Updated Trafficking Definition and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-FDPIR Dual Participation, 35787-35791 [2011-14982]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Food and Nutrition Service

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35787-35791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14982]


========================================================================
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. 76, No. 118 / Monday, June 20, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 35787]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Parts 271, 273, and 281

RIN 0584-AD97


Updated Trafficking Definition and Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP)-FDPIR Dual Participation

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is proposing changes to 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations 
pertaining to SNAP client benefit use, participation of retail food 
stores and wholesale food concerns in SNAP, and SNAP client 
participation in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 
(FDPIR). These changes to SNAP regulations address mandatory provisions 
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (hereinafter referred 
to as ``the 2008 Farm Bill'') to allow for the disqualification of a 
SNAP client who purchases, with SNAP benefits, products that have 
container deposits for the purpose of subsequently discarding the 
product and returning the container(s) in exchange for cash refund of 
deposit(s) and/or resells or exchanges products purchased with SNAP 
benefits for purposes of obtaining cash or other non-eligible items.

DATES: To be assured of consideration, comments on this proposed rule 
must be received by the Food and Nutrition Service on or before August 
19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, invites 
interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments 
may be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Preferred method; follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments on docket [insert docket number].
     Mail: Comments should be addressed to Ronald Ward, Acting 
Chief, Retailer Management and Issuance Branch, Benefit Redemption 
Division, Rm. 418, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.
    All comments submitted in response to this rule will be included in 
the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised 
that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals 
or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public 
disclosure. FNS will make the comments publicly available on the 
Internet via: https://www.regulations.gov.
    All submissions will be available for public inspection at the 
address above during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.) 
Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Address any questions regarding this 
rulemaking to Ronald Ward, Acting Chief, Retailer Management and 
Issuance Branch, Benefit Redemption Division at the Food and Nutrition 
Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. Mr. 
Ward can also be reached by telephone at 703-305-2523 or by e-mail at 
Ronald.Ward@fns.usda.gov during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 
5:30 p.m.) Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Through existing authority under the Food and Nutrition Act of 
2008, FNS is also proposing in this rulemaking to stipulate penalties 
for certain Program abuses committed by retailers. These abuses include 
stealing of SNAP benefits, by retailers, without client complicity, and 
other forms of trafficking through complicit arrangements between the 
retailer and the SNAP client. Examples of the latter would be the 
purchase, by retailers, of products originally purchased by clients 
with SNAP benefits and re-sold to stores in exchange for cash or other 
non-eligible items; or retailers taking possession of SNAP client cards 
and PINs, using the SNAP benefits to purchase stock for the store, and 
subsequently returning the card and PIN to the client with cash or 
other non-eligible items provided in exchange for having used the SNAP 
benefit.
    FNS will also address the mandatory 2008 Farm Bill provisions 
requiring reciprocal disqualification in SNAP when an individual is 
disqualified from FDPIR, and under existing authority, will clarify the 
prohibition against dual participation in SNAP and FDPIR.
    In this rule, FNS is proposing to revise SNAP regulations in 
accordance with Section 4131 (Eligibility Disqualification) of the 2008 
Farm Bill to update the definition of trafficking to include certain 
Program abuses by clients. FNS is also taking this opportunity to 
address certain retailer abuses of the Program. These types of abuse 
are not specifically addressed in the current definition of 
trafficking.
    This rule also addresses Section 4211 (Assessing the Nutritional 
Value of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) 
Food Package) of the 2008 Farm Bill which requires, among other things, 
reciprocal disqualification in SNAP when an individual is disqualified 
from FDPIR. Proposed regulatory changes will codify the mandatory 
statutory requirement to make reciprocal SNAP disqualification 
mandatory in instances of disqualification from FDPIR.
    Dual participation in SNAP and FDPIR is prohibited under existing 
authority in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and is codified in 
existing regulations. FNS is proposing only to make a technical 
correction to existing regulations regarding this mandatory 
prohibition.
    The specific provisions are discussed below.

Updating the Definition of Trafficking

    FNS has received reports from various stakeholders and the media 
describing Program abuses by SNAP retailers and recipients. These 
situations negatively impact Program integrity and divert benefits 
intended to meet the dietary needs of the nation's neediest citizens. 
Additionally, stakeholders have expressed frustration in not having 
options for recourse in specific instances of fraud.
    Specifically, stakeholders have witnessed SNAP clients purchasing 
large quantities of products sold in containers that require deposits. 
The clients have then taken these products outside of the store 
location, discarded the contents, and subsequently returned to the 
store location to claim the container deposit amounts in cash.

