Public Comments

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

October 13, 2023
Attention: Polly Fairfield
Food and Nutrition Service
United States Department of Agriculture
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
RE: Proposed Rule: Improving Access and Parity in Food Distribution Programs
Dear Deputy Under Secretary Stacy Dean and Administrator Cindy Long:
The Food Bank Council of Michigan (FBCM) welcomes the opportunity to submit comments regarding
the proposed rule entitled “Food Distribution Programs: Improving Access and Parity” ((FNS-20230026) RIN 0584-AE92) published in the August 14, 2023 edition of the Federal Register.
FBCM is the state association representing the seven Feeding America affiliated food banks that
collectively serve all 83 counties in Michigan. Programs like TEFAP and CSFP are critical in enabling
our food banks to provide nutritious food to communities and households across our state, and we
appreciate the opportunity to inform and influence the policies that govern these important programs.
FBCM is supportive of opportunities to strengthen and streamline these programs to best serve
people experiencing food insecurity in Michigan and across the nation, and we offer these comments
detailing our views on the proposed rules.

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP):
Eligibility Requirements
FBCM strongly supports USDA’s proposal of increasing the maximum income eligibility
guidelines, and we urge USDA to increase to 185% FPL. The proposal of 150% FPL still leaves
the average social security recipient over the income eligibility limit for the program. As USDA
has acknowledged, raising the limit to 185% would align CSFP with the Senior Farmers Market
Nutrition Program (SFMNP), and this would provide increased parity between the two
programs. We also strongly encourage USDA not to allow states the option to set their
income eligibility guidelines to less than 185% FPL.
FBCM supports allowing CSFP applicants to be categorically eligible via participation in
other federal means-tested programs, as long as USDA continues to allow participants to selfdeclare their income as another option for eligibility. Michigan uses federal means-tested

1

programs with income limits at or under TEFAP eligibility guidelines for participants in that
program. By allowing CSFP applicants to be categorical eligibility via participation in programs
including but not limited to SNAP, FDPIR, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), SFMNP,
Medicaid, Medicare Savings Program, Section 8, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP), and any state means-tested program within the income guidelines, it would
ease burden on both participants and partner agencies. FBCM also urges USDA to remove the
requirement that federal means-tested programs have income limits at or below the CSFP
threshold to be considered for categorical eligibility, and encourages USDA to model the
CSFP categorical eligibility regulations after the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
language, which confers eligibility based on participation in other programs without reference
to the income limits of the other programs.
FBCM recognizes that any changes in eligibility requirements for the program will have an
impact on caseload utilization. While USDA anticipates returning to the practice of reallocating
caseload from those programs that do not meet the 95% utilization requirement, we urge
USDA to consider at least preserving existing caseload allocations while the proposed rules
are finalized and implemented, recognizing that increased eligibility will make it more likely
that higher caseload utilization rates will occur as a result. This would allow states to better
prepare to serve newly eligible CSFP participants without delay.

Changes to Identification Check at Distribution
While FBCM strongly supports the intent of the proposed rule to allow state and local agencies
greater flexibility when determining how to verify participants' identity before distributing
USDA foods, it does not address the larger issue of requiring participants to prove their
identity in order to participate in the program. If USDA seeks to ensure that CSFP is a more
accessible and equitable program, FBCM strongly encourages USDA to move towards
removing the identification verification requirement in its entirety. Many older adults face
barriers to picking up food and the current identification requirement is challenging for
partner agencies and participants, especially for those that offer home delivery as an option to
address barriers to access. It is necessary to modernize CSFP to better support the needs of
today’s older adults. Participants already provide personal information during certification and
recertification, which meets the same objective of verifying that the USDA Foods are
distributed to the eligible participants. Should USDA determine identity verification must be
required, FBCM supports the proposed rule to allow CSFP state and local agencies to
establish additional methods of verifying the identity of participants.

2

Referral Materials for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
While FBCM supports the intent of this proposed rule, we have concerns on making this a

requirement for CSFP agencies to share “written” information and referrals for SFMNP.
Partner agencies receive limited administrative funding and requiring agencies to print and
distribute materials for other programs, without providing additional resources to do so, will
further exhaust already limited administrative funds. FBCM proposes that USDA allow flexibility
regarding information sharing and referrals to other programs, and unless additional
administrative resources are made available, make this optional but strongly encouraged, for
those with the capacity and funding for additional outreach.
FBCM is strongly supportive of cross-enrollment efforts across federal nutrition programs, and
it is often necessary to connect CSFP participants to additional resources whenever possible,
as CSFP does not currently offer fresh produce. While there are nearly 300 farmers markets
across Michigan that offer fresh, local produce, many older adults face barriers to accessing
these resources. Referrals to programs like SFMNP to offer access to fresh produce is
important, but it does not address the greater need to reevaluate the USDA Foods currently
offered through CSFP and seek opportunities to include fresh produce in CSFP to bring the
program more in alignment with offerings provided in other food distribution programs, such
as TEFAP, to better support the health and well-being of our nation’s older adults.

Public Posting of Availability of USDA Foods and State Plans
FBCM strongly supports making the CSFP State plan publicly available on the State agency’s
website, which would be informative and increase transparency of the program. FBCM
encourages USDA to implement a firm deadline in which the most current State plan must be
posted on the State agency’s public website to ensure that it is shared in a timely and
consistent manner annually. In addition to requiring States to publish their State plan on their
website, FBCM also urges USDA to post all State plans on the USDA website to make these
plans even more accessible to further increase transparency and allow for potential
information sharing across states to learn best practices from one another.
In addition, FBCM encourages USDA to include language requiring State agencies to provide
emergency feeding organizations or eligible recipient agencies within the State an
opportunity to provide input in the creation of the annual State plan, which may include the
use of a State advisory board to accomplish this. Currently USDA encourages State agencies
receiving TEFAP foods to establish a State advisory board representing all types of entities in
the State, both public and private, interested in the distribution of USDA Foods, to provide
valuable input on how resources should be allocated among various eligible outlet types, what
areas have the greatest need for food assistance, and other important issues that will help

3

States to use their program resources in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
FBCM urges USDA to strengthen this regulatory language for TEFAP and to add mirroring
language for CSFP.
FBCM supports the listing of information about CSFP distribution sites online. Potential CSFP
participants should have easy access to the most up-to-date information about food
distributions in their local community. However, posting all distribution sites on the State
agency’s website might not be a practical requirement, given that State agencies do not
oversee the daily operations of distributions. This requirement can quickly create an issue with
outdated listings since distribution sites change periodically. Furthermore, if State agencies
only update information about each site once a year, it leaves opportunities for participants to
become frustrated about the program when provided outdated information.
The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) currently offers a list on its website with
information provided for the primary CSFP partners that the State agency works with directly in
each county, where interested participants can then access information directly from those
partners to learn more about what sites distribute CSFP and how to apply. Similarly, we
encourage USDA to require the lists provided on the State agency websites contain the
primary TEFAP partners in each county or region. We also urge USDA to ensure that States
prioritize how this information can be shared in an accessible and inclusive manner, such as
not posting as a separate attachment since not all devices can easily access documents, and
considering font types and sizes that can make for easier reading of the information. FBCM
also recommends that USDA encourage State agencies to prioritize making this information
available in other State and partner resource websites and helplines that older adults may
already be familiar with and utilizing, such as 2-1-1, or MI Bridges (a public benefits and
community resource portal operated by the Michigan Department of Health and Human
Services, another State agency in Michigan), rather than expecting seniors to know to search
for the information on the specific State agency’s website.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP):
Requirement for the Public Posting of Availability of USDA Foods Through TEFAP
FBCM supports efforts to make TEFAP more accessible by sharing information on State
agency websites about TEFAP eligibility requirements and distribution sites, but we have
similar concerns as we listed above under “CSFP - Public Posting of Availability of USDA Foods
and State Plans”. We want the information posted on the website to be accurate, up-to-date,
and practical to maintain, so instead of requiring that all TEFAP distribution sites be listed on a

4

public website, we encourage USDA to require the lists contain the primary TEFAP partners in
each county or region, avoiding added administrative burdens on TEFAP distribution sites and
State agencies, and preventing potential confusion or frustration for participants that could
otherwise encounter inaccurate or outdated information.
FBCM also strongly urges that USDA require State agencies to post their current TEFAP state
plan annually on their State website. This mirrors a current proposed rule change for CSFP
and would help bring transparency and parity to both programs. FBCM also urges USDA to
post all State plans on the USDA website to make these plans more accessible to further
increase transparency and allow for potential information sharing across States to learn best
practices from one another.
In addition, FBCM urges USDA to strengthen current language from “encouraging” to
“requiring” State agencies to provide emergency feeding organizations or eligible recipient
agencies within the State an opportunity to provide input in the creation of the annual State
plan, which may include the use of a State advisory board to accomplish this. Currently USDA
encourages State agencies receiving TEFAP foods to establish a State advisory board
representing all types of entities in the State, both public and private, interested in the
distribution of USDA Foods, but many states are not taking advantage of this opportunity.
Emergency feeding organizations and eligible recipient agencies can provide valuable input
on how resources should be allocated among various eligible outlet types, what areas have the
greatest need for food assistance, and other important issues that will help to ensure States
use their program resources in the most efficient and effective manner possible. FBCM urges
USDA to strengthen this regulatory language for TEFAP and to include mirroring language
for CSFP.

TEFAP Maximum Income Eligibility Range and State Agency Option for Alternative Income
Eligibility Thresholds
FBCM strongly supports USDA’s proposal to require states to set their income eligibility
guidelines at a minimum of 185% FPL, as this will help increase access to the program and
modernize eligibility standards.
However, we do not support the proposal to implement a federal maximum income eligibility
threshold for TEFAP. States should be able to set income eligibility guidelines based on
firsthand knowledge of their unique service area, the local cost of living, population needs,
resource management and other factors. We are concerned this would create additional
administrative burden for States already operating above that threshold to provide

5

justification, and be a potential deterrent for States to adapt their thresholds in the future due
to the added administrative burden.
If USDA determines there must be a federally established income eligibility maximum, it
should be no less than 400% FPL, to be inclusive of all current State administrative practices
and to be mindful of financial realities of those seeking food assistance. We strongly
recommend that USDA retains the proposed option for State agencies to submit a request to
establish guidelines at a higher level, with justification, to continue to allow States to make
adjustments based on state-specific needs and economic conditions.

Methods for Verifying Residency
FBCM strongly supports USDA’s proposal to disallow the requirement that individuals
provide their address or identification to prove residency to receive USDA Foods through
TEFAP. This aligns with Michigan’s current practices that allow for self-declaration of residency
by the applicant, that has proven to be an efficient and effective method in our state.

Establishing Confidentiality Protections for Applicant and Participant Household Information
FBCM supports efforts to establish confidentiality requirements to ensure protection of
information collected from households, and to align recordkeeping and retention
requirements with those of other food assistance programs. We encourage USDA to ensure
confidentiality regulations are aligned with ongoing best practices, including the use of stateapproved electronic intake platforms.

Household Distribution Participation Reporting
The proposed language requires State agencies to collect information on the number of
participants served by TEFAP and report it to the USDA on a quarterly basis. FBCM supports
USDA’s proposal to collect just one data point on TEFAP: the number of participants served
by the program. We also support aligning the timing of this report with other required
quarterly reporting from State agencies to USDA, in order to minimize reporting burden for
State agencies.
Additionally, state-approved electronic intake platforms operating at eligible recipient agency
distribution locations are approved for the data collection and reporting required by this
section and USDA has encouraged the use of such platforms to improve data accuracy. We
encourage USDA to highlight best practices and examples of how electronic intake platforms
help eligible recipient agencies report data to State agencies and better serve their
communities to encourage further buy-in from State agencies.

6

Rural, Remote and Tribal Expansion
FBCM supports this proposal to expand access to TEFAP in tribal communities and to
historically underserved populations. This would align regulatory language with that of TEFAP
Reach and Resiliency grants. The proposed language encourages State agencies and eligible
recipient agencies to implement or expand USDA Food distributions in rural, remote, and
Tribal areas of the State wherever possible, and FBCM encourages USDA to provide further
guidance and best practices as to how this may be achieved.

USDA Foods in Disasters and Situations of Distress:
Limitation on Impacts to Other Programs
FBCM appreciates USDA's efforts to better understand when USDA Foods are being used in
disaster response and replace them, so as not to reduce the amount of USDA Foods available
in other programs. However, FBCM asks that USDA provide further clarification on the
proposed language related to limiting impact on other programs, specifically providing
details and examples of how the Department intends to define “ongoing negative impact”. It
is important that the preferences of distributing agencies like food banks are a priority when
deciding whether disaster response activities may negatively impact the distribution of foods
through other programs, to ensure that resources can still be allocated in a way that best
addresses the unique needs of the those impacted by a particular disaster, while still
considering the needs of individuals experiencing food insecurity outside of the disaster area.

Updated Reporting Requirements for Distribution of USDA Foods to Households During a
Disaster
FBCM has concerns regarding the proposal to require a weekly report that State distributing
agencies must complete if disaster household distribution persists for longer than 14
calendar days. Reducing the current 45-day threshold to 14 days would create additional
administrative burden for State distributing agencies and recipient agencies during times of
already heightened administrative burden. While FBCM understands and agrees with the
importance of timely data, we ask that USDA consider alternative methods such monthly
reporting, as that is more in line with how many agencies generally report household
participation, or utilizing the data of other, on-the-ground sources (such as FEMA) to collect
this additional information during times of duress.

7

Removal of Prohibition on Simultaneous Provision of USDA Foods and D–SNAP During a
Disaster
FBCM strongly supports the proposed language to allow for the simultaneous provision of
Disaster SNAP (D-SNAP) and USDA Foods in disaster response, which is currently prohibited
by federal regulation.
The ability to access food distributions or grocery stores can vary based on the type of disaster
or emergency, so allowing options to access resources that best meets the needs of those
impacted is important. In addition, some households may need to access both resources at
some point given the severity and duration of a disaster’s impact.
.

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
FBCM supports increasing access and equity to FDPIR, and encourages USDA to prioritize and uplift
public comment from Indian Tribal Organization staff and Tribal leaders on the proposed rules.

Removal of Urban Place Definition
FBCM supports the proposed rule that any urban place outside of the reservation boundaries
may be served by the Indian Tribal Organization (ITO), without justification. Removing this
barrier reflects the contemporary living situations of Tribal members and descendants and is
necessary to meet their needs. We also encourage USDA to retain the language "may be
served" instead of "must be", to preserve Tribal sovereignty in offering this program and
eliminate burdensome and needless administrative requirement at the same time.

Establishment of Administrative Waiver Authority in FDPIR
FBCM supports the proposed rule that would allow FNS to waive or modify specific
regulatory requirements for ITOs in certain situations. This would give ITOs authority and
flexibility to apply to FNS for waivers to regulatory requirements to help ensure programs are
best serving their communities, and brings FDPIR waiver circumstances in line with SNAP,
supporting parity between the two programs.
FBCM encourages USDA to continue seeking programmatic flexibility that respects Tribal
sovereignty in programs and to continue dialogue with Tribal leaders to determine the
conditions under which a Tribe might be granted a waiver.

8

Revisions to Shelter/Utility Deductions
FBCM supports the proposed rule to increase FDPIR shelter and utility standard deductions
to align with SNAP maximum deduction levels and allowing FDPIR households to use actual
expenses to calculate the deductions. This change to the deduction calculation will increase
FDPIR access for Tribal citizens and begins to acknowledge and take into account the varying
circumstances in many Tribal communities.

Household and Dependent Status
The proposed rule would allow for separated household status to be granted to separated
spouses who are living apart. Through this regulation, requirements for determining parental
control of minor children would mimic SNAP regulations. This provision would allow for
greater flexibility for tribal families who, due to various circumstances, live in separate
households and have previously been denied separate access to the program in a way that will
help feed their whole family. Maintaining parity between SNAP and FDPIR requirements
would help participants have a more seamless opportunity to transition between the
programs through commonly held verification standards, and FBCM supports this proposed
rule change.

Periodically Assessing the FDPIR Food Package
FBCM supports the proposal to require FNS to periodically assess how USDA foods
provided through FDPIR compare to federal dietary guidelines and to adjust food
package contents to ensure they are consistent with basic dietary needs. FBCM applauds
USDA for incorporating feedback from ITOs through regular consultation to
incorporate more nutritious, culturally preferred foods for American Indian and Alaska
Native participants, and we encourage USDA to ensure that this provision
promotes reviews on an as-needed basis, with no limitations to how often they can
occur.
The proposal clearly prohibits the FDPIR package benefit from being reduced through review
and analysis, meaning participants would not be at risk of losing food, which FBCM supports.
We also urge USDA to increase parity between FDPIR and SNAP by ensuring any adjustments
to SNAP benefit calculation methods are accompanied by adjustments to FDPIR food
package amounts.

9

We thank USDA for taking this opportunity to make meaningful improvements to strengthen our
nation’s food distribution programs.
The Food Bank Council of Michigan appreciates the opportunity to submit public comment on USDA’s
Proposed Rule Changes: Improving Access and Parity in Food Distribution Programs, and we thank
you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Anna Almanza
Director of Public Policy & Government Relations
Food Bank Council of Michigan

10