# Child Support Enforcement Program; Intergovernmental Child Support > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-15215 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** July 2, 2010 - **Citation:** 75 FR 38612 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families 45 CFR Parts 301, 302, 303, 305, and 308 RIN 0970-AC-37 Child Support Enforcement Program; Intergovernmental Child Support AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule revises Federal requirements for establishing and enforcing intergovernmental support obligations in Child Support Enforcement (IV-D) program cases receiving services under title IV-D of the Social Security Act (the Act). This final rule revises previous interstate requirements to apply to case processing in all intergovernmental cases; requires the responding State IV-D agency to pay the cost of genetic testing; clarifies responsibility for determining in which State tribunal a controlling order determination is made where multiple support orders exist; recognizes and incorporates electronic communication advancements; and makes conforming changes to the Federal substantial compliance audit and State self-assessment requirements. DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaShawn Williams, OCSE Division of Policy, 202-401-9386, e-mail: Lashawn.williams@acf.hhs.gov . Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. eastern time. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Statutory Authority Section 454(9), 42 U.S.C. 654(9), of the Act addresses interstate cooperation. These final rules are published under the authority granted to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) by section 1102 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1302. Section 1102 authorizes the Secretary to publish regulations, not inconsistent with the Act, which may be necessary for the efficient administration of the functions for which the Secretary is responsible under the Act. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) (Pub.L. 104-193), amended the Act by adding section 466(f), 42 U.S.C. 666(f), which mandated that all States have in effect by January 1, 1998, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) as approved by the American Bar Association on February 9, 1993, and as in effect on August 22, 1996, including any amendments officially adopted as of such date by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). PRWORA also added sections 454(32) and 459A of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 654(32) and 659a, requiring State IV-D agencies to provide services in international cases and authorizing the Secretary of the Department of State (DOS), with the concurrence of the Secretary, to enter into bilateral arrangements with foreign countries for child support enforcement, respectively. The Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act of 1994 (FFCCSOA), 28 U.S.C. 1738B, as amended by PRWORA, requires each State and Tribe to enforce, according to its terms, a child support order issued by a court or administrative authority of another State or Tribe ( See OCSE-AT-02-03). Further, section 455(f) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 655(f), which authorized direct funding of Tribal Child Support Enforcement programs, was added by PRWORA and amended by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33). II. Background A. Nature of the Problem The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program is a Federal/State/Tribal/local partnership established to help families by ensuring that parents support their children even when they live apart. Payment of child support increases family income and promotes child well-being. Child support has become one of the most substantial income supports for low-income families who receive it. All States and territories run a IV-D program. On March 30, 2004, the IV-D program expanded its scope to include federally-recognized American Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations with approved Tribal IV-D programs through the Final Rule on Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs (45 CFR part 309). Currently, thirty-six Tribes operate a comprehensive child support program and nine Tribes operate a start-up program funded under title IV-D of the Social Security Act. From 2004 to 2008, Comprehensive Tribal IV-D programs collected more than $83.3 million in child support. The Tribal IV-D program continues to grow as more federally-recognized Tribes and Tribal organizations apply for OCSE funding to operate Tribal IV-D programs. The complexities of child support enforcement are compounded when parents reside in different jurisdictions and the interjurisdictional caseload is substantial. In FY 2008, over a million cases were sent from one State to another. This number does not include cases where a single State established or enforced a support obligation against a nonresident using long-arm jurisdiction or direct enforcement remedies without involving another IV-D agency. Additionally, in FY 2008, interstate collections increased 13.2 percent over FY 2004 collections. The enactment of UIFSA by States and nearly a decade of State experience under this uniform law, as well as the passage of FFCCSOA, have served to harmonize the interjurisdictional legal framework. Expanded use of long-arm jurisdiction, administrative processes, and direct income withholding have been instrumental in breaking down barriers and improving interstate child support. As a result, the former regulations governing interstate cases are outdated. While they broadly addressed UIFSA, they did not fully reflect the legal tools available under that Act, other Federal mandates and remedies, improved technology, or IV-D obligations in Tribal and international cases. Additionally, although our regulatory authority extends only to States and Tribes operating IV-D programs, the IV-D caseload includes cases from Tribal IV-D programs, other States, and other countries. The creation of the Tribal IV-D program pursuant to section 455(f) of the Act and implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 309, and the central role of OCSE and State IV-D agencies in international cases under section 459A of the Act, highlight the need to refocus interstate regulations to address requirements for State IV-D programs' processing of intergovernmental IV-D cases. B. Current Law on Intergovernmental Case Processing 1. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) UIFSA is a comprehensive model Act focusing on the interstate establishment, modification, and enforcement of support obligations. As indicated earlier, section 466(f) of the Act requires all States to enact UIFSA as approved by the American Bar Association on February 9, 1993, as in effect on August 22, 1996, including any amendments officially adopted as of such date by NCCUSL. Many of UIFSA's provisions provide solutions to the problems inherent with the interstate establishment and enforcement of child support obligations. For example, UIFSA covers all cases where the custodial and noncustodial parents reside in different States. In addition to traditional State-to-State legal actions, it provides for long-arm jurisdiction to establish paternity or child support, continuing jurisdiction by a State to enforce an existing support order, and one-state enforcement remedies such as direct income withholding. UIFSA contains enhanced evidentiary provisions, including use of teleconferencing, electronic transmission, and federally-mandated forms. It precludes the entry of a new ( de novo ) support order where a valid order exists, ending the longstanding practice of establishing multiple support orders, and strictly prescribes when a State has the authority to modify the child support order of another State, Tribe, or country. UIFSA introduced the principle of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction (CEJ) to child support. CEJ requires that only one valid current support order may be in effect at any one time. As long as one of the individual parties or the child continues to reside in the issuing State, and as long as the parties do not agree to transfer the case to another jurisdiction, the issuing tribunal's authority to modify its order is continuing and exclusive. Jurisdiction to modify an order may be lost only if all the relevant persons have permanently left the issuing State or if the parties file a written consent to transfer jurisdiction of the case to the tribunal of another State. UIFSA provides that the one order remains in effect as the family or its individual members move from one State to another. UIFSA includes a transitional procedure for the eventual elimination of existing multiple support orders in an expeditious and efficient manner. To begin the process toward a one-order system, UIFSA provides a relatively straight-forward decision matrix designed to identify a single valid order that is entitled to prospective enforcement in every State. This process is referred to as determination of controlling order (DCO). UIFSA specifies in detail how the DCO should be made. If only one child support order exists, it is the controlling order irrespective of when and where it was issued and whether any of the individual parties or the child continues to reside in the issuing State. UIFSA is currently State law in all 50 States, the District of Columbia and the territories. Twenty-one States have adopted the 2001 amendments and received a State Plan exemption under section 466(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 666(d), from OCSE allowing use of the 2001 provisions. Currently, three States have adopted UIFSA (2008), with the effective date of the amendments delayed until the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, Nov. 23, 2007, is ratified and the U.S. deposits its instrument of ratification. OCSE does not require that these States request an exemption. 2. One-State Approaches to Interstate Case Processing Historically, IV-D agencies have sought to resolve cases involving nonresident noncustodial parents by using the State's statutory authority to obtain or retain personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state party. The authority of a State to subject a nonresident to its laws is set out in State statutes, subject to the due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution. As described earlier, UIFSA is a State law, containing both an expansive long-arm provision (section 201), continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify an existing support order, and continuing, although not exclusive, jurisdiction to enforce an existing order ( e.g. sections 205 and 206). Since 1984, States have been required to adopt procedures for enforcing the income withholding orders of another State (section 466(b)(9) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 466(b)(9)). UIFSA authorizes direct income withholding, allowing a State to serve directly the obligor's employer in the other State with the income withholding order/notice ( e.g. sections 501 and 502). These provisions afford IV-D agencies a greater opportunity to use one-state remedies in factually-appropriate cases, rather than involving a second State. As discussed later, cooperation among States in requesting and providing limited services, such as quick locate, coordination of genetic testing, and facilitation of gathering and transmitting evidence, makes the use of one-state remedies more robust. 3. Tribal IV-D and International Child Support Enforcement PRWORA authorized direct funding of Tribes and Tribal organizations for operating child support enforcement programs under section 455(f) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 655(f). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) acknowledges the special government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government and federally-recognized Tribes in the implementation of the Tribal provisions of PRWORA. The direct Federal funding provisions provide Tribes with an opportunity to administer their own IV-D programs to meet the needs of children and their families. A Tribal IV-D agency must specify in its Tribal IV-D plan that the Tribal IV-D agency will: • Extend the full range of services available under its IV-D plan to respond to all requests from, and cooperate with, State and other Tribal IV-D agencies; and • Recognize child support orders issued by other Tribes and Tribal organizations, and by States, in accordance with the requirements under the FFCCSOA, 28 U.S.C. 1738B. ( See 45 CFR 309.120). Likewise, as stated in 45 CFR 302.36(a)(2), a State must extend the full range of services available under its IV-D plan to cases referred from Tribal IV-D programs. Regarding international cases, section 459A of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 659a authorizes the Department of State (DOS), with the concurrence of the Secretary, to enter into bilateral arrangements with foreign countries for child support enforcement. To date, the U.S. has Federal-level arrangements with fourteen countries and eleven Canadian Provinces and Territories. Information about these arrangements and guidance on working international cases is on the OCSE international Web site: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/international/ . UIFSA recognizes the importance of the Tribes and foreign countries to provide for their children. Under UIFSA the term “State” includes Indian Tribes (section 101(19)). The definition of “State” in UIFSA (2001) (section 102(21)) also includes foreign countries or political subdivisions that have been declared to be a foreign reciprocating country or political subdivision under Federal law or that have established a reciprocal agreement for child support with a U.S. State. While UIFSA governs State child support proceedings, it does not govern child support activities in other countries or Tribes. C. Need for and Purpose of This Rule The interstate regulations that appeared in 45 CFR 303.7 prior to the publication of this rule were originally effective February 22, 1988. Many changes have taken place in the IV-D program since 1988, including the passage of UIFSA, PRWORA, and FFCCSOA (28 U.S.C. 1738B). State IV-D agencies have more authority to take actions directly across State lines than they used to. Because they have the authority to bypass IV-D agencies in other States, confusion can sometimes arise on the part of custodial and noncustodial parents, employers, and State IV-D workers about correct arrearage balances and how to account for collections. It is to address these issues and otherwise update the interstate regulations that we revised 45 CFR 303.7. This rule extensively reorganizes the 1988 interstate regulations at 45 CFR 303.7 to clarify and streamline case processing responsibilities in intergovernmental cases, incorporating both optional and required procedures under PRWORA and enhanced technology, particularly in the area of communications. We also responded to specific changes requested by State IV-D agencies, for example, by revising responsibility for advancing the cost of genetic testing. The rule addresses case processing ambiguities raised by practitioners regarding determination of controlling orders, interstate income withholding, and case closure rules in 45 CFR 303.11. Finally, the rule makes conforming changes to the Federal substantial compliance audit (45 CFR 305.63) and State self-assessment requirements (45 CFR 308.2). III. Provisions of the Regulation and Changes Made in Response to Comments The following is a summary of the regulatory provisions included in this final rule. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2008 (73 FR 74408). The comment period ended February 6, 2009. During the comment period, we received 25 sets of comments. In general, the commenters were supportive of changes in the proposed rule to update and revise the rules for intergovernmental cases. With a few exceptions explained in the applicable sections, we have substituted “intergovernmental” in lieu of “interstate” throughout these provisions. The term encompasses not only IV-D cases between States, but also all IV-D cases where the parents reside in different jurisdictions, including cases between a State and Tribal IV-D program, cases between a State and a foreign country under sections 454(32) and 459A of the Act, and cases where the State has asserted authority over a nonresident under long-arm jurisdiction. Please note that while this intergovernmental regulation applies to all cases involving referrals for services between States and other States, Tribes, or countries, the intergovernmental rule also applies more broadly to include some cases where a referral has not been made. Specifically, the rule also applies to instances when an initiating agency is either engaging in preliminary fact-finding activities, such as taking steps toward getting a determination of controlling order, or is deciding whether to use a one-State approach and/or has requested services from another agency using a one-state approach. Specific changes made in response to comments are discussed in more detail under the Response to Comments section of this preamble. Part 301—State Plan Approval and Grant Procedures Section 301.1—General Definitions This rule adds definitions of terms used in program regulations. In this section of the preamble, we have grouped the new definitions by topic for a more coherent discussion, rather than alphabetically as they will appear in § 301.1. Two definitions pertain particularly to international child support case processing. We define Country to include both a foreign reciprocating country (FRC) and any foreign country (or political subdivision thereof) with which a State has entered into a reciprocal arrangement pursuant to section 459A(d) of the Act. We also define Central Authority as the agency designated by a government to facilitate support enforcement with an FRC. The Federal statute requires that the country with which a Federal-level agreement is entered establish a central authority to facilitate implementation of support establishment and enforcement in cases involving residents of the U.S. In the final rule, in response to comments, we edited the proposed definition of Intergovernmental IV-D case to make the wording parallel to the definition for Interstate IV-D case, discussed below, since the concepts are similar. Also in response to comments, we clarified that an intergovernmental IV-D case also may include cases in which the State is seeking only to collect assigned arrearages, and may no longer involve the parents and children. In this final rule, the definition for Intergovernmental IV-D case reads as follows: “ Intergovernmental IV-D case means a IV-D case in which the noncustodial parent lives and/or works in a different jurisdiction than the custodial parent and child(ren) that has been referred by an initiating agency to a responding agency for services. An intergovernmental IV-D case may include any combination of referrals between States, Tribes, and countries. An intergovernmental IV-D case also may include cases in which a State agency is seeking only to collect support arrearages, whether owed to the family or assigned to the State.” To identify cases in which the State IV-D agency's responsibility extends only to cases involving two or more States, we define Interstate IV-D case. In response to comments, we made several changes to the definition of Interstate IV-D case by removing the concept of one-state interstate from the definition, clarifying that there has to be a referral between States, and including cases in which the State is seeking only to collect assigned arrearages. In this final rule, Interstate IV-D case means “a IV-D case in which the noncustodial parent lives and/or works in a different State than the custodial parent and child(ren) that has been referred by an initiating State to a responding State for services. An interstate IV-D case also may include cases in which a State is seeking only to collect support arrearages, whether owed to the family or assigned to the State.” In response to comments, OCSE omitted the proposed definition for One-state interstate IV-D case and removed reference to the phrase in the final rule. We have added, however, the definition for One-state remedies, which includes both long-arm and direct enforcement techniques. In the final rule, use of One-state remedies means “the exercise of a State's jurisdiction over a non-resident parent or direct establishment, enforcement, or other action by a State against a non-resident parent in accordance with the long-arm provision of UIFSA or other State law.” Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) means “the model act promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and mandated by section 466(f) of the Act to be in effect in all States.” The definitions of Initiating agency and Responding agency establish a common understanding in the context of all intergovernmental IV-D cases. In response to comments, Initiating agency is no longer defined as an agency that has referred a case to another agency; but instead as an agency in which an individual has applied for or is receiving services. The definition now reads, “a State or Tribal IV-D agency or an agency in a country, as defined in this rule, in which an individual has applied for or is receiving services.” Responding agency means “the agency that is providing services in response to a referral from an initiating agency in an intergovernmental IV-D case.” Although the definitions are inclusive, the requirements in this rule only apply to State IV-D programs, not Tribal IV-D programs or other countries. Two other terms flow principally from UIFSA: Tribunal and Controlling Order State. Tribunal means “a court, administrative agency, or quasi-judicial entity authorized under State law to establish, enforce, or modify support orders or to determine parentage.” Because of the need to determine the controlling order in multiple order situations, we responded to requests from our partners to set out State IV-D responsibilities when multiple support orders exist in an interstate case. The rules regarding determination of controlling order (DCO) are contained in § 303.7. We define Controlling Order State as “the State in which the only order was issued or, where multiple orders exist, the State in which the order determined by a tribunal to control prospective current support pursuant to the UIFSA was issued.” The definition of Form accommodates new storage and transmission technologies as they become available. In response to comments, we updated the name of the income withholding form that is mentioned within the definition. The definition reads, “ Form means a federally-approved document used for the establishment and enforcement of support obligations whether compiled or transmitted in written or electronic format, including but not limited to the Income Withholding for Support form, and the National Medical Support Notice. In interstate IV-D cases, such forms include those used for child support enforcement proceedings under UIFSA. Form also includes any federally-mandated IV-D program reporting form, where appropriate.” Current versions of these forms are located on the OCSE Web site at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/forms/. Part 302—State Plan Requirements Section 302.36—Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-D Cases Former § 302.36 addressed State plan requirements in interstate and Tribal IV-D cases. We made changes to both the heading and the body of the section to address international IV-D cases. The changes clarify that a State must provide services in all intergovernmental IV-D cases as we defined that term in § 301.1. Paragraph (a)(1) requires the State plan to: “provide that, in accordance with § 303.7 of this chapter, the State will extend the full range of services available under its IV-D plan to: (1) Any other State.” Paragraph (a)(2) requires States to provide services to Tribal IV-D programs. Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the full range of services also be provided to: “Any country as defined in § 301.1 of this chapter.” In the final rule, we corrected the regulatory citation for the definition of the term “Country” by replacing § 303.1 with § 301.1. Section 302.36(b) is revised by substituting “intergovernmental” for “interstate” and amending the reference to State central registry responsibilities to § 303.7(b), consistent with changes we made to § 303.7. Part 303—Standards for Program Operations Section 303.7—Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-D Cases We reorganized § 303.7 to clarify IV-D agency responsibilities and to expand the scope from interstate to all intergovernmental IV-D cases, as defined by § 301.1. In many cases, existing paragraphs were moved with minor language changes only to improve readability. Other paragraphs of this section were revised to either shift responsibility between the initiating and responding agencies or address new case processing responsibilities. The heading of § 303.7 substitutes “intergovernmental” for “interstate.” (a) General responsibilities Paragraph (a) contains requirements that apply to States, irrespective of the IV-D agency's role in the case as either an initiating or responding agency. Paragraph (a)(1) requires a IV-D agency to: “Establish and use procedures for managing its intergovernmental IV-D caseload that ensure provision of necessary services as required by this section and include maintenance of necessary records in accordance with § 303.2 of this part.” This is a general responsibility of all IV-D agencies. Similarly, § 303.7(a)(2) and (3) require the IV-D agency to periodically review program performance for effectiveness and to ensure adequate organizational structure and staffing to provide services in intergovernmental cases. Section 303.7(a)(4) requires the IV-D agency to: “Use federally-approved forms in intergovernmental IV-D cases, unless a country has provided alternative forms as part of a chapter of A Caseworker's Guide to Processing Cases with Foreign Reciprocating Countries. When using a paper version, this requirement is met by providing the number of complete sets of required documents needed by the responding agency, if one is not sufficient under the responding agency's law.” In response to comments, we now mention the possibility that an FRC may request a State use a particular FRC-specific form. Also in response to comments, we added the second sentence of § 303.7(a)(4) to require the initiating State IV-D agency, when it sends a paper version of the required documents, to send the number of sets needed by the responding State if one copy is not sufficient under the responding State's law. Section 303.7(a)(5) requires IV-D agencies to: “Transmit requests for information and provide requested information electronically to the greatest extent possible.” In response to comments, we removed the proposed phrase “in accordance with instructions issued by the Office.” Nevertheless, OCSE may provide instructions to States if deemed necessary and appropriate. In response to State comments, we clarified in the rule the responsibilities of IV-D agencies to determine which of multiple current support orders is controlling prospectively. Section 303.7(a)(6) includes a general responsibility which requires all IV-D agencies to: “Within 30 working days of receiving a request, provide any order and payment record information requested by a State IV-D agency for a controlling order determination and reconciliation of arrearages, or notify the State IV-D agency when the information will be provided.” In response to concerns by commenters that 30 working days may be inadequate, we added an option in § 303.7(a)(6) to notify the State IV-D agency when the information will be provided if there is a delay. Section 303.7(a)(7) requires IV-D agencies to: “Notify the other agency within 10 working days of receipt of new information on an intergovernmental case.” Section 303.7(a)(8) requires all IV-D agencies to: “Cooperate with requests for the following limited services: quick locate, service of process, assistance with discovery, assistance with genetic testing, teleconferenced hearings, administrative reviews, high-volume automated administrative enforcement in interstate cases under section 466(a)(14) of the Act, and copies of court orders and payment records. Requests for other limited services may be honored at the State's option.” In response to comments, the final rule specifies the limited services that State IV-D agencies must provide if requested and adds that State IV-D agencies have the option to honor requests for other types of limited services. (b) Central registry Section 303.7(b)(1) provides: “The State IV-D agency must establish a central registry responsible for receiving, transmitting, and responding to inquiries on all incoming intergovernmental IV-D cases.” Paragraph (b)(2) requires that the State's central registry must: “Within 10 working days of receipt of an intergovernmental IV-D case,” take the following four actions: “(i) Ensure that the documentation submitted with the case has been reviewed to determine completeness; (ii) Forward the case for necessary action either to the central State Parent Locator Service for location services or to the appropriate agency for processing; (iii) Acknowledge receipt of the case and request any missing documentation; and (iv) Inform the initiating agency where the case was sent for action.” Paragraph (b)(3) requires: “If the documentation received with a case is incomplete and cannot be remedied by the central registry without the assistance