: We want to clarify that States do not have an option in 
distinguishing between private and public forms of health care 
coverage. Instead of defining ``health insurance'' as we did in the 
NPRM, we are defining ``health care coverage'' since this is the 
terminology used in the Social Security Act at sections 452(f) and 
466(a)(19). The language in the final rule at Sec.  303.31(a)(2) 
includes in the definition of ``health care coverage'' both public and 
private forms of health care coverage either of which is sufficient for 
meeting health care standards. This approach is consistent with 
national health care policies as outlined in the ACA. By including 
public coverage such as Medicaid, CHIP, and other State health programs 
as part of medical support, this will provide States greater 
flexibility to ensure that medical support is being provided for all 
children.
    3. Comment: Several States commented about their perceived 
inconsistency between the five percent reasonable cost standard 
traditionally used in child support compared to the eight percent 
affordable standard in the ACA. Most of these commenters suggested that 
Sec.  303.31(a)(3) be consistent by amending the five percent standard 
to eight percent.
    Response: We disagree that the regulation needs to be changed. The 
existing language in the regulation at Sec.  303.31(a)(3) allows States 
to adopt the five percent standard or ``a reasonable alternative 
income-based numeric standard'' defined by the State. We encourage 
States to examine the difference between the reasonable cost standard 
used in the child support regulations and the affordability measure 
used in the ACA. Both the percentage and the base are different.

[[Page 93548]]

States are encouraged to consider ways to align these two standards to 
avoid confusion among families. For example, a State could choose to 
define reasonable cost as 8 percent of a parent's modified adjusted 
gross income (MAGI) under paragraph(a)(3) to align the two standards. 
The existing language in the regulation allows States to make these 
conforming changes to their medical support policies.
    4. Comment: One State asked us to clarify how to proceed in 
situations where private insurance is available at a reasonable cost, 
but is not accessible to the child.
    Response: The final regulations at 303.31(b) stipulate that health 
care coverage must be both reasonable in cost and accessible to the 
child. This paragraph further requires the petition to address both the 
reasonable cost and accessibility standards. If these standards are not 
met, the ordered parent will not likely meet the requirements of the 
order. The child support agency should encourage the parent to seek 
affordable health care coverage options through the Health Insurance 
Marketplace in the child's State of residence. States are also 
encouraged to consider how their cash medical support policies might 
address the health care needs of children in these types of situations.
    5. Comment: Several commenters expressed the need for OCSE to 
further regulate medical provisions in Sec.  303.31(b)(1)(ii) regarding 
how to allocate medical costs between the parents.
    Response: We do not agree that additional regulations are needed 
regarding the allocation of medical costs. While the commenters' 
suggestion may work for some States, OCSE has always allowed for States 
to have flexibility in how they address the allocation of medical 
support since this is often related to the State's guidelines. However, 
we have made an editorial revision in Sec.  303.31(b)(1)(ii) to remove 
``Determine how to'' from the regulatory language so that the 
regulatory provision better reflects OCSE policy.
    6. Comment: We received several comments regarding the 
applicability of cash medical support in Sec.  303.31(b)(2) given the 
passage of the ACA.
    Response: Section 466(a)(19)(A) of the Act establishes medical 
support requirements including that ``all support orders enforced 
pursuant to this part shall include a provision for medical support for 
the child to be provided by either or both parents . . .'' This section 
of the child support rule implements IV-D agency responsibility when 
health care coverage, including both public health care coverage and 
private health insurance as defined in Sec.  303.31(a)(2) and described 
in Sec.  303.31(b)(1) is not available. However, States have 
flexibility in defining when cash medical support or the cost of health 
care coverage is considered reasonable in cost under paragraph (a)(3). 
Some States may choose not to use the five percent of the noncustodial 
parent's gross income. States may elect to develop a reasonable 
alternative income-based numeric standard defined in its State law, 
regulations, or court rule having the force of law or State child 
support guidelines adopted under Sec.  302.56(c). If they elect this 
option, they may be able to better align its standard with the ACA.
    7. Comment: One comment suggested that proposed Sec.  303.31(b)(3) 
should be eliminated because paragraph (b)(1) requires these provisions 
in all new and modified orders.
    Response: While we agree that Sec.  303.31(b)(1) requires the 
health care provision be included in all orders, we recognize the 
reality that it may not happen in all situations. When those situations 
arise, paragraph (b)(3) provides the foundation to require States to 
modify those orders to include the appropriate health care provision.
    8. Comment: Some commenters suggested that the proposed definition 
for health insurance to include public options poses some questions on 
how courts order health insurance coverage. These comments asked for 
clarification if courts would be required to compel parents to enroll 
children in public forms of health care or enter a finding that the 
children are covered by public form of coverage.
    Response: How States choose to address health care provisions in 
orders will vary from State to State. OCSE has recommended that States 
implement broadly-defined medical support language in child support 
orders to maximize the health care options available to parents, 
children, and families.
    9. Comment: Several commenters discussed the issue of data sharing. 
Some of these commenters requested the promotion of data sharing 
between IV-D and Medicaid, CHIP, Indian Health Service, and the 
Federal/State marketplaces. Some noted the need for the exchanges to 
modify the application process to gather more information regarding the 
absent parent.
    Response: OCSE is aware of the need for improved data sharing 
between and among the aforementioned programs. We are working to 
improve data sharing between State child support agencies, CMS, State 
Medicaid agencies, CHIP, and other stakeholder partners. While 
currently States have the authority to share information with State 
Medicaid and CHIP agencies to assist them in carrying out their 
responsibilities and for determining eligibility for program benefits, 
we currently do not have authority for data sharing with the Federal/
State marketplaces and the Indian Health Service. This will require 
some legislative revisions.
    10. Comment: We received numerous inquiries regarding whether the 
final passage of this rule affects OCSE's decision to hold States 
harmless as outlined in OCSE AT-10-02.
    Response: Upon issuance of this rule, OCSE will work with States in 
developing guidance related to AT-10-02.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ AT-10-02 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/holding-states-harmless-for-failure-to-comply-medical-support-final-rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Comment: Several States expressed clarification on whether IV-D 
agencies would be responsible for issuing a National Medical Support 
Notice (NMSN) in situations where a child was receiving Medicaid, and 
the obligated parent has private insurance available to them. Some 
commenters expressed a workload concern if States were required to 
issue the NMSN every time private insurance may become available--
sometimes for short periods of time--to either of the parents.
    Response: The NMSN is an enforcement tool. The child support agency 
is only required to serve an NMSN on an employer where it is clear that 
there is no health coverage being provided for the child(ren) and 
employer-offered health insurance has been ordered. Under Sec.  
303.32(b), States are not required to use the NMSN when the child(ren) 
is covered by a public health care option and there is a court or 
administrative order that stipulates alternate health care coverage to 
employer-based coverage. Through our revised definition of health care 
coverage, if the child is covered through Medicaid, CHIP, or other 
State coverage plan, then public forms of coverage are an allowable 
form of health care coverage. Additionally, since the implementation of 
the ACA, health coverage includes health insurance policies offered 
through the Federal or State marketplaces that meet the standards for 
providing essential health benefits. We encourage States to include a 
provision in child support orders that medical support for the 
child(ren) be provided by either or both parents, without specifying 
the source of the coverage. In these situations, the child

[[Page 93549]]

support agency would have to assess if it is appropriate to send a NMSN 
notice if employer-based health insurance becomes available.
    Although this is not a requirement, nothing within the final rule 
precludes a State from petitioning for employer-related insurance to be 
included in the order in accordance with the State's guidelines if it 
is in the best interest of the child, in cases where the child is 
receiving public coverage and the employer-related insurance becomes 
available at a reasonable cost, is accessible to the family, and the 
parent has the ability to pay. We encourage States to develop medical 
support policies that fully consider the wide array of health care 
options that most benefit children and families.
    12. Comment: Some comments suggested that the ACA eliminates the 
need for medical enforcement in the child support program. These 
commenters requested that child support no longer carry out these 
functions.
    Response: The ACA neither mandates coverage nor requires that the 
IRS enforce mandatory coverage even for families that have coverage 
available to them at a reasonable cost. Individuals and families that 
have health care coverage available at a reasonable cost may choose not 
to obtain coverage and instead pay the applicable tax penalty. Title 
IV-D, on the other hand, requires that all child support orders include 
a provision for medical support for the child(ren), whether through 
public or private health care coverage available at a reasonable cost, 
or cash medical support.
    13. Comment: Many commenters expressed frustration that the 
proposed regulations in the NPRM do not align with the requirements of 
the ACA.
    Response: Again, OCSE recognizes tensions between the Social 
Security Act and provisions in the ACA when it comes to medical 
support. We have aligned our regulatory requirements as closely as 
possible with the ACA; however, we acknowledge the need for further 
statutory and regulatory work to bring these policies together. Until 
this occurs, this final rule allows States more flexibility to 
coordinate medical support practices with the requirements of the ACA. 
In addition, the Administration's FY 2017 Budget proposes a set of 
changes to help improve coordination between the ACA and medical 
support.
    14. Comment: The NPRM requested specific comments regarding the 
State child support program's role in carrying out its medical support 
statutory responsibilities, including the roles of cost allocation 
between parents and enrolling children in coverage.
    Response: We received numerous comments regarding the issue of 
child support involvement in medical support activities--many of which 
were discussed in previous comments in the preamble (for example, see 
Comment/Response 12 above). In addition, we received four specific 
comments opposing the idea that child support becomes involved with 
referring children and families for health care coverage. OCSE 
encourages States to review their medical support activities to find 
ways to improve health care coverage among children and families. OCSE-
PIQ-12-02 provides information on how child support agencies can 
collaborate with other programs to achieve these goals.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ PIQ-12-02 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/partnering-with-other-programs-and-activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 303.72--Requests for Collection of Past-Due Support by Federal 
Tax Refund Offset
    1. Comment: One commenter stated the proposed change did not go far 
enough because this regulation should specify which State in an 
interstate case should submit the case for Federal tax refund offset.
    Response: Section 303.7(c)(8) establishes requirements for Federal 
tax refund offset, including identification of the State that must 
submit a case for such offset. Specifically, ``[t]he 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 303.100--Procedures for Income Withholding
    1. Comment: Nearly all State commenters supported the proposed 
regulatory changes regarding mandatory use of the OMB-approved Income 
Withholding for Support (IWO) form. While these commenters favored 
changes addressing the inconsistent use of the OMB-approved IWO form 
and the transmission of payments on non-IV-D orders to the appropriate 
State Disbursement Unit (SDU), they pointed out that Federal law 
already requires use of the OMB-approved form.
    Response: While we acknowledge that the use of the OMB-approved 
form is already required by Federal law and previously issued policy 
and guidance, continued concerns expressed to OCSE by employers 
necessitated further clarification in the regulations. States are 
required to have laws to ensure compliance with the mandated use of the 
OMB-approved IWO form for both IV-D and non-IV-D orders. Some States 
work with their State courts' administrative offices, and state bar 
associations to provide the approved IWO form for use by the judiciary 
and private attorneys. These States also request that other versions of 
withholding orders be removed from Web sites and other distribution 
methods. We encourage all States to collaborate with their judicial 
branch, state bar associations, chambers of commerce, and Tribal Child 
Support programs to ensure that all users and employer recipients of 
the form are aware of the requirements regarding use of the OMB-
approved IWO form in all income withholding orders issued to employers.
    2. Comment: Several commenters questioned what method of 
enforcement could be used when private attorneys or courts do not 
comply with the regulation, and whether employers should be allowed to 
reject an incorrect IWO.
    Response: We direct the commenters to the Income Withholding for 
Support--Instructions document, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocse/omb_0970_0154_instructions.pdf, as well as the 
Income Withholding for Support form, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocse/omb_0970_0154.pdf. Both of 
these documents contain language stating that the IWO must be regular 
on its face, meaning that any reasonable person would think the IWO is 
valid.
    The instructions for the IWO form clarify this term by saying that 
an IWO is regular on its face when:
     It is payable to the State disbursement unit;
     A copy of the underlying child support order containing an 
income withholding clause is included, if the IWO is sent by anyone 
other than a State/Tribal IV-D agency or a court;
     The amount to withhold is a dollar amount;
     The text of the form has not been changed and invalid 
information has not been entered;
     The order of the text on the OMB-approved IWO form has not 
been changed, and
     OMB 0970-0154 is listed on the form; and
     It contains all of the necessary information to process 
the IWO.
    The instructions further provide that the employer must reject the 
IWO and return it to the sender if, among other things, the sender has 
not used the OMB-approved form, the IWO is altered

[[Page 93550]]

