[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 202 (Thursday, October 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54303-54320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26069]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Parts 272, 273, 278, and 279
[Amendment No. 364]
RIN 0584-AB60
Food Stamp Program: Simplification of Program Rules
AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule finalizes provisions of a proposed rulemaking
published on January 11, 1995. It amends Food Stamp Program rules
relating to residency, social security numbers, combined allotments,
excluded resources, contract income, self-employment expenses,
certification periods, the notice of adverse action, recertification,
and suspension. The amendments simplify regulatory requirements and
increase State agency flexibility. The rule also makes several
technical amendments to Food Stamp Program rules.
DATES: This final rule is effective November 18, 1996 and must be
implemented no later than May 1, 1997, except the provisions of 7 CFR
273.14(b)(2), which have been submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The
provisions of this section will become effective upon approval. FCS
will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the effective
date and implementation date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Werts Batko, Assistant Branch
Chief, Certification Policy Branch, Program Development Division, Food
and Consumer Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria,
Virginia, 22302, (703) 305-2516.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be significant and was reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12372
The Food Stamp Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the final
rule in 7 CFR 3015, Subpart V and related Notice (48 FR 29115), this
Program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372 which
requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Ellen Haas,
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, has
certified that this proposed rule does 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains information collection requirements
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The reporting and
recordkeeping burden associated with the application, certification,
and continued eligibility of food stamp applicants is approved under
OMB No. 0584-0064. The burden for applications, including applications
for recertification, is estimated to average .2290 hours per response.
To determine the continued eligibility of food stamp recipients,
State welfare agencies must recertify eligible households whose
certification periods have expired, and households are required to
submit a recertification form. Section 273.14(b)(2) of this rule
authorizes State agencies to use a modified form of the application
used for initial application.
The amendments to 7 CFR 273.14(b)(2) made by this rule do not
impose any new collection requirements. The methodology used to
determine the current burden estimates for all applications assumes
that some households will be recertified more often than other
households. The methodology also assumes that every applicant will
complete every line item on the application form; therefore, the burden
is overestimated for some households and underestimated for others.
Based on this methodology, we believe the current burden estimate
sufficiently reflects the potential reduced burden resulting from use
of a modified recertification form.
Comments. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be
sent to Department of Agriculture, Clearance Officer, OIRM, AG Box
7630, Washington, DC 20250. Comments and recommendations on the
proposed information collection must be received by December 16, 1996.
Executive Order 12778
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with
respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which
conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full
implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect
unless so specified in the Effective Date paragraph of this preamble.
Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the
application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures
must be exhausted.
Public Participation
This rule contains technical amendments at 7 CFR 272.1(g)(74),
273.2(f)(1), 273.4(a)(2), 273.4(a)(9), 273.4(a)(11), 273.20, 278.1(h),
and 279.3 which were not part of the proposed rule published January
11, 1995 and are unrelated to the provisions of the proposed rule.
These amendments are being published without an opportunity
[[Page 54304]]
for public comment and will become effective 30 days following
publication. The amendments are technical in nature and public comment
would not be useful or necessary. Ellen Haas, Under Secretary for Food,
Nutrition, and Consumer Services, has determined that, in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), good cause exists for publishing the
technical amendments without taking public comment.
Background
On January 11, 1995, the Department published a proposed rule at 60
FR 2703 in which it proposed to revise Food Stamp Program regulations
in response to State agency requests for waivers of Program
requirements and suggestions for simplification of rules. In some
cases, we proposed to amend the regulations to incorporate guidance we
had already provided to State agencies. In other instances, we proposed
to modify Program rules to provide more consistency with requirements
in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program. Comments
were solicited on the provisions of the proposed rule through March 13,
1995, and a total of 26 comments were received. This final action
addresses the commenters' concerns. Readers are referred to the
proposed rule for a more complete understanding of this final action.
Combined allotments--7 CFR 273.2(i) and 274.2(b)
In the January 11, 1995 rule, the Department proposed changes to
the regulations on issuance of combined allotments. At the time the
proposed rule was published, the regulations at 7 CFR 274.2(b)(3)
provided that eligible households applying after the 15th of the month
that qualify for expedited service would receive a combined allotment
(prorated benefits for the application month and full benefits for the
subsequent month) if they supplied all required verification within the
5-day expedited service timeframe. If the household did not supply all
required verification within the expedited service timeframe, the
household received a prorated amount for the initial month issued
within 5 days of application (with waived verification, if necessary,
to meet the expedited timeframe) and a second allotment for the
subsequent month issued after all necessary verification has been
obtained. In the January 11, 1995 rule, the Department proposed to
amend the regulations to require that if an eligible household applies
for food stamps after the 15th of the month and is entitled to
expedited service, it would receive the prorated initial month's
allotment and the full allotment for the second month within the
expedited timeframe. Additional verification requirements would be
postponed until the end of the second month. The proposed amendments
would bring the regulations into conformance with current food stamp
policy on combined allotments, as announced in a June 16, 1993, policy
memorandum issued to FCS regional Food Stamp Program directors.
The Department also proposed to reorganize the regulations on
combined allotments. At the time the proposed rule was published, the
regulations on issuance of a combined allotment were contained at 7 CFR
274.2(b)(2), (3), and (4). The Department proposed to move those
combined allotment requirements out of 7 CFR 274.2(b) and into 7 CFR
273.2(i)(4). In 7 CFR 274.2, the Department proposed to delete
paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and (4), and redesignate paragraphs (b)(1),
(c), (d), and (e) as paragraphs (b), (d), (e), and (f), respectively.
The Department proposed to add two sentences to the end of redesignated
paragraph (b) which would contain the requirements for issuing benefits
to expedited service households. The Department also proposed to add a
new paragraph (c) which would contain the provision of former paragraph
(b)(2) concerning the State agency option to issue the combined
benefits in one allotment or two, as long as they are provided at the
same time and reference the combined allotment regulations at 7 CFR
273.2.
The above proposed organizational changes, with the exception of
moving the combined allotment requirements formerly contained at 7 CFR
274.2(b)(2), (3), and (4) into 7 CFR 273.2, have already been finalized
in the Food Stamp Program's Benefit Delivery Rule, published on April
25, 1995 at 60 FR 20178. In this rule, therefore, the Department is
only finalizing the provisions moving the requirements formerly
contained in 7 CFR 274.2(b) to 7 CFR 273.2.
In the January 11, 1995 rule, the Department proposed to revise the
regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(C), and to add two new
paragraphs, 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(D) and (E). The proposed regulations at 7
CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(C) contained the requirements formerly contained
at 7 CFR 274.2(b)(2), which concerned combined issuance for households
certified under normal processing timeframes. The proposed regulations
at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(D) contained the new requirement that a
household which applies after the 15th of the month and is processed
under expedited service procedures shall be issued a combined allotment
consisting of prorated benefits for the initial month of application
and benefits for the first full month of participation. In these cases,
any unsatisfied verification requirement would be postponed until the
end of the first full month. The proposed regulations at 7 CFR
273.2(i)(4)(iii)(E) contained the requirements formerly contained at 7
CFR 274.2(b)(4), which concerned households not entitled to combined
allotments.
The Department received three comments on the proposed changes. One
commenter opposed the proposed relocation of the combined allotment
requirements from 7 CFR 274.2(b) to 273.2(i). The commenter believed
that the relocation only promoted confusion. As noted above, however,
the proposal to remove the combined allotment requirements from 7 CFR
274.2(b) was finalized in the Benefit Delivery Rule. However, we now
believe it is preferable to separate the combined allotment provisions
for households processed under the normal 30-day processing standard
from those for households certified under the expedited service
provisions of 7 CFR 273.2(i). Therefore, we are adding a new paragraph
to 7 CFR 273.2(g), Normal processing standard, to include the
provisions of proposed Sec. 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(C) and former 7 CFR
274.2(b)(2) concerning combined allotments for households processed
under the 30-day requirement. This paragraph is titled Combined
allotments and is designated Sec. 273.2(g)(2). Current paragraph (g)(2)
is redesignated as paragraph (g)(3). Proposed paragraphs
273.2(i)(4)(iii)(D) and (E) are paragraphs 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(C) and (D)
in this final rule.
The second commenter asked that the regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(b)
and 274.2(b) specify that combined allotments apply only for those
households initially applying for food stamps for which proration is a
factor. As noted above, the regulations at 7 CFR 274.2 no longer
provide detailed requirement for use of combined allotments. The
regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(b) do not address combined allotments;
however, the Department believes that the commenter meant 7 CFR
273.2(i). The Department believes that the proposed regulations at 7
CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(D) are very specific as to when a combined
allotment can be issued. Therefore, the Department is not adopting the
commenter's suggestion and is adopting the proposed provisions as
final.
Another commenter thought that in relocating instructions on
combined
[[Page 54305]]
allotments from 7 CFR 274.2(b) to 7 CFR 273.2(i), the Department
deleted the provision that the combined allotment may be in the form of
two allotments issued at the same time. As indicated above, the Benefit
Delivery rule moved this provision from 7 CFR 274.2(b) to new paragraph
274.2(c). In this rule, we are including a reference to 7 CFR 274.2(c)
in revised paragraph 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(C) and new paragraph 273.2(g)(2).
In the January 11, 1995 rule, the Department proposed additional
changes to the regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4) to bring those
regulations into conformance with the new combined allotment
requirements. The regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(B) currently
require that a household which applies after the 15th of the month and
is assigned a certification period of longer than one month, must have
all postponed verification completed before it can be issued its second
month's benefits. Migrant households which apply after the 15th of the
month and are assigned certification periods of longer than one month
must provide all postponed verification from within-State sources
before the second month's benefits can be issued, and must provide all
postponed verification from out-of-State sources before the third
month's benefits are issued. Because of the change in policy regarding
combined allotments, eligible households that are entitled to expedited
service and apply after the 15th of the month must now receive a
combined allotment which includes their first and second month's
benefits. Since these households will have already received their
second month's benefits, postponed verification must now be completed
prior to issuance of the third month of benefits. As noted above, this
is current policy for migrants in regard to completing out-of-State
verification, and the Department proposed to broaden the requirement to
make it mandatory for all households which apply after the 15th of the
month and are assigned certification periods of longer than one month.
The Department proposed to amend 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(B) accordingly.
The Department also proposed to make a conforming amendment to 7 CFR
273.10(a)(1)(iv), which contains a verification requirement similar to
that currently contained in 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(B). The Department
received no comments on the proposed changes and is adopting them as
final.
Under current regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(B), when
households which apply for benefits after the 15th of the month provide
the required postponed verification, the State agency is required to
issue the second month's benefits within 5 working days from receipt of
the verification or the first day of the second calendar month,
whichever is later. Since the proposed changes in combined allotment
procedures required that households be issued the prorated initial
month's allotment and the full allotment for the second month within
the expedited timeframe, the requirement at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(B)
is no longer applicable and the Department proposed to remove it in the
January 11, 1995 rule. The Department received no comments on the
proposal and is adopting it as final.
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(C) require that
households which are eligible for expedited service and that apply
after the 15th of the month must be issued their second month's
benefits on the first working day of the second calendar month, not the
day benefits would normally be issued in a State using staggered
issuance. Because of the potentially lengthy period of time between
issuance of the combined allotment for the month of expedited service
and the first full month of participation and issuance of an allotment
for the third month of participation in a staggered issuance system,
the Department proposed to retain that issuance requirement at 7 CFR
273.2(i)(4)(iii)(C) for the third month of benefits. The Department
proposed to add a new paragraph 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(F) which
required that in States with staggered issuance, households be issued
their third allotment by the first working day of the third calendar
month. For allotments in subsequent months, State agencies would employ
their normal issuance mechanisms.
