This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

18861 

Vol. 76, No. 66 

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

7 CFR Part 253 

[FNS–2009–0006] 

RIN 0584–AD95 

Food Distribution Program on Indian 

Reservations: Amendments Related to 

the Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends Food 

Distribution Program on Indian 

Reservations (FDPIR) regulations to 

conform FDPIR policy to the 

requirements included in the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(the Farm Bill) for the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 

The provisions of this rulemaking are 

intended to improve program service to 

applicants and participants and promote 

consistency in the eligibility 

determination processes of FDPIR and 

SNAP. Specifically, this rule 

permanently excludes combat pay from 

being considered as income and 

eliminates the maximum dollar limit of 

the dependent care deduction. The rule 

also excludes from resource 

consideration household funds held in 

qualified education savings accounts 

identified in the Farm Bill and excludes 

any other education savings accounts 

for which an exclusion is allowed under 

SNAP. This rule also clarifies that the 

current resource exclusion for 

retirement accounts is restricted to the 

qualified retirement accounts identified 

in the Farm Bill, and that a resource 

exclusion will be allowed for any other 

retirement account for which an 

exclusion is allowed under SNAP. 

Finally, the rule clarifies that the FDPIR 

regulations regarding income eligibility 

refer to the SNAP net monthly income 

standard, not the SNAP gross monthly 

income standard. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective May 6, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Castro, Chief, Policy Branch, Food 

Distribution Division, Food and 

Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 

Drive, Room 506, Alexandria, Virginia 

22302, or by telephone (703) 305–2662. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Procedural Matters 

A. Executive Order 12866 

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 nonsignificant under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final 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 

action will not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. While Indian Tribal 

Organizations (ITOs) and State Agencies 

that administer FDPIR will be affected 

by this rulemaking, the economic effect 

will not be significant. 

C. Public Law 104–4 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 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, 

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 FNS to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, more costeffective 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. 

D. Executive Order 12372 

The program addressed in this action 

is listed in the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance under 10.567. For 

the reasons set forth in the final rule in 

7 CFR part 3015, subpart V and related 

Notice (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the 

donation of foods in such programs is 

included in the scope of Executive 

Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. 

E. Executive Order 13132 

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 Executive Order 13132. 

1. Prior Consultation With State 

Officials 

The programs affected by the 

regulatory proposals in this rule are all 

Tribal or State-administered, Federallyfunded programs. The FNS National 

Office and Regional Offices have formal 

and informal discussions with State 

officials on an ongoing basis regarding 

program issues relating to the 

distribution of donated foods. FNS 

meets annually with the National 

Association of Food Distribution 

Programs on Indian Reservations 

(NAFDPIR), a national group of Tribal 

and State agencies, to discuss issues 

relating to FDPIR. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
18862 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Nature of Concerns and the Need To 

Issue This Rule 

This rule is intended to provide 

consistency between FDPIR and SNAP. 

The rule was prompted by provisions 

contained in the Farm Bill, enacted on 

June 18, 2008. Section 4101 of the Farm 

Bill permanently excludes combat pay 

(i.e., additional pay earned because of 

deployment to or service in a combat 

zone) from income when determining 

eligibility for SNAP. Section 4103 

removes the maximum limit on the 

dependent care deduction and Section 

4104 excludes from resources any 

household funds held in qualified 

tuition program or retirement accounts 

when determining eligibility for SNAP. 

3. Extent to Which We Meet Those 

Concerns 

FNS has considered the impact of this 

rule on ITOs and State agencies that 

participate in FDPIR. The overall effect 

is to improve the administration of 

FDPIR by simplifying and streamlining 

the eligibility determination process and 

improve program service to low-income 

applicants and participants. 

F. Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This final 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 final rule will not 

have retroactive effect. Prior to any 

judicial challenge to the provisions of 

this rule or the application of its 

provisions, all applicable administrative 

procedures must be exhausted. 

G. Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

FNS has reviewed this rule in 

accordance with the Department 

Regulation 4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact 

Analysis,’’ to identify and address any 

major civil rights impacts the rule might 

have on minorities, women, and persons 

with disabilities. 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 

participants to receive the benefits of 

donated foods in food distribution 

programs on the basis of an individual’s 

or group’s race, color, national origin, 

sex, age, or disability. FNS found no 

factors that will negatively and 

disproportionately affect any group of 

individuals. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; see 5 CFR part 

1320) requires that OMB approve all 

collections of information by a Federal 

agency from the public before they can 

be implemented. Information 

collections related to the provisions in 

this final rule were previously approved 

under OMB No. 0584–0293. 

This rule will affect the reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for ITOs and 

State agencies under OMB No. 0584– 

0293 due to an expected change in 

number of households participating in 

FDPIR because of this rule. 

Documentation supporting the 

eligibility of all participating 

households must be maintained by the 

ITOs and State agencies. 

The approved information collection 

estimates under OMB No. 0584–0293 

are as follows: 

Estimated total annual burden: 

1,079,172.41. 

Estimated annual recordkeeping 

burden: 746,400.42. 

Estimated annual reporting burden: 

332,771.98. 

Changes resulting from this proposed 

rule will result in the following changes 

to OMB No. 0584–0293: 

Estimated total annual burden: 

1,079,172.92. 

Estimated annual recordkeeping 

burden: 746,400.42. 

Estimated annual reporting burden: 

332,772.49. 

These information collection 

requirements will not become effective 

until approved by OMB. Once they have 

been approved, FNS will publish a 

separate action in the Federal Register 

announcing OMB’s approval. 

I. E-Government Act Compliance 

FNS is committed to compliance 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. 

J. Executive Order 13175 

E.O. 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 affect of this and other rules on 

tribes or Indian Tribal governments, or 

whether this rule may preempt Tribal 

law. In regard to this rule, no adverse 

comments were offered at those 

sessions. Further, the policies contained 

in this rule would not have Tribal 

implications that preempt Tribal law. 

Reports from the consultative sessions 

will be made part of the USDA annual 

reporting on Tribal Consultation and 

Collaboration. USDA will offer future 

opportunities, such as Webinars and 

teleconferences, for collaborative 

conversations with Tribal leaders and 

their representatives concerning ways to 

improve rules with regard to their affect 

on Indian country. 

II. Background and Discussion of the 

Proposed Rule 

On April 27, 2010, FNS published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(75 FR 22027) to amend the regulations 

for FDPIR at 7 CFR part 253. The rule 

contained proposed amendments to 7 

CFR 253.6 to align FDPIR with the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) relative to the 

requirements set forth in the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(Farm Bill). The proposed changes were 

intended to improve program service by: 

(1) Permanently excluding combat pay 

from income when determining 

eligibility for FDPIR (Section 4101 of the 

Farm Bill); (2) eliminating the maximum 

limit to the dependent care deduction 

(Section 4103 of the Farm Bill); (3) 

excluding household funds held in 

education savings accounts specified in 

Section 4104 of the Farm Bill and any 

other education accounts for which a 

resource exclusion is provided under 

the SNAP; (4) clarifying that the current 

FDPIR resource exclusion for retirement 

accounts is limited to qualified 

retirement accounts specified in Section 

4104 of the Farm Bill and any other 

retirement accounts for which a 

resource exclusion is provided under 

SNAP; and (5) clarifying that the FDPIR 

regulations regarding income eligibility 

are referring to the SNAP net monthly 

income standard, rather than the SNAP 

gross monthly income standard. A full 

discussion of the proposed changes is 

contained in the April 27, 2010, 

proposed rulemaking. 

Comments were solicited through 

June 28, 2010, on the provisions of the 

proposed rulemaking. FNS received 235 

comment letters on the proposed 

regulatory changes, not counting four 

duplicate comment letters received from 

the same commenters. All of the 

comment letters are available for review 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Enter 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18863 

‘‘FNS–2009–0017’’ in the box under 

‘‘Search Documents’’ and click on ‘‘Go’’ 

to view the comments received. One of 

the comment letters was received after 

the comment period expired, but we are 

considering this comment letter 

nonetheless. 

Three of the comment letters were 

submitted by elected Tribal officials of 

ITOs that administer FDPIR. Two 

comment letters were from Tribal/State 

FDPIR administrators, and one comment 

letter was from a Tribal health provider. 