or incomplete, or the IWO instructs the employer to send a payment to 
an entity other than the State's SDU (for example, to the custodial 
party, the court, or an attorney). Employers are valuable and essential 
partners to the child support program. OCSE appreciates the challenges 
employers face when receiving IWOs that do not comply with the 
regulation or IWO instructions and will continue to provide assistance 
to States and employers in ensuring compliance with this rule.
    3. Comment: One commenter asked that we clarify to States and 
employers that using the IWO form in a nontraditional manner in order 
to accommodate a State's own process that requires withholding beyond 
the monthly child support amount in the underlying order from obligors 
with bi-weekly payroll schedules may result in the IWO being rejected 
by employers.
    Response: We understand the commenter's concern regarding this 
practice. However, we disagree that using the IWO form in this manner 
is a basis for rejection of the IWO. OCSE is working with States to 
ensure income withholding and distribution practices comply with 
Federal requirements.
    4. Comment: A few commenters requested the inclusion of language in 
Sec.  303.100(e) and (h) to clarify that the requirements listed apply 
to all income withholding situations and that the use of the OMB-
approved form applies only to withholding to enforce IV-D and non-IV-D 
child support orders but does not apply to any other type of 
withholding.
    Response: We agree with these commenters and affirm that the 
requirements listed apply to all IV-D and non-IV-D income withholding 
orders, and that the use of the OMB-approved form applies only to IV-D 
and non-IV-D child support orders and does not apply to any other type 
of withholding, including spousal-only support orders. We are adding 
Sec.  303.100(h) to expressly state that the OMB-approved form must be 
used for income withholding in all child support orders.
    5. Comment: One commenter requested that requirements listed in 
Sec.  303.100(e) clarify that income withholding orders are not to 
include instructions for an employer to implement in the future (for 
example, step-down or step-up payments).
    Response: We agree with this commenter that income withholding 
orders are not to include instructions for an employer to implement in 
the future. Changes in the amount of income withholding require an 
amended IWO be sent to the employer reflecting the new terms for income 
withholding in the case. However, the rule does not amend the 
requirements listed in Sec.  303.100(e).
    6. Comment: One commenter suggested the regulation reference more 
generic title such as ``the standard OMB-approved form,'' rather the 
current form title ``Income Withholding for Support'' because of the 
possibility of a change to the form's title in the future.
    Response: We disagree. The language in the regulation regarding the 
IWO form is sufficiently clear.
    7. Comment: One commenter recommended the regulation state that the 
notice may be electronic and that the e-IWO form is an OMB-approved 
form.
    Response: In accordance with Section 306 of Public Law 113-183, 
Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, States must 
use the OCSE e-IWO process when an employer elects to receive IWOs 
electronically. Further guidance can be found in OCSE AT-14-12.\109\ At 
this time, we do not think it is necessary to revise the regulations 
since the statute is clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ AT-14-12 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/e-iwo-implementation-and-amendment-of-title-iv-d-State-plan-preprint-page-38-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Comment: One commenter requested the creation of a standard 
return document to accompany the IWO, which the employer could return 
to the sender to indicate any noncompliance with Federal income 
withholding requirements. The commenter noted that the most recent 
version of the IWO includes language requiring such action, but that 
courts, private attorneys, or others may be using prior IWO versions 
without such language.
    Response: We understand the commenter's desire to provide 
information to those issuing income withholding orders regarding the 
reason an employer has returned the IWO, especially when an outdated 
version of the IWO form is being used that may not include the ``Return 
to Sender'' language. While we decline to create an additional form for 
this purpose, we note that some employers have addressed this need by 
creating a coversheet to accompany any IWO they return, clarifying the 
reason(s) for their rejection of the IWO. OCSE has previously 
distributed a template of this coversheet to the American Payroll 
Association members and to others upon request.
    9. Comment: One commenter noted that since Tribal IV-D agencies 
enforce child support orders for States and are required to use the 
OMB-approved IWO form, employers or States may assume that withheld 
payments must go through a State's SDU instead of through the Tribal 
IV-D agency.
    Response: In accordance with 45 CFR 309.115(d), if there is no TANF 
assignment of support rights to the Tribe and the Tribal IV-D agency 
has received a request for assistance in collecting support on behalf 
of the family from a State or another Tribal IV-D agency under Sec.  
309.120, the Tribal IV-D agency must send all support collected to 
either the State IV-D agency or the other Tribal IV-D agency for 
distribution, as appropriate, except as provided in paragraph (f) of 
this section. Paragraph (f) indicates that rather than send collections 
to a State or another IV-D agency for distribution, the Tribal IV-D 
agency may contact the requesting State or Tribal IV-D agency to 
determine appropriate distribution and distribute collections as 
directed by the other agency.
    10. Comment: One commenter suggested that language be included on 
the IWO stating that: ``The order/notice applies to all employers 
except Indian Tribes, tribally-owned businesses, or Indian-owned 
businesses on a reservation. If you are a Tribe, tribally-owned 
business, or Indian-owned business located on a reservation and you 
choose to honor the support order and withhold as directed in the 
enclosed order/notice, we appreciate your voluntary compliance.'' The 
commenter believes that this would serve as a reminder to States and 
employers of tribal sovereignty.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. Per Sec.  309.90(a)(3) and 
Sec.  309.110, Tribal employers under the jurisdiction of a Tribe with 
a IV-D program are required to honor income withholding orders and will 
be held liable for the accumulated amount the employer should have 
withheld from the noncustodial parent's income if they fail to comply 
with these provisions.
    11. Comment: One commenter requested that the Child Support Portal 
process employment terminations for both IV-D and non-IV-D cases. They 
explained that currently, employers must first determine whether the 
employee termination is in a IV-D case or a non-IV-D case. If it is a 
IV-D case, the employer may report the termination electronically. If 
it is a non-IV-D case, the employer must report the termination 
manually.
    Response: The e-IWO process is currently only available for IV-D 
cases.

[[Page 93551]]

Section 304.20--Availability and Rate of Federal Financial 
Participation
    1. Comment: A few commenters asked that we define ``reasonable'' as 
used in Sec.  304.20(a)(1).
    Response: The term ``reasonable'' is addressed in Subpart E--Cost 
Principles found at 45 CFR Part 75--Uniform Administrative 
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, 
and is applicable to grants made to States under this part. 
Specifically, Sec.  75.404 indicates that a cost is reasonable if, in 
its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred 
by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the 
decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is 
particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly 
federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, 
consideration must be given to: (a) Whether the cost is of a type 
generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the 
non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the 
Federal award; (b) the restraints or requirements imposed by such 
factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, 
State, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and 
conditions of the Federal award; (c) market prices for comparable goods 
or services for the geographic area; (d) whether the individuals 
concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their 
responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where 
applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the 
Federal Government; (e) whether the non-Federal entity significantly 
deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the 
incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal 
award's cost.
    2. Comment: Several commenters asked that OCSE provide specific 
services and activities included in Sec.  304.20(a)(1) and (b) for 
which FFP is available.
    Response: This regulation provides for general categories of 
allowable expenditures consistent with HHS cost principles in 45 CFR 
part 75, subpart E that allow for matching of expenditures that are 
necessary and reasonable and can be attributed to the child support 
enforcement program. More specific examples are found in policy 
guidance.
    3. Comment: A few commenters are concerned that the cost principles 
in 2 CFR part 225 will stymie State's flexibility in providing the 
services and activities allowed in Sec.  304.20.
    Response: The OMB Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian 
Tribal Governments (formerly OMB Circular A-87) are published at 2 CFR 
part 200. However, HHS has codified the OMB cost principles in subpart 
E of 45 CFR part 75, which apply to all State and local expenditures in 
HHS-funded programs. When a State is considering if an expense is 
reasonable or allowable, the State should cross-reference the child 
support regulations at 45 CFR part 300 and 45 CFR part 75. Part 75 
allows the cognizant agency to restrict or broaden funding for 
allowable activities or services; therefore, child support regulations 
take precedence over 45 CFR part 75. Section 75.420 indicates that 
failure to mention a particular item or cost is not intended to imply 
that it is either allowable or unallowable; rather, determination as to 
allowability in each case should be based on the treatment provided for 
similar or related items of cost, and based on the principles described 
in Sec. Sec.  75.402 through 75.411. In case of a discrepancy between 
the provisions of a specific Federal award and the provisions below, 
the Federal award governs. Criteria outlined in Sec.  75.403 must be 
applied in determining allowability of costs.
    4. Comment: One commenter requested OCSE to consider 90 percent 
reimbursement for automation projects finalized in the rule.
    Response: We appreciate the comment. However, OCSE has no authority 
to increase the FFP rate through the regulatory process. This would 
require a statutory change by Congress.
    5. Comment: A few commenters asked for clarification regarding the 
intent of the proposed change to Sec.  304.20(b)(1)(viii)(A) and if it 
suggests the IV-D agency should be helping families determine the need 
for public assistance.
    Response: This change was not intended to suggest that IV-D 
agencies determine a family's need for public assistance. However, 
there may be situations where the State IV-D agency determines that it 
needs to refer cases to the IV-A or IV-E agency, such as for TANF 
assistance, emergency assistance, child welfare services, etc. This 
provision provides flexibility to collaborate with other programs in 
case the need for a referral arises.
    6. Comment: One commenter asked that we explain the differences 
between what is allowed for reimbursement for the Medicaid agreements 
in Sec.  304.20 and what is not allowed based on Sec.  304.23.
    Response: Section 304.20(b)(1)(viii)-(ix) addresses the 
availability of FFP for the establishment of agreements with other 
agencies administering the title IV-D, IV-E, XIX, and XXI programs for 
activities related to cross-program coordination, client referrals, and 
data sharing when authorized by law. In this final rule, we removed 
Sec.  304.23(g) that prohibited FFP for the costs of cooperative 
agreements between IV-D and Medicaid agencies under 45 CFR part 306, 
which was removed from the regulations years ago. Section 304.23(g) is 
no longer necessary as a result of the enactment of Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which 
required States to include a provision for health care coverage in all 
child support orders established or enforced by the IV-D agency. FFP 
continues to be available for these medical support activities under 
Sec.  304.20(b)(11).
    7. Comment: One commenter was concerned that the elimination of 
paragraph 304.20(b)(1)(ix)(C) regarding transferring collections from 
the IV-D agency to the Medicaid agency prohibits the State from 
requiring this activity in the IV-D interagency agreement. However, 
because Sec.  302.51 explaining the distribution process was not 
amended, States will still have to transfer the support, but will no 
longer be able to get FFP for including how to perform this task in an 
agreement.
    Response: We agree and have retained the former provision regarding 
the availability of FFP under an agreement for the transfer of 
collections from the IV-D agency to Medicaid in the final regulatory 
text at Sec.  304.20(b)(1)(ix)(D).
    8. Comment: A few commenters asked for clarification on what child 
support proceedings would qualify for bus fare or other minor 
transportation expenses as provided in Sec.  304.20(b)(3)(v).
    Response: Providing bus passes and gas vouchers are considered 
allowable as local transportation assistance in support of providing 
child support services. Providing local transportation vouchers can be 
a highly cost-effective means to increase participation in child 
support interviews, genetic testing, and hearings, and decrease no-
shows and defaults, which increase staff costs and court time, and 
reduce compliance.
    We also encourage States to consider alternatives to the need to 
travel to the child support office or court, such as the use of 
technology, including Web applications, video conferences, or 
telephonic hearings.
    9. Comment: OCSE received several comments related to proposed 
Sec.  304.20(b)(3)(vii), which would have allowed ``de minimis'' costs 
associated

[[Page 93552]]

with the inclusion of parenting time provisions entered as part of a 
child support order and incidental to a child support enforcement 
proceeding. The commenters were uncertain about the definition of the 
term ``de minimis.''
    Response: Black's Law Dictionary defines de minimis as 
``insignificant'' or ``not enough to be considered,'' and the Oxford 
dictionary defines de minimis as ``too trivial or minor to merit 
consideration.'' The de minimis parenting time rule provision was not 
intended to open up Federal matching funds for new parenting time 
activities. Instead, the rule recognizes current State practice and was 
intended as a no-cost technical fix to clarify cost allocation and 
audit issues consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
    Currently, 36 States calculate parenting time credits as part of 
their child support guidelines, or otherwise provide for standard 
parenting time at the time the support order is set. In addition, many 
courts recognize voluntary parenting time agreements during child 
support hearings when the agreements have been worked out between the 
parents ahead of time and the parents simply ask the court to add the 
agreements to the support orders.
    Congress has not authorized FFP for parenting time activities. 
Thus, the proposed provisions regarding parenting time under this 
provision and under Sec.  302.56(h), Guidelines for Setting Child 
Support Orders, were intended to clarify that States may not charge 
parenting time activities to title IV-D but may coordinate parenting 
time and child support activities so long as the IV-D program is not 
charged additional costs and the State adheres to generally accepted 
accounting principles.
    In light of the comments received on the proposed parenting time 
provisions and the unintended confusion regarding the proposal, OCSE 
has deleted the proposed FFP provision in paragraph (b)(3)(vii). See 
Comment/Response 2 under Sec.  302.56--Guidelines for Setting Child 
Support Orders, Parenting Time: [Proposed Sec.  302.56(h)].
    10. Comment: Multiple commenters asked if courts are eligible for 
FFP for education and outreach activities intended to inform the public 
about the child support enforcement program as referenced in Sec.  
304.20(b)(12).
    Response: States may enter into cooperative agreements with courts 
to provide educational and outreach activities intended to inform the 
public, parents and family members, and young people who are not yet 
parents about the Child Support Enforcement program, responsible 
parenting and co-parenting, family budgeting, and other financial 
consequences of raising children when the parents are not married to 
each other. As such, we have added paragraph (b)(12) to allow these as 
FFP eligible activities in cooperative arrangements with courts and law 
enforcement officials as cited in Sec.  304.21(a)(1).
    11. Comment: One commenter asked that we consider changing the 
phrase in Sec.  304.20(b)(12) from ``when the parents are not married'' 
to ``when the parents do not reside together and share expenses as a 
married or unmarried couple.''
    Response: We believe the language as originally drafted is more 
flexible; therefore, we did not change the regulatory language.
    12. Comment: In the NPRM, OCSE specifically asked for feedback 
regarding the allowability of FFP for electronic monitoring systems for 
child support purposes. We received feedback from several States, child 
support organizations, and community based organizations mostly in 
support of using electronic monitoring systems as an alternative to 
incarceration for child support purposes.
    Response: At this time, we are not planning to regulate in this 
area since these costs are incurred as part of the general costs of 
government, similarly to the costs of incarceration.
Section 304.23--Expenditures for Which Federal Financial Participation 
Is Not Available
    1. Comment: Related to Sec.  304.23(d), one commenter asked if the 
annual firearms qualifications for deputy sheriffs assigned to county 
IV-D agencies are considered reasonable and essential short-term 
training.
    Response: No, firearms qualifications are necessary for all deputy 
sheriffs and are therefore considered a general cost of government. In 
accordance with 45 CFR 75.444, General costs of government, these costs 
for States, local governments, and Indian Tribes are unallowable for 
Federal funding.
    2. Comment: One commenter asked if reasonable and essential short-
term training includes preapproved college courses that would directly 
improve an individual's ability to perform his or her current job or 
another IV-D-related job, even if those college courses are also 
counted towards credit hours needed to complete the individual's degree 
or certificate.
    Response: Yes, funding this training has been long-standing OCSE 
policy. OCSE Action Transmittal (AT) 81-18\110\ defines the term short-
term training as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ AT-81-18 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/definition-of-short-term-training.

. . . any training that would directly improve any individual's 
ability to perform his or her current job or another IV-D related 
job, does not provide merely a general education for an individual 
and is not taken for the sole purpose of earning credit hours toward 
a degree or certificate. FFP is available under the above definition 
regardless of the source of the training. For example, FFP is 
available for short term training provided by State and local IV-D 
agencies, or an agency or individual who provides IV-D services 
under a cooperative or purchase of service agreement. In addition, 
FFP is available for short term training conducted by the multi-
function agency in which the State IV-D agency is located, or by 
another State or local agency. Short term training provided by a 
contractor (e.g., college, university, professional association, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
etc.) is also eligible for FFP.

