Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer (P-EBT) Integrity (rule, 85 FR 70043, November 4, 2020)
Summary
A final rule of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S Department of Agriculture, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer (P–EBT) Integrity" (RIN 0584–AE80), printed in the Federal Register of November 4, 2020. FNS says the regulations will ensure the integrity of the supplemental allotments created by Section 1101 of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The rule recounts that on March 13, 2020, President Trump declared the COVID–19 outbreak a national emergency and that many schools began closing in March 2020. It covers P–EBT for households with a child enrolled in a covered childcare facility that is closed or has reduced attendance or hours for at least five consecutive days during a public health emergency. The rule is effective on November 4, 2020.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer (P-EBT) Integrity (rule, 85 FR 70043, November 4, 2020).”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-pandemic-electronic-benefits-6206bdef14/
, SHA-256 aac9497f030f6cce436eaeeec0fb75b26303993625727a4efd626b304d97cff9.Full text
70043
Rules and Regulations Federal Register
Vol. 85, No. 214
Wednesday, November 4, 2020
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER would also safeguard the integrity of schools reduce the number of days or
contains regulatory documents having general SNAP, as P–EBT operates within the hours that students attend school for at
applicability and legal effect, most of which SNAP infrastructure. USDA FNS is least five consecutive days during a
are keyed to and codified in the Code of responsible for administering P–EBT public health emergency, (2) households
Federal Regulations, which is published under and SNAP at the Federal level. with at least one child enrolled in a
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is covered childcare facility and SNAP
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by effective on November 4, 2020. when the covered child care facility is
the Superintendent of Documents. Notice Date: Within 10 calendar days closed or has reduced attendance or
of November 4, 2020, SNAP authorized hours for at least five consecutive days
firms shall be notified of the contents of during a public health emergency, and
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE this final rule. (3) households with at least one child
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: enrolled in a covered childcare facility
Food and Nutrition Service and SNAP when one or more schools in
Andrea Gold, the SNAP Retailer Policy
and Management Division, USDA FNS the area of the covered child care
7 CFR Part 284 facility are closed or have reduced
at SM.FN.RPMDHQ-WEB@usda.gov;
[FNS–2020–0028] 703.305.2434. attendance or hours for at least five
consecutive days during a public health
RIN 0584–AE80 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
emergency.
Executive Summary The USDA’s Food and Nutrition
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Service (FNS or the Agency) works to
Program: Pandemic Electronic Background Information end hunger and obesity through the
Benefits Transfer (P–EBT) Integrity Establishment of P–EBT Federal administration of 15 Federal
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service On January 31, 2020, Secretary Azar nutrition assistance programs including
(FNS), Agriculture Department (USDA). of the U.S. Department Health and the National School Lunch Program
Human Services (HHS) declared a (NSLP), which provides free and
ACTION: Final rule.
public health emergency under section reduced price lunches to eligible
SUMMARY: The Food and Nutrition 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 children, and the Supplemental
Service (FNS or the Agency), an agency U.S.C. 247d), in response to the Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
of the U.S Department of Agriculture Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19). which provides nutrition benefits to
(USDA or the Department), is issuing a On March 13, 2020, President Trump supplement the food budgets of needy
final rule to add regulations that will declared the ongoing COVID–19 families so they can purchase healthy
ensure the integrity of the supplemental outbreak in the U.S. to be a national food and move towards self-sufficiency.
allotments created by Section 1101 of emergency. Due to COVID–19, many FNS was, therefore, charged by Congress
the Families First Coronavirus Response schools nationwide began closing in with the implementation of P–EBT at
Act (FFCRA), as amended by the March 2020. In order to provide some the Federal level. As of November 4,
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 financial relief to families, on March 18, 2020, 52 States 1 have been approved by
and Other Extensions Act (CR) for 2020, President Trump signed into law USDA to administer P–EBT.
households with children who would the Families First Coronavirus Response Collectively, these States have been
have otherwise received free or reduced Act (FFCRA; Pub. L. 116–127). Section approved to provide over 30.1 million
eligible children with about $10.1
price school meals under the Richard B. 1101 of the FFCRA, as originally
billion in food assistance benefits.
Russell National School Lunch Act, but enacted, authorized USDA to approve
Section 1101(d) of the FFCRA
for school closures or reduction in the State plans to provide federally funded provided States the option to deliver P–
number of days or hours that students food assistance to each household EBT benefits via the Electronic Benefit
attend school in response to the ongoing containing at least one child who would Transfer (EBT) system established for
and national Coronavirus Disease 2019 have received free or reduced price SNAP benefits by Section 7 of the Food
(COVID–19) Public Health Emergency. school meals, but for school closures and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA; 7
Such allotments are referred to as lasting at least five consecutive days U.S.C. 2016). All States, as defined by
Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer during a public health emergency
(P–EBT) benefits. The CR extended the declaration. The U.S. Department of 1 All 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S.
authority for P–EBT through Fiscal Year Agriculture (USDA or the Department) Virgin Islands, and Guam are referred to as ‘‘States’’
(FY) 2021, and also authorized P–EBT refers to these benefits created by for this rule, and all 53 States (as defined in section
for households with at least one child Section 1101 of the FFCRA as Pandemic 3(r) of the Food and Nutrition Act) were eligible to
administer P–EBT under section 1101 of FFCRA as
enrolled in a covered child care facility Electronic Benefits Transfer (P–EBT) originally enacted. Of those 53, only 52 have
(as defined by Section 1101(i)(1) of the benefits. The Continuing requested P–EBT. While the CR extended the option
FFCRA, as amended) and the Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other to receive P–EBT benefits to other State Agencies
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
supplemental nutrition assistance Extensions Act (CR; Pub. L. 116–159) not covered by the original FFCRA—Puerto Rico,
American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana
program (SNAP) when the covered child amended Section 1101 of the FFCRA to Islands—these territories manage retailer
care facility is closed or has reduced extend the authority for P–EBT through participation as a part of their block grants.
