AT-08-06, Implementing section 466(a)(14) of the Social Security Act, High-Volume, Automated Administrative Enforcement in Interstate Cases

Introduction

Section 466(a)(14)(B) of the Act defines high-volume automated administrative enforcement in interstate cases as, "…on request of another State, the identification by a State, through automated data matches with financial institutions and other entities where assets may be found, of assets owned by persons who owe child support in other States, and the seizure of such assets by the State, through levy or other appropriate processes." In recent years, several States expressed concerns that it was not possible for their automated Statewide child support enforcement computer systems to process AEI requests without first establishing a case on the system, which was not permitted under the former section 466(a)(14)(A)(iii) of the Act. Section 7301(g) of the DRA remedied this problem by amending section 466(a)(14)(A)(iii) of the Act to provide that, while neither State may consider the case to be transferred to the assisting State's caseload, the assisting State may establish a corresponding case based on a requesting State's AEI request for assistance. This provision was effective October 1, 2005.

AEI Statute

Section 466(a)(14) was amended by section 7301 of the DRA to read as follows:

"(14) HIGH-VOLUME, AUTOMATED ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT IN INTERSTATE CASES.-
"(A) IN GENERAL.-Procedures under which-
"(i) the State shall use high-volume automated administrative enforcement, to the same extent as used for intrastate cases, in response to a request made by another State to enforce support orders, and shall promptly report the results of such enforcement procedure to the requesting State;
"(ii) the State may, by electronic or other means, transmit to another State a request for assistance in enforcing support orders through high-volume, automated administrative enforcement, which request-
"(I) shall include such information as will enable the State to which the request is transmitted to compare the information about the cases to the information in the data bases of the State; and
"(II) shall constitute a certification by the requesting State-
"(aa) of the amount of support under an order the payment of which is in arrears; and
"(bb) that the requesting State has complied with all procedural due process requirements applicable to each case;
"(iii) if the State provides assistance to another State pursuant to this paragraph with respect to a case, neither State shall consider the case to be transferred to the caseload of such other State (but the assisting State may establish a corresponding case based on such other State's request for assistance emphasis added); and
"(iv) the State shall maintain records of-
"(I) the number of such requests for assistance received by the State;
"(II) the number of cases for which the State collected support in response to such a request; and
"(III) the amount of such collected support.
"(B) HIGH-VOLUME AUTOMATED ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT.--In this part, the term `high-volume automated administrative enforcement' in interstate cases, means, on request of another State, the identification by a State, through automated data matches with financial institutions and other entities where assets may be found, of assets owned by persons who owe child support in other States, and the seizure of such assets by the State, through levy or other appropriate processes."

Definitions of Terms Used in this Document

AEI Request - An inquiry from a requesting State to an assisting State to proceed with AEI. The request must certify: (1) the amount of arrears due and (2) that appropriate due process requirements have been met by the requesting State with respect to each obligor. The request must also contain sufficient identifying information on the delinquent obligors to permit the assisting State to conduct automated matches against data bases which could identify the location of assets owned by the obligors.

Assisting State - A State that processes an AEI request from another State.

High-Volume Administrative Enforcement for Interstate Cases (AEI) - Upon request of another State to find and seize assets owned by delinquent obligors, the use of automated data processing to match with financial institution databases and other entities where assets may be found, as used in intrastate cases, and the seizure of such assets by the State, through levy or other appropriate processes.

Requesting State - A State that transmits an AEI request to another State.

Please Note: We have not used the interstate terms "initiating" and "responding" to describe the States involved in AEI to distinguish this process from conventional IV-D interstate actions in which a IV-D case is transferred from one State to another for all appropriate IV-D activities.

General

QUESTION 1: What is High-Volume, Automated Administrative Enforcement in Interstate Cases?

ANSWER 1: Section 466(a)(14) of the Act requires that each State enact laws requiring the use of procedures for high-volume automated administrative enforcement, to the same extent as used for intrastate cases, in response to a request made by another State to enforce support orders, and to promptly report the results of such enforcement procedure to the requesting State. Upon request of another State, the assisting State must identify assets owned by delinquent obligors through automated data matches with financial institutions and other asset sources and seize such assets through levy or other appropriate processes.