    3. Comment: Many commenters asked for clarification regarding the 
deletion of Sec.  304.23(i). They questioned if the jailing of parents 
in child support cases was no longer considered to be ineligible for 
FFP.
    Response: In the NPRM, existing Sec.  304.23(i) regarding the 
prohibition of FFP for ``any expenditures for jailing of parents in 
child support enforcement cases'' was inadvertently removed. 
Expenditures for jailing of parents in child support enforcement cases 
continue to be ineligible for FFP. Therefore, in the final rule, we did 
not remove former Sec.  304.23(i), and redesignated proposed paragraph 
(i) as paragraph (j).
Section 307.11--Functional Requirements for Computerized Support 
Enforcement Systems in Operation by October 1, 2000
    1. Comment: We received numerous comments supporting the proposed 
regulatory changes placing limitations on garnishing accounts of SSI 
recipients. These comments focused on the limited income SSI recipients 
have and the detrimental impact inappropriate garnishment poses for 
these individuals. However, some commenters questioned the need for the 
regulatory change given that in the preamble to the NPRM, we indicated 
that these inappropriate garnishments are rare.
    Response: While we recognize the rarity of these situations, when 
inappropriate garnishments occur, they must be remedied quickly. The 
final regulation helps ensure that States will resolve these situations 
in a timely manner by promptly refunding

[[Page 93553]]

improperly garnished amounts to noncustodial parents.
    2. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the NPRM 
would require States to invest resources to upgrade their statewide 
child support enforcement systems for a small number of cases.
    Response: We agree the automated procedures required by the rule 
will require States to enhance their State systems' ability to identify 
cases where the noncustodial parent is the recipient of protected 
Federal benefits. However, system enhancements will help to ensure that 
low-income noncustodial parents retain the Federal benefits that are 
exempt from child support enforcement and essential to their 
livelihood. Regulatory changes by the Department of Treasury require 
all Federal benefits to be deposited electronically in a bank account. 
This means that SSI recipients no longer have the option to receive 
their benefits through a check. This change has increased the risk that 
SSI benefits will be improperly withheld by child support agencies. 
OCSE has facilitated efforts by the Social Security Administration 
(SSA) to share data on recipients of protected Federal benefits with 
States through the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). In 2013, OCSE 
enhanced its interface with SSA to allow States to match participants 
in their caseloads who begin or stop receiving SSI benefits. States 
were notified of these additions to the FPLS as part of the FPLS 13-02 
release. States may elect to match with the State Verification and 
Exchange System (SVES), which supplies both title II and title XVI data 
to the States. To date, eighteen States have opted in to receive this 
information. States that wish to receive this additional data as part 
of their FPLS data matches should contact the OCSE's Division of 
Federal Systems for more information.
    3. Comment: Several commenters expressed opposition to including 
title II benefits in the regulation.
    Response: Many of these commenters misinterpreted the NPRM to apply 
to noncustodial parent receiving only title II benefits (such as SSDI). 
The NPRM only applied to noncustodial parents who were either 
recipient[s] of SSI or recipients receiving concurrent SSI and benefits 
under title II of the Act. Noncustodial parents meeting these 
conditions are experiencing extreme financial difficulties and warrant 
further protection from inappropriate garnishments.
    In drafting the NPRM, the Department was urged by several 
stakeholders to exclude garnishment for ``dual eligibility,'' or 
concurrent benefits, such as when the individual is eligible for both 
SSI and SSDI, meets the income test for SSI benefits, and would have 
received the same amount in SSI-only funds, but for the fact that the 
individual qualifies for SSDI benefits as well as SSI benefits. SSDI 
provides benefits to disabled or blind persons based on the person's 
previous earnings record and Social Security contributions. The SSI 
program makes cash assistance payments to aged, blind, and disabled 
persons who have limited income and resources regardless of work 
history or contributions to Social Security. SSI is a means-tested 
program with strict financial limits. SSA uses the term ``concurrent'' 
when a person is eligible for benefits from both programs. A person can 
receive both SSDI and SSI payments, but must meet the requirements of 
both programs. In order to receive concurrent SSI and SSDI benefits, a 
person must meet the SSI income and assets limits and is limited to the 
SSI benefit amount. For example, an individual begins receiving $733 in 
SSI monthly benefits. Five months later, he becomes eligible to receive 
$550 in SSDI monthly benefits, reducing his SSI payments to $183. His 
concurrent benefits are limited to $733 ($550 in SSDI and $183 in SSI, 
none of which may be garnished due to the concurrent receipt). If he 
had not qualified for SSDI, his SSI benefits would have remained at 
$733.\111\ The rule requires States to develop safeguards for the 
States to prevent garnishment of exempt benefits. These provisions only 
relate to excluding SSI benefits, as well as concurrent SSI and SSDI 
benefits under title II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Further information is available at: https://www.ssa.gov/redbook/eng/supportsexample.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the comments, we want to emphasize that the final rule 
makes no changes to our policy regarding recipients of title II 
benefits being subject to garnishment as outlined in Section 
459(h)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act. OCSE has long held that title II 
benefits are subject to garnishment (See DCL 13-06; PIQ-09-01; DCL-00-
103). Title II benefits, such as SSDI benefits, are considered 
remuneration from employment, and therefore, State or tribal child 
support agencies are allowed to continue to garnish the benefits of 
child support directly from the Federal payor as authorized under 
459(h).
    This final rule only places limitations on garnishments from 
financial accounts of concurrent SSI and SSDI beneficiaries. As a 
result of comments, we added in Sec.  307.11(c)(3)(i) the phrase 
``Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)'' before ``benefits under 
title II of the Act'' to clarify that we are only addressing when a 
noncustodial parent is receiving both SSI and SSDI benefits at the same 
time. Similarly, in paragraph (c)(3)(ii), we added the word ``SSDI'' 
before ``benefits under title II of the Act.''
    4. Comment: One commenter asked why OCSE did not rule out any 
garnishments for SSI recipients and eliminate the complexity of the 
rule.
    Response: Section 459(h) of the Act and OCSE policy guidance does 
prohibit garnishing financial accounts of SSI beneficiaries. However, 
we recognize that in rare instances, these accounts may be 
inappropriately garnished by local IV-D agencies if they have not 
previously identified that the noncustodial parent is receiving SSI 
benefits. The final rule mandates that the State resolve these errors 
by requiring that funds are refunded within 5 business days after 
determining that the funds were incorrectly garnished.
    5. Comment: One commenter supported the rule, but questioned 
whether the proposed case closure provisions [(303.11(b)(9)] allow 
States to close these types of cases and prevent the need for the 
proposed garnishment regulation.
    Response: We agree that the case closure provisions allow States 
the option to close these types of cases under Sec.  303.11(b)(9). 
However, because the closure of these cases using this case closure 
criterion is optional, the regulatory changes are necessary to ensure 
that disadvantaged noncustodial parents retain protected Federal 
benefits.
    6. Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the term 
``previously identified'' used in Sec.  307.11(c)(3)(i). The commenter 
also asked whether this determination could only come from a match with 
SSA.
    Response: We disagree that the term warrants further definition. 
The final rule provides that States proactively identify cases where 
the noncustodial parent is a recipient of SSI benefits. A State may 
choose to make this determination based on a match with SSA or through 
other means determined by the State.
    7. Comment: One commenter felt that the NPRM imposed strict 
liability on the IV-D agency, but ignores the responsibility of the 
financial institution in the garnishment process. Many of the comments 
suggested that financial institutions are required to determine whether 
an account meets eligibility standards for garnishment based upon

[[Page 93554]]

the sources of deposits into those accounts.
    Response: We disagree. DCL 13-06 indicated that the Department of 
the Treasury, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, issued an 
Interim Final Rule regarding the garnishment of accounts containing 
Federal benefit payments. Since issuing that guidance, the Department 
of Treasury has finalized the rule. In both the interim and final 
versions of the rule, financial institutions are instructed to honor 
garnishment orders issued by State child support enforcement agencies 
by following standardized procedures ``as if no Federal benefit payment 
were present'' \112\ since many Federal benefit payments are not 
protected from garnishment for child support under section 459 of the 
Act. So long as the IV-D agency uses the proper garnishment form (as 
outlined in the regulation), financial institutions are not required to 
conduct a ``look back'' review to determine if any funds deposited in 
the account consisted of restricted Federal benefits. Under the 
regulations, financial institutions do not have any responsibility in 
determining the source of funds and responding to the requirements as 
outlined in the child support garnishment order. In the event that 
funds are garnished inappropriately, the IV-D agency is solely 
responsible for resolving an inappropriate garnishment under the 
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ The Final Rule entitled ``Garnishment of Accounts 
Containing Federal Benefit Payments: Final Rule,'' Federal Register, 
Volume 78, No 103 (29 May 2013), pp. 32099-3211 is available at: 
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-29/pdf/2013-12683.pdf and 
the Interim Final rule entitled ``Garnishment of Accounts Containing 
Federal Benefit Payments: Interim Final Rule'' Federal Register, 
Volume 76, No 36 (23 February 2011), pp. 9939-9962 is available at: 
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2011-02-23/2011-3782.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Comment: Several commenters expressed their desire for the 
Federal government to share in the costs associated with refunding any 
previously disbursed funds.
    Response: The Federal regulations at 45 CFR 75.426 expressly 
prohibits the Federal government from sharing in costs associated with 
bad debts and losses.
    9. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
regulation places States in the difficult position of trying to recoup 
funds disbursed to the custodial parent.
    Response: A State is prohibited from garnishing SSI benefits and 
must make a SSI recipient whole if it inappropriately garnishes the 
benefits. The final rule will reduce the likelihood that the State will 
need to recover from the custodial parent support collections 
distributed to the family resulting from improper garnishment.
    10. Comment: Many States expressed concern with the proposed 2-day 
timeframe. Suggestions ranged from changing the timeframe anywhere from 
7 days to 30 days. In addition, some commenters requested clarification 
whether the timeframe refers to business or calendar days.
    Response: We agree that the proposed 2-day timeframe is too short 
and that clarification is needed. Based on comments, the final rule 
extended the timeframe in Sec.  307.11(c)(3)(ii) from 2 days to 5 
business days, which begins when the agency determines that SSI or 
concurrent SSI and title II benefits were incorrectly garnished.
Request for Comments on Undistributed and Abandoned Collections
    In the NPRM, we asked for specific comments, including information 
about States policies and procedures related to undistributed and 
abandoned child support collections and the efforts that States take, 
both through their child support agencies and the State treasury 
offices, to maximize the probability that families receive the 
collections, or if that result cannot be achieved that the payments are 
returned to the noncustodial parents.
    We received several comments on how States deal with undistributed 
and abandoned child support payments that indicated that many States 
have aggressive procedures and processes in place to try to minimize 
undistributed collections. One commenter suggested the creation of a 
national work group to study and determine collaboratively policies and 
procedures related to undistributed and abandoned child support 
collections. One commenter was hopeful that if OCSE shared information 
about State practices, States could identify promising practices and 
ultimately reduce the amount of undistributed and abandoned support 
payments.
    At this time, we are not planning to regulate in this area. We will 
continue to work with States in providing technical assistance to 
ensure that States are making diligent efforts to distribute child 
support collections to the family, whenever locate is an issue.

Topic 2: Updates to Account for Advances in Technology (Sec. Sec.  
301.1, 301.13, 302.33, 302.34, 302.50, 302.65, 302.70, 302.85, 303.2, 
303.5, 303.11, 303.31, 304.21, 304.40, 305.64, 305.66, and 307.5)

    We received numerous comments supporting the revisions to update 
the regulations for electronic communications technology under Topic 2 
of the rule. We also received a few comments about specific provisions. 
We did not receive any comments related to Topic 2 that we needed to 
address for the following sections:

 Sec.  301.13--Approval of State Plans and Amendments.
 Sec.  302.33--Services to Individuals Not Receiving Title IV-A 
Assistance
 Sec.  302.34--Cooperative Arrangements
 Sec.  302.50--Assignment of Rights to Support
 Sec.  302.65--Withholding of Unemployment Compensation
 Sec.  302.70--Required State Laws
 Sec.  302.85--Mandatory Computerized Support Enforcement 
System
 Sec.  303.5--Establishment of Paternity
 Sec.  303.31--Securing and Enforcing Medical Support 
Obligations
 Sec.  304.21--Federal Financial Participation in the Costs of 
Cooperative Arrangements with Courts and Law Enforcement Officials
 Sec.  304.40--Repayment of Federal Funds by Installments
 Sec.  305.64--Audit Procedures and State Comments
 Sec.  305.66--Notice, Corrective Action Year, and Imposition 
of Penalty
 Sec.  307.5--Mandatory Computerized Support Enforcement 
Systems
Section 301.1--General Definitions
    1. Comment: One commenter thought it would be clearer to include 
``in writing'' or ``written information if requested'' to the 
definition of ``record.''
    Response: We do not agree that this clarification is needed. The 
regulation defines ``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.'' This includes documents that are 
``in writing.'' As noted in the preamble under Topic 2, the Uniform 
Electronic Transactions Act explains that this definition ``includes 
any method for storing or communicating information, including 
`writings.' ''
    2. Comment: Besides adding definitions for procedures and records, 
one commenter suggested we added definitions for low income or 
subsistence level.
    Response: We do not agree that additional definitions are needed. 
Each State should have the flexibility and discretion to define these 
terms.
Section 303.2--Establishment of Cases and Maintenance of Case Records
    1. Comment: One commenter recommended for consistency with

[[Page 93555]]

Sec.  303.2(a)(3) and for clarity for when the 5 working day timeframe 
begins, please consider replacing the newly added words ``made by'' 
with the word ``received'' in Sec.  303.2(a)(2).
    Response: We agree and have made the requested change.
Section 303.11--Case Closure Criteria
    1. Comment: We invited comments on whether a recipient of services 
should be provided the option to request the case closure notice ``in 
writing'' or ``in a record,'' such as emails, text messaging, voice 
mails. Three commenters requested the ability to notify the recipient 
of services by mail or electronic means if the recipient of services 
has authorized electronic notifications.
    Response: At this time, we have decided not to provide the State 
the flexibility to send case closure notices in a record, such as 
emails, text messaging and voice mail to all parents since there was 
not overwhelming support to do so. While an electronic case closure 
notice may be an appropriate, and even the preferred, method of 
notification on a case-by-case basis for some custodial parents, it may 
not be an effective means to notify other parents. Many parents in the 
child support caseload have limited incomes, and may not have 
convenient access to a computer, the internet, or mobile communication.
    However, we have added a new Sec.  303.11(d)(6) to allow States to 
issue case closure notices under paragraphs (d)(1) and (4) 
electronically, on a case-by-case basis, when the recipient of services 
consents to electronic notifications. The State must keep documentation 
of the recipient's authorization of the consent in the case record.
    2. Comment: One commenter inquired why the notice in the proposed 
Sec.  303.11(d)(6) is not required to be in writing.
    Response: The notice is required to be in writing and we made this 
correction in this final rule to Sec.  303.11(d)(4) since the numbering 
scheme changed as a result of deleting some notice requirements.