of the initiating agency, the central registry must forward the case for any action that can be taken pending necessary action by the initiating agency.” In response to comments, we replaced “inadequate” with “incomplete.” Paragraph (b)(4) requires the central registry to: “respond to inquiries from initiating agencies within 5 working days of receipt of the request for a case status review.” (c) Initiating State IV-D agency responsibilities The first step in deciding whether a determination of controlling order (DCO) is necessary is to identify all support orders. Accordingly, § 303.7(c)(1) adds the requirement that an initiating agency must first: “Determine whether or not there is a support order or orders in effect in a case using the Federal and State Case Registries, State records, information provided by the recipient of services, and other relevant information available to the State.” In paragraph (c)(2), the initiating agency must: “Determine in which State a determination of the controlling order and reconciliation of arrearages may be made where multiple orders exist.” If more than one State tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine the controlling order, pursuant to paragraph (c)(4)(i), the initiating agency must decide which State IV-D agency should file for such relief. Under paragraph (c)(3), the initiating agency must: “Determine whether the noncustodial parent is in another jurisdiction and whether it is appropriate to use its one-state remedies to establish paternity and establish, modify, and enforce a support order, including medical support and income withholding.” Under § 303.7(c)(4), in response to comments, we made additional clarifying changes. The final rule specifies that: “Within 20 calendar days of completing the actions required in paragraphs (1) through (3), and, if appropriate, receipt of any necessary information needed to process the case,” the initiating agency must under paragraph (c)(4)(i), if multiple orders are in existence and identified under paragraph (c)(1), “ask the appropriate intrastate tribunal, or refer the case to the appropriate responding State IV-D agency, for a determination of the controlling order and a reconciliation of arrearages if such a determination is necessary.” In addition, within the 20-calendar-days time frame, under paragraph (c)(4)(ii), the initiating agency must “refer any intergovernmental IV-D case to the appropriate State Central Registry, Tribal IV-D program, or Central Authority of a country for action, if one-state remedies are not appropriate.” Section 303.7(c)(5) requires the initiating agency to: “Provide the responding agency sufficient, accurate information to act on the case by submitting with each case any necessary documentation and intergovernmental forms required by the responding agency.” Similarly, § 303.7(c)(6) requires the initiating agency to: “Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request for information, provide the responding agency with an updated intergovernmental form and any necessary additional documentation, or notify the responding agency when the information will be provided.” Section 303.7(c)(7) requires the initiating agency to: “Notify the responding agency at least annually, and upon request in an individual case, of interest charges, if any, owed on overdue support under an initiating State order being enforced in the responding jurisdiction.” In response to comments on the proposed rule, we added a requirement to provide notice annually, rather than quarterly as previously proposed in the NPRM, and upon request in an individual case. Under paragraph (c)(8), the initiating State agency must: “Submit all past-due support owed in IV-D cases that meet the certification requirements under § 303.72 of this part for Federal tax refund offset.” As explained under the discussion in response to comments, we deleted the proposed requirement that only the initiating State could submit past-due support for other Federal remedies, such as administrative offset or passport denial. In the proposed rule, we expressly assigned responsibility in an interstate case to the initiating agency to submit qualifying past-due support for all Federal remedies, consistent with submittal rules for Federal tax refund offset under § 303.72(a)(1). Our intent was to avoid both States submitting the same arrearage in a single case; however, we have learned that there may be situations where the responding State IV-D agency may submit the case that it is working on behalf of the initiating State IV-D agency for administrative offset, passport denial, Federal insurance match, and Multi State Financial Institution Data Match (MSFIDM) on its own, or at the initiating State IV-D agency's request. Therefore, under paragraph (c)(8) in the final rule, the initiating State IV-D agency must: “Submit all past-due support owed in IV-D cases that meet the certification requirements under § 303.72 of this part for Federal tax refund offset.” Section 303.7(c)(9) requires that the initiating State must send a request for a review of a support order and supporting documentation within 20 calendar days of determining that such a request is required. Section 303.7(c)(10) requires the initiating State to: “Distribute and disburse any support collections received in accordance with this section and §§ 302.32, 302.51, and 302.52 of this chapter, sections 454(5), 454B, 457, and 1912 of the Act, and instructions issued by the Office.” Section 303.7(c)(11) requires an initiating State agency to: “Notify the responding agency within 10 working days of case closure that the initiating State IV-D agency has closed its case pursuant to § 303.11 of this part, and the basis for case closure.” In response to comments, we added the phrase, “and the basis for case closure.” Paragraph (c)(12) addresses the issue of duplicate withholding notices/orders for the same obligor being sent to the obligor's employer by both the initiating and responding States in the same interstate case. We are requiring the initiating agency under paragraph (c)(12) to: “Instruct the responding agency to close its interstate case and to stop any withholding order or notice the responding agency has sent to an employer before the initiating State transmits a withholding order or notice, with respect to the same case, to the same or another employer unless the two States reach an alternative agreement on how to proceed.” The phrase “with respect to the same case” was added to the final rule for clarity. This procedure will avoid duplicate State income withholding orders or notices; however, there is nothing in this rule that authorizes a State to change the payee on another State's order through direct income withholding. This prohibition is addressed in Policy Interpretation Question PIQ-01-01, which states, “if a support order or income withholding order issued by one State designates the person or agency to receive payments and the address to which payments are to be forwarded, an individual or entity in another State may not change the designation when sending an Order/Notice to Withhold [Income for] Child Support.” (The Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support form is now referred to as the “Income Withholding for Support” form.) While we recognize that section 466(f) of the Act requires States to enact UIFSA 1996, section 319(b) of UIFSA (2001) provides a mechanism for redirection of payments when neither the obligor, obligee, nor child reside in the State that issued the controlling order. The final requirement on initiating IV-D agencies, § 303.7(c)(13) addresses concerns about undistributed collections in a responding State because the initiating State closed its case and refuses to accept any collections in that case from the responding State. Section 303.7(c)(13) requires the initiating State to: “If the initiating agency has closed its case pursuant to § 303.11 and has not notified the responding agency to close its corresponding case, make a diligent effort to locate the obligee, including use of the Federal Parent Locator Service and the State Parent Locator Service, and accept, distribute and disburse any payment received from a responding agency.” (d) Responding State IV-D agency responsibilities In the final rule, we have revised the introductory language from the proposed rule to clarify that the requirements in section 303.7(d) apply to State IV-D agencies specifically. The introductory language now reads as follows: “Upon receipt of a request for services from an initiating agency, the responding State IV-D agency must* * *.” Section 303.7(d)(1) requires a responding agency to: “Accept and process an intergovernmental request for services, regardless of whether the initiating agency elected not to use remedies that may be available under the law of that jurisdiction.” The opening sentence in § 303.7(d)(2) states that: “Within 75 calendar days of receipt of an intergovernmental form and documentation from its central registry* * *” the responding agency must take the specified action. Paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires the responding State IV-D agency to: “Provide location services in accordance with § 303.3 of this part if the request is for location services or the form or documentation does not include adequate location information on the noncustodial parent.” Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) provides: “If unable to proceed with the case because of inadequate documentation, notify the initiating agency of the necessary additions or corrections to the form or documentation.” Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) provides: “If the documentation received with a case is incomplete and cannot be remedied without the assistance of the initiating agency, process the case to the extent possible pending necessary action by the initiating agency.” In response to comments, we replaced “inadequate” with “incomplete.” In the proposed rule, OCSE requested feedback regarding actions that should be taken when a noncustodial parent is located in a different State. Based on the comments received, § 303.7(d)(3) was revised to replace the phrase “initiating State” with “initiating agency,” and the term “forward” with “forward/transmit.” In response to comments, we also have clarified that the responding State's own central registry should be notified where that case has been sent. The paragraph now reads as follows: “Within 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent in a different State, the responding agency must return the forms and documentation, including the new location, to the initiating agency, or, if directed by the initiating agency, forward/transmit the forms and documentation to the central registry in the State where the noncustodial parent has been located and notify the responding State's own central registry where the case has been sent.” Paragraph (d)(4) requires the responding State IV-D agency to: “Within 10 working days of locating the noncustodial parent in a different political subdivision within the State, forward/transmit the forms and documentation to the appropriate political subdivision and notify the initiating agency and the responding State's own central registry of its action.” Again, we changed “initiating State” to “initiating agency,” and clarified that the central registry in the responding State also should be notified where the case has been sent. In addition, to avoid ambiguity, we replaced the term “jurisdiction” with “political subdivision.” Paragraph (d)(5) adds a notice requirement where the initiating State agency has requested a controlling order determination. In this case, the responding agency must under paragraph (d)(5)(i): “File the controlling order determination request with the appropriate tribunal in its State within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request or location of the noncustodial parent, whichever occurs later.” In response to comments we increased the time frame from 10 working days to 30 calendar days. Under paragraph (d)(5)(ii), the responding State must: “Notify the initiating State agency, the Controlling Order State and any State where a support order in the case was issued or registered, of the controlling order determination and any reconciled arrearages within 30 calendar days of receipt of the determination from the tribunal.” The 30-calendar-days time frame in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) is identical to that included under section 207(f) of UIFSA, under which the party obtaining the order shall file a certified copy of the order with each tribunal that issued or registered an earlier order of child support, within 30 calendar days after issuance of an order determining the controlling order. Section 303.7(d)(6) requires the responding agency to: “Provide any necessary services as it would in an intrastate IV-D case,” including 6 specific services. Paragraph (d)(6)(i) requires responding State agencies to provide services including: “Establishing paternity in accordance with § 303.5 of this part and, if the agency elects, attempting to obtain a judgment for costs should paternity be established.” Paragraph (d)(6)(ii) requires responding State agencies to provide services including: “Establishing a child support obligation in accordance with § 302.56 of this chapter and §§ 303.4, 303.31 and 303.101 of this part.” In response to comments, paragraph (d)(6)(i) allows State IV-D agencies to attempt to obtain a judgment for costs when paternity is established. In response to comments, we moved the responsibility to report overdue support to Consumer Reporting Agencies, in accordance with section 466(a)(7) of the Act and § 302.70(a)(7), from initiating State IV-D agencies, as suggested in the proposed rule, to responding State IV-D agencies under paragraph (d)(6)(iii). Paragraph (d)(6)(iv) addresses a responding State agency's responsibility for processing and enforcing orders referred by an initiating agency. In response to comments to the initiating State agency's responsibility under paragraph (c)(8), to submit past due support for Federal enforcement remedies, we have added language to indicate that the responding State agency may submit cases for other Federal enforcement remedies such as administrative offset and passport denial. The paragraph now reads as follows: “Processing and enforcing orders referred by an initiating agency, whether pursuant to UIFSA or other legal processes, using appropriate remedies applied in its own cases in accordance with §§ 303.6, 303.31, 303.32, 303.100 through 303.102, and 303.104 of this part, and submit the case for such other Federal enforcement techniques as the State determines to be appropriate, such as administrative offset under 31 CFR 285.1 and passport denial under section 452(k) of the Act.” Paragraph (d)(6)(v) requires the responding agency to provide any necessary services as it would in an intrastate IV-D case including: “Collecting and monitoring any support payments from the noncustodial parent and forwarding payments to the location specified by the initiating agency. The IV-D agency must include sufficient information to identify the case, indicate the date of collection as defined under § 302.51(a) of this chapter, and include the responding State's case identifier and locator code, as defined in accordance with instructions issued by this Office.” This change allows OCSE greater flexibility to define consistent identifier and locator codes, including ones for FRCs (International Standards Organization (ISO) codes) and Tribal IV-D programs (Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) codes). OCSE DCL-07-02 ( http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/2007/dcl-07-02.htm ) provides locator code instructions, including for Tribal IV-D and international cases. Under paragraph (d)(6)(vi), the responding State IV-D agency is responsible for: “Reviewing and adjusting child support orders upon request in accordance with § 303.8 of this part.” Paragraph (d)(7) requires the responding State IV-D agency to: “Provide timely notice to the initiating agency in advance of any hearing before a tribunal that may result in establishment or adjustment of an order.” In the NPRM, we added proposed § 303.7(d)(8) to address allocation of collections in interstate cases with arrearages owed by the same obligor and assigned to the responding State in a different case. In response to comments, however, this requirement was removed from the final rule. Given the lack of consensus reflected in the comments, we believe the issue of how a responding State should allocate collections between assigned arrearages on its own case and an interstate case may better be addressed in the context of meetings on intergovernmental cooperation rather than by regulation. Section 303.7(d)(8) requires the responding State agency to: “Identify any fees or costs deducted from support payments when forwarding payments to the initiating agency in accordance with paragraph (d)(6)(v) of this section.” Section 303.7(d)(9) details the actions a responding State must take when an initiating State has elected to use direct income withholding in an existing intergovernmental IV-D case. The initiating State is authorized to use direct income withholding only where it follows requirements to instruct the responding agency to close its corresponding case under § 303.7(c)(12). In the final rule, paragraph (d)(9) requires the responding agency to: “Within 10 working days of receipt of instructions for case closure from an initiating agency under paragraph (c)(12) of this section, stop the responding State's income withholding order or notice and close the intergovernmental IV-D case, unless the two States reach an alternative agreement on how to proceed.” In response to comments, the time frame by which a responding State must stop their income withholding order and close the intergovernmental case is clarified to be “working” days. Also in response to comments, we replaced the words “a request” in the proposed rule with “instructions” to emphasize that this requirement is mandatory, not optional, and to be consistent with the language in the corresponding initiating State responsibilities section, under paragraph (c)(12), which uses the word “instruct.” In the final rule, requirement (d)(10) requires the responding State IV-D agency to: “Notify the initiating agency when a case is closed pursuant to §§ 303.11(b)(12) through (14) and 303.7(d)(9) of this part.” We added the reference to § 303.7(d)(9) and the applicable paragraphs in § 303.11 to clarify the authority under which a responding State IV-D agency may close an intergovernmental case and is required to notify the initiating agency. (e) Payment and recovery of costs in intergovernmental IV-D cases Section 303.7(e)(1) reads: “The responding IV-D agency must pay the costs it incurs in processing intergovernmental IV-D cases, including the costs of genetic testing. If paternity is established, the responding agency, at its election, may seek a judgment for the costs of testing from the alleged father who denied paternity.” Paragraph (e)(2) reads as follows: “Each State IV-D agency may recover its costs of providing services in intergovernmental non-IV-A cases in accordance with § 302.33(d) of this chapter, except that a IV-D agency may not recover costs from an FRC or from a foreign obligee in that FRC, when providing services under sections 454(32) and 459A of the Act.” The limitation on cost recovery has been added as required by PRWORA. Services between FRCs must be cost free. States entering a state-level arrangement with a non-FRC country under section 459A may elect to provide cost-free services, but are not mandated to do so. Accordingly, this section refers to FRCs rather than using the more inclusive term “country.” However, there is no similar prohibition to charging fees or recovering costs in cases with Tribal IV-D agencies. In addition, Tribal IV-D agencies have the option under § 309.75(e) to charge fees and recover costs. Part 303—Standards for Program Operation Section 303.11—Case Closure Criteria Section 303.11(b)(12) allows a State IV-D agency to close a case if: “The IV-D agency documents failure by the initiating agency to take an action which is essential for the next step in providing services.” Paragraph (b)(13) adds a case closure criterion under which the responding State agency is authorized to close its intergovernmental case based on a notice under § 303.7(c)(11) from the initiating agency that it has closed its case. Under § 303.7(c)(11), an initiating State agency must: “Notify the responding agency within 10 working days of case closure that the initiating State IV-D agency has closed its case pursuant to § 303.11 of this part, and the basis for case closure.” Paragraph (b)(13) provides, “The initiating agency has notified the responding State that the initiating State has closed its case under § 303.7(c)(11).” In response to comments, paragraph (b)(14) adds a case closure criterion under which the responding State is authorized to close its intergovernmental case based on a notice from the initiating agency that the responding State's intergovernmental services are no longer needed. For consistency with the language in § 303.11(b)(12), which allows a State IV-D agency to close a case if the IV-D agency documents failure by the initiating agency to take an action which is essential for the next step in case processing, there is a technical change to § 303.11(c) to substitute the word “intergovernmental” for “interstate” and “initiating agency” for “initiating State.” Since § 303.11(b)(12) may be used in both intergovernmental cases received from Tribal IV-D programs and other countries, the requirement for pre-notice of closure applies to these cases as well. Therefore, the case closure notice that responding States must give if they intend to close a case under § 303.11(b)(12) must be provided to all initiating agencies, and the responding State must keep the case open if that initiating agency supplies useable information in response to the notice. Part 305—Program Performance Measures, Standards, Financial Incentives, and Penalties Section 305.63—Standards for Determining Substantial Compliance With IV-D Requirements We have made conforming changes to Part 305 at § 305.63 to correct outdated cross-references and to revise cross-references to § 303.7. Part 308—Annual State Self-Assessment Review and Report Section 308.2—Required Program Compliance Criteria We have made conforming changes to Part 308 at § 308.2 to correct outdated cross-references and to revise cross-references to § 303.7. The language in paragraph (g) has been revised to reflect the corresponding changes to referenced provisions in § 303.7, and we also added two new program compliance criteria for State Self-Assessments. First, there is a performance criterion for both initiating (§ 308.2(g)(1)(vi)) and responding (§ 308.2(g)(2)(vi)) cases under which, in accordance with the time frame under § 303.7(a)(6), the initiating and responding State IV-D agencies must, within 30 working days of receipt of a request, provide: “any order and payment record information requested by a State IV-D agency for a controlling order determination and reconciliation of arrearages, or notify the State IV-D agency when the information will be provided.” The phrase: “or notify the State IV-D agency when the information will be provided,” was added in response to comments. A second new performance area involves case closure criteria. As discussed previously under § 303.7 and § 303.11, there are time-measured requirements for notification of the other State when closing a case. Measurable performance criteria are established where we impose time frames. Accordingly, we add notification regarding case closure in both initiating (§ 308.2(g)(1)(iv)) and responding (§ 308.2(g)(2)(vii)) cases. IV. Response to Comments We received 25 sets of comments from States, Tribes, and other interested individuals. Below is a summary of the comments and our responses. General Comments 1. Comment: One commenter pointed out that the acronym SCR is used for both State Case Registry and State Central Registry in the NPRM. Response: OCSE agrees that using the same acronym for two different terms in the preamble is confusing. Typically we use the acronym SCR to stand for State Case Registry. The final rule text does not use an acronym for either term. 2. Comment: The same commenter also raised concern about the lack of recourse for States that are trying to process intergovernmental cases when other States are not meeting mandated processing deadlines. The commenter suggested that OCSE add a § 303.7(f) to the intergovernmental regulation to set out responsibilities for the Federal Government to help States resolve complex intergovernmental case issues. Response: OCSE acknowledges that intergovernmental case processing can be challenging and is concerned that some States may not be meeting processing deadlines. A procedure currently exists for States to work with OCSE in situations where they may need assistance resolving intergovernmental case issues with other States. The current procedure allows States to contact their Federal regional program manager, report the issue and then work with the program manager and other States to resolve the issue. In addition, case closure regulations under § 303.11(b)(12) offer responding States the option to close cases without permission from the initiating agency by documenting lack of cooperation by the initiating agency. This criterion was devised so that responding States would have grounds to close unworkable cases, provided the 60-calendar-day notice is given to the initiating agency, as required under § 303.11(c). Also the responding State should make a thorough, good faith effort to communicate with the State before initiating case closure procedures. 3. Comment: In the preamble to the NPRM, OCSE specifically requested feedback from States regarding other communication techniques for interstate case processing that would work as well as or better than the Child Support Enforcement Network (CSENet) to foster improved communication between States. In response, one commenter suggested that OCSE encourage more States to adopt Query Interstate Cases for Kids (QUICK) to improve interstate case processing communication. Response: OCSE agrees that QUICK, an electronic communication format that allows caseworkers to view interstate case information in real time, can be an important interstate communication tool and encourages State use. As of November 2009, 21 States are in production with QUICK, 10 States are in the development phase, and more States are in the pre-development stage. These numbers demonstrate that many States recognize the benefits of utilizing QUICK for interstate communications. OCSE will continue its outreach and technical assistance efforts to further encourage and support States' development of QUICK for their use. 4. Comment: The same commenter also suggested an enhancement to CSENet to allow States to include electronic documents in CSENet transactions. Response: Electronic transmission of intergovernmental forms, court orders and other supporting documentation was assessed by OCSE within the last several years. While technically feasible, States' comments during this assessment process indicated that their statewide systems were not prepared to transmit those documents or that their courts would not accept those documents. OCSE will revisit this issue with States in 2010 when we review the intergovernmental forms as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 5. Comment: Another commenter suggested that OCSE add more CSENet functions, specifying that all States should have the same functions with correct information, such as telephone numbers, FIPS codes, and fax numbers. Response: OCSE has encouraged States to develop programs for all CSENet functional areas for several years. We continue outreach efforts on an individual basis with States that do not have all seven functional areas (Quick Locate, Case Status Information, Enforcement, Managing State Cases, Paternity, Establishment and Collections) programmed. Finally, we continue to focus interstate meetings, training sessions and end-user support activities on efforts to improve data quality and accuracy of transaction content. 6. Comment: The same commenter asked that the Quick Locate CSENet transaction not be limited to the noncustodial parent. Response: The parameter of Quick Locate was broadened after PRWORA to include noncustodial parents and custodial parents, and the existing Quick Locate transaction is used for both noncustodial parent and custodial parent location. OCSE will conduct outreach in this area to determine if the single transaction is meeting States' needs. 7. Comment: One commenter suggested that OCSE develop a secure network that would allow States to send electronic documents to another State via the internet, similar to the way documents are filed electronically with the courts. The commenter said that this would allow States to accept referrals electronically and save on postage and worker time. Alternatively, the commenter suggested States obtain email encryption software and be able to certify that their emails are encrypted, thus allowing States to communicate case processing information by email correspondence and document exchange. Response: OCSE does encourage email encryption and secure networks, including Internet-based solutions to facilitate electronic communications and to protect personally identifiable information. OCSE is considering providing the capability for States to electronically transmit documents to other States using the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). As enhancements are made to FPLS systems, OCSE will continue to partner with States for input and pilot activities. 8. Comment: One commenter noted that while he knows of nothing better than CSENet for communications, the Interstate Data Exchange Consortium (IDEC), a group of States whose common objective is to pool resources to provide cost-effective solutions for interstate and intrastate child support issues, has also been very useful for processing transactions such as Automated, High-Volume Administrative Enforcement in Interstate Cases (AEI). IDEC is also effective for processing locate requests because it includes Social Security numbers, addresses, employment history, and demographic information. According to the commenter, however, IDEC is limited by the number of States that subscribe. Response: OCSE agrees that consortia such as IDEC can be very useful, especially in processing requests for functions such as limited service requests, which cannot be processed using most statewide automated systems. However, since there are competing State consortia, OCSE cannot promote one group over another. 9. Comment: One commenter expressed that she had hoped the intergovernmental NPRM would have taken a stronger position on requiring States to adopt processes to accept electronic documents and signatures, noting that her State has made extraordinary progress in the area of electronic documentation, which has resulted in greater efficiency. The commenter believes that some States will never adopt electronic processing unless required to by OCSE. Response: OCSE appreciates the comment and commends the innovation of the commenter's State. As discussed later in this section, while OCSE encourages all States to adopt electronic capabilities, OCSE has not mandated this because of the varying capabilities among IV-D agencies. 10. Comment: One commenter was concerned that the changes in terminology in the proposed regulation, such as using “intergovernmental” instead of “interstate” and adding the terms Tribal and international, will require numerous changes to forms and procedural manuals used by the States. Response: OCSE is sympathetic to the commenter's concern that some changes to State forms and procedures may be necessary following publication of this rule. However, OCSE notes that current mandatory intergovernmental forms already use many of these terms. OCSE also believes that these terms accurately state specific requirements in the new intergovernmental rule and believes States will, as a result of these changes, be able to process intergovernmental cases more efficiently. OCSE will allow adequate time for States to make needed changes to their internal manuals and forms by extending the effective date of the final rule from the usual 60 days to 6 months after publication. 11. Comment: In regard to the background section addressing “Tribal IV-D and International Child Support Enforcement” in the preamble of the proposed rule, one commenter asked for clarification that, in the context of discussion about the “States” ratifying the Hague Convention for the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, the term State refers to countries and that individual U.S. States will not sign the convention. Response: In the context of the Hague Convention, the U.S. Government and other foreign countries sign the treaty. The term “State” in the context of the treaty does not refer to individual U.S. States. In the preamble to the final rule, we used the term “foreign country” instead of “State” for clarity. 12. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule violates the HHS consultation policy, since OCSE did not follow the requirements for Tribal consultation mandated by its own Department according to Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, HHS Tribal Consultation Policy. The commenter believes the proposed rule may have enormous Tribal implications, and that now there can be no meaningful dialogue between Tribal governments and OCSE because the proposed rule has already been published. Finally, the commenter asked for clarification as to whether the proposed intergovernmental regulation applies to all Tribal child support enforcement programs or only to Tribal IV-D programs established under 45 CFR part 309. Response: This rule places no requirements on Tribal programs, IV-D or otherwise. The only Federal child support regulations that apply to Tribes are 45 CFR part 309, Tribal Child Support Enforcement (IV-D) Program, and 45 CFR part 310, Computerized Tribal IV-D Systems and Office Automation. 45 CFR parts 309 and 310 apply only to Tribal IV-D programs. One of the major reasons for revising the intergovernmental rule was to recognize and account for the increasing diversity of partners involved in case processing, including Tribal and international agencies. However, while these rules address State case processing requirements in this larger context, the rules themselves only apply to State IV-D agencies. For example, if a Tribal IV-D program is the initiating agency and a State is a responding agency in an intergovernmental context, the intergovernmental rules for responding States under § 303.7(d) apply to the State, while the rules for initiating States under § 303.7(c) do not apply to the Tribal IV-D program. 13. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification as to which parts of the proposed rules apply to a State IV-D program's interactions with a Tribe and which ones apply to a State IV-D program's interactions with a Tribal IV-D program. Response: Under the Federal statute and regulations, there is no mandate that States provide services to non-IV-D Tribes. However, as described below, if a State decides to cooperate with a non-IV-D Tribe to provide child support services, then the intergovernmental rules do apply to the State. Also, applicants who apply directly to a State program must be served by the State, regardless of where they live. Part 301—State Plan Approval and Grant Procedures Section 301.1—General Definitions While several commenters agreed with one or all of the proposed definitions in the General definitions section of § 301.1, most of those who commented expressed a variety of questions and concerns regarding specific definitions and terms. 1. Comments: In regard to the definition of Country, one commenter asked for confirmation that the term does not include countries with which no Federal or State-level reciprocal agreement exists; and that services to these countries are not mandated. The commenter asked to what extent the intergovernmental rule applies to those situations in which a State and a foreign country not included in the definition of Country in the regulation are cooperating to handle a shared case on the basis of comity as specified in UIFSA, or some other informal arrangement. Response: The definition of Country does not include foreign countries with which no Federal or State-level reciprocal agreement exists; and IV-D services to these foreign countries are not federally mandated. However, if a State opts to cooperate with such a foreign country, as we understand is fairly routine, then the case becomes an intergovernmental IV-D case and this rule applies. 2. Comment: One commenter stated that proposed § 301.1 includes a referral requirement within the definition of an Initiating agency; however, the term Initiating agency also is used in the regulation to refer to an agency that takes unilateral action, such as direct income withholding. The commenter suggests that if the intent is to limit the initiating agency definition to those agencies that refer a case to the responding agency, then another term and definition should be developed for those agencies that take unilateral action. Response: OCSE did not intend to limit the definition of Initiating agency to only refer to agencies that have sent a case to a responding agency. The term is intended to include agencies that make case referrals as well as take unilateral actions, such as direct income withholding. In order to define the term more accurately, OCSE changed the definition of Initiating agency in this final rule to emphasize the relationship of the applicant or recipient of services to the agency, rather than focusing on the referral from the agency to a responding agency. By changing the definition, the term is inclusive of whatever actions an agency may take to process a case. The revised definition for initiating agency now reads: “ Initiating agency means a State or Tribal IV-D agency or an agency in a country, as defined in this rule, in which an individual has applied for or is receiving services.” In addition, this revised definition clarifies that State IV-D agencies must fulfill their responsibilities as initiating agencies under § 303.7(c) of the rules, particularly paragraphs (c)(1) through (3), even if no referral has been made to a responding agency. 3. Comment: The intergovernmental NPRM states that an Initiating agency, as defined, could include a State IV-D agency, a Tribal IV-D agency, or a country as defined by this rule. Responding agency is defined as “the agency that is providing services in response to a referral from an initiating agency in an intergovernmental IV-D case.” In regard to both definitions, one commenter asked why all Tribal agencies were not referenced. In addition, the commenter asked whether a State could have a reciprocal case with a Tribe that does not have a IV-D program. Response: This rule applies only to State IV-D programs, and State IV-D programs are only required to provide services to other State IV-D programs, Tribal IV-D programs, and countries with Federal or State-level agreements, not to all Tribes. However, a State may choose to open a reciprocal case with a Tribe that does not operate a IV-D program, so long as the State complies with this rule. 4. Comment: A commenter asked if all Tribes are bound by FFCCSOA. Response: Yes, all Tribes are bound by FFCCSOA, 22 U.S.C. § 1738B. As explained in OCSE-AT-02-03: “FFCCSOA requires courts of all United States territories, states and tribes to accord full faith and credit to child support orders issued by another state or tribe that properly exercised jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.” According to the Action Transmittal, “FFCCSOA defines “state” to include “Indian Country” as this term is defined in 18 U.S.C. section § 1151. This means that whenever the term is used in [FFCCSOA], it includes tribe as well.” 5. Comment: One commenter pointed out that in the definition for Form, the income withholding form is improperly referred to by its former title, “Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support,” rather than its new title, “Income Withholding for Support.” Response: The commenter is correct. Since publication of AT-07-07, the name of the income withholding form is “Income Withholding for Support.” In the final rule, the definition of Form has been updated to reflect the correct title. 6. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification for the definition of “State” with regard to the new definitions for Intergovernmental IV-D case and Interstate IV-D case. The commenter stated that Section 101(19) of UIFSA 1996 defines “State” to include States and territories, Indian Tribes, and foreign jurisdictions that have “enacted a law or established procedures for issuance and enforcement of support orders which are substantially similar to the procedures under [UIFSA], the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) or the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA).” The commenter suggested OCSE address whether the term “State” in the definition of Interstate IV-D case retains the broad definition as defined by UIFSA or refers more narrowly to one of the United States or its territories only. Response: For the purposes of the IV-D program, State is defined in § 301.1 as “the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa,” and does not include Tribes or foreign jurisdictions. Therefore, the definition of State in § 301.1 of this rule, and not the UIFSA definition, applies to the use of the term in the definition of Intergovernmental IV-D case and Interstate IV-D case in this rule. 7. Comment: One commenter believes that the proposed definition for Intergovernmental IV-D case leaves out cases in which the child has emancipated but the custodial and noncustodial parents live in different jurisdictions, and those cases in which a State is attempting to collect State debt from an obligor in another State. In these state-debt cases, the commenter said the State often does not know the location of the custodial parent or the child. Response: We agree that there are cases in which the IV-D agency is only attempting to collect arrearages owed to the State, and therefore we have added the following additional sentence to the definition for Intergovernmental IV-D case: “An intergovernmental IV-D case also may include cases in which a State agency is seeking only to collect support arrearages, whether owed to the family or assigned to the State.” Since this scenario exists in interstate cases as well, we have added a similar sentence to the definition for Interstate IV-D case. For the final text of the definitions of Intergovernmental IV-D case and Interstate IV-D case, see the next comment. 8. Comment: One commenter asked what the differences are between an Intergovernmental IV-D case and an Interstate IV-D case. Response: OCSE intended that the only distinction between an intergovernmental IV-D case and an interstate IV-D case was the type of jurisdictions involved: An interstate case involves States, while an intergovernmental IV-D case could involve any combination of referrals between States, Tribes or countries (as defined in the regulations). OCSE acknowledges that the NPRM definitions suggested another distinction between the terms: That an intergovernmental IV-D case required a referral to a responding agency, while an interstate case did not require a referral to another State. In response to this comment, OCSE revised the definitions to clarify that both terms include a referral requirement and that the only distinction is the kinds of jurisdictions involved in the case. To do this, we changed the first sentence of the definition of Intergovernmental IV-D case for consistency and clarity to more clearly follow the wording used in the first sentence of the definition of Interstate IV-D case. Regarding the definition for Interstate IV-D case, we revised the second half of the first sentence to clarify that the term refers only to cases that have been sent by a State to a responding State. The revised definitions for Intergovernmental IV-D case and Interstate IV-D case, which include these changes as well as the change from the previous comment, read as follows: “ Intergovernmental IV-D case means a IV-D case in which the noncustodial parent lives and/or works in a different jurisdiction than the custodial parent and child(ren) that has been referred by an initiating agency to a responding agency for services. An intergovernmental IV-D case may include any combination of referrals between States, Tribes, and countries. An intergovernmental IV-D case also may include cases in which a State agency is seeking only to collect support arrearages, whether owed to the family or assigned to the State.” “ Interstate IV-D case means a IV-D case in which the noncustodial parent lives and/or works in a different State than the custodial parent and child(ren) that has been referred by an initiating State to a responding State for services. An interstate IV-D case also may include cases in which a State is seeking only to collect support arrearages, whether owed to the family or assigned to the State.” 