The proposal that households be issued their third allotment by the
first working day of the third calendar month received a substantial
number of negative comments. Twelve commenters wrote to oppose the
provision. The commenters felt that the provision would impose a
tremendous administrative burden on State agencies. These commenters
claimed that the proposed change would require costly computer
reprogramming or necessitate a manual system for issuing benefits in
the third month that would increase workloads and be error prone. In
addition, commenters believed that households would be better served if
they received their third month's allotments on the normal issuance
date rather than on the first of the month. Early issuance in the third
month could mean that the household would have to wait as long as six
or seven weeks before receiving benefits for its fourth month of
participation. One commenter did support the proposed provision, on the
grounds that it promotes consistency with current policy for migrants.
The Department accepts the arguments raised by the 12 commenters
who opposed the proposed provision at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(F) and is
deleting it from this final rule. A household that receives a combined
allotment and resides in a State with a staggered issuance system will,
at some point during its certification period, have to stretch its
benefits to cover a period longer than one month. The proposed
procedure would not have prevented that, but would have imposed an
unnecessary administrative burden on State agencies. Therefore, the
Department is not adopting the proposed provision.
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(i)(B) require that
households entitled to expedited service furnish an SSN for each
household member before the first full month of participation.
Households that are unable to provide the required SSNs or who do not
have one prior to the first full month of participation can participate
only if they satisfy the good cause requirements specified in 7 CFR
273.6(d).
Because of the change in combined allotment policy, eligible
households that apply after the 15th of the month and are entitled to
expedited service can receive their second month's benefits without
having to furnish an SSN. In the preamble of the proposed rule, the
Department stated its intention to revise the regulations at 7 CFR
273.2(i)(4)(i)(B) to require that households entitled to expedited
service that apply after the 15th of the month furnish an SSN for each
person prior to the third month of participation. The Department
received no negative comments on the proposal. One commenter, however,
did note that the proposed change to 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(i)(B) discussed
in the preamble was not accompanied by the proposed new regulatory
language. The Department apologizes for the omission, but believes the
public was given sufficient notice of the Department's intent.
Therefore, the Department is adopting the proposed change to 7 CFR
273.2(i)(4)(i)(B) discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule as
final in this rule.
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii) provide that
households that are certified for expedited service and have postponed
verification requirements may be certified for either the month of
application or for longer
[[Page 54306]]
periods, at the State agency's option. 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(A)
currently addresses verification requirements for households that are
certified only for the month of application, and 7 CFR
273.2(i)(4)(iii)(B) currently addresses verification requirements for
households that are certified for longer than the month of application.
Neither section of the regulations addresses verification requirements
for households that apply before the 15th of the month. The Department
proposed to eliminate this deficiency in the January 11, 1995 rule by
amending 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(A) to address verification requirements
for households that apply on or before the 15th of the month and to
amend 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(B) to address verification requirements
for households that apply after the 15th of the month. The Department
received no comments on these proposals and is adopting them as final.
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii) give State agencies
the option of requesting any household eligible for expedited service
which applies after the 15th of the month to submit a second
application (at the time of initial certification) if the household's
verification requirements have been postponed. Under current policy,
that second application would be denied for the first month and acted
on for the second month. However, now that expedited service households
will be receiving a combined allotment of their first and second
month's benefits, under our proposal, the second application would be
denied for both the first and second months and acted on for the third
month. Believing that current regulations do not allow for this
procedure, the Department proposed to amend the regulations at 7 CFR
273.10(a)(2)(i) to require that if a household files an application for
recertification in any month in which it is receiving food stamp
benefits, the State agency shall act on that application for
eligibility and benefit purposes starting with the first month after
the current certification period expires.
Several commenters wrote to point out that the text of the proposed
regulatory change to 7 CFR 273.10(a)(2)(i) did not appear in the
proposed rule. The proposed change was inadvertently omitted, and the
Department apologizes for any confusion the omission may have caused.
Three commenters objected to the proposed procedure as described in
the preamble. One thought it was unclear whether the proposed provision
was tied to the State option of requesting the applicant for expedited
service applying after the 15th of the month to submit a second
application when verification is postponed, or if it would be
appropriate for all recertifications. The commenter thought that if it
applied to all cases, it could prove to be an administrative problem.
Two commenters were concerned that the information on the application,
if kept pending too long, would be outdated. One asked if a household
certified for 12 months filed an application in its third month of
eligibility, would the State agency have to keep track of and use the
application for a certification period some 10 months later.
The Department agrees with the commenters that the proposed
language is unclear. The proposed provision was intended to be tied to
the State option of requesting that the household applying for
expedited service after the 15th of the month submit a second
application when verification is postponed. It was meant to apply only
in circumstances in which the household has been certified for only the
month of application and the subsequent month. In these circumstances,
the State agency would deny the second application for both the first
and second months and act on it for the third month, as described in
proposed section 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(F). It was not the Department's
intention that a State agency act on an application that had been
submitted more than a month and a half earlier. The Department,
therefore, is not amending 7 CFR 273.10(a)(2)(i) to include the
procedure. Since the procedure is only valid in instances in which the
household is entitled to expedited service and applies after the 15th
of the month, the Department thinks it would only promote confusion to
have a reference to the procedure in any section of the regulations
other than the section on expedited service. The Department is also
removing discussion of the second application option from 7 CFR
273.2(i)(4)(iii)(B). The procedures for acting on a second application
are already addressed in detail in 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(E) of this
rule and the Department sees no advantage to repeating that information
at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(B).
One commenter noted that proposed regulatory language at both 7 CFR
273.2(i)(4)(iii) (A) and (B) includes the requirement that during the
certification interview, the State agency should give the household a
recertification form and schedule an appointment for a recertification
interview. The commenter thought that it was not clear that the
requirement applied only if the State agency chooses the option at 7
CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii) to require a household entitled to expedited
service that applies after the 15th of the month to submit a second
application. The commenter felt that the requirement would be an
unnecessary burden to State agencies that do not choose to require a
second application.
The Department agrees with the commenter that the requirement as
proposed is unclear and has decided to remove the requirement from both
7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(A) and (B). The Department believes the
requirement provides unnecessary instruction to State agencies.
The same commenter raised a question on the proposed language at 7
CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iii)(D). That section requires that combined allotments
be issued in accordance with requirements at 7 CFR 274.2(c). The
commenter thought that the benefits should be issued in accordance with
the requirements at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(3)(i), which address expedited
service processing standards. The proposed regulations at 7 CFR
273.2(i)(4)(iii)(D) address combined allotments, which have different
issuance requirements than normal expedited benefits. The issuance
requirements for combined allotments are contained at 7 CFR 274.2(c).
Residency--7 CFR 273.3
Current rules at 7 CFR 273.3 require food stamp households to live
in the project area in which they apply unless the State agency has
made arrangements for particular households to apply in nearby
specified project areas. In order to increase consistency with the AFDC
program and the Adult Assistance programs under Titles I, X, XI, and
XVI of the Social Security Act, which require that applicants reside in
the State but have no project area requirement, the Department proposed
in the January 11, 1995 rulemaking to amend 7 CFR 273.3 to give State
agencies the option of permitting households to live anywhere in the
State rather than in the project area in which they apply for benefits.
Under the proposal, State agencies still retained the authority to
designate limited project areas and restrict where a given household
could apply.
The Department also proposed to add a new paragraph (iii) to 7 CFR
273.2(c)(2) to address application processing timeframes in States
which opt to allow Statewide residency. Under the proposal, if a State
agency does not require that households apply in specified project
areas, the application processing timeframes would begin the
[[Page 54307]]
day the application is received by any office.
The Department also proposed a second amendment to 7 CFR 273.3 to
clarify the requirements for transferring food stamp cases between
project areas. The Department proposed to amend 7 CFR 273.3 to state
that when a household moves within a State, the State agency may either
require the household to reapply in the new project area or transfer
the case from the previous project area to the new one and continue the
household's certification without requiring a new application. If the
State agency chooses to transfer the case, it must act on changes in
the household's circumstances resulting from the move in accordance
with 7 CFR 273.12(c) or 7 CFR 273.21. The State agency must also ensure
that potential client abuse of case transfers from project area to
project area is identifiable through the State agency's system of
duplicate participation checks required by 7 CFR 272.4(f). Finally, the
State agency must develop transfer procedures to guarantee that the
transfer of a case from one project area to another does not affect the
household adversely.
We received six comments on the proposal. Five commenters wrote to
support the proposal, though one of the five felt that the new
provision might be costly to implement and may confuse State staff.
Since Statewide residency is an option for State agencies, however,
each State can determine for itself if the change in residency
requirements is beneficial.
The sixth commenter asked how the change to Statewide residency
would affect the definition of mail loss liability as it relates to
project areas in 7 CFR 276.2(b)(4)(i). The change to Statewide
residency should have no effect on State agencies' mail loss
liabilities. The Department believes that there is a clear distinction
between Statewide residency for certification purposes and Statewide
reporting of mail issuance. A State agency could opt for Statewide
residency yet retain project area designations for purposes of mail
loss liability.
No negative comments were received on the proposed amendment to 7
CFR 273.3, and the Department is adopting it as final without change.
Social Security Numbers for Newborns--7 CFR 273.2(f)(1)(v), 7 CFR
273.6(b)
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.6(a) require an applicant
household to provide the State agency with the social security number
(SSN) of each household member. A household member who does not have an
SSN must apply for one before he or she can be certified, unless there
is good cause for such failure as provided in 7 CFR 273.6(d). If a
household member refuses or fails without good cause to apply for an
SSN, the individual is ineligible to participate.
In the January 11, 1995 proposed rule, the Department proposed to
amend food stamp regulations to address the Social Security
Administration's (SSA) ``Enumeration at Birth'' (EAB) program. Under
EAB, parents of a newborn child may apply for an SSN for the child when
the child is born if this service is available at the hospital. Most
hospitals give parents Form SSA-2853, ``Message From Social Security.''
This receipt form, which describes the EAB process and how long it will
take to receive an SSN, contains the child's name and is signed and
dated by a hospital official. It is accepted by State agencies for
welfare or other public assistance purposes. In the January 11, 1995
rule, the Department proposed an amendment to 7 CFR 273.2(f)(1)(v) to
allow a completed Form SSA-2853 to be acceptable as proof of SSN
application for an infant. The Department received no negative comments
on this proposal and is adopting it as final.
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.6(d) allow for good cause
exceptions to the SSN requirement in cases in which a household is
unable to provide or apply for an SSN for a newborn baby immediately
after the baby's birth. The regulations allow the household member
without an SSN to participate for one month in addition to the month of
application. However, good cause does not include delays due to
illness, lack of transportation or temporary absences of that household
member from the household, and good cause must be shown monthly in
order for the household member to continue to participate.
To avoid a delay in adding a new member to the household, the
Department proposed to amend 7 CFR 273.6(b) to provide that, in cases
in which a household is unable to provide or apply for an SSN for a
newborn baby immediately after the baby's birth, a household may
provide proof of application for an SSN for a newborn infant at its
next recertification. If the household is unable to provide an SSN or
proof of application at its next recertification, the State agency
would determine if the good cause provisions of 7 CFR 273.6(d) are
applicable.
