This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

51907 

Vol. 76, No. 161 

Friday, August 19, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

7 CFR Parts 272 and 273 

RIN 0584–AE01 

Clarification of Eligibility of Fleeing 

Felons 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS), USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Section 6(k) of the Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008 (‘‘the Act’’) 

provides that certain individuals are not 

eligible for Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. 

Such individuals include an individual 

fleeing to avoid prosecution, custody or 

confinement after conviction for 

committing a crime or attempting to 

commit a crime that is a felony under 

the law of the place from which the 

individual is fleeing (or a high 

misdemeanor in New Jersey) or is 

violating a condition of probation or 

parole under Federal or State law. 

Section 4112 of the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 

110–246, amended Section 6(k) of the 

Act to require the Secretary of 

Agriculture to define the terms ‘‘fleeing’’ 

and ‘‘actively seeking’’ to ensure State 

agencies use consistent procedures to 

disqualify individuals. This rule 

proposes to define the terms ‘‘fleeing’’ 

and ‘‘actively seeking’’ and to establish 

procedures State agencies are to use in 

determining fleeing felon status. This 

rule also proposes criteria to identify a 

parole violator, verification procedures 

to establish an individual’s status, and 

time frames for disqualifying an 

individual determined to be a fleeing 

felon or a parole violator. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 18, 2011 to be assured 

of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: FNS invites interested 

persons to submit comments on this 

proposed rule. Comments may be 

submitted by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Send comments to Angela 

Kline, FNS, Program Development 

Division, SNAP, FNS, USDA, Room 812, 

3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, 

Virginia 22302. 

• All comments submitted in 

response to this proposed rule will be 

included in the record and will be made 

available to the public. Please be 

advised that the substance of the 

comments and the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting the 

comments will be subject to public 

disclosure. FNS will make the 

comments publicly available on the 

Internet via http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela Kline, Certification Policy 

Branch, Program Development Division, 

Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 

3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, 

Virginia 22302, (703) 305–2495. 

Background 

The Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 

Public Law 104–193 (PRWORA) 

amended Section 6 of the Food Stamp 

Act of 1977 (now entitled The Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008) (the Act) to 

disqualify fleeing felons from SNAP. To 

be disqualified under the fleeing felon 

provisions of PRWORA, an individual 

must be either: fleeing to avoid 

prosecution, custody or confinement 

after conviction for committing a crime 

or attempting to commit a crime that is 

a felony under the law of the place from 

which the individual is fleeing (or a 

high misdemeanor in New Jersey); or 

violating a condition of probation or 

parole imposed under Federal or State 

law. The intent of the law was to 

prohibit individuals who were 

intentionally fleeing to avoid 

prosecution or imprisonment from 

receiving SNAP benefits and to aid law 

enforcement officials actively seeking to 

apprehend those fleeing to avoid 

prosecution or custody. The 

disqualification provisions were 

codified in the SNAP regulations on 

January 17, 2001 at 66 FR 4438. For 

simplicity, throughout the balance of 

this preamble we will use the term 

felony to encompass both felonies and 

New Jersey’s high misdemeanors. 

The current regulations do not define 

‘‘fleeing felon’’ or ‘‘probation or parole 

violation’’ and do not prescribe specific 

procedures for verifying or the time 

frames for denying and/or terminating 

individuals identified as either a fleeing 

felon or a parole violator. As a result, 

State agencies have not uniformly 

administered these provisions. Some 

State agencies rely solely on computer 

data matches to determine if an 

individual is fleeing or violating a 

condition of probation or parole. Other 

State agencies work directly with law 

enforcement officials prior to imposing 

a fleeing felon disqualification. Still 

others put the burden of proof of fleeing 

felon status on the individual in 

question, which may create a burden to 

program access for those who have little 

or no resources to gather the 

information needed, particularly if the 

felony record is in another State. 

In addition, there is no centralized, 

nationwide law enforcement database or 

data match system that States can access 

to verify whether an individual is a 

fleeing felon. Although the FBI’s 

National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC) is the only Federal database 

system that compiles Federal, State, and 

local warrant information, the NCIC 

may contain only a fraction of local and 

State warrants issued across the nation. 

According to the Government 

Accountability Office’s (GAO) 

September 2002 report on strengthening 

the implementation of the fleeing felon 

provisions, the NCIC data base 

contained only approximately 30 

percent of State and local warrants in 

August 2000. Affected SNAP recipients 

and program advocates have expressed 

concerns that data match systems are 

unreliable as the information within the 

systems may not be accurate or current. 

For example, a data match may show 

there is an outstanding or active 

warrant, but may not specify whether 

the warrant is for a felony or a 

misdemeanor. In cases where there are 

similar names, aliases, or stolen 

identities, the outstanding or active 

warrant may not belong to the SNAP 

recipient. Because of the difficulty in 

establishing whether an individual is 

actually a fleeing felon, there are 

anecdotal statements that State agencies 

have erroneously denied or terminated 

benefits based solely on outdated, 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
51908 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

inaccurate, or incomplete information 

obtained from a data match system. 

Finally, cooperation between State 

agencies and law enforcement agencies 

vary widely by jurisdiction and 

organizational structure. Some law 

enforcement agencies may allow a State 

agency to verify an individual’s felon 

status with a simple phone call whereas 

other law enforcement agencies may 

require a more formal, written request 

detailing the specifics needed to 

determine eligibility for SNAP. If the 

felony occurred in a State where the 

recipient no longer resides, it may be 

even more difficult and time-consuming 

for a State agency to obtain information 

needed from law enforcement to 

determine if the individual is a fleeing 

felon. 