attendance or hours or one or more FY 2021 (which would cover portions of Retailers in these territories are not currently
subject to 7 CFR part 278 and would not be subject
schools in the area of the covered child School Years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022) to 7 CFR part 284. As such, for purposes of this
care facility are closed or have reduced and expanded P–EBT to include: (1) rule, they are not included in any reference to
attendance or hours. This final rule Households with children whose States or State Agencies.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 03, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1
70044 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
this rule, that have implemented P–EBT D Transfer of Ownership CMP (a firm Due to the experience administering
have opted to use the EBT system for is sold while serving a period of these SEBTC demonstration projects,
such delivery. disqualification and must pay a USDA determined that it would take
fine) several months to modify SNAP State
Routine Operation of SNAP Benefit D Trafficking CMP (a firm meeting Agency eligibility and issuance systems
Issuance and Redemption certain criteria may pay a fine in to accommodate this type of model for
SNAP benefits are issued and lieu of permanent disqualification P–EBT. In addition, due to the ongoing
redeemed using the EBT system. Each for trafficking) and national COVID–19 Public Health
SNAP household has an account into One of the most serious violations of Emergency, SNAP State Agencies found
which SNAP benefits are issued on a SNAP rules for firms is trafficking. themselves extremely short-staffed and
monthly basis. The SNAP benefits are SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 271.2 unable implement this type of major
accessed by a household using an EBT currently define the violation of system modification.
card and a personal identification trafficking. Trafficking usually means After consultation with SNAP State
number (PIN), and may only be used to the exchange of SNAP benefits for cash Agencies, and in light of the urgency of
purchase SNAP eligible food as defined or other consideration and carries more the ongoing and national COVID–19
in 7 CFR 271.2. serious sanctions for firms. The Public Health Emergency, USDA
In addition, SNAP benefits may only Department monitors and takes permitted States to issue SNAP and P–
be redeemed at firms 2 authorized by appropriate administrative action, EBT benefits using essentially the same
USDA to accept SNAP benefits. Per including sanctions, against firms that existing SNAP EBT mechanism every
Section 9 of the FNA (7 U.S.C. 2018) engage in trafficking and other State already had in place. As a result
and 7 CFR 278.1(a), firms must apply to violations. USDA cannot fulfill its of this, however, P–EBT and SNAP
and be authorized by the Department to primary purpose of helping individuals benefits are generally indistinguishable
accept SNAP benefits as a form of and families in need afford a basic diet throughout the issuance and redemption
payment. The Department is responsible without maintaining strong program process.
for policy and oversight related to firm integrity. USDA takes its role as a Under the process implemented by
eligibility, authorization, and steward of public funds seriously and States, P–EBT benefits were generally
compliance. USDA oversight includes emphasizes program integrity issued onto a household’s existing EBT
integrity efforts such as findings of throughout all program operations, card if the household was already
violations on the basis of evidence including the use of a fraud detection receiving SNAP benefits (and therefore
obtained through on-site investigations, system to analyze data on EBT already possessed an EBT card). Such
inconsistent SNAP redemption data, transactions conducted at firms. SNAP households would have received
and evidence obtained through a Implementation of P–EBT and P–EBT benefit issuances into their
transaction report under the EBT Interaction With SNAP existing SNAP accounts. Once P–EBT
system. Per 7 CFR 278.1, 278.6, and benefits were issued into households’
278.7, firms that violate SNAP rules Per Section 1101(d) of the FFCRA, P–
EBT benefits may be issued through the existing SNAP accounts, P–EBT benefits
may face the following: and SNAP benefits became comingled,
same EBT system established by Section
Adverse Administrative Actions 7 of the FNA (7 U.S.C. 2016) which is and neither SNAP households receiving
P–EBT benefits nor firms accepting P–
• Denial (a firm applying for SNAP used to issue SNAP benefits. To
EBT benefits were able to tell the
authorization is found ineligible accelerate the implementation of P–
EBT, ease administrative burden for difference between these two types of
and may not reapply for a specific benefits. In at least one State, new cards
period) States, and more rapidly provide
were sent to all P–EBT recipient
• Withdrawal (an authorized firm is emergency financial relief to families,
States generally issued P–EBT benefits households, regardless as to their
found ineligible, removed from the
onto a household’s existing EBT card if participation in SNAP.
program, and may not reapply for a
the household was already receiving Non-SNAP households that were
specific period)
• Penalties (imposed after an SNAP benefits (and therefore already eligible for P–EBT benefits generally
investigation revealed violations): possessed an EBT card). received EBT cards in the mail that were
➢ Warning Letter (the violations Initially, the Department planned to loaded with only P–EBT benefits. These
found at the firm do not rise to the implement P–EBT using a model similar cards issued to non-SNAP households
level of a sanction, so the firm is to that used for certain Child Nutrition functioned identically to the EBT cards
only warned) Summer EBT demonstration projects provided to SNAP households.
➢ Sanctions (the violations found at (Summer EBT for Children or SEBTC) as Despite using the same delivery and
the firm are serious, so the firm is authorized by the Agriculture, Rural funding mechanism, P–EBT benefits are
subject to a sanction): Development, Food and Drug not SNAP benefits. SNAP was
Æ Claim (the firm must repay illicitly Administration, and Related Agencies authorized and is governed by the FNA,
obtained benefits) Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111– while P–EBT was separately created and
Æ Disqualification (the firm may not 80). In this SEBTC model, benefits are is governed by the FFCRA with separate
participate in the program for a issued to a participant’s existing EBT appropriations for a different purpose—
specific period) card into an account distinct from to provide supplemental allotments to
Æ Civil Money Penalty (CMP; the firm SNAP, and the SEBTC benefits remain households with children who would
must pay a fine) separate from SNAP benefits throughout have otherwise received free or reduced
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
D Hardship CMP (a firm facing a term the issuance and redemption process. school meals, but for school closures
disqualification in a low food However, because this SEBTC model related to the ongoing and national
access area may pay a fine and was only ever implemented as a COVID–19 Public Health Emergency.
continue to participate in the demonstration project in 7 States, most See Section 1101 of the FFCRA.