The requesting State may submit AEI requests including data on delinquent obligors by electronic or other means. The AEI request constitutes a certification by the requesting State of the support delinquency owed by each obligor and that the requesting State has complied with all procedural due process requirements applicable to each obligor included in the request. The request must include the necessary information to enable the assisting State to incorporate the request into its usual automated matching process with financial institutions and other databases where assets might be found, as appropriate. If assets are identified by any match(es), the assisting State proceeds to seize the identified assets on behalf of the requesting State.

The DRA amended section 466(a)(14)(A)(iii) of the Act and provided assisting States the flexibility to establish a corresponding case in response to an AEI request. This means that the assisting State has the option to enter an AEI request into the assisting State's statewide automated system as an AEI case. However, the assisting State may not develop this request into an interstate case and may not provide the full scope of IV-D services provided to interstate cases. The assisting State must maintain records of the number of requests for assistance, the number of AEI cases for which the State collected support in response to such a request and the amount of collected support. The amount of collected support should be reported on the OCSE-34A and OCSE-157 reporting forms.

QUESTION 2: Must States pass enabling legislation in order to meet AEI requirements?

ANSWER 2: Section 466(a) of the Act, begins: "...each State must have in effect laws requiring the use of the following procedures...." Therefore, State law must require the IV-D Agency to act on behalf of other IV-D jurisdictions in the manner prescribed by section 466(a)(14) of the Act.

QUESTION 3: How does Quick Locate differ from AEI?

ANSWER 3: A requesting State can submit a Quick Locate request through the Child Support Enforcement Network (CSENet) to an assisting State to locate the noncustodial parent or alleged parent. There is no responsibility to either locate or collect assets, or to enforce a support order.

Quick Locate is similar to AEI in that neither activity transfers jurisdiction over the case nor requires the assisting State to open an interstate IV-D case during the process.

QUESTION 4: What starts the AEI process?

ANSWER 4: AEI is triggered by a request, rather than a formal interstate referral, from one State IV-D agency to another to use high-volume, automated administrative enforcement to locate and seize assets to satisfy arrearages owed by obligors in the requesting State's caseload. The request must certify: (1) the amount of arrears due and (2) that appropriate due process requirements have been met by the requesting State with respect to each obligor. The request must also contain sufficient identifying information on the delinquent obligors to permit the assisting State to conduct automated matches against data bases that could identify the location of assets owned by the obligors.

QUESTION 5: What type of case is this, if not an interstate case?

ANSWER 5: The DRA amended section 466(a)(14)(A)(iii) of the Act and provided assisting States the flexibility to establish a corresponding case in response to an AEI request. Therefore, the assisting State has the option to enter the AEI request into the assisting State's automated statewide system as an AEI case.

If the assisting State enters the AEI request on the automated statewide system as an AEI case, assisting States are encouraged to specifically code it as an AEI case. The purpose of the coding is to ensure that the AEI case can be easily identified in the State's general/regular case population/universe. Coding AEI cases will enable States to exclude them from being reported on the OCSE-157 Annual Data Report. If these cases are not reported on the OCSE-157, then they will not be reviewed during data reliability audits pursuant to section 452(a)(4) of the Act (see also question #24).

An AEI request is not transferred to the assisting State's caseload using interstate forms to request all necessary services, and the request does not constitute a formal IV-D interstate case referral. The IV-D agency may not open a IV-D case in the conventional sense either during the matching phase or, in the event of a "hit," when it seizes and forwards assets to the requesting State.

Since AEI requests are not interstate IV-D cases in the assisting State, assisting States may not include such requests as IV-D cases in their State Case Registry (section 454A(e) of the Act), regardless of whether any automated match occurred or collection was obtained in the AEI process.

QUESTION 6: Do case closure criteria under 45 CFR 303.11 apply to an AEI request if the assisting State creates an AEIcase on their system to process an AEI request?

ANSWER 6: No. When AEI is completed, the assisting State need not meet IV-D case closure criteria under 45 CFR 303.11 before "closing" a case involving a delinquent obligor submitted under an AEI request. The assisting State must, however, maintain statistics on AEI case actions and associated collections. (See Q&A 13.)

AEI is completed when an automated match with financial institutions and other asset sources is performed and no assets of persons who owe child support in the requesting State are found. If assets of persons who owe child support in the requesting State are identified through such automated data matches, AEI is completed when the identified assets are seized and transmitted to the requesting State or when a challenge, if any, is completed.