Five comment letters were submitted by 

national non-profit/advocacy 

organizations, and five comment letters 

were from state non-profit/advocacy 

organizations. One letter was submitted 

by a private company, and 218 letters 

were submitted by private citizens. 

Four comment letters addressed the 

provisions of the proposed rule. All four 

commenters expressed agreement with 

the provisions of the proposed rule. One 

commenter stated: ‘‘Aligning FDPIR 

eligibility requirements and income 

exclusions to be consistent with those 

allowed by the SNAP (Food Stamps) 

will allow a greater number of Tribal 

people to receive benefits through our 

program, particularly elders and 

disabled individuals living on fixed 

incomes * * *.’’ That commenter also 

stated: ‘‘It is the Tribe’s opinion that this 

regulatory change is equitable and 

corrects the former disparity in 

eligibility requirements to receive 

benefits for our most needy community 

members * * *.’’ 

The comment letters also addressed 

issues beyond the scope of the proposed 

rulemaking. Below is a summary of 

these other issues and the number of 

commenters that addressed each issue: 

1. Most commenters wrote in regards 

to the FDPIR resource limit or ‘‘asset 

test.’’ On January 28, 2010, USDA 

published a final rulemaking in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 4469) that 

aligned the FDPIR resource limit with 

SNAP’s standard policy for the resource 

limit, i.e., $3,000 for households with at 

least one elderly/disabled member and 

$2,000 for all other households. 

However, SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 

273.2(j)(2)(ii) allow SNAP State agencies 

the option to expand categorical 

eligibility (commonly referred to as 

Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility or 

BBCE) to certain households, which 

effectively eliminates an asset test for 

these households because household 

assets are not considered in the 

eligibility determination of households 

that are categorically eligible. Under 

BBCE, State agencies may consider 

households categorically eligible for 

SNAP if all household members receive 

means-tested non-cash benefits from a 

program that is funded with over 50 

percent of Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families Program (TANF) or 

Maintenance of Effort (MOE) money. 

SNAP also allows State agencies, with 

FNS approval, to make households 

categorically eligible if all members 

receive a non-cash benefit from a 

program that receives less than 50 

percent funding from TANF or MOE 

sources, as long as the household’s gross 

income does not exceed 200 percent of 

the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Noncash benefits could include such 

services as employment assistance, 

childcare, or transportation assistance 

(i.e., ‘‘hard’’ BBCE); or receipt of an 

informational brochure or toll-free 1– 

800 number about other available 

programs (i.e., ‘‘soft’’ BBCE). As of 2009, 

15 SNAP State agencies had 

implemented ‘‘hard’’ BBCE and 26 SNAP 

State agencies had implemented ‘‘soft’’ 

BBCE. Eleven SNAP agencies had not 

implemented BBCE (http:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Memo/

Support/State_Options/8–State_

Options.pdf). 

Many of the comment letters received 

in response to the April 27, 2010, 

proposed rulemaking supported the 

alignment of FDPIR and SNAP policy in 

regard to the asset test and BBCE (226 

commenters). Many commenters 

proposed that the FDPIR programs be 

allowed to follow the SNAP BBCE 

policy implemented in the state where 

the FDPIR program is located (225 

commenters). Most of these commenters 

remarked that families living in states 

that have adopted BBCE under SNAP 

should not be subject to an asset test 

under FDPIR (220 commenters). Eight 

commenters stated that Tribal members 

should not be subject to stricter asset 

standards under FDPIR than SNAP, 

while two commenters wrote in support 

of eliminating the asset test in FDPIR. 

Many commenters requested that 

USDA adopt their comments on the 

FDPIR asset test and BBCE in this final 

rulemaking (225 commenters). We do 

not feel it is appropriate to include the 

BBCE option in this final rulemaking. 

To do so would circumvent the public 

comment process since that provision 

was not included in the proposed 

rulemaking and made available for 

public comment along with the other 

provisions contained in this rulemaking. 

However, these comments are being 

considered for future rulemaking. 

2. Two commenters supported the 

alignment of SNAP and FDPIR 

regulations, but the commenters did not 

specify which provisions should be 

aligned. 

3. One commenter supported the 

alignment of FDPIR and SNAP in 

regards to the standard deduction. The 

commenter stated that SNAP allows a 

standard deduction that is not allowed 

under FDPIR. In actuality, SNAP and 

FDPIR use the same standard 

deductions, which vary by household 

size. Under SNAP, the standard 

deductions are applied as income 

deductions that are subtracted from the 

household’s gross monthly income as 

part of the net monthly income test. 

Under FDPIR, the standard deductions 

are added to the SNAP net monthly 

income standards to simplify the 

income eligibility determination. For 

example, in fiscal year 2011, the SNAP 

standard deduction for a four-person 

household is $153 and the SNAP net 

monthly income standard is $1,838 for 

that same sized household. Under 

FDPIR, the $153 standard deduction is 

added to the net monthly income 

standard (i.e., the FDPIR net monthly 

income standard for a four-person 

household is $1,991 ($1,838 + $153)). 

4. One commenter supported the 

alignment of FDPIR and SNAP in 

regards to using gross income to 

determine eligibility. The commenter 

remarked that SNAP determines 

eligibility based on gross income, 

whereas FDPIR uses net income. In 

actuality, both SNAP and FDPIR 

determine eligibility by starting with a 

household’s gross income. Both SNAP 

and FDPIR determine eligibility by 

subtracting allowable income 

deductions from a household’s gross 

monthly income to determine the 

household’s net monthly income, which 

is then compared to the applicable net 

monthly income standards, which vary 

by household size. A household with 

net monthly income that is higher than 

the applicable net monthly income 

standard is ineligible under both SNAP 

and FDPIR. However, SNAP employs a 

prescreening test for households 

without elderly or disabled members 

prior to calculating the household’s net 

monthly income. SNAP compares the 

household’s gross monthly income to 

the applicable SNAP gross monthly 

income standard, which is set at 130 

percent of the Federal Poverty 

Guidelines. If the SNAP household’s 

gross monthly income is higher than the 

applicable gross income standard, the 

household is determined ineligible, 

without conducting the net monthly 

income calculation. If the SNAP 

household’s gross monthly income is 

below the gross income test limit, then 

the certifier conducts the net monthly 

income test to determine if the 

household is eligible based on its net 

monthly income. FDPIR does not use 

the gross income test to prescreen 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
18864 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

households without elderly or disabled 

members; only the net income test is 

used under FDPIR. 

5. One commenter remarked on the 

perceived disparity between FDPIR and 

SNAP in regards to income eligibility 

guidelines. The commenter stated that 

SNAP income eligibility guidelines are 

higher than those used under FDPIR. 

Both SNAP and FDPIR use 100 percent 

of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for the 

net monthly income standard. As 

discussed above, SNAP uses 130 

percent of the Federal Poverty 

Guidelines for a prescreening test (i.e., 

the gross income test) that is applied to 

all households without elderly or 

disabled members. However, the SNAP 

gross income test does not determine 

eligibility. Households that pass the 

gross income test are then subject to a 

net income test, which is the same test 

used under FDPIR. 

6. One commenter recommended that 

the income standard for all Federal 

programs be raised to 200 percent of the 

Federal Poverty Guidelines. FDPIR and 

SNAP use 100 percent of the Federal 

Poverty Guidelines as the net monthly 

income standard. 

7. One commenter recommended that 

all Federal programs adopt a fairer 

measure of need than the Federal 

Poverty Guidelines. The commenter 

suggested the Census Bureau’s 

‘‘Supplemental Poverty Measure’’ or 

‘‘Self Sufficiency Standard.’’ 

8. One commenter recommended the 

appropriation of funding to support 

Section 4211 of the Farm Bill. Section 

4211 authorized USDA to purchase 

bison meat, as well as traditional Native 

American foods and locally-grown 

foods, subject to the availability of 

appropriated funds. While funds have 

not been specifically appropriated for 

this purpose, FNS has made a limited 

purchase of frozen ground bison meat 

for program recipients in fiscal year 

2011. 

9. One commenter suggested that an 

increase in appropriations for FDPIR 

food purchases to allow for the purchase 

of bison and other traditional Native 

American foods would rectify the 

inequity that resulted when SNAP 

benefits were increased by 13.6 percent 

under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 and FDPIR 

did not receive a corresponding 

increase. 

