[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11967-11972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04044]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 11967]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 271, 273, and 281
[FNS-2009-0019]
RIN 0584-AD97
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Updated
Trafficking Definition and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Dual Participation
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is changing the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or Program) regulations
pertaining to SNAP client benefit use, participation of retail food
stores and wholesale food concerns in SNAP, and SNAP client
participation in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
(FDPIR). These changes to SNAP regulations address mandatory provisions
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246
(hereinafter referred to as ``the 2008 Farm Bill'') to allow for the
disqualification of a SNAP client who intentionally obtains cash by
purchasing, with SNAP benefits, products that have container deposits,
subsequently discarding the product, and returning the container(s) in
exchange for cash refund of deposit(s); or who intentionally resells or
exchanges products purchased with SNAP benefits for purposes of
obtaining cash and/or other non-eligible items.
Through existing authority under the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008, FNS is also stipulating penalties for certain Program abuses
committed by retailers. These abuses include stealing of SNAP benefits,
by retailers, without client complicity, and other forms of trafficking
through complicit arrangements between the retailer and the SNAP
client. Examples of the latter would be the purchase, by retailers, of
products originally purchased by clients with SNAP benefits and re-sold
to stores in exchange for cash or other non-eligible items; or
retailers taking possession of SNAP client cards and PINs, using the
SNAP benefits to purchase stock for the store, and subsequently
returning the card and PIN to the client with cash or other non-
eligible items provided in exchange for having used the SNAP benefit.
FNS is also addressing the mandatory 2008 Farm Bill provisions
requiring disqualification in SNAP when an individual is disqualified
from FDPIR, and under existing authority, clarifying the prohibition
against dual participation in SNAP and FDPIR.
DATES: Effective date: March 25, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Gold, Director, Benefit
Redemption Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. Ms. Gold can also be reached by
telephone at 703-305-2434 or by email at Andrea.Gold@fns,usda.gov
during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.) Monday through
Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
I. Purpose of Regulatory Action
The rule codifies nondiscretionary SNAP eligibility
disqualification provisions and FDPIR provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill
and addresses retailer Program violations.
This final regulation will allow the Department to take appropriate
action against retailers who are stealing SNAP benefits from clients or
colluding with clients to traffic benefits, and will allow State
agencies to take appropriate action against violating clients. The
regulations will also ensure that clients who commit intentional
Program violations (IPVs) in FDPIR are not able to participate in SNAP
while serving their FDPIR disqualification, and will ensure that no
client is able to dually participate in SNAP and FDPIR.
II. Major Provisions
This rule updates the definition of SNAP trafficking to encompass
the intentional acquisition of cash by purchasing with SNAP benefits
containers with deposits, discarding the product, and returning the
containers to obtain cash refund deposits; the intentional sale of
products originally purchased with SNAP benefits in exchange for cash
or consideration other than eligible food; the intentional purchase of
products originally purchased with SNAP benefits in exchange for cash
or consideration other than eligible food; and the stealing of SNAP
benefits.
Further, this rule corrects the existing regulatory citation
related to the requirement that State SNAP agencies ensure that dual
participation in FDPIR and SNAP not be permitted.
Finally, this rule requires that State SNAP agencies not allow a
client who has been disqualified from FDPIR for an intentional program
violation to participate in SNAP until the disqualification period has
expired.
III. Cost and Benefits
This final rule will primarily codify mandatory provisions of the
statute. The Department anticipates that the rule will have a nominal
cost impact on States that pursue clients who are defrauding the
Program in the ways described. As the Department has an existing
process for managing retailer compliance, the cost of pursuing
retailers who violate Program rules in the manner described is also
nominal. The problems being addressed in the rule are extremely unusual
and the Department has no data on which to base an estimate of their
frequency or the amount of benefits that might be involved. The final
rule also updates the existing definition of trafficking, and as such
there are no incremental cost or benefit repercussions.