In an effort to enforce the fleeing felon 

provisions, a law enforcement initiative, 

Operation Talon, was established by the 

USDA Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG) with FNS concurrence on 

December 18, 1997. Information from 

law enforcement agencies was matched 

with SNAP (Food Stamp Program at the 

time of Operation Talon initiation) 

caseload data to detect and apprehend 

individuals who were fleeing felons. 

FNS issued a memo in April 1998, 

providing that fleeing felon status was 

typically determined by the existence of 

an outstanding warrant for an 

individual’s arrest and the individual is 

assumed to be fleeing as of the date the 

warrant is issued. The memo 

encouraged States and local agencies to 

work with law enforcements agencies to 

ascertain how State law defines fleeing 

felon and parole/probation violators. 

The memo also clarified that State 

agencies must resolve questionable 

information pursuant to 7 CFR 273.2 

when computer matches indicated that 

an individual might be a fleeing felon or 

parole/probation violator. In 

conjunction with Operation Talon, FNS 

issued policy on November 9, 2001 to 

address what constitutes ‘‘fleeing’’ that 

stated ‘‘Even though a fleeing felon is 

usually determined by the existence of 

an outstanding warrant for the 

individual’s arrest and the individual is 

assumed to be fleeing as of the date the 

warrant is issued, this may vary from 

State to State. Therefore, we encourage 

the State and local SNAP office to work 

with State and local law enforcement 

agencies to ascertain how State law 

defines fleeing felon and parole/ 

probation violators.’’ The memorandum 

also encouraged State agencies to give 

the individual an opportunity to submit 

documentation that the warrant has 

been Satisfied. Most recently, FNS has 

notified State agencies that this 

proposed rulemaking will clarify client 

rights and responsibilities and state 

administrative procedures. In 

developing proposed definitions for 

‘‘fleeing’’ and ‘‘actively seeking,’’ we 

took into consideration the legislative 

history, from the debate on the 

Conference report for H.R. 2419, which 

later became the FCEA. As recorded on 

page H3815 of the Congressional 

Record, on May 14, 2008, 

Representative Baca expressed concern 

that innocent people have been 

ensnared in the disqualification 

provision and denied benefits in an 

inappropriate way. According to his 

statement, the provision has 

disqualified innocent people who had 

their identities stolen, or who have 

outstanding warrants for minor 

infractions that are many years old and 

where the police have no interest in 

apprehending and prosecuting the case. 

According to Senator Harkin’s floor 

statement, 154 Congressional Record 

S4752 (May 22, 2008), there is no public 

purpose served by denying food 

assistance to individuals whose offense 

were so minor or so long ago that law 

enforcement has no interest in pursuing 

them. He further stated that inadequate 

guidance to the States has resulted in 

exactly that and that Section 4112 

would correct this by making the 

Department clarify the terms used and 

make sure that States are not incorrectly 

disqualifying needy people not being 

actively pursued by law enforcement 

authorities. 

Section 202 of PRWORA established 

similar provisions for Supplemental 

Security Income (SSI). The Social 

Security Administration (SSA) 

developed more rigorous standards than 

FNS in implementing the legislative 

provision. SSA’s Social Security 

Program Operations Manual (POMS) 

provided that an individual is ineligible 

to receive SSI benefits beginning any 

month in which a warrant, court order 

or decision, or an order of decision by 

an appropriate agency is issued which 

finds that individual is wanted in 

connection with a crime that is a felony. 

SSA was sued in multiple courts on its 

policy. On September 24, 2009, the 

United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California approved 

a settlement agreement in the case of 

Martinez v. Astrue, Civ. No. 08–cv– 

04735 cw. Under that settlement, SSA 

will suspend or deny benefits to an 

individual only if a law enforcement 

officer presents an outstanding felony 

arrest warrant for any of three categories 

of NCIC Uniform Offense Classification 

Codes: Escape (4901), Flight to Avoid 

(prosecution, confinement, etc.) (4902), 

and Flight-Escape (4999). 

In developing these proposed 

procedures, FNS considered the 

settlement in the Martinez case and 

determined not to follow the provisions 

of that settlement in formulating either 

the definitions or the procedures. 

Although the initial PRWORA 

provisions are similar, FNS 

implemented the PRWORA provision in 

a much less rigorous form and now has 

additional legislation guiding the 

disqualification provisions. The FCEA 

preceded the decision in Martinez 

reached in August 2009, and provided 

specific direction for the agency to 

follow to amend its existing procedures. 

FNS maintains that the intent of the 

FCEA in requiring the defining of 

‘‘fleeing’’ and ‘‘actively seeking’’ was for 

the agency to adopt more uniform and 

clear standards while preserving the 

basic intent of the original legislation— 

persons who are fleeing and are actively 

sought by law enforcement for felony 

charges should not get program benefits. 

The legislative direction essentially was 

to provide consistent treatment of 

fleeing felons, not to limit it to a very 

small class of felons. Accordingly, we 

believe that the limitation imposed by 

SSA on the types of warrants that are 

subject to the disqualification 

provisions is not appropriate for SNAP. 

However, we would be interested in 

hearing from commenters whether they 

disagree with our decision and believe 

that SNAP should follow the Martinez 

settlement in defining a fleeing felon. 

The regulations governing the fleeing 

felon and parole and probation violators 

are found at 7 CFR 272.1(c)(1)(vii) 

Disclosure, 7 CFR 273.1(b)(7)(ix) Special 

household requirements, 7 CFR 

273.2(b)(4)(ii) Privacy Act Statement, 

and 7 CFR 273.11(n) Fleeing Felons and 

probation or parole violators. In this 

rulemaking, we are proposing to revise 

273.11(n) in its entirety. A conforming 

amendment is proposed for 

272.1(c)(1)(vii) Disclosure. We do not 

believe the remaining sections require 

revision. 

