[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19155-19160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10786]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Consumer Service

7 CFR Parts 272 and 273

[Amendment No. 369]
RIN 0584-AC08


Food Stamp Program: Failure to Comply with Federal, State, or 
Local Welfare Assistance Program Requirements

AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action amends Food Stamp Program regulations to prohibit 
an increase in food stamp benefits when a household's benefit from 
another

[[Page 19156]]

Federal, State or local means-tested assistance program decreases as a 
result of a penalty imposed on the household for intentionally failing 
to comply with a requirement of the other program. This regulatory 
change is necessary to more fully implement congressional intent that 
the Food Stamp Program reinforce, not mitigate, another program's 
penalties.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final action is effective May 31, 1996. State 
agencies must implement no later than November 27, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the rulemaking 
should be addressed to Margaret Batko, Supervisor, Eligibility and 
Certification Regulation Section, Certification Policy Branch, Program 
Development Division, Food Stamp Program, Food and Consumer Service, 
USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. Ms. Batko may 
also be reached by telephone at (703) 305-2496.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

    This rulemaking has been determined to be significant for purposes 
of Executive Order 12866, and therefore, has been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 12778

    This rulemaking has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, 
Civil Justice Reform. The rule is intended to have preemptive effect 
with respect to any state or local laws, regulations or policies that 
conflict with its provisions or that would otherwise impede its full 
implementation. The rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. 
Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the 
application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures 
must be exhausted. In the Food Stamp Program the administrative 
procedures are as follows: (1) For program benefit recipients--State 
administrative procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(10) and 7 
CFR 273.15; (2) for State agencies--administrative procedures issued 
pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2023 set out at 7 CFR 276.7

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 and related Notice(s) to 7 CFR part 3105, subpart V (48 FR 29115, 
June 24, 1983; or 48 FR 54317, December 1, 1983, as appropriate), this 
Program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372 which 
requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rulemaking has also been reviewed with respect to the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, 
94 Stat. 1164, September 19, 1980). William E. Ludwig, Administrator of 
the Food and Consumer Service (FCS), has certified that this action 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The changes would affect food stamp applicants and 
recipients who intentionally fail to comply with other Federal, State 
or local welfare assistance program requirements. The rulemaking also 
affects State and local welfare agencies which administer the Food 
Stamp Program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking does not contain additional reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements subject to approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 
(44 U.S.C. 3507).

Background

    Section 164 of the Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-
253, Title I, Subtitle E, Sept. 8, 1982) amended Section 8 of the Food 
Stamp Act of 1977 (Act) to add a new paragraph (d) which prohibits an 
increase in food stamp benefits due to a decrease in household income 
resulting from a penalty levied by a Federal, State, or local welfare 
or public assistance program for an intentional failure to comply with 
the other program's requirements. 7 U.S.C. 2017(d). Currently, the 
regulations at 7 CFR 273.11(k) limit the prohibition against increasing 
food stamp benefits to situations in which a household's welfare or 
public assistance benefits have been reduced because of agency 
recoupment. If the recoupment was precipitated by a finding of an 
intentional program violation, food stamp eligibility and benefit 
levels are calculated without regard for the amount of the reduction in 
assistance due to the recoupment. On
    August 8, 1995, at 60 FR 40311, we proposed to expand the current 
prohibition on increases in food stamp benefits to include all 
situations in which a decrease (reduction, suspension or termination) 
in assistance income occurs as a result of a penalty being imposed for 
an intentional failure to comply with a Federal, State, or local 
welfare or public assistance program requirement. The proposal provided 
that State agencies would calculate food stamp benefits using the 
benefit amount which would have been issued by the other program if no 
penalty had been applied against that program's benefit amount.
    Comments on the proposed rulemaking were solicited from interested 
parties for 45 days. A total of 30 comment letters were received; 26 
from State and local welfare agencies, three from legal aid groups, and 
one from the general public. All letters which specifically addressed 
the provisions of the proposed rulemaking were considered in developing 
the final rule. The remaining sections of the preamble address the 
significant issues raised by commenters.
    State welfare agencies generally supported the proposed rule but 
had varying degrees of concern relative to: the lack of a definition of 
``intentional failure to comply''; what constitutes a penalty; and the 
food stamp benefit calculation procedure. The legal aid groups opposed 
the provision stating concern about the impact on the nutritional 
levels of children and lack of due process protection for the affected 
households.

Who Does the Provision Apply To?

    The proposed rule specified that the expansion in the prohibition 
on increases in food stamp benefits based on a reduction in income from 
assistance programs would apply to acts of intentional noncompliance 
with Federal, State, or local welfare or public assistance programs 
which are means-tested and distribute publicly funded benefits. 
Historically, we have always made a distinction between welfare or 
public assistance programs and other types of Federal, State or local 
programs by categorizing welfare and public assistance programs as 
``means-tested'' programs. It has come to our attention that there may 
be Federal, State or local programs in existence which are means-tested 
but are not generally considered to be welfare or public assistance. 
Therefore, it is not enough to provide that this rule affects ``means-
tested'' programs only. The final clarifies that the provision only 
applies to means-test programs governed by welfare or public assistance 
laws or regulations.
    One commenter asked that the final provision be revised to require 
that individuals who are receiving Social Security Disability Insurance 
(SSDI) payments because of drug addiction and/or alcoholism and who do 
not comply with Federal treatment requirements be covered by the final 
rule. Since SSDI is not means-tested

[[Page 19157]]

assistance or generally considered to be welfare or public assistance, 
the final rule would not apply when a reduction in SSDI benefits occurs 
for failure to comply with a Federal treatment program requirement. We 
believe it would not be administratively permissible to create an 
exception for this particular benefit program situation without express 
congressional direction.
    At least one State agency and the legal aid groups recommended that 
the term ``intentional'' be defined. Some of these commenters also 
recommended that we require the other Federal, State and local agencies 
to use clear and convincing evidence in making a determination of 
intentional noncompliance or that the food stamp caseworker be required 
to at least take into consideration the Food Stamp Program's ``good 
cause'' provisions prior to taking action to prohibit an increase in 
food stamp benefits.
    As stated in the preamble of the proposed rulemaking, the Food 
Stamp Program will not be involved in the determination of whether or 
not an individual intentionally failed to comply with another program's 
requirement and whether or not there was good cause for the 
noncompliance. It should be noted, however, that a State or local 
worker may be responsible for many of the other welfare or public 
assistance programs. Thus, it is conceivable that such worker may be 
directly/indirectly involved in the determination of intentional 
failure to comply with another program's requirements. For the purpose 
of determining individual food stamp benefit levels, we intend that 
food stamp workers only verify if a known decrease in a household's 
benefits under another welfare or public assistance program is due to a 
determination by the other program of intentional failure to comply. If 
the determination is not specifically identified by the other program 
as an ``intentional'' failure to comply, the prohibition on increased 
food stamp benefits would not apply.
    One commenter recommended that the word ``intentional'' be dropped 
from the final rule so that it would apply to all acts of 
noncompliance. Another commenter also stated that the prohibition on 
increases in food stamp benefits should apply to any act of 
noncompliance provided there are appropriate opportunities to establish 
good cause and to ensure that the household was aware of the obligation 
before sanctions were imposed. We do not have the discretion to expand 
the coverage of the prohibition to any act of noncompliance. Section 
8(d) of the Act applies only to acts of intentional failure to comply 
with another welfare or public assistance program's requirements. These 
commenters may be interested to know that there is pending legislation 
being considered by Congress that, if passed, would expand the coverage 
of Section 8(d) to include any act of noncompliance.
    One commenter noted that penalties for noncompliance with certain 
child support enforcement provisions do not result in actual reductions 
of benefits; instead, the penalty imposed is a denial of benefits. For 
example, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in 
some States requires that an unmarried parent identify a child's other 
parent. If the applicant-parent refuses to provide the requested 
information, benefits are denied. The commenter suggested that 
Sec. 273.11(k) be applied to these situations. In the scenario 
suggested by this commenter, household income for purposes of 
determining eligibility for food stamp benefits would be the amount of 
AFDC the household would have received had the household provided the 
requested information.
    We do not have the discretion to adopt this suggestion. The 
language of section 8(d) of the Act provides that there be no increase 
in food stamp benefits when benefits under another Federal, State or 
local welfare or public assistance program are decreased due to 
intentional noncompliance. It is clear from the statutory language that 
Congress' intent was to limit the application to situations where 
benefits are being received and then decreased due to an intentional 
act of noncompliance. In the suggested situation benefits are never 
received so they can not be decreased. However, there is pending 
legislation under consideration by Congress that would make compliance 
with child support enforcement requirements a condition of eligibility 
for food stamp benefits.
    In reviewing comments on who the provision should apply to, it came 
to our attention that in the preamble of the August 8 proposed rule we 
made reference to welfare assistance and public assistance 
interchangeably. Yet we inadvertently failed to include a reference to 
public assistance in the actual regulatory text of the proposed rule. 
We are correcting this oversight in this rulemaking. In addition, the 
final rule clarifies that State agencies shall define what constitutes 
a welfare assistance program or a public assistance program. The only 
requirement for the State agency selection of appropriate programs is 
that they be means-tested and distribute public funds.

How Should the Provision Be Applied?

Household vs. Individual

    One commenter noted that AFDC programs in certain States allow 
State agencies to terminate cash assistance to not only an individual 
who has failed to comply with program requirements, but also to other 
household members. This commenter recommended that the prohibition on 
increases in food stamp benefits for deceases in other types of 
assistance be limited to that part of the welfare benefit decrease 
representing the benefit share of the individual who intentionally 
failed to comply, not the entire household's benefits. We are not 
adopting this suggestion. It is clear from the language of the Act that 
the prohibition on increased food stamp benefits required by Section 
8(d) applies to a household and not simply individual household 
members. We do not have the authority to create regulatory distinctions 
in conflict with the express language of the Act.

Family Cap

    Some State agencies are implementing welfare reform programs which 
include a ``family cap'' requirement. The family cap requirement 
provides that if an individual has another child while receiving 
assistance under the program, the family will not receive an increase 
in assistance for the additional child. One commenter suggested that 
some State agencies may consider the act of having the additional child 
to be an ``intentional failure to comply'' with the rules and 
regulations of the assistance program. This commenter claimed that 
under the terms of the August 8 proposed rule, an increase in food 
stamp benefits for the additional member would not be allowed. This 
commenter suggested that we modify the proposed rule to allow increases 
in food stamp benefits in these situations regardless of State 
penalties.
    The commenter misinterpreted the intent and impact of the proposed 
rule. In the situation noted by the commenter, the family's current 
assistance would not be decreased; rather, the family would not be 
entitled to increased assistance for the additional member. The 
proposed rule specifically stated that the prohibition on increased 
food stamp benefits would not apply in situations where the household's 
benefits under another program are frozen at the current level due to 
an act of intentionally failing to comply with a requirement of that 
program.

[[Page 19158]]

Food Stamp Program Work Sanctions

    Current rules at 7 CFR 273.7(g)(2) provide that individuals who 
fail to comply, whether intentionally or not, with a work requirement 
under Title IV of the Social Security Act or an unemployment 
compensation work requirement, where such work requirement is 
comparable to a food stamp work requirement, shall be treated as though 
the individual had failed to comply with the food stamp requirement and 
the client shall be subject to a food stamp penalty. One commenter 
questioned if the August 8 proposed rule would take precedence over 7 
CFR 273.7(g)(2). It would not. The provision at 7 CFR 273.7(g)(2) 
imposes a food stamp sanction for noncompliance with certain work 
requirements. The proposed changes to 7 CFR 273.11(k) would have 
prevented an increase in food stamp benefits when a household was 
sanctioned by another Federal, State or local means-tested welfare or 
public assistance program for noncompliance. We have revised the final 
rule to clarify that Sec. 273.11(k) does not apply in cases where 
individuals or households are sanctioned for noncompliance with a food 
stamp work requirement pursuant to 7 CFR 273.7(g)(2).

Administrative Problems

    Some commenters claimed that they would not be able to comply with 
Sec. 273.11(k) in situations involving intentional failures to comply 
with the requirements for receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
benefits because SSI benefits are not determined by the State or local 
welfare agency. These commenters believe they will not receive 
cooperation from SSI offices in obtaining the necessary information. 
One commenter suggested exempting SSI from the programs covered by 
Sec. 273.11(k). Another commenter suggested we incorporate 
Sec. 273.11(k) a mandate that the necessary information be included in 
the SDX data base maintained by SSA.
    Section 8(d) of the Act does not provide us with the latitude to 
treat SSI differently than other means-tested welfare or public 
assistance programs. Further, the statute does not give us the latitude 
to require adjustments in the SDX data base. States and localities will 
have to work with all the associated programs to share the information 
necessary to comply with the requirements of this final rule. However, 
we do recognize that the other agencies may not cooperate in providing 
the necessary information, or cannot do so due to information 
disclosure laws. Therefore, we are amending the final rule to provide 
that if a State agency is unsuccessful in obtaining information from 
another program necessary to enable it to comply with this rulemaking, 
the State agency will not be held responsible for such noncompliance.
    Most commenters believed the requirements of the August 8 proposed 
rule would be too complex to administer, would result in the need to 
make costly changes to computer systems, and would be prone to error. 
Alternatives suggested by commenters included: Allowing State agencies 
an option to implement or not implement the provision; allowing State 
agencies to implement in a manner which works best for the State--such 
as allowing a State option to determine what constitutes a penalty; or 
allowing a State option to use a standard amount to be deemed as food 
stamp income through the duration of the penalty period imposed by the 
other program; or allowing a State to impose the same penalty against 
food stamp benefits as imposed against the benefits of the other 
program; or allowing a State agency to freeze the amount of the 
benefits under the affected program through the duration of the 
penalty.
    We cannot allow a State agency to choose not to implement 
Sec. 273.11(k). Section 8(d) of the Act clearly mandates that there 
will be no increase in food stamp benefits when a household's benefits 
under another program are decreased due to an intentional failure to 
comply with a requirement of that program. This rulemaking expands on 
the current provision to more fully reflect congressional intent.
    We also cannot adopt the suggestion of allowing a State agency to 
impose the same penalty against the food stamp benefit as was imposed 
against benefits under the program in which the noncompliance occurred. 
The statute does not provide an option to reduce, suspend or terminate 
the household's current food stamp benefit level; the statute only 
prohibits an increase in food stamp benefits for noncompliance with 
another program's requirements. However, pending legislation, if passed 
as currently written, would provide such flexibility to a State agency.
    While we cannot adopt some of the alternatives suggested by 
commenters, some of the other alternatives mentioned may be more 
feasible and cost-effective than our proposed procedures. In the 
interest of State flexibility and our intent to eliminate prescriptive 
regulations where possible, we are revising the final provision to 
allow State agencies to implement the prohibition on food stamp benefit 
increases in a manner which works best for that State. However, to 
ensure that State agencies implement the provision within the confines 
of the current statutory parameters, we are revising proposed 
Sec. 273.11(k) to include the following minimum requirements:
    1. State agencies shall apply Sec. 273.11(k) to prevent increases a 
household's food stamp benefits when benefits under another Federal, 
State or local means-tested welfare or public assistance program are 
decreased (reduced, terminated, or suspended) due to a determination by 
the other program of an act of intentional failure to comply with a 
requirement of such program. Section 273.11(k) does not apply with 
regard to cases of noncompliance which meet the requirements of 7 CFR 
273.7(g)(2). If the State agency is not successful in obtaining the 
necessary cooperation from the other program to enable it to comply 
with the requirements of Sec. 273.11(k), the State agency shall not be 
held responsible for noncompliance so long as the State agency has made 
a good faith effort to obtain the information.
    2. State agencies shall not reduce, suspend or terminate a 
household's current food stamp benefit level when the household's 
benefits under another means-tested welfare or public assistance 
program have been decreased due to an intentional failure to comply 
with a requirement of that program, except as provided at 7 CFR 
273.7(g)(2).
    3. State agencies must adjust food stamp benefits when eligible 
members are added to the food stamp household regardless of whether or 
not the household is prohibited from receiving benefits for the member 
under another Federal, State or local means-tested welfare or public 
assistance program.
    4. Changes in household circumstances which are not related to a 
penalty imposed by another Federal, State or local means-tested welfare 
or public assistance program shall not be affected by this provision.

Cases of Recoupment and Reduction

    One commenter noted that the proposed rule implied that it only 
applied in situations where overissued benefits received due to 
intentional noncompliance with a program requirement are being recouped 
or a reduction in benefits is being applied as a fiscal penalty for 
intentional noncompliance. This commenter questioned how food stamp 
benefits would be calculated in situations in which a household is 
subject to both a recoupment and a reduction for the same act of 
intentional noncompliance.

[[Page 19159]]

As stated earlier, the final rule will allow State agencies to 
implement the provision in a manner which works best for that State 
agency. Thus, State agencies would establish their own procedures to 
address this situation.

Notice to Clients

    The legal aid groups that commented believed that households 
affected by application of Sec. 273.11(k) should receive a food stamp 
notice from State agencies explaining why their food stamp benefits are 
not going up, and informing them that they are entitled to a hearing on 
the issue of whether their program violation was intentional.
    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.13 require State agencies to 
provide households with timely and adequate notice when reducing or 
terminating food stamp allotments. Section 273.11(k) does not result in 
a reduction, termination, or suspension of a household's current food 
stamp benefit amount. Thus, State agencies are not obligated to provide 
a notice of adverse action or adequate notice. However, the State 
agency may provide such a notice at its option.
    Additionally, a household would not be entitled to a separate and 
distinct food stamp fair hearing on the issue of intent. The 
determination of intentional failure must be made by the other program 
for the food stamp prohibition to take affect. A separate and distinct 
food stamp fair hearing to appeal another program's determination of 
intent would place the Food Stamp Program in a position of second 
guessing another program's determination. Of course, a State or local 
worker who deals with multiple welfare or public assistance programs 
may be directly or indirectly involved in the initial determination of 
intent or client appeal of such determinations.
    Several commenters raised concerns about how to calculate the food 
stamp benefit in situations where the person's benefits from another 
program are suspended or terminated due to an intentional failure to 
comply, especially in cases of long periods of suspension or indefinite 
termination of benefits. The commenters were particularly concerned 
about cases for which benefits are terminated indefinitely and the 
recipient never reapplies for those program benefits again. They felt 
that it would be virtually impossible to track such cases. One 
commenter suggested exempting such cases from the provision. Another 
commenter recommended placing a time limit on the prohibition on 
increased food stamp benefits in Sec. 273.11(k) for such cases. Still 
another commenter recommended limiting the application of 
Sec. 273.11(k) to the time it takes to repay the overpayment or to the 
time the recipient begins to cooperate, whichever is less.
    Section 8(d) of the Act clearly states that the prohibition against 
increasing food stamp benefits shall apply for the duration of the 
penalty imposed by the welfare or public assistance program. Therefore, 
we do not have the discretion to allow State agencies to place time 
restrictions on the application of Sec. 273.11(k). Moreover, we do not 
agree that cases with long penalties should be exempt from the 
prohibition. Generally, the more serious the act of intentional 
noncompliance, the more serious the fiscal penalty and/or the longer 
the penalty period. To do as the commenter has asked would result in 
the more serious cases of intentional noncompliance receiving an 
increase in food stamp benefits, while persons still receiving benefits 
even though reduced for a much lesser degree of intentional 
noncompliance could not receive an increase in food stamp benefits.

Implementation

    The proposed rule provided that State agencies would be required to 
implement the rule when final on the first day of the first month 
beginning 120 days after publication of the final rulemaking. The 120-
day time period between publication and required implementation was 
proposed to provide State agencies with sufficient lead time to 
reprogram or train employees before implementing the new Program 
requirement. It has come to our attention that some State agencies may 
be able to implement sooner and would like to do so while other State 
agencies believe the lead time is too short. We agree that State 
agencies should have the flexibility to either implement soon after 
publication or to have more lead time. Accordingly, this final rule 
provides that State agencies must implement Sec. 273.11(k) ``no later 
than'' 210 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
    In addition, one commenter asked if we intend that Sec. 273.11(k) 
apply to pending cases of intentional failure to comply with another 
program's requirements. The final rule also clarifies that 
Sec. 273.11(k) only affects those cases where a pertinent decrease in 
the household's benefits from another program occurs on or after the 
effective date of this final rulemaking.
    Some State agencies commented that their computer systems are 
designed to automatically update food stamp benefits when public 
assistance benefits change. Until their computers can be reprogrammed, 
the State agencies would have to manually bypass this automatic update 
process which will increase administrative burden and result in errors. 
These commenters suggested that variances in food stamp allotments due 
to this regulation be excluded from the quality control error 
determination. In accordance with Section 16(c)(3) of the Act, 
variances resulting from implementation of a new rule change are 
excluded from error analysis for 120 days from the required 
implementation date of the rule change. Some State agencies may 
implement earlier than the required implementation date, in such cases 
the 120-day count begins on the actual date of implementation by the 
State agency. We do not have the discretion to exclude variances for a 
longer period of time. State agencies which plan to implement earlier 
than the required date are reminded to follow the procedures at 7 CFR 
275.12(d)(2)(vii)(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 procedures, Aliens, Claims, Food 
stamps, Grant programs--social programs, Penalties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Students.

    Accordingly, 7 CFR Parts 272 and 273 are amended as follows:

PART 272--REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES

    1. The authority citation of Parts 272 and 273 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2032.

    2. In Sec. 272.1, a new paragraph (g)(145) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 272.1  General terms and conditions.

* * * * *
    (g) Implementation. * * *
    (145) Amendment No. 369. The provisions of Amendment No. 369 are 
effective May 31, 1996. State agencies must implement no later than 
November 27, 1996. The provisions of this amendment are applicable for 
determinations of intentional failure to comply made on or after the 
effective date of the amendment.

[[Page 19160]]

PART 273--CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS


Sec. 273.9  [Amended]

    3. In Sec. 273.9, the second sentence of paragraph (b)(5)(i) is 
amended by removing the words ``for purposes of recouping from a 
household an overpayment which resulted from the household's 
intentional failure to comply with the other program's requirements''.
    4. In Sec. 273.11, paragraph (k) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 273.11  Action on households with special circumstances.

* * * * *
    (k) Failure to comply with another assistance program's 
requirements. A State agency shall not increase food stamp benefits 
when a household's benefits received under another means-tested 
Federal, State or local welfare or public assistance program, which is 
governed by welfare or public assistance laws or regulations and which 
distributes public funds, have been decreased (reduced, suspended or 
terminated) due to an intentional failure to comply with a requirement 
of the program that imposed the benefit decrease. This provision does 
not apply in the case of individuals or households subject to a food 
stamp work sanction imposed pursuant to 7 CFR 273.7(g)(2). State agency 
procedures shall adhere to the following minimum conditions:
    (1) This provision must be applied to all applicable cases. If a 
State agency is not successful in obtaining the necessary cooperation 
from another Federal, State or local means-tested welfare or public 
assistance program to enable it to comply with the requirements of this 
provision, the State agency shall not be held responsible for 
noncompliance as long as the State agency has made a good faith effort 
to obtain the information.
    (2) A State agency shall not reduce, suspend or terminate a 
household's current food stamp allotment amount when the household's 
benefits under another applicable assistance program have been 
decreased due to an intentional failure to comply with a requirement of 
that program.
    (3) A State agency must adjust food stamp benefits when eligible 
members are added to the food stamp household regardless of whether or 
not the household is prohibited from receiving benefits for the 
additional member under another Federal, State or local welfare or 
public assistance means-tested program.
    (4) Changes in household circumstances which are not related to a 
penalty imposed by another Federal, State or local welfare or public 
assistance means-tested program shall not be affected by this 
provision.

    Dated: April 23, 1996.
Ellen Haas,
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 96-10786 Filed 4-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-U