10. One commenter suggested an 

increase in the SNAP asset limit. As 

discussed above, SNAP’s standard 

policy sets the asset limit at $3,000 for 

households with at least one elderly/ 

disabled member and $2,000 for all 

other households. 

11. One commenter advocated for the 

return of lands to the first Americans. 

In the following discussion and 

regulatory text, the term ‘‘State agency,’’ 

as defined at 7 CFR 253.2, is used to 

include ITOs authorized to operate 

FDPIR and the Food Distribution 

Program for Indian Households in 

Oklahoma (FDPIHO) in accordance with 

7 CFR parts 253 and 254. The term 

‘‘FDPIR’’ is used in this final rule to refer 

collectively to FDPIR and FDPIHO. 

A. Excluding Combat Pay From Income 

The April 27, 2010, rulemaking 

proposed an amendment to FDPIR 

regulations at 7 CFR 253.6(e)(3)(xi) to 

permanently exclude combat pay from 

income when determining eligibility for 

FDPIR. The proposed change was 

intended to align FDPIR regulations 

with current FDPIR and SNAP policy. 

Combat pay is defined as additional 

payment that is received by or from a 

member of the United States Armed 

Forces deployed to a combat zone, if the 

additional pay is the result of 

deployment to or service in a combat 

zone, and was not received immediately 

prior to serving in a combat zone. Based 

on the comments received on the 

proposed rulemaking, no changes have 

been made to the proposed amendatory 

language. 

This provision was implemented by 

policy memorandum on July 16, 2008, 

so this amendment will not affect 

current policy. It will simply ensure that 

current policy is codified in the 

regulations. 

B. Amending the Dependent Care 

Deduction 

The April 27, 2010, rule also 

proposed an amendment to FDPIR 

regulations 7 CFR 253.6(f)(2) to remove 

language that imposed a maximum limit 

on dependent care deductions. This 

proposed revision was intended to align 

FDPIR regulations with current FDPIR 

and SNAP policy. Based on the 

comments received on the proposed 

rulemaking, no changes have been made 

to the proposed amendatory language. 

This provision was implemented by 

policy memorandum on July 16, 2008, 

so this amendment will not affect 

current policy. It will simply ensure that 

current policy is codified in the 

regulations. 

C. Excluding Household Funds Held in 

Education Savings Accounts From 

Consideration as a Resource 

The April 27, 2010, rulemaking 

proposed an amendment to FDPIR 

regulations at 7 CFR 253.6(d)(2) to allow 

a resource exclusion for the value of 

funds held in a qualified education 

savings program described in section 

529 of Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or 

in a Coverdell education savings 

account under section 530 of that Code, 

and any other education savings 

program or account for which a resource 

exclusion is allowed under SNAP. This 

amendment was intended to ensure 

consistency in the treatment of these 

resources in determining FDPIR and 

SNAP eligibility. Based on the 

comments received on the proposed 

rulemaking, no changes have been made 

to the proposed amendatory language. 

D. Clarification Regarding the Resource 

Exclusion for Qualified Retirement 

Accounts 

FDPIR regulations at 7 CFR 

253.6(d)(2) allow the exclusion of 

pension funds. The April 27, 2010, 

rulemaking proposed an amendment to 

FDPIR regulations at 7 CFR 253.6(d)(2) 

to specify that the FDPIR resource 

exclusion applies to the value of funds 

held in retirement accounts described in 

sections 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 

408A, 457(b), and 501(c)(18) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986; the 

value of funds held in a Federal Thrift 

Savings Plan account as described in 5 

U.S.C. 8439; and any other retirement 

program or account for which a resource 

exclusion is allowed under SNAP. This 

amendment does not materially change 

current FDPIR regulations or policy. It 

simply revises the regulatory language 

to mirror section 4104 of the Farm Bill. 

Based on the comments received on the 

proposed rulemaking, no changes have 

been made to the proposed amendatory 

language. 

E. Clarifying the Application of SNAP 

Net Income Standards to FDPIR 

The April 27, 2010, rulemaking also 

proposed an amendment to FDPIR 

regulations at 7 CFR 253.6(e)(1)(i), to 

clarify that FDPIR applies the SNAP net 

monthly income standard, not the gross 

monthly income standard in the FDPIR 

income eligibility determination. This 

amendment is for clarification purposes 

only and does not change current FDPIR 

policy, nor does it revise current FDPIR 

income guidelines or eligibility criteria. 