[[Page 35788]]

Currently, bottle deposits are paid for with SNAP benefits when the 
item is purchased. Regulations do not require separating the container 
deposits from the eligible food items, as the container is not 
optional. While regulations prohibit exchanging cash for SNAP benefits, 
container deposits are difficult to track back to SNAP purchases. In 
many instances, containers are returned by persons other than the 
purchaser and in some instances returns are handled by bottle return 
machines. None-the-less, clients who intentionally purchased products 
in containers for purposes of disposing of the products and exchanging 
the containers for cash are, in effect, trafficking without a complicit 
retailer.
    Furthermore, clients have sold food purchased with SNAP benefits in 
exchange for cash. This can occur in collusion with the owner (or 
employee) of a SNAP authorized store who requests that the client 
purchase specific items at an alternate location for subsequent 
purchase by the complicit retailer. SNAP clients have also purchased 
large amounts of products such as soft drinks and then resold them for 
cash to other individuals once outside of the store.
    On the retailer side, SNAP authorized retailers have been found 
abusing the Program by stealing SNAP benefits from unwitting clients. 
While Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) has largely reduced SNAP fraud, 
it has introduced a new opportunity for retailers to steal benefits 
from clients, which did not exist when benefits were issued in the form 
of paper coupons. In this scenario, retailers and/or store employees 
steal client card numbers and personal identification numbers (PINs), 
and subsequently debit benefits from client accounts using manual key 
entry of the card and PIN number without client knowledge or consent. 
Retailers may use store cameras, or simply observe and capture EBT 
client card information, including PINs, in order to undertake these 
fraudulent transactions later.
    Penalties for SNAP clients and/or retailers who abuse the Program 
through the exchange of benefits, i.e. trafficking, are already defined 
in regulation. The current definition of trafficking in SNAP benefits 
is as follows: ``Trafficking means the buying or selling of coupons, 
ATP cards or other benefit instruments for cash or consideration other 
than eligible food; or the exchange of firearms, ammunition, 
explosives, or controlled substances, as defined in section 802 of 
title 21, United States Code, for coupons.''
    Because the definition of trafficking does not currently include 
the scenarios described above, FNS has had difficulty directly 
assessing penalties against clients and retailers who engage in these 
acts. At times, FNS has had to rely on State and Federal law 
enforcement agencies to pursue criminal charges against the violators.
    As a result, FNS is proposing to update the definition of 
trafficking to incorporate stealing of SNAP benefits, re-selling 
products purchased with SNAP benefits for the express purpose of 
obtaining cash or other ineligible items, purchasing products purchased 
with SNAP benefits for the express purpose of providing cash or other 
ineligible items to SNAP clients, and discarding products purchased 
with SNAP benefits for the express purpose of obtaining cash for 
container deposits. Moreover, the definition is being updated, in 
general, to include other instances where the client and the retailer 
collude to exchange SNAP benefits for cash or something other than 
eligible food.
    Appropriate penalties for SNAP clients and/or retailers who are 
found by a court or administrative agency to have trafficked based on 
the revised definition are already established in current regulations 
at 7 CFR 273.16 and 7 CFR parts 278 and 279.

Dual Participation in SNAP/FDPIR Correction

    FDPIR provides commodity foods to low-income households, including 
the elderly, living on Indian reservations, and Native American 
families residing in designated areas near reservations and in the 
State of Oklahoma.
    Dual participation in both SNAP and FDPIR was already prohibited by 
regulation and statute prior to the 2008 Farm Bill. However, a 
technical correction is necessary in Sec.  281.1(c) to amend an 
incorrect regulatory reference. This proposed change will not impact 
current policy.

Comparable Disqualification From SNAP for Clients Disqualified From 
FDPIR

    Currently only FDPIR has regulations prohibiting individuals 
disqualified from SNAP for intentional program violations from then 
participating in FDPIR during the period of disqualification. As a 
result, individuals who were disqualified from the FDPIR are still able 
to then apply for SNAP and receive benefits during the FDPIR 
disqualification period. Section 4211 of the 2008 Farm Bill mandates 
that reciprocal disqualification apply to both SNAP and FDPIR. 
Therefore, States can no longer allow an individual who is disqualified 
from FDPIR to then participate in SNAP during the disqualification 
period.
    This proposed regulation will require reciprocal action in SNAP in 
instances of disqualification from FDPIR.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

Need for Action

    The proposed rule is needed to codify nondiscretionary Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit issuance provisions of the 
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 
110-246) and to address retailer Program violations.

Benefits

    This rulemaking will codify provisions in the Food and Nutrition 
Act of 2008 that improve Program integrity, enhance the Program's 
ability to serve those who are truly in need, and help to ensure that 
SNAP benefits are used as intended. While committed to providing vital 
nutrition assistance to our most vulnerable Americans, protecting 
taxpayer dollars and ensuring program integrity are equally important. 
Once final, these regulations will allow the Department to take 
appropriate action against retailers who are stealing SNAP benefits 
from clients or colluding with clients to traffic benefits, and will 
allow State agencies to take appropriate action against violating 
clients. The regulations will also ensure that clients who commit 
intentional program violations in FDPIR are not able to participate in 
SNAP while serving their FDPIR disqualification, and will ensure that 
no client is able to dually participate in SNAP and FDPIR.

Costs

    This proposed rule will primarily codify mandatory provisions of 
the statute. FNS anticipates that the rule will have a nominal cost 
impact on States that pursue clients who are defrauding the Program in 
the ways described. As FNS has an existing process for managing 
retailer compliance, the cost of pursuing retailers who violate Program 
rules in the manner described is also nominal. The problems being 
addressed in the proposed rule are extremely unusual and FNS has no 
data on which to base an estimate of their frequency or the amount of 
benefits that might be involved. The proposed rule also updates the 
existing definition of trafficking, and as such there are no 
incremental cost or benefit repercussions.
    State SNAP and FDPIR agencies will be required to perform checks 
for dual participation in their Programs and to

[[Page 35789]]

ensure that clients disqualified from either SNAP or FDPIR are not 
allowed to participate in the alternate Program. Cross-Program checks 
for duplicate participation in SNAP and FDPIR are already required and 
checks for ensuring that clients disqualified from SNAP or FDPIR are 
not participating in the alternate Program should follow a similar 
process; therefore the checks will not significantly impact 
administrative costs.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility.
    This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' 
although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). It has been certified 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Departmental Field, Regional, 
and Area Offices, retailers and other firms participating or applying 
to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, State 
agencies that distribute Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
benefits and State agencies that administer Food Distribution of Indian 
Reservations, are the entities affected by this change.

Public Law 104-4

    Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) Title II of UMRA 
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 Department 
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 Department 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. This rule is, therefore, not subject 
to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 12372

    SNAP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 
No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule codified in 7 
CFR part 3015, Subpart V and related Notice (48 FR 29115), this Program 
is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires 
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Federalism Summary Impact Statement

    Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the 
impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. 
Where such actions have Federalism implications, agencies are directed 
to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations 
describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories 
called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of the Executive Order 13132. FNS 
has determined that this rule does not have Federalism implications. 
This rule does not impose substantial or direct compliance costs on 
State and local governments. Therefore, under Section 6(b) of the 
Executive Order, a Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is intended to have preemptive 
effects 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 proposed rule is not intended to 
have retroactive effects unless so specified in the Effective Date 
paragraph of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the 
provisions of this proposed rule or the application of its provisions, 
all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.

Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and 
coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies 
that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative 
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or 
actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian 
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. In late 2010 and early 2011, 
USDA engaged in a series of consultative sessions to obtain input by 
Tribal officials or their designees concerning the impact of this rule 
on the Tribe or Indian Tribal governments, or whether this rule may 
preempt Tribal law. Reports from these sessions for consultation will 
be made part of the USDA annual reporting on Tribal Consultation and 
Collaboration. Each session was fully transcribed and the comments 
received relative to this proposed regulation follow:
    One commenter expressed general concern regarding the disparity in 
benefit value as a result of the increase in SNAP benefits following 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment and Act (ARRA); FDPIR benefits 
were not subject to an ARRA increase.
    One commenter noted that County level SNAP office staff should have 
been in attendance at this consultation; if county level staff is not 
aware of the prohibition relative to dual participation, then they will 
not abide by that prohibition. This was reiterated by a second 
commenter who noted that County level SNAP staff should be in the 
communication loop and receive training. FNS noted that a process of 
notifying all stakeholders would occur once this regulation is 
finalized. A third commenter made a procedural recommendation requiring 
that SNAP certification staff contact the Indian Tribal Organization 
(ITO) to ensure that applicant clients are not dually participating in 
FDPIR.
    One commenter expressed support for the reciprocal SNAP 
disqualification that would be based on an intentional program 
violation in FDPIR.
    One commenter noted that direct access to County level SNAP staff 
would be beneficial; currently the ITO calls the County level office 
and is subject to an automated message when checking dual 
participation.

[[Page 35790]]

    Several commenters noted that access to an automated system for 
checking dual participation and reciprocal disqualification is 
practically necessary to make the process work, and that the current 
process of checking paper printouts is not practical. FNS noted that 
some ITO's have successfully executed a Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) with the State SNAP agency or county SNAP offices that allow them 
view-only access to State certification systems for these kinds of 
checks. Some participating ITO's noted difficulties in getting such 
MOU's in place. FNS committed to assist ITO's with this process in 
Oklahoma, and more broadly, to seek examples of successfully executed 
MOU's and provide those to appropriate stakeholders.
    USDA will respond in a timely and meaningful manner to all Tribal 
government requests for consultation concerning this rule and will 
provide additional venues, such as webinars and teleconferences, to 
periodically host collaborative conversations with Tribal leaders and 
their representatives concerning ways to improve this rule in Indian 
country.
    We are unaware of any current Tribal laws that could be in conflict 
with the proposed rule. We request that commenters address any concerns 
in this regard in their responses.

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

    FNS has reviewed this rule in accordance with Departmental 
Regulations 4300-4, ``Civil Rights Impact Analysis'', and 1512-1, 
``Regulatory Decision Making Requirements.'' After a careful review of 
the rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined that this rule 
will not in any way limit or reduce the ability of protected classes of 
individuals to receive SNAP benefits on the basis of their race, color, 
national origin, sex, age, disability, religion or political belief nor 
will it have a differential impact on minority owned or operated 
business establishments, and women owned or operated business 
establishments that participate in SNAP.
    The regulation affects or may potentially affect the retail food 
stores and wholesale food concerns that participate in (accept or 
redeem) SNAP. The only retail food stores and wholesale food concerns 
that will be directly affected, however, are those firms that violate 
SNAP rules and regulations. FNS does not collect data from retail food 
stores or wholesale food concerns regarding any of the protected 
classes under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As long as a 
retail food store or wholesale food concern meets the eligibility 
criteria stipulated in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and SNAP 
regulations, they can participate in SNAP. Also, FNS specifically 
prohibits retailers and wholesalers that participate in SNAP to engage 
in actions that discriminate based on race, color, national origin, 
sex, age, disability, religion, or political belief. This rule will not 
change any requirements related to the eligibility or participation of 
protected classes or individuals, minority-owned or operated business 
establishments, or women-owned or operated business establishments in 
SNAP. As a result, this rule will have no differential impact on 
protected classes of individuals, minority-owned or operated business 
establishments, or women-owned or operated business establishments.
    Further, FNS specifically prohibits the State and local government 
agencies that administer the Program from engaging in actions that 
discriminate based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, 
disability, marital or family status. Regulations at 7 CFR 272.6 
specifically state that ``State agencies shall not discriminate against 
any applicant or participant in any aspect of program administration, 
including, but not limited to, the certification of households, the 
issuance of coupons, the conduct of fair hearings, or the conduct of 
any other program service for reasons of age, race, color, sex, 
handicap, religious creed, national origin, or political beliefs. 
Discrimination in any aspect of the program administration is 
prohibited by these regulations, according to the Act. * * * 
Enforcement may be brought under any applicable Federal law. Title VI 
complaints shall be processed in accord with 7 CFR part 15.'' Where 
State agencies have options, and they choose to implement a certain 
provision, they must implement it in such a way that it complies with 
the regulations at 7 CFR 272.6.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR 
1320) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve 
all collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be 
implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection 
of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. 
This rule does not contain information collection requirements subject 
to approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    This proposed rule will not affect the reporting and recordkeeping 
burden and does not contain additional burden requirements subject to 
OMB approval other than those that have been previously approved in 
OMB 0584-0064, expiration date 03/31/2013, by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

E-Government Act Compliance

    FNS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 to 
promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to 
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to government 
information and services, and for other purposes.

Lists of Subjects

7 CFR Part 271

    Food stamps, Grant programs--Social programs, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

7 CFR Part 273

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Claims, Employment, 
Food stamps, Fraud, Government employees, Grant programs--Social 
programs, Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Students, Supplemental Security Income, (SSI), wages.

7 CFR Part 281

    Administrative practice and procedure, Food stamps, Grant 
programs--Social programs, Indians.
    Accordingly, 7 CFR Parts 271, 273 and 281 are proposed to be 
amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR parts 271, 273 and 281 continue 
to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.

PART 271--GENERAL INFORMATION AND DEFINITIONS

    2. In part 271:
    a. Remove the words ``the Food Stamp Program'' or ``FSP'' wherever 
they appear and add, in their place, the word ``SNAP'';
    b. Remove the words ``food stamps'' wherever they appear and add, 
in their place, the words ``SNAP benefits'';
    c. Remove the words ``food stamp'' wherever they appear and add, in 
their place, the word ``SNAP'';
    3. In Sec.  271.2:
    a. Remove the words ``Food Stamp Act of 1977'' and add in their 
place the words ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008'' except in the 
definition ``Food Stamp Act'' wherever they appear;
    b. Remove the words ``Food Stamp Act'' add in their place, the 
words ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''

[[Page 35791]]

except in the definition ``Food Stamp Act'' wherever they appear;
    c. The definition of Trafficking is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  271.2.  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Trafficking means the buying, selling, stealing, or otherwise 
effecting an exchange of SNAP benefits issued and accessed via 
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, card numbers and personal 
identification numbers (PINs), or by manual voucher and signature, for 
cash or consideration other than eligible food, either directly, 
indirectly, in complicity or collusion with others, or acting alone; 
the exchange of firearms, ammunition, explosives, or controlled 
substances, as defined in section 802 of title 21, United States Code, 
for SNAP benefits; the purchase with SNAP benefits of products that 
have container deposits for purposes of subsequently discarding the 
product and returning the container(s) in exchange for cash refund 
deposits; the re-sale of products purchased with SNAP benefits for 
purposes of obtaining cash or consideration other than eligible food; 
or the purchase of products originally purchased with SNAP benefits and 
re-sold in exchange for cash or consideration other than eligible food.
* * * * *

PART 273--CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

    3. In Sec.  273.11:
    a. Remove the words ``food stamps'' wherever they appear and add, 
in their place, the words ``SNAP benefits'';
    b. Remove the words ``food stamp'' wherever they appear and add, in 
their place, the word ``SNAP'';
    c. Add two new sentences at the end of paragraph (k) introductory 
text.
    d. Add a new sentence to the end of paragraph (k)(6).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  273.11  Action on households with special circumstances.

* * * * *
    (k) * * * In the case of disqualification from the Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) for an intentional 
program violation as described under Sec.  253.8, the State agency 
shall impose the same disqualification on the member of the household 
under SNAP. The State agency must, in cooperation with the appropriate 
FDPIR agency, develop a procedure that ensures that these household 
members are identified.
* * * * *
    (6) * * * In instances where the disqualification is a reciprocal 
action based on disqualification from the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations, the length of disqualification shall mirror the 
period prescribed by the Food Distribution Program on Indian 
Reservations.
* * * * *

PART 281--ADMINISTRATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 
PROGRAM (SNAP) ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS

    4. Revise the heading of part 281 to read as set forth above
    5. In part 281:
    a. Remove the words ``the Food Stamp Program'' wherever they appear 
and add, in their place, the word ``SNAP'';
    b. Remove the words ``Food Stamp Act of 1977'' wherever they appear 
and add, in their place, the words ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008'';
    c. Remove the words ``1977 Food Stamp Act'' wherever they appear 
and add, in their place, the words ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008'';
    6. In Sec.  281.1 remove the regulatory reference ``Sec.  
283.7(e)'' and add, in its place, the regulatory reference ``Sec.  
253.7(e)''.

    Dated: May 26, 2011.
Janey Thornton,
Acting Under Secretary, Food Nutrition and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 2011-14982 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P