Fleeing Felons 

In 273.11(n), we are proposing that, 

before a State agency determines an 

individual to be a ‘‘fleeing’’ felon, the 

following four criteria must be met: (1) 

There has to be a felony warrant for an 

individual; (2) the individual has to be 

aware of, or should reasonably have 

been able to expect that, a warrant has 

or would have been issued; (3) the 

individual has to have taken some 

action to avoid being arrested or jailed; 

and (4) a law enforcement agency must 

be actively seeking the individual. The 

first and fourth criteria are under the 

control of law enforcement and will be 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 51909 

addressed later in this preamble 

discussion. The second criterion, having 

knowledge of a warrant or should have 

reasonably anticipated a warrant, is 

primarily under the control of the 

individual. The third criterion, taking 

an action to avoid being arrested or 

jailed, is an action taken by the 

individual. In this rule, we are 

proposing that all four items have to be 

present and verified to determine that 

an individual is a fleeing felon (i.e., 

there is an outstanding felony warrant, 

the State agency has documented 

evidence that the individual knew about 

the warrant or could reasonably have 

anticipated a warrant was going to be 

issued, the State agency has 

documentation that the individual took 

an action to avoid arrest or jail for the 

felony, and a law enforcement agency is 

actively seeking the individual). There 

is only one exception to meeting these 

four criteria: FNS would consider an 

individual to be a fleeing felon if a law 

enforcement officer presents an 

outstanding felony arrest warrant for 

any of three categories of NCIC Uniform 

Offense Classification Codes: Escape 

(4901), Flight to Avoid (prosecution, 

confinement, etc.) (4902), and FlightEscape (4999) to a State agency to obtain 

information on the location of and other 

information about the individual named 

in the warrant, in accordance with the 

provisions of Section 11(e)(8)(E) of the 

Act. 

Surrounding the issues of who is a 

‘‘fleeing felon,’’ what is ‘‘actively 

seeking,’’ and who is a parole violator 

(for purposes of this disqualification 

provision) are questions about how the 

State agency discovers an individual’s 

‘‘fleeing’’ felon or probation or parole 

violation status, how this information is 

to be verified, and the time frames for 

acting on a denial or termination. 

There are three basic ways a State 

agency may become aware of a 

household’s potential ‘‘fleeing’’ felon or 

probation or parole status: 

• Through a statement by the 

household, such as checking off a block 

on an application or report form that a 

household member is a fleeing felon or 

violating parole; 

• Through a data match with the 

FBI’s data base NCIC or another data 

base of outstanding warrants; or 

• Through a law enforcement officer 

who comes to a State agency specifically 

seeking information on a particular 

individual for whom he or she has a 

warrant, in accordance with the 

provisions of Section 11(e)(8)(E) of the 

Act. 

Each of these ways of learning about 

a potential fleeing felon raise issues 

about what constitutes ‘‘fleeing’’ and 

‘‘actively seeking’’ and how they should 

be verified. We are proposing that 

primary responsibility for verifying 

fleeing felon status rests with the State 

agency, not the household. Although 

generally verification is the 

responsibility of the household, there 

are multiple sensitivities surrounding 

the disqualification of fleeing felons and 

probation and parole violators. This 

prohibition exists for two distinct goals, 

one, to keep fleeing felons off the 

program and two, to assist law 

enforcement officials in capturing 

individuals who are being actively 

sought and are participating or 

attempting to participate in SNAP. 

When the State agency is approached by 

a law enforcement agency seeking 

information about a specific individual, 

it would be counterproductive to ask a 

household to verify information that 

could result in a household member’s 

capture. Further, a State agency may be 

more likely than a household to obtain 

information from a law enforcement 

officer about the status of an existing 

warrant. Also, data matches frequently 

reveal warrants that are old and/or from 

distant jurisdictions. Results from data 

match activities have shown that 

households often find it difficult or 

impossible to resolve these warrants. 

Some State agencies have denied or 

terminated individuals in these 

situations when there is no reasonable 

way for the individual to resolve the 

warrant and the law enforcement agency 

has not taken any action to execute the 

warrant. 

If a household reports that a member 

of the household is a ‘‘fleeing’’ felon or 

probation or parole violator, FNS does 

not believe the State agency should 

make a determination that the person is 

indeed a fleeing felon or probation or 

parole violator and act to deny or 

terminate the individual based solely on 

the household’s statement. Individuals 

may not understand the legal 

distinctions in this area or be certain 

about whether law enforcement is 

pursuing an action. Prior to determining 

that an individual is a fleeing felon, the 

State agency needs to obtain as much 

information as possible from the 

household about the household’s 

knowledge of any outstanding warrant, 

the applicable time frames, the 

appropriate jurisdiction or law 

enforcement agency responsible for the 

warrant, the address of the potential 

fleeing felon at the time the warrant was 

issued, and any other information the 

household can provide about the 

warrant and the individual’s actions. 

The State agency may obtain this 

information during the interview, or if 

an interview is not conducted, as part of 

its request for verification of other items 

included in the household’s application. 

The State agency needs to verify with 

the appropriate law enforcement agency 

that there is an outstanding warrant, 

that the warrant is for a felony, and that 

the law enforcement agency is actively 

seeking the individual. If the household 

reported that the individual has tried to 

avoid the warrant, such a statement 

would be considered documentation 

that the individual took an action to 

avoid being arrested or jailed. Such a 

statement has to be more than a checkoff box on application or report form, 

however, so that it is clear that the 

recipient understands to what they are 

attesting. It needs to be an affirmative 

statement by the household that the 

individual in question did indeed 

attempt to avoid being arrested or jailed 

and what the individual did to attempt 

to evade arrest or being jailed. Absent 

such a statement, the State agency will 

need to evaluate the specific 

circumstances of each case to determine 

if there is documented evidence that the 

individual in question took action to 

avoid being arrested or jailed. 

It is important to note that the section 

6(k) of the Act being addressed in this 

rulemaking does not prohibit 

participants who have committed a 

felony; it addresses individuals who are 

fleeing related to committing or possibly 

having committed a felony. It is 

important, therefore, that the State 

agency document one or more actions 

that indicate the individual was aware 

of the warrant and acted to avoid arrest. 

Knowledge of awareness of an existing 

warrant could include being 

interviewed by law enforcement officers 

about the felony in question or a 

statement from another household 

member, relative, or collateral contact, 

such as a landlord, that the individual 

was aware an officer had attempted to 

serve a warrant. Actions indicating 

avoidance of arrest could include 

moving to a new residence after the 

warrant has been issued, particularly a 

residence for which the individual is 

not the owner or holder of the lease, or 

using a different name, particularly not 

a normal name change such as a 

marriage or divorce. Such actions are 

not independent grounds for 

considering an individual as fleeing, 

however, these actions, when 

considered in conjunction with other 

factors, may indicate fleeing felon 

status. The household would retain its 

right to a fair hearing in the event the 

individual is denied or terminated 

based on a determination of fleeing 

felon status. 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
51910 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Section 273.2(f)(5) provides that 

primary responsibility for verification 

rests with the household. It also 

provides that the State agency must 

assist the household in obtaining 

verification provided the household is 

cooperating. Given the difficulty 

individuals may have obtaining the 

necessary documentation from law 

enforcement agencies and the need to 

provide law enforcement with time to 

apply a warrant where appropriate, we 

have determined that the State agency 

shall bear primary responsibility for 

verifying and documenting fleeing felon 

status. State agencies engaging in data 

matching with outstanding warrant lists 

are already doing this, without the clear 

definitions of ‘‘fleeing’’ and ‘‘actively 

seeking.’’ For households that report a 

fleeing felon as a household member on 

an application, the provisions for 

verification proposed in this rule are 

consistent with the requirement that the 

State agency verify and document all 

aspects of a household’s eligibility and/ 

or benefit level that are questionable. 

We are proposing to define ‘‘actively 

seeking’’ as: 

• A law enforcement agency stating 

that it intends to enforce an outstanding 

warrant within 20 days of submitting a 

request to a State agency for information 

about a specific individual, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

Section 11(e)(8)(E) of the Act; or 

• A law enforcement agency stating 

that it intends to enforce an outstanding 

warrant within 30 days of the date of a 

request from a State agency about a 

specific warrant. 

Absent a statement from the law 

enforcement agency that it will attempt 

to enforce the warrant within the time 

frame, we propose that the State agency 

determine that the law enforcement 

agency is not actively seeking the 

individual if no response from the law 

enforcement agency is received within 

the 20 day time frame provided in the 

notice from the State agency. A State 

agency usually has 30 days to act on a 

new application that is not subject to 

expedited service provisions. For new 

applicants, this should give State 

agencies sufficient time to request, 

receive a response, and act on the 

information provided by the law 

enforcement agency. We believe that 20 

days is a sufficient amount of time for 

a law enforcement agency to make a 

determination whether to act on the 

warrant using the information available 

from the State agency and to respond to 

the State agency’s request for 

information. We are interested in 

hearing from law enforcement agencies 

about whether they believe that this 

amount of time is sufficient for them to 

evaluate and act on information 

provided by a State agency. 

Some State agencies have conducted 

data matches with various law 

enforcement databases to ascertain if an 

individual participating in the program 

is a potential fleeing felon. As we 

described earlier in this preamble, data 

matches do not always indicate whether 

a warrant is for a misdemeanor or felony 

offense, the warrant may be old, and the 

applicable law enforcement agency may 

not be interested in pursuing the 

warrant, or the warrant may actually 

misidentify the SNAP recipient as the 

person being sought. Thus, the mere 

existence of a warrant naming an 

individual who is a SNAP recipient or 

applicant does not provide sufficient 

information to determine that the 

individual is actually a fleeing felon 

who is being actively sought by a law 

enforcement agency. Rather, it is a 

possible source for information about an 

individual who could, through 

additional verification, be determined to 

be a fleeing felon. In this rule we are 

proposing that such data matches are 

not considered verification that an 

individual is a fleeing felon or a 

probation or parole violator. We are 

proposing that a positive hit in such a 

data match be verified by the State 

agency in the same way that it verifies 

a household reporting that a member 

may be a fleeing felon. That means that 

the State agency must verify with the 

appropriate law enforcement agency 

that the warrant is for a felony and that 

the law enforcement office is actively 

seeking the individual. This is 

consistent with how other matches are 

treated in SNAP where the information 

cannot be considered verified upon 

receipt. The State agency must request 

sufficient information from the law 

enforcement agency to verify that the 

individual being sought by the warrant 

is actually the individual SNAP 

participant. Such information may 

include, but is not limited to, social 

security number, birthday date, race 

and/or nationality, and place of birth. 

We propose that the State agency give 

the law enforcement agency 20 days to 

respond to a request for information 

about the conditions of the warrant and 

whether the law enforcement agency 

intends to actively pursue the 

individual. If the warrant is not for a 

felony or if the law enforcement agency 

does not indicate that it intends to 

enforce the warrant within 30 days of 

the date of the State’s request for 

information about the warrant, we are 

proposing that the State agency 

determine that the individual is not a 

fleeing felon and document the 

household’s case file accordingly. We 

are proposing that if the law 

enforcement agency indicates that it 

does intend to enforce the warrant 

within 30 days of the date of the request 

for information on the warrant, the State 

agency will postpone taking any action 

on the case until the 30-day period has 

expired. Once the 30-day period has 

expired, we are proposing that the State 

agency verify with the law enforcement 

agency whether it has attempted to 

execute the warrant. If it has, the State 

agency would take appropriate action to 

deny an applicant or terminate a 

participant who has been determined to 

be a fleeing felon (that is, a case in 

which the law enforcement agency 

attempted to enforce the warrant but 

was unable to do so and intends to 

pursue enforcement) or who has been 

apprehended. The individual retains the 

right to request a fair hearing. If the law 

enforcement agency has not taken any 

action, we are proposing that the State 

agency not consider the individual a 

potential fleeing felon and take no 

further action in the matter. 

Finally, information about fleeing 

felon status could come to the attention 

of a State agency if a law enforcement 

agency comes to the State agency 

seeking information about an applicant 

for whom it holds an outstanding 

warrant. Section 11(e)(8)(E) of the Act 

requires that the State agency provide 

the information being requested by the 

law enforcement agency. The State 

agency may provide the address, social 

security number and photo of the 

participant or applicant, if it has one. In 

this rule, we are proposing that the State 

agency must: 

• Provide the law enforcement agency 

with the information it requests; 

• Request that the law enforcement 

agency notify the State agency if and 

when it attempts to enforce the warrant; 

and 

• Take no action to contact or 

disqualify the individual for 20 days. 

At the end of the 20 days, we are 

proposing that the State agency verify 

with the law enforcement agency 

whether it has attempted to execute the 

warrant. If it has, we are proposing that 

the State agency take appropriate action 

to deny an applicant or terminate a 

participant who has been determined to 

be a fleeing felon or who has been 

apprehended. If the law enforcement 

agency has not taken any action, we are 

proposing that the State agency not 

consider the individual a potential 

fleeing felon and take no further action 

in the matter. 

We recognize that the time frames for 

determining fleeing felon status may 

extend beyond the time frames allowed 

under 7 CFR 273.2(g) and 7 CFR 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 51911 

273.2(i)(3) for State agencies to process 

applications. Therefore, we are 

proposing in 273.11(n) that if a State 

agency needs to act on an application 

without determining fleeing felon status 

in order to comply with these time 

frames, the State agency shall process 

the application without consideration of 

the individual’s fleeing felon status. 

Probation and Parole Violators 

Section 6(k) of the Act prohibits any 

individual from participating in SNAP 

during any period during which the 

individual is violating a condition of 

probation or parole imposed under a 

Federal or State law. Neither the term 

‘‘fleeing’’ nor ‘‘felony’’ are referenced in 

the prohibition from participating based 

on probation or parole violation. 

Additionally, the Act and the legislative 

history of the Act provide no guidance 

about what constitutes a probation or 

parole violation. The Act does not limit 

such violations to felony charges only. 

Therefore, we are proposing that the 

disqualification apply to all identified 

probation or parole violations. However, 

Section 6(k)(2) of the Act requires the 

Department to ensure that ‘‘actively 

seeking’’ is defined and that consistent 

procedures are established that 

disqualify individuals whom law 

enforcement authorities are actively 

seeking for the purpose of holding 

criminal proceedings against the 

individual. We are interpreting Section 

6(k)(2) to require the application of the 

term ‘‘actively seeking’’ to probation 

and parole violators. We are proposing 

in 7 CFR 273.11(n) that State agencies 

shall follow the same procedures for 

verifying through law enforcement 

whether an applicant or participant is a 

probation or parole violator as those 

used to determine if an individual is a 

fleeing felon. This would ensure that 

there are consistent procedures in place 

for establishing if a law enforcement 

office is actively seeking an individual, 

whether that individual is a fleeing 

felon or a probation or parole violator. 

It would make following the procedures 

easier for State agencies as there would 

be only one procedure to follow for each 

of these types of individuals 

disqualified under section 6(k) of the 

Act. 

Privacy Act, Simplified Reporting, and 

Transitional Benefits 

It should be noted that the Privacy 

Act provisions and confidentiality 

provisions found at Section 11(e)(8) of 

the Act remain intact for individuals 

subject to the fleeing felon and parole or 

probation violator provisions of the Act. 

Therefore, we want to remind the 

reviewers of this rule that the provisions 

regarding the process of providing 

information to law enforcement officials 

only applies to legitimate law 

enforcement officers. Information about 

potential fleeing felons or parole or 

probation violators must not be released 

to bounty hunters or other individuals 

reporting possible violations by 

recipients or applicants. 

Under 7 CFR 273.12(a)(5) State 

agencies are permitted to place 

households under a simplified reporting 

system. Under such a system, the State 

agency may choose to act on all changes 

in household circumstances (7 CFR 

273.12(a)(5)(vi)(A)) or to act on any 

change if it would increase the 

household’s benefits and only act on 

any change that would decrease the 

household’s benefits if the household 

has voluntarily requested that its case be 

closed, the State agency has information 

about the household’s circumstances 

considered verified upon receipt, or 

there has been a change in the 

household’s public assistance grant (7 

CFR 273.12(a)(5)(vi)(B)). If an individual 

has been determined to be a fleeing 

felon or a probation or parole violator in 

accordance with 7 CFR 273.11(n), the 

Act prohibits this individual from 

participating in SNAP. In order to 

ensure that the individual is removed 

from the program in accordance with 

the requirements of the Act, we are 

proposing to add a requirement to 7 CFR 

273.12(a)(5)(vi)(B) that the State agency 

act to remove the individual even 

though it might result in a decrease in 

benefits. 

Subpart H of Part 273, which was 

promulgated in accordance with Section 

4115 of the Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 

107–17, (‘‘FSRIA’’), permits households 

leaving the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) program to 

receive transitional benefits for 

households. Section 4115 refers to 

ineligible households rather than 

ineligible household members. State 

agencies have the option to provide 

transitional benefits to a household that 

contains members who are not in the 

TANF unit as well as a household that 

contains ineligible members or members 

who are under TANF sanction. 

Households in which all members are 

disqualified for being fleeing felons, or 

probation or parole violators are 

excluded from receiving transitional 

benefits. Once approved for transitional 

benefits, the benefit amount cannot be 

changed unless the State agency has 

opted to adjust the benefit in accordance 

with 7 CFR 273.27. We believe that, in 

order to conform to the intent of section 

4115 of the Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act concerning ineligible 

households rather than ineligible 

household members, the State agency 

shall not take action to adjust a 

household’s transitional benefit amount 

because an individual in that household 

has been determined to be a fleeing 

felon or a probation or parole violator 

unless the provisions of 7 CFR 273.27 

are applicable. 

However, because section 6(k) of the 

Act prohibits an individual who is a 

fleeing felon or a probation or parole 

violator from receiving SNAP benefits, 

we are interested in hearing whether 

commenters believe that it is necessary, 

in order to conform with section 6(k) of 

the Act, that SNAP benefits are not 

provided to an individual found to be a 

fleeing felon or a probation or parole 

violator, in accordance with the 

provisions being proposed in this 

rulemaking, during the transitional 

benefit period. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Procedural Matters 

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

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 

proposed rule has been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ although 

not economically significant, under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Need for Action 

This action is required to implement 

Section 6(k) of the Food and Nutrition 

Act of 2008. Section 6(k) provides that 

certain individuals are not eligible for 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program benefits. Such individuals 

include an individual fleeing to avoid 

prosecution, custody or confinement 

after conviction for committing a crime 

or attempting to commit a crime that is 

a felony under the law of the place from 

which the individual is fleeing (or a 

high misdemeanor in New Jersey) or is 

violating a condition of probation or 

parole under Federal or State law. 

Section 4112 of the FCEA, amended 

Section 6(k) of the Act to require the 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
51912 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Food and Nutrition Service to define the 

terms ‘‘fleeing’’ and ‘‘actively seeking’’ 

to ensure State agencies use consistent 

procedures to disqualify individuals. 

This action is not expected to have an 

effect on Federal Program costs. 

In developing the proposed 

procedures we considered the concerns 

expressed by representatives of 

Congress about individuals being 

disqualified based on mistaken 

identities or for older minor infractions 

that law enforcement no longer has an 

interest in pursuing. Further, based on 

experience with the implementation of 

the provision, we have determined that 

the responsibility for verification should 

rest with the State agency, not the 

recipient. The State agency is more 

likely to obtain cooperation from law 

enforcement in ascertaining if the law 

enforcement agency intends to enforce a 

warrant against a specific individual. 

Also, if law enforcement comes to the 

State agency, the State agency may 

delay taking action to give law 

enforcement time to act. Finally, 

recipients are frequently unable to 

resolve warrants from jurisdictions 

outside of the immediate area because of 

lack of funds to travel. State agencies 

can better ascertain if a distant law 

enforcement agency is interested in 

pursuing an identified individual. State 

agencies will be affected by this rule 

making to the extent they identify 

individuals who may be fleeing felons 

or probation or parole violators. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule has been reviewed with 

regard to the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 

1980, (5 U.S.C. 601–612). Pursuant to 

that review, it has been certified that 

this rule would not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Individuals identified as fleeing 

felons or parole violators will be 

affected by having their participation in 

the program terminated. The 

requirement to terminate such 

individuals’ participation already exists. 

This rule only clarifies what 

participants will be determined to be 

fleeing. It is anticipated that potentially 

fewer participants will be terminated 

than under the previous requirements. 

State and local welfare agencies will be 

the most affected to the extent that they 

administer the program. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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, 

the Department generally must prepare 

a written statement, including a cost 

benefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local or 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. When such a 

statement is needed for a rule, Section 

205 of the UMRA generally requires the 

Department to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the most cost 

effective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any Federal mandates (under the 

regulatory provisions of Title II of the 

UMRA) for State, local and Tribal 

governments or the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

Thus, the rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

Executive Order 12372 

The Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Programs under 10.551. 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), this program 

is excluded in the scope of Executive 

Order 12372 which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. 

Federalism Summary Impact Statement 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

Federal agencies to consider the impact 

of their regulatory actions on State and 

local governments. Where such actions 

have Federalism implications, agencies 

are directed to provide a statement for 

inclusion in the preamble to the 

regulations describing the agency’s 

considerations in terms of the three 

categories called for under Section 

(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13122. 

FNS has considered this rule’s impact 

on State and local agencies and has 

determined that it does not have 

Federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This proposed rule is 

intended to have preemptive effect with 

respect to any State or local laws, 

regulations or policies which conflict 

with this rule’s provisions or which 

would otherwise impede its full and 

timely implementation. This rule is not 

intended to have retroactive effect 

unless so specified in the Effective Dates 

section of the final rule. Prior to any 

judicial challenge to the provisions of 

the final rule, all applicable 

administrative procedures must be 

exhausted. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

FNS has reviewed this proposed 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. 