Based on the comments received on the 

proposed rulemaking, no changes have 

been made to the proposed amendatory 

language. 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18865 

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 253 is 

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 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 91 Stat. 958 (7 U.S.C. 2011– 

2036). 

■ 2. In § 253.6: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (d)(2)(i); 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) 

through (d)(2)(iv) as (d)(2)(iii) through 

(d)(2)(v), respectively; 

■ c. Add new paragraph (d)(2)(ii); 

■ d. Add new paragraph (d)(2)(vi); 

■ e. Revise the second sentence of 

paragraph (e)(1)(i); 

■ f. Add new paragraph (e)(3)(xi); and 

■ g. Remove the second sentence of 

paragraph (f)(2). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 253.6 Eligibility of households. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) The cash value of life insurance 

policies and the first $1,500 of the 

equity value of one bona fide pre-paid 

funeral agreement per household 

member. The equity value of a pre-paid 

funeral agreement is the value that can 

be legally converted to cash by the 

household member. For example, an 

individual has a $1,200 pre-paid funeral 

agreement with a funeral home. The 

conditions of the agreement allow the 

household to cancel the agreement and 

receive a refund of the $1,200 minus a 

service fee of $50. The equity value of 

the pre-paid funeral agreement is 

$1,150. 

(ii) The value of funds held in 

retirement accounts described in 

sections 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 

408A, 457(b), and 501(c)(18) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986; the 

value of funds held in a Federal Thrift 

Savings Plan account as described in 5 

U.S.C. 8439; and any other retirement 

program or account for which a resource 

exclusion is allowed under the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP). 

* * * * * 

(vi) The value of funds held in a 

qualified education savings program 

described in section 529 of Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 or in a Coverdell 

education savings account under section 

530 of that Code, and any other 

education savings program or account 

for which a resource exclusion is 

allowed under SNAP. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * The income eligibility 

standards shall be the applicable SNAP 

net monthly income eligibility 

standards for the appropriate area, 

increased by the amount of the 

applicable SNAP standard deduction for 

that area. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(xi) Combat pay. Combat pay is 

defined as additional payment that is 

received by or from a member of the 

United States Armed Forces deployed to 

a combat zone, if the additional pay is 

the result of deployment to or service in 

a combat zone, and was not received 

immediately prior to serving in a 

combat zone. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 1, 2011. 

Julia Paradis, 

Administrator Food and Nutrition Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8153 Filed 4–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0323; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–SW–005–AD; Amendment 

39–16651; AD 2011–08–01] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bell 

Helicopter Textron, Inc. Model 212 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding an 

existing emergency airworthiness 

directive (EAD) for the Bell Helicopter 

Textron, Inc. (Bell) Model 212 

helicopters with a certain main rotor 

hub inboard strap fitting (fitting) 

installed. That EAD requires, before 

further flight, removing certain serialnumbered fittings and replacing them 

with airworthy fittings. It also requires 

performing a magnetic particle 

inspection (MPI) on fittings with certain 

serial numbers (S/Ns) to inspect for a 

crack. If a crack is found, the cracked 

fitting must be replaced with an 

airworthy fitting, and certain data must 

be reported to the FAA. This 

airworthiness directive (AD) retains the 

requirements of that EAD and expands 

the applicability to require performing 

an MPI for a crack on additional serialnumbered fittings. This AD is prompted 

by the determination that certain fittings 

were not manufactured in accordance 

with the approved manufacturing 

processes and controls. In total, eight 

fittings have been found that have 

cracks. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent failure of a fitting, loss of a main 

rotor blade, and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter. 

DATES: This AD is effective April 21, 

2011. 

We must receive any comments on 

this AD by June 6, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bell Helicopter 

Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, 

TX 76101, telephone (817) 280–3391, 

fax (817) 280–6466, or at http:// 

www.bellcustomer.com/files/. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Office (phone: 800–647– 

5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Kohner, Aerospace Engineer, 

Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft 

Certification Office, FAA, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137, phone: (817) 222–5170; fax: 

(817) 222–5783; e-mail: 

mike.kohner@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES