Public comments and ACF responses

Intergovernmental Reference Guide OMB 0970-0209 60-Day Comments Overview The 60-day notice for the Intergovernmental Reference Guide (IRG) was initially set to close September 9, 2024. However, OCSS extended the closure date to October 16, 2024, to allow for the review and response to comments submitted after September 9, 2024. Verbiage highlighted in red depicts an agreed change based on a state recommendation.
AFFILIATION	COMMENT	Discussion - Decision

Iowa Health and Human Services Melinda Denney [email protected] Diane Tegtmeyer
	We disagree with making all questions in this section private. Much of this information is already available on the OCSS website in the State/Employer Contact and Program Information documents for SDU and EFT Contact and Program Requirements and State Medical Support.	OCSS’s decision to add the Employer Serviced Program Category and the associated questions was based on allowing the states to maintain their state policies and processes.
	Question 10 below is currently question 5.1 in the Income Withholding Section. We suggest this question remain in the Income Withholding Section. We believe most IRG users will expect to find this information in the Income Withholding Section. (Private) How many days following the first pay period after service, receipt, or mailing of an income withholding order is an employer required to begin withholding?	OCSS moved question 5.1 from the Income Withholding section to the Employer Services program category to reduce redundancy and remain within the IRG's reorganization.
Vermont Office of Child Support Kelly S. Sargent [email protected]	I wanted to share that I don’t like the new search feature in the IRG once you are in a state and searching county contacts.  The software is not as user friendly, and you can’t go back and forth from office to office as easily in the search.  The content is fine, I found it easier and faster to search in with the old software in that one area.	OCSS is aware of this issue and is actively working to fix it. We will notify all states and tribes once the issue is resolved.
Missouri Child support Joan Kuhn Joan Kuhn [email protected]	Section 1-10 Employer Services Missouri strongly does not support the addition of the employer services questions from the existing matrices to the IRG. The nature of these questions does not seem relative to or assist states with intergovernmental case processing. This information is more appropriately placed in the matrices currently offered and easily accessed on the OCSS website. In the alternative, if OCSS is looking to move away from multiple matrices, these questions could be consolidated into one employer services resource document on the OCSS website and/or added to the Child Support Portal. Missouri further suggests that all questions that were pulled to this new Employer Services section from previous IRG sections be returned to the prior IRG section, i.e., Income Withholding and Lump Sum Payments	OCSS sent acknowledgement of comments received. OCSS’s decision to add the Employer Serviced Program Category and the associated questions was based on allowing the states to maintain their state policies and processes.
Missouri Child support Joan Kuhn Joan Kuhn [email protected]	Section 1-16 Income Withholding Missouri supports the addition of question 12 regarding independent contractor withholding amounts but suggests a slight wording change to "determining the amount to withhold" rather than "deciding". As mentioned, Missouri strongly recommends moving the income withholding questions that were moved to the new Employer Services section back to the Income Withholding section.	OCSS agrees with Missouri’s suggestion to change “deciding” to determining.” This change will display under Income Withholding and was made in the program category Income withholding - question 11.
Missouri Child support Joan Kuhn Joan Kuhn [email protected]	Sections 1-19 through 1-2 International A question could be added to the International-Payments section as 3.1 asking whether the state participates in the Central Authority Payment {CAP) Service. Missouri also suggests consolidating the international sections of Reciprocity, Information for Hague Countries and Payments into one section titled International Case Processing. If it is necessary to keep the required Hague Convention profile questions as a separate section, an alternative could be to keep that section as is and combine the other two international sections.	OCSS agrees and added the recommended proposed question to the International – Payment program category New Question: Does your state send international payments to participating foreign authorities via OCSS’ Central Authority Payment Service? If yes, please list which foreign authorities. OCSS disagrees with combining the international section questions.
Missouri Child support Joan Kuhn Joan Kuhn [email protected]	Section 1-25 Modification and Review/Adjustment Missouri supports the new questions 7-9. However, it appears the wording in questions 8 and 9 should be "IV-D non-public assistance case" rather than "non-PA case" to align with terminology in other sections. In Missouri and likely in other states, PA is commonly the acronym for prosecuting attorney so it could be confusing to the user.	OCSS agrees with Missouri’s recommendation to change “non-PA” to “non-Public Assistance” in the Modification and Review/Adjustment questions 8 -9.
Missouri Child support Joan Kuhn Joan Kuhn [email protected]	Section 1-26 Other State-Level Enforcement This section seems to be the "leftover" enforcement actions that were not moved to individualized sections. Missouri suggests changing the name to "Enforcement Measures - Other" and in addition to the questions currently in the draft, include the Automated Administrative Enforcement (AEI), Credit Reporting, Federal Enforcement Measures, Lien Enforcement questions to help limit the number of enforcement related sections in the IRG.	OCSS disagrees with Missouri’s recommendations for this section. The title of this section is sufficient and the current format will make the IRG more user-friendly.
Missouri Child support Joan Kuhn Joan Kuhn [email protected]	Section 1-27 Paternity/Parentage Missouri supports the addition of question 2 regarding how genetic testing is coordinated when the other party is out of state. This information will be beneficial as this issue occurs frequently. Missouri recommends moving question 11 regarding fee waivers to a sub-question to question 10. is a sub-question in the current lRG version. Question 10 questions whether the state's BVR charges any fees. Sub-question 10.1 would be "Describe any circumstances in which these fees may be waived.	OCSS agrees with Missouri’s recommendation to make question 11 a sub-question of 10 (10.1). This change is reflected in the Paternity/Parentage program category question 10-10.1.
Missouri Child support Joan Kuhn Joan Kuhn [email protected]	Section 1-28 Statute of Limitations Missouri seeks clarification regarding the intent of question 4 "Can the statute of limitation for enforcement be extended or waived?". It’s unclear whether this question is meant to address statute of limitations for requesting enforcement actions which would be different from the other statute of limitation questions which are related to arrears collection.	OCSS disagrees. States can provide any/all information they deem appropriate to answer this question.
Missouri Child support Joan Kuhn Joan Kuhn [email protected]	Section 1-30 Support Order Details Missouri suggests that a better placement for question 2 pertaining to the minimum number of days with each parent that can be considered in the state's guideline formula and what evidence is required may be in the Modification and Review/Adjustment section rather than Support Order Details. The number of days with each parent is relevant in the guideline calculations when modifying support orders. Question 7 seems lengthy and muddled with the scenario example. We strongly recommend removing the scenario which is not necessary and just leave the question which is self-explanatory and concise Regarding new question 11, it is unclear what is meant by the term "a child's family benefit paid directly to the custodial parent". What is the family benefit that is being referred to: TANF, child support, some other type of payment the family receives? Missouri questions whether the new question 12 is necessary. Under the duration of support statute in UIFSA, the issuing order state's laws are applicable regarding whether SSA auxiliary credit is given. Additionally, in an intergovernmental case, the responding jurisdiction would be responsible for enforcement of the SSA benefits from the SSA claim of the person responsible for paying support. After review, if the arrears reconciliation is needed, it would follow the same process of any other arrears reconciliation notification and reconciliation Additional clarification is needed for question 14 regarding the child support program collecting and retaining Medicaid birth costs. Is this asking whether the state obtains and enforces birthing expense judgments? _________________________________________________________________ Missouri supports the addition of question 15 asking whether a state has a debt compromise program but suggests adding an additional statement requesting the state to briefly describe the debt compromise program. Missouri supports the addition of question 16 in this section regarding the payment rate on arrears. Also, Missouri supports question 17 regarding whether custody changes between parents requires legal custody be obtained prior to child support being addressed, however, this question aligns more with support order establishment. Missouri suggests returning this question to the Support Order Establishment section where it is currently located in the IRG	OCSS disagrees. This question can also be applicable to Establishment; therefore, to eliminate having this question in multiple sections, Support Order Details is the best placement. OCSS agrees to remove the scenario example from question 7. OCSS agrees to clarify this question. For clarification and reorganization of questions 9 – 11 (propose update to reflect as questions 9, 9.1 (added), and 10). OCSS believes this question is necessary. However, we will edit the questions to change “communication or reconciliation” to “notification and reconciliation.” The question 14. Does your child support program collect and retain Medicaid birth costs? was limited to “Medicaid” birth costs. OCSS proposed to delete this specific question and believes the question can be confusing to states. _________________________ OCSS disagrees with expanding question (information is too detailed for the IRG). OCSS disagrees with Missouri’s suggestion to move question 17 to Support Order Establishment. Support Order Details is the best placement. This question is germane to what actions need to be taken regarding an existing order.
North Dakota Child Support Jim Fleming [email protected]     Tracy Graham [email protected]	We noticed the unfortunate delay between July 11 publication in the Federal Register and the August 16 date of the DCL, and a puzzling 6 additional days before the DCL was transmitted to directors. We don’t surf the Federal Register every day, so this delay led to loss of significantly more than half of the applicable comment period. Paulette asked for a copy of the changes right away and is still waiting. These changes may not be so significant, but it would still be more preferable to learn about the changes closer to the beginning of the 60-day comment period.	In addition, OCSS sent acknowledgement of comments received and sent a copy of the proposed collection information to Paulette on August 27, 2024. OCSS extended the date to 10/16/24 to receive comments.
North Dakota Child Support Section Justin T. Breitwieser [email protected]	With respect to Automated Administrative Enforcement in Interstate Cases (AEI), we respectfully request reconsideration of providing a section on how appeals are handled. We understand that there are different types of appeals, and likely a great disparity among the different programs, but the existence of different types of appeals exemplifies the need for a section on detailing how appeals are handled in different jurisdictions. To this end, please also reconsider providing a section detailing what specific data elements are required to assist with the request. Providing this data does not have to result in legal advice, (i.e., what data is required for a successful outcome), and a subsection could simply be included to provide the required data necessary to have the appeal issue heard. The inclusion of this additional information would provide a great deal of assistance to programs in communicating and cooperating with each other.	OCSS has reviewed North Dakota’s request to reconsider adding questions to address how appeals are handled. OCSS does not recommend adding these questions, as there are different types of appeals for different enforcement remedies which would require lengthy and nuanced responses by states.
North Dakota Child Support Section Justin T. Breitwieser [email protected]	By the same token, under CSENet please also reconsider adding the question "Does your state use CSENet transactions to communicate with other states?". General Program At-A-Glance question 4 does not fully address this inquiry as it fails to include a state's preferred method of communication if CSENet is not utilized, and inclusion of this question would facilitate interstate communication. Likewise, we encourage and support the inclusion of the inquiry of "whether a program is state supervised, stated administered, or state-supervised, county administered?" under General Program At-A-Glance. North Dakota recognizes that with our ever increasingly connected world, we all benefit from increased communication, and the information sought in the questions would further increase communication between issuing and responding state programs.	OCSS has reviewed North Dakota’s request to reconsider adding a new question about CSENet communication. OCSS does not recommend adding this question. OCSS remains confident the General Program At-A-Glance question 4 addresses the proposed question from North Dakota. States have various communication options. OCSS has reviewed North Dakota’s request to reconsider adding a question about whether a program is state­ supervised, state administered, state supervised, or county administered. OCSS does not recommend adding this question. It is not necessary for case processing and this information is available in the State Plan. OCSS encourages states to communicate directly with each other to address these types of questions.
North Dakota Child Support Section Justin T. Breitwieser [email protected]	Also, regarding clarity of information, we continue to support the addition of inquiries in the Paternity Parentage section that provide insight into whether a state will establish a default order of paternity. We understand that this inquiry would be very nuanced, and that you have already rejected a similar question, however, the complicated nature of this issue is one that would greatly benefit from additional clarity, and the presence of a similar question underscores the need for this information. Further, if the expectation is that the states will pursue a determination in some manner, then having this information included in the IRG would obviously assist in facilitating the states' abilities to pursue a determination of paternity in cases involving multiple fathers as described. To this end, we request you reassess the inclusion of this question.	OCSS has reviewed North Dakota’s request to add a question about establishing a default order of paternity. OCSS does not recommend adding this question, as this question would require lengthy and nuanced responses by states. OCSS encourages states to communicate directly with each other to address this type of case processing concern.
North Dakota Child Support Section Justin T. Breitwieser [email protected]	Additionally, we believe that the section Modification and Review/Adjustment could also benefit from clarifying information. Please include the previously suggested question: "When your state is the issuing state, are there any aspects of a child support order that may not be modified under your state's law? If yes, please describe." We have suggested this question as it would be helpful to include information in the IRG regarding nonmodifiable aspects of orders to ensure states comply with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act§ 611. UIFSA § 611 (c) clearly indicates that a state may not modify any aspect of a child support order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing state, including the duration of the obligation of support. As such, it would be beneficial if the IRG would have a reference from each state as to what aspect of their orders are not modifiable from the standpoint of the state as the "issuing state" in order to facilitate case management and modification of orders as circumstances may require.	OCSS has reviewed North Dakota's request to add a question to address when a state is the issuing state and whether there are any aspects of a child support order that may not be modified under the state's law. OCSS does not recommend adding this question. This is governed by UIFSA § 611 (c). OCSS encourages states to communicate directly with each other to address this type of case processing concern when modifying a child support order.
North Dakota Child Support Section Justin T. Breitwieser [email protected]	Finally, in addition to increased community and clarity of information, we believe discussions involving complicated subject of child support, that can have many connected issues, benefit from increased detail to allow a complete understanding and explanation to obligors and obligee of the support obligation and its enforcement. To this end, please reconsider including the previously suggested questions in the section Support Detail as the increased level of detail will assist in case management and customer communication. Likewise, please also include the previously suggested question 6.1 in the Support Order Establishment section as this information would provide additional support in case management settings by providing clarity for customer expectations in understanding the process involved in "modifying" a zero-dollar support order.	OCSS has reviewed North Dakota’s request to add a question about establishing a default order of paternity. OCSS does not recommend adding this question. The process to modify a zero-dollar support order is the same as modifying any support order if there is a change in circumstances.
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services Steven Sharer [email protected]	CSS has no objections to any of the proposed changes; however, we would like to add a question that Illinois frequently receives for future consideration. Will your state establish paternity and support orders on cases with incarcerated respondents? If yes, how are those handled? For example, will support be set at zero and then need to be modified? Will support not be addressed until release? etc.	OCSS has reviewed Illinois’ request to add a question about establishing paternity and support orders on cases with incarcerated respondents. OCSS does not recommend adding this question. OCSS encourages states to communicate directly with each other to address these types of case processing concerns.