Topic 3: Technical Corrections (Sec. Sec.  301.15; 302.14; 302.15; 
302.32; 302.34; 302.35; 302.65; 302.70; 302.85; 303.3; 303.7; 303.11; 
304.10; 304.12; 304.20; 304.21; 304.23; 304.25; 304.26; 305.35; 305.36; 
305.63; 308.2; 309.85; 309.115; 309.130; 309.145; and 309.160)

    In the response to comments below, we only discuss sections for 
which we received applicable comments. Overall, 32 commenters mainly 
supported our technical revisions, but they had some suggested 
revisions or needed clarification on some of the issues. We did not 
receive any comments related to the technical corrections that we 
needed to address for the following sections:

 Sec.  302.14--Fiscal policies and accountability;
 Sec.  302.15--Reports and maintenance of records;
 Sec.  302.35--State parent locator service;
 Sec.  302.65--Withholding of unemployment compensation;
 Sec.  302.70--Required State laws;
 Sec.  302.85--Mandatory computerized support enforcement 
system;
 Sec.  303.3--Location of noncustodial parents in IV-D cases;
 Sec.  303.7--Provision of services in intergovernmental IV-D 
cases;
 Sec.  303.11--Case closure criteria;
 Sec.  304.10--General administrative requirements;
 Sec.  304.12--Incentive payments;
 Sec.  304.20--Availability and rate of Federal financial 
participation;
 Sec.  304.23--Expenditures for which Federal financial 
participation is not available;
 Sec.  304.25--Treatment of expenditures; due date;
 Sec.  304.26--Determination of Federal share of collections;
 Sec.  305.63--Standards of determining substantial compliance 
with IV-D requirements;
 Sec.  309.85--What records must a Tribe or Tribal organization 
include in a Tribal IV-D plan;
 Sec.  309.130--How will Tribal IV-D programs be funded and 
what forms are required?;
 Sec.  309.145--What costs are allowable for Tribal IV-D 
programs carried out under Sec.  309.65(b) of this part?;
 Sec.  309.160--How will OCSE determine whether Tribal IV-D 
program funds are appropriately expended?
Section 301.15--Grants
    1. Comment: Two commenters suggested that the suffix ``A'' be 
eliminated from all references to Form OCSE-396A and OCSE-34A to 
reflect the changes made in the ACF Office of Grants Management (OGM) 
AT-14-01 and OCSE AT-14-14, Revised Quarterly Financial Reporting 
Forms--2014.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/revised-quarterly-financial-reporting-forms-2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We agree. The suffix ``A'' was deleted to reflect the 
recent redesignation of these financial forms in accordance with OGM 
AT-14-01 and OCSE-AT-14-14.
    2. Comment: One commenter requested clarification on section 
301.15(b). When financial reports are submitted through the On-Line 
Data Collection system (OLDC), the ``signature of the authorized State 
program official'' is an electronic signature. The commenter suggested 
that the reference to the signature in paragraph (2) be revised so that 
it is clear that the signature is electronic.
    Response: We have clarified in both paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) that 
the signature of the authorized State program official is a digital 
signature since both the OCSE-396 and the OCSE-34 will be submitted 
electronically, as indicated in paragraph (b)(1).
    3. Comment: One commenter suggested the last sentence of revised 
paragraph (a)(2) regarding the data used in the computation of the 
quarterly grant awards issued to the States appears to be misplaced and 
believes a more appropriate placement is in paragraph (c) Grant Award.
    Response: We do not believe this revision is necessary. This 
sentence summarizes the purposes of the OCSE-34. Paragraph (c) 
indicates that the quarterly grant award is based on the information 
submitted by the State on the financial reporting forms and consists of 
an advance of funds for the next quarter, reconciliation of the advance 
provided for the current quarter, and access to funds.
    4. Comment: One commenter requested clarification that technical 
correction in 301.15(d)(1) does not reflect 45 CFR part 75 Interim 
Final Rule for the Uniform Guidance effective December 26, 2014 since 
45 CFR parts 74 and 92 were superseded when HHS adopted promulgated 45 
CFR part 75 as indicated in 45 CFR 75.104.
    Response: We agree. However, the recent HHS Interim Final Rule, 
effective January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3004),\114\ contains technical 
amendments to HHS regulations regarding the Uniform Guidance. The 
regulatory content updates cross-references within HHS regulations to 
replace part 74 with part 75. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to 
make the proposed revisions and we will delete these proposed revisions 
in the final rule, except as otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ The Uniform Guidance HHS technical corrections are 
available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-20/pdf/2015-32101.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 302.32--Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments by the 
IV-D Agency
    1. Comment: To be consistent with the definitions in Sec.  303.7 
Provision of Services in Interstate IV-D Cases, one commenter suggested 
that Sec.  302.32(b)(1)

[[Page 93556]]

be changed to replace ``interstate'' with ``intergovernmental'' and 
``initiating State'' with ``initiating agency.''
    Response: We agree and have made the proposed revisions in the 
final rule.
Section 302.34--Cooperative Arrangements
    1. Comment: While many commenters supported our proposed changes, 
one commenter requested OCSE develop a definition for corrections 
officials. For instance, the commenter asked if the term ``corrections 
officials'' includes sheriff departments. One commenter encouraged us 
to include community corrections officials.
    Response: OCSE is not specifically defining corrections officials 
to allow flexibility for the State to define it based on how the State 
is organized. However, we would like to clarify that cooperative 
arrangements are required for corrections officials at any governmental 
level, such as Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels. OCSE 
encourages child support agencies to collaborate with Federal, State, 
Tribal, and local corrections officials, including community 
corrections officials (probation and parole agencies), to provide case 
management services, review and adjust support orders, provide 
employment services to previously incarcerated noncustodial parents, 
etc. The National Institutes of Justice notes that community 
corrections programs ``. . . oversee offenders outside of jail or 
prison and . . . include probation--correctional supervision within the 
community rather than jail or prison--and parole--a period of 
conditional, supervised release from prison.'' \115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ National Institutes of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, DOJ--https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/community/pages/welcome.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 304.21--Federal Financial Participation in the Costs of 
Cooperative Arrangements With Courts and Law Enforcement Officials
    1. Comment: Commenters requested clarification as to whether the 
inclusion of corrections officials in the definition of law enforcement 
officials allows the State to sign a cooperative arrangement with a 
sheriff to operate a child support warrant task force or to operate a 
county jail and receive FFP.
    Response: OCSE encourages Child Support Enforcement agencies to 
collaborate with corrections institutions and community corrections 
officials, such as probation and parole agencies. As noted in our 
response to comments under Sec.  302.34, OCSE is not specifically 
defining corrections officials to allow flexibility for the State to 
define it based on how the State is organized.
    Regarding sheriff's costs for a child support warrant task force, 
since these costs would relate to reviewing the warrant process to 
evaluate the quality, efficiency, effectiveness, and scope of support 
enforcement services and securing compliance with the requirements of 
the State plan, these costs would be allowable under 45 CFR 
304.20(b)(1). However, the State should execute a purchase of service 
agreement under Sec.  304.22, rather than a cooperative agreement.
    Regarding sheriff's costs for operating a county jail, since we do 
not provide FFP related to jailing costs under Sec.  304.23(i), these 
costs would not qualify for FFP reimbursement. Section 304.23(i) was 
inadvertently left out of the NPRM and is corrected in this final rule. 
This is discussed in more detail in Comment/Response 3 in Sec.  304.23, 
Expenditures for which Federal Financial Participation Is Not 
Available.
    2. Comment: Another commenter asked if the costs of forming 
cooperative arrangements with courts and corrections officials to 
receive notice of incarceration of noncustodial parents triggering 
state-initiated review under Sec.  303.8 are included as allowable 
expenditures eligible for Federal financial participation.
    Response: Yes, these costs would be allowable expenditures related 
to improving the State's establishment and enforcement of support 
obligations under Sec.  304.20(b)(3).
    3. Comment: Another commenter indicated that by adding corrections 
officials, they believed that a State could enter into a cooperative 
agreement with a community corrections provider, which would enable 
electronic monitoring to be funded directly through the local agency 
doing the electronic monitoring.
    Response: We do not agree with this interpretation. We do not allow 
for FFP to be used for electronic monitoring costs since these costs 
are a general cost of government and are related to the judicial branch 
under 45 CFR 75.444(a)(3).
    4. Comment: Multiple commenters asked if courts are eligible for 
FFP for education and outreach activities intended to inform the public 
about the child support enforcement program.
    Response: States may enter into cooperative agreements with courts 
to provide educational and outreach activities intended to inform the 
public, parents and family members, and young people who are not yet 
parents about the Child Support Enforcement program, responsible 
parenting and co-parenting, family budgeting, and other financial 
consequences of raising children when the parents are not married to 
each other. As such, we have added to Sec.  304.21(a)(1) a cross-
reference to Sec.  304.20(b)(12).
    5. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification on the inclusion 
of ``corrections officials'' in Sec.  304.21 and Sec.  302.34.
    Response: Please see our response to this comment under Comment/
Response 1 for Sec.  302.34, Cooperative Arrangements under Topic 3.
Section 305.35--Reinvestment
    1. Comment: One commenter thought that the proposed formula for 
determining State Current Spending Level may not accurately measure a 
State's compliance with Sec.  305.35 due to the significant differences 
in the timing of expenditures reported on the OCSE-396 for each Federal 
fiscal year because approximately 50 percent of total expenditures 
reported to OCSE are county-related prior quarter adjustments.
    Response: We do not agree that a State's compliance would not 
accurately be measured due to expenditure timing differences. As 
discussed in ``Instructions for Completion of Form OCSE-396,'' there is 
no deadline for spending incentive payments. Incentive payments remain 
available to the State until completely expended. Once expended, 
however, those expenditures must be reported on Line 1a or 1d, as 
applicable, within 2 years, in accordance with section 1132 of the Act. 
Expenditures are considered made on the date the payment occurs, 
regardless of the date of receipt of the good or performance of the 
service. For State-administered expenditures, the date of this 
transaction by the State agency governs; for locally-administered 
programs, the date of the transaction by the county, city, or other 
local agency governs.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ The Instructions for the OCSE-396 are available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/instructions-for-ocse-396-quarterly-financial-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Comment: A few commenters requested clarification regarding the 
applicability of this section to political subdivisions to which the 
incentives are provided by the States.
    Response: As discussed in both AT-01-01 and AT-01-04,\117\ OCSE 
indicated that any payments made to political subdivisions must be used 
in

[[Page 93557]]

accordance with the provisions in Sec.  305.35. States are responsible 
for ensuring that all components of their child support program must 
comply with the reinvestment requirements, including local or county 
programs, other State agencies, vendors or other entities that perform 
child support services under contract or cooperative agreement with the 
State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/final-rule-on-incentives-penalties-and-audit and https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/reinvestment-of-child-support-incentive-payments, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Comment: One commenter believed that our regulation should go 
further into requiring that these funds actually be spent. The 
commenter thought that localities should not be allowed to ``stock-pile 
incentive dollars,'' and should require localities to spend incentives 
within 2 years of being earned or submit a long-term spending plan for 
our approval. The commenter added that if a local agency receiving 
incentive funds does not spend the funds, then these funds should be 
forfeited to another local agency in the same community that provides 
an approved spending plan. This would foster intra-county cooperation 
in the use of funds. It would also allow the agency more directly 
involved in the daily enforcement of child support services the 
opportunity for a larger share of incentives.
    Response: As discussed in the response to Comment/Response 2, 
States are responsible for ensuring that all components of their child 
support program must comply with the reinvestment requirements, 
including local or county programs, other State agencies, vendors, or 
other entities that perform child support services under contract or 
cooperative agreement with the State. Additionally, as discussed in our 
response to Comment/Response 1, there is no deadline for spending 
incentive payments. Incentive payments remain available to the State 
until completely expended. Once expended, however, those expenditures 
must be reported on Line 1a or 1d of the OCSE-396, as applicable, 
within 2 years, in accordance with section 1132 of the Act.
    4. Comment: One commenter asked if Sec.  305.35 allowed the use of 
State IV-D agency and/or other county component current spending level 
surpluses to offset State IV-D agency and/or county components with 
current spending level deficits in Federal fiscal years where the total 
of all components making up the State current spending levels exceeds 
the State baseline expenditure level to avoid disallowance of incentive 
amounts.
    Response: No, a State must expend the full amount of incentive 
payments received to supplement, and not supplant, other funds used by 
the State to carry out its IV-D program activities or funds for other 
activities approved by the Secretary, which may contribute to improving 
the effectiveness or efficiency of the State's child support program, 
including cost-effective contracts with local agencies.
    5. Comment: Several commenters asked questions regarding 
clarification on the base year amount and whether the base year amount 
needs to be recalculated annually for States and, if applicable, 
political subdivisions. One commenter wanted to provide an option to 
recalculate the base year amount for the few States that had incentives 
included in their base year amount. Another commenter indicated that 
the rule needed to be updated to calculate a new base level of funding 
since the base level had not been updated for over two decades.
    Response: As specified in Sec.  305.35(d), a base amount of 
spending was determined by subtracting the amount of incentive funds 
received by the State child support program for Fiscal Year 1998 from 
the total amount expended by the State in the program for the same 
period. Alternatively, States had an option of using the average amount 
of the previous three fiscal years (1996, 1997, and 1998) for 
determining the base amount. The base amount of State spending must be 
maintained in future years.
    OCSE calculated the base amount of spending for each State using 
1998 expenditure data unless the State notified OCSE that the State 
preferred the base amount as an average of the 1996, 1997, and 1998 
expenditures. Only five States (Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, New 
York, and South Dakota) requested the use of the three-year 
average.\118\ At this time, we have no plans for updating the base 
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) 01-50, available at: 
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/base-level-program-expenditures-for-incentive-reinvestment-revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 2011, OCSE sent letters to all IV-D Directors reminding 
them of the actual amount of their base level expenditures for 
incentive reinvestment purposes.
    6. Comment: One commenter suggested the following as an alternative 
to our proposed changes in Sec.  305.35(d) in the NPRM: ``State 
expenditures may not be reduced as a result of the receipt and 
reinvestment of incentive payments, but can be reduced under the 
baseline as a result of cost savings.''
    Response: We do not agree with this proposed change because the 
baseline spending level cannot be reduced as a result of cost savings. 
As discussed in the final rule on incentive payments to States, 65 FR 
82178 (December 27, 2000),\119\ OCSE recognized that ``a fixed base 
year could potentially penalize States that reduce costs as a result of 
program improvements or cuts in government spending. On the other hand, 
we also recognized that a fixed base year would not reflect inflation 
or other increases in the costs of personnel or services. Thus, any 
negative effects would be lessened over time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-12-27/xml/FR-2000-12-27.xml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Comment: Several commenters suggested that the suffix ``A'' be 
eliminated from all references to Form OCSE-396A and OCSE-34A to 
reflect the changes made in OGM AT-14-01 and OCSE AT-14-14.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/revised-quarterly-financial-reporting-forms-2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We agree. The suffix ``A'' was deleted in all references 
to OCSE-396A in paragraph (e) to reflect the recent redesignation of 
these financial forms in accordance with OGM AT-14-01 and OCSE AT-14-
14.
    8. Comment: One commenter thought that the term ``disallowances of 
incentive amounts'' was unclear, and suggested that we replace it with 
``a reduction in incentives awarded.''
    Response: We do not agree with this suggested revision. OCSE has 
used the disallowance terminology since Federal fiscal year 2001. It is 
technically correct in terms of grants management. OCSE would be making 
a disallowance, which may be collected by reducing the State's 
incentive payments or State's child support grant payments.
    9. Comment: Another commenter believed that a disallowance for a 
State not reinvesting the full amount of the incentive payment to 
supplement, not supplant, other funds used by the State to carry out 
the child support program or to use the funds for other activities, 
approved by the Secretary for improving the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the program, seems like a harsh penalty. The commenter 
suggested that in cases of non-compliance, OCSE should follow the 
progressive steps outlined in Sec.  305.66 by providing the State with 
a corrective action year.
    Response: We do not agree with the suggestion. Section 305.66 
outlines the steps taken when a State is found by the Secretary to be 
subject to a penalty as described in Sec.  305.61. This section does 
not identify incentive funds not being reinvested as a reason that a 
State would be subject to a financial penalty. Additionally, we do not 
support this change since the financial penalty would be much harsher. 
A disallowance

[[Page 93558]]

as proposed would result in penalty amounts from one to five percent of 
the State's title IV-A payments.
    10. Comment: One commenter believed that our calculation related to 
the State Share of Expenditure in paragraph (e)(1) was incorrect. The 
commenter thought that the correct calculation should be ``Total 
Expenditures less expenditures funded with incentives = the base for 
determining the State share. The base for determining the State share 
is multiplied by 34% and that result is compared to the required base 
level spending.''
    Response: We do not agree with this change in our formula. The 
formula in the final rule is the formula that we have been using since 
2001. The State Share of Expenditures must deduct the Federal Share of 
total expenditures claimed for the current quarter and prior quarter 
adjustments claimed on the OCSE-396 for all four quarters of the fiscal 
year.
Section 305.36--Incentive Phase-In
    1. Comment: One commenter requested an additional conforming 
revision to delete 45 CFR 305.36 since it was an outdated requirement 
from 2002.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have deleted the outdated 
provision.