program) States were not already equipped with Nevertheless, the aforementioned
the infrastructure needed to implement implementation mechanisms rendered
2 As defined at 7 CFR 271.2. P–EBT in the same manner. P–EBT and SNAP benefits essentially
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 03, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 70045
indistinguishable for benefit issuance that providing an integrity scheme for The purpose of P–EBT was to provide
and redemption purposes. P–EBT helps ensure that P–EBT benefits financial relief to families in the midst
are used for their intended purpose, of the ongoing national COVID–19
Purpose of the Final Rule
upholding the Congressional intent of Public Health Emergency. USDA
Because P–EBT and SNAP benefits both the FFCRA and the CR. prioritized expediting the
are essentially indistinguishable for The inability to impose penalties on implementation of P–EBT in States that
benefit issuance and redemption all firms for misuse of P–EBT benefits applied. However, while making
purposes when the benefits are loaded undermines USDA’s oversight and expeditious implementation possible,
onto the same EBT card, neither SNAP integrity efforts, and would also the co-mingling of SNAP and P–EBT
households receiving P–EBT benefits adversely affect SNAP oversight and benefits inadvertently introduced this
nor firms accepting P–EBT benefits are integrity. For example, in FY 2019, anomaly into FNS integrity efforts.
able to tell the difference between these USDA identified and sanctioned more If USDA did not promulgate this final
two types of benefits. At the same time, than one thousand firms engaged in the rule, then USDA would not be able to
the Department’s SNAP fraud detection trafficking of SNAP benefits.4 The efficiently and effectively address
system also cannot distinguish between overwhelming majority of these cases misuse by firms of P–EBT benefits or
these two types of benefits. were built, at least in part, using the SNAP benefits, and both P–EBT and
In addition, as discussed earlier, 7 Department’s SNAP fraud detection SNAP program integrity would be
CFR parts 271 and 278 provide for system’s transaction data. Since the adversely impacted. Assuming that P–
adverse administrative actions against Department’s SNAP fraud detection EBT benefits are trafficked at a rate
firms for SNAP violations, such as system cannot distinguish between similar to SNAP benefits, USDA
trafficking, but those regulations govern SNAP and P–EBT benefits in transaction estimates that $151 million in P–EBT
violations involving SNAP benefits, not data, USDA would be unable to use this benefits could be trafficked.7 Currently,
P–EBT benefits. Since P–EBT benefits vital data in program integrity work USDA estimates that about 3 percent of
are not SNAP benefits, existing without considerable time-consuming actual EBT fraud is detected through
regulations regarding the appropriate modifications and resources, or the investigations that utilize EBT
use of SNAP benefits and the promulgation of this final rule. transaction data. The limited ability to
consequences for misusing those Without this final rule, USDA’s ability use this data would potentially cause
benefits do not apply to P–EBT benefits, to hold violators accountable would be this fraud to go unchecked, which
and there are currently no such adversely impacted. To illustrate the would constitute a serious integrity
provisions for the misuse of P–EBT impact on USDA’s oversight efforts, a issue. Furthermore, because P–EBT
benefits. However, USDA finds it 2017 report regarding trafficking benefits may remain in a household’s
appropriate and necessary to impose activities from 2012 through 2014 account for months or even years before
certain restrictions on the use of P–EBT revealed that approximately 12 percent, being expunged, USDA must address
benefits for several reasons described or about 36,000 firms, engaged in these integrity problems; otherwise,
below. trafficking, totaling approximately $1.1 they could persist for months or even
Congress initially authorized P–EBT billion a year or about 1.5% of all years after the issuance of P–EBT
as food assistance for households with benefits redeemed. If USDA were unable benefits.8 This final rule is crucial in
children who lost free or reduced price to use EBT transaction data as is allowing USDA to address trafficking in
school meals and since then, as typically done for detecting trafficking a timely manner and ensuring P–EBT
mentioned previously, has greatly and sanctioning trafficking firms, then benefits, as well as SNAP benefits, are
expanded P–EBT’s scope. P–EBT as many as a thousand fewer firms used in a manner consistent with
benefits are not cash assistance, nor are engaging in trafficking would be Congressional intent.
they intended for misuse such as identified and sanctioned in a year.5 This final rule allows USDA to
trafficking. As a type of replacement for This would mean that such firms would immediately address the integrity
the value of meals at schools or covered be able to continue to commit trafficking issues, instead of prolonging them and
child care facilities,3 P–EBT is not violations without consequence, allowing for bad actors to discover the
intended for certain incongruous uses, resulting in as much as $31 million in anomaly and take advantage of it. If
including the purchase of nonfood items fraud a year that would remain USDA were to notify the public of these
such as alcohol and tobacco. To unchecked.6 integrity issues without implementing a
safeguard the integrity of P–EBT (as well comprehensive solution, then such a
as SNAP), this final rule will ensure that 4 Data drawn from USDA’s ‘‘Fiscal Year 2019 notice would subvert program integrity.
the Department can hold firms Year End Summary’’ (https://fns- By promulgating this final rule, USDA
accountable by aligning P–EBT with prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-
files/2019-SNAP-Retailer-Management-Year-End-
is ensuring that traditional mechanisms
certain existing SNAP integrity Summary.pdf). of ongoing and robust firm oversight
regulations. The Department believes 5 Data drawn from USDA’s ‘‘Fiscal Year 2019
Year End Summary’’ (https://fns- 7 Total P–EBT benefit issuance is about $10.1
3 As authorized by the originally enacted Section prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource- billion and the estimated 2012–2014 SNAP retailer
1101(b) of FFCRA and explained in Pandemic EBT files/2019-SNAP-Retailer-Management-Year-End- trafficking rate is 1.5% of benefits redeemed.