Section 821 of the Personal 

Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 

104–193 (PRWORA) amended Section 6 

of the Act to prohibit fleeing felons and 

parole violators from participating in 

the program. This prohibition was 

codified in SNAP regulations by the 

final rule ‘‘Food Stamp Program; 

Personal Responsibility Provisions of 

the Personal Responsibility and Work 

opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996’’ 

(66 FR 4438). SNAP regulations at 7 

CFR 273.11(n) addresses the prohibition 

for participation by an individual 

identified as a fleeing felon or a 

probation or parole violator. The 

existing regulations do not define 

‘‘fleeing’’ and do not provide procedures 

for the State agency to use in 

disqualifying an individual identified as 

a fleeing felon or a probation or parole 

violator. Section 6(k) of the Act requires 

the Secretary of Agriculture to define 

the terms ‘‘fleeing’’ and ‘‘actively 

seeking’’ to ensure SNAP State agencies 

use consistent procedures to disqualify 

individuals. After a careful review of the 

rule’s intent and provisions, FNS has 

determined that there is no way to 

determine whether the rule would have 

any impact on minorities, women, and 

person with disabilities. FNS does not 

collect information on persons 

disqualified under the fleeing felon and 

parole violation provisions. Such a new 

collection would be difficult 

information to capture and cause an 

unnecessary burden on State agencies. 

Therefore, we are unable to determine 

whether a disproportionate number of 

minorities, women, and persons with 

disabilities are disqualified. This rule 

proposes to provide greater direction on 

what constitutes a fleeing felon or 

parole violator, what constitutes 

actively seeking, and more uniform 

procedures among the States. The 

impact of the rule may be to lower the 

number of individuals disqualified, but 

without information on the number 

currently being disqualified or 

information on the number of warrants 

that will be applicable under the 

proposed procedures, there is no way to 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 51913 

determine if there actually will be a 

reduction. Nor, without such data being 

available is there a way to determine if 

the new provisions affect minorities, 

women, and persons with disabilities 

more than the general SNAP caseload. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. chapter 35; see 5 CFR 1320) 

requires the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approve all collections of 

information by a Federal agency before 

they can be implemented. Respondents 

are not required to respond to any 

collection of information unless it 

displays a current valid OMB control 

number. This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Food and Nutrition Service is 

committed to complying with the EGovernment Act, 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. 

Executive Order 13175 

USDA will undertake, within 6 

months after this rule becomes effective, 

a series of Tribal consultation sessions 

to gain input by elected Tribal officials 

or their designees concerning the impact 

of this rule on Tribal governments, 

communities and individuals. These 

sessions will establish a baseline of 

consultation for future actions, should 

any be necessary, regarding this rule. 

Reports from these sessions for 

consultation will be made part of the 

USDA annual reporting on Tribal 

Consultation and Collaboration. USDA 

will respond in a timely and meaningful 

manner to all Tribal government 

requests for consultation concerning 

this rule and will provide additional 

venues, such as webinars and 

teleconferences, to periodically host 

collaborative conversations with Tribal 

leaders and their representatives 

concerning ways to improve this rule in 

Indian country. 

We are unaware of any current Tribal 

laws that could be in conflict with the 

proposed rule. We request that 

commenters address any concerns in 

this regard in their responses. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 272 

Alaska, Civil rights, Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program, Grant 

programs—social programs, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

7 CFR Part 273 

Administrative practice and 

procedures, Aliens, Claims, 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program, Fraud, Grant programs—social 

programs, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Social 

Security, Students. 

Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 272 and 273 

are proposed to be amended as follows: 

1. The authority citation for Parts 272 

and 273 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2036. 

PART 272—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES 

2. Paragraph 272.1(c)(1)(vii) is 

amended by revising the fourth and fifth 

sentences. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 272.1 General terms and conditions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) * * * If a law enforcement 

officer provides documentation 

indicating that a household member is 

fleeing to avoid prosecution or custody 

for a felony, or has violated a condition 

of probation or parole, the State agency 

shall follow the procedures in 

§ 273.11(n) to terminate the member’s 

participation. A request for information 

that does not comply with the 

requirements in § 273.11(n) would not 

be sufficient to terminate the member’s 

participation. * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 273—CERTIFICATION OF 

ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS 

3. Paragraph 273.11(n) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 273.11 Action on households with 

special circumstances 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(1) Fleeing felon. To designate an 

individual as a fleeing felon, the State 

agency must verify that an individual is 

a fleeing felon or a law enforcement 

official must have provided the State 

agency with an appropriate warrant. 

(i) The State agency must verify that: 

(A) There is an outstanding felony 

warrant (or high misdemeanor warrant 

in New Jersey) for the individual; 

(B) The individual is aware of, or 

should reasonably have been able to 

expect that, a warrant has or would have 

been issued; 

(C) The individual has taken some 

action to avoid being arrested or jailed; 

and 

(D) A law enforcement agency is 

actively seeking the individual; or 

(ii) A law enforcement officer presents 

an outstanding felony arrest warrant, 

identified by one of the following 

National Crime Information Center 

Uniform Offense Classification Codes, to 

a State agency to obtain information on 

the location of and other information 

about the individual named in the 

warrant: 

(A) Escape (4901); 

(B) Flight to Avoid (prosecution, 

confinement, etc.) (4902); or 

(C) Flight-Escape (4999). 

(2) Probation and parole violators. 

Any individual discovered to be a 

parole or probation violator shall not be 

considered to be an eligible household 

member. To be considered a probation 

or parole violator, the individual must 

have violated a condition of his or her 

probation or parole and law 

enforcement must be actively seeking 

the individual to enforce the conditions 

of the probation or parole. 