V. Impact Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13), all Departments 
are required to submit to OMB for review and approval any reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. There 
are seven new requirements as a result of these regulations. These new 
regulatory requirements are one-time system enhancements to the 
statewide child support system. The description and total estimated 
burden for the changes are described in the chart below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of         Average burden hours                     National     National state
        Section and purpose                Instrument          respondents: 54          per response        Total cost     federal share       share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added requirement under Sec.         Systems Modification.  One[dash]time system   300 hours x $100 per       $1,620,000      $1,069,200        $550,800
 302.33 to generate notices.                                 enhancement.           54 States to modify
                                                                                    statewide child
                                                                                    support system.
Added optional requirement under     Systems Modification.  One[dash]time system   5,000 hours x $100         13,500,000       8,910,000       4,590,000
 Sec.   302.33 for revised                                   enhancement.           per 27 States to
 applications for limited services.                                                 modify statewide
                                                                                    child support system.
Added requirement under Sec.         Systems Modification.  One[dash]time system   200 hours x $100 x 54       1,080,000         712,800         367,200
 303.8 for notice of the right to                            enhancement.           States.
 request review and adjustment when
 parent is incarcerated.
Added optional requirement under     Systems Modification.  One[dash]time system   1,000 hours x $100 x        2,700,000       1,782,000         918,000
 Sec.   303.11 for notice to                                 enhancement.           27 States.
 recipient when case closed because
 limited service has been completed.
Added requirement under Sec.         System Modification..  One[dash]time system   500 hours x $100 x 54       2,700,000       1,782,000         918,000
 303.11 for notice because the                               enhancement.           States.
 referring agency does not respond
 to a notice or does not provide
 information demonstrating that
 services are needed.
Under Sec.   303.72 discontinued     Systems Modification.  One[dash]time system   500 hours x $100 x 54       2,700,000       1,782,000         918,000
 notice requirement for interstate                           enhancement.           States.
 tax refund offset.
Added requirement under Sec.         Systems Modification.  One[dash]time system   400 hours x $100 x 54       2,160,000       1,425,600         734,400
 307.11 develop automated                                    enhancement.           States.
 procedures to identify the
 recipient of Supplemental Security
 Income (SSI).
Added requirement for State plan     State plan amendment.  One time for 54 State  2 hours x $54.08 x 54        5,840.64        2,920.32        2,920.32
 page amendment under 42 CFR                                 Medicaid programs,     States.
 433.152.                                                    (which includes DC
                                                             and 3 territories).
Added requirement for cooperative    Cooperative agreement  One time for 54 State  10 hours x $54.08 x         29,203.20       14,601.60       14,601.60
 agreements with IV[dash]D agencies                          Medicaid programs.     54 States.
 under 42 CFR 433.152.
                                                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.........................  .....................  .....................  265,248 hrs..........   26,495,043.84   17,481,121.92    9,013,921.92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part 302 contains information collection requirements subject to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Although 
States will have to submit revised Child Support State plan pages for 
Sec. Sec.  302.33, 302.56, and 302.70, we do not estimate any 
additional burden on the ``State Plan for Child Support Collection and 
Establishment of Paternity Under Title IV-D of the Social Security 
Act,'' and the State Plan Transmittal Form (OMB 0970-0017), which were 
reauthorized until June 30, 2017. When these forms were submitted for 
reauthorization, we had estimated that each State would be submitting 
eight State plan preprint pages annually as a result of changes in 
regulations, policies, and/or procedures.
    None of the forms are new burdens on States. For example Sec.  
303.100 clarifies the regulation that States are required to use the 
Income Withholding Order (IWO) form. Use of the OMB-approved form is 
already required. The OMB Control number is 0970-0154, which expires on 
July 31, 2017. Section 303.35 clarifies that the OCSE-396 is used to 
calculate the State current spending level. This form is an OMB-
approved form, Control number 0970-0181, which expires on May 31, 2017. 
Finally, there has been an update from use of form SF 269A to SF 425. 
This is a technical update with no addition burden. SF 425 is an OMB-
approved

[[Page 93559]]

form, Control number 0348-0061, which expired on February 28, 2015.
    With regard to the requirements for cooperative agreements for 
third party collections under 42 CFR 433.152, Medicaid State plan 
amendments will be required as well as amendments to State cooperative 
agreements. The one-time burden associated with the requirements under 
Sec.  433.152 is the time and effort it will take each of the 54 State 
Medicaid Programs, which includes the District of Columbia and 3 
territories, to submit State plan amendments and amend their 
cooperative agreements.
    Specifically, we estimate that it will take each State 2 hours to 
amend their State plans and 10 hours to amend their cooperative 
agreements. We estimate 12 total annual hours at a total estimated cost 
of $35,043.84 with a State share of $17,521.92. The Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services reimburses States for 50 percent of the 
administrative costs incurred to administer the Medicaid State plan.
    In deriving these figures, we used the hourly rate of $54.08/hour, 
which is the mean hourly wage of management officials according to 2014 
data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ The BLS Occupational Employment Statistics 2014 wage data 
for management occupations is available at: www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes110000.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other than what is addressed above, no additional information 
collection burdens, as described in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), are imposed by this regulation.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), and enacted by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this regulation will 
not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The primary impact is on State Governments. State Governments 
are not considered small entities under the Act.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if the 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. 
While there are some costs associated with these regulations, they are 
not economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866. However, the 
regulation is significant and has been reviewed by OMB.
    An area with associated Federal costs is modifying the child 
support statewide automated system for one-time system enhancements to 
accommodate new requirements such as notices, applications, and 
identifying noncustodial parents receiving SSI, and CMS State plan 
changes. This rule has a total cost of approximate $26,495,044. This 
includes a total cost of $26,460,000 to modify statewide IV-D systems 
for the 54 States or Territories at a cost of $100 an hour (with an 
assumption that 27 States will implement the optional requirements), 
with $17,463,600 as the Federal share. In addition, there is a cost of 
$35,044 is designated to CMS' costs for State plan amendments and 
cooperative agreements, which includes the Federal share of $17,522.
    These regulations will improve the delivery of child support 
services, support the efforts of noncustodial parents to provide for 
their children, and improve the efficiency of operations.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 
that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before 
promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result 
in the expenditure by State, Tribal and local Governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year. This $100 million threshold was based on 1995 dollars. The 
current threshold, adjusted for inflation is $146 million. This rule 
would not impose a mandate that will result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of more than $146 million in any one year.

Congressional Review

    This final rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 
8.
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or 
regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency's 
determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact 
assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. The required 
review of the regulations and policies to determine their effect on 
family well-being has been completed, and this rule will have a 
positive impact on family well-being as defined in the legislation by 
helping to ensure that parents support their children, even when they 
reside in separate jurisdictions, and will strengthen personal 
responsibility and increase disposable family income.

Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 prohibits an agency from publishing any rule 
that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on State and local governments or is not 
required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency 
meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the 
Executive Order. This final rule does not have federalism impact as 
defined in the Executive Order.

List of Subjects

42 CFR Part 433

    Administrative practice and procedure, Child support, Claims, Grant 
programs--health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 301

    Child support, State plan approval and grant procedures.

45 CFR Part 302

    Child support, State plan requirements.

45 CFR Part 303

    Child support, Standards for program operations.

45 CFR Part 304

    Child support, Federal financial participation.

45 CFR Part 305

    Child support, Program performance measures, Standards, Financial 
incentives, Penalties.

45 CFR Part 307

    Child support, Computerized support enforcement systems.

45 CFR Part 308

    Child support, Annual State self-assessment review and report.

45 CFR Part 309

    Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Indians, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.


[[Page 93560]]


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs No. 93.563, Child 
Support Enforcement Program.)

Mark H. Greenberg,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
Andy Slavitt,
Acting Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Sylvia M. Burwell,
Secretary.

0
For the reasons discussed above, the Department of Health and Human 
Services amends 42 CFR part 433 and 45 CFR chapter III as set forth 
below:

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

    42 CFR Chapter IV

PART 433--STATE FISCAL ADMINISTRATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 433 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1302).


0
2. Section 433.152 is amended, effective January 20, 2017 by revising 
paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  433.152  Requirements for cooperative agreements for third party 
collections.

* * * * *
    (b) Agreements with title IV-D agencies must specify that:
    (1) The Medicaid agency may not refer a case for medical support 
enforcement when the following criteria have been met:
    (i) The Medicaid referral is based solely upon health care services 
provided through an Indian Health Program (as defined at 25 U.S.C. 
1603(12)), including through the Purchased/Referred Care program, to a 
child who is eligible for health care services from the Indian Health 
Service (IHS).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) The Medicaid agency will provide reimbursement to the IV-D 
agency only for those child support services performed that are not 
reimbursable by the Office of Child Support Enforcement under title IV-
D of the Act and that are necessary for the collection of amounts for 
the Medicaid program.

Administration for Children and Families

    45 CFR Chapter III

PART 301--STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES

0
3. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. Amend Sec.  301.1 by revising the first sentence of the definition 
of ``Procedures'' and adding the definition of ``Record'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  301.1  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Procedures means a set of instructions in a record which describe 
in detail the step by step actions to be taken by child support 
enforcement personnel in the performance of a specific function under 
the State's IV-D plan. * * *
* * * * *
    Record means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or 
that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in 
perceivable form.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  301.13 by revising the first sentence of the 
introductory text and paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  301.13  Approval of State plans and amendments.

    The State plan consists of records furnished by the State to cover 
its Child Support Enforcement program under title IV-D of the Act. * * 
*
* * * * *
    (e) Prompt approval of the State plan. The determination as to 
whether the State plan submitted for approval conforms to the 
requirements for approval under the Act and regulations issued pursuant 
thereto shall be made promptly and not later than the 90th day 
following the date on which the plan submittal is received in OCSE 
Regional Program Office, unless the Regional Office has secured from 
the IV-D agency an agreement, which is reflected in a record, to extend 
that period.
    (f) Prompt approval of plan amendments. Any amendment of an 
approved State plan may, at the option of the State, be considered as a 
submission of a new State plan. If the State requests that such 
amendments be so considered, the determination as to its conformity 
with the requirements for approval shall be made promptly and not later 
than the 90th day following the date on which such a request is 
received in the Regional Office with respect to an amendment that has 
been received in such office, unless the Regional Office has secured 
from the State agency an agreement, which is reflected in a record, to 
extend that period.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  301.15 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), 
and by removing paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  301.15  Grants.

* * * * *
    (a) Financial reporting forms--(1) Form OCSE-396: Child Support 
Enforcement Program Quarterly Financial Report. States submit this form 
quarterly to report the actual amount of State and Federal share of 
title IV-D program expenditures and program income of the current 
quarter and to report the estimated amount of the State and Federal 
share of title IV-D program expenditures for the next quarter. This 
form is completed in accordance with published instructions. The 
digital signature of the authorized State program official on this 
document certifies that the reported expenditures and estimates are 
accurate and that the State has or will have the necessary State share 
of estimated program expenditures available when needed.
    (2) Form OCSE-34: Child Support Enforcement Program Quarterly 
Collection Report. States submit this form quarterly to report the 
State and Federal share of child support collections received, 
distributed, disbursed, and remaining undistributed under the title IV-
D program. This form is completed in accordance with published 
instructions. The digital signature of the authorized State program 
official on this document certifies that the reported amounts are 
accurate. The Federal share of actual program expenditures and 
collections and the Federal share of estimated program expenditures 
reported on Form OCSE-396 and the Federal share of child support 
collections reported on Form OCSE-34 are used in the computation of 
quarterly grant awards issued to the State.
    (b) Submission, review, and approval--(1) Manner of submission. The 
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) maintains an On-line 
Data Collection (OLDC) system available to every State. States must use 
OLDC to submit reporting information electronically. To use OLDC, a 
State must request access from the ACF Office of Grants Management and 
use an approved digital signature.
    (2) Schedule of submission. Forms OCSE-396 and OCSE-34 must be 
electronically submitted no later than 45 days following the end of the 
each fiscal quarter. No submission, revisions, or adjustments of the 
financial reports submitted for any quarter of a fiscal year will be 
accepted by OCSE later than December 31, which is 3 months after the 
end of the fiscal year.