The Department received four comments on this provision of the
proposed rule. Two commenters thought that the Department should define
``next'' recertification period. These commenters indicated that the
absence of a definition could be a potential problem when a household
reports the addition of a newborn to the State agency in the month
before the expiration of the household's certification period. One of
the commenters thought that the Department should amend the proposed
good cause provisions to allow households with a newborn whose
certification period ends in the birth month or in the month following
the birth month with the same timeframes allowed those households with
a newborn who have 10 to 12 months left in the certification period.
The Department acknowledges the difficulties associated with using
the concept of ``next certification period'' in the proposed provision.
Therefore, the Department is revising the provision to allow households
to submit an SSN or proof of application for an SSN at their next
recertification or within six months following the month in which the
baby is born, whichever is later. The Department believes that amending
the provision to include a fixed time period will ensure that all
households benefit equally from the change in procedures. The
Department also believes that six months is sufficient time for
households to acquire the necessary materials to apply for an SSN for a
newborn. Accordingly, if the household cannot provide an SSN or proof
of application at its next recertification after the birth of a new
household member or within six months of the month in which the baby is
born, the State agency shall determine if the good cause provisions of
7 CFR 273.6(d) are applicable.
Another commenter noted that AFDC does not have a good cause
provision in its SSN regulations, and that the application for a
newborn must be done by the end of the month following the month in
which the mother is released from the hospital. The Department
recognizes that the Food Stamp Program's good cause provision does not
conform with the requirements of the AFDC program. The Department
believes, however, that the provision is advantageous to participating
households, which frequently encounter difficulty obtaining certified
copies of birth certificates needed to apply for an SSN, and that this
offsets the need for conformity in this area.
Another commenter thought that the proposed change to the SSN
requirement for newborns conflicted with expedited service processing
requirements, and requested that final regulations clarify whether the
newborn
[[Page 54308]]
SSN policy supersedes that under expedited processing.
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(i)(B) require that
households entitled to expedited service furnish an SSN for each person
or apply for one for each person before the first full month of
participation. Those household members unable to provide the required
SSNs or who do not have one prior to the first full month of
participation are allowed to continue to participate only if they
satisfy the good cause requirements with respect to SSNs specified in 7
CFR 273.6(d).
To avoid a conflict between the new SSN requirement for newborns
and expedited service processing requirements, the Department is
amending the expedited service requirements at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(i)(B)
to allow a newborn to participate for up to six months following the
month of its birth before providing an SSN or proof of application for
an SSN.
Funeral Agreements--7 CFR 273.8(e)(2)
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.8(e)(2) exclude the value of one
burial plot per household member from resource consideration. In the
proposed rule, we proposed to adopt a funeral agreement policy similar
to that of the AFDC program. AFDC regulations at 45 CFR
233.20(a)(3)(i)(4) exclude from resource consideration ``bona fide
funeral agreements (as defined and within limits specified in the State
plan) of up to a total of $1,500 of equity value or a lower limit
specified in the State plan for each member of the assistance unit.''
Accordingly, we proposed to amend 7 CFR 273.8(e)(2) to allow for an
exemption from resource consideration of up to $1,500 for bona fide,
pre-paid funeral agreements that are accessible to the household.
Funeral agreements that are inaccessible to a household were not
affected by the proposed rule, as they are excluded from resource
consideration under the provisions of 7 CFR 273.8(e)(8).
Three commenters supported this provision. One commenter
misunderstood the proposal and thought that the exclusion of up to
$1,500 in a bona fide funeral agreement per household member replaced
the exclusion of one burial plot per household member currently at 7
CFR 273.8(e)(2). The funeral agreement exclusion is in addition to the
exclusion of one burial plot per household member and is not intended
to replace the burial plot exclusion. The provisions of the proposed
rule are adopted as final.
Determining income--7 CFR 273.10(c)(2)
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.10(c)(2)(iii) provide that
households receiving public assistance payments (PA) or general
assistance (GA), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Old-Age,
Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) benefits on a recurring
monthly basis shall not have their monthly income from these sources
varied merely because mailing cycles may cause two payments to be
received in one month and none in the next month. In the proposed rule,
it was noted that there are other instances in which a household may
receive a disproportionate share of a regular stream of income in a
particular month. For example, an employer may issue checks early
because the normal payday falls on a weekend or holiday. We proposed,
therefore, to amend 7 CFR 273.10(c)(2)(iii) to specify that income
received monthly or semimonthly (twice a month, not every two weeks)
shall be counted in the month it is intended to cover rather than the
month in which it is received when an extra check is received in one
month because of changes in pay dates for reasons such as weekends or
holidays.
Three commenters supported the proposed provision. A fourth
commenter objected to the proposed provision being limited to income
received on a monthly or semimonthly basis, arguing that income which
is received on a weekly or biweekly basis may also be received early
(or late) because the normal payday falls on a weekend or a holiday.
The commenter thought that any type of payment schedule that is altered
due to a holiday, weekend, or vacation should not affect a household's
eligibility for food stamps.
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.10(c)(2)(1) already address
fluctuations in income that is received on a weekly or biweekly basis.
The regulations require that whenever a full month's income is
anticipated but is received on a weekly or biweekly basis, the State
agency shall convert the income to a monthly amount. Since conversion
addresses the receipt of a fifth check (in weekly pay) or a third check
(in biweekly pay), the Department is not adopting the commenter's
suggestion. The provision is adopted as proposed.
Contract Income--7 CFR 273.10(c)(3)(ii)
Section 5(f)(1)(A) of the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. 2014(f)(1)(A),
provides that households which derive their annual income (income
intended to meet the household's needs for the whole year) from
contract or self-employment shall have the income averaged over 12
months. Current regulations at 273.10(c)(3)(ii) implement this
provision of the Act, stating that ``[h]ouseholds which, by contract or
self-employment, derive their annual income in a period of time shorter
than 1 year shall have that income averaged over a 12-month period,
provided the income from the contract is not received on an hourly or
piecework basis.'' The regulations at 7 CFR 273.11(a)(1)(iii) address
how self-employment income which is not a household's annual income and
is intended to meet the household's needs for only part of the year
should be handled. 7 CFR 273.11(a)(1)(iii) provides that ``[s]elf-
employment income which is intended to meet the household's needs for
only part of the year shall be averaged over the period of time the
income is intended to cover.'' The regulations, however, fail to
specify how contract income which is not a household's annual income
and is intended to meet the household's needs for only part of the year
should be handled. The Department proposed to rectify this omission in
the proposed rule by amending 7 CFR 273.10(c)(3)(ii) to clarify that
contract income which is not the household's annual income and is not
paid on an hourly or piecework basis shall be averaged over the period
the income is intended to cover. The Department received two comments
supporting the proposed provision, and is adopting the provision as
final.
Certification Periods--7 CFR 273.10(f)
In the January 11, 1995 publication, the Department proposed
changes in the certification period requirements at 7 CFR 273.10(f) to
allow State agencies more flexibility in aligning the food stamp
recertification and the PA/GA redetermination in joint cases. Section
3(c) of the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. 2012(c), requires that the food
stamp certification period of a GA or PA household coincide with the
period for which the household is certified for GA or PA. However,
because PA/GA and Food Stamp Program processing standards and the
period for which benefits must be provided are not the same, it is
often difficult to get the certification periods for the programs to
coincide. The Department proposed three procedures which State agencies
could employ to align PA/GA and food stamp certification periods. Under
the first procedure, when a household is certified for food stamp
eligibility prior to an initial determination of eligibility for PA/GA,
the State agency would
[[Page 54309]]
assign the household a food stamp certification period consistent with
the household's circumstances. When the PA/GA is approved, the State
agency would reevaluate the household's food stamp eligibility. The
household would not be required to submit a new application or undergo
another face-to-face interview. If eligibility factors remained the
same, the food stamp certification period would be extended up to an
additional 12 months to align the household's food stamp
recertification with its PA/GA redetermination. The State agency would
be required to send a notice informing a household of any such changes
in its certification period. At the end of the extended certification
period the household would be sent a Notice of Expiration and would
have to be recertified before being determined eligible for further
food stamp assistance, even if the PA/GA redetermination had not been
completed. In the event that a household's PA/GA redetermination is not
completed at the end of the food stamp certification period and, as a
result, the household's food stamp and PA/GA certification periods are
no longer aligned, the State agency could again employ the procedure
described above to align those certification periods.
The second procedure for aiding State agencies in aligning PA/GA
and food stamp certification periods was to allow State agencies to
recertify a household currently receiving food stamps when the
household comes into a State office to report a change in circumstances
for PA/GA purposes. At that time, the State agency would require the
household to fill out an application for food stamps and to undergo a
face-to-face interview. If the household was determined eligible to
continue receiving food stamps, its current certification period would
end and a new one would be assigned.
The third procedure for aiding State agencies in aligning PA/GA and
food stamp certification periods was to allow State agencies to assign
indeterminate certification periods to households certified for both
food stamps and PA/GA. Under this procedure, a household's food stamp
certification period would be set to expire one month after the
household's scheduled PA/GA redetermination, so long as the period of
food stamp certification did not exceed 12 months. Therefore, if a food
stamp certification were set for 7 months and would expire the month
after the month the PA redetermination was due, but the PA
redetermination was not done on time, the food stamp certification
period could be postponed up to an additional 5 months to align food
stamp recertification and PA/GA redetermination. In the 12th month, the
household would have to be recertified for food stamp purposes, even if
the PA redetermination had not yet been completed.
The Department received 12 comments on the proposed procedures for
aligning certification periods. Five commenters wrote in support of all
three proposed options. Three commenters suggested further changes to
those procedures. Two asked that the options for aligning food stamp
and PA/GA certification periods apply for aligning food stamp
certification periods and those of the Medicaid program and other
medical programs. One commenter suggested a fourth option in which food
stamp certification reviews could be completed at the same time as AFDC
reviews or applications. The remaining commenters raised various
questions or criticized the proposed options. One commenter objected
that the proposed changes did not address the 24-month certification
period requirement for monthly reporting households residing on Indian
reservation land. Another thought that the third option failed to
address required client notices. One commenter thought that the first
and third options appear error prone because specific criteria for
extending certification periods is not provided. Two commenters felt
that the second and third options would increase State agency workload
rather than reduce it.
The Department offered the options in order to simplify
administration of the requirement in section 3(c)(1) of the Act that
PA/GA certification periods be aligned with food stamp certification
periods. In light of the comments received on the proposed provision,
and the Department's commitment to extending flexibility to State
agencies, the Department is further simplifying the requirements at 7
CFR 273.10(f)(3). The section is revised to allow the State agency to
shorten or extend a household's food stamp certification period in
order to align the food stamp recertification date with the PA or GA
redetermination date. The household's food stamp certification period
can only be extended when the household is initially approved for PA/
GA. Although this rule offers considerable flexibility in aligning the
food stamp and PA/GA recertifications, we anticipate that an extension
of no more than 4 months will be necessary in most cases. The extension
would generally be needed because of the difference in approval dates
for food stamps and the other program in a joint PA or GA case, and
extension of the food stamp certification for a few months would allow
for alignment under normal circumstances. The food stamp certification
period may be extended up to 12 months to align the food stamp
certification period with the PA/GA redetermination period. If the
household's certification period is extended, the State agency shall
notify the household of the changes in its certification period. At the
end of the extended certification period the household must be sent a
Notice of Expiration and must be recertified before being eligible for
further food stamp assistance, even if the PA or GA redetermination is
not set to expire.
If the household's certification period is shortened, the State
agency shall send it a notice of expiration which informs the household
that its certification period will expire at the end of the month
following the month the notice of expiration is sent and that it must
reapply if it wishes to continue to participate. The notice of
expiration shall also explain to the household that its certification
period is expiring in order that it may be recertified for food stamps
at the same time that it is redetermined for PA or GA.
In response to commenters' suggestions, the Department is further
revising 7 CFR 273.10(f)(3) to offer State agencies the option of
extending or shortening certification periods as noted above in order
to align them with certification periods in Medicaid and other medical
programs. The Department is offering this as an option instead of a
requirement because the Food Stamp Act does not require that the food
stamp certification period of a household also receiving Medicaid or
other medical programs coincide with the period for which the household
is certified for those programs.
Calculating Boarder Income--7 CFR 273.11(b)
Current rules at 7 CFR 273.11(b) provide that State agencies must
use the maximum food stamp allotment as a basis of establishing the
cost of doing business for income received from boarders when the
household does not own a commercial boardinghouse. Boarders are not
included as members of the household to which they are paying room and
board. The households receiving the room and board payments must
include those payments as self-employment income, but can exclude that
portion of the payments equal to the cost of doing business. The rules
provide that the cost of doing business is either (1) the maximum food
stamp allotment for a household size equal to
[[Page 54310]]
the number of boarders; or (2) the actual documented cost of providing
room and meals, if that cost exceeds the maximum allotment.
In the proposed rule, the Department proposed to revise 7 CFR
273.11(b)(1)(ii)(C) to provide State agencies with an additional option
for calculating boarder income. Under the proposal, State agencies
would have the option to use actual costs, the maximum allotment for a
household size equal to the number of boarders, or a flat amount or
fixed percentage of gross income from boarders to determine the cost of
doing business of households with boarders. The Department noted in the
proposed rule that the AFDC program used a flat percentage equal to 75
percent of the boarder-generated income (45 CFR 233.20(a)(6)(v)(B)).
We, however, did not propose a percentage limit, but requested
suggestions on an appropriate percentage from commenters.
We received 11 comments on the proposed provision. One commenter
recommended that we set the percentage of gross income at 75 percent. A
second commenter suggested that we use the same percentage limit as is
used in the AFDC program. A third commenter said that they were not
opposed to an additional method of calculating boarder income as long
as they are able to coordinate it with their AFDC program. Another
commenter said that the AFDC program in their State does not provide
for an exclusion of 75 percent of boarder-generated income. It provides
for the exclusion of the actual cost of doing business. If that cost is
not documented, or if it is below $60 a month, the State agency
excludes $60 as the cost of doing business. Another commenter suggested
not setting a percentage limit, but allowing State agencies to use a
percentage that reflects circumstances in their State.
Since there was no consensus among commenters on the percentage of
gross income from boarders that should be used to determine the cost of
doing business of households with boarders, the Department has decided
to retain the language of the proposed rule and allow State agencies to
set their own flat amount or fixed percentage of boarder-generated
income to determine the cost of doing business for households with
boarders. As in the proposed rule, the method used to determine the
flat amount or fixed percentage must be objective, justifiable, and
stated in the State's food stamp manual. If the State agency selects
the fixed percentage option to determine the cost of doing business for
households with boarders, it must give households the opportunity to
claim actual costs.
One commenter asked that the final rule clearly reflect that it is
the State agency, not the household, that chooses the options available
for the household to use as a cost of doing business. Another commenter
asked if the State agency must choose only one of the three proposed
options and apply it to all households that do not opt to use actual
business expenses, or can a household or State agency choose any of the
three options on a case-by-case basis.
The Department believes that the household should be allowed to
choose the method used to determine its boarder-generated income. The
Department is amending the proposed provision at 7 CFR 273.11(b)(1)(ii)
to clearly state this policy.
Day Care Providers--Sec. 273.11(b)(2)
Under current regulations at 7 CFR 273.11(a)(4)(i), households
which provide in-home day care can claim the cost of meals provided to
individuals in their care as a cost of doing business, provided they
can document the cost of each meal. In the proposed rule, the
Department proposed to allow households who are day care providers to
use a standard amount per individual as a cost of doing business. The
Department believed that use of a standard reimbursement rate
(standard) for the cost of providing day care would eliminate the
burden on day care providers to document itemized costs incurred for
producing the income and would increase the benefits for households
that fail to adequately document business costs. Use of a standard
would also decrease the amount of time needed to process self-
employment cases of this type and reduce payment errors.
Under the proposed provision, State agencies would be required to
inform households of their opportunity to verify actual meal expenses
and use actual costs if higher than the fixed amount. When establishing
a standard amount, State agencies would take into account the
differences in cost for full-day and part-day care. Households that are
reimbursed for the cost of meals provided to individuals in their care,
for example through the FCS Child and Adult Care Food Program, would
not be able to claim the standard but could claim actual expenses that
exceed the amount of their reimbursement.
One commenter found the preamble of the proposed rule confusing,
noting that it begins and ends with a discussion of the cost of
providing meals by day care providers, yet in the body refers to
allowing use of a standard for ``determining self-employment
expenses,'' which the commenter interpreted to mean that all allowable
costs could be standardized if they are incurred as a cost of doing
business. The commenter asked if that is what the Department is
proposing.
The proposed standard is intended to cover only the costs of meals
and not other self-employment expenses that the household providing in-
home day care may incur. The purpose of the provision was to
incorporate into regulations a procedure found to be effective through
the Department's waiver process. As noted in the proposed rule, several
State agencies were granted waivers to use a flat dollar amount, such
as $5 a day, or to use the FCS Child and Adult Care Food Program
reimbursement rates, to cover the cost of meals provided by day care
households to individuals in their care instead of requiring the
households to document actual meal costs. Those State agencies have
reported that use of a standard benefits households by eliminating the
need for them to keep extensive records on actual meal costs. It is
also advantageous to the State agencies as it eliminates the need for
workers to verify actual meal costs.
Another commenter thought that the proposed rule was unclear as to
whether or not the standard reimbursement amount had to be established
separately for food stamps or whether a reimbursement amount approved
for use in a State public assistance (PA) program could be used without
separate approval from FCS.
It is the Department's intention that State agencies develop their
own meal cost standards. State agencies are free, therefore, to use the
same standard as is used in their PA or general assistance programs.
Furthermore, State agencies do not need to seek departmental approval
of the standard they choose to use. State agencies must, however,
inform households of their right to verify actual meal expenses and use
those actual costs if they exceed the standard amount.
Two commenters requested further clarification on the Department's
recommendation in the proposed rule that, when establishing a standard
amount, State agencies take into account the differences in cost for
full-day and part-day care. One commenter wanted to know if it meant
that the State agency should have separate standards for part-day and
full-day care. The other requested a definition of part-time.
As noted above, the Department intends for State agencies to
develop their own meal standards. The statement in the proposed rule
that State agencies consider the differences in part-day and full-day
care when setting
[[Page 54311]]
the standard was, therefore, only a recommendation, and the Department
is not requiring State agencies to differentiate between the two when
creating a standard. Consequently, the Department is not providing a
definition of part-day care, but will leave it up to State agency
discretion.
The comments received on the proposed provision requested
clarification of the preamble and not changes to the regulatory
language of the provision. Therefore, the Department is adopting the
proposed amendment to 7 CFR 273.11(b)(2) as final without change.
Exemption from Providing a Notice of Adverse Action--7 CFR
273.13(b)
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.13(a) require State agencies to
send a notice of adverse action (NOAA) to a household prior to any
action to reduce or terminate the household's benefits, except as
provided in 7 CFR 273.13(b). That section does not include an exception
to the NOAA requirements when mail sent to a household is returned with
no known forwarding address. The AFDC regulations at 45 CFR
205.10(a)(4)(ii) do not require an advance notice of adverse action in
this situation. In the proposed rule, the Department suggested adding
an exemption from sending a NOAA if agency mail has been returned with
no known forwarding address. Since it is unlikely that the Postal
Service can deliver a NOAA mailed to an address which is no longer
correct, it is reasonable to specify in regulations that no notice is
required if delivery cannot be reasonably expected.
Four commenters supported the proposed provision. One commenter
noted, however, that although the cited AFDC regulation does not
require advance notice if delivery cannot be reasonably expected,
notice is still required.
The Department does not believe it is necessary to send a notice to
an address known to be incorrect. A recipient whose benefits were
reduced or terminated and who did not receive a notice would still be
entitled to a fair hearing in accordance with 7 CFR 273.15 and
restoration of benefits, as provided in 7 CFR 273.17. However, to allow
State agencies to use the same procedure for food stamps and AFDC, we
are adding a new paragraph (c) to 7 CFR 273.13 to provide that State
agencies may at their option send an adequate notice to households
whose mail has been returned with no known forwarding address.
Recertification--7 CFR 273.14
In the January 11, 1995 rule, the Department proposed several
changes to current regulations at 7 CFR 273.14 which govern
recertification procedures. The Department proposed a general
reorganization of the section in order to provide a clearer expression
of recertification requirements. The Department also proposed several
changes in recertification procedures which it believed would provide
State agencies with more flexibility when recertifying households. Each
proposed change is discussed in detail below.
The Department received two general comments on the proposed
changes to 7 CFR 273.14, one positive and one negative. One commenter
strongly supported all the proposed changes, believing that they will
simplify and improve the recertification process. The other commenter
thought that the proposed changes clearly added unfunded Federal
mandates. The commenter wrote that the discussion in the preamble
implied that States were being given options for handling the
recertification process but in the proposed regulations only a single
process which encourages the State agency to send a recertification
form, an interview appointment letter, and a statement of needed
verification with each notice of expiration was stated. The commenter
felt that the procedure was an unfunded Federal mandate and was counter
productive to any automated system based on interactive interviews. The
commenter thought that if a State was currently experiencing no
problems with the recertification process, there was no need to
complicate the process by developing an additional form to use just for
recertification or by establishing different procedures.
It was not the Department's intention in the proposed rule to
impose new recertification requirements on State agencies. The proposed
procedures, which were drawn from State agency waiver requests, were
meant only as options which State agencies can employ to simplify the
recertification process. State agencies which do not find the proposed
options beneficial should not employ them.
1. Reorganization
In the January 11, 1995 rule, the Department proposed to reorganize
7 CFR 273.14 in an attempt to provide a clearer expression of the
recertification requirements. Revised section 273.14(a) contained
general introductory statements regarding actions the household and the
State agency must take to ensure that eligible households receive
uninterrupted benefits. Revised section 273.14(b) contained the
requirements for the notice of expiration, the recertification form,
the interview and verification. Revised section 273.14(c) contained the
filing deadlines for timely applications for recertification. Current
sections 273.14(d), (e), and (f) were revised into two new sections 7
CFR 273.14 (d) and (e). New section 7 CFR 273.14(d) combined all of the
provisions of the previous sections relating to timeframes for
providing benefits when all processing deadlines are met. New section 7
CFR 273.14(e) addressed situations in which the household or the State
agency fail to meet processing deadlines.
The Department received no comments on the proposed structural
revision of the section and is retaining it in the final rule.
2. Recertification Forms
In the January 11, 1995 rule, the Department proposed to revise 7
CFR 273.14(b)(2) to allow State agencies the option of using a modified
application form for recertifying households. This form could be used
only for those households which apply for recertification before the
end of their current certification period. The State agency would be
required to devise its own form, and would have to include on it the
information required by 7 CFR 273.2(b)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and
(v). This information is required by section 11(e)(2) of the Act, 7
U.S.C. 2020(e)(2), and apprises applicants of their rights and
responsibilities under the Program. The information regarding the
Income and Eligibility Verification System in 7 CFR 273.2(b)(2) may be
provided on a separate form. In accordance with section 11(e)(2) of the
Act, which requires that the Department approve all deviations from the
uniform national food stamp application, all recertification forms
would have to be approved by FCS before they could be used.