(P–EBT) Questions and Answers (April 15, 2020) Summary.pdf). 8 For administrative ease, most States chose to
(available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/ 6 The 2012–2014 retailer trafficking study issue P–EBT benefits such that these benefits would
default/files/resource-files/SNAP-COVID- estimated that about 36,000 retailers engage in only be expunged from beneficiaries’ SNAP
PEBTQA.pdf), the guidelines for P–EBT benefit trafficking totaling about $1.1 billion a year accounts after a continuous 365-day period of
amounts were based on the value of the rates for (reflecting about 1.5% of benefits redeemed). Using inactivity per SNAP standards at 7 CFR 274.2(h)(2)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
free school meals. All States that issued P–EBT an arithmetic mean, the average trafficking retailer as they were when P–EBT State Plans were
benefits after the original enactment of the FFCRA traffics about $31,000 in a year. USDA identified submitted. Every time a beneficiary accesses their
did so in amounts corresponding to the value of the and sanctioned about 1,000 firms for trafficking in benefits, this 365-day expungement clock is reset.
rates for free school meals. The CR subsequently FY 2019 using EBT transaction data analysis as an Some beneficiaries may choose to conserve their P–
amended Section 1101(i) of the FFCRA to define investigative tool. If this USDA work were EBT benefits, using them sparingly over a
‘‘free rate’’ separately for breakfast and lunch, based hampered, then these firms could continue protracted period. Therefore, although P–EBT is
on the rates of those free meals under Section 4 of trafficking activities at the same or a greater rate, currently authorized through September 30, 2020,
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 and the Richard B. resulting in as much as $31 million in trafficking P–EBT benefits could remain on EBT cards years
Russell National School Lunch Act, respectively. being unchecked. after that date.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 03, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1
70046 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
and enforcement are maintained to of the FFCRA, as amended by the benefits (e.g., trafficking only P–EBT
protect the integrity of both P–EBT and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 benefits or trafficking a combination of
SNAP and that the current lack of P– and Other Extensions Act (CR; Pub. L. P–EBT and SNAP benefits), then that
EBT integrity regulations is addressed 116–159) or any subsequent legislation, firm shall be subject to the appropriate
without further unnecessary and are subject to integrity regulations, as sanction (e.g., permanent
harmful delay. This will allow USDA to enumerated below. This change will disqualification or a civil money penalty
continue detecting and pursuing ensure that P–EBT (as well as SNAP) is in lieu of permanent disqualification).
administrative remedies to ensure there administered in a manner that Firms shall not be subject to multiple
is no increase in trafficking and other safeguards against fraud and abuse. This sanctions for a single investigation that
violations. final rule renames the previously involves both P–EBT and SNAP benefits
Importantly, given the urgency of the reserved part 284 as ‘‘Miscellaneous’’ (i.e., firms shall not be subject to one
issue, it is most efficient for P–EBT and creates § 284.1, titled ‘‘Pandemic sanction for misuse of P–EBT benefits
regulations to adopt the structure and Electronic Benefits Transfer (P–EBT),’’ and a separate sanction for misuse of
meaning of SNAP regulations instead of therein. SNAP benefits based on a single
crafting an entirely new regulatory The following crosswalk summarizes investigation).
scheme and implementing massive the provisions of this new § 284.1. The
system changes that would accompany left column lists the citation for each While this final rule promulgates
such a new regulatory scheme. Such final rule provision, the center column provisions for P–EBT benefits that
separate undertakings solely for P–EBT summarizes the effect of the provision, generally track the corresponding SNAP
are impractical and potentially and the right column indicates the benefit provisions, one exception is the
ineffective because of the time, cost, and preexisting SNAP integrity regulation to P–EBT benefits provision concerning
effort involved. which the final rule provision refers. In judicial review. As P–EBT benefits arise
For the reasons discussed, this final using phrases such as ‘‘involving P–EBT from FFCRA, as amended regulations at
rule establishes integrity regulations (as benefits’’, the Department means that § 284.1(g) will provide for judicial
enumerated in this final rule) for P–EBT the activity at issue involves P–EBT appeal rights pursuant the
benefits as detailed further below in the benefits as well as SNAP benefits, or Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
‘‘Summary of P–EBT Regulations’’ only P–EBT benefits. Under 7 CFR 702 through 706) as opposed to section
section. 278.6, a firm that commits serious 14 of the FNA. Currently, judicial
violations may be subject to a period of review requests for civil cases filed
Summary of P–EBT Regulations disqualification or a civil money pursuant to the Administrative
This final rule establishes that P–EBT penalty. Under this final rule, if a firm Procedure Act have a six-year statute of
benefits issued pursuant to Section 1101 commits violations involving P–EBT limitations. See 28 U.S.C. 2401(a).
Citation in this final rule Purpose of final rule provision Reference to preexisting regulation
7 CFR 284.1(a) ................ background on P–EBT and the function of this section ................................. n/a.
7 CFR 284.1(b)(1) ............ definition of trafficking applies to activities described in such definition in- 7 CFR 271.2.
volving P–EBT benefits.
7 CFR 284.1(b)(2) ............ definition of firm’s practice applies to activities described in such definition 7 CFR 271.2.
involving P–EBT benefits.
7 CFR 284.1(b)(3) ............ definition of involving P–EBT benefits or involve P–EBT benefits means ac- n/a.
tivities involving P–EBT benefits as well as SNAP benefits, or only P–
EBT benefits.
7 CFR 284.1(c) ................. requirements and restrictions on the participation of retail food stores and 7 CFR 278.2, 278.3, and 278.4.
wholesale food concerns and the redemption of coupons apply to activi-
ties involving P–EBT benefits, including the restriction that P–EBT bene-
fits may only be accepted by an authorized firm and only in exchange for
eligible food.
7 CFR 284.1(d) ................ a firm may be subject to denial or withdrawal for any violations involving P– 7 CFR 278.1.
EBT benefits as specified in the subparagraphs.
7 CFR 284.1(d)(1) ............ firms with certain sanctions for violations involving P–EBT benefits must 7 CFR 278.1(b)(4).
submit a collateral bond or irrevocable letter or credit as a condition of
authorization; the calculation of the value of such collateral bonds or ir-
revocable letters or credit shall also include the amount of P–EBT re-
demptions.
7 CFR 284.1(d)(2) ............ authorization will be denied or withdrawn for activities indicating a lack of 7 CFR 278.1(b)(3), (k)(3) and (6), and
necessary business integrity and reputation, including activities involving (l)(1)(iv).
P–EBT benefits.