Requesting State Responsibilities

QUESTION 7: What are the requesting State's responsibilities when requesting assistance under AEI?

ANSWER 7: Section 466(a)(14) of the Act specifies that the request constitutes a certification: 1) of the amount of support delinquency and, 2) that the requesting State has complied with all procedural due process requirements with respect to cases submitted. Since asset seizure by the assisting State is AEI's primary objective, the requesting State's certification that due process has been met must be a certification that the requesting State's own due process requirements have been met.

QUESTION 8: How many individual requests can---or should---a State send to another State per AEI transmission? An unlimited number? Selected cases based on rational criteria?

ANSWER 8: The law does not specify the quantity of AEI requests that may be processed at one time. Accordingly, we encourage States to send only those cases for which there is a rational basis for the request. Two criteria are suggested: (1) specific indication or knowledge that NCP's assets may be in a particular State, and (2) the application of logical criteria to identify delinquent obligors, specifically including: NCP's geographic proximity to the assisting State, NCP's known past association with the assisting State, and Expanded Federal Parent Locator Service match results showing NCP's link with assisting State.

To streamline the processing of AEI requests, we encourage each State to post information on lien and levy criteria under the assisting State's law (e.g. threshold and asset types) on the State profiles page on OCSE's Intergovernmental Referral Guide (IRG) at: http://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/ext/irg/. Under the "J" series for Support Enforcement, there is a series of questions describing a State's lien and levy process. OCSE will be revising Section J of the IRG and will be soliciting input from States on these revisions. We encourage States to keep this information updated to assist other States in providing the necessary information to meet the lien and levy requirements of the other State.

Ultimately, an assisting State's ability to process a high-volume administrative enforcement request depends on whether the case information submitted by the requesting State meets the assisting State's match criteria. Therefore, communication between States prior to the submittal of administrative enforcement requests is recommended, especially when a State intends to include data on a large number of delinquent obligors in an AEI request to another State.

QUESTION 9: Which State determines what type of case to submit (e.g., amount of arrearage)?

ANSWER 9: The requesting State should establish standard criteria that cases should meet before being referred to another State for AEI. Although there are no standard criteria for cases submitted as part of an AEI request, clearly an assisting State can include an AEI request in its own data matches only if the case meets the assisting State's criteria for the particular data match (e.g., arrears threshold or date of last payment). Therefore, the assisting State's match criteria ultimately determine whether this remedy can be implemented. States may refer to the OCSE IRG for information on other States' lien and levy requirements.

QUESTION 10: What is the appropriate timing and frequency of requests?

ANSWER 10: Section 466(a)(14) of the Act does not specify how often or when requests are to be made. It is suggested that the requesting State work with the assisting State in advance to develop procedures and coordinate all technical and logistical aspects necessary for a successful AEI transmission. Coordination could include agreements on when requests are transmitted so that the assisting State can best manage its overall workload and cycle of data base matches (e.g., quarterly financial institution (FI) data matches). In addition, States should agree to reasonable parameters for determining which cases to refer for AEI.

Data Element Requirements

QUESTION 11: What data elements should accompany AEI requests? Standard data elements? State-specific data elements? Who decides which elements are to be included?

ANSWER 11: Section 466(a)(14)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act provides that a requesting State seeking assistance under this provision:

"shall include such information as will enable the State to which the request is transmitted to compare the information about the case to the information in the data bases of the State...."

The statute does not specify what data elements are to be used in AEI requests. While we recognize the advantage of a standardized format so that States can develop consistent software to simplify use of this enforcement technique, it is ultimately the assisting State's data needs and/or limitations that will dictate what data elements are necessary. OCSE will explore working with States to determine if a standardized data format is feasible for AEI.

We encourage States to use the IRG to list the mandatory and optional data elements needed by their States in processing AEI requests.

The following data elements are suggested:

Name

Address

SSN

DOB

Requesting State case ID

Certified amount of arrears

Monthly obligation

Date of last payment

Requesting State FIPS Code

These data elements are critical for matching purposes against State data bases, in particular the FI data match, and contain the identifiers that allow the assisting State to transmit seized assets to the requesting State. Optional identifying data elements that could be helpful for matching purposes are: aliases, gender, place of birth, or custodial parent's name. Additional data elements may be needed for the freeze and seize phase of an AEI request. Those data elements tend to be very State-specific.

Assisting State Responsibilities

QUESTION 12: Upon receiving an AEI request, how will an assisting State establish a corresponding case without transferring the actual child support case?

ANSWER 12: Each State may determine how AEI cases will be set up to accommodate AEI processing. The following two examples are possible options for processing AEI.

Example 1: Assisting States may consider creating temporary AEI cases solely for the purpose of conducting AEI. The process used for Quick Locate requests, where the requesting State is merely requesting locate information from another State and not transferring responsibility for the case, may be a model for processing AEI requests. In sending a Quick Locate request, the requesting State sends a quick locate request (L01 R) via CSENet to another State. To handle Quick Locates, some States build "shell" cases for incoming requests which are kept in a "separate" area of the database. The "shell" cases have unique case identifiers which are never assimilated or associated with usual case processing activities. Upon establishment of the "shell" cases, State systems are programmed to automatically initiate locate actions by matching the "shell" cases against State automated locate sources. "Hits" areautomatically loaded back to the "shell" cases and transmitted to the requesting State. The "shell" cases are purged after 90 days.

OCSE will work with States to explore whether CSENet might be an option for States to transmit and receive AEI, similar to Quick Locate.

Example 2: States may also consider using stand-alone AEI systems that allow States to act on interstate accounts without major changes to their Statewide case management systems. There may be private vendor options for stand-alone AEI systems that provide services for matching AEI requests with financial institution accounts and for seizing assets in the event of a match.

QUESTION 13: What are the assisting State's responsibilities when responding to requests for assistance under AEI?

ANSWER 13: The assisting State must: 1) use automatic data processing to search financial institutions and other entities where assets may be found; 2) seize any identified assets, for example, accounts in FIs, to satisfy the support debt; 3) maintain records of the number of requests for assistance received, the number of AEI cases for which the State collected support in response to such a request and the amount of such collected support; 4) promptly report the results of the enforcement procedures to the requesting State, and 5) ensure that collections are sent to the requesting State. The assisting State may (but is not required to) report negative match results to the requesting State.

QUESTION 14: Will States be required to develop an automated process for the transmission of AEI requests?

ANSWER 14: The statute provides States the flexibility to develop an AEI transmission mechanism appropriate to each State. Specifically, section 466(a)(14)(A)(ii) of the Act permits the State to transmit to another State, "by electronic or other means," the request for assistance. OCSE will work with States to review the data elements and definitions that were previously developed with States to determine if they could be used as a possible data model for AEI and explore whether CSENet might be an automated option for States to transmit and receive AEI actions, similar to Quick Locate. Some States use Interstate Transmittal #3 (OMB 0970-0085) to transmit an AEI request. Since there is no required transmittal method, requesting States should first communicate with the assisting State or research the assisting State's requirements on the OCSE IRG, before sending AEI requests. States may also check with OCSE for the most current list of States using Interstate Transmittal #3.

QUESTION 15: Which automated matches should assisting States use to assist a requesting State?

ANSWER 15: The process described in section 466(a)(14)(A) of the Act clearly anticipates matching against data bases which identify assets that can be seized by the assisting State. Section 466(a)(14)(B) of the Act requires assisting States to search for assets of delinquent obligors in financial institutions (section 466(a)(17) of the Act) and other entities where assets may be found. In response to a request from another State, assisting States are required to use AEI to the same extent as used for intrastate cases, so States should perform the same automated matches for other States as they would for themselves.

QUESTION 16: How do assisting States fulfill the enforcement requirement?

ANSWER 16: AEI is designed to result in prompt but limited enforcement action. When assets are uncovered, the assisting State must take steps to seize the obligor's assets and send them to the requesting State. Since the assisting State does not open an interstate IV-D case under this process, AEI does not involve an ongoing or long-term enforcement remedy, but rather a "one-shot" or "quick" enforcement action. When a "hit" occurs, an asset that can be seized is identified, and the assisting State must initiate an enforcement action consistent with its due process standards to collect on the arrears amount on behalf of the requesting State.

When an asset belonging to a delinquent obligor is identified, the assisting State must proceed to collect the indicated debt, pursuant to applicable State law. Section 466(a)(14)(A)(i) of the Act requires States to use AEI "to the same extent" as used for their own intrastate cases, which would include the expedited procedures for securing assets administratively as required by section 466(c)(1)(G)) of the Act.

Ideally, a requesting State will be able to provide in one step the necessary AEI information to request a match and to request lien and levy actions on all identified "hits." If such a one-step approach is not feasible, however, due to time lags or lien and levy procedural requirements, OCSE encourages States to develop mechanisms for requesting States to provide the necessary information and/or complete the assisting State's lien and levy forms as quickly as possible. We encourage each State to use the IRG to provide information on AEI and lien and levy procedures in its State to facilitate a requesting State's ability to move expeditiously to provide the information needed to execute a lien and levy on the financial institution account or other asset located in an assisting State.

QUESTION 17: How are appeals and contests handled?

ANSWER 17: The assisting State should use the same appeal procedures used for any other seizure process in the State. The law of the State where the asset is located would apply. When assets are frozen or seized, property owners frequently, under State law, have rights to contest. Following an AEI action, the contest takes place in the State where the property is located.

The requesting State should be prepared to provide pertinent case information promptly if there is a contest when an assisting State seizes or attempts to seize assets. If the obligor appeals an asset seizure beyond the assisting State's administrative procedures for responding to contests and to the assisting State's judicial system, for example, a requesting State may determine it is appropriate to submit additional information to the assisting State.

Reporting Requirements

QUESTION 18: What is meant by "promptly report the results of such enforcement procedure to the requesting State"?

ANSWER 18: The State must use this enforcement tool to the same extent as similar enforcement is used for IV-D intrastate cases. States are required to process AEI requests under the same timeframes as they would their intrastate cases.

QUESTION 19: What are the AEI recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

ANSWER 19: The assisting State must maintain records of: 1) the number of requests for AEI received; 2) the number of AEI cases for which the State collected support in response to a request; 3) the amount of the collected support. The State must also promptly report the results of AEI activities to the requesting State (e.g. successful matches and amounts collected).

AEI collections made by the assisting State and received by the requesting State are reported to OCSE on the Child Support Enforcement Quarterly Report of Collections, Form OCSE-34A. Assisting States report these collections on the quarter received on Line 2d, "Collections Received During the Quarter Through Administrative Enforcement." Assisting States also report these collections in the quarter disbursed on Line 4b, "Collections Sent to Other States." If the categories of the collections (Columns A through E) are not known, assisting States must report the entire amount on Line 4b, Column F as "Other Never Assistance" collections. Please note that the receipt (Line 2d) and disbursement (Line 4b) of these amounts might not occur in the same quarter.

Requesting States report collections in the quarter received on Line 2f, "Collections Received During the Quarter from Other States." The requesting State is responsible for the distribution of these collections and reporting the distribution on Lines 7a through 7e as appropriate.

The number of a State's AEI cases is not reported to OCSE on the Annual Data Report (OCSE-157) (see also question #5 and #25). However, any collections from AEI cases are reported on the Annual Data Report (OCSE-157) in "Section F: Collections Due and Distributed."

Fees, Incentives and Federal Financial Participation (FFP) in Administrative Costs Data

QUESTION 20: May assisting States require requesting States to pay fees charged by FIs for data matching?

ANSWER 20: Under section 466(a)(17) of the Act, a State agency may pay a reasonable fee to a FI for conducting data matches, not to exceed the actual costs incurred by the FI. Since AEI requests are not interstate IV-D cases in the assisting State, the requirement at 45 CFR 303.7(d) that the responding State pays all fees, except for genetic testing, does not apply. Therefore, the assisting State may require the requesting State to pay appropriate FI fees applicable to the requesting State's AEI requests. This should ensure that requesting States do not overburden assisting States with AEI requests and that assisting States do not incur an inappropriate financial burden. Because there is no prohibition against charging fees in administering AEI cases, assisting States may also ask the requesting State to pay other fees, such as fees charged by a private vendor for a stand-alone AEI system or fees charged by FIs associated with lien processing.

QUESTION 21: How are incentives determined?

ANSWER 21: Section 458(c) of the Act clarifies that both assisting and requesting States are eligible for Federal incentive funding for collections as a result of AEI. Therefore, these collections must be reported by both States on their respective OCSE-34A and OCSE-157 reports. Specifically, collections reported on Line 4b of Form OCSE-34A by the assisting State and on Lines 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d by the requesting State are used in the incentive payment computation (see Q&A 20).

QUESTION 22: When support is collected as a result of AEI, where are collections sent?