The Department received three comments on the recertification form
proposal. One commenter supported the provision. Another commenter
thought that the proposed regulatory language made it mandatory for the
State agency to use a recertification form and did not allow the option
to use the regular initial application at recertification. The
Department had intended to indicate that the proposed recertification
form is meant as an option for State agencies and is not mandatory. The
Department is revising the proposed language at 7 CFR 273.14(b)(2)(i)
to clarify this.
[[Page 54312]]
The third commenter noted that if a recertification form is to be
used for joint food stamps/SSI processing in accordance with 7 CFR
273.2(k), State agencies must obtain SSA approval as well as FCS
approval before using the form. The Department agrees and is revising
the proposed language at 7 CFR 273.14(b)(2)(i) to clarify this.
2-A. Face-to-Face Interviews
Under current regulations, State agencies are required to conduct
face-to-face interviews with households applying for recertification.
In the January 11, 1995 rule, we proposed to revise 7 CFR 273.14(b)(3)
to allow State agencies to interview by telephone any household that
has no earned income and whose members are all elderly or disabled. We
also proposed to give State agencies the option of conducting a face-
to-face interview only once a year with a food stamp household that
receives PA or GA. The interview could be conducted at the same time
the household is scheduled for its PA or GA face-to-face interview. At
any other recertification during that time period, the State agency may
choose to interview the household by telephone. However, the State
agency would be required to grant a face-to-face interview to any
household that requests one.
We received nine comments on the proposed provision. One commenter
thought that the definition of ``stable households'' in the proposed
rule was unclear, and that the final rule should specify the households
for which telephone interviews may be conducted.
The Department believes that the proposed regulatory language at 7
CFR 273.14(b)(3) clearly specified those categories of households for
which the face-to-face interview could be waived. It may be waived for
those households that have no earned income and in which all members
are elderly or disabled, and it may be waived for food stamp households
also receiving PA or GA. In the latter case, a household would have to
receive at least one face- to-face interview a year.
Another commenter thought that the provision allowing State
agencies to interview by telephone any household that has no earned
income and whose members are all elderly or disabled is more
restrictive than, and contradicts, the Food Stamp Act. Section 11(e)(2)
of the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(2), currently provides for the
waiver of the face-to-face interview on a case-by-case basis for those
households for whom a visit to the food stamp office would be a
hardship. The commenter apparently thought that the Department was
proposing to prohibit such waivers in the future. That is not the
Department's intent.
Current food stamp regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(e) provide for a
waiver of the face-to-face interview requirement for hardship reasons.
The Department did not propose in the January 11, 1995 rule to change
that provision, and, in fact, proposed to include a reference to it in
7 CFR 273.14(b)(3). The commenter may have been confused by the
discussion on Federal Register page 2709 of the proposed rule
concerning a suggestion made previously by State agencies to allow case
workers to determine on a case-by-case basis which households needed to
be interviewed. The Department rejected the suggestion, believing that
providing for the waiving of face-to-face interviews based on a
caseworker's personal determination that a face-to-face interview is
not necessary in a particular case could compromise the right to equal
treatment guaranteed all food stamp recipients under section 11(c) of
the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2020(c).
One commenter thought that the option to waive face-to-face
interviews should be extended to households subject to monthly
reporting and retrospective budgeting (MRRB). The commenter thought
that since the circumstances of these households are updated monthly, a
telephone interview should be sufficient to complete the household's
recertification determinations.
Another commenter thought that the option to waive face-to-face
interviews should also be extended to include group living arrangement
residents even if they have earned income. The commenter explained that
the resident is usually not able to complete the application process so
it is completed by the authorized representative (AR) (usually the case
manager) and all verifications are submitted by the AR. One case
manager is responsible for numerous residents, and face-to-face
interviews are very time consuming both for them and State staff. The
commenter thought that since all the information is received through
the AR for those households, a telephone interview of the AR should be
sufficient.
The Department agrees that the changes suggested by the above two
commenters have merit. However, the Department believes that such
significant changes to current regulations should be proposed in order
to give interested parties the opportunity to comment. Therefore, the
Department is not adopting either suggestion at this time, but will
consider both in future rulemakings.
Two commenters addressed the proposal to allow one face-to-face
interview a year for joint food stamp/PA households. One commenter
wrote to support the provision. The other suggested that the Department
make food stamps and PA/GA requirements even more compatible by
allowing mail-in recertifications when the household is not due for its
face-to-face interview.
The Department agrees with the commenter that it is advantageous to
both households and State agencies to have food stamp and PA
requirements align as closely as possible. Therefore, the Department is
revising 7 CFR 273.14(b)(3)(ii) to allow for mail-in recertifications
at any recertification in an annual period in which the household does
not receive a face-to-face interview for PA or GA. Telephone interviews
should be conducted with the household if any of its reported
circumstances are questionable.
The remaining three commenters objected to the proposed provision
at 7 CFR 273.14(b)(3). That provision required the State agency to
reschedule a missed interview if the interview had been scheduled
before the household had submitted a recertification form. One of the
commenters noted that under current regulations at 7 CFR 273.14(c)(2),
it is the household's responsibility to reschedule a missed interview
even if that interview was scheduled prior to the household filing a
timely application.
The Department agrees with the commenters that the proposed
provision added an additional recertification requirement, and is
therefore making no change to current requirements at 7 CFR
273.14(c)(2).
3. Verification
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.14(c)(3) give State agencies the
option of establishing timeframes for submission of verification
information. To increase consistency with procedures for initial
applications and provide sufficient time for households to obtain the
required verification information, the Department proposed in the
January 11, 1995 rule to revise 7 CFR 273.14(b) to add a new paragraph
(4) to require State agencies to allow households a minimum of 10 days
in which to satisfy verification requirements.
One commenter noted that there is no provision for the situation in
which the required 10-day period would extend beyond the end of the
certification period. Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.14(d)(2) require
that if a household's eligibility is not determined by the end of the
current certification
[[Page 54313]]
period because of the time period allowed for submitting missing
verification, and the household is subsequently found eligible, it must
receive an opportunity to participate within 5 working days after
submission of the required verification. The Department is revising the
proposed regulations at 7 CFR 273.14(b)(4) to include this requirement.
The Department also proposed to simplify the requirements for
verifying information at recertification. Current regulations at 7 CFR
273.2(f)(8)(i) require State agencies to verify at recertification a
change in income or actual utility expenses if the source has changed
or the amount has changed by more than $25. State agencies are also
required to verify previously unreported medical expenses and total
recurring medical expenses which have changed by $25 or more. Section
273.2(f)(8)(i) also prohibits State agencies from verifying income,
total medical expenses, or actual utility expenses which are unchanged
or have changed by $25 or less, unless the information is ``incomplete,
inaccurate, inconsistent, or outdated.'' The Department proposed to
amend 7 CFR 273.2(f)(8)(i)(A) and (C), and (ii) to replace the terms
``incomplete, inaccurate, inconsistent or outdated'' with the term
``questionable.''
One commenter was concerned that as a result of the change in
wording, State agencies might interpret ``questionable'' to mean
something other than incomplete, inaccurate, inconsistent, or outdated,
and that they will not reverify information that falls in these
categories.
To avoid any possibility that incomplete, inaccurate, inconsistent,
or outdated information might not be reverified, the Department has
decided not to make the proposed change.
4. Filing Deadline
Currently, 7 CFR 273.14(c)(1) provides that for monthly reporting
households the deadline for filing an application for recertification
is the normal date for filing a monthly report. Several State agencies
have requested that, for the purpose of administrative efficiency and
flexibility, the Department make the filing deadline for monthly
reporters the 15th of the last month of the household's certification
period (recertification month), the same as it is for nonmonthly
reporting households. We proposed in the January 11, 1995 publication
to revise 7 CFR 273.14(c) to give State agencies the option of making
the filing deadline for monthly reporters either the 15th of the
recertification month or the household's normal date for filing a
monthly report. The Department received no comments on the proposed
provision and is adopting it as final.
5. Early Denial
Under current regulations at 7 CFR 273.14(a)(3), a State agency may
deny a household's application for recertification at the time a
household's certification period expires or within 30 days after the
date the application was filed as long as the household has had
adequate time to satisfy verification requirements. Under current
regulations at 7 CFR 273.14(a)(2), a household that fails to attend a
scheduled interview or to provide required verification information
within required timeframes loses its right to uninterrupted benefits
but cannot be denied eligibility at that time, unless the household
fails to cooperate or the household's certification period has elapsed.
In the January 11, 1995 rule, the Department proposed a change in
provisions for handling the recertification of households which do not
comply with the requirements for interviews or verification. We
proposed to include in revised section 7 CFR 273.14(e) a provision to
allow State agencies the option of denying eligibility to households as
soon as a failure to comply with the interview or verification
requirement occurs. The State agency would be required to send the
household a denial notice informing it that its application for
recertification has been denied. The notice would have to contain the
reason for the denial, the action required to continue participation,
the date by which it must be accomplished, the consequences of failure
to comply, notification that the household's participation will be
reinstated if it complies within 30 days after its application for
recertification was filed and is found eligible, and that the household
has a right to a fair hearing. If the household subsequently requests
an interview or provides the required verification information within
30 days of the date of its recertification application and is found
eligible, the State agency must reinstate the household. Under this
option, benefits must be provided within 30 days after the application
for recertification was filed or within 10 days of the date the
household provided the required verification information or completed
the interview, whichever is later.
The Department received four comments on the proposed provision.
Two commenters support the proposal, and the other two suggested that
it apply at initial certification as well as at recertification.
The Department is not adopting the commenters' recommendation. The
commenters' suggestion goes beyond the provision of the proposed rule.
As noted earlier in this section, the Department believes that
significant changes to current regulations should be proposed in order
to provide an opportunity for public comment. Therefore, the Department
is not accepting the commenter's suggestion at this time but will
consider it for future rulemakings.
6. Proration of Benefits at Recertification
Current regulations at 273.14(f)(2) provide that any application
for recertification not submitted in a timely manner shall be treated
as an application for initial certification, except for verification
requirements. If the household does not submit a recertification form
before its certification period expires, the household's benefits for
the first month of the new certification period are prorated in
accordance with 7 CFR 273.10(a)(2). However, section 13916 of the 1993
Leland Act amended section 8(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.
2017(c)(2)(B), to eliminate proration of first month's benefits if a
household is recertified for food stamps after a break in participation
of less than one month. Therefore, if a household submits an
application for recertification after its certification period has
expired, but before the end of the month after expiration, the
application is not considered an initial application and the
household's benefits for that first month are not prorated. In the
final rule, we proposed to include this new provision in revised
section 7 CFR 273.14(e)(2)(ii). The Department received no comments on
the proposed provision and is adopting it as final.
7. Expedited Service
Section 11(e)(9) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(9), requires State
agencies to provide coupons within 5 days after the date of application
to destitute migrant or seasonal farmworkers; households with gross
incomes less than $150 a month and liquid resources that do not exceed
$100; homeless households; and households whose combined gross income
and liquid resources are less than their monthly rent, mortgage and
utilities.
In the January 11, 1995 rule, the Department proposed to eliminate
expedited service at recertification. The Department proposed to create
a new section, 7 CFR 273.14(f), which would clarify that households
which punctually apply for recertification, or which apply late but
within the
[[Page 54314]]
certification period, are not entitled to expedited service. However,
households which do not apply for recertification until the month after
their certification period ends are entitled to expedited service if
they are otherwise eligible for such service. A conforming amendment to
7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(iv) was also proposed.
The Department received eight comments on the proposed rule. Three
commenters supported the proposed provision. Four commenters strongly
opposed granting expedited service to households that reapply in the
month immediately following the month of their last certification
period. The commenters thought that households would use the provision
to manipulate State agencies' issuance systems in order to receive
benefits earlier than usual.
The Department believes there is no substantive evidence to support
the commenters' claim that households will purposefully fail to submit
timely applications for recertification in order to receive their first
month's benefits earlier than they would under their normal issuance
cycle. Anecdotal evidence received from State agencies which have
applied for waivers of the expedited service requirement indicates
rather that households prefer to receive their allotments for the first
month of their new certification period in their normal issuance cycle.
The Department, therefore, is making no change to the proposed
provision and is adopting it as final.
The last commenter requested clarification on the interaction of
the rules on expedited service, proration, and combined allotments. At
initial application, a household eligible for expedited service must
receive such service. If the household applies before the 15th of the
month, it receives prorated benefits for the first month if eligible
(assuming it timely satisfies all application requirements). If the
household applies after the 15th of the month and is eligible for
expedited service, it must receive a prorated allotment for the first
month and a full allotment for the second month within the 5-day
expedited service timeframe with postponed verification, if necessary,
to meet the expedited timeframe.
At recertification, if the household timely reapplies for benefits
and timely satisfies all application processing requirements, it is not
eligible for expedited service, its benefit for the first month is not
prorated, and it does not receive a combined allotment. If the
household reapplies in the month after the end of its last
certification period, it must receive expedited service if eligible in
accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR 273.14(f) finalized in this
rule. In accordance with the new provisions at 7 CFR 273.14(e)(2)(ii),
the household's benefits for the first month cannot be prorated if it
satisfies all application processing requirements on a timely basis.
A household that reapplies after the 15th of the month in the month
following the end of its last certification period, is not eligible for
a combined allotment. Section 8(c)(3)(B) of the Act requires a combined
allotment when a household that is entitled to expedited service
applies after the 15th day of the month in lieu of its ``initial''
allotment and its regular allotment for the following month. Section
8(c)(2)(B) defines an initial month as one that follows any period of
more than one month in which the household was not participating in the
program. Since the month in which the household is reapplying is not an
initial month, a combined allotment would not be required. The
household, if eligible, would be entitled to a full month's allotment
for the month in which it reapplies.
8. Miscellaneous Provisions
One commenter thought that the proposed requirement at 7 CFR
273.14(d)(2) that households be notified of their eligibility or
ineligibility by the end of their current certification period places a
hardship on State agency staff. The commenter thought that, in
administering the rule, consideration must be given to weekends,
holidays, and mail time which shortens the timeframe for making an
eligibility determination. The commenter thought the regulation should
be amended to require that the eligibility determination be made by the
end of the current certification period.
The proposed provision represented no change from existing policy
as currently contained at 7 CFR 273.14(d)(2) and 273.10(g)(1)(iii). The
Department understands the difficulty State agencies may encounter when
determining household eligibility. However, the Department believes
households should be informed of their eligibility prior to the end of
their certification period to ensure that they are aware of their
eligibility or ineligibility prior to the date they expect to receive
their next allotment. The Department is adopting the proposed provision
as final.
The same commenter also suggested a change to the proposed
regulations at 7 CFR 273.14(e)(1). Those regulations state that
households which have submitted an application for recertification in a
timely manner but, due to State agency error, are not determined
eligible in sufficient time to provide for issuance of benefits by the
household's next normal issuance date shall receive an immediate
opportunity to participate. The commenter thought that the phrase
``immediate opportunity to participate'' should be replaced with a
definitive timeframe. The commenter felt that consideration must be
given to different issuance systems and the need to mail benefits so
that the phrase ``immediate opportunity'' has widely varying
interpretations.
Because issuance systems vary between States, the Department is
unsure of what timeframe would be appropriate. The Department does not
wish to impose a timeframe that would be burdensome for many State
agencies to meet, or a timeframe that is too broad and therefore
further penalizes households who have not been given an opportunity to
participate within their normal issuance cycle because of an error on
the part of the State agency. For these reasons, the Department is not
adopting the commenter's suggestion but is adopting the proposed
provision as final. This will allow the State agency more flexibility
to fit the requirement into its issuance system.
Retrospective Suspension--7 CFR 273.21(n)
Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.21(n) allow State agencies the
option of suspending issuance of benefits to a household that becomes
ineligible for one month. State agencies that do not choose suspension
must terminate a household's certification when it becomes ineligible,
and the household must reapply to reestablish its eligibility for the
Program.
The need for suspension typically occurs when a household paid
weekly (or biweekly) receives an extra check in a month with five (or
three) paydays. Under current policy, State agencies which opt to
suspend rather than terminate a household's participation must
anticipate prospectively which month the household will be ineligible
and suspend the household's participation for that month.
In the proposed rule, the Department proposed to amend 7 CFR
273.21(n) to grant State agencies the option of suspending households
either retrospectively or prospectively. Under retrospective
suspension, the State agency suspends the household for the issuance
month corresponding to the budget month in which the household receives
the extra check. This is the method used for suspension in the
[[Page 54315]]
AFDC program. The proposed rule required that the option to suspend and
the method of suspension must be applied Statewide.
The Department received four comments on the proposed provision.
Two were supportive of the provision, while two requested that the
option of suspending issuance of benefits to a household that becomes
ineligible for one month, which is currently limited to retrospectively
budgeted households, be extended to prospectively budgeted households.
The Department agrees with the commenters that it is desirable to
allow suspension for prospectively budgeted households, for it would
eliminate the burden on both the household and State agency caused by
the current requirement to reapply and complete the entire application
process if eligibility is terminated for one month. Therefore, in
addition to adopting the proposed amendment to 7 CFR 273.21(n) as
final, we are also adding a provision to 7 CFR 273.12(c)(2) to allow
State agencies to suspend prospectively budgeted households that become
ineligible for one month for any reason.
Technical Amendments
In a final rule published June 9, 1994, titled ``Technical
Amendments to Various Provisions of Food Stamp Rules'', the Department
made several corrections to existing regulations. It has come to our
attention that additional changes are needed. Therefore, we are making
the following additional technical amendments:
1. Paragraphs (A) and (B) in 7 CFR 272.1(g)(74)(ii)(A) are
redesignated as paragraphs (1) and (2).
2. The comma after the word ``elderly'' is being removed from 7 CFR
273.1(e)(1)(i).
3. 7 CFR 273.20(a) is being revised to complete the removal of
references to Wisconsin, which formerly participated in the cash-out
demonstration project and to revise the heading of the section.
4. In the fourth sentence of 7 CFR 278.1(h), the spelling of the
word ``applicant'' is corrected.
5. A typographical error in the first sentence of 7 CFR 279.3(a) is
corrected.
The Department is also taking this opportunity to amend 7 CFR
273.4(a) to remove paragraphs (9) and (11). These paragraphs were added
to the regulations by a final rule published May 29, 1987 (52 FR 20058)
to implement provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA) of 1986.
Paragraph (9) provides that aliens granted lawful temporary
resident status at least 5 years prior to applying for food stamps and
who subsequently gained lawful permanent resident status would be able
to participate if otherwise eligible. The program to grant lawful
temporary resident status to certain aliens has now ended and this
paragraph is therefore obsolete. Aliens granted lawful temporary
resident status under the provision have now either been granted lawful
permanent resident status or are ineligible for benefits.
Paragraph (11) provides that an alien who is lawfully admitted for
temporary residence as an additional special agricultural worker
(Replenishment Agricultural Worker) as of October 1, 1989 through
September 30, 1993, in accordance with section 210A(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, is not prohibited from participating
in the Food Stamp Program. A final rule published by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) at 59 FR 24031, May 10, 1994, amended
the INS regulations to remove provisions pertaining to the RAW program
because the program expired at the end of Fiscal Year 1993. The
preamble to the regulation indicates that in the 3 years during which
the program was in place, no immigration benefits were ever granted
through the RAW program. Since the program has now expired, the
provision is obsolete and is being removed from 7 CFR 273.4(a).
Conforming amendments are also being made to redesignate 7 CFR
273.4(a)(10) as 273.4(a)(9), to remove the reference to 7 CFR
273.4(a)(9) from 7 CFR 273.4(a)(2), and to change the reference in 7
CFR 273.2(f)(1)(ii)(A) and (D) from 7 CFR 273.4(a)(11) to 273.4(a)(9).
These technical amendments are effective 30 days after publication.
Implementation
Except for the provisions of 7 CFR 273.14(b)(2), this final rule is
effective November 18, 1996 and must be implemented no later than May
1, 1997. The provisions of 7 CFR 273.14(b)(2) allowing use of a
modified recertification form must be approved by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 before they can become effective. We
will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the effective
date when OMB approval is received. The provisions must be implemented
for all households that newly apply for Program benefits on or after
either the required implementation date or the date the State agency
implements the provision prior to the required implementation date. The
current caseload shall be converted to these provisions following
implementation at the household's request, at the time of
recertification, or when the case is next reviewed, whichever occurs
first. The State agency must provide restored benefits to such
households back to the required implementation date or the date the
State agency implemented the provision prior to the required
implementation date. If for any reason a State agency fails to
implement by the required implementation date, restored benefits shall
be provided, if appropriate, back to the required implementation date
or the date of application whichever is later, but for no more than 12
months in accordance with Sec. 273.17(a). For quality control purposes,
any variances resulting from the implementation of the rule shall be
excluded from error analysis for 120 days from the required
implementation date, in accordance with 7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(vii) and 7
U.S.C. 2025(c)(3)(A).
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 272
Alaska, Civil Rights, Food Stamps, Grant programs-social programs,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 CFR Part 273
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Claims, Food stamps,
Fraud, Grant programs-social programs, Penalties, Records, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.
7 CFR Part 278
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Claims, Food
stamps, Groceries--retail, Groceries--general line and wholesaler,
Penalties.
7 CFR Part 279
Administrative practice and procedure, Food stamps, General line--
wholesalers, Groceries, Groceries--retail.
Accordingly, 7 CFR Parts 272, 273, 278, and 279 are amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for Parts 272, 273, 278, and 279
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2032.
PART 272--REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES
2. In Sec. 272.1:
a. Paragraph (g)(74) is amended by redesignating paragraphs
(g)(74)(ii)(A)(A) and (B) as (g)(74)(ii)(A)(1) and (2).
b. a new paragraph (g)(147) is added in numerical order to read as
follows:
[[Page 54316]]
Sec. 272.1 General terms and conditions.
* * * * *
(g) Implementation * * *
(147) Amendment No. 364. Except for the provisions of
Sec. 273.14(b)(2), the provisions of Amendment No. 364 are effective
November 18, 1996 and must be implemented no later than May 1, 1997.
The effective date and implementation date of the provisions of
Sec. 273.14(b)(2) will be announced in a document in the Federal
Register. The provisions must be implemented for all households that
newly apply for Program benefits on or after either the required
implementation date or the date the State agency implements the
provision prior to the required implementation date. The current
caseload shall be converted to these provisions following
implementation at the household's request, at the time of
recertification, or when the case is next reviewed, whichever occurs
first. The State agency must provide restored benefits to required
implementation date or the date the State agency implemented the
provision prior to the required implementation date. If for any reason
a State agency fails to implement by the required implementation date,
restored benefits shall be provided, if appropriate, back to the
required implementation date or the date of application whichever is
later, but for no more than 12 months in accordance with Sec. 273.17(a)
of this chapter. Any variances resulting from implementation of the
provisions of this amendment shall be excluded from error analysis for
120 days from this required implementation date in accordance with
Sec. 275.12(d)(2)(vii) of this chapter and 7 U.S.C. 2025(c)(3)(A).
PART 273--CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS
Sec. 273.1 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 273.1, paragraph (e)(1)(i) is amended by removing the
comma after the word ``elderly''.
4. In Sec. 273.2:
a. A new paragraph (c)(2)(iii) is added.
b. Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) is amended by removing the reference
``(a)(11)'' and adding the reference ``(a)(9)'' in its place.
c. Paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(D) is amended by removing the reference
``Sec. 273.4(a)(8) through (11)'' and adding in its place the reference
``Sec. 273.4(a)(8) and (a)(9)''.
d. A new sentence is added to the end of paragraph (f)(1)(v).
e. Paragraph (g)(2) is redesignated as paragraph (g)(3) and a new
paragraph (g)(2) is added.
f. The third and fourth sentences of the undesignated paragraph
following paragraph (i)(4)(i)(B) are amended by removing the word
``first'' wherever it appears in both sentences and adding in its place
the word ``second''.
g. The fourth sentence of the undesignated paragraph following
paragraph (i)(4)(i)(B) is further amended by adding the words ``,
except that households with a newborn may have up to 6 months following
the month the baby was born to supply an SSN or proof of an application
for an SSN for the newborn in accordance with Sec. 273.6(b)(4)'' before
the period.
h. The third sentence of paragraph (i)(4)(iii) introductory text is
amended by adding the words ``and is certified for the month of
application and the subsequent month only'' before the words ``to
submit a second application''.
i. Paragraphs (i)(4)(iii)(A), (i)(4)(iii)(B), and (i)(4)(iii)(C)
are revised.
j. New paragraphs (i)(4)(iii)(D) and (i)(4)(iii)(E) are added.
k. A new sentence is added at the end of paragraph (i)(4)(iv).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 273.2. Application processing.
* * * * *
(c) Filing an application. * * *
(2) Contacting the food stamp office. * * *
(iii) In State agencies that elect to have Statewide residency, as
provided in Sec. 273.3, the application processing timeframes begin
when the application is filed in any food stamp office in the State.
* * * * *
(f) Verification. * * *
(1) Mandatory verification. * * *
(v) Social security numbers. * * * A completed SSA Form 2853 shall
be considered proof of application for an SSN for a newborn infant.
* * * * *
(g) Normal processing standard. * * *
(2) Combined allotments. Households which apply for initial month
benefits (as described in Sec. 273.10(a)) after the 15th of the month,
are processed under normal processing timeframes, have completed the
application process within 30 days of the date of application, and have
been determined eligible to receive benefits for the initial month of
application and the next subsequent month, may be issued a combined
allotment at State agency option which includes prorated benefits for
the month of application and benefits for the first full month of
participation. The benefits shall be issued in accordance with
Sec. 274.2(c) of this chapter.
* * * * *
(i) Expedited service. * * *
(4) Special procedures for expediting service. * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) For households applying on or before the 15th of the month, the
State agency may assign a one-month certification period or assign a
normal certification period. Satisfaction of the verification
requirements may be postponed until the second month of participation.
If a one-month certification period is assigned, the notice of
eligibility may be combined with the notice of expiration or a separate
notice may be sent. The notice of eligibility must explain that the
household has to satisfy all verification requirements that were
postponed. For subsequent months, the household must reapply and
satisfy all verification requirements which were postponed or be
certified under normal processing standards. If the household does not
satisfy the postponed verification requirements and does not appear for
the interview, the State agency does not need to contact the household
again.
(B) For households applying after the 15th of the month, the State
agency may assign a 2-month certification period or a normal
certification period of no more than 12 months. Verification may be
postponed until the third month of participation, if necessary, to meet
the expedited timeframe. If a two-month certification period is
assigned, the notice of eligibility may be combined with the notice of
expiration or a separate notice may be sent. The notice of eligibility
must explain that the household is obligated to satisfy the
verification requirements that were postponed. For subsequent months,
the household must reapply and satisfy the verification requirements
which were postponed or be certified under normal processing standards.
If the household does not satisfy the postponed verification
requirements and does not attend the interview, the State agency does
not need to contact the household again. When a certification period of
longer than 2 months is assigned and verification is postponed,
households must be sent a notice of eligibility advising that no
benefits for the third month will be issued until the postponed
verification requirements are satisfied. The notice must also advise
the household that if the verification process results in changes in
the household's eligibility or level of benefits, the State agency will
act on those changes without advance notice of adverse action.
[[Page 54317]]
(C) Households which apply for initial benefits (as described in
Sec. 273.10(a)) after the 15th of the month, are entitled to expedited
service, have completed the application process, and have been
determined eligible to receive benefits for the initial month and the
next subsequent month, shall receive a combined allotment consisting of
prorated benefits for the initial month of application and benefits for
the first full month of participation within the expedited service
timeframe. If necessary, verification shall be postponed to meet the
expedited timeframe. The benefits shall be issued in accordance with
Sec. 274.2(c) of this chapter.
(D) The provisions of paragraph (i)(4)(iii)(C) of this section do
not apply to households which have been determined ineligible to
receive benefits for the month of application or the following month,
or to households which have not satisfied the postponed verification
requirements. However, households eligible for expedited service may
receive benefits for the initial month and next subsequent month under
the verification standards of paragraph (i)(4) of this section.
(E) If the State agency chooses to exercise the option to require a
second application in accordance with paragraph (i)(4)(iii) of this
section and receives the application before the third month, it shall
not deny the application but hold it pending until the third month. The
State agency will issue the third month's benefits within 5 working
days from receipt of the necessary verification information but not
before the first day of the month. If the postponed verification
requirements are not completed before the end of the third month, the
State agency shall terminate the household's participation and shall
issue no further benefits.
(iv) * * * The provisions of this section shall not apply at
recertification if a household reapplies before the end of its current
certification period.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 273.3:
a. The existing undesignated paragraph is designated as paragraph
(a), and is further amended by removing the first sentence and adding
two sentences in its place.
b. Paragraph (b) is added.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 273.3 Residency.
(a) A household shall live in the State in which it files an
application for participation. The State agency may also require a
household to file an application for participation in a specified
project area (as defined in Sec. 271.2 of this chapter) or office
within the State. * * *
(b) When a household moves within the State, the State agency may
require the household to reapply in the new project area or it may
transfer the household's casefile to the new project area and continue
the household's certification without reapplication. If the State
agency chooses to transfer the case, it shall act on changes in
household circumstances resulting from the move in accordance with
Sec. 273.12(c) or Sec. 273.21. It shall also ensure that duplicate
participation does not occur in accordance with Sec. 272.4(f) of this
chapter, and that the transfer of a household's case shall not
adversely affect the household.
Sec. 273.4 [Amended]
6. In Sec. 273.4:
a. paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing the words ``paragraphs
(a)(8) or (a)(9)'' and adding in their place the words ``paragraph
(a)(8)''.
b. paragraphs (a)(9) and (a)(11) are removed and paragraph (a)(10)
is redesignated as paragraph (a)(9).
7. In Sec. 273.6, a new paragraph (b)(4) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 273.6 Social security numbers.
* * * * *
(b) Obtaining SSNs for food stamp household members. * * *
(4) If the household is unable to provide proof of application for
an SSN for a newborn, the household must provide the SSN or proof of
application at its next recertification or within 6 months following
the month the baby is born, whichever is later. If the household is
unable to provide an SSN or proof of application for an SSN at its next
recertification within 6 months following the baby's birth, the State
agency shall determine if the good cause provisions of paragraph (d) of
this section are applicable.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 273.8, the first sentence of paragraph (e)(2) is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 273.8 Resource eligibility standards.
* * * * *
(e) Exclusions from resources. * * *
(2) Household goods, personal effects, the cash value of life
insurance policies, one burial plot per household member, and the value
of one bona fide funeral agreement per household member, provided that
the agreement does not exceed $1,500 in equity value, in which event
the value above $1,500 is counted. * * *
* * * * *
9. In 273.10:
a. The second sentence of paragraph (a)(1)(iv) is amended by adding
the words ``second full'' after the words ``benefits for the''.
b. Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) is further amended by removing the third
and fourth sentences.
c. Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) is revised.
d. A new sentence is added at the end of paragraph (c)(3)(ii).
e. Paragraph (f)(3) is revised.
f. The first sentence of paragraph (g)(2) is amended by adding the
words ``if the household has complied with all recertification
requirements'' after ``current certification period''.
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 273.10 Determining household eligibility and benefit levels.
* * * * *
(c) Determining income. * * *
(2) Income only in month received. * * *
(iii) Households receiving income on a recurring monthly or
semimonthly basis shall not have their monthly income varied merely
because of changes in mailing cycles or pay dates or because weekends
or holidays cause additional payments to be received in a month.
(3) Income averaging. * * *
(ii) * * * Contract income which is not the household's annual
income and is not paid on an hourly or piecework basis shall be
prorated over the period the income is intended to cover.
* * * * *
(f) Certification periods. * * *
(3)(i) Households in which all members are included in a single PA
or GA grant shall have their food stamp recertifications at the same
time they are redetermined for PA or GA. Definite food stamp
certification periods must be assigned to these households in
accordance with the provisions of this section, however, those periods
may be shortened or extended in order to align the food stamp
recertification date with the PA or GA redetermination date. The
household's food stamp certification period can only be extended when
the household is initially approved for PA/GA. The food stamp
certification period may be extended up to 12 months to align the food
stamp certification period with the PA/GA redetermination period. If
the household's certification period is extended, the State agency
shall notify the household of the changes in its certification period.
At the end of the extended certification period the household must be
sent a Notice of Expiration and must be recertified before being
eligible for further food stamp assistance, even if the PA or GA
[[Page 54318]]
redetermination is not set to expire. If the household's certification
period is shortened, the State agency shall send it a notice of
expiration which informs the household that its certification period
will expire at the end of the month following the month the notice of
expiration is sent and that it must reapply if it wishes to continue to
participate. The notice of expiration shall also explain to the
household that its certification period is expiring in order that it
may be recertified for food stamps at the same time that it is
redetermined for PA or GA.
(ii) Households in which all members receive assistance under Title
XIX of the Social Security Act or other medical assistance program may
have their food stamp recertification at the same time they are
redetermined for assistance under Title XIX or other medical assistance
program. The State agency must follow the same requirements that apply
in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
10. In Sec. 273.11:
a. The heading of paragraph (b) and the heading of the introductory
text of paragraph (b)(1) are revised;
b. The introductory text of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is revised;
c. Paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) is amended by removing the period at the
end of the paragraph and adding in its place a semicolon and the word
``or''.
d. A new paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) is added;
e. A new paragraph (b)(2) is added.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 273.11 Action on households with special circumstances.
* * * * *
(b) Households with income from boarders and day care.
(1) Households with boarders. * * *
(ii) Cost of doing business. In determining the income received
from boarders, the State agency shall exclude the portion of the
boarder payment that is a cost of doing business. The amount allowed as
a cost of doing business shall not exceed the payment the household
receives from the boarder for lodging and meals. Households may elect
one of the following methods to determine the cost of doing business:
* * * * *
(C) A flat amount or fixed percentage of the gross income, provided
that the method used to determine the flat amount or fixed percentage
is objective and justifiable and is stated in the State's food stamp
manual.
* * * * *
(2) Income from day care. Households deriving income from day care
may elect one of the following methods of determining the cost of meals
provided to the individuals:
(i) Actual documented costs of meals;
(ii) A standard per day amount based on estimated per meal costs;
or
(iii) Current reimbursement amounts used in the Child and Adult
Care Food Program.
* * * * *
11. In Sec. 273.12, the text of paragraph (c)(2) is redesignated as
(c)(2)(i) and a new paragraph (c)(2)(ii) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 273.12 Reporting changes.
* * * * *
(c) State agency action on changes. * * *
(2) Decreases in benefits. * * *
(ii) The State agency may suspend a household's certification
prospectively for one month if the household becomes temporarily
ineligible because of a periodic increase in recurring income or other
change not expected to continue in the subsequent month. If the
suspended household again becomes eligible, the State agency shall
issue benefits to the household on the household's normal issuance
date. If the suspended household does not become eligible after one
month, the State agency shall terminate the household's certification.
Households are responsible for reporting changes as required by
paragraph (a) of this section during the period of suspension.
* * * * *
12. In Sec. 273.13, a new paragraph (c) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 273.13 Notice of adverse action.
* * * * *
(c) Optional notice. The State agency may, at its option, send the
household an adequate notice as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section when the household's address is unknown and mail directed to it
has been returned by the post office indicating no known forwarding
address.
13. Sec. 273.14 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 273.14 Recertification
(a) General. No household may participate beyond the expiration of
the certification period assigned in accordance with Sec. 273.10(f)
without a determination of eligibility for a new period. The State
agency must establish procedures for notifying households of expiration
dates, providing application forms, scheduling interviews, and
recertifying eligible households prior to the expiration of
certification periods. Households must apply for recertification and
comply with interview and verification requirements.
(b) Recertification process. (1) Notice of expiration. (i) The
State agency shall provide households certified for one month or
certified in the second month of a two-month certification period a
notice of expiration (NOE) at the time of certification. The State
agency shall provide other households the NOE before the first day of
the last month of the certification period, but not before the first
day of the next-to-the-last month. Jointly processed PA and GA
households need not receive a separate food stamp notice if they are
recertified for food stamps at the same time as their PA or GA
redetermination.
(ii) Each State agency shall develop a NOE. A model form (Form FCS-
439) is available from FCS. The NOE must contain the following:
(A) The date the certification period expires;
(B) The date by which a household must submit an application for
recertification in order to receive uninterrupted benefits;
(C) The consequences of failure to apply for recertification in a
timely manner;
(D) Notice of the right to receive an application form upon request
and to have it accepted as long as it contains a signature and a
legible name and address;
(E) Information on alternative submission methods available to
households which cannot come into the certification office or do not
have an authorized representative and how to exercise these options;
(F) The address of the office where the application must be filed;
(G) The household's right to request a fair hearing if the
recertification is denied or if the household objects to the benefit
issuance;
(H) Notice that any household consisting only of Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) applicants or recipients is entitled to apply for
food stamp recertification at an office of the Social Security
Administration;
(I) Notice that failure to attend an interview may result in delay
or denial of benefits; and
(J) Notice that the household is responsible for rescheduling a
missed interview and for providing required verification information.
(iii) To expedite the recertification process, State agencies are
encouraged to send a recertification form, an interview appointment
letter, and a statement of needed verification required by
Sec. 273.2(c)(5) with the NOE.
[[Page 54319]]
(2) Application form. (i) The State agency shall provide each
household with an application form to obtain all information needed to
determine eligibility and benefits for a new certification period. The
State agency may use either its regular application as defined in
Sec. 273.2(b) or a special recertification form. The recertification
form can only be used by households which are applying for
recertification before the end of their current certification period.
Recertification forms must be approved by FCS as required by
Sec. 273.2(b)(3). Recertification forms used for joint food stamps/SSI
processing must be approved by SSA in accordance with
Sec. 273.2(k)(1)(i)(B). The recertification form must elicit from the
household sufficient information regarding household composition,
income and resources that, when added to information already contained
in the casefile, will ensure an accurate determination of eligibility
and benefits. The information required by
Sec. 273.2(b)(1)(i),(b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iii), (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(v)
must be included on the recertification form. The information regarding
the Income and Eligibility Verification System in Sec. 273.2(b)(2) may
be provided on a separate form. A combined form for PA and GA
households may be used in accordance with Sec. 273.2(j). Monthly
reporting households shall be recertified as provided in
Sec. 273.21(q). State agencies may use the same form for households
required to report changes in circumstances and monthly reporting
households.
(ii) The State agency may request that the household bring the
application form to the interview or return the form by a specified
date (not less than 15 days after receipt of the form).
(3) Interview. (i) As part of the recertification process, the
State agency shall conduct a face-to-face interview with a member of
each household. The face-to-face interview may be waived in accordance
with Sec. 273.2(e). The State agency may also waive the face-to-face
interview for a household that has no earned income if all of its
members are elderly or disabled. The State agency has the option of
conducting a telephone interview or a home visit for those households
for whom the office interview is waived. However, a household that
requests a face-to-face interview must be granted one.
(ii) If a household receives PA/GA and will be recertified for food
stamps more than once in a 12-month period, the State agency may choose
to conduct a face-to-face interview with that household only once
during that period. The face-to-face interview shall be conducted at
the same time that the household receives a face-to-face interview for
PA/GA purposes. At any other recertification during that year period,
the State agency may interview the household by telephone, conduct a
home visit, or recertify the household by mail.
(iii) The State agency may schedule the interview prior to the
application filing date, provided that the household's application is
not denied at that time for failure to appear for the interview. The
State agency shall schedule the interview on or after the date the
application was filed if the interview has not been previously
scheduled, or the household has failed to appear for any interviews
scheduled prior to this time and has requested another interview. State
agencies shall schedule interviews so that the household has at least
10 days after the interview in which to provide verification before the
certification period expires.
(4) Verification. Information provided by the household shall be
verified in accordance with Sec. 273.2(f)(8)(i). The State agency shall
provide the household a notice of required verification as provided in
Sec. 273.2(c)(5) and notify the household of the date by which the
verification requirements must be satisfied. The household must be
allowed a minimum of 10 days to provide required verification
information. Any household whose eligibility is not determined by the
end of its current certification period due to the time period allowed
for submitting any missing verification shall receive an opportunity to
participate, if eligible, within 5 working days after the household
submits the missing verification.
(c) Timely application for recertification. (1) Households
reporting required changes in circumstances that are certified for one
month or certified in the second month of a two-month certification
period shall have 15 days from the date the NOE is received to file a
timely application for recertification.
(2) Other households reporting required changes in circumstances
that submit applications by the 15th day of the last month of the
certification period shall be considered to have made a timely
application for recertification.
(3) For monthly reporting households, the filing deadline shall be
either the 15th of the last month of the certification period or the
normal date for filing a monthly report, at the State agency's option.
The option chosen must be uniformly applied to the State agency's
entire monthly reporting caseload.
(4) For households consisting only of SSI applicants or recipients
who apply for food stamp recertification at SSA offices in accordance
with Sec. 273.2(k)(1), an application shall be considered filed for
normal processing purposes when the signed application is received by
the SSA.
(d) Timely processing. (1) Households that were certified for one
month or certified for two months in the second month of the
certification period and have met all required application procedures
shall be notified of their eligibility or ineligibility. Eligible
households shall be provided an opportunity to receive benefits no
later than 30 calendar days after the date the household received its
last allotment.
(2) Other households that have met all application requirements
shall be notified of their eligibility or ineligibility by the end of
their current certification period. In addition, the State agency shall
provide households that are determined eligible an opportunity to
participate by the household's normal issuance cycle in the month
following the end of its current certification period.
(e) Delayed processing. (1) Delays caused by the State agency.
Households which have submitted an application for recertification in a
timely manner but, due to State agency error, are not determined
eligible in sufficient time to provide for issuance of benefits by the
household's next normal issuance date shall receive an immediate
opportunity to participate upon being determined eligible, and the
allotment shall not be prorated. If the household was unable to
participate for the month following the expiration of the certification
period because of State agency error, the household is entitled to
restored benefits.
(2) Delays caused by the household. (i) If a household does not
submit a new application by the end of the certification period, the
State agency must close the case without further action.
(ii) If a recertification form is submitted more than one month
after the timely filing deadline, it shall be treated the same as an
application for initial certification. In accordance with
Sec. 273.10(a)(1)(ii), the household's benefits shall not be prorated
unless there has been a break of more than one month in the household's
certification.
(iii) A household which submits an application by the filing
deadline but does not appear for an interview scheduled after the
application has been filed, or does not submit verification within the
required timeframe, loses its right to uninterrupted benefits. The
[[Page 54320]]
State agency has three options for handling such cases:
(A) Send the household a denial notice as soon as the household
either fails to appear for an interview or fails to submit verification
information within the required timeframe. If the interview is
completed, or the household provides the required verification
information within 30 days of the date of application and is determined
eligible, the household must be reinstated and receive benefits within
30 calendar days after the application was filed or within 10 days of
the date the interview is completed or required verification
information is provided, whichever is later. In no event shall a
subsequent period's benefits be provided before the end of the current
certification period.
(B) Deny the household's recertification application at the end of
the last month of the current certification period. The State agency
may on a Statewide basis either require households to submit new
applications to continue benefits or reinstate the households without
requiring new applications if the households have been interviewed and
have provided the required verification information within 30 days
after the applications have been denied.
(C) Deny the household's recertification request 30 days after
application. The State agency may on a Statewide basis either require
households to submit new applications to continue benefits or reinstate
households without requiring new applications if such households have
been interviewed and have provided the required verification within 30
days after the applications have been denied.
(f) Expedited service. A State agency is not required to apply the
expedited service provisions of Sec. 273.2(i) at recertification if the
household applies for recertification before the end of its current
certification period.
14. In Sec. 273.20, the section heading and paragraph (a) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 273.20 SSI cash-out.
(a) Ineligibility. No individual who receives supplemental security
income (SSI) benefits and/or State supplementary payments as a resident
of California is eligible to receive food stamp benefits. The Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services has determined that the
SSI payments in California have been specifically increased to include
the value of the food stamp allotment.
* * * * *
15. In Sec. 273.21, paragraph (n)(1) is amended by adding a
sentence to the end of the paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 273.21 Monthly Reporting and Retrospective Budgeting (MRRB)
* * * * *
(n) Suspension. * * *
(1) * * * The State agency may on a Statewide basis either suspend
the household's certification prospectively for the issuance month or
retrospectively for the issuance month corresponding to the budget
month in which the noncontinuing circumstance occurs.
* * * * *
PART 278--PARTICIPATION OF RETAIL FOOD STORES, WHOLESALE FOOD
CONCERNS AND INSURED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Sec. 278.1 [Amended]
16. In Sec. 278.1, the fourth sentence of paragraph (h) is amended
by removing the word ``appliant'' and adding the word ``applicant'' in
its place.
PART 279--ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW--FOOD RETAILERS AND
FOOD WHOLESALERS
Sec. 279.3 [Amended]
17. In Sec. 279.3, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is
amended by removing the word ``A'' and adding the word ``An'' in its
place.
Dated: September 27, 1996.
Ellen Haas,
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 96-26069 Filed 10-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-U