7 CFR 284.1(d)(3) ............ authorization will be denied or withdrawn for failure to pay fines, penalties, 7 CFR 278.1(k)(7) and (l)(1)(v) and
and claims imposed for violations involving P–EBT benefits. (vi).
7 CFR 284.1(e) ................ a firm may be subject to disqualification, monetary penalties, and/or fines 7 CFR 278.6.
for any violations that include activities involving P–EBT benefits as spec-
ified in the subparagraphs.
7 CFR 284.1(e)(1) ............ permanent disqualification or civil monetary penalty in lieu of permanent 7 CFR 278.6(e)(1)(i) and (i).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
disqualification for trafficking applies to trafficking that involves P–EBT
benefits.
7 CFR 284.1(e)(2) ............ permanent disqualification for violations involving P–EBT benefits, such as 7 CFR 278.6(e)(1)(ii).
the sale of ineligible items, when the firm had already been sanctioned at
least twice.
7 CFR 284.1(e)(3) ............ sanctions for unauthorized acceptance apply to transactions involving P– 7 CFR 278.6(e)(2)(v), (e)(3)(iv), and
EBT benefits. (m).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 03, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 70047
Citation in this final rule Purpose of final rule provision Reference to preexisting regulation
7 CFR 284.1(e)(4) ............ 5-year disqualification for certain firms when collective redemptions exceed 7 CFR 278.6(e)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv).
food sales in a certain time period; the amount of redemptions shall also
include the amount of P–EBT redemptions.
7 CFR 284.1(e)(5) ............ 3-year disqualification for any of the violations described in § 278.6(e)(2) 7 CFR 278.6(e)(3)(ii).
when FNS had not previously advised the firm of the possibility that viola-
tions were occurring and of the possible consequences of violating the
regulations, when those violations involve P–EBT benefits.
7 CFR 284.1(e)(6) ............ 1-year disqualification for transactions involving P–EBT benefits where re- 7 CFR 278.6(e)(4)(ii) and 278.2(f).
tailer accepted benefits in payment for items sold on credit.
7 CFR 284.1(e)(7) ............ disqualifications for sale of ineligible foods applies to transactions involving 7 CFR 278.6(e)(2)(i), (e)(3)(i),
P–EBT benefits. (e)(4)(i), and (e)(5).
7 CFR 284.1(e)(8) ............ periods of disqualification imposed against firms will be doubled when such 7 CFR 278.6(e)(6).
firms have been sanctioned for committing violations involving P–EBT
benefits.
7 CFR 284.1(e)(9) ............ warning letters shall be issued to firms when such firms commit violations 7 CFR 278.6(e)(7).
involving P–EBT benefits, which are too limited to warrant a period of dis-
qualification.
7 CFR 284.1(e)(10) .......... calculation of hardship and transfer of ownership civil money penalties in- 7 CFR 278.6(g).
cludes consideration of the firm’s average monthly redemption of P–EBT
benefits.
7 CFR 284.1(e)(11) .......... calculation of trafficking civil money penalties includes consideration of the 7 CFR 278.6(j).
firm’s average monthly redemption of P–EBT benefits.
7 CFR 284.1(f) ................. standards regarding the determination and disposition of claims apply to 7 CFR 278.7.
claims based on P–EBT benefits.
7 CFR 284.1(g) ................ firms aggrieved by administrative action under § 284.1(d), (e), and (f) may 7 CFR part 279.
request administrative review in accordance with part 279, subpart A.
Firms aggrieved by the determination of such an administrative review
may seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 702 through 706.
Procedural Matters Executive Order 12866 and Executive that is likely to: (1) Have an annual
Order 13563 effect on the economy of $100 million
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 or more or adversely affect, in a material
Statement
direct agencies to assess all costs and way, the economy, a sector of the
The Administrative Procedure Act of economy, productivity, competition,
1946, as amended (APA; 5 U.S.C. 553), benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is jobs, the environment, public health or
generally requires that agencies go safety, or State, local, or Tribal
through notice-and-comment necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits governments or communities; (2) create
rulemaking before finalizing regulations a serious inconsistency or otherwise
and have a 30-day delayed effective date (including potential economic,
interfere with an action taken or
for final rules. The APA, however, environmental, public health, and safety
planned by another agency; (3)
allows for exemptions to these effects, distributive impacts, and
materially alter the budgetary impact of
requirements. This final rule is being equity). Executive Order 13563
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
promulgated under one of these emphasizes the importance of
programs or the rights and obligations of
exemptions, as described below. quantifying both cost and benefits, of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
reducing cost, of harmonizing rules, and
APA Exemption for Rules Pertaining to legal or policy issues arising out of legal
of promoting flexibility.
Benefits mandates, the President’s priorities, or
The Office of Management and Budget
the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
The APA provides that the notice- (OMB) has reviewed this final rule and
This final rule does not meet any of
and-comment and 30-day delay in the determined that it is not significant
these criteria.