ANSWER 22: Section 466(a)(14) does not address this issue. We expect that collections will continue to be sent to the IV-D agency in the assisting State, as in intrastate cases. However, if the requesting State and assisting State agree, collections may be sent directly to the requesting State from the asset source. If the collection is sent directly to the requesting State from the asset source, the assisting State should develop a communication mechanism for the asset source or requesting State to report collections to the assisting State. Such communication is necessary so that this collections information can be properly reported by both States on the OCSE-34A and OCSE-157 reports and the incentive payments can be properly computed.

Note: There are EFT/EDI procedures and formats for conforming to the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) for financial institution data match interstate collections application indicators. While OCSE did not require the adoption of these codes for certification of automated statewide systems, States may consider utilizing the EFT/EDI procedures to facilitate processing of AEI collections.

QUESTION 23: Is FFP available to both States for processing AEI requests?

ANSWER 23: Each State (assisting and requesting) will be eligible for FFP for reasonable and necessary administrative costs associated with submitting, collecting and processing these high-volume administrative enforcement actions. Expenditures eligible for FFP will be reported by the States as routine administrative costs on Form OCSE-396A.

Data Reliability Audits

QUESTION 24: How will AEI cases be treated during data reliability audits pursuant to section 452(a)(4) of the Act?

ANSWER 24: AEI cases will not be reviewed during data reliability audits, if they are not reported on the OCSE-157 Annual Data Report. As described in Answer 5, assisting States are encouraged to code AEI cases so that they can be easily identified in the State's general/regular case population/universe. Coding AEI cases will enable assisting States to exclude them from being reported on the OCSE-157 Annual Data Report. If these cases are not reported on the OCSE-157, they will not be reviewed during data reliability audits under section 452(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act. However, if AEI cases are erroneously reported, it may result in errors in the State's data reliability.

Attachment

Legislative History of AEI Provision

Section 323 of PRWORA in 1996 added section 466(a)(14) of the Act to create a new child support enforcement mechanism called administrative enforcement in interstate cases. Technical amendments to PRWORA in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) revised section 466(a)(14) of the Act to provide for "High-Volume, Administrative Enforcement in Interstate Cases" which was designed to enable child support agencies to quickly locate and secure assets held by delinquent obligors in another State or jurisdiction without opening a full-blown interstate IV-D case in the other State. Initially, section 466(a) (14)(B) defined AEI as, "…the use of automatic data processing to search various State data bases, including license records, employment service data, and State new hire registries, to determine whether information is available regarding a parent who owes a child support obligation."

The definition of AEI was changed the following year by section 404 of the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998. The new statutory language redefined "High-Volume Automated Administrative Enforcement in Interstate Cases" by amending section 466(a)(14)(B) to read as follows: "…means, on request of another State, the identification by a State, through automated data matches with financial institutions and other entities where assets may be found, of assets owned by persons who owe child support in other States, and the seizure of such assets by the State, through levy or other appropriate processes." In addressing the definitional change, PIQ-98-07 noted that, "Previously one could interpret the Act as requiring the use of this tool for both locating obligors and assets and also for enforcement. With this amendment, it is clear that AEI is solely for enforcement."

The AEI provision allows a State to include debts received from other States in its periodic financial institution (FI) data match, conducted in accordance with section 466(a)(17) of the Act. The unique factor about AEI is that when a State requests that another State administratively enforce arrearages, the underlying IV-D case is not transferred, and the assisting State is not required to provide all appropriate IV-D services.

Under section 466(a)(17) of the Act, State IV-D Agencies are required to enter into agreements with FIs to develop and operate data match systems, and for States to pass laws requiring FIs to provide this information to the IV-D agency. In addition, FIs must provide account information on a quarterly basis for each non-custodial parent identified by the State who has an account at the institution and who owes past-due support. The agreements must include provisions for FIs to encumber or surrender non-custodial parents' (NCPs) assets in response to a notice of a lien or levy.

Several States expressed concern that it was not possible for their automated Statewide child support enforcement computer systems to process AEI requests without first establishing a case on the system, which was not permitted under the former section 466(a)(14)(A)(iii) of the Act. Section 7301 of the DRA remedied this problem by amending section 466(a)(14)(A)(iii) of the Act to provide that, while neither State may consider the case to be transferred to the assisting State's caseload, the assisting State may establish a corresponding case based on a requesting State's AEI request for assistance. This provision was effective October 1, 2005.