[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2358-2361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-936]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 2358]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Part 253

RIN: 0584-AC81


Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations: Income 
Deductions and Miscellaneous Provisions

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend regulations for the Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. The changes would improve 
program service by allowing households two income deductions when 
proper verification is provided. The first income deduction would be 
given to households that pay legally required child support for a 
nonhousehold member. This change conforms to an income deduction 
allowed under the Food Stamp Program. The second income deduction would 
be provided to households that pay the premium for their Medicare Part 
B medical insurance. This deduction was prompted by a resolution passed 
by the National Association of Food Distribution Programs on Indian 
Reservations. This rule would also make technical amendments, such as 
changing outdated terminology, and revising or removing provisions that 
are obsolete or have changed.

DATES: Send your comments to reach us on or before March 14, 2000. 
Comments received after the above date will not be considered in making 
our decision on the proposed rule.

ADDRESSES: You can mail or hand-deliver comments to Lillie F. Ragan, 
Assistant Branch Chief, Household Programs Branch, Food Distribution 
Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Room 510, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillie F. Ragan at the above address 
or telephone (703) 305-2662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Procedural Matters
III. Background and Discussion of the Proposed Rule

I. Public Comment Procedures

    Your written comments on this proposed rule should be specific, 
should be confined to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and should 
explain the reason for any change you recommend. Where possible, you 
should reference the specific section or paragraph of the proposal you 
are addressing. Comments received after the close of the comment period 
(see DATES) will not be considered or included in the Administrative 
Record for the final rule.
    The comments, including names, street addressees, and other contact 
information of respondents, will be available for public review at the 
Food and Nutrition Service, 4501 Ford Avenue, Room 612, Alexandria, 
Virginia, during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.), Mondays 
through Fridays, except Federal holidays.

II. Procedural Matters

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are simple and easy to understand. President Clinton's 
Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998, requires us to write new 
regulations in plain language. We invite your comments on how to make 
these regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions 
such as the following:
    (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
interferes with its clarity?
    (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) make it more or less clear?
    (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it was divided into 
more (but shorter) sections?
    (5) Is the description of the rule in the preamble section entitled 
``Background and Discussion of the Proposed Rule'' helpful in 
understanding the rule? How could this description be more helpful in 
making the rule easier to understand?

Executive Order 12866

    This propose rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget.

Public Law 104-4

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) generally must prepare a written 
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final 
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a 
statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the Food and Nutrition Service to identify and consider a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least 
costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule.
    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal 
governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 12372

    The program addressed in this action is listed in the Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.570, and is subject to the 
provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental 
consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, Subpart 
V, and final rule-related notices published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 
1983, and 49 FR 22676, May 31, 1984).

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). The 
Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service has

[[Page 2359]]

certified that this action will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. While program participants and 
Indian Tribal Organizations and State agencies that administer the Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) will be affected by 
this rulemaking, the economic effect will not be significant.