State SNAP and FDPIR agencies will be required to perform checks
for dual participation in their Programs and to ensure that clients
disqualified from either SNAP or FDPIR are not allowed to participate
in the alternate program. Cross-program checks for duplicate
participation in SNAP and FDPIR are already required and checks for
ensuring that clients disqualified from SNAP or FDPIR are not
participating in the alternate program should follow a similar process;
therefore the checks will not significantly impact administrative
costs.
[[Page 11968]]
This rulemaking codifies provisions in the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 that improve Program integrity, thereby enhancing the Program's
ability to serve those who are truly in need, and helping to ensure
that SNAP benefits are used as intended.
Background
In this final rule, the Department is revising SNAP regulations in
accordance with Section 4131 (Eligibility Disqualification) of the 2008
Farm Bill to update the definition of trafficking to include certain
Program abuses by clients. The Department is also taking this
opportunity to address certain retailer abuses of the Program. These
types of abuse are not specifically addressed in the current definition
of trafficking.
This rule also addresses Section 4211 (Assessing the Nutritional
Value of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
Food Package) of the 2008 Farm Bill which requires, among other things,
reciprocal disqualification in SNAP when an individual is disqualified
from FDPIR. These regulatory changes codify the mandatory statutory
requirement to make reciprocal SNAP disqualification mandatory in
instances of disqualification from FDPIR.
Dual participation in SNAP and FDPIR is prohibited under existing
authority in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and is codified in
existing regulations. The Department is making a technical correction
to existing regulations regarding this mandatory prohibition.
This rule was proposed on June 20, 2011, at 76 FR 35787, and public
comments were invited through August 19, 2011. Comments have been
considered and adjustments made to the final rule.
Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions
Twenty-five comments were received from various stakeholders and
are available for public inspection on line at www.regulations.gov.
In general, commenters supported the regulations as proposed.
Several commenters however, expressed concern that lacking further
specificity, this regulation could result in States acting to
administratively disqualify clients without sufficient cause.
Commenters noted that client violations should be treated as IPVS
rather than trafficking. Commenters further noted that defining client
violations as ``intentional'' and providing specific examples of when
client actions would be considered violations is critical. One
commenter suggested that specific examples of non-violations be
included in the trafficking definition. Commenters requested that the
Department provide the specific legal standard necessary for taking
client action in instances of indirect trafficking and beverage
dumping. One commenter noted that the final rule should make clear that
neither eligibility workers nor fraud investigators may summon
recipients to be questioned about, or respond to accusations
concerning, use of their SNAP benefits for authorized foods.
The Department notes that intentional Program violations, as
defined in 7 U.S.C. 2015 of the statute and 7 CFR 273.16, include SNAP
benefit trafficking. Throughout the Program's history, trafficking has
been defined as ``* * * the exchange of SNAP benefits for cash or
consideration other than food * * *'' While intentionally discarding
beverages for purposes of collecting cash deposits, or intentionally
purchasing items with SNAP benefits for purposes of re-selling those
items for cash constitute an indirect exchange, the intent--i.e.
exchanging SNAP benefits for cash--is the same and the activity
constitutes trafficking. This regulation is intended to target
egregious and intentional Program Violations. Penalties and processes
that States must follow when pursuing IPVs (including trafficking
violations) are defined and regulated in 7 CFR 273.16--
``Disqualification for intentional Program Violations''; these
penalties and processes remain unchanged.
Several commenters noted that under 7 U.S.C. 2015 [Section 6(p)] of
the statute, disqualification for discarding beverages is only
appropriate when at least four distinct conditions are met: (1) The
recipient purchased products in containers carrying deposits with SNAP
benefits; (2) the recipient made that purchase with the intent of
obtaining cash by disposing of the contents and returning the
container; (3) the recipient did in fact dispose of the contents; and
(4) the recipient did in fact return the container. One commenter
further noted that the statute also authorizes the Department to
further limit the scope of these disqualifications by establishing
additional requirements for the disqualification and that this would
allow the Department to narrow, but not broaden, these elements to
ensure that this penalty is not misapplied. The commenter suggests that
the final rule should lay out each of these elements separately,
numbered distinctly, so that investigators can clearly see that they
must have evidence of each of them before proceeding. Further, this
commenter notes that if the Department does not add further
specificity, an environmental impact study should be conducted to
assess any negative impacts on bottle returns as a result of this rule.
The Department has incorporated further specificity into the final
rule. The Department has concluded that an environmental impact study
is not warranted.
A commenter further noted that trafficking violations are subject
to claims and that advocates in several states report that State
investigators routinely allege, and Administrative Law Judges find,
that all benefits received in a month, or even in a certification
period, when there is a finding of trafficking should be subject to a
claim, regardless of the actual amount trafficked. The commenter
contends that this has no support in the statute, and it obliterates
distinctions between small mistakes and egregious abuse. To prevent a
similar phenomenon with these new disqualifications, the commenter
suggests that the final rule explicitly state that only the amount
misspent or trafficked may be treated as a claim.
The Department concurs on the basis of trafficking-related claims
regulations at 7 CFR 273.18(c)(2), ``Trafficking-related claims. Claims
arising from trafficking-related offenses will be the value of
trafficked benefits as determined by: (i) The individual's admission;
(ii) adjudication; or (iii) the documentation that forms the basis for
the trafficking determination.''
One commenter notes that in addressing these new violations, the
statute allows disqualifications based only on criminal convictions,
civil judgments, or decisions in administrative disqualification
hearings and, as such, no waivers should be allowed. The commenter
further suggests that, if disqualification waivers are allowed, the
Department should clarify that the State agency does not have
sufficient evidence to warrant scheduling a hearing, within the meaning
of 7 CFR 273.16(f)(1)(i), unless it has evidence that each of the
elements necessary for disqualification (i.e., found to have obtained
cash by intentionally purchasing products with SNAP benefits that have
containers that require return deposits, intentionally discarding the
product, and intentionally returning the container for the deposit
amount, or found to have intentionally sold any food that was purchased
using SNAP benefits) is met.
The Department considers waivers integral to the administrative,
civil, and criminal process. Waivers can assist
[[Page 11969]]
clients in avoiding a criminal charge on their permanent record. It is
acknowledged however, that States should not offer a waiver to a client
unless the State has sufficient evidence to warrant an administrative
hearing or referral for civil or criminal prosecution, as provided in 7
CFR 273.16(f).
States expressed concern regarding their ability to monitor and
take action against individual clients who commit violations such as
purchasing and then intentionally discarding beverages in order to
collect cash deposits, or indirectly trafficking benefits. One
commenter suggested that States maintain responsibility only for client
eligibility oversight and that investigation of acts outside of the
realm of client eligibility fall to the purview of the Department.
The Department recognizes the resource challenges faced by State
and local governments. However, the 7 U.S.C. 2015 of the statute and
regulations at 7 CFR 273.16 bestow responsibility for broad client
oversight to State Agencies. Violators damage the integrity of the
Program and must be subject to appropriate consequences; this rule
gives States the ability to take action when intentional violations are
discovered.
Two commenters noted that the term ``consideration'' in the
definition of trafficking should be removed as consideration can be an
intangible item that does not have a specific price or value. The
Department is aware of instances in which clients have exchanged or
attempted to exchange SNAP benefits for services that would fit the
definition of ``consideration other than eligible food'' (e.g.,
bartered services) and for purposes of Program integrity has therefore
opted not to make this adjustment.
Commenters suggested that clients whose SNAP benefits are stolen
should receive replacement benefits when there is clear evidence of
theft. One commenter suggested that, at a minimum, revised regulations
should allow for the replacement of benefits when a household makes a
formal report of stolen benefits to the SNAP office and to the local
law enforcement agency, and when a review of Electronic Benefit
Transfer (EBT) transactions show that the household's benefits were
redeemed through keyed, rather than swiped, transactions. The
Department acknowledges this concern. However, because all interested
parties did not have an opportunity to consider this change, the
Department may propose changes to the regulations guiding replacement
in a future rulemaking. Keyed transactions still require both a card
and personal identification number (PIN) and, in general, if the PIN
number is secured and/or a stolen card is reported immediately,
benefits will not be lost.
One commenter suggested that client penalties only apply when the
violations were committed by a household member or an authorized
representative of the household. The determination as to whether the
client should bear responsibility for violations will depend upon the
circumstances of the case and is therefore a determination to be made
by State hearing officials. We are unable to address every situation in
these regulations. However, the Department holds retailers responsible
for ensuring that all store employees know and understand Program rules
and abide by those rules; when employees commit violations, SNAP
authorized retailers bear responsibility. Similarly, clients are
responsible for ensuring that anyone who is freely given access to
their SNAP benefits, whether a household member, formally recognized
authorized representative or informal authorized representative, uses
those benefits appropriately.
One commenter requested that USDA explicitly state that allowing a
non-household member access to the EBT card and PIN should not be
treated as a trafficking offense, unless there is other clear and
convincing evidence of fraudulent activity in connection with the card
and PIN use. The Department acknowledges that giving a non-household
member access to EBT benefits for purposes of assisting the household
with shopping activities is not trafficking. However, as noted, the
head of household maintains responsibility and is subject to penalties
for fraudulent activity conducted by any person given access to EBT
benefits by a household member, whether a formally documented
authorized representative or a non-household member that is assisting
the household.
One commenter is concerned about the improper disqualification of
SNAP clients who provide incorrect or misleading information on their
SNAP application or recertification form or who fail to timely report a
change but without fraudulent intent. This commenter requested that the
Department clarify the IPV legal standard associated with these issues.
The Department acknowledges these comments, but notes that they fall
outside of the scope and intent of this rulemaking.
One commenter noted the difficulties retailers have in tracking
clients who purchase beverages and intentionally discard those
beverages and return to stores for the cash deposits. The Department
acknowledges the challenges associated with this activity and does not
expect SNAP authorized retailers to take responsibility for monitoring
bottle returns. Instead, the Department is providing States an avenue
for taking action on clients who are violating Program rules in this
manner.
One commenter was confused by the term ``discard.'' Trafficking
applies when beverages are intentionally discarded--i.e. disposed of by
the purchaser, rather than consumed--for purposes of returning the
containers for the cash deposit. Further, it has come to our attention
that at least one individual has, in fact, taken steps to get the
deposit back without emptying the contents of the deposit bottle. Since
this is contrary to the intent of this provision in the statute, the
Department is treating such situations as the equivalent of discarding
the contents, and is expanding coverage to include those who collect
deposits without taking steps to consume the product.
One commenter suggested that clients be prevented from purchasing
water to mitigate the issue of having beverages be intentionally
discarded so the containers may be returned for cash. One commenter
implied that this rulemaking is an indirect attempt to prohibit
purchase of soft drinks with SNAP benefits, and another commenter
believed any indirect impact that would reduce the purchase of sugary
drinks is positive. Prohibiting purchase of specific products falls
outside the authority of this rule. SNAP eligible foods are defined in
Section 3 of the Food and Nutrition Act and cannot be amended by
regulation.
One commenter asked the Department to specify that trafficking in
farmers' market scrip is equivalent to indirectly trafficking SNAP
benefits. The Department considers the trafficking of farmers' market
scrip to be the equivalent of trafficking by purchasing a product and
reselling it for cash or consideration other than eligible food. The
Department does not believe that further specificity is necessary in
this regulation.
Two commenters noted that the definition of trafficking as written
in the proposed rule is a run-on sentence and therefore lacks clarity.
The Department has reviewed the definition to assess clarity and ensure
it meets legal formatting requirements. The definition has been
adjusted to adopt statutory language and thereby clarify client
violations, but no additional formatting changes have been made.
[[Page 11970]]
One commenter noted that a national system for checking duplicate
participation or IPV disqualifications is practically necessary if
States are to be held accountable for prohibiting dual participation
and implementing reciprocal disqualification with FDPIR. The Department
acknowledges the challenges associated with operations when such a
national database is unavailable. This rule gives States the ability to
prohibit dual participation and invoke reciprocal disqualifications
based on available information.
Finally, one commenter urged the Department to ensure that Indian
Tribal Organizations (ITO) staffs are fully integrated in the
consultation and coordination of planning and decisions regarding
administrative systems, certification monitoring, and developing
Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)--especially where USDA and state
agencies control access to information, administrative resources and
capacity; and that the Department provide meaningful and timely
responses to ITO concerns regarding changes. The Department
acknowledges this comment and notes that at USDA tribal consultations
held in fiscal year 2011, this rule was discussed. Feedback from those
consultations is incorporated in the section of this rule titled
Executive Order 13175.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
This rule has been designated as non-significant by the Office of
Management and Budget; therefore, no Regulatory Impact Analysis is
required.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). It has been certified
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Departmental Field, Regional, and
Area Offices, retailers and other firms participating or applying to
participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, State
agencies that distribute Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
benefits and State agencies and ITOs that administer Food Distribution
of Indian Reservations, are the entities affected by this change.
Public Law 104-4
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) Title II of UMRA
establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and
the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, the Department
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of
the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. This final rule contains no
Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the
UMRA) for State, local and tribal governments or the private sector of
$100 million or more in any one year. This rule is, therefore, not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 12372
SNAP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under
No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule codified in 7
CFR part 3015, Subpart V and related Notice (48 FR 29115), this Program
is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
Federalism Summary Impact Statement
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the
impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments.
Where such actions have Federalism implications, agencies are directed
to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations
describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories
called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of the Executive Order 13132. The
Department has determined that this rule does not have Federalism
implications. This rule does not impose substantial or direct
compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, under
Section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a Federalism summary impact
statement is not required.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule will have preemptive effects with
respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which
conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full
implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effects.
Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the
application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures
must be exhausted.
Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies
that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or
actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. In late 2010 and early 2011,
USDA engaged in a series of consultative sessions to obtain input by
Tribal officials or their designees concerning the impact of this rule
on the tribe or Indian Tribal governments, or whether this rule may
preempt Tribal law. Reports from these sessions for consultation will
be made part of the USDA annual reporting on Tribal Consultation and
Collaboration. Each session was fully transcribed and the comments
received relative to this regulation follow:
One commenter expressed general concern regarding the disparity in
benefit value as a result of the increase in SNAP benefits following
the American Recovery and Reinvestment and Act (ARRA); FDPIR benefits
were not subject to an ARRA increase.
One commenter noted that County level SNAP office staff should have
been in attendance at this consultation; if county level staff is not
aware of the prohibition relative to dual participation, then they will
not abide by that prohibition. This was reiterated by a second
commenter who noted that county level SNAP staff should be in the
[[Page 11971]]
communication loop and receive training. The Department noted that a
process of notifying all stakeholders would occur once this regulation
is finalized. A third commenter made a procedural recommendation
requiring that SNAP certification staff contact the ITO to ensure that
applicant clients are not dually participating in FDPIR.
One commenter expressed support for the reciprocal SNAP
disqualification that would be based on an intentional program
violation in FDPIR.
One commenter noted that direct access to county level SNAP staff
would be beneficial; currently the ITO calls the county level office
and is subject to an automated message when checking dual
participation.
Several commenters noted that access to an automated system for
checking dual participation and reciprocal disqualification is
practically necessary to make the process work, and that the current
process of checking paper printouts is not practical. The Department
noted that some ITO's have successfully executed an MOU with the State
SNAP agency or county SNAP offices that allow them view-only access to
State certification systems for these kinds of checks. Some
participating ITO's noted difficulties in getting such MOU's in place.
The Department committed to assist ITO's with this process in Oklahoma,
and more broadly, to seek examples of successfully executed MOU's and
provide those to appropriate stakeholders.
USDA committed to responding in a timely and meaningful manner to
all Tribal government requests for consultation concerning this rule
and will provide additional venues, such as webinars and
teleconferences, to periodically host collaborative conversations with
Tribal leaders and their representatives concerning ways to improve
this rule in Indian country. No additional comments were received
during the proposed rule comment period.
We are unaware of any current Tribal laws that could be in conflict
with this rule. No concerns in this regard were expressed in the
proposed rule comment period.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with
Departmental Regulations 4300-4, ``Civil Rights Impact Analysis,'' and
1512-1, ``Regulatory Decision Making Requirements.'' After a careful
review of the rule's intent and provisions, the Department has
determined that this rule will not in any way limit or reduce the
ability of protected classes of individuals to receive SNAP benefits on
the basis of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability,
religion or political belief nor will it have a differential impact on
minority owned or operated business establishments, and women owned or
operated business establishments that participate in SNAP.
The regulation affects or may potentially affect the retail food
stores and wholesale food concerns that participate in (accept or
redeem) SNAP. The only retail food stores and wholesale food concerns
that will be directly affected, however, are those firms that violate
SNAP rules and regulations. The Department does not collect data from
retail food stores or wholesale food concerns regarding any of the
protected classes under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As
long as a retail food store or wholesale food concern meets the
eligibility criteria stipulated in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
and SNAP regulations, they can participate in SNAP. Also, the
Department specifically prohibits retailers and wholesalers that
participate in SNAP from engaging in actions that discriminate based on
race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, or
political belief. This rule will not change any requirements related to
the eligibility or participation of protected classes or individuals,
minority-owned or operated business establishments, or women-owned or
operated business establishments in SNAP. As a result, this rule will
have no differential impact on protected classes of individuals,
minority-owned or operated business establishments, or women-owned or
operated business establishments.
Further, the Department specifically prohibits the State and local
government agencies that administer the Program from engaging in
actions that discriminate based on race, color, national origin,
gender, age, disability, marital or family status. Regulations at 7 CFR
272.6 specifically state that ``State agencies shall not discriminate
against any applicant or participant in any aspect of program
administration, including, but not limited to, the certification of
households, the issuance of coupons, the conduct of fair hearings, or
the conduct of any other program service for reasons of age, race,
color, sex, handicap, religious creed, national origin, or political
beliefs. Discrimination in any aspect of the program administration is
prohibited by these regulations, according to the Act. Enforcement may
be brought under any applicable Federal law. Title VI complaints shall
be processed in accord with 7 CFR part 15.'' Where State agencies have
options, and they choose to implement a certain provision, they must
implement it in such a way that it complies with the regulations at 7
CFR 272.6.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35; see 5
CFR part 1320) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approve all collections of information by a Federal agency before they
can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any
collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB
control number. This rule does not contain information collection
requirements subject to approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.
This rule will not affect the reporting and recordkeeping burden
and does not contain additional burden requirements subject to OMB
approval other than those that have been previously approved in
OMB 0584-0064, expiration date 03/31/2013, by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act
of 2002 to promote the use of the Internet and other information
technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to
government information and services, and for other purposes.
Lists of Subjects
7 CFR Part 271
Food stamps, Grant programs--Social programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
7 CFR Part 273
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Claims, Employment,
Food stamps, Fraud, Government employees, Grant programs--social
programs, Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Students, Supplemental Security Income, (SSI), wages.
7 CFR Part 281
Administrative practice and procedure, Food stamps, Grant
programs--Social programs, Indians.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 271, 273 and 281 are amended as follows:
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR parts 271, 273 and 281 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
[[Page 11972]]
PART 271--GENERAL INFORMATION AND DEFINITIONS
0
2. In part 271:
0
a. Except in Sec. 271.5, remove the words ``the Food Stamp Program'',
``the food stamp program'', The Food Stamp Program'', or ``FSP''
wherever they appear and add, in their place, the word ``SNAP'';
0
b. Remove the words ``a food stamp program'' or ``a Food Stamp
Program'' wherever they appear and add, in their place, the words ``a
supplemental nutrition assistance program'';
0
c. Remove the words ``Food Stamp Act of 1977'' and add in their place
the words ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008'' wherever they appear,
except in the definition of ``Food Stamp Act'' in Sec. 271.2;
0
d. Remove the words ``Food Stamp Act'' and add in their place the words
``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008'' wherever they appear, except in the
definition of ``Food Stamp Act'' in Sec. 271.2;
0
e. Remove the words ``food stamps'' wherever they appear and add, in
their place, the words ``SNAP benefits'';
0
f. Remove the words ``food stamp'' wherever they appear and add, in
their place, the word ``SNAP'';
0
3. In Sec. 271.2, the definition of Trafficking is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 271.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Trafficking means:
(1) The buying, selling, stealing, or otherwise effecting an
exchange of SNAP benefits issued and accessed via Electronic Benefit
Transfer (EBT) cards, card numbers and personal identification numbers
(PINs), or by manual voucher and signature, for cash or consideration
other than eligible food, either directly, indirectly, in complicity or
collusion with others, or acting alone;
(2) The exchange of firearms, ammunition, explosives, or controlled
substances, as defined in section 802 of title 21, United States Code,
for SNAP benefits;
(3) Purchasing a product with SNAP benefits that has a container
requiring a return deposit with the intent of obtaining cash by
discarding the product and returning the container for the deposit
amount, intentionally discarding the product, and intentionally
returning the container for the deposit amount;
(4) Purchasing a product with SNAP benefits with the intent of
obtaining cash or consideration other than eligible food by reselling
the product, and subsequently intentionally reselling the product
purchased with SNAP benefits in exchange for cash or consideration
other than eligible food; or
(5) Intentionally purchasing products originally purchased with
SNAP benefits in exchange for cash or consideration other than eligible
food.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 271.5, remove the words ``the food Stamp program'' wherever
they appear and add, in their place, the words ``the supplemental
nutrition assistance program'';
PART 273--CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS
0
5. In Sec. 273.11:
0
a. Remove the words ``the Food Stamp Program'' or ``the food stamp
program'' wherever they appear and add, in their place, the word
``SNAP'';
0
b. Remove the words ``food stamps'' wherever they appear and add, in
their place, the words ``SNAP benefits'';
0
c. Remove the words ``food stamp'' wherever they appear and add, in
their place, the word ``SNAP'';
0
d. Add two new sentences at the end of paragraph (k) introductory text.
0
e. Add a new sentence to the end of paragraph (k)(6).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 273.11 Action on households with special circumstances.
* * * * *
(k) * * * In the case of disqualification from the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) for an intentional
program violation as described under Sec. 253.8 of this chapter, the
State agency shall impose the same disqualification on the member of
the household under SNAP. The State agency must, in cooperation with
the appropriate FDPIR agency, develop a procedure that ensures that
these household members are identified.
* * * * *
(6) * * * In instances where the disqualification is a reciprocal
action based on disqualification from the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations, the length of disqualification shall mirror the
period prescribed by the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations.
* * * * *
PART 281--ADMINISTRATION OF SNAP ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS
0
6. Revise the heading of part 281 to read as set forth above.
0
7. In part 281:
0
a. Remove the words ``the Food Stamp Program'' wherever they appear and
add, in their place, the word ``SNAP'';
0
b. Remove the words ``Food Stamp Act of 1977'' wherever they appear and
add, in their place, the words ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008'';
0
c. Remove the words ``1977 Food Stamp Act'' wherever they appear and
add, in their place, the words ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008'';
0
8. In Sec. 281.1(c) remove the regulatory reference ``Sec. 283.7(e)''
and add, in its place, the regulatory reference ``Sec. 253.7(e)''.
Dated: February 4, 2013.
Audrey Rowe,
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-04044 Filed 2-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P