[[Page 93561]]

    (3) Review and approval. The data submitted on Forms OCSE-396 and 
OCSE-34 are subject to analysis and review by the Regional Grants 
Officer in the appropriate ACF Regional Office and approval by the 
Director, Office of Grants Management, in the ACF central office. In 
the course of this analysis, review, and approval process, any reported 
program expenditures that cannot be determined to be allowable are 
subject to the deferral procedures found at 45 CFR 201.15 or the 
disallowance process found at 45 CFR 304.29 and 201.14 and 45 CFR part 
16.
    (c) Grant award--(1) Award documents. The grant award consists of a 
signed award letter and an accompanying ``Computation of Grant Award'' 
to detail the award calculation.
    (2) Award calculation. The quarterly grant award is based on the 
information submitted by the State on the financial reporting forms and 
consists of:
    (i) An advance of funds for the next quarter, based on the State's 
approved estimate; and
    (ii) The reconciliation of the advance provided for the current 
quarter, based on the State's approved expenditures.
    (3) Access to funds. A copy of the grant documents are provided to 
the HHS Program Support Center's Division of Payment Management, which 
maintains the Payment Management System (PMS). The State is able to 
request a drawdown of funds from PMS through a commercial bank and the 
Federal Reserve System against a continuing letter of credit. The 
letter of credit system for payment of advances of Federal funds was 
established pursuant to Treasury Department regulations. (Circular No. 
1075).
    (d) General administrative requirements. The provisions of part 95 
of this title, establishing general administrative requirements for 
grant programs and part 75 of this title, establishing uniform 
administrative requirements and cost principles, shall apply to all 
grants made to the States under this part, with the following 
exceptions:
    (1) 45 CFR 75.306, Cost sharing or matching and
    (2) 45 CFR 75.341, Financial reporting.
* * * * *

PART 302--STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

0
7. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows:

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


0
8. Revise Sec.  302.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  302.14  Fiscal policies and accountability.

    The State plan shall provide that the IV-D agency, in discharging 
its fiscal accountability, will maintain an accounting system and 
supporting fiscal records adequate to assure that claims for Federal 
funds are in accord with applicable Federal requirements. The retention 
and custodial requirements for these records are prescribed in 45 CFR 
75.361 through 75.370.

0
9. Amend Sec.  302.15 by removing ``and'' at the end of paragraph 
(a)(6), revising paragraph (a)(7), and adding paragraph (a)(8) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  302.15  Reports and Maintenance of Records.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (7) Statistical, fiscal, and other records necessary for reporting 
and accountability required by the Secretary; and
    (8) The retention and custodial requirements for the records in 
this section are prescribed in 45 CFR 75.361 through 75.370
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  302.32 by revising the section heading, introductory 
text, and paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  302.32  Collection and disbursement of support payments by the 
IV-D agency.

    The State plan shall provide that:
    (a) The IV-D agency must establish and operate a State Disbursement 
Unit (SDU) for the collection and disbursement of payments under 
support orders--
    (1) In all cases being enforced under the State IV-D plan; and
    (2) In all cases not being enforced under the State IV-D plan in 
which the support order is initially issued in the State on or after 
January 1, 1994, and in which the income of the noncustodial parent is 
subject to withholding in accordance with section 466(a)(8)(B) of the 
Act.
    (b) Timeframes for disbursement of support payments by SDUs under 
section 454B of the Act.
    (1) In intergovernmental IV-D cases, amounts collected by the 
responding State on behalf of the initiating agency must be forwarded 
to the initiating agency within 2 business days of the date of receipt 
by the SDU in the responding State, in accordance with Sec.  
303.7(d)(6)(v) of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  302.33 by revising paragraph (a)(4), adding paragraph 
(a)(6), and revising the first sentence of paragraph (d)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  302.33  Services to individuals not receiving title IV-A 
assistance.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Whenever a family is no longer eligible for assistance under 
the State's title IV-A and Medicaid programs, the IV-D agency must 
notify the family, within 5 working days of the notification of 
ineligibility, that IV-D services will be continued unless the family 
notifies the IV-D agency that it no longer wants services but instead 
wants to close the case. This notice must inform the family of the 
benefits and consequences of continuing to receive IV-D services, 
including the available services and the State's fees, cost recovery, 
and distribution policies. This requirement to notify the family that 
services will be continued, unless the family notifies the IV-D agency 
to the contrary, also applies when a child is no longer eligible for 
IV-E foster care, but only in those cases that the IV-D agency 
determines that such services and notice would be appropriate.
* * * * *
    (6) The State may elect in its State plan to allow an individual 
under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section who files an application to 
request paternity-only limited services in an intrastate case. If the 
State chooses this option, the State must define how this process will 
be implemented and must establish and use procedures, including 
domestic violence safeguards, which are reflected in a record, that 
specify when paternity-only limited services will be available. An 
application will be considered full-service unless the parent 
specifically applies for paternity-only limited services in accordance 
with the State's procedures. If one parent specifically requests 
paternity-only limited services and the other parent requests full 
services, the case will automatically receive full services. The State 
will be required to charge the application and service fees required 
under paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section for paternity-only limited 
services, and may recover costs in accordance with paragraph (d) of 
this section if the State has chosen this option in its State plan. The 
State must provide the applicant an application form with information 
on the availability of paternity-only limited services, consequences of 
selecting this limited service, and an explanation that the case will 
be closed when the limited service is completed.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) A State that recovers standardized costs under paragraph (d)(1) 
of this section shall develop a methodology, which is reflected in a 
record, to

[[Page 93562]]

determine standardized costs which are as close to actual costs as is 
possible. * * *
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  302.34 by revising the first sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  302.34  Cooperative arrangements.

    The State plan shall provide that the State will enter into 
agreements, which are reflected in a record, for cooperative 
arrangements under Sec.  303.107 of this chapter with appropriate 
courts; law enforcement officials, such as district attorneys, 
attorneys general, and similar public attorneys and prosecutors; 
corrections officials; and Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations. * * *

0
13. Revise Sec.  302.38 to read as follows:


Sec.  302.38  Payments to the family.

    The State plan shall provide that any payment required to be made 
under Sec. Sec.  302.32 and 302.51 to a family will be made directly to 
the resident parent, legal guardian, caretaker relative having custody 
of or responsibility for the child or children, judicially-appointed 
conservator with a legal and fiduciary duty to the custodial parent and 
the child, or alternate caretaker designated in a record by the 
custodial parent. An alternate caretaker is a nonrelative caretaker who 
is designated in a record by the custodial parent to take care of the 
children for a temporary time period.

0
14. Amend Sec.  302.50 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  302.50  Assignment of rights to support.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) If there is no court or administrative order, an amount 
determined in a record by the IV-D agency as part of the legal process 
referred to in paragraph (a)(2) of this section in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  302.56.
* * * * *

0
15. Revise Sec.  302.56 to read as follows:


Sec.  302.56  Guidelines for setting child support orders.

    (a) Within 1 year after completion of the State's next quadrennial 
review of its child support guidelines, that commences more than 1 year 
after publication of the final rule, in accordance with Sec.  
302.56(e), as a condition of approval of its State plan, the State must 
establish one set of child support guidelines by law or by judicial or 
administrative action for setting and modifying child support order 
amounts within the State that meet the requirements in this section.
    (b) The State must have procedures for making the guidelines 
available to all persons in the State.
    (c) The child support guidelines established under paragraph (a) of 
this section must at a minimum:
    (1) Provide that the child support order is based on the 
noncustodial parent's earnings, income, and other evidence of ability 
to pay that:
    (i) Takes into consideration all earnings and income of the 
noncustodial parent (and at the State's discretion, the custodial 
parent);
    (ii) Takes into consideration the basic subsistence needs of the 
noncustodial parent (and at the State's discretion, the custodial 
parent and children) who has a limited ability to pay by incorporating 
a low-income adjustment, such as a self-support reserve or some other 
method determined by the State; and
    (iii) If imputation of income is authorized, takes into 
consideration the specific circumstances of the noncustodial parent 
(and at the State's discretion, the custodial parent) to the extent 
known, including such factors as the noncustodial parent's assets, 
residence, employment and earnings history, job skills, educational 
attainment, literacy, age, health, criminal record and other employment 
barriers, and record of seeking work, as well as the local job market, 
the availability of employers willing to hire the noncustodial parent, 
prevailing earnings level in the local community, and other relevant 
background factors in the case.
    (2) Address how the parents will provide for the child's health 
care needs through private or public health care coverage and/or 
through cash medical support;
    (3) Provide that incarceration may not be treated as voluntary 
unemployment in establishing or modifying support orders; and
    (4) Be based on specific descriptive and numeric criteria and 
result in a computation of the child support obligation.
    (d) The State must include a copy of the child support guidelines 
in its State plan.
    (e) The State must review, and revise, if appropriate, the child 
support guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this section at 
least once every four years to ensure that their application results in 
the determination of appropriate child support order amounts. The State 
shall publish on the internet and make accessible to the public all 
reports of the guidelines reviewing body, the membership of the 
reviewing body, the effective date of the guidelines, and the date of 
the next quadrennial review.
    (f) The State must provide that there will be a rebuttable 
presumption, in any judicial or administrative proceeding for the 
establishment and modification of a child support order, that the 
amount of the order which would result from the application of the 
child support guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this 
section is the correct amount of child support to be ordered.
    (g) A written finding or specific finding on the record of a 
judicial or administrative proceeding for the establishment or 
modification of a child support order that the application of the child 
support guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this section 
would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case will be 
sufficient to rebut the presumption in that case, as determined under 
criteria established by the State. Such criteria must take into 
consideration the best interests of the child. Findings that rebut the 
child support guidelines shall state the amount of support that would 
have been required under the guidelines and include a justification of 
why the order varies from the guidelines.
    (h) As part of the review of a State's child support guidelines 
required under paragraph (e) of this section, a State must:
    (1) Consider economic data on the cost of raising children, labor 
market data (such as unemployment rates, employment rates, hours 
worked, and earnings) by occupation and skill-level for the State and 
local job markets, the impact of guidelines policies and amounts on 
custodial and noncustodial parents who have family incomes below 200 
percent of the Federal poverty level, and factors that influence 
employment rates among noncustodial parents and compliance with child 
support orders;
    (2) Analyze case data, gathered through sampling or other methods, 
on the application of and deviations from the child support guidelines, 
as well as the rates of default and imputed child support orders and 
orders determined using the low-income adjustment required under 
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. The analysis must also include a 
comparison of payments on child support orders by case characteristics, 
including whether the order was entered by default, based on imputed 
income, or determined using the low-income adjustment required under 
paragraph (c)(1)(ii). The analysis of the data must be used in the 
State's review of the child support guidelines to ensure that 
deviations from the guidelines are limited and guideline amounts are 
appropriate based on

[[Page 93563]]

criteria established by the State under paragraph (g); and
    (3) Provide a meaningful opportunity for public input, including 
input from low-income custodial and noncustodial parents and their 
representatives. The State must also obtain the views and advice of the 
State child support agency funded under title IV-D of the Act.

0
16. Amend Sec.  302.65 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the definition of ``State employment 
security agency'';
0
b. In paragraph (a), adding the definition of ``State workforce 
agency'' in alphabetical order;
0
c. Revising paragraph (b);
0
d. Removing the term ``SESA'' wherever it appears and adding in its 
place the term ``SWA'' in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (5) through (7); 
and
0
e. Revising paragraph (c)(3).
    The revisions and addition read as follows.


Sec.  302.65  Withholding of unemployment compensation.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    State workforce agency or SWA means the State agency charged with 
the administration of the State unemployment compensation laws in 
accordance with title III of the Act.
* * * * *
    (b) Agreement. The State IV-D agency shall enter into an agreement, 
which is reflected in a record, with the SWA in its State for the 
purpose of withholding unemployment compensation from individuals with 
unmet support obligations being enforced by the IV-D agency. The IV-D 
agency shall agree only to a withholding program that it expects to be 
cost effective and to reimbursement for the SWA's actual, incremental 
costs of providing services to the IV-D agency.
    (c) * * *
    (3) Establish and use criteria, which are reflected in a record, 
for selecting cases to pursue via the withholding of unemployment 
compensation for support purposes. These criteria must be designed to 
ensure maximum case selection and minimal discretion in the selection 
process.
* * * * *

0
17. Amend Sec.  302.70, by revising paragraphs (a)(5)(v), (a)(8), and 
the first sentence of paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  302.70  Required State laws.

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (v) Procedures which provide that any objection to genetic testing 
results must be made in writing within a specified number of days 
before any hearing at which such results may be introduced into 
evidence; and if no objection is made, a report of the test results, 
which is reflected in a record, is admissible as evidence of paternity 
without the need for foundation testimony or other proof of 
authenticity or accuracy;
* * * * *
    (8) Procedures under which all child support orders which are 
issued or modified in the State will include provision for withholding 
from income, in order to assure that withholding as a means of 
collecting child support is available if arrearages occur without the 
necessity of filing an application for services under Sec.  302.33, in 
accordance with Sec.  303.100(g) of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Basis for granting exemption. The Secretary will grant a State, 
or political subdivision in the case of section 466(a)(2) of the Act, 
an exemption from any of the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 
section for a period not to exceed 5 years if the State demonstrates 
that compliance would not increase the effectiveness and efficiency of 
its Child Support Enforcement program. * * *
* * * * *

0
18. Amend Sec.  302.85 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(2)(ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  302.85  Mandatory computerized support enforcement system.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * * This guide is available on the OCSE Web site; and
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The State provides assurances, which are reflected in a 
record, that steps will be taken to otherwise improve the State's Child 
Support Enforcement program.

PART 303--STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM OPERATIONS

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

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 663, 664, 666, 
667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), 1396(k), 
and 25 U.S.C. 1603(12) and 1621e.


0
20. Amend Sec.  303.2 by revising the first sentence of paragraph 
(a)(2) and revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  303.2  Establishment of cases and maintenance of case records.

    (a) * * *
    (2) When an individual requests an application for IV-D services, 
provide an application to the individual on the day the individual 
makes a request in person, or send an application to the individual 
within no more than 5 working days of a request received by telephone 
or in a record. * * *
    (3) Accept an application as filed on the day it and the 
application fee are received. An application is a record that is 
provided or used by the State which indicates that the individual is 
applying for child support enforcement services under the State's title 
IV-D program and is signed, electronically or otherwise, by the 
individual applying for IV-D services.
* * * * *

0
21. Amend Sec.  303.3 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(5), removing the term ``State employment security'' 
and adding the term ``State workforce'' in its place.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  303.3  Location of noncustodial parents in IV-D cases.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Use appropriate location sources such as the Federal PLS; 
interstate location networks; local officials and employees 
administering public assistance, general assistance, medical 
assistance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and social 
services (whether such individuals are employed by the State or a 
political subdivision); relatives and friends of the noncustodial 
parent; current or past employers; electronic communications and 
internet service providers; utility companies; the U.S. Postal Service; 
financial institutions; unions; corrections institutions; fraternal 
organizations; police, parole, and probation records if appropriate; 
and State agencies and departments, as authorized by State law, 
including those departments which maintain records of public 
assistance, wages and employment, unemployment insurance, income 
taxation, driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and criminal records 
and other sources;
* * * * *

0
22. Amend Sec.  303.4 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  303.4  Establishment of support obligations.