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. The 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. 
There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to 
any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the 
applications of its provisions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507), this proposed rule will contain information collections that are 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget; 
therefore, FNS is submitting for public comment the changes in the 
information collection burden that would result from adoption of the 
proposals in the rule.
    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.
    To be assured of consideration, comments must be postmarked on or 
before March 14, 2000. Please send comments to Lillie F. Ragan, 
Assistant Branch Chief, Household Programs Branch, Food Distribution 
Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Room 510, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594, and 
to Lori Schack, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503. 
All comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB 
approval of the proposed changes in the information collection burden. 
All comments will become a matter of public record. For further 
information, or for copies of the information collections discussed 
below, please contact Ms. Ragan at the above address or telephone (703) 
305-2662.
    Title: Food Distribution Forms (This information collection burden 
consolidates the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 7 CFR 
parts 240, 247, 250, 251, 252, 253 and 254.)
    OMB Number: 0584-0293.
    Expiration Date: 1/31/2001.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: The reporting requirement currently approved for 7 CFR 
253.7, which addresses the certification of households to participate, 
would be modified by this proposed rule. The rule would allow income 
deductions for legally required child support payments for a 
nonhousehold member and Medicare Part B premium payments, and would 
require verification of these household expenses. The current reporting 
burden estimates associated with the certification of households to 
participate in FDPIR (7 CFR 253.7) must be modified to include the 
proposed verification requirements. We estimate that the verification 
requirements of this rule will increase the reporting burden by 
approximately 2 minutes for those application/recertification actions 
affected by this rule. When averaged with application/recertification 
actions not affected by this rule, the manhours per response is 
increased by .01 hours.
    The proposed income deductions and the reporting burden associated 
with the proposed verification requirements are not expected to affect 
a large percentage of FDPIR households. In regard to the income 
deduction for legally obligated child support payments, we expect that 
only 1 percent of the participant population will receive this 
deduction. This projection is based on the March 28, 1998, 
Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 1996, which 
reports that approximately 1 percent of food stamp households receive a 
child support deduction. We applied this percentage in determining the 
number of FDPIR participants that would be affected by this proposed 
rule, and we increased the reporting burden estimate for that group 
accordingly. Our estimate also reflects applicant households that would 
become eligible as a result of the proposed child support income 
deduction.
    In regard to the income deduction for Medicare Part B premium 
payments, we note that approximately 29 percent of FDPIR participating 
households receive Social Security payments (Evaluation of the Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, Volume 1: Final Report, 
(June 15, 1990)). We assume that all of these households have the 
Medicare Part B premium automatically withheld from their monthly 
Social Security payments. Our proposed estimate for the reporting 
burden associated with this income deduction reflects an increase for 
this subgroup--FDPIR participants that receive Social Security 
payments. Our estimate also reflects applicant households that would 
become income eligible as a result of the proposed income deduction for 
Medicare Part B premium payments.
    Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal Government; Individuals or 
households; business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; 
Federal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: Total package--368,523 (Current); 
total package--368,590 (Proposed).
    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: Total package--
918,526 (Current); total package--918,593 (Proposed).
    Estimate of Burden: Total package--1,154,502 (Current); total 
package--1,154,581 (Proposed).
    The present and proposed estimates of the reporting burden for 
information collections affected by this rule are detailed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Responses    Manhours
                                           per         per       Total
                                       respondents   response   manhours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
253.7  Certification of Households to Participate:
Present..............................        4500         0.5       2250
Proposed.............................        4567        0.51       2329
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 2360]]

II. Background and Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is proposing to amend the 
regulations for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 
(FDPIR) at 7 CFR part 253. The changes would improve program service by 
allowing households two income deductions when proper verification is 
provided. The first income deduction would be given to households that 
pay legally required child support for a nonhousehold member. The 
second income deduction would be provided to households that pay the 
premium for their Medicare Part B medical insurance. This rule would 
also make technical amendments, such as changing outdated terminology, 
and revising or removing provisions that are obsolete or have changed. 
These amendments are discussed in more detail below.
    In the following discussion and regulatory text, we use the term 
``State agency,'' as defined at 7 CFR 253.2, to include Indian Tribal 
Organizations (ITOs) authorized to operate FDPIR.

1. Income Deduction for Child Support Payments

    This proposed rule would amend 7 CFR 253.6(f) to allow an income 
deduction for legally required child support payments made by a 
household member to or for a nonhousehold member. This includes 
payments made to a third party on behalf of the nonhousehold member 
(vendor payments) and amounts paid toward overdue child support 
(arrearages). Alimony payments are not considered child support 
payments. This provision is intended to encourage non-custodial parents 
to fully comply with their child support obligations. At the same time, 
the deduction would result in a more accurate reflection of the paying 
household's reduced ability to buy food. The Food Stamp Program already 
treats child support payments this way.

2. Income Deduction for Medicare Part B Premium

    FNS is also proposing to amend the regulations at 7 CFR 253.6(f) to 
allow an income deduction to cover the full amount of the Medicare Part 
B (Medical Insurance) premium. In most cases, the amount of the premium 
is withheld automatically from the Social Security, Railroad 
Retirement, or Civil Service Retirement payments. In some cases, 
Medicare beneficiaries are billed quarterly for this premium. (In 1999, 
the monthly premium for Part B is $45.50).
    This income deduction would not be allowed in those cases where a 
State has opted to pay the Medicare premium on behalf of its low-income 
residents. In addition, household members who are not Medicare 
beneficiaries because they receive their health care through the Indian 
Health Service would not be allowed this income deduction.
    This income deduction was developed in consultation with the 
National Association of Food Distribution Programs on Indian 
Reservations (NAFDPIR). NAFDPIR requested implementation of this income 
deduction on May 4, 1998, in one of several resolutions passed at its 
1998 annual meeting in San Diego, California. The deduction in this 
rule addresses a clear and present need identified by NAFDPIR. It would 
positively impact an extremely needy segment of the participant 
population: low-income elderly and disabled Native Americans subsisting 
on fixed incomes and often living in isolated areas without access to 
supplemental sources of nutrition such as the Emergency Food Assistance 
Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program. Appropriate nutrition supplementation and 
nutrition education through FDPIR may help them to live independently 
and reduce the possibility that they will need costly institutional 
care. This income deduction is similar, but not identical, to the 
deduction allowed under the Food Stamp Program for medical expenses.

3. Mandatory Verification

    FNS is also proposing to amend the regulations at 7 CFR 
253.7(a)(6)(i) to require the verification of the two income deductions 
that would be implemented by this rule:
    a. Legal obligation and actual child support payments--The State 
agency must obtain verification of the household's legal obligation to 
pay child support, the amount of the obligation, and the monthly amount 
of child support the household actually pays. Documentation that 
verifies the household's legal obligation to pay child support, such as 
a court order, cannot be used to verify the household's actual monthly 
child support payments.
    b. Medicare Part B Premium--The State agency must obtain 
verification of the household's payment of the Medicare Part B Premium. 
Documentation of this expense could include a copy of the Social 
Security benefit statement for the current calendar year (SSA-4926-SM), 
which identifies the amount of the Medicare Part B Premium deducted 
from the monthly Social Security benefit, or a paid receipt for 
Medicare Part B Premium payments paid directly to Medicare by the 
household.

4. Miscellaneous Technical Changes

    Nomenclature Corrections--Sec. 253.3(d); Sec. 253.5(a)(2)(vii); 
Sec. 253.6(e)(2)(i)(C); Sec. 253.6(e)(2)(ii)(A); 
Sec. 253.6(e)(2)(iii)(B).
    Legislative changes in recent years have resulted in revisions to 
program titles referenced in 7 CFR part 253. Other FNS program 
initiatives have prompted changes in terms commonly used among FNS 
programs. This rule would amend the FDPIR regulations to replace the 
title ``Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program'' with the 
title ``Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program,'' and replace 
the acronym ``AFDC'' with the acronym ``TANF'' wherever the outdated 
terms appear. Similarly, 7 CFR part 253 would be amended to replace the 
title ``Comprehensive Employment and Training Act'' with the title 
``Job Training Partnership Act,'' and to replace the acronym ``CETA'' 
with the acronym ``JTPA'' wherever the outdated terms appear. In 
addition, Sec. 253.3(d) would be amended to replace the phrase ``the 
four food groups'' with the phrase ``USDA Food Guide Pyramid.''
    References to Obsolete Food Stamp Program Provisions--
Sec. 253.6(e)(1)(ii); Sec. 253.5(f)(2) 7 CFR part 253 references Food 
Stamp Program provisions that have changed or become obsolete. This 
rule would correct these references. First, Sec. 253.6(e)(1)(ii) would 
be amended to reflect an earlier change under the Food Stamp Program to 
adjust the income eligibility standards once a year on October 1, 
rather than twice a year on January 1 and July 1. The change to an 
annual adjustment under the Food Stamp Program was effective on July 1, 
1988 (see interim rule and correction published on September 29, 1987 
(52 FR 36390)). We have been making annual adjustments to the FDPIR 
income eligibility standards since that time, but the regulations at 
Sec. 253.6(e)(1)(ii) had not been corrected.
    In addition, Sec. 253.5(f)(2) references an obsolete Food Stamp 
Program requirement that State agencies allow public attendance at 
formal certification training sessions. This rule would delete 
Sec. 253.5(f)(2), accordingly.
    Obsolete Sources of Income and Resources--Sec. 253.6(d)(2)(iv); 
Sec. 253.6(e)(3)(x) Sec. 253.6(d)(2)(iv) and Sec. 253.6(e)(3)(x) list 
sources of income that are excluded under Federal statute from 
consideration as income or resources, respectively. We are aware that 
two of these types of payments have been discontinued and wish to take 
this

[[Page 2361]]

opportunity to delete them from the FDPIR regulations. First, the 
resource and income exclusion provisions at Sec. 253.6(d)(2)(iv)(F) and 
Sec. 253.6(e)(3)(x)(G) would be deleted. These paragraphs refer to 
payments provided under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act 
(CETA). Also, Sec. 253.6(e)(3)(x)(F), which references payments by the 
Community Services Administration for the Crisis Intervention Program, 
would be deleted.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 253

    Administrative practice and procedure, Food assistance programs, 
Grant programs, Social programs, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Surplus agricultural commodities.
    Accordingly, 7 CFR part 253 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 253--ADMINISTRATION OF THE FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM FOR 
HOUSEHOLDS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS

    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 253 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 91 Stat. 958 (7 U.S.C. 2011-2032).

    2. In Sec. 253.3, revise the third sentence of paragraph (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 253.3  Availability of commodities.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * The food package offered to each household by the State 
agency shall contain a variety of foods from each of the food groups in 
the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Monthly 
Distribution Guide Rates by Household Size--Vegetables, Fruit, Bread-
Cereal-Rice-Pasta, Meat-Poultry-Fish-Dry Beans-Eggs-Nuts, Milk-Yogurt-
Cheese, and Fats-Oils-Sweets. * * *


Secs. 253.5 and 253.6  [Amended]

    3. In Sec. 253.5(a)(2)(vii) and Sec. 253.6(e)(2)(iii)(B), remove 
the acronym ``AFDC'' and add in its place the acronym ``TANF''.


Sec. 253.5  [Amended]

    4. In Sec. 253.5, remove paragraph (f)(2), and redesignate 
paragraph (f)(3) as paragraph (f)(2).
    5. In Sec. 253.6:
    a. Remove paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(F);
    b. Amend paragraph (e)(1)(ii) by removing the words ``January 1 and 
July 1'' and adding, in their place, the words ``October 1'';
    c. Amend paragraph (e)(2)(i)(C) by removing the words 
``Comprehensive Employment and Training Act'' and adding, in their 
place, the words ``Job Training Partnership Act'';
    d. Amend paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) by removing the words ``Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)'' and adding, in their place, 
the words ``Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)'';
    e. Remove paragraphs (e)(3)(x)(F) and (e)(3)(x)(G); and
    f. Add new paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 253.6  Eligibility of households.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) Households will receive a deduction for legally required child 
support payments paid by a household member to or for a nonhousehold 
member, including payments made to a third party on behalf of the 
nonhousehold member (vendor payments). The State agency must allow a 
deduction for amounts paid towards overdue child support (arrearages). 
Alimony payments made to or for a nonhousehold member cannot be 
included in the child support deduction.
    (4) Households will receive a deduction for the full amount of the 
Medicare Part B medical insurance premium that is withheld from the 
Federal retirement or disability payment of a household member or is 
paid by a household member directly to Medicare. This income deduction 
is not allowed in situations where the premium is paid by the State on 
behalf of the Medicare beneficiary or where household members are not 
Medicare beneficiaries because they receive their health care through 
the Indian Health Service.
    6. In Sec. 253.7, revise paragraph (a)(6)(i) to reads as follows:


Sec. 253.7  Certification of households.

    (a) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) Mandatory verification.--(A) Gross non-exempt income. The State 
agency must obtain verification of each household's gross non-exempt 
income prior to certification. Households certified under the expedited 
service processing standards at paragraph (a)(9) of this section are 
not subject to this requirement. Income does not need to be verified to 
the exact dollar amount unless the household's eligibility would be 
affected, since Food Distribution Program benefits are not reduced as 
income rises. If the eligibility worker is unable to verify the 
household's income, the worker must determine an amount to be used for 
certification purposes based on the best available information. Reasons 
for inability to verify income include failure of the person or 
organization providing the income to cooperate with the household and 
the State agency, or lack of other sources of verification.
    (B) Legal obligation and actual child support payments. The State 
agency must obtain verification of the household's legal obligation to 
pay child support, the amount of the obligation, and the monthly amount 
of child support the household actually pays. Documentation that 
verifies the household's legal obligation to pay child support, such as 
a court order, cannot be used to verify the household's actual monthly 
child support payments.
    (C) Medicare Part B medical insurance premium. The State agency 
must obtain verification of the household's payment of the Medicare 
Part B medical insurance premium. Documentation of this expense could 
include:
    (1) A copy of the Social Security benefit statement for the current 
calendar year (SSA-4926-SM), which identifies the amount of the 
Medicare Part B premium deducted from the monthly Social Security 
benefit; or
    (2) A receipt for Medicare Part B premium payments paid directly to 
Medicare by the household.
* * * * *
    Dated: January 6, 2000.
Samuel Chambers, Jr.,
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 00-936 Filed 1-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-U