(3) ‘‘Actively seeking’’ is defined for 

paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this 

section as: 

(i) A law enforcement agency stating 

that it intends to enforce an outstanding 

warrant or arrest an individual for a 

probation or parole violation within 20 

days of submitting a request to a State 

agency for information about a specific 

individual; 

(ii) A law enforcement agency 

presents a felony arrest warrant listed in 

paragraph (n)(1)(ii) of this section; or 

(iii) A law enforcement agency stating 

that it intends to enforce an outstanding 

warrant or arrest an individual for a 

probation or parole violation within 30 

days of the date of a request from a State 

agency about a specific warrant or 

violation. 

(4) The State agency shall give the law 

enforcement agency 20 days to respond 

to a request for information about the 

conditions of the warrant or a probation 

or parole violation and whether the law 

enforcement agency intends to actively 

pursue the individual. If the law 

enforcement agency does not indicate 

that it intends to enforce the warrant 

within 30 days of the date of the State’s 

request for information about the 

warrant, the State agency shall 

determine that the individual is not a 

fleeing felon or a probation or parole 

violator and document the household’s 

case file accordingly. If the law 

enforcement agency indicates that it 

does intend to enforce the warrant 

within 30 days of the date of the request 

for information on the warrant, the State 

agency will postpone taking any action 

on the case until the 30-day period has 

expired. Once the 30-day period has 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
51914 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 161 / Friday, August 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

expired, the State agency shall verify 

with the law enforcement agency 

whether it has attempted to execute the 

warrant. If it has, the State agency shall 

take appropriate action to deny an 

applicant or terminate a participant who 

has been determined to be a fleeing 

felon or a probation or parole violator or 

who has been apprehended. If the law 

enforcement agency has not taken any 

action within 30 days, the State agency 

shall not consider the individual a 

potential fleeing felon or probation or 

parole violator, shall document the case 

file accordingly, and take no further 

action. 

(5) Application processing. The State 

agency shall continue to process the 

application while awaiting verification 

of fleeing felon or probation or parole 

violator status. If the State agency is 

required to act on the case without 

being able to determine fleeing felon or 

probation or parole violator status in 

order to meet the time standards in 

§ 273.2(g) or § 273.2(i)(3), the State 

agency shall process the application 

without consideration of the 

individual’s fleeing felon or probation 

or parole violator status. 

* * * * * 

4. Paragraph 273.12(a)(5)(vi)(B) is 

amended by redesignating paragraph 

(a)(5)(vi)(B)(3) as paragraph 

(a)(5)(vi)(B)(4) and adding a new 

paragraph (a)(5)(vi)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 273.12 Reporting requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(vi) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(3) A household member has been 

identified as a fleeing felon or probation 

or parole violator in accord with 

§ 273.11(n); 

Dated: August 11, 2011. 

Kevin Concannon, 

Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21194 Filed 8–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

19 CFR Parts 10 and 163 

[USCBP–2011–0030] 

RIN 1515–AD75 

Duty-Free Treatment of Certain Visual 

and Auditory Materials 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security; Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

amend the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) regulations pertaining 

to the filing of documentation related to 

free entry of certain merchandise under 

Chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

The proposed amendment would permit 

an applicant to file the documentation 

required for duty-free treatment of 

certain visual and auditory materials of 

an educational, scientific, or cultural 

character under subheading 9817.00.40, 

HTSUS, at any time prior to the 

liquidation of the entry. The regulation 

currently requires the filing of this 

documentation within 90 days of the 

date of entry. The proposed change 

would provide more time for the 

importer to provide the necessary 

certification documentation to CBP and 

would serve to align the filing of 

required certification documentation 

with a change in CBP policy that 

extended the liquidation cycle for 

entries in the ordinary course of 

business from 90 days to 314 days after 

the date of entry. The change is 

consistent with other regulations that 

govern the duty-free treatment of 

merchandise under Chapter 98, HTSUS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

via Docket No. USCBP 2011–0030. 

• Mail: Trade and Commercial 

Regulations Branch, Regulations and 

Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, 799 9th Street, NW., (Mint 

Annex), Washington, DC 20229–1179. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submitted 

comments may also be inspected during 

regular business days between the hours 

of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Trade and 

Commercial Regulations Branch, 

Regulations and Rulings, Office of 

International Trade, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW., 

5th Floor, Washington, DC. 

Arrangements to inspect submitted 

comments should be made in advance 

by calling Joseph Clark at (202) 325– 

0118. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Dinerstein, Valuation and 

Special Programs Branch, Regulations 

and Rulings, Office of International 

Trade, (202) 325–0132. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written data, views, or 

arguments on all aspects of this 

proposed rule. U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) also invites comments 

that relate to the economic, 

environmental, or federalism effects that 

might result from this proposed rule. 

Comments that will provide the most 

assistance to CBP in developing these 

procedures will reference a specific 

portion of the proposed rule, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include data, information, or 

authority that supports such 

recommended change. See ADDRESSES

above for information on how to submit 

comments. 

Background 

The United States signed the 

‘‘Agreement for Facilitating the 

International Circulation of Visual and 

Auditory Materials of an Educational, 

Scientific, and Cultural Character’’ 

made at Beirut, Lebanon (also referred 

to as the ‘‘Beirut Agreement’’) in 1948. 

By Public Law 89–634, 80 Stat. 879, 19 

U.S.C. 2501 (October 8, 1966), which 

amended the Tariff Schedules of the 

United States, and Executive Order 

11311, 31 FR 13413 (Oct. 18, 1966), the 

United States implemented its 

obligations under the Agreement to 


wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS