Attachment B. 7 CFR Parts 272 and 273

Attachment B
7 CFR Parts 272 and 273

FNS SNAP Supporting Statement, Attachment B

1

48045

Rules and Regulations

Federal Register
Vol. 77, No. 156
Monday, August 13, 2012

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.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 272 and 273
RIN 0584–AB51

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program: Disqualified Recipient
Reporting and Computer Matching
Requirements
AGENCY:

General Comments

Food and Nutrition Service,

USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
This final rule codifies the
provisions of a proposed rule published
on December 8, 2006, regarding prisoner
verification and death matching
procedures mandated by legislation and
previously implemented through agency
directive. This rule also requires State
agencies to use electronic disqualified
recipient data to screen all program
applicants prior to certification to assure
they are not currently disqualified from
program participation. Finally, this final
rule implements procedures concerning
State agencies’, participation in a
computer matching program using a
system of records required by the
Computer Matching and Privacy
Protection Act of 1988, as amended.
DATES: October 12, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane
Duffield, Chief, State Administration
Branch, Program Accountability and
Administration Division, Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, Room
857, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, 703–
605–4385, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

SUMMARY:

Background
On December 8, 2006, the Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) published a
proposed rule in 71 FR 71075 to revise
the SNAP regulations in 7 CFR parts 272
and 273 regarding computer matching

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

requirements, the prisoner verification
system (PVS), the deceased person
matching system and electronic
disqualified recipient system (eDRS)
matching, as well as redefining data
requirements and retention, and the
process for application screening.
Comments on these proposed revisions
were solicited until February 6, 2007. A
total of 26 sets of comments were
received by the published deadline from
22 State SNAP agencies, 2 governmental
associations, and 2 recipient interest
groups. This final rule addresses the
concerns expressed in these comments.
Readers are referred to the proposed
rule for a more complete description of
the rule’s requirements and stipulations.
The following is a discussion of the
provisions of the proposed rule, the
comments received, and the changes
made in the final rule.
Of the 26 sets of comments received,
most recommended that FNS withdraw
the proposed regulation altogether. Of
these, 15 comments offered alternative
suggestions for FNS to consider. FNS
categorized the comments in order to
sum up their contents: Burdensome and
Ineffective (20 comments); Impact on
Application Timeliness (15 comments);
Impact on Simplified Reporting (12
comments); Impact on State Computer
Systems (9 comments); Inaccurate CostBenefit Analysis (3 comments); and
Cases Where Matches Cannot Be
Verified (3 comments). All comments
are addressed under the specific
regulation citation they reference. Some
comments received were general and
did not pertain to specific regulation
citations. Those comments are
addressed first and are related to
simplified reporting and computer
systems.
Simplified reporting was authorized
by the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Farm
Bill), subsequent to the implementation
of prisoner and death matching
requirements. Since 2002, 51 State
agencies have opted to implement
simplified reporting. Generally, under
simplified reporting, households are
required to report changes in income
between certification and scheduled
reporting periods only when the total
countable income rises above 130
percent of the poverty level. Prior to
simplified reporting, most households

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

were required to report most changes
within 10 days, or monthly. State
agencies implementing simplified
reporting can set reporting intervals or
certification periods at 4, 5, or 6 months.
Generally, for households subject to
simplified reporting, the death or
imprisonment of a household member
does not have to be reported until the
6-month report, or at the next
recertification period for prisoner
verification. Those electing 12-month
certification spans must require an
update of household circumstances at
the 6-month interval, unless the
household is made up of elderly or
disabled members.
In some circumstances, no
overpayment can occur if the change
was not required to be reported.
Simplified reporting has provided
multiple benefits for State
administration and Program access. FNS
concurs with the comments expressing
that simplified reporting has been
beneficial in making the Program more
efficient and recipient-friendly and will
make specific accommodations for
simplified reporting options when
warranted in the waiver process.
In regard to the need to change
computer systems, nine State agencies
commented that the overall provisions
in the proposed rule will require them
to make expensive changes. There were
three comments concerned with the
steps States may need to take if the
matches required by these provisions
cannot be verified. In this instance, no
adverse action is to be taken against the
households for any matches described
in this rule that cannot be verified.
In general, the comments expressed
recognition that these matches are
required by law, and suggested
alternatives that would allow State
agencies the discretion to determine the
frequency of the matches. While FNS
carefully considered these comments,
the matches are required by law and
FNS considers the frequency of the
matching requirements described herein
to be an acceptable standard.
Prisoner Verification System (PVS)
Section 1003 of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–33) amended
Section 11(e) of the Food Stamp Act of

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

48046

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

1977 1 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)) to require
States to establish systems and take
periodic action to ensure that an
individual who is detained in a Federal,
State, or local penal, correctional, or
other detention facility for more than 30
days shall not be eligible to be counted
as a household member participating in
SNAP. The FNS final rule will codify
this requirement and define taking
periodic action as requiring States to
conduct PVS checks at application and
re-certification.
FNS received several comments
specifically addressing this provision.
Thirteen comments stated that PVS data
received from the Social Security
Administration (SSA) is not reliable,
shows only that individuals have been
incarcerated in the past, and does not
provide the admission and tentative
release dates. One comment stated that
State agencies cannot require
correctional facilities to provide the
necessary verification for taking action.
Further, six comments indicated that
including children and one-person
households in the PVS matches provide
little value.
FNS carefully considered these
comments in finalizing this provision
and agrees that it is appropriate to
exempt minor children, as that status is
defined by each State, and one-person
households where there is a face-to-face
interview. Therefore, these exemptions
are provided for in the revised § 272.13.
However, with regard to the frequency
of the match, taking into account both
simplified reporting and the need to
prevent those incarcerated for more than
30 days from participating, FNS
determined that conducting the prisoner
match at application and recertification
provides the best opportunity for
effective policy enforcement. Therefore,
FNS retained in this final rule the
requirement to perform a PVS match
with household members at application
and recertification. Going forward, FNS
will make every effort to work with the
SSA and other relevant agencies to
improve the quality and timeliness of
the data made available to State
agencies for the purpose of conducting
the prisoner match. FNS is also willing
to consider any alternatives that State
agencies may wish to propose for their
own unique situation through its waiver
process.
Deceased Matching System
This rule also implements the
deceased matching requirements
enacted by Public Law 105–379 on
1 The Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008
(FCEA) renamed the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

November 12, 1998. Public Law 105–
379, which amended Section 11 of the
Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2020),
required all State agencies to enter into
a cooperative arrangement with the SSA
to obtain information on individuals
who are deceased, and use the
information to verify and otherwise
ensure that benefits are not issued to
such individuals. The law went into
effect on June 1, 2000. The mandated
requirements were implemented by FNS
directive to all SNAP State agencies on
February 14, 2000. State agencies are
responsible for entering into a matching
agreement with SSA in order to access
information on deceased individuals.
FNS proposed adding a new § 272.14 to
codify this requirement in regulation
and included requirements for accessing
the SSA death master file. These
requirements included independently
verifying the record prior to taking
adverse action, and conducting matches
for deceased individuals at application
and re-certification.
Several comments specifically
addressed this provision. Eleven
comments stated that experience has
shown that it is very unusual for
households to initially apply for
benefits for a deceased household
member. They state that, since starting
to conduct death matches in 1999, it is
more common that the death of a
household member during the
certification period goes unreported by
the remaining household members.
With simplified periodic reporting, the
change does not need to be reported
until the interim report of the next
recertification.
Four comments received noted that
the preamble to the proposed rule states
that the SSA death master file be
matched at the time of application and
at recertification, but the actual wording
in the regulation language says ‘‘* * *at
the time of application and periodically
thereafter.’’ FNS concurs that this is
inconsistent and confusing;
‘‘periodically thereafter’’ may not be the
same as recertification. FNS has,
therefore, amended this provision in the
final rule as indicated below.
Two comments noted that fulfilling
the volume of match requests at the
frequency required by the proposed
regulation would be burdensome for
SSA. One commenter further noted that,
in the past, FNS has instructed State
agencies to reduce the frequency of
matches because the previous frequency
was burdensome for SSA. SSA did
encounter certain burdens during the
implementation phase of the prisoner
and death matches, but has
subsequently worked through those
complications. Nevertheless, FNS does

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

want to focus on implementing
requirements that will improve Program
integrity while not imposing
unnecessary burdens on State agencies.
Accordingly, after considering the
comments, FNS is amending the final
rule with respect to death matches. The
revised final provision at § 272.14(c)(1)
provides the requirement that State
agencies conduct the match of deceased
individuals against household members
at application and no less frequently
than every 12 months. As a result, FNS
believes this final rule maintains the
intent of the statute for conducting this
match while relieving States of
requirements that do not effectively
promote Program integrity. In addition,
State agencies can design their matching
systems to make them more consistent
with their simplified reporting
procedures.
Disqualified Recipient Reporting
Existing regulations at § 273.16(i)(4)
require State agencies to use
disqualified recipient data to ascertain
the correct penalty, based on prior
disqualifications, for an individual
currently suspected of an intentional
Program violation (IPV), and to
determine the eligibility of Program
applicants suspected of being in a
disqualified status. The proposed rule
further proposed:
• State agencies use disqualified
recipient data to screen all Program
recipients and applicants prior to
certification. State agencies may also
periodically match the entire database
of disqualified individuals against its
current caseload.
• State agencies not take an adverse
action against a household based on
information provided by a disqualified
recipient match unless the match
information has been independently
verified.
• The State agency initiating the
disqualified recipient search contact the
State agency that originated the
disqualification or the household for
verification prior to taking adverse
action against the household. The
proposed rule proposed that the agency
that originated the disqualification
provide documentation to the
requesting agency within 20 days of the
postmarked date of request.
• The disqualified individual and, if
applicable, the household, be informed
of the effect of the existing
disqualification on the eligibility and, if
applicable, benefits of the remaining
household members.
• Changes and updates to the format,
methodology and fields State agencies
use to report and access intentional

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Program violation (IPV) disqualification
information.
Several comments specific to
disqualified recipient matching were
received. Regarding implementation, 13
comments noted that the provisions of
the rule would be very difficult to
implement because the nationwide
eDRS database provided by FNS to
perform this function is problematic.
The comments further state that very
few of the disqualifications in eDRS are
relevant to the day-to-day operation of
the Program because eDRS maintains
disqualifications indefinitely, including
those for individuals who are deceased
or incarcerated for long periods of time.
As the records age, the disqualifications
become less and less useful because
they have no impact on current
eligibility. One comment noted that a
very small percentage of SNAP
households had the potential to be
affected by an actively disqualified
household member. Also, twelve
comments noted that in order to meet
the requirements of the rule, all
eligibility workers would need access to
eDRS via the eAuthentication process
required by the Department of
Agriculture, expressing concern that
putting all eligibility workers through
this process would be cumbersome and
impractical.
Regarding the need for the eDRS
system, while one State agency
commented that it queries eDRS for
those who newly arrive to the State, five
other State agencies noted that
disqualified recipients who newly arrive
in the State are already known to the
incoming State agency. State and local
eligibility workers regularly contact
other State agencies when applicants
newly arrive from other States to obtain
information about the applicant’s
participation, disqualification and ablebodied adults without dependents
(ABAWD) status. These State agencies
asserted that there is no need to check
current or former household members
(when they apply) from within the State
as those participants and their
disqualification status are already
known. Further, they believed there was
no reason to re-screen applicants at
recertification since the current State
would have originated any
disqualification action and would have
already known about it.
Regarding secondary verification, 11
comments noted that the timeframe of
20 days, specified under the computer
matching requirements, for another
State agency to respond for a request for
information, does not leave enough time
to gather all of the information and
process the application in a timely
manner. The comments indicated that if

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

the person should not have been
certified, it will be discovered when the
State processes a periodic match and an
overpayment can be completed at that
time. They also indicated that it is
unclear what a requesting State should
do in instances of expedited service
cases or if the other State agency does
not respond within 20 days. Finally, one
comment supported the proposed rule’s
clarification that no adverse action be
taken against a recipient or applicant
based on a match unless the match
information is independently verified.
Regarding the eAuthentication
process, FNS recognizes that this
process may be difficult for some States
to obtain the proper eAuthentication
levels for their eligibility workers. The
eAuthentication process is vital to
protecting personally identifiable
information of SNAP recipients,
confidentiality and the integrity of the
Program. This process, while difficult, is
necessary to maintain the security
standards set forth to protect client
information. FNS will continue to
explore possible ways to make the
eAuthentication process less
burdensome for States in the future.
In addressing these comments, it is
important to note that, as a Program
with national eligibility standards, an
individual disqualified in one State
because of an IPV determination is also
disqualified in every State. However,
the Program is administered by State
agencies that use and maintain their
own systems and databases to perform
the functions associated with certifying
and supplying benefits to households.
As such, there must be some mechanism
in place so that a State agency can
determine that an applicant has been
disqualified by another State when they
apply for SNAP benefits. Also, since the
disqualification penalties are
cumulative, the State agency must be
aware of whether an individual has had
any prior disqualifications by any other
State in order to assign the appropriate
disqualification penalty.
The issue of how States become aware
of an existing or previous
disqualification to ensure that ineligible
individuals are not participating or the
proper disqualification is assigned is the
crux of this portion of this rule. In the
performance of this function, an
individual’s rights must be protected to
ensure that only those individuals that
should be ineligible to receive benefits
due to an existing or previous
disqualification are indeed determined
ineligible. Further, States are expected
to provide this information in a timely
manner to the requesting State so that
they can determine the eligibility of the
applicant. States that fail to provide the

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

48047

requested information within the time
frame set forth under the computer
matching requirements are considered
to be out of compliance with these
regulations. Those States will be subject
to corrective action upon review. In any
case where the requesting State has not
received the information timely, the
State should certify the household for
benefits in accordance with our
regulations until it receives the
requested documentation. If the State
subsequently receives verification that
the client or household is ineligible,
they should disqualify them and
establish a claim to collect any benefits
that were issued in error. While FNS
carefully considered all comments in
determining the final provisions in this
rule, the Agency wanted to ensure that
individuals’ rights are protected and
that proper disqualifications are
assigned. FNS believes this final rule
meets these goals while adequately
addressing the concerns of the
comments.
Many of the comments received
regarding this provision focus on the
operation and integrity of the data
contained in eDRS. There were concerns
that the data may be outdated,
inaccurate or incomplete. While FNS is
continuously trying to add appropriate
edits and perform data integrity checks
where possible, it is ultimately the
responsibility of each State to enter
timely, accurate and verifiable
disqualification data into eDRS for use
by other States. This is a nationwide
partnership in which FNS and State
agencies need to work together to ensure
that ineligible individuals are not
participating and that disqualified
individuals receive the appropriate
disqualification period. FNS is
committed to continuing efforts to
improve the system and the integrity of
data to ensure accurate and timely
disqualifications are imposed.
FNS does not agree with the comment
that very few of the disqualifications in
eDRS are relevant to the day-to-day
operation of the Program. Records with
disqualification periods that have
expired are necessary for making
penalty determinations and those that
remain active are useful for determining
eligibility. Further, in addition to the
complete database file containing all the
records in the system, FNS has for some
time made available a file containing
only active records, specifically
designed for the purpose of conducting
eligibility matches. FNS has also
modified its online database access
system to search only active records
when the user selects ‘‘Eligibility’’ as
the purpose for the inquiry.

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

48048

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Nevertheless, FNS agrees with the
comment that a very small percentage of
SNAP households would be affected by
a disqualified member. Data reported by
States indicated that, in fiscal year 2010,
36,859 individuals were disqualified out
of a total of 40.3 million participants. In
addition to these 37,000
disqualifications, there are also those
still serving 2-year, 10-year or
permanent disqualifications whose
records remain active. While this
number remains relatively low
compared to the number of participants,
it still represents a potential issuance
risk in excess of nearly $2.0 million per
month should these individuals not be
prevented from participating, based on
estimates for 2013. The potential also
exists for any of these individuals to
cross into another jurisdiction to avoid
serving their penalty. FNS believes that
some form of applicant screening is
therefore necessary to prevent those
inclined to try to participate during a
period of disqualification and to deter
those that might otherwise make the
attempt.
In response to those comments
suggesting that there was no need to
check current or former recipients
(when they apply) from within the
State, or to re-screen applicants at
recertification since the State would
have originated the action and would
have already known about it, FNS
would point out that since applicant
matching was not previously mandated
one cannot be certain there are no
disqualifications in an individual’s past.
For example, applicants that may have
been in a disqualified status in one State
may have moved to, and been
determined eligible by, another State
that did not conduct the match at the
time of application. Therefore, it is
possible that disqualified individuals
are currently participating in a number
of States. However, FNS does agree that
there is probably no need to conduct
matches at recertification once FNS is
reasonably certain that currently
disqualified individuals that may be
receiving benefits are removed from the
active rolls. Consequently, FNS will
retain the requirement to match all
applicants prior to initial certification
but require matches at recertification
only for the first year subsequent to
implementation of this final rule.
Within the first year of the
implementation date of this rule, but no
later than 180 days from publication,
States will be required to match all
applicants prior to initial certification,
all newly added household members at
the time they are added, and all
participants in the household at

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

recertification. In the second year, the
requirement to match participants at
recertification will be discontinued, and
States will only be required to match
applicants prior to initial certification
and newly added household members
as they are added. Further, since the
purpose of a 1-year match at
recertification is to remove currently
participating disqualified individuals,
States having the ability to conduct a
one-time match of their entire active
caseload against active cases from the
disqualified recipient database may do
so and be exempted from the
requirement to conduct matches at
recertification. The periodic match that
would have been required by the
proposed rule will not be required in
this final rule, but may be conducted at
the option of the State. Finally, States
may exempt from the matching
requirements those individuals that
have not reached the age of majority as
defined by State statute.
Computer Match Benefit Adjustments
FNS proposed to add language to the
existing regulations for when mass
changes are made in Federal benefits
that affect SNAP allotments.
Specifically, in cases when the change
in allotment was the result of a
computer match, FNS proposed that the
information would need to be
independently verified, and the SNAP
household would need to be provided
notice and an opportunity to contest any
adverse action, if the adjustment would
change the level of benefits or eligibility
status of the household.
FNS received several comments
specific to this provision. One comment
stated that this alternative is not
attractive as it constitutes much more
effort than applying the existing
procedure. In addition, two commenters
were concerned about the additional
burden placed upon State agencies if
this information is not considered
verified upon receipt.
FNS carefully considered the
comments in this area. A computer
match, covered by the Computer
Matching Act [5 U.S.C. 552a(o)], uses
information provided by a Federal
source and compares it to a State record,
using a computer to perform the
comparison; this match affects
eligibility or the amount of benefits for
a Federal benefit program. As such, FNS
has no discretion in this area and the
information must be independently
verified. Moreover, the SNAP household
must be provided notice and given an
opportunity to contest the adverse
action if the adjustment would change
the level of benefits or eligibility status
of the household. However, State

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

agencies should be aware that the
independent verification/notice of
adverse action provisions apply only if
there is an adverse effect on benefits
(i.e., a denial, termination or reduction
in benefits). The vast majority of mass
changes in benefits are increases due to
cost-of-living adjustments. As such, FNS
expects this new requirement to have a
minimal impact on State agency
workload. In addition, State agencies
can use the option found at
§ 273.12(e)(3)(A) to implement mass
changes using percentages. Therefore,
this provision remains unchanged in the
final rule (see § 273.12(e)(3)(B)).
Implementation
State agencies have been instructed
through FNS directive to implement the
provisions of the prisoner verification
matches (Pub. L. 105–33) and death file
matches (Pub. L. 105–379) as required
by law in the applicable legislation, and
these matches should already be in
place without waiting for formal
regulations. Unless specified below, the
remaining provisions of this rule are
effective and must be implemented the
first day of the month following 60 days
from date of publication of this final
rule.
Since the inception of the disqualified
recipient database in 1992, FNS has
required that States query the database
for the purpose of assigning the correct
penalty to those being disqualified and
whenever they believe an applicant may
be in a disqualified status. To comply
with these requirements, States should
already have in place some capability
for conducting matches against the
disqualified recipient database. In
recognition of this, the provisions of this
rule dealing with the systematic
matching of disqualification data in
§ 273.16(i) are effective and must be
implemented no later than 180 days
after the effective date of this final rule.
Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 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.

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
This final rule has been designated a
‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ although
not economically significant, under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
As required for all rules that have
been designated as significant by the
Office of Management and Budget, the
following Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) was developed for this final rule.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Title: Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program: Electronic
Disqualified Recipient System Reporting
and Computer Matching Requirements
that Affect the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program
2. Action:
a. Nature: Final Rule
b. Need for the Rule: This final rule
codifies prisoner verification and death
master file matching procedures
mandated by legislation and previously
implemented through agency directive.
This rule also revises SNAP regulations
affecting the way State agencies access
and use client disqualification
information to enforce penalties for
Intentional Program Violations (IPV).
c. Background: The Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–33), enacted on
August 5, 1997, requires States to
establish systems and take periodic
action to ensure that an individual who
is detained in a Federal, State, or local
penal, correctional, or other detention
facility for more than 30 days shall not
be eligible to participate in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. The law was effective August
5, 1998. This regulation will amend
current rules to require States to
conduct Prisoner Verification System
(PVS) checks at application and recertification. Public Law 105–379,
enacted on November 12, 1998, requires
all State agencies to enter into a
cooperative arrangement with the Social
Security Administration (SSA) to obtain
information on deceased individuals
and to use the information to verify and
otherwise ensure that benefits are not
issued to such individuals. The law was
effective June 1, 2000. FNS is also
requiring States to use the Electronic
Disqualified Recipient System (eDRS) to
screen all new applicants. States report
all disqualified recipients to the eDRS
database in order to prevent those
individuals from participating in other
States and to ensure that the proper
penalties are assigned for intentional
Program violations.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

3. Justification of Alternatives. The
Department has no discretion regarding
the portions of the regulation that are
based on legislative mandate to
implement prisoner verification and
deceased persons’ data match programs.
The Department does have discretion on
the portion of the regulation affecting
matches to identify disqualified
recipients. The law requires that
matches be performed, but is silent on
when in the certification process the
match must occur. The regulation
mandates that these matches be
performed up front, prior to
certification. This alternative was
chosen over requiring matches at a later
point in the certification process
because of the expected result that
earlier mandatory verification will save
the most taxpayer dollars.
4. Effects:
Effects on Low-Income Families. This
action would identify deceased
individuals, prisoners, and other
ineligibles to ensure that they are not
included as members of SNAP
households. These matches will assist
State agencies in identifying who, due
to extended certification periods or
failure to notify a change of household
status, should no longer receive SNAP
benefits. The number of people we
estimate being removed from the SNAP
caseloads as a result of the matches is
described in detail below.
PVS Matches: FNS estimates that
mandatory computer matches using the
PVS will identify approximately 64,000
ineligible prisoners from the SNAP case
rolls in 2013. Because this regulation is
codifying legislation enacted some years
ago, all States are currently performing
data matches using the PVS for initial
certifications and recertification, so the
impacts on participation and costs for
initial certifications are incorporated in
current baseline budget estimates. There
are no new savings.
The estimate on the impact of the
computer match using the PVS is based
on a General Accounting Office 2 (GAO)
Study, Substantial Overpayments Result
from Prisoners Being Counted as
Household Members, issued in March
1997. GAO examined data from four
States: California, Florida, New York,
and Texas. GAO estimated that in 1995,
$2.6 million in benefits were paid to
9,440 State prisoners, and $925,000 in
benefits was paid to 2,698 county
prisoners, with a total of 12,138
prisoners receiving $3.5 million for an
average of 3.85 months. If we assume
that prisoners would have continued to
receive benefits for one month before
2 The General Accounting Office is now known as
the Government Accountability Office.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

48049

the data match identified them and they
were removed from the caseload rolls,
we estimate that a mandatory computer
match with State and County prisoner
databases at the time of certification
could have saved $2.6 million in
overpayments in those four States. The
one month that the prisoners would
continue to receive benefits reduces the
savings from the match from $3.5
million to $2.6 million. The 12,138
prisoners accounted for 0.13 percent of
the 1995 SNAP caseload among those
four States.
Between 1989 and 2009, the average
number of initial certifications was
nearly identical to the number of
households participating in an average
month, and the average number of
recertifications was close. In any given
year, the two numbers tracked closely
together—when caseloads rose, so did
the number of initial certifications and
recertifications. Since we project
caseloads and not initial certifications
and recertifications, we use projected
participation estimates as a proxy for
the number of certifications and
recertifications.
The effect on participation resulting
from a mandatory computer match is
taken by applying the 0.13 percent
impact to the total projected FY 2013
caseload of 46.9 million. This yields an
estimate of 61,000 ineligible prisoners
who would be taken off the SNAP rolls
at initial certification. However, prior to
the enactment of the legislation
mandating matches, a number of States
were already performing these
matches—Connecticut, Massachusetts,
New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Illinois, Texas, Kansas, and
Missouri—accounting for 45 percent of
the FY 2011 caseload. We also adjusted
to account for an increase in the number
of prisons between 1995 and 2017
(actual numbers through 2010 and
projected for 2017) and an expected
false positive match rate of 10 percent.
Making the match mandatory for the
States who did not perform the match
prior to the legislation will remove
44,000 prisoners in 2013.
Requiring biennial matches at the
time of recertification would yield yet
more ineligible prisoners. No States
were performing matches at
recertification when the law was
enacted, but now all States are, so all of
the savings are incorporated in the
budget baseline and none are ‘‘new.’’
There would be no savings from those
prisoners who were identified in
previous matches. According to the
most recent SNAP characteristics report,
the average certification period for
SNAP households is 12 months.

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

48050

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

However, the number of new prisoners
who entered the system in 2010 is about
half the total prison population as of
June 30, 2011. Therefore, matches at
recertification would yield only half as
many hits as matches performed at
initial certification. Therefore, we
halved the original impact of 61,000. We
also adjusted for an increase in the
number of prisoners from 1995 to 2013
and assumed a 10 percent false positive
match rate. Finally, we halved the
impact yet again to adjust for biennial
matches. The estimate of prisoners
identified at recertification matches in
2013 is 20,000.
To obtain the impact of performing
the matches at initial certification and at
recertification, we added the two totals
together, getting 64,000 prisoners for
2013. The estimate assumes that these
prisoners identified by the matches
would then be removed from the SNAP
caseloads.
To obtain the impact of performing
the matches at initial certification and at
recertification, we added the two totals
together, getting 60,000 prisoners for
2012. The estimate assumes that these
prisoners identified by the matches
would then be removed from the SNAP
caseloads.
Matches with Social Security
Deceased Lists. Mandatory computer
matches using Social Security
Administration (SSA) lists of deceased
individuals could identify an estimated
100,000 deceased individuals on SNAP
case rolls in 2013 Because this
regulation is codifying legislation
enacted some years ago, all States are
currently performing data matches using
the SSA lists at initial certification and
at recertification, so the impacts of
matches at initial certification on
participation and costs are incorporated
in current baseline budget estimates.
There are no new savings that are not
incorporated in the current budget
baseline estimates.
In 2013, we estimate that 39,000
deceased individuals will be identified
from matches performed at initial
certification, and 61,000 individuals
will be identified through matches
performed at recertification.
The estimate on the impact of the
computer match using SSA lists of
deceased individuals is based on a GAO
Study, Thousands of Deceased
Individuals Are Being Counted as
Household Members, issued in February
1998. GAO examined data from four
States: California, Florida, New York,
and Texas, and estimated that in 1995
and 1996, $8.4 million in benefits were
paid on behalf of 25,881 deceased
individuals, with these individuals
‘‘receiving’’ benefits for an average of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

4.17 months. If we assume that some
deceased individuals would have
continued to be issued benefits for one
month before the data match identified
them and they were removed from the
caseload rolls, we estimate that a
mandatory computer match with SSA
databases could have saved $3.2 million
per year in overpayments. This figure is
derived from taking the $8.4 million
they received in benefits over two years,
assuming that they would still receive
benefits for 1 month rather than an
average of 4.17 months, and halving the
figure to get an annual total. The 12,941
deceased individuals (half of the 25,881
individuals identified over a two-year
period) accounted for 0.14 percent of
the 1996 SNAP caseload in those four
states.
Between 1989 and 2010, the average
number of initial certifications was
nearly identical to the number of
households participating in an average
month, and the average number of
recertifications was close. In any given
year, the two numbers tracked closely
together—when caseloads rose, so did
the number of initial certifications and
recertifications. Since we project
caseloads and not initial certifications
and recertifications, we use projected
participation estimates as a proxy for
the number of certifications and
recertifications.
The effect on participation resulting
from a mandatory computer match on
deceased individuals at the time of
initial certification is taken by applying
the 0.144 percent impact to the total
projected FY 2013 caseload of 46.9
million. This yields an estimate of
nearly 68,000 deceased individuals who
would be taken off the SNAP rolls.
Several adjustments were made after
this point. First, prior to the enactment
of the legislation mandating matches, a
number of States were already
performing these matches—California,
New York, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio—
accounting for 35 percent of the FY
2011 caseload. We assume that 10
percent of the matches are false
positives. We estimate that mandatory
matches at certification will identify an
estimated 39,000 deceased individuals
being removed from the rolls in 2013.
Requiring the matches at the time of
recertification would identify more
deceased persons. Since no States were
performing matches at recertification at
the time that the law was enacted, all
States would be included. We also
assume that 10 percent of the matches
are false positives. Thus, we estimate
that performing the match at
recertification would identify 61,000
deceased individuals in 2013 for
removal from SNAP caseloads.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

To obtain the impact of performing
the matches at initial certification and at
recertification, we added the two totals
together, for a total of 100,000 deceased
persons identified through matches in
2013.
Matches Using the eDRS. Optional
matches at initial certification using the
eDRS as currently being performed will
remove more than 6,000 ineligible
persons from caseloads at initial
certification in 2013. Making matches
mandatory at initial certification and
conducting a one-time match at
recertification for current participants
will remove an additional 9,000
ineligible persons from the caseloads in
2013; nearly 3,000 identified at initial
certification and more than 6,000
identified at recertification.
The estimate on the impact of the
computer match using the eDRS is
based on a GAO Study, Households
Collect Benefits for Persons Disqualified
for Intentional Program Violations,
issued in July 1999. GAO examined data
from four States: California, Illinois,
Louisiana, and Texas, and estimated
that in 1997, $528,000 in benefits were
paid to households on behalf of 3,166
disqualified individuals, with these
individuals receiving benefits for an
average of 2.33 months. If we assume
that some disqualified individuals will
continue to be issued benefits for one
month, we estimate that a mandatory
computer match at initial certification
with the eDRS could have saved
$301,000 in overpayments.
The four States accounted for 28
percent of the caseload in 1997 and 29
percent of benefits issued. Thus, taking
the demonstration figures and applying
them nationally, we estimate that over
11,000 individuals would have been
disqualified.
We know from the eDRS that as of
December 2010, 49,500 individuals
were currently disqualified from SNAP.
We do not have figures for past years,
so we have no definitive data for
whether the number of individuals
disqualified at any one time has risen or
fallen over the past decade. However, in
the FNS National Data Bank, we have
the number of disqualifications by year
and by length of disqualification. Using
this data to estimate the number of
individuals becoming disqualified and
the number of individuals whose
disqualification expires, we estimate
that over the past decade, the number of
disqualified individuals has fluctuated
between 50,000 and 70,000, and are not
correlated with SNAP participation
levels. So we did not make any
adjustments to account for changes in
overall participation levels.

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Under current regulations, States are
not required to perform the eDRS
matches routinely; they are required
only to do periodic matches on an ad
hoc basis. FNS staff members estimate
that 27 States, with 64 percent of the
SNAP caseload, are currently doing
routine matches at initial certification.
No States are doing matches at
recertification. Assuming that the
regulations are published by September
2012, and adjusting for a 10 percent
false positive rate for matches, we
assume that in 2013, 9,000 ineligible
persons will be identified by matches
performed at initial certification. Of
these, we estimate that 6,400 are
currently identified and after
publication of this regulation, an
additional 2,800 will be identified. We
are assuming that half the States not
doing the match will have implemented
the match by January 1, 2013, and the
remaining States will have implemented
the matches by July 1, 2013, for an
overall phase-in rate of 75 percent for
2013 and 100 percent in later years.
The number of ineligible persons
identified at recertification is adjusted
downwards to account for the fact only
new disqualifications would be
identified. Also, we are assuming that
we are only performing the
recertification matches once, rather than
annually or biannually. To estimate the
impact of running one-time matches at
certification, we computed the
percentage of disqualifications which
are for under a year (91 percent), and
adjusted the estimate by that factor. We
estimate that over 9,000 ineligible
individuals will be identified through
matches performed at recertification.
We are assuming that in 2013, half the
remaining States will have implemented
the one-time matches at recertification
by January 1, 2013, and the remaining
half by July 1, 2013; so we are assuming
a 75 percent impact for 2013 and a 25
percent impact for 2014. Thus, we are
assuming the newly-matching States
will identify nearly 7,000 ineligible
individuals in 2013, and the remaining
2,000 individuals identified in FY 2014.
To obtain the impact of performing
the matches at initial certification and at
recertification, we added the totals for
initial certification and recertification
together for a total of 6,000 disqualified
individuals identified by States
currently performing matches and
10,000 disqualified individuals
identified by States newly
implementing matches in 2013.
Effects on Administering State
Agencies: This rule affects State
agencies by codifying computer matches
mandated by legislation and requiring a
previously optional computer match.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

Effect on Retailers. This action is not
anticipated to have any measurable
impact on SNAP retailers.
Cost Impact. This action reduces
benefit costs by identifying and
removing ineligible and deceased
individuals from the SNAP. It does not
affect benefit levels for households
without individuals identified in the
computer matches.
PVS Matches: FNS estimates that
mandatory computer matches using the
PVS will save approximately $26
million in benefits that would have been
paid to households on behalf of
ineligible prisoners in Fiscal Year 2013.
Of that, nearly $18 million will be saved
through matches performed at initial
certification, which were made
mandatory by legislation and are
incorporated in current budgetary
baselines. Nearly $8 million will be
saved through matches performed at
recertification, which will be required
under discretionary provisions of this
regulation. The savings is estimated at
$115 million for the five-year period
2013–2017.
The cost estimate was derived using
the same methodology as that used for
the participation impact estimate. Using
data from the GAO report, we estimate
that about $2,618,847 in overpayments
could have been avoided using the
computer match at initial certification.
This accounted for 0.03 percent of
benefits issued in Fiscal Year 1995.
Applying this to the Fiscal Year 2013
estimated benefits of $75.2 billion yields
an unadjusted savings of $24 million in
reduced overpayments to prisoners at
initial certification. After taking out
those States who used the PVS prior to
the legislation making such matches
mandatory, adjusting for increases in
the number of prisoners since 1995, and
assuming a 10 percent false positive rate
for matches, we estimate that the
savings will be $18 million.
Requiring the matches at the time of
recertification would yield additional
savings. Since all States are performing
matches at recertification, any cost
savings are included in the current
budget baseline. There would be no
savings from those prisoners who were
identified in previous matches.
According to the most recent SNAP
characteristics report, the average
certification period for SNAP
households is 12 months. However, the
number of new prisoners who entered
the system in 2010 is about half the total
prison population as of June 30, 2011.
Therefore, matches at recertification
would yield only half as many hits as
matches performed at initial
certification. Therefore, we halved the
original savings of $24 million. We also

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

48051

adjusted for increases in the number of
prisoners and assume a 10 percent false
positive rate for matches. Finally, we
halved the estimate because the
recertification matches will be
performed biennially, rather than
annually. The savings from performing
matches at recertification is an
estimated $8 million in Fiscal Year
2013.
To obtain the impact of performing
the matches at initial certification and at
recertification, we added the two totals
together, for savings of $26 million. The
five-year savings are an estimated $115
million.
Matches Using Social Security
Deceased Lists. The mandatory
computer matches using SSA lists of
deceased individuals may save over $45
million in benefits that would have been
issued to households on behalf of
deceased individuals in FY 2013. Of
that, $18 million will be saved through
matches performed at initial
certification, which were made
mandatory by legislation and are
incorporated in current budgetary
baselines. Nearly $27 million will be
saved through matches performed at
recertification, which will be required
under discretionary provisions of this
regulation. The total savings over the
five-year period is estimated to be $203
million.
The cost estimate was derived using
the same methodology as that used for
the participation impact estimate. Using
data from the GAO report, we estimate
that about $3,185,000 in overpayments
could have been avoided using the
computer match. This accounted for
0.04 percent of benefits issued in Fiscal
Year 1996.
Applying this to Fiscal Year 2013
estimated benefits of $75.2 billion yields
an unadjusted savings of $30 million in
reduced overpayments to deceased
individuals. After taking out those
States who ran computer matches with
SSA death lists prior to the legislation
making such matches mandatory, and
assuming a 10 percent false positive rate
for matches, the cost savings for
performing matches at initial
certification is $18 million.
Since all States currently perform
matches with SSA death lists at
recertification, these costs are all
incorporated in the current budget
baselines. The average certification
period is 12 months; we take an annual
estimate as for initial certification. The
cost savings for performing matches at
recertification is estimated at nearly $27
million in 2013 and $121 million for
2013–2017.
We then combined the savings for
matches at initial certification and at

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

48052

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

recertification for a total of $45 million.
The five-year savings are an estimated
$203 million.
Matches Using the eDRS. Matches at
initial certification and recertification
using the eDRS may save nearly $3
million in benefits that would have been
paid out to individuals disqualified
from participating in SNAP in Fiscal
Year 2013 and $8 million for 2013–
2017. Of that, more than $1 million of
these savings is incorporated in the
budgetary baseline for FY 2013; the fiveyear estimate is nearly $6 million.
Under current law, States are only
required to do periodic matches;
however, 27 States currently perform
matches at initial certification. No States
perform matches at recertification. New
savings are estimated to be nearly $2
million for Fiscal Year 2013. The fiveyear savings for 2013–2017 is estimated
at $2.2 million.
The cost estimate was derived using
the same methodology used for the
participation impact estimate. Using
data from the GAO report, we estimate
that about $301,000 in overpayments
could have been avoided using the
computer match. Since the states
featured in the GAO study accounted for
29 percent of all benefits, applying the
study estimates nationally would have
saved nearly $1.1 million in FY 1997.
No adjustments were made to account
for caseload changes, since recent data,
as discussed earlier, does not show a
correlation between the number of

disqualified individuals and SNAP
participation levels. Since 1997, the
average monthly benefit has risen; we
anticipate that the average monthly
benefit will be about 85 percent higher
in 2013–2017. (The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 increased
the maximum allotment by 13.6 in April
2009 and froze it until FY 2014.)
Inflating the 1997 cost to capture 2013
benefit costs yields nearly $2 million in
savings.
We estimate that today, 64 percent of
benefits were issued to States currently
performing routine matches at initial
certification. We then adjust for past
and expected increases in the average
monthly benefit, and assume a 10
percent false positive match rate. We
estimate that the 2013 cost savings
estimate will be $1.1 million for States
currently performing the match, with a
five year savings of nearly $6 million.
We assume that the final regulation is
published by October 1, 2012. We
assume that 50 percent of the States
currently not performing matches at
recertification will start by January 1,
2013, and the remaining States will start
by July 1, 2013, so the overall phase-in
rate for 2013 is 75 percent. The 2013
cost savings by States newly performing
the match will be nearly $500,000, and
the five year savings will be $3 million.
Today, no States are performing
matches at recertification, so all savings
are ‘‘new’’ and not incorporated in the
budget baseline. This proposal would

require all States to perform a one-time
match at recertification to capture cases
not recently certified. The cost savings
from disqualifying ineligible persons
identified at recertification is adjusted
downwards to account for the fact only
new disqualifications would be
identified. To estimate that, we
computed the percentage of
disqualifications that is for under a year
(90 percent) and adjusted the estimate
by that percentage. We also assumed
that 10 percent of matches will be false
positives. We estimate that the 2013 cost
savings will be $1.1 million, with 75
percent of the matches run the first year;
and the remainder matches run the
second year. The five-year savings will
be $1.6 million.
The combined savings for matches
against the eDRS performed at initial
certification and recertification is nearly
$3 million in 2013 and $8 million over
the 2013–2017 five-year time period. Of
that, $1 million in 2013 savings comes
from States currently performing the
match and $1.7 million comes from new
States. For the five-year period, nearly
$6 million in savings comes from States
currently performing the match and $2.2
million comes from new States.
The total savings from the computer
matches is estimated at $73 million in
2013 and $326 million for the five-year
period of 2013–2017. Of this, an
estimated $324 million is incorporated
in the current budget and $2 million
represents new savings.

TABLE 1—COST IMPACT OF COMPUTER MATCH REQUIREMENTS (FEDERAL OUTLAYS)
[In millions of dollars]

2013

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Mandatory prisoner verification match:
Baseline Savings ................................................
New Savings .......................................................

2014

2015

2016

2017

5-Year

2013
Participant
Impact
(in thousands)

¥25
¥0

¥23
¥0

¥23
¥0

¥22
¥0

¥22
¥0

¥115
¥0

¥64
¥0

Total Savings ......................................................
Mandatory death master file match:
Baseline Savings ................................................
New Savings .......................................................

¥25

¥23

¥23

¥22

¥21

¥115

¥64

¥45
¥0

¥41
¥0

¥40
¥0

¥39
¥0

¥38
¥0

¥203
¥0

¥100
¥0

Total Savings ......................................................
Mandatory disqualified recipient subsystem match:
Baseline Savings ................................................
New Savings .......................................................
Total Savings ......................................................

¥45

¥41

¥40

¥39

¥38

¥203

¥100

¥1
¥2
¥3

¥1
¥1
¥2

¥1
¥0
¥1

¥1
¥0
¥1

¥1
¥0
¥1

¥6
¥2
¥8

¥6
¥10
¥16

¥71
¥2
¥73

¥65
¥1
¥65

¥64
¥0
¥64

¥63
¥0
¥63

¥61
¥0
¥61

¥324
¥2
¥326

¥170
¥10
¥180

Total:
Baseline Savings ................................................
New Savings .......................................................
Total Savings ......................................................

Note: Totals may not add up to the sum because of rounding.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:05 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Uncertainty: Because FNS lacks
administrative or survey data that
provides information about deceased
persons, prisoners, and disqualified
persons that are reported as part of
households receiving SNAP, this
estimate relied on small GAO studies
run on a handful of States in the mid
1990s, and applying the impacts to the
National Program, as operating today.
To the extent that these small GAO
studies are not nationally
representative, the estimate will be
skewed. FNS has no way to determine
the size or direction of any bias based
on the reliance of the GAO studies.
Our estimates also assume that the
number of deceased persons identified
by the match on SSA records is directly
proportional to past and projected

48053

Finally, we assume that the number of
disqualified individuals has remained
fairly constant over the past decade.
In all three cases, FNS has no way to
determine the size or direction of the
bias.
Because of these issues, there is a
moderate degree of uncertainty with
these estimates.
Societal Costs. While this regulatory
impact analysis details the expected
impacts on SNAP costs affected by the
provisions described above, it does not
provide an estimate of the overall social
costs of the provisions, nor does it
include a monetized estimate of the
benefits they bring to society. FNS
anticipates that the provisions will
improve Program operations and
strengthen Program integrity.

changes in SNAP caseloads. If the
number of deceased persons identified
by the match grows more quickly or
slowly than the number of SNAP
participants, the estimates will be
biased.
Likewise, we assume that the number
of households claiming prisoner
members and thus losing benefits as a
result of the match is directly
proportional to past and projected
changes in SNAP caseloads and the
number of individuals incarcerated. If
the number of prisoners identified by
the match grows more quickly or more
slowly than the number of SNAP
participants or than the number of
prisoners, the estimates will be biased.

RULE TITLE—SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: ELECTRONIC DISQUALIFIED RECIPIENT SYSTEM REPORTING AND COMPUTER MATCHING REQUIREMENTS THAT AFFECT THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
RIN 0584–AB51.
Category

Primary estimate

Minimum estimate

Maximum estimate

BENEFITS
Annualized, monetized Benefits ..
Annualized,
quantified
but
unmonetized, benefits.
Qualitative (unquantified) benefits

Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
COSTS

Annualized monetized costs ........
Qualitative (unquantified) costs ...

Not applicable.
Not applicable.
TRANSFERS

Annualized monetary transfers:
‘‘on budget’’.

$180 million ....................

From whom to whom ...................

Funds that would have been received by ineligible participants are not issued, representing savings to the
taxpayer.
Not applicable.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Annualized monetized transfers:
‘‘off-budget’’.
From whom to whom? .................

$180 million ....................

$180 million ....................

Not applicable.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule has been reviewed with
regard to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601–612). The Administrator of the
Food and Nutrition Service has certified
that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. State and local
welfare agencies will be the most
affected to the extent that they
administer the Program. Applicants may
be affected to the extent that matching
client information with records in eDRS,
PVS and Death Master Files may
identify a client as disqualified,
preventing them from Program
participation.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) established
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 UMRA, FNS
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 UMRA generally requires FNS to
identify and consider a reasonable

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Regulatory Impact Analysis

Jkt 226001

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, more costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates
(under the regulatory provisions of Title
II of UMRA) for State, local and tribal
governments, or the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year.
Therefore, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
UMRA.
Executive Order 12372
The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program 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

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

48054

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(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
included in the preamble to the
regulations describing the agency’s
consideration in terms of the three
categories called for under section
(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. In
adherence with verification laws, this
final rule allows for little State agency
flexibility on when and how States must
match SNAP recipients with SSA Death
Master Files, eDRS records, and PVS
records. FNS understands that State
flexibility is important and will work
with each State agency through a waiver
process if they can make a reasonable
argument for a more efficient procedure
that would still comply with the law.
Was there prior consultation with State
officials?
Prior to drafting this final rule, FNS
consulted with State and local agencies
at various times. FNS regional offices
have formal and informal discussions
with State and local officials on an
ongoing basis regarding program
implementation and policy issues. This
arrangement allows State and local
agencies to provide comments that form
the basis for many discretionary
decisions in this and other SNAP rules.
FNS has responded to numerous written
requests for policy guidance on IPV
disqualification data reporting. Also,
guidance for the prisoner verification
and deceased data matching programs
were implemented by agency directive
with the consultation and input from
State and local SNAP agencies. Finally,
FNS presented ideas and received
feedback on Program policy at various
National, State, and professional
conferences regarding the matching
requirements in this rule.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

What is the nature of concern and the
need to issue this rule?
FNS believes that it is important to
standardize matching procedures to
provide quality services to all SNAP
participants and qualified applicants
while ensuring that SNAP benefits are
issued only to qualified individuals and
households. In doing so, FNS and State
agencies contribute to the success and
integrity of the Program, garnering

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

public support and user confidence in
SNAP.
State and local SNAP agencies,
however, want flexibility in Program
administration. To the extent possible,
FNS will consider alternate means of
meeting the objectives of the law and
has considered State comments in
finalizing this rule.
What is the extent to which FNS meets
those concerns?
This rule contains changes that are
required by law and were implemented
by agency directives in response to the
implementation timeframes required in
legislation. The changes to SNAP rules
describing State agency responsibility
for reporting IPV information will
clarify how State agencies access
disqualification information and followup on it, as well as provide for greater
flexibility to State agencies for
processing, retaining and sharing
disqualification information. FNS is not
aware of any case where the
discretionary provision of this rule
would preempt State law.
Executive Order 12988
FNS has considered the impact of the
final rule on State and local agencies.
This rule is intended to have a
preemptive effect with respect to any
State and local laws, regulations or
policies, which conflict with its
provisions or would otherwise impede
its full implementation. Prior to any
judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule, or the application of its
provisions, all applicable administrative
procedures must be exhausted.
This rule makes changes to the
verification procedures for prisoner and
deceased person data match programs,
as well as reinforces requirements for
disqualified recipient reporting and
computer match benefits adjustments,
as required by law. These procedures for
matching prisoner and deceased persons
were implemented by agency directives
in May 1999 and February 2000,
respectively, in response to
implementation timeframes required in
legislation. These changes to SNAP
rules describing State agency
responsibilities for reporting IPV
information will clarify access and
follow-up procedures for processing,
retaining and sharing disqualification
information.
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

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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 effect of this and other rules on
Tribes or Indian Tribal governments, or
whether this rule may preempt Tribal
law.
Reports from the consultative sessions
will be made part of the USDA annual
reporting on Tribal Consultation and
Collaboration. USDA will offer future
opportunities, such as webinars and
teleconferences, for collaborative
conversations with Tribal leaders and
their representatives concerning ways to
improve rules with regard to their affect
on Indian country.
We are unaware of any current Tribal
laws that could be in conflict with the
final rule.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
FNS has reviewed this rule in
accordance with Department Regulation
4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact Analysis,’’
to identify and address any major civil
rights impacts the rule might have on
minorities, women and persons with
disabilities. After careful review of the
rule’s intent and provisions, and the
characteristics of SNAP households and
individual participants, FNS has
determined that there is no way to
determine their effect on any of the
protected classes. The changes required
to be implemented by law have already
been implemented and are further
clarified in this regulation. Regulations
in § 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
program administration is prohibited,
stated in § 272.6 and title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d).
Enforcement action may be brought
under any applicable federal law, thus
enabling FNS to implement verification
standards mandating that SNAP State
agencies systematize their application
process. This would ensure that those
who qualify are given a just amount of

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
SNAP support and that those that do not
qualify are prohibited from receiving
SNAP benefits. Title VI complaints shall
be processed in accordance 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 in § 272.6.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR part
1320), requires that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approve all collections of information
by a Federal agency from the public
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 new
information collection requirements
subject to approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Information collection requirements and
burden associated with this rule have
been approved as part of OMB# 0584–
0064, ‘‘Application and Certification of
Food Stamp Program Households’’
(expiration March 2013) and OMB#
0584–0492, ‘‘SNAP Repayment Demand
and Program Disqualification’’
(expiration September 2014).
E-Government Act Compliance
FNS 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. The information collection
associated with this regulation is
available for electronic submission
through eDRS, which complies with the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

7 CFR Part 272
Civil rights, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, Grant programssocial programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
7 CFR Part 273
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, Fraud,
Grant programs-social programs,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Social Security.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 7 CFR parts 272 and 273 are
amended as follows:
■ 1. The authority citation for parts 272
and 273 continues to read as follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2036.

PART 272—REQUIREMENTS FOR
PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES
2. In § 272.1, paragraph (f) is revised
to read as follows:

■

§ 272.1

General terms and conditions.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) Retention of records. Each State
agency shall retain all Program records
in an orderly fashion for audit and
review purposes for no less than 3 years
from the month of origin of each record.
In addition:
(1) The State agency shall retain fiscal
records and accountable documents for
3 years from the date of fiscal or
administrative closure. Fiscal closure
means that obligations for or against the
Federal government have been
liquidated. Administrative closure
means that the State agency has
determined and documented that no
further action to liquidate the obligation
is appropriate. Fiscal records and
accountable documents include, but are
not limited to, claims and
documentation of lost benefits.
(2) Case records relating to intentional
Program violation disqualifications and
related notices to the household shall be
retained indefinitely until the State
agency obtains reliable information that
the record subject has died or until FNS
advises via the disqualified recipient
database system edit report that all
records associated with a particular
individual, including the disqualified
recipient database record, may be
permanently removed from the database
because of the individual’s 80th
birthday.
(3) Disqualification records submitted
to the disqualified recipient database
must be purged by the State agency that
submitted them when the supporting
documents are no longer accurate,
relevant, or complete. The State agency
shall follow a prescribed records
management program to meet this
requirement. Information about this
program shall be available for FNS
review.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. New §§ 272.12, 272.13, and 272.14
are added to read as follows:
§ 272.12 Computer matching
requirements.

(a) General purpose. The Computer
Matching and Privacy Protection Act
(CMA) of 1988, as amended, addresses
the use of information from computer
matching programs that involve a
Federal System of Records. Each State
agency participating in a computer
matching program shall adhere to the
provisions of the CMA if it uses an FNS

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

48055

system of records for the following
purposes:
(1) Establishing or verifying initial or
continuing eligibility for Federal Benefit
Programs;
(2) Verifying compliance with either
statutory or regulatory requirements of
the Federal Benefit Programs; or
(3) Recouping payments or delinquent
debts under such Federal Benefit
Programs.
(b) Matching agreements. State
agencies must enter into written
agreements with USDA/FNS, consistent
with 5 U.S.C. 552a(o) of the CMA, in
order to participate in a matching
program involving a USDA/FNS Federal
system of records.
(c) Use of computer matching
information. (1) A State agency shall not
take any adverse action to terminate,
deny, suspend, or reduce benefits to an
applicant or recipient based on
information produced by a Federal
computer matching program that is
subject to the requirements of the CMA,
unless:
(i) The information has been
independently verified by the State
agency (in accordance with the
independent verification requirements
set out in the State agency’s written
agreement as required by paragraph (b)
of this section) and a Notice of Adverse
Action or Notice of Denial has been sent
to the household, in accordance with
§ 273.2(f); or
(ii) The Federal agency’s Data
Integrity Board has waived the two-step
independent verification and notice
requirement and notice of adverse
action has been sent to the household,
in accordance with § 273.2(f) of this
chapter.
(2) A State agency which receives a
request for verification from another
State agency, or from FNS pursuant to
the provisions of § 273.16(i) of this
chapter shall, within 20 working days of
receipt, respond to the request by
providing necessary verification
(including copies of appropriate
documentation and any statement that
an individual has asked to be included
in their file).
§ 272.13
(PVS).

Prisoner verification system

(a) General. Each State agency shall
establish a system to monitor and
prevent individuals who are being held
in any Federal, State, and/or local
detention or correctional institutions for
more than 30 days from being included
in a SNAP household.
(b) Use of match data. State prisoner
verification systems shall provide for:
(1) The comparison of identifying
information about each household

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

48056

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

member, excluding minors, as that term
is defined by each State, and one-person
households in States where a face-toface interview is conducted, against
identifying information about inmates of
institutions at Federal, State and local
levels;
(2) The reporting of instances where
there is a match;
(3) The independent verification of
match hits to determine their accuracy;
(4) Notice to the household of match
results;
(5) An opportunity for the household
to respond to the match prior to an
adverse action to deny, reduce, or
terminate benefits; and
(6) The establishment and collections
of claims as appropriate.
(c) Match frequency. State agencies
shall make a comparison of match data
for adult household members at the time
of application and at recertification.
States that opt to obtain and use
prisoner information collected under
Section 1611(e)(1)(I)(i)(I) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1382(e)(1)(I)(i)(I)) shall be considered in
compliance with this section. States
shall enter into a computer matching
agreement with the SSA under authority
contained in 42 U.S.C. 405(r)(3).

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

§ 272.14

Deceased matching system.

(a) General. Each State agency shall
establish a system to verify and ensure
that benefits are not issued to
individuals who are deceased.
(b) Data source. States shall use the
SSA’s Death Master File, obtained
through the State Verification and
Exchange System (SVES) and enter into
a computer matching agreement with
SSA pursuant to authority to share data
contained in 42 U.S.C. 405(r)(3).
(c) Use of match data. States shall
provide a system for:
(1) Comparing identifiable
information about each household
member against information from
databases on deceased individuals.
States shall make the comparison of
matched data at the time of application
and no less frequently than once a year.
(2) The reporting of instances where
there is a match;
(3) The independent verification of
match hits to determine their accuracy;
(4) Notice to the household of match
results;
(5) An opportunity for the household
to respond to the match prior to an
adverse action to deny, reduce, or
terminate benefits; and
(6) The establishment and collection
of claims as appropriate.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

PART 273—CERTIFICATION OF
ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS
4. In § 273.2, a new paragraph (f)(11)
is added to read as follows:

■

§ 273.2 Office operations and application
processing.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(11) Use of disqualification data. (i)
Pursuant to § 273.16(i), information in
the disqualified recipient database will
be available for use by any State agency
that executes a computer matching
agreement with FNS. The State agency
shall use the disqualified recipient
database for the following purposes:
(A) Ascertain the appropriate penalty
to impose based on past
disqualifications in a case under
consideration;
(B) Conduct matches as specified in
§ 273.16 on:
(1) Program application information
prior to certification and for a newly
added household member whenever
that might occur; and
(2) The current recipient caseload at
the time of recertification for a period of
1 year after the implementation date of
this match. State agencies do not need
to include minors, as that term is
defined by each State.
(3) States having the ability to
conduct a one-time match of their entire
active caseload against active cases from
the disqualified recipient database may
do so and be exempted from the 1-year
requirement to conduct matches at
recertification.
(ii) State agencies shall not take any
adverse action to terminate, deny,
suspend, or reduce benefits to an
applicant, or SNAP recipient, based on
disqualified recipient match results
unless the match information has been
independently verified. The State
agency shall provide to an applicant, or
recipient, an opportunity to contest any
adverse disqualified recipient match
result pursuant to the provisions of
§ 273.13.
(iii) Independent verification shall
take place separate from and prior to
issuing a notice of adverse action—a
two-step process. Independent
verification for disqualification
purposes means contacting the
applicant or recipient household and/or
the State agency that originated the
disqualification record immediately to
obtain corroborating information or
documentation to support the reported
disqualification information in the
intentional Program violation database.
(A) Documentation may be in any
form deemed appropriate and legally
sufficient by the State agency

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

considering the adverse action. Such
documentation may include, but shall
not be limited to, electronic or hard
copies of court decisions, administrative
disqualification hearing determinations,
signed disqualification consent
agreements or administrative
disqualification hearing waivers.
(B) A State may accept a verbal or
written statement from another State
agency attesting to the existence of the
documentation listed in paragraph
(f)(11)(iii)(A) of this section.
(C) A State may accept a verbal or
written statement from the household
affirming the accuracy of the
disqualification information if such a
statement is properly documented and
included in the case record.
(D) If a State agency is not able to
provide independent verification
because of a lack of supporting
documentation, the State agency shall
so advise the requesting State agency or
FNS, as appropriate, and shall take
immediate action to remove the
unsupported record from the
disqualified recipient database in
accordance with § 273.16(i)(6).
(iv) Once independent verification
has been received, the requesting State
agency shall review and immediately
enter the information into the case
record and send the appropriate
notice(s) to the record subject and any
remaining members of the record
subject’s SNAP household.
(v) Information from the disqualified
recipient database is subject to the
disclosure provisions in § 272.1(c) of
this chapter and the routine uses
described in the most recent ‘‘Notice of
Revision of Privacy Act System of
Records’’ published in the Federal
Register.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 273.11, paragraph (c)(4)(i) is
amended by adding a new sentence to
the end of the paragraph to read as
follows:
§ 273.11 Action on households with
special circumstances.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * * However, a participating
household is entitled to a notice of
adverse action prior to any action to
reduce, suspend or terminate its
benefits, if a State agency determines
that it contains an individual who was
disqualified in another State and is still
within the period of disqualification.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 273.12:
■ a. The section heading is revised:
■ b. Paragraph (e)(3) introductory text is
amended by removing the last six

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
sentences and adding four new
sentences in their place.
■ c. New paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and
(e)(3)(ii) are added; and
■ d. The introductory text of paragraph
(e)(4) is revised.
The additions and revision read as
follows:
§ 273.12 Requirements for change
reporting households.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

*

*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(3) * * * A State agency may require
households to report the change on the
appropriate monthly report or may
handle the change using the mass
change procedures in this section. If the
State agency requires the household to
report the information on the monthly
report, the State agency shall handle
such information in accordance with its
normal procedures. Households that are
not required to report the change on the
monthly report, and households not
subject to monthly reporting, shall not
be responsible for reporting these
changes. The State agency shall be
responsible for automatically adjusting
these households’ SNAP benefit levels
in accordance with either paragraph
(e)(3)(i) or (e)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) The State agency may make mass
changes by applying percentage
increases communicated by the source
agency to represent cost-of-living
increases provided in other benefit
programs. These changes shall be
reflected no later than the second
allotment issued after the month in
which the change becomes effective.
(ii) The State agency may update
household income information based on
cost-of-living increases supplied by a
data source covered under the Computer
Matching and Privacy Protection Act of
1988 (CMA) in accordance with § 272.12
of this chapter. The State agency shall
take action, including proper notices to
households, to terminate, deny or
reduce benefits based on this
information if it is considered verified
upon receipt under § 273.2(f)(9). If the
information is not considered verified
upon receipt, the State agency shall
initiate appropriate action and notice in
accordance with § 273.2(f)(9).
(4) Notice for mass change. When the
State agency makes a mass change in
SNAP eligibility or benefits by
simultaneously converting the caseload,
or that portion of the caseload that is
affected, using the percentage increase
calculation provided for in
§ 273.12(e)(3)(i), or by conducting
individual desk reviews using
information not covered under the
Computer Matching and Privacy
Protection Act (CMA) in place of a mass

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

change, it shall notify all households
whose benefits are reduced or
terminated in accordance with the
requirements of this paragraph, except
for mass changes made under
§ 273.12(e)(1); and
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. In § 273.13:
■ a. Paragraph (a)(2) is amended by
adding two new sentences to the end of
the paragraph;
■ b. Paragraph (b)(1) is revised; and
■ c. Paragraph (b)(7) is amended by
removing the first sentence of the
paragraph and adding three new
sentences in its place.
The additions and revision read as
follows:
§ 273.13

Notice of adverse action.

(a) * * *
(2) * * * A notice of adverse action
that combines the request for
verification of information received
through an IEVS computer match shall
meet the requirements in § 273.2(f)(9). A
notice of adverse action that combines
the request for verification of
information received through a SAVE
computer match shall meet the
requirements in § 273.2(f)(10).
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) The State initiates a mass change
through means other than computer
matches as described in § 273.12(e)(1),
(e)(2), or (e)(3)(i).
*
*
*
*
*
(7) A household member is
disqualified for an intentional Program
violation in accordance with § 273.16,
or the benefits of the remaining
household members are reduced or
terminated to reflect the disqualification
of that household member, except as
provided in § 273.11(c)(3)(i). A notice of
adverse action must be sent to a
currently participating household prior
to the reduction or termination of
benefits if a household member is found
through a disqualified recipient match
to be within the period of
disqualification for an intentional
Program violation penalty determined
in another State. In the case of applicant
households, State agencies shall follow
the procedures in § 273.2(f)(11) for
issuing notices to the disqualified
individual and the remaining household
members. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. In § 273.16, paragraph (i) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 273.16 Disqualification for intentional
program violation.

*

*
*
*
*
(i) Reporting requirements. (1) Each
State agency shall report to FNS

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

48057

information concerning individuals
disqualified for an intentional Program
violation, including those individuals
disqualified based on the determination
of an administrative disqualification
hearing official or a court of appropriate
jurisdiction, and those individuals
disqualified as a result of signing either
a waiver of right to a disqualification
hearing or a disqualification consent
agreement in cases referred for
prosecution. This information shall be
submitted to FNS so that it is received
no more than 30 days after the date the
disqualification took effect.
(2) State agencies shall report
information concerning each individual
disqualified for an intentional Program
violation to FNS. FNS will maintain this
information and establish the format for
its use.
(i) State agencies shall report
information to the disqualified recipient
database in accordance with procedures
specified by FNS.
(ii) State agencies shall access
disqualified recipient information from
the database that allows users to check
for current and prior disqualifications.
(3) The elements to be reported to
FNS are name, social security number,
date of birth, gender, disqualification
number, disqualification decision date,
disqualification start date, length of
disqualification period (in months),
locality code, and the title, location and
telephone number of the locality
contact. These elements shall be
reported in accordance with procedures
prescribed by FNS.
(i) The disqualification decision date
is the date that a disqualification
decision was made at either an
administrative or judicial hearing, or the
date an individual signed a waiver to
forego an administrative or judicial
hearing and accept a disqualification
penalty.
(ii) The disqualification start date is
the date the disqualification penalty was
imposed by any of the means identified
in § 273.16(i)(3)(i).
(iii) The locality contact is a person,
position or entity designated by a State
agency as the point of contact for other
State agencies to verify disqualification
records supplied to the disqualified
recipient database by the locality
contact’s State.
(4) All data submitted by State
agencies will be available for use by any
State agency that is currently under a
valid signed Matching Agreement with
FNS.
(i) State agencies shall, at a minimum,
use the data to determine the eligibility
of individual Program applicants prior
to certification, and for 1 year following
implementation, to determine the

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

48058

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

eligibility at recertification of its
currently participating caseload. In lieu
of the 1-year match at recertification
requirement and for the same purpose,
State agencies may conduct a one-time
match of their participating caseload
against active disqualifications in the
disqualified recipient database. State
agencies have the option of exempting
minors from this match.
(ii) State agencies shall also use the
disqualified recipient database for the
purpose of determining the eligibility of
newly added household members.
(5) The disqualification of an
individual for an intentional Program
violation in one political jurisdiction
shall be valid in another. However, one
or more disqualifications for an
intentional Program violation, which
occurred prior to April 1, 1983, shall be
considered as only one previous
disqualification when determining the
appropriate penalty to impose in a case
under consideration, regardless of
where the disqualification(s) took place.
State agencies are encouraged to
identify and report to FNS any
individuals disqualified for an
intentional Program violation prior to
April 1, 1983. A State agency submitting
such historical information should take
steps to ensure the availability of
appropriate documentation to support
the disqualifications in the event it is
contacted for independent verification.
(6) If a State determines that
supporting documentation for a
disqualification record that it has
entered is inadequate or nonexistent,
the State agency shall act to remove the
record from the database.
(7) If a court of appropriate
jurisdiction reverses a disqualification
for an intentional Program violation, the
State agency shall take action to delete
the record in the database that contains
information related to the
disqualification that was reversed in
accordance with instructions provided
by FNS.
(8) If an individual disputes the
accuracy of the disqualification record
pertaining to him/herself the State
agency submitting such record(s) shall
be responsible for providing FNS with
prompt verification of the accuracy of
the record.
(i) If a State agency is unable to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of FNS
that the information in question is
correct, the State agency shall
immediately, upon direction from FNS,
take action to delete the information
from the disqualified recipient database.
(ii) In those instances where the State
agency is able to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of FNS that the information
in question is correct, the individual

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:57 Aug 10, 2012

Jkt 226001

shall have an opportunity to submit a
brief statement representing his or her
position for the record. The State agency
shall make the individual’s statement a
permanent part of the case record
documentation on the disqualification
record in question, and shall make the
statement available to each State agency
requesting an independent verification
of that disqualification.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: July 10, 2012.
Kevin Concannon,
Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 2012–19768 Filed 8–10–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 27
[Docket No. FAA–2012–0820; Special
Conditions No. 27–028–SC]

Special Conditions: Eurocopter
France, EC130T2; Use of 30-Minute
Power Rating
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions; request
for comments.
AGENCY:

These special conditions are
issued for the Eurocopter France Model
EC130T2 helicopter. This model
helicopter will have the novel or
unusual design feature of a 30-minute
power rating, generally intended to be
used for hovering at increased power for
search and rescue missions. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate
safety standards for this design feature.
These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to
that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.
DATES: The effective date of these
special conditions is July 30, 2012. We
must receive your comments by
September 27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by docket number FAA–2012–0820
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Building Ground Floor, Washington,
DC, 20590–0001.
Hand Delivery of Courier: Take
comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8
a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at 202–493–2251.
Privacy: The FAA will post all
comments it receives, without change,
to http://regulations.gov, including any
personal information the commenter
provides. Using the search function of
the docket web site, anyone can find
and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA
docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or
signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s
complete Privacy Act Statement can be
found in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478),
as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: Background documents or
comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time.
Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket
Operations in Room @12–140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Haight, Rotorcraft Standards Staff,
ASW–111, Rotorcraft Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas
76137; telephone (817) 222–5204;
facsimile (817) 222–5961.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Reason for No Prior Notice and
Comment Before Adoption
The FAA has determined that notice
and opportunity for public comment are
impractical because we do not expect
substantive comments, and because this
special condition only affects this one
manufacturer. We also considered that
these procedures would significantly
delay the issuance of the design
approval, and thus, the delivery of the
affected aircraft. As certification for the
Eurocopter France model EC130T2 is
imminent, the FAA finds that good
cause exists for making these special
conditions effective upon issuance.
Comments Invited
While we did not precede this with a
notice of proposed special conditions,
we invite interested people to take part
in this rulemaking by sending written

E:\FR\FM\13AUR1.SGM

13AUR1