* * * * *
    (b) Use appropriate State statutes, procedures, and legal processes 
in establishing and modifying support obligations in accordance with 
Sec.  302.56 of this chapter, which must include, at a minimum:
    (1) Taking reasonable steps to develop a sufficient factual basis 
for the support obligation, through such means as

[[Page 93564]]

investigations, case conferencing, interviews with both parties, appear 
and disclose procedures, parent questionnaires, testimony, and 
electronic data sources;
    (2) Gathering information regarding the earnings and income of the 
noncustodial parent and, when earnings and income information is 
unavailable or insufficient in a case gathering available information 
about the specific circumstances of the noncustodial parent, including 
such factors as those listed under Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(iii) of this 
chapter;
    (3) Basing the support obligation or recommended support obligation 
amount on the earnings and income of the noncustodial parent whenever 
available. If evidence of earnings and income is unavailable or 
insufficient to use as the measure of the noncustodial parent's ability 
to pay, then the support obligation or recommended support obligation 
amount should be based on available information about the specific 
circumstances of the noncustodial parent, including such factors as 
those listed in Sec.  302.56(c)(1)(iii) of this chapter.
    (4) Documenting the factual basis for the support obligation or the 
recommended support obligation in the case record.
* * * * *

0
23. Amend Sec.  303.5 by revising paragraph (g)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  303.5  Establishment of paternity.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (6) The State must provide training, guidance, and instructions, 
which are reflected in a record, regarding voluntary acknowledgment of 
paternity, as necessary to operate the voluntary paternity 
establishment services in the hospitals, State birth record agencies, 
and other entities designated by the State and participating in the 
State's voluntary paternity establishment program.
* * * * *

0
24. Amend Sec.  303.6 by:
0
a. Removing ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as paragraph (c)(5); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (c)(4).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  303.6  Enforcement of support obligations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Establishing guidelines for the use of civil contempt citations 
in IV-D cases. The guidelines must include requirements that the IV-D 
agency:
    (i) Screen the case for information regarding the noncustodial 
parent's ability to pay or otherwise comply with the order;
    (ii) Provide the court with such information regarding the 
noncustodial parent's ability to pay, or otherwise comply with the 
order, which may assist the court in making a factual determination 
regarding the noncustodial parent's ability to pay the purge amount or 
comply with the purge conditions; and
    (iii) Provide clear notice to the noncustodial parent that his or 
her ability to pay constitutes the critical question in the civil 
contempt action; and
* * * * *

0
25. Amend Sec.  303.7 by revising paragraphs (c)(10) and (d)(10) and 
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (10) Distribute and disburse any support collections received in 
accordance with this section and Sec. Sec.  302.32, 302.38, 302.51, and 
302.52 of this chapter, sections 454(5), 454B, 457, and 1912 of the 
Act, and instructions issued by the Office;
    (d) * * *
    (10) Notify the initiating agency when a case is closed pursuant to 
Sec. Sec.  303.11(b)(17) through (19) and 303.7(d)(9).
* * * * *
    (f) Imposition and reporting of annual $25 fee in interstate cases. 
The title IV-D agency in the initiating State must impose and report 
the annual $25 fee in accordance with Sec.  302.33(e) of this chapter.

0
26. Amend Sec.  303.8 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) through (6) as paragraphs (b)(3) 
through (7), respectively;
0
b. Adding new paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(7);
0
d. Adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (c); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (d).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  303.8  Review and adjustment of child support orders.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The State may elect in its State plan to initiate review of an 
order, after learning that a noncustodial parent will be incarcerated 
for more than 180 calendar days, without the need for a specific 
request and, upon notice to both parents, review and, if appropriate, 
adjust the order, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (7) The State must provide notice--
    (i) Not less than once every 3 years to both parents subject to an 
order informing the parents of their right to request the State to 
review and, if appropriate, adjust the order consistent with this 
section. The notice must specify the place and manner in which the 
request should be made. The initial notice may be included in the 
order.
    (ii) If the State has not elected paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 
within 15 business days of when the IV-D agency learns that a 
noncustodial parent will be incarcerated for more than 180 calendar 
days, to both parents informing them of the right to request the State 
to review and, if appropriate, adjust the order, consistent with this 
section. The notice must specify, at a minimum, the place and manner in 
which the request should be made. Neither the notice nor a review is 
required under this paragraph if the State has a comparable law or rule 
that modifies a child support obligation upon incarceration by 
operation of State law.
    (c) * * * Such reasonable quantitative standard must not exclude 
incarceration as a basis for determining whether an inconsistency 
between the existing child support order amount and the amount of 
support determined as a result of a review is adequate grounds for 
petitioning for adjustment of the order.
    (d) Health care needs must be an adequate basis. The need to 
provide for the child's health care needs in the order, through health 
insurance or other means, must be an adequate basis under State law to 
initiate an adjustment of an order, regardless of whether an adjustment 
in the amount of child support is necessary.
* * * * *

0
27. Revise Sec.  303.11 to read as follows:


Sec.  303.11  Case closure criteria.

    (a) The IV-D agency shall establish a system for case closure.
    (b) The IV-D agency may elect to close a case if the case meets at 
least one of the following criteria and supporting documentation for 
the case closure decision is maintained in the case record:
    (1) There is no longer a current support order and arrearages are 
under $500 or unenforceable under State law;
    (2) There is no longer a current support order and all arrearages 
in the case are assigned to the State;
    (3) There is no longer a current support order, the children have

[[Page 93565]]

reached the age of majority, the noncustodial parent is entering or has 
entered long-term care arrangements (such as a residential care 
facility or home health care), and the noncustodial parent has no 
income or assets available above the subsistence level that could be 
levied or attached for support;
    (4) The noncustodial parent or alleged father is deceased and no 
further action, including a levy against the estate, can be taken;
    (5) The noncustodial parent is living with the minor child (as the 
primary caregiver or in an intact two parent household), and the IV-D 
agency has determined that services are not appropriate or are no 
longer appropriate;
    (6) Paternity cannot be established because:
    (i) The child is at least 18 years old and an action to establish 
paternity is barred by a statute of limitations that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  302.70(a)(5) of this chapter;
    (ii) A genetic test or a court or an administrative process has 
excluded the alleged father and no other alleged father can be 
identified;
    (iii) In accordance with Sec.  303.5(b), the IV-D agency has 
determined that it would not be in the best interests of the child to 
establish paternity in a case involving incest or rape, or in any case 
where legal proceedings for adoption are pending; or
    (iv) The identity of the biological father is unknown and cannot be 
identified after diligent efforts, including at least one interview by 
the IV-D agency with the recipient of services;
    (7) The noncustodial parent's location is unknown, and the State 
has made diligent efforts using multiple sources, in accordance with 
Sec.  303.3, all of which have been unsuccessful, to locate the 
noncustodial parent:
    (i) Over a 2-year period when there is sufficient information to 
initiate an automated locate effort; or
    (ii) Over a 6-month period when there is not sufficient information 
to initiate an automated locate effort; or
    (iii) After a 1-year period when there is sufficient information to 
initiate an automated locate effort, but locate interfaces are unable 
to verify a Social Security Number;
    (8) The IV-D agency has determined that throughout the duration of 
the child's minority (or after the child has reached the age of 
majority), the noncustodial parent cannot pay support and shows no 
evidence of support potential because the parent has been 
institutionalized in a psychiatric facility, is incarcerated, or has a 
medically-verified total and permanent disability. The State must also 
determine that the noncustodial parent has no income or assets 
available above the subsistence level that could be levied or attached 
for support;
    (9) The noncustodial parent's sole income is from:
    (i) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments made in accordance 
with sections 1601 et seq., of title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1381 et 
seq.; or
    (ii) Both SSI payments and Social Security Disability Insurance 
(SSDI) benefits under title II of the Act.
    (10) The noncustodial parent is a citizen of, and lives in, a 
foreign country, does not work for the Federal government or a company 
with headquarters or offices in the United States, and has no reachable 
domestic income or assets; and there is no Federal or State treaty or 
reciprocity with the country;
    (11) The IV-D agency has provided location-only services as 
requested under Sec.  302.35(c)(3) of this chapter;
    (12) The non-IV-A recipient of services requests closure of a case 
and there is no assignment to the State of medical support under 42 CFR 
433.146 or of arrearages which accrued under a support order;
    (13) The IV-D agency has completed a limited service under Sec.  
302.33(a)(6) of this chapter;
    (14) There has been a finding by the IV-D agency, or at the option 
of the State, by the responsible State agency of good cause or other 
exceptions to cooperation with the IV-D agency and the State or local 
assistance program, such as IV-A, IV-E, Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP), and Medicaid, has determined that support 
enforcement may not proceed without risk of harm to the child or 
caretaker relative;
    (15) In a non-IV-A case receiving services under Sec.  
302.33(a)(1)(i) or (iii) of this chapter, or under Sec.  
302.33(a)(1)(ii) when cooperation with the IV-D agency is not required 
of the recipient of services, the IV-D agency is unable to contact the 
recipient of services despite a good faith effort to contact the 
recipient through at least two different methods;
    (16) In a non-IV-A case receiving services under Sec.  
302.33(a)(1)(i) or (iii) of this chapter, or under Sec.  
302.33(a)(1)(ii) when cooperation with the IV-D agency is not required 
of the recipient of services, the IV-D agency documents the 
circumstances of the recipient's noncooperation and an action by the 
recipient of services is essential for the next step in providing IV-D 
services;
    (17) The responding agency documents failure by the initiating 
agency to take an action that is essential for the next step in 
providing services;
    (18) The initiating agency has notified the responding State that 
the initiating State has closed its case under Sec.  303.7(c)(11);
    (19) The initiating agency has notified the responding State that 
its intergovernmental services are no longer needed;
    (20) Another assistance program, including IV-A, IV-E, SNAP, and 
Medicaid, has referred a case to the IV-D agency that is inappropriate 
to establish, enforce, or continue to enforce a child support order and 
the custodial or noncustodial parent has not applied for services; or
    (21) The IV-D case, including a case with arrears assigned to the 
State, has been transferred to a Tribal IV-D agency and the State IV-D 
agency has complied with the following procedures:
    (i) Before transferring the State IV-D case to a Tribal IV-D agency 
and closing the IV-D case with the State:
    (A) The recipient of services requested the State to transfer the 
case to the Tribal IV-D agency and close the case with the State; or
    (B) The State IV-D agency notified the recipient of services of its 
intent to transfer the case to the Tribal IV-D agency and close the 
case with the State and the recipient did not respond to the notice to 
transfer the case within 60 calendar days from the date notice was 
provided;
    (ii) The State IV-D agency completely and fully transferred and 
closed the case; and
    (iii) The State IV-D agency notified the recipient of services that 
the case has been transferred to the Tribal IV-D agency and closed; or
    (iv) The Tribal IV-D agency has a State-Tribal agreement approved 
by OCSE to transfer and close cases. The State-Tribal agreement must 
include a provision for obtaining the consent from the recipient of 
services to transfer and close the case.
    (c) The IV-D agency must close a case and maintain supporting 
documentation for the case closure decision when the following criteria 
have been met:
    (1) The child is eligible for health care services from the Indian 
Health Service (IHS); and
    (2) The IV-D case was opened because of a Medicaid referral based 
solely upon health care services, including the Purchased/Referred Care 
program, provided through an Indian Health Program (as defined at 25 
U.S.C. 1603(12)).

[[Page 93566]]

    (d) The IV-D agency must have the following requirements for case 
closure notification and case reopening:
    (1) In cases meeting the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (10) 
and (b)(15) and (16) of this section, the State must notify the 
recipient of services in writing 60 calendar days prior to closure of 
the case of the State's intent to close the case.
    (2) In an intergovernmental case meeting the criteria for closure 
under paragraph (b)(17) of this section, the responding State must 
notify the initiating agency, in a record, 60 calendar days prior to 
closure of the case of the State's intent to close the case.
    (3) The case must be kept open if the recipient of services or the 
initiating agency supplies information in response to the notice 
provided under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section that could lead 
to the establishment of paternity or a support order or enforcement of 
an order, or, in the instance of paragraph (b)(15) of this section, if 
contact is reestablished with the recipient of services.
    (4) For cases to be closed in accordance with paragraph (b)(13) of 
this section, the State must notify the recipient of services, in 
writing, 60 calendar days prior to closure of the case of the State's 
intent to close the case. This notice must also provide information 
regarding reapplying for child support services and the consequences of 
receiving services, including any State fees, cost recovery, and 
distribution policies. If the recipient reapplies for child support 
services in a case that was closed in accordance with paragraph (b)(13) 
of this section, the recipient must complete a new application for IV-D 
services and pay any applicable fee.
    (5) If the case is closed, the former recipient of services may 
request at a later date that the case be reopened if there is a change 
in circumstances that could lead to the establishment of paternity or a 
support order or enforcement of an order by completing a new 
application for IV-D services and paying any applicable fee.
    (6) For notices under paragraphs (d)(1) and (4) of this section, if 
the recipient of services specifically authorizes consent for 
electronic notifications, the IV-D agency may elect to notify the 
recipient of services electronically of the State's intent to close the 
case. The IV-D agency must maintain documentation of the recipient's 
consent in the case record.
    (e) The IV-D agency must retain all records for cases closed in 
accordance with this section for a minimum of 3 years, in accordance 
with 45 CFR 75.361.

0
28. Amend Sec.  303.31 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3), (b)(1) 
and (2), (b)(3) introductory text, (b)(3)(i), and (b)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  303.31  Securing and enforcing medical support obligations.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Health care coverage includes fee for service, health 
maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, and other 
types of private health insurance and public health care coverage under 
which medical services could be provided to the dependent child(ren).
    (3) Cash medical support or the cost of health insurance is 
considered reasonable in cost if the cost to the parent responsible for 
providing medical support does not exceed five percent of his or her 
gross income or, at State option, a reasonable alternative income-based 
numeric standard defined in State law, regulations, or court rule 
having the force of law or State child support guidelines adopted in 
accordance with Sec.  302.56(c) of this chapter.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Petition the court or administrative authority to--
    (i) Include health care coverage that is accessible to the 
child(ren), as defined by the State, and is available to the parent 
responsible for providing medical support and can be obtained for the 
child at reasonable cost, as defined under paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section, in new or modified court or administrative orders for support; 
and
    (ii) Allocate the cost of coverage between the parents.
    (2) If health care coverage described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section is not available at the time the order is entered or modified, 
petition to include cash medical support in new or modified orders 
until such time as health care coverage, that is accessible and 
reasonable in cost as defined under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, 
becomes available. In appropriate cases, as defined by the State, cash 
medical support may be sought in addition to health care coverage.
    (3) Establish criteria, which are reflected in a record, to 
identify orders that do not address the health care needs of children 
based on--
    (i) Evidence that health care coverage may be available to either 
parent at reasonable cost, as defined under paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section; and
* * * * *
    (4) Petition the court or administrative authority to modify 
support orders, in accordance with State child support guidelines, for 
cases identified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section to include health 
care coverage and/or cash medical support in accordance with paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *

0
29. Amend Sec.  303.72 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  303.72  Requests for collection of past-due support by Federal 
tax refund offset.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) The State referring past-due support for offset must, in 
interstate situations, notify any other State involved in enforcing the 
support order when it receives the offset amount from the Secretary of 
the U.S. Treasury.
* * * * *

0
30. Amend Sec.  303.100 by revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text 
and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  303.100  Procedures for income withholding.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) To initiate withholding, the State must send the noncustodial 
parent's employer a notice using the required OMB-approved Income 
Withholding for Support form that includes the following:
* * * * *
    (h) Notice to employer in all child support orders. The notice to 
employers in all child support orders must be on an OMB-approved Income 
Withholding for Support form.
    (i) Payments sent to the SDU in child support order not enforced 
under the State IV-D plan. Income withholding payments made under child 
support orders initially issued in the State on or after January 1, 
1994 that are not being enforced under the State IV-D plan must be sent 
to the State Disbursement Unit for disbursement to the family in 
accordance with sections 454B and 466(a)(8) and (b)(5) of the Act and 
Sec.  302.32(a) of this chapter.

PART 304--FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION

0
31. The authority for part 304 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 651 through 655, 657, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 
1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).


0
32. Revise Sec.  304.10 to read as follows:


Sec.  304.10  General administrative requirements.

    As a condition for Federal financial participation, the provisions 
of 45 CFR

[[Page 93567]]

part 75 (with the exception of 45 CFR 75.306, Cost sharing or matching 
and 45 CFR 75.341, Financial reporting) establishing uniform 
administrative requirements and cost principles shall apply to all 
grants made to States under this part.


Sec.  304.12   [Amended]

0
33. Amend Sec.  304.12 by removing paragraphs (c)(4) and (5).

0
34. Amend Sec.  304.20 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b) introductory text, (b)(1)(iii) 
introductory text, (b)(1)(viii) introductory text, and (b)(1)(viii)(A);
0
b. Removing the ``.'' at the end of paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(C) and 
adding a ``;'' in its place;
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(viii)(D) and (E);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ix), (b)(2) introductory text, 
(b)(2)(vii), and (b)(3) introductory text;
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3)(v) as paragraph (b)(3)(vii);
0
f. Adding paragraphs (b)(3)(v) and (vi);
0
g. Removing the semicolon at the end of the paragraph (b)(5)(v) and 
adding a period in its place;
0
h. Removing ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(9) and adding a 
period in its place;
0
i. Revising paragraph (b)(11);
0
j. Adding paragraph (b)(12); and
0
k. Removing paragraphs (c) and (d).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  304.20  Availability and rate of Federal financial participation.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Necessary and reasonable expenditures for child support 
services and activities to carry out the State title IV-D plan;
* * * * *
    (b) Services and activities for which Federal financial 
participation will be available will be those made to carry out the 
State title IV-D plan, including obtaining child support, locating 
noncustodial parents, and establishing paternity, that are determined 
by the Secretary to be necessary and reasonable expenditures properly 
attributed to the Child Support Enforcement program including, but not 
limited to the following:
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The establishment of all necessary agreements with other 
Federal, State, and local agencies or private providers to carry out 
Child Support Enforcement program activities in accordance with 
Procurement Standards, 45 CFR 75.326 through 75.340. These agreements 
may include:
* * * * *
    (viii) The establishment of agreements with agencies administering 
the State's title IV-A and IV-E plans including criteria for:
    (A) Referring cases to and from the IV-D agency;
* * * * *
    (D) The procedures to be used to coordinate services; and
    (E) Agreements to exchange data as authorized by law.
    (ix) The establishment of agreements with State agencies 
administering Medicaid or CHIP, including appropriate criteria for:
    (A) Referring cases to and from the IV-D agency;
    (B) The procedures to be used to coordinate services;
    (C) Agreements to exchange data as authorized by law; and
    (D) Transferring collections from the IV-D agency to the Medicaid 
agency in accordance with Sec.  302.51(c) of this chapter.
    (2) The establishment of paternity including, but not limited to:
* * * * *
    (vii) Developing and providing to parents and family members, 
hospitals, State birth records agencies, and other entities designated 
by the State and participating in the State's voluntary paternity 
establishment program, under Sec.  303.5(g) of this chapter, 
educational and outreach activities, written and audiovisual materials 
about paternity establishment and forms necessary to voluntarily 
acknowledge paternity; and
* * * * *
    (3) The establishment and enforcement of support obligations 
including, but not limited to:
* * * * *
    (v) Bus fare or other minor transportation expenses to enable 
custodial or noncustodial parties to participate in child support 
proceedings and related activities;
    (vi) Services to increase pro se access to adjudicative and 
alternative dispute resolution processes in IV-D cases related to 
providing child support services; and
* * * * *
    (11) Medical support activities as specified in Sec. Sec.  303.30, 
303.31, and 303.32 of this chapter.
    (12) Educational and outreach activities intended to inform the 
public, parents and family members, and young people who are not yet 
parents about the Child Support Enforcement program, responsible 
parenting and co-parenting, family budgeting, and other financial 
consequences of raising children when the parents are not married to 
each other.

0
35. Amend Sec.  304.21 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and 
(a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  304.21  Federal financial participation in the costs of 
cooperative arrangements with courts and law enforcement officials.

    (a) General. Subject to the conditions and limitations specified in 
this part, Federal financial participation (FFP) at the applicable 
matching rate is available in the costs of cooperative agreements with 
appropriate courts and law enforcement officials in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  302.34 of this chapter. Law enforcement officials 
mean district attorneys, attorneys general, similar public attorneys 
and prosecutors and their staff, and corrections officials. When 
performed under agreement, which is reflected in a record, costs of the 
following activities are subject to reimbursement:
    (1) The activities, including administration of such activities, 
specified in Sec.  304.20(b)(2) through (8), (11), and (12);
* * * * *

0
36. Revise Sec.  304.23 to read as follows:


Sec.  304.23  Expenditures for which Federal financial participation is 
not available.

    Federal financial participation at the applicable matching rate is 
not available for:
    (a) Activities related to administering titles I, IV-A, IV-B, IV-E, 
X, XIV, XVI, XIX, XX, or XXI of the Act or 7 U.S.C. Chapter 51.
    (b) Purchased support enforcement services which are not secured in 
accordance with Sec.  304.22.
    (c) Construction and major renovations.
    (d) Education and training programs and educational services for 
State and county employees and court personnel except direct cost of 
short-term training provided to IV-D agency staff in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  304.20(b)(2)(viii) and 304.21.
    (e) Any expenditures which have been reimbursed by fees collected 
as required by this chapter.
    (f) Any costs of those caseworkers described in Sec.  303.20(e) of 
this chapter.
    (g) Any expenditures made to carry out an agreement under Sec.  
303.15 of this chapter.
    (h) The costs of counsel for indigent defendants in IV-D actions.
    (i) Any expenditures for jailing of parents in child support 
enforcement cases.
    (j) The costs of guardians ad litem in IV-D actions.

[[Page 93568]]

Sec.  304.25   [Amended]

0
37. Amend Sec.  304.25(b) by removing ``30 days'' and adding ``45 
days'' in its place.

0
38. Amend Sec.  304.26 by revising paragraph (a)(1), removing and 
reserving paragraph (b), and removing paragraph (c).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  304.26  Determination of Federal share of collections.

    (a) * * *
    (1) 75 percent for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and 
American Samoa for the distribution of retained IV-A collections; 55 
percent for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana 
Islands, and American Samoa for the distribution of retained IV-E 
collections; 70 percent for the District of Columbia for the 
distribution of retained IV-E collections; and
* * * * *

0
39. Amend Sec.  304.40 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  304.40  Repayment of Federal funds by installments.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The State has notified the OCSE Regional Office in a record of 
its intent to make installment repayments. Such notice must be given 
prior to the time repayment of the total was otherwise due.
* * * * *

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

0
40. The authority for part 305 is revised to read as follows:

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


0
41. Amend Sec.  305.35 by:
0
a. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (d);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (f); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (e).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  305.35  Reinvestment.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * Non-compliance will result in disallowances of incentive 
amounts equal to the amount of funds supplanted.
    (e) Using the Form OCSE-396, ``Child Support Enforcement Program 
Quarterly Financial Report,'' the State Current Spending Level will be 
calculated by determining the State Share of Total Expenditures Claimed 
for all four quarters of the fiscal year minus State Share of IV-D 
Administrative Expenditures Made Using Funds Received as Incentive 
Payments for all four quarters of the fiscal year, plus the Federal 
Parent Locator Service (FPLS) fees for all four quarters of the fiscal 
year.
    (1) The State Share of Expenditures Claimed is: Total Expenditures 
Claimed for the Current Quarter and the Prior Quarter Adjustments minus 
the Federal Share of Total Expenditures Claimed for the Current Quarter 
and Prior Quarter Adjustments claimed on the Form OCSE-396 for all four 
quarters of the fiscal year.
    (2) The State Share of IV-D Administrative Expenditures Made Using 
Funds Received as Incentive Payments is: IV-D Administrative 
Expenditures Made Using Funds Received as Incentive Payments for the 
Current Quarter and the Prior Quarter Adjustments minus the Federal 
Share of IV-D Administrative Expenditures Made Using Funds Received as 
Incentive Payments for the Current Quarter and Prior Quarter 
Adjustments claimed on the Form OCSE-396 for all four quarters of the 
fiscal year.
    (3) The Fees for the Use of the Federal Parent Locator Service 
(FPLS) can be computed by adding the FPLS fees claimed on the Form 
OCSE-396 for all four quarters of the fiscal year.
* * * * *


Sec.  305.36   [Removed]

0
42. Remove Sec.  305.36.

0
43. Amend Sec.  305.63 by revising paragraph (d) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  305.63  Standards for determining substantial compliance with IV-
D requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) With respect to the 75 percent standard in paragraph (c) of 
this section:
* * * * *

0
44. Amend Sec.  305.64 by revising the second sentence of paragraph (c) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  305.64  Audit procedures and State comments.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * Within a specified timeframe from the date the report was 
sent, the IV-D agency may submit comments, which are reflected in a 
record, on any part of the report which the IV-D agency believes is in 
error. * * *

0
45. Amend Sec.  305.66 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.66  Notice, corrective action year, and imposition of 
penalty.

    (a) If a State is found by the Secretary to be subject to a penalty 
as described in Sec.  305.61, the OCSE will notify the State, in a 
record, of such finding.
* * * * *

PART 307--COMPUTERIZED SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS

0
46. The authority for part 307 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 652 through 658, 664, 666 through 669A, 
and 1302.


0
47. Amend Sec.  307.5 by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  307.5  Mandatory computerized support enforcement systems.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) The State provides assurance, which is reflected in a record, 
that steps will be taken to otherwise improve the State's Child Support 
Enforcement program.
* * * * *

0
48. Amend Sec.  307.11 by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  307.11  Functional requirements for computerized support 
enforcement systems in operation by October 1, 2000.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Automatic use of enforcement procedures, including those under 
section 466(c) of the Act if payments are not timely, and the following 
procedures:
    (i) Identify cases which have been previously identified as 
involving a noncustodial parent who is a recipient of SSI payments or 
concurrent SSI payments and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 
benefits under title II of the Act, to prevent garnishment of these 
funds from the noncustodial parent's financial account; and
    (ii) Return funds to a noncustodial parent, within 5 business days 
after the agency determines that SSI payments or concurrent SSI 
payments and SSDI benefits under title II of the Act, in the 
noncustodial parent's financial account have been incorrectly 
garnished.
* * * * *

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

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

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


0
50. Amend Sec.  308.2 by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(i), and 
(f)(2)(i) to read as follows:

[[Page 93569]]

Sec.  308.2  Required program compliance criteria.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) If location activities are necessary, using all appropriate 
sources within 75 days according to Sec.  303.3(b)(3) of this chapter. 
This includes all the following locate sources as appropriate: 
custodial parent, Federal and State Parent Locator Services, U.S. 
Postal Service, State workforce agency, employment data, Department of 
Motor Vehicles, and credit bureaus;
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) If location activities are necessary, using all appropriate 
location sources within 75 days according to Sec.  303.3(b)(3) of this 
chapter. Location sources include: custodial parent, Federal and State 
Parent Locator Services, U.S. Postal Service, State workforce agency, 
Department of Motor Vehicles, and credit bureaus;
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) If location is necessary to conduct a review, using all 
appropriate location sources within 75 days of opening the case 
pursuant to Sec.  303.3(b)(3) of this chapter. Location sources 
include: custodial parent, Federal and State Parent Locator Services, 
U.S. Postal Service, State workforce agency, unemployment data, 
Department of Motor Vehicles, and credit bureaus;
* * * * *

PART 309--TRIBAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (IV-D) PROGRAM

0
51. The authority for part 309 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 655(f) and 1302.


Sec.  309.115   [Amended]

0
52. Amend Sec.  309.115 by:
0
a. Removing reference to ``Sec.  9.120 of this part'' and adding in its 
place ``Sec.  309.120'' in paragraph (b)(2); and
0
b. Removing the reference to ``303.52'' and adding in its place 
``302.52'' in paragraph (c)(2).

0
53. Amend Sec.  309.130 by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  309.130  How will Tribal IV-D programs be funded and what forms 
are required?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) SF 425, ``Federal Financial Report,'' to be submitted quarterly 
within 30 days after the end of each of the first three quarters of the 
funding period and within 30 days after the end of each of the first 
three quarters of the liquidation period. The final report for each 
period is due within 90 days after the end of the fourth quarter of 
both the funding and the liquidation period; and
    (4) Form OCSE-34, ``Child Support Enforcement Program Quarterly 
Collection Report'' must be submitted no later than 45 days following 
the end of each fiscal quarter. No revisions or adjustments of the 
financial reports submitted for any quarter of the fiscal year will be 
accepted by OCSE later than December 31, which is 3 months after the 
end of the fiscal year.
* * * * *

0
54. Amend Sec.  309.145 by revising paragraph (a)(3) introductory text 
to read as follows:


Sec.  309.145  What costs are allowable for Tribal IV-D programs 
carried out under Sec.  309.65(a) of this part?

    * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) Establishment of all necessary agreements with other Tribal, 
State, and local agencies or private providers for the provision of 
child support enforcement services in accordance with Procurement 
Standards found in 45 CFR 75.326 through 75.340. These agreements may 
include:
* * * * *

0
55. Amend Sec.  309.160 by revising the first sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  309.160  How will OCSE determine if Tribal IV-D program funds are 
appropriately expended?

    OCSE will rely on audits conducted under 45 CFR part 75, Subpart 
F--Audit Requirements. * * *

[FR Doc. 2016-29598 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4120-01-P