9. Comment: One commenter observed that an Intergovernmental IV-D case is defined as a case where the noncustodial parent lives in a different jurisdiction from the child(ren), while an Interstate IV-D case is defined as a case where the noncustodial parent lives and/or works in a different State than the child(ren) and the custodial parent. The commenter asked why the former definition omits mentioning the custodial parent. Response: As stated above, OCSE intended the only difference between intergovernmental and interstate cases to be that of the types of jurisdictions involved in a case. The status or any other features of the custodial and noncustodial parents or children, other than the jurisdictions where they may live or work, does not impact whether the case falls under the interstate or intergovernmental definition. 10. Comment: One commenter was concerned that the definition of Interstate IV-D case is too far-reaching. The commenter asked OCSE to consider, for example, the scenario in which a custodial parent living in Minnesota applies for IV-D services in North Dakota because the noncustodial parent is living and working in North Dakota and the support order was issued in North Dakota. Under the proposed definition, this would be considered an interstate IV-D case merely because the parties live in different States. However, this case would have no interstate implications— e.g., enforcement would occur in North Dakota according to North Dakota law, North Dakota would have continuing exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of review and adjustment, and the State would not treat this case as an interstate case for purposes of OCSE-157 reporting. The commenter is concerned that applying the definition of Interstate IV-D case to such a case could have unforeseen and unintended consequences. Response: As noted above, the definition for Interstate IV-D case has been revised in the final rule to pertain only to cases that have been referred for services from one State to another State. According to the revised definition, Interstate IV-D case does not include a case that is being processed by an initiating agency using one-state actions nor does it include a case that involves an applicant from one State applying directly for services in another State, as described in the commenter's scenario. The revised definition for Interstate IV-D case now aligns with the instructions for reporting interstate cases on Form OCSE-157, “Child Support Enforcement Annual Data Report.” The instructions for Form OCSE-157 describe interstate cases as those cases either “sent to another State” or “received from another State.” 11. Comment: OCSE welcomed comments on whether the proposed definition of One-state interstate IV-D case is helpful, and if so, appropriate and sufficient. While we received one comment in support of the proposed definition of One-state interstate IV-D case, we received two comments in opposition to the definition, and approximately a half-dozen comments asking for clarification. The commenters in opposition believe the term is not useful, especially in the broader context of interstate case processing and as included in the proposed definition of the term Interstate IV-D case. One commenter explained that the word interstate is commonly understood to mean “between” or “among” States, so that combining “interstate” and “one-state” in the same term is fundamentally problematic. The commenter felt that the definition for Interstate IV-D case should be limited to those cases where there has been a referral from one State IV-D program to another and that the one-state concept should not be included in the regulation. Another commenter disagreed with the use of the term “long-arm” in the proposed definition, while another pointed out that the definition could be read to apply to any case with a parent outside the State's borders, not just in another State. Response: While the concept and use of the term One-state interstate IV-D case has grown over the last twenty years, OCSE notes that inclusion of the definition in this rule may have generated confusion. As a result, we have removed the definition of One-state interstate IV-D case from the regulation, and added the definition for One-state remedies. In addition, as noted above, we revised the definition of Interstate IV-D case so that it no longer includes the concept of one-state interstate. Proposed § 303.7(c)(3) also was modified to use the term One-state remedies. See discussion of the comments on proposed § 303.7(c)(3) below. In the final rule, One-state remedies means “the exercise of a State's jurisdiction over a non-resident parent or direct establishment, enforcement, or other action by a State against a non-resident parent in accordance with the long-arm provision of UIFSA or other State law.” 12. Comment: Several of the comments on the proposed term One-state interstate case asked for clarification in regard to reporting on the Form OCSE-157, “Child Support Enforcement Annual Data Report.” The commenters asked whether such cases should be reported as interstate cases or local cases on Form OCSE-157. One commenter asked if OCSE would be creating a new reporting category for these kinds of cases. Response: OCSE will not create a new case type for reporting requirements associated with a State's use of One-state remedies. In reporting on Form OCSE-157, States should only consider the reporting instructions included on the form. 13. Comment: One commenter asked if one-state interstate cases should be treated as local cases or interstate cases in terms of case processing requirements. Response: In general, cases that involve one-state remedies should be treated as local cases. Only when a State makes a referral for services to another jurisdiction, turning the case into an interstate or intergovernmental case, must the State follow the intergovernmental case processing rules under § 303.7. OCSE reminds States that the first three requirements for initiating State agencies under § 303.7(c) apply to States that may ultimately use a one-state approach on a case. These requirements describe the pre-referral steps an initiating State takes to decide how and whether to determine a controlling order and whether or not the State will employ a one-state strategy or refer the case. Once the State decides to process the case using one-state remedies, the rest of the responsibilities under this section do not apply, and the State would process the case under regular case processing rules. 14. Comment: One commenter was concerned that the proposed definition of Tribunal, “a court, administrative agency, or quasi-judicial entity authorized under State law to establish, enforce, or modify support orders or to determine parentage,” did not allow States the option to choose the entity to serve as their Tribunal, as provided under Section 103 of UIFSA 1996 and 2001. Response: OCSE believes that the phrase “authorized under State law” in the definition of Tribunal affords the States the same flexibility to choose the entity to serve as their Tribunal as provided under UIFSA. Therefore, we have not changed the definition in the final rule. Part 302—State Plan Requirements Section 302.36—Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-D Cases 1. Comment: While OCSE received a couple of comments in support of the changes to § 302.36, one commenter stated that his State's automated system is not equipped to add Tribal cases and does not have Tribal FIPS codes, etc. The commenter wondered if this would be a problem for other States as well. Response: OCSE has given States several years notice about the requirement to start reporting Tribal and international cases. Form OCSE-157, “Child Support Enforcement Annual Data Report,” as revised on September 6, 2005 by AT-05-09, requires States to report intergovernmental cases shared with Tribal IV-D programs (and with other countries) by October 30, 2009. In addition, DCL-08-35 reminded States to collect case data on Tribal and international cases for Fiscal Year 2009, in addition to collecting several other new categories of data. FIPS codes for use with Tribal and International cases are described in DCL-07-02 and DCL-08-04. Part 303—Standards for Program Operations Section 303.7—Provision of Services in Intergovernmental IV-D Cases Section 303.7(a)—General Responsibilities Section 303.7(a)(4)—Mandatory Use of Federally-Approved Forms 1. Comment: One commenter indicated that some countries provide the forms they require in A Caseworker's Guide to Processing International Cases. The commenter went on to ask if States should use the forms in A Caseworker's Guide to Processing International Cases. Response: We believe it is appropriate for a State to use forms provided by a country in a chapter of A Caseworker's Guide to Processing Cases with Foreign Reciprocating Countries. As a result, we have revised § 303.7(a)(4) to include this authority. 2. Comment: Several commenters appreciated the change under proposed § 303.7(a)(4) to require agencies to send only one copy of each federally-approved form in a case to the other jurisdiction. However, commenters noted that this change potentially conflicts with UIFSA (1996) and (2001). Section 304 of UIFSA (1996) requires agencies to send three copies of the petition. Section 602(a)(2) of UIFSA (2001) requires agencies to send two copies of the order to be registered, including a certified one. Another commenter also suggested clarifying our terminology by referring to the forms as a “complete set of required forms” rather than as “copies” of forms, since at least some of the forms may be originals. Response: In response to comments, OCSE notes that the required number of copies of forms and/or supporting documents will depend not on the initiating agency but on the needs of the responding agency receiving the forms. While OCSE's intent was to shift the burden of making copies onto the responding agency, we acknowledge UIFSA's requirements and have decided to change the rule to reduce confusion. We also agree with the request to clarify terminology and not use the word “copies.” In response, we have changed § 303.7(a)(4) to read: “When using a paper version, this requirement is met by providing the number of complete sets of required documents needed by the responding agency, if one is not sufficient under the responding agency's law.” Section 303.7(a)(5)—Use of Electronic Transmission 1. Comment: With respect to section § 303.7(a)(5), which requires State IV-D agencies to transmit requests for information and provide requested information electronically to the greatest extent possible, one commenter indicated that there are many ways to electronically transmit requests and provide information and expressed concern that use of the phrase, “in accordance with instructions issued by the office” is redundant and can be confusing. Response: Issuance of instructions is discretionary for the Federal government; however, we agree that the language is not necessary. We have removed the language from the regulation. 2. Comment: One commenter indicated that the commenter's State cannot accept a new case without a paper copy of the forms. Another commenter asked that OCSE consider stating in this rule more explicitly, and any future proposed rules where electronic transactions and/or case records are referenced, that automated transactions may or may not be accompanied by paper documents and that the lack of paper documentation for an automated transaction is an expected and allowable occurrence. Response: OCSE recognizes that all State systems do not function at the same level of automation, which is why we reiterate that electronic submission is encouraged, but not mandatory. Whether or not the lack of paper documentation for an automated transaction is allowable depends on whether or not the receiving State can accept electronic transmissions. Some States are not as advanced in this area as other States; however, cases should be worked to the greatest extent possible based upon the electronic information received. Section 303.7(a)(6)—Providing Order and Payment Record Information Upon Request 1. Comment: OCSE asked for comments on the proposed 30-day time frame within which a State IV-D agency must provide order and payment information as requested by a State IV-D agency for a DCO and reconciliation of arrearages. Several commenters supported increasing the timeframe to 60 days; however, there was an equal amount of support expressed for keeping the time frame at 30 days with the option to notify the initiating State if there is a delay. Response: Thirty working days is the equivalent of six weeks, which, in most cases, should be a sufficient amount of time to provide any order and payment record information requested by a State IV-D agency. However, we have added an option in section § 303.7(a)(6) to notify the State IV-D agency when the information will be provided if there is a delay. Section 303.7(a)(7)—Providing New Information on a Case 1. Comment: One commenter requested that OCSE provide clarification on the definition of “new information.” Response: We encourage initiating States to send new information that is needed and necessary for the responding State to establish or manage the interstate case, including data necessary to process or take action on the case. If it is information that a State would find valuable in managing an intrastate case, then it is probably information that the responding State also would find helpful. If the noncustodial parent already has been identified and has a verified Social Security Number (SSN), then it is not necessary to send that information because it is not new information. Similarly, a responding State should send new information about a case that would assist the initiating State in responding to customer service inquiries. Section 303.7(a)(8)—Provision of Limited Services Upon Request 1. Comment: In regard to 45 CFR 303.7(a)(8), which requires State IV-D agencies to cooperate in the provision of certain limited services, one commenter suggested that OCSE include the requirement that States provide the same legal representation to an initiating State that would be available to the responding State's IV-D agency in intrastate litigation. Response: We do not agree that we should specifically address legal representation, because States handle contested issues differently and it would be inappropriate to create a mandate in such circumstances. 2. Comment: One commenter indicated that the requirement for State IV-D agencies to respond to requests for the specified limited services in § 303.7(a)(8) will cause a major impact on automated systems modifications. The commenter also stated that the requirement will require “pseudo” cases that are only on State systems for a specific service or limited assistance to a requesting agency, and these cases would not be counted as cases in any statistics or management reporting. Response: With the evolution of the IV-D program and authority for States to take action across State lines, the provision of limited services is fairly common. States currently perform limited services; e.g., quick locate and service of process in intergovernmental child support cases. While the performance of limited services upon request is required, a modification to a statewide IV-D system is not mandated. OCSE recognizes that some statewide IV-D systems have difficulty accepting and processing limited service requests. Some States do utilize pseudo cases, while others process these requests outside of the statewide automated systems using outside consortia ( e.g., IDEC, the Michigan Financial Institute Data Match Alliance). While it is true that these activities would not be counted as cases on any statistics or management reporting, the provision of limited services is addressed in UIFSA, is a common State practice, and is reciprocal. 3. Comment: One commenter asked if “limited services” only refers to the ones listed in § 303.7(a)(8), and if so, should § 303.7(a)(8) be changed to read: “Cooperate with requests for limited services (quick locate, service of process, assistance with discovery, teleconferenced hearings, administrative reviews, and high volume automated administrative enforcement) in interstate cases under section 466(a)(14) of the Act.” The commenter also asked, if “limited services” includes more than those listed in § 303.7(a)(8), can an initiating State ask another State to take only specific actions, such as initiate contempt of court proceedings, income withholding orders, or license sanction, while the initiating State handles all other enforcement activity? Response: Yes, in response to this comment, the final rule includes a list of limited services in § 303.7(a)(8) that are mandatory. In addition, language was added to allow a State to provide other types of limited services, if requested by an initiating agency. (Please see the revised requirement below.) It would be inappropriate to include an open-ended mandate and we believe that the listed services are those that can most often be provided by State IV-D agencies upon request. In addition, an initiating agency may not direct a responding State IV-D agency to take specific actions in an intergovernmental IV-D case; that determination is up to the responding State IV-D agency. 4. Comment: One commenter recommended that the definition of limited services in proposed section 303.7(a)(8) be expanded to include review and adjustment, because there are some instances in which the appropriate jurisdiction for adjustment is not the enforcing State, and some States are reluctant to perform the necessary review and adjustment action without taking over the enforcement as a two-State interstate case. Response: Most State child support automated systems do not have the capability of providing a single service or doing just one function. A State can provide the locate, financial, and asset information without opening a full case on the system, but very few have the capability of completing the entire review and adjustment function without establishing a full case on its automated system. Limited services are activities that an initiating agency requests a State IV-D agency to perform to assist the initiating agency in establishing, adjusting, or enforcing a child support order. We are concerned about adding this provision in the final rule without having provided States the opportunity to comment on its inclusion in advance. In addition, the provision in § 303.7(a)(8) gives States the option to honor requests for other limited services that are not listed. Under that provision, if a State is willing and able to honor a request for a review and adjustment, it may do so. Therefore, we do not agree that it is appropriate to add a request for review and adjustment of an order to the list of required limited services. 5. Comment: One commenter suggested that § 303.7(a)(8) include requests for court orders and payment records as a limited service. Response: Section 303.7(a)(6) requires States to provide a copy of the payment record and a support order, thus we added requests for copies of orders and payment records to the list of limited services to § 303.7(a)(8). In response to all of the above comments, § 303.7(a)(8) now reads as follows: A State IV-D agency must “Cooperate with requests for the following limited services: quick locate, service of process, assistance with discovery, assistance with genetic testing, teleconferenced hearings, administrative reviews, high-volume automated administrative enforcement in interstate cases under section 466(a)(14) of the Act, and copies of court orders and payment records. Requests for other limited services may be honored at the State's option.” 6. Comment: A commenter also suggested that State IV-D agencies have agreements with their courts to provide a copy of the court order to other States at no cost. Response: While we encourage States to work with their courts to provide copies of orders at no cost, we do not believe it is appropriate to remove States' discretion to recover costs. Section 303.7(b)—Central Registry Section 303.7(b)(1)—Establishment of State Central Registry 1. Comment: In regard to the requirement under § 303.7(b)(1) for State IV-D agencies to establish a central registry responsible for receiving, transmitting, and responding to inquiries on intergovernmental IV-D cases, one commenter asked if case information should go directly into the statewide automated system rather than through the State Central Registry. The commenter also asked for specific guidance on how case information should be processed on statewide systems, for example, if the system needed to be able to “flag” a case pending review by State staff or if the system could require a certified copy of an order. Response: According to OCSE statewide systems requirements, all State Central Registry functions must be integrated into the statewide system. Therefore, when an initiating agency sends an intergovernmental case to a responding State, the data will transmit to both the responding State's statewide system and the State Central Registry, although the State must have procedures so that it is the State Central Registry that initially processes the new case, as required by § 303.7(b)(1). OCSE does not mandate how States should integrate State Central Registry functions with their statewide system functions, so States will have different approaches. In addition, OCSE does not mandate how States develop their case processing workflows with respect to their systems. OCSE, for example, does not require that a statewide system be able to “flag” a case pending review by State staff or that documents such as certified copies of orders be in hard copy. States determine these issues. 2. Comment: One commenter requested clarification that OCSE is not mandating that responding jurisdictions accept electronically transmitted cases from initiating jurisdictions in lieu of mailing cases to the State Central Registry. The commenter referenced the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) ( http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ229.106 ), saying the law gives electronic signatures the same legal effect as written signatures. However, the commenter indicated that the law only sets a baseline standard for what is required in an electronic signature. The commenter was concerned that many jurisdictions do not have the technical ability to accept electronic signatures and would be unable to process electronic transmissions if mandated. Response: As we indicated above in the discussion of the general responsibility for States to transmit and provide information electronically to the greatest extent possible under § 303.7(a)(5), electronic transmissions, including electronic signatures, are encouraged, but not mandated. The initiating agency must provide the responding agency with the information that it needs in the format that is acceptable to the responding agency. Nevertheless, OCSE reiterates that electronic transmissions will be an increasingly important tool for doing business and encourages jurisdictions to adopt new technologies. ( See PIQ-09-02, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/PIQ/2009/piq-09-02.htm) Section 303.7(b)(2)—Initial Required Activities Upon Receipt of a Case 1. Comment: Section 303.7(b)(2) requires State Central Registries to complete several tasks within 10 working days of receipt of an intergovernmental case, including reviewing documentation for completeness, forwarding the case for action either to the State Parent Locator Service or another agency for processing, acknowledging receipt of the case or requesting missing documentation, and informing the initiating agency where the case was forwarded. In regard to § 303.7(b)(2), several commenters requested more guidance on requirements to open and close cases when the initiating agency does not provide complete information. One commenter asked for clarification regarding whether the regulation required States to open cases based on the CSENet transaction alone, especially in the absence of complete case information or paper documents. Another commenter was concerned that agencies would send only CSENet transactions without following up with required documents such as certified copies of court orders. Response: In general, while the CSENet application is often used to request services on intergovernmental cases, some of the forms, such as the General Testimony Form, must be sent in a paper format. When sending a request for services through CSENet, the initiating State must indicate whether attachments in a paper format are to follow. Upon receipt of a CSENet transaction, OCSE guidance has always been that if a State can proceed without the paper documents, it should move forward. If the State determines that critical information is missing, it will notify the initiating agency that documents are missing and forward the case for any action that can be taken pending necessary action by the initiating agency. In order to clarify that it is the initiating State's responsibility to provide information and documentation in the format required by the responding agency, we have changed the initiating State responsibility under § 303.7(c)(5). This responsibility now reads: the initiating State IV-D agency must: “provide the responding agency sufficient, accurate information to act on the case by submitting with each case any necessary documentation and intergovernmental forms required by the responding agency” (emphasis added). This change addresses the commenters' concern that initiating agencies would not follow-up with documentation in paper format, in the instances where the responding State requires that format. OCSE encourages States to work with each other to ensure the transfer of case information is efficient and meets mutual needs. Further, we encourage States to work with OCSE on continuing to develop CSENet capabilities to meet those needs with even greater effectiveness. Section 303.7(b)(3)—Forwarding the Case for Action 1. Comment: Thirteen commenters responded to OCSE's specific request for input on the pros and cons of the current central registry requirement “to forward the case for any action that can be taken pending necessary action by the initiating agency,” in proposed § 303.7(b)(3). Eight commenters supported the current rule, saying that forwarding the case is more efficient for the central registry and for case processing, ultimately resulting in support reaching children faster. Commenters said that local offices often are better able to judge if the case can be processed even with partial information, preventing workable cases from being put on hold only for technical reasons. This is particularly significant if a case has been referred for two distinct activities. By forwarding the case, caseworkers can proceed with one activity even as they await necessary information to move forward with the other activity. One commenter noted how being able to pass along cases to local offices as soon as they are entered onto the automated system reduces the burden on the central registry, which is not equipped to manage this process, since its resources are focused on meeting the Federal time frames associated with otherwise reviewing and acknowledging incoming cases. Five commenters objected to the requirement, saying that if the initiating agency never provides the missing or incomplete information, forwarding the case would be a waste of time and resources. One commenter suggested that the rule be revised to leave the decision of forwarding cases pending receipt of complete information from the initiating agency to the discretion of the States, which could base the decision on the size of their central registries. Response: We agree with the majority of the comments in support of keeping the requirement in § 303.7(b)(3), for central registries to forward the case for any action that can be taken pending necessary action by the initiating agency if the documentation received with a case is incomplete and cannot be remedied by the central registry without the assistance of the initiating agency. As a result, this requirement will remain the same. 2. Comment: Several commenters asked for clarification on the minimum amount of information that would be required for a central registry to open an incoming case, perhaps provided as a checklist of required documents or data elements. In addition, one of these commenters also requested that the corresponding authority be authorized to reject cases not meeting a standard threshold of information or documentation. One commenter suggested that the central registry be allowed to “return” a case within 60 days under case closure criterion § 303.11(b)(12), which allows for case closure if the initiating agency fails “to take an action which is essential for the next step in providing services.” Response: As stated above, a State Central Registry is required to complete the activities described in § 303.7(b)(2), ( e.g., ensure documentation has been reviewed, forward the case for action to either the State Parent Locator Service or the appropriate agency) within 10 working days of receipt of an intergovernmental IV-D case. As part of this process, under § 303.7(b)(2)(i), the central registry determines, on a case-by-case basis, whether it is in receipt of complete documentation in the required format in order to proceed with the case. Because each case and the information sent with each case by the initiating agency is different, we believe it would be inappropriate to establish a checklist or a minimum standard of required information without which central registries could reject or return cases. OCSE does not want States to approach intergovernmental case processing with the notion that incoming cases can be rejected or returned. The intent of this rule is to surmount barriers to intergovernmental case processing with the ultimate goal of providing support to children as soon as possible. However, if the central registry documents the failure by the initiating agency to take an action essential for the next step in providing services, the State would have grounds to close the case under § 303.11(b)(12), as long as the required notice of potential closure under § 303.11(c) is provided to the initiating agency. 3. Comment: In a related comment, a commenter requested clarification on the time frame for case closure for the failure of the initiating agency to act in response to requests for more information under § 303.11(b)(12), noting that the time frame policy on this case closure criterion varies widely among States. Response: While there is no designated timeframe for how long a responding State IV-D agency must wait for information from an initiating agency before starting case closure actions under § 303.11(b)(12), we encourage States and agencies to work together so as not to initiate case closure proceedings prematurely. Under § 303.7(c)(6), when an initiating State is in receipt of a request for case information from a responding agency, the initiating State has 30 calendar days to provide the information or to give notice as to when it will provide the information. If those 30 calendar days elapse with no response from the initiating agency, OCSE strongly encourages the responding State to follow-up with the initiating agency rather than automatically proceeding with case closure. In addition, according to case closure rules stated in § 303.11(c), in order for a responding State to close a case for the failure of an initiating agency to take action pursuant to § 303.11(b)(12), the State must notify the initiating agency in writing 60 calendar days before closing the case. 4. Comment: One commenter also would like to be able to reject a case where there is no recently verified address or there does not appear to be a relationship between the obligor and the responding State. Response: Sending a verified address is not a pre-requisite to forwarding a case for action to another jurisdiction. As stated previously, a State is required to start the activities described under § 303.7(b)(2) ( e.g., ensure documentation has been reviewed, forward the case for action to either the State Parent Locator Service or the appropriate agency) as soon as its central registry is in receipt of an intergovernmental IV-D case. If the relationship between the obligor and the State is not evident, States should request additional information from the initiating State to clarify the link. 5. Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of the responding State's responsibility to continue to perform locate activities as it would for an in-state case (three years if there is a verified SSN) even if the initiating agency cannot provide a recently verified address. The commenter noted that States that have strict requirements for current locate information on the noncustodial parent before they begin work on the case may close the case too quickly. The result is that the initiating agency has to make a second referral by the time the requested information is available, wasting time and resources. Response: As noted above, sending a verified address is not a prerequisite to forwarding a case for action to another jurisdiction. In general, the initiating agency, not the responding State, decides whether to open or close an intergovernmental case. A responding State may not apply case closure criteria under § 303.11(b)(1) through (11), or any other criteria, to close intergovernmental cases unilaterally. In order for a responding State to close an intergovernmental case without permission from the initiating agency, the responding State must document lack of cooperation by the initiating agency, as required under § 303.11(b)(12), and provide a 60- calendar-day notice to the initiating agency, as required by § 303.11(c). Case closure rules at § 303.11(b)(4) establish time frames for closing a case if the noncustodial parent's location is unknown. The time frames are three years when there is sufficient information to initiate an automated locate effort or one year when there is insufficient information to perform automated location services. These time frames are applicable in the intergovernmental context. Even in the absence of a recently verified address, a responding agency can perform location services. For example, a State can perform automated location services with minimal data, such as a date of birth and name or a Social Security number and name. Please see the additional discussion of case closure requirements later in this section. 6. Comment: In proposed § 303.7(b)(3), if the documentation received with a case is inadequate and cannot be remedied by the central registry without the assistance of the initiating agency, the central registry must forward the case for any action that can be taken pending necessary action by the initiating agency. One commenter recommended substituting the word “incomplete” for “inadequate” when describing the problematic documentation because, by definition, inadequate documentation is insufficient for its intended purpose. Response: We agree with the commenter and substituted “incomplete” for “inadequate” in the regulatory language at § 303.7(b)(3) and, correspondingly, in § 303.7(d)(2)(iii), which uses the same word. Section 303.7(b)(4)—Responding to Case Status Inquiries 1. Comment: The provision under § 303.7(b)(4) requires the central registry to “respond to inquiries from initiating agencies within five working days of receipt of the request for a case status review.” One commenter expressed agreement with the time frame, while another commenter felt that 10 working days would be more appropriate. Two commenters suggested that this requirement be moved to § 303.7(d), as a responding State responsibility. Response: This requirement has been in effect since interstate regulations were implemented at § 303.7 in 1988. As we indicated in 1988, the requirement for central registries to respond to inquiries from other States is intended for situations in which an initiating agency loses track of a case or is unable to determine whether any action is being taken on a case. Inquiries to the central registry should, therefore, be limited to instances where direct contact between the initiating agency and the responding State IV-D agency is ineffective or impossible. In regard to the time frame, OCSE does not have enough evidence to suggest that five working days is insufficient for this requirement; therefore, the time frame is unchanged. Section 303.7(c)—Initiating State IV-D Agency Responsibilities Section 303.7(c)(1)—Identifying Whether There are Multiple Orders in a Case 1. Comment: Section 303.7(c)(1) requires initiating State agencies to “determine whether or not there is a support order or orders in effect in a case using the Federal and State Case Registries, State records, information provided by the recipient of services, and other relevant information available to the State.” One commenter asked if initiating States, in fulfilling their responsibility for determining whether there is a support order or orders in effect in a case, would be required to use their statewide automated systems. Response: There is no explicit requirement for States to use their statewide automated systems to determine whether there is a support order or orders in effect for a case. States are required to use Federal and State case registries, State records, information provided by recipients, and other available information to determine whether there is a support order or orders in effect. 2. Comment: One commenter stated that the determination of controlling order may be made by any forum that has personal jurisdiction over the necessary individual parties and does not have to be a tribunal that has issued a support order. The commenter went on to say that UIFSA section 207(b)(3) contemplates that this may be a State that has not issued an order as it requires that a tribunal issue its own replacement order when all parties have left all of the States that have issued orders as part of the determination of controlling order process. According to the commenter, § 303.7(c)(2) provides the flexibility needed by the initiating agency to select the State to determine the controlling order and reconcile the arrears when multiple orders exist, including a State that has not issued a support order. The commenter asked that OCSE revise the commentary to not restrict the initiating State's selection of the DCO State to only a State where that State's tribunal issued a support order. Response: OCSE agrees that when ascertaining in which State(s) a determination of controlling order may be made, an initiating agency is not limited to those tribunals that issued one of the support orders. UIFSA 2001 clarifies that a tribunal must have personal jurisdiction over both the obligor and individual obligee when determining which of the multiple orders is the controlling order. Section 302.7(c)(2) requires an analysis of what jurisdiction or jurisdictions have or may obtain personal jurisdiction over both individuals and the selection of the forum if there is an option to proceed in more than one State. Section 303.7(c)(2)—Determination of Appropriate State To Make DCO 1. Comment: Under § 303.7(c)(2), an initiating State agency must: “determine in which State a determination of controlling order and reconciliation of arrearages may be made where multiple orders exist.” One commenter said that a determination of controlling order is only necessary when there are multiple orders that also are “valid” orders. The commenter explained that since the effective date of FFCCSOA on October 20, 1994, there are fewer and fewer cases with legitimate multiple orders. Rather, additional orders issued since FFCCSOA are void. The commenter asked OCSE to clarify this point and to remind States to make sure orders are “valid” before pursuing a determination of controlling order. Response: Section 303.7(c)(1) requires initiating State IV-D agencies to identify existing support orders. Section 303.7(c)(1) does not require initiating State IV-D agencies to decide on their validity under FFCCSOA. In cases involving multiple orders, the initiating State IV-D agency must determine which State should determine the controlling order. Once the State makes this determination, the State must “ask the appropriate intrastate tribunal or refer the case to the appropriate responding State IV-D agency, for a determination of the controlling order and a reconciliation of arrearages” as required in § 303.7(c)(4)(i). The tribunal within the State or in the responding State IV-D agency will address the issue of validity at that point. 2. Comment: One commenter stated that § 303.7(c)(2) indicates that the proper tribunal to make a determination of controlling order is the tribunal that is able to obtain personal jurisdiction over both the obligor and obligee; however, the rule does not address what the procedure should be if no tribunal is able to obtain personal jurisdiction over both parties, which will often be the case in intergovernmental cases. Response: The commenter is correct that a tribunal requires personal jurisdiction over both parties to make a DCO. If neither the issuing nor initiating State has personal jurisdiction over both parties because the initiating tribunal did not issue one of the multiple orders and neither the custodial parent, noncustodial parent, nor child remain in a State where one of the multiple orders was issued, then personal jurisdiction may always be obtained by referring the case to the State in which the opposing party resides. Section 207 of UIFSA provides the proper procedures to follow to obtain a DCO in this situation. Section 303.7(c)(3)—Determine if Use of One-State Remedies Is Appropriate and Section 303.7(c)(4)—Actions Required Within 20 Calendar Days of Completing Requirements in Paragraphs (c)(1)-(3) 1. Comment: Section 303.7(c)(3) requires the initiating State agency to: “Determine the appropriateness of using its one-state interstate remedies to establish paternity and establish, modify, and enforce a support order, including medical support and income withholding.” One commenter suggested replacing the term “one-state interstate” with the term “intrastate” because the commenter felt this would be consistent with terminology in § 303.7(c)(4)(i) and (ii), which discusses, in part, a State taking “intrastate” action for getting a determination of controlling order or referring a case. Response: As indicated in the discussion above regarding the definition of the term “one-state interstate,” we replaced the definition of that type of case with a definition of “one-state remedies.” “One-state remedies” are defined as the exercise of a State's jurisdiction over a non-resident parent or direct establishment, enforcement, or other action by a State against a non-resident parent in accordance with the long-arm provision of UIFSA or other State law. In § 303.7(c)(3), we have removed the word “interstate” so that the regulation now reads: “Determine whether the noncustodial parent is in another jurisdiction and whether it is appropriate to use its one-state remedies to establish paternity and establish, modify, and enforce a support order, including medical support and income withholding.” 2. Comment: One commenter agreed that one-state interstate actions be up to the initiating State. However, the commenter asked OCSE to clarify in the rule that States should not send cases to responding States for establishment when an adjustment is appropriate, particularly in regard to establ [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-15215. Public record. Not legal advice.