effective date provisions do not apply under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. The Department does not anticipate
when a rule concerns ‘‘a matter relating 12866). E.O. 12866 defines a that this final rule will impose any
to agency management or personnel or ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one additional costs on firms, beneficiary
to public property, loans, grants, households, SNAP State Agencies, or
benefits, or contracts.’’ 5 U.S.C. comply with the APA requirements when
promulgating SNAP regulations under the FNA,
any other stakeholders. USDA estimates
553(a)(2). P–EBT is a food assistance that failure to promulgate and
this final rule is promulgated under the FFCRA, not
benefit created by the FFCRA and, the FNA. Therefore, this final rule regarding P–EBT implement this final rule would
therefore, USDA has the authority under benefits is exempt from the APA notice-and- significantly hamper the agency’s ability
FFCRA to issue a final rule pertaining comment and 30-day delay in the effective date
to enforce regulation and law in
to P–EBT without notice-and-comment provisions under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Furthermore,
while notice-and-comment rulemaking remains an maintaining SNAP integrity. USDA
or a delayed effective date.9 option for matters involving benefits, USDA is considered the regulatory alternatives of
choosing to promulgate a final rule for P–EBT taking no action or promulgating this
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
9 Previously, USDA utilized APA notice-and- benefits under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)
comment rulemaking procedures regardless of the because the additional time to undergo notice-and-
final rule instead as a notice of proposed
APA exemption for benefits, pursuant to the comment would further undermine integrity. Firms rulemaking, but these approaches were
‘‘Public Participation in Rule Marking: Statement of are already subject to certain requirements rejected for the reasons provided in the
Policy’’ (Statement of Policy), published on July 24, regarding the redemption of SNAP benefits on EBT preamble. As this rule was designated
1971 (36 FR 13804). However, this Statement of cards; therefore, carrying over those requirements to
Policy was rescinded in 2013. 78 FR 64194 (Oct. 28, P–EBT benefits that are often comingled with SNAP
not significant, no additional regulatory
2013). Additionally, while Section 4(c) of the FNA benefits on the same EBT cards does not warrant impact analysis has been performed for
(7 U.S.C. 2013(c)) generally requires USDA FNS to departure from 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). this rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 03, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1
70048 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
Reform The Department has considered the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) impact of this final rule on Indian
generally requires that agencies must This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988 (E.O. Tribes and has determined that this rule
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis does not have Tribal implications.
that meets the requirements of the RFA 12988), Civil Justice Reform. This rule is
intended to have preemptive effect with Although Tribal consultation and
and publish such an analysis in the coordination is not required under E.O.
respect to any State or local laws,
Federal Register. Specifically, the RFA 13175, USDA commits to review of this
regulations, or policies which conflict
normally requires agencies to describe rule at the Department’s next scheduled
with its provisions or which would
the impact of a rulemaking on small Tribal listening session in case
otherwise impede its full and timely
entities by providing a regulatory unexpected Tribal government issues or
implementation. This final rule is not
impact analysis. Such an analysis must concerns emerge during
intended to have retroactive effect. Prior
address the consideration of regulatory implementation.
to any judicial challenge to the
options that would lessen the economic
provisions of the final rule, all Paperwork Reduction Act
effect of the rule on small entities. The
applicable administrative procedures
RFA defines a ‘‘small entity’’ as (1) a The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
must be exhausted.
proprietary firm meeting the size (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR part 1320)
standards of the Small Business Executive Order 12372, requires the Office of Management and
Administration (SBA); (2) a nonprofit Intergovernmental Review Budget (OMB) approve collections of
organization that is not dominant in its Executive Order 12372 (E.O. 12372) information by a Federal agency before
field; or (3) a small government requires intergovernmental consultation they can be implemented.
jurisdiction with a population of less with State and local governments that In accordance with 44 U.S.C.
than 50,000. Except for such small would provide non-Federal funds for, or 3518(c)(1)(B)(ii), any information
government jurisdictions, neither State that would be directly affected by, requests or requirements in this rule are
nor local governments are ‘‘small proposed Federal financial assistance or not subject to the requirements of the
entities.’’ Similarly, for purposes of the direct Federal development. This is a Paperwork Reduction Act because such
RFA, individual persons are not small final rule regarding benefits fully collections of information are pursuant
entities. The requirement to conduct a funded by the Federal Government and to an administrative action or
regulatory impact analysis does not is therefore excluded from the scope of investigation by an agency of the United
apply if the agency ‘‘certifies that the E.O. 12372. States against specific individuals or
rule will not, if promulgated, have a entities. The Secretary hereby certifies
significant economic impact on a Executive Order 13132, Federalism that this rule does not impose reporting
substantial number of small entities.’’ Executive Order 13132 (E.O. 13132) or recordkeeping requirements subject
The Department hereby certifies that requires Federal agencies to consider to the approval by the Office of
this final rule will not have a significant the impact of their regulatory actions on Management and Budget under the
economic impact on a substantial State and local governments. Where requirements of the Paperwork
number of small entities. such actions have federalism Reduction Act.
implications, imposes substantial direct
Congressional Review Act compliance costs on State and local E-Government Act Compliance
Pursuant to the Congressional Review government, and are not required by USDA is committed to the E-
Act (CRA; Pub. L. 104–121), OMB has statute, agencies are directed to provide Government Act, which requires
designated this action as not a major a statement for inclusion in the Government agencies in general to
rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The preamble to the regulations describing provide the public the option of
CRA defines a ‘‘major rule’’ as any rule the agency’s considerations in terms of submitting information or transacting
that has resulted in or is likely to result the three categories called for under business electronically to the maximum
in: an annual effect on the economy of Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of E.O. 13132. extent possible. An electronic copy of
The Department has considered the this final rule will be made available
$100,000,000 or more; a major increase
impact of this final rule on State and through the agency’s website.
in costs or prices for consumers,
local governments and has determined
individual industries, Federal, State, or Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
that this rule does not have federalism
local government agencies, or This final rule contains no Federal
implications. Therefore, a federalism
geographic regions; or, significant impact summary is not required. mandates (under the regulatory
adverse effects on competition, provision of title II of the Unfunded
employment, investment, productivity, Executive Order 13175, Consultation
Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State,
innovation, or on the ability of U.S.- and Coordination With Indian Tribal
local, and Tribal governments or the
based enterprises to compete with Governments
private sector. Therefore, this final rule
foreign-based enterprises in domestic Executive Order 13175 (E.O. 13175) is not subject to the requirements of
and export markets. requires Federal agencies to consult and section 202 and 205 of the Unfunded
Executive Order 13771 coordinate With Tribes on a Mandates Reform Act.
government-to-government basis on
Executive Order 13771 directs policies that have Tribal implications, Civil Rights Impact Analysis
agencies to reduce regulation and including regulations, legislative USDA FNS has reviewed this final
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
control regulatory costs and provides comments or proposed legislation, and rule in accordance with USDA
that the cost of planned regulations be other policy statements or actions that Regulation 4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact
prudently managed and controlled have substantial direct effects on one or Analysis,’’ to identify any major civil
through a budgeting process. This rule more Indian Tribes, on the relationship rights impacts this final rule might have
is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action between the Federal Government and on SNAP or P–EBT participants on the
because it is not significant under E.O. Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of basis of age, race, color, national origin,
12866. power and responsibilities between the sex or disability. After review and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 03, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 70049
analysis of the final rule and available ■ For the reasons set out in the benefit redemptions when calculating
data, it has been determined that this preamble, 7 CFR part 284 is added to the average monthly benefit redemption
final rule will neither adversely nor read as follows: volume.
disproportionately impact any protected (2) Authorization shall be denied or
group. As this final rule has not been PART 284—MISCELLANEOUS withdrawn based on a determination by
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory Sec. the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
action,’’ a separate Civil Rights Impact 284.1 Pandemic Electronic Benefits that a firm lacks or fails to maintain
Analysis (CRIA) is not required per Transfer (P–EBT). necessary business integrity and
Section 7(a) of USDA Regulation 4300– 284.2 [Reserved] reputation, in accordance with the
4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact Analysis.’’ Authority: Pub. L. 116–127, 134 Stat. 178. standards and time periods described at
USDA Non-Discrimination Policy § 278.1(b)(3), (k)(3), and (l)(1)(iv) of this
§ 284.1 Pandemic Electronic Benefits chapter. When making such
In accordance with Federal civil Transfer (P–EBT). determinations, FNS shall consider the
rights law and USDA civil rights (a) Overview. Section 1101 of the criteria referred to in § 278.1(b)(3),
regulations and policies, the USDA, its Families First Coronavirus Response (k)(3), and (l)(1)(iv) where the
Agencies, offices, and employees, and Act (FFCRA; Pub. L. 116–127), as underlying activities involve P–EBT
institutions participating in or amended, authorized supplemental benefits.
administering USDA programs are allotments to certain households. These (3) Firm authorization shall be denied
prohibited from discriminating based on benefits shall be referred to as Pandemic or withdrawn for failure to pay any
race, color, national origin, religion, sex, Electronic Benefits Transfer (P–EBT) claims, fines, or civil money penalties in
gender identity (including gender benefits throughout this section. This the manner described at § 278.1(k)(7)
expression), sexual orientation, section establishes the retailer integrity and (l)(1)(v) and (vi) of this chapter
disability, age, marital status, family/ regulations for P–EBT for retailers in where such sanctions were imposed for
parental status, income derived from a any State as defined in Section 3(r) of violations involving P–EBT benefits.
public assistance program, political the Food and Nutrition Act. (e) Penalties. For firms that commit
beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior (b) Definitions. For this section: certain violations described at §§ 278.6
civil rights activity, in any program or (1) Trafficking means the activities
and 278.2 of this chapter where such
activity conducted or funded by USDA described in the definition of trafficking
violations involve P–EBT benefits, FNS
(not all bases apply to all programs). at § 271.2 of this chapter when such
shall take the corresponding action
Remedies and complaint filing activities involve P–EBT benefits.
(2) Firm’s practice means the prescribed at § 278.6 or § 278.2 for that
deadlines vary by program or incident. violation. For the purposes of assigning
Persons with disabilities who require activities described in the definition of
firm’s practice at § 271.2 of this chapter a period of disqualification, a warning
alternative means of communication for
when such activities involve P–EBT letter shall not be considered to be a
program information (e.g., Braille, large
benefits. sanction. Specifically, FNS shall:
print, audiotape, American Sign
Language) should contact the (3) Involving P–EBT benefits or (1) Disqualify a firm permanently, as
responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET involve P–EBT benefits means activities described at § 278.6(e)(1)(i) of this
Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and involving P–EBT benefits as well as chapter, for trafficking, as defined at
TTY) or contact USDA through the supplemental nutrition assistance § 284.1(b)(1) of this chapter, or impose
Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. program (SNAP) benefits, or only P–EBT a civil money penalty in lieu of
Additionally, program information may benefits. permanent disqualification, as described
be made available in languages other (c) Participation of retail food stores at § 278.6(i) of this chapter, where such
than English. and wholesale food concerns, and compliance policy and program is
To file a program discrimination redemption of P–EBT benefits. designed to prevent violations of
complaint, complete the USDA Program Requirements and restrictions on the regulations of this section;
Discrimination Complaint Form, AD– participation of retail food stores and (2) Disqualify a firm permanently, as
3027, found online at http:// wholesale food concerns and the described at § 278.6(e)(1)(ii) of this
www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_ redemption of coupons described at chapter, for any violation involving P–
cust.html and at any USDA office or §§ 278.2, 278.3 and 278.4 of this EBT benefits committed by a firm that
write a letter addressed to USDA and chapter, including the acceptance of had already been sanctioned at least
provide in the letter all of the coupons for eligible food at authorized twice before under this section or part
information requested in the form. To firms, also apply to activities involving 278 of this chapter;
request a copy of the complaint form, P–EBT benefits. (3) Disqualify the firm for 5 years, as
call (866) 632–9992. Submit your (d) Firm eligibility standards. A firm described at § 278.6(e)(2)(v) of this
completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) may be subject to the following actions chapter, or for 3 years, as described at
Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, described at § 278.1 of this chapter for § 278.6(e)(3)(iv) of this chapter, for
Office of the Assistant Secretary for noncompliance or violations involving unauthorized acceptance violations
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence P–EBT benefits: involving P–EBT benefits, and impose
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250– (1) The requirements described at fines, as described at § 278.6(m) of this
9410; (2) fax: (202) 690–7442; or (3) § 278.1(b)(4) of this chapter regarding a chapter, for unauthorized acceptance
email: program.intake@usda.gov. collateral bond or irrevocable letter of violations involving P–EBT benefits;
USDA is an equal opportunity credit for applicant firms with certain (4) Disqualify the firm for 5 years in
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
provider, employer, and lender. sanctions apply to applicant firms with circumstances described at § 278.6(e)(2)
sanctions imposed for violations of this chapter when the amount of
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 284 involving P–EBT benefits. The amount redemptions, which shall also include
Administrative practice and of the collateral bond or irrevocable the amount of P–EBT redemptions,
procedure, Food stamps, Grant letter of credit shall be calculated in exceed food sales for the same period of
programs-social programs, Pandemic, accordance with § 278.1(b)(4)(i)(D) and time, as described at § 278.6(e)(2)(ii),
Penalties. shall also include the amount of P–EBT (iii), and (iv);
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 03, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1
70050 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(5) Disqualify the firm for 3 years as § 284.2 [Reserved] II. Section-by-Section Analysis
described at § 278.6(e)(3)(ii) of this § 125.15 May an SDVO SBC have
Pamilyn Miller,
chapter for situations described at affiliates?
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
§ 278.6(e)(2) of this chapter involving P–
EBT benefits;
[FR Doc. 2020–24303 Filed 11–3–20; 8:45 am] Section 125.15 provides that an SDVO
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P SBC may have affiliates. This rule is
(6) Disqualify the firm for 1 year for redundant because whether an SDVO
credit account violations as described at SBC can have an affiliate is addressed
§§ 278.6(e)(4)(ii) and 278.2(f) of this in 13 CFR 121.103, the general rules of
chapter, where such violations involve SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION affiliation.
P–EBT benefits;
13 CFR Part 125 § 125.16 May 8(a) program
(7) Disqualify the firm for ineligibles participants, HUBZone SBCs, small and
violations for such circumstances and disadvantaged businesses, or women-
corresponding time periods as described RIN 3245–AH14
owned small businesses qualify as
at § 278.6(e)(2)(i), (e)(3)(i), (e)(4)(i), and Regulatory Reform Initiative: SDVO SBCs?
(e)(5) of this chapter, where such Government Contracting Programs Section 125.16 states that an SDVO
violations involve P–EBT benefits; SBC may qualify for other SBA
(8) Double the appropriate period of AGENCY: U.S. Small Business contracting programs. This regulation is
disqualification for a violation, as Administration. unnecessary because the requirements
described at § 278.6(e)(6) of this chapter, ACTION: Final rule. for an SDVO SBC to qualify for other
where such violation involves P–EBT programs are addressed in the rules on
benefits, when the firm has once before SUMMARY: With this deregulatory action, eligibility for those specific programs.
been assigned a sanction under this the U.S. Small Business Administration
§ 125.19 Does SDVO SBC status
section or part 278 of this chapter; (SBA) is removing from the Code of
guarantee receipt of a contract?
(9) Issue a warning letter to the Federal Regulations (CFR) four
regulations in the Service-Disabled Section 125.19 states that an SDVO
violative firm when violations are too SBC is not guaranteed receipt of a
Veteran-Owned (SDVO) Small Business
limited to warrant a period of contract. This provision is unnecessary
Concern (SBC) Program that are no
disqualification, as described at longer necessary because they are because nothing in SBA’s regulations
§ 278.6(e)(7) of this chapter, where such unnecessary or redundant. The removal indicates that qualifying as an SDVO
violations involve P–EBT benefits; of these regulations assists the public by SBC entitles a firm to a contract.
(10) Impose a civil money penalty for simplifying SBA’s regulations in the § 125.20 Who decides if a contract
hardship or transfer of ownership, as CFR. opportunity for SDVO competition
described at § 278.6(g) of this chapter, in exists?
DATES: This rule is effective December 4,
amounts calculated using the described
2020. Section 125.20 is redundant because
formula at § 278.6(g), which shall also
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 13 CFR 125.22 and 125.23 already
include the relevant amount of P–EBT provide that contracting officers make
redemptions when calculating the Khem Sharma, Chief, Office of Size
Standards, (202) 205–7189 or SDVO SBC competition decisions.
average monthly benefit redemptions;
and khem.sharma@sba.gov. III. Compliance With Executive Orders
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 12866, 13771, 12988, and 13132, the
(11) Impose a civil money penalty in
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.,
lieu of permanent disqualification for I. Background Information Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility
trafficking as described at § 278.6(j) of Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612)
this chapter in an amount calculated On February 4, 2020, SBA published
using the described formula at § 278.6(j), a proposed rule with request for A. Executive Order 12866
which shall also include the relevant comments in the Federal Register to
The Office of Management and Budget
amount of P–EBT redemptions when remove four regulations from the SDVO
(OMB) has determined that this rule
SBC program. 85 FR 6106. This program
calculating the average monthly benefit does not constitute a significant
allows agencies to set aside contracts for
redemptions. regulatory action for purposes of
SDVO SBCs. Under this program,
(f) Claims. The standards for Executive Order 12866 and is not a
Federal Agencies may also award sole
determination and disposition of claims major rule under the Congressional
source contracts to SDVO SBCs so long
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.
described at § 278.7 of this chapter as the award can be made at a fair and
apply to P–EBT benefits. reasonable price and the anticipated B. Executive Order 13771
(g) Administrative and Judicial total value of the contract, including any This rule is expected to be an
review. Firms aggrieved by options, is below $4 million ($6.5 Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
administrative action under paragraphs million for manufacturing contracts). action with an annualized net savings of
(d), (e), and (f) of this section may For purposes of this program, veterans $33,669 and a net present value of
request administrative review of the and service-related disabilities are $480,986, both in 2016 dollars.
defined as they are under the statutes The four regulations in the SDVO
administrative action with FNS in
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
governing veterans’ affairs, 38 U.S.C. program are either unnecessary or
accordance with part 279, subpart A, of
101. redundant. Their removal will assist the
this chapter. Firms aggrieved by the
determination of such an administrative SBA received no comments to the public by simplifying the SBA’s
proposed rule. As such, SBA is regulations in the CFR and reduce the
review may seek judicial review of the
finalizing the rule by removing four time spent reviewing them. The cost
determination under 5 U.S.C. 702
regulations that are unnecessary or saving calculation assumes 2 percent of
through 706.
covered elsewhere in the CFR. the 21,750 SDVO small businesses per
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 03, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM 04NOR1
File and source
- File
- FR-2020-11-04_2020-24303.pdf
- Size
- 294,771 bytes
- SHA-256
- aac9497f030f6cce436eaeeec0fb75b26303993625727a4efd626b304d97cff9
- Our copy
- FR-2020-11-04_2020-24303.pdf
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov