Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 7127 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt at telephone number: (206) 553– 

0256, email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov, 

or the above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 26, 2013, the EPA published 

a proposed rulemaking to approve a 

limited maintenance plan addressing 

coarse particulate matter (PM10) for the 

Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma maintenance 

areas (78 FR 78311). The EPA received 

a request that the public comment 

period be reopened to allow more time 

to review the proposal and prepare 

comments. In response to this request, 

the EPA is reopening the public 

comment period. 

Dated: January 24, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02609 Filed 2–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Parts 262 and 264 

RIN 0970—AC56 

Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) Program, State 

Reporting On Policies and Practices to 

Prevent Use of TANF Funds in 

Electronic Benefit Transfer 

Transactions in Specified Locations 

AGENCY: Office of Family Assistance 

(OFA), Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF) proposes 

to amend the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) regulations to 

require states, subject to penalty, to 

maintain policies and practices that 

prevent TANF funded assistance from 

being used in any electronic benefit 

transfer transaction in specified 

locations. This responds to provisions 

in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012 requiring states 

receiving TANF grants to maintain 

policies and practices as necessary to 

prevent assistance provided under the 

program from being used in any 

electronic benefit transfer transaction in 

any liquor store; any casino, gambling 

casino, or gaming establishment; or any 

retail establishment that provides adultoriented entertainment in which 

performers disrobe or perform in an 

unclothed state for entertainment. 

DATES: In order to be considered, 

comments on this proposed rule must 

be received on or before May 7, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. (We strongly 

recommend this method of submitting 

comments). Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Family Assistance, 

Administration for Children and 

Families, 5th Floor East, 370 L’Enfant 

Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20024, 

Attention: Robert Shelbourne. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: OFA/ACF, 

5th Floor East, 901 D Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Shelbourne, Office of Family 

Assistance, 202–401–5150 (not a tollfree call). Deaf and hearing impaired 

individuals may call the Federal Dual 

Party Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern Time. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Contents 

I. Public Inspection of Comments 

II. Statutory Authority 

III. Background 

IV. Discussion of Regulatory Provisions 

Part 262—Accountability Provisions— 

General 

Part 264—Other Accountability Provisions 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

IX. Congressional Review 

X. Assessment of Federal Regulation and 

Policies on Families 

XI. Executive Order 13132 

I. Public Inspection of Comments 

All comments received, including any 

personal information provided, will be 

made available for public inspection 

Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 5 

p.m. at 370 L’Enfant Promenade SW., 

Washington, DC. 

II. Statutory Authority 

This proposed regulation is being 

issued under the authority granted to 

the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) by the Middle Class Tax 

Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–96), Section 408 of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608), 

Section 409 of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 609), and Section 1102 of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302), 

which authorizes the Secretary to make 

and publish such rules and regulations, 

not inconsistent with the Act, as may be 

necessary to the efficient administration 

of functions under the Act. 

The statute at 42 U.S.C. 617 limits the 

authority of the Federal government to 

regulate state conduct or enforce the 

TANF provisions of the Social Security 

Act, except as expressly provided. We 

have interpreted this provision to allow 

us to regulate where Congress has 

charged HHS with enforcing certain 

TANF provisions by assessing penalties. 

Because the legislation includes a TANF 

penalty, HHS has the authority to 

regulate in this instance. 

III. Background 

Authorized by title IV–A of the Social 

Security Act, TANF is a block grant that 

provides states, territories and tribes 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7128 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

federal funds to design and operate a 

program to accomplish the purposes of 

TANF. The purposes are: (1) Assisting 

needy families so that children can be 

cared for in their own homes or homes 

of relatives; (2) reducing the 

dependency of needy parents by 

promoting job preparation, work and 

marriage; (3) preventing out-of-wedlock 

pregnancies; and (4) encouraging the 

formation and maintenance of twoparent families. 

In addition to federal TANF block 

grant funds, each state must spend a 

certain minimum amount of non-federal 

funds to help eligible families in ways 

that further a TANF purpose. This is 

referred to as maintenance-of-effort 

(MOE). 

In general, federal TANF and state 

MOE funds may be expended on 

benefits and services targeted to needy 

families, and activities that aim to 

prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock 

pregnancies or encourage the formation 

and maintenance of two-parent families, 

as well as administrative expenses. 

Regulations under 45 CFR 260.31 define 

‘‘assistance,’’ and regulations under 45 

CFR 263.2 specify what kind of state 

expenditures count toward meeting a 

state’s MOE requirement. In particular, 

federal TANF and state MOE funds may 

be expended on ‘‘assistance,’’ which 

includes cash payments, vouchers, and 

other forms of benefits designed to meet 

a family’s ongoing basic needs (i.e., 

food, clothing, shelter, utilities, 

household goods, personal care items, 

and general incidental expenses). 

Assistance also includes supportive 

services such as transportation and 

child care provided to families who are 

not employed (see 45 CFR 260.31(a)). 

TANF funds also can be used for a wide 

range of benefits and services that do 

not fall within the definition of 

assistance; such expenditures are 

considered ‘‘nonassistance.’’ 

Based on the most recent information 

provided to us by states, there are 

currently four means that states use to 

provide assistance payments to eligible 

low-income families with children: 

Paper checks, Electronic Funds 

Transfers (EFT), Electronic Benefit 

Transfer (EBT) cards, and Electronic 

Payment Cards (EPC). Most states have 

replaced paper checks with one or more 

of the other three delivery methods in 

order to provide benefits in a timelier 

manner, reduce theft and fraud, and 

eliminate the need to pay check-cashing 

fees. For example, states are 

automatically transferring assistance 

payments directly into a recipient’s own 

private bank account through EFT; 

however, this option is not available if 

a recipient does not have access to or 

qualify for a checking account. Most 

states load the amount of assistance on 

EBT cards or EPCs, both of which allow 

recipients to use a debit-like card to 

access their benefits through automated 

teller machines (ATMs) and point-ofsale (POS) devices. EPCs differ from 

government EBT cards in that they are 

network-branded (Visa or MasterCard) 

prepaid cards that recipients may use 

virtually anywhere the brand’s logo is 

displayed. On the other hand, EBT cards 

may be used in fewer locations, as 

retailers and ATMs must be authorized 

to accept EBT cards. 

On February 22, 2012, President 

Obama signed Public Law 112–96, 

which among its provisions, requires 

states to maintain policies and practices 

to prevent TANF funds from being used 

in any electronic benefit transfer 

transaction in any liquor store; any 

casino, gambling casino, or gambling 

establishment; or any retail 

establishment which provides adultoriented entertainment in which 

performers disrobe or perform in an 

unclothed state for entertainment. 

The legislation at Section 4004(b) also 

imposes a new reporting requirement as 

well as a new penalty. Each state is 

required to report to the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) by 

February 22, 2014, its implementation 

of policies and practices related to 

restricting recipient from using their 

TANF assistance in EBT transactions at 

the locations specified in the previous 

paragraph. HHS will reduce a state’s 

block grant if the state fails to comply 

with this reporting requirement or if, 

based on the information that the state 

reports, HHS finds that the state has not 

implemented and maintained the 

required policies and practices. 

Finally, states are required to include 

in their state plans a statement outlining 

how they intend to implement policies 

and procedures to prevent access to 

assistance through electronic fund 

transactions at casinos, liquor stores, 

and establishments providing adultoriented entertainment. The state plan 

also must include an explanation of 

how the state plans to ensure that (1) 

recipients of the assistance have 

adequate access to their cash assistance, 

and (2) recipients of assistance have 

access to using or withdrawing 

assistance with minimal fees or charges, 

including an opportunity to access 

assistance with no fee or charges, and 

are provided information on applicable 

fees and surcharges that apply to 

electronic fund transactions involving 

the assistance, and that such 

information is made publicly available. 

Before enactment of Public Law 112– 

96, there were no federal requirements 

to restrict a recipient’s use of TANF 

assistance provided on electronic 

benefit cards, nor were there any 

provisions in the TANF statute or 

regulations precluding a state from 

implementing policies that prevent a 

recipient from using his or her benefit 

card at particular locations. Indeed, 

various states have taken measures to 

restrict access to EBT benefits at ATMs 

located in different types of 

establishments, such as casinos, adult 

entertainment establishments, liquor 

stores, bail bonds businesses, bingo 

halls, cruise ships, gun/ammunition 

stores, psychic readers, massage parlors, 

and tattoo and piercing shops. These 

actions have been required through state 

executive orders, state legislation, and 

state agency policy directives. 

On April 25, 2012, HHS published in 

the Federal Register a Request for 

Public Comment (RFPC), which invited 

states and other interested persons to 

provide information that could help to 

inform the rulemaking process. State 

TANF agencies, others involved in 

implementation, and any stakeholders 

were invited to comment on: Current 

methods of assistance delivery and 

ability to identify transaction locations; 

mechanisms to ensure that recipients 

have adequate access to their cash 

assistance, including withdrawals with 

minimal fees and opportunities to 

access assistance with no fee; incidence 

of the use of TANF EBT transactions in 

restricted locations; issues and 

challenges states could face in 

implementing the requirements of 

Public Law 112–96—e.g., technical 

issues, costs, and access implications— 

and mechanisms for addressing 

problems identified; experience with 

implementing EBT transaction 

restrictions (if applicable), e.g., nature of 

restriction, specific method and 

procedures used, challenges to 

implementation and responses, costs, if 

and how approach is effective, and any 

concerns raised by businesses, 

electronic benefit vendors, and/or TANF 

recipients. 

As stated in the RFPC, while we do 

not intend to provide responses to 

specific comments, in the next section 

we do indicate where comments 

informed the proposed rule. In general, 

we received input from 45 commenters. 

A majority were state or local TANF 

agencies, most with experience in 

implementing TANF EBT restrictions or 

in the process of considering 

approaches to doing so. Other 

commenters included welfare advocacy/ 

research organizations, electronic 

benefit industry organizations/

companies, and one member of the 

general public. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 7129 

Responses to the RFPC provided 

information on matters such as the 

processes involved with tracking EBT 

transactions, the information available 

in transaction records, the challenges 

associated with identifying types of 

locations where transactions have 

occurred, and potential options for 

preventing TANF EBT transactions at 

specified locations. Some states that 

have already implemented EBT 

prohibitions described their 

experiences, provided examples of 

definitions of the types of businesses 

subject to restrictions, identified 

challenges and costs associated with 

implementation, and described 

concerns of businesses, vendors, and 

recipients. This information helped us 

assess the feasibility and effectiveness of 

various approaches to identifying 

locations subject to restrictions, 

preventing the use of TANF assistance 

via EBT transactions at those locations, 

and monitoring and enforcing 

compliance. For example, options for 

preventing the use of TANF via EBT 

transactions in the specified locations 

included centralized electronic blocking 

by a state or its EBT vendor, placing the 

responsibility on business owners to 

block access at their establishments, and 

relying on TANF recipients to monitor 

their EBT use and imposing penalties on 

those who do not comply with 

restrictions. We provide further detail 

on the options identified in the 

comments later in this preamble in 

discussing potential approaches that 

HHS would accept as complying with 

the new statutory requirements. 

Additionally, commenters raised 

other concerns that they encouraged 

HHS to consider when drafting 

regulations. For example, commenters 

frequently highlighted that prohibiting 

EBT access at all of the locations cited 

in the statute would have a detrimental 

effect on TANF recipients access to cash 

assistance, particularly in rural areas, 

inner city neighborhoods, and Indian 

reservations. Commenters expressed 

that many clients do not have access to 

transportation, or the funds for 

transportation if ATMs in their 

neighborhoods are restricted and they 

are forced to travel further to obtain 

benefits. Another concern expressed in 

a number of comments related to the 

inability of states or their contractors/

vendors to prevent TANF assistance that 

has been deposited directly in a 

recipient’s personal banking account 

from being used or accessed in the 

locations identified in the legislation. 

Several states provided comments 

that included data about the incidence 

of the use of TANF EBT transactions in 

liquor stores, gaming establishments, 

and adult entertainment venues (and 

any other types of establishments on 

which the state chooses to place 

restrictions). States that have conducted 

such an analysis consistently informed 

us that they found the numbers engaged 

in possible misuse are very low. While 

we understand that the extent of misuse 

of benefits may be low, any 

inappropriate expenditure of public 

funds raises concerns. 

Eight states reported that they had 

measured the extent that TANF benefits 

were used in prohibited locations. 

While findings varied slightly among 

states based on which locations are 

included in the assessment, it was 

always less than one percent: 

• California, which prohibits TANF 

EBT access at the greatest number of 

location types (12), found that less than 

one half of one percent of the total 

number of cash transactions were 

performed at these locations prior to 

implementing its prohibition. 

• Florida’s last analysis in 2010 

indicated less than .01% of state cash 

benefits were being accessed at liquor 

stores and casinos. 

• Indiana provided information on 

liquor store ATM transactions in its 

comments, stating that from October 

through December 2011 it found that 

fewer than 30 of the 28,000 transactions 

per month took place in restricted 

establishments with the letters ‘‘LIQ’’ in 

the name. 

• New Hampshire reviewed a sixmonth period of EBT card transactions. 

During this period, there were no 

transactions that could be identified as 

happening at a New Hampshire liquor 

store, a casino or other type of gambling 

establishment, or adult-oriented 

entertainment business. 

• New Jersey reviewed transactions 

occurring at casinos from April-October 

2011, the total number of which 

represented less than 1% of the total 

number Family First transactions for 

this period. The state notes that these 

transactions may or may not have 

occurred on the gaming floor, as any 

transaction on casino property was 

included in the count. 

Finally, commenters presented 

recommendations for HHS to consider 

as we draft proposed regulations. There 

was a general consensus that HHS 

should draft regulations in a manner 

that provides states flexibility when 

implementing these new requirements. 

Commenters generally urged that states 

be allowed to implement approaches 

that are cost effective and fit within the 

existing structure of state operations, yet 

at the same time meet the intent and 

requirements of the law. Some 

commenters also cautioned that the 

regulations should seek to protect 

recipients who inadvertently use an 

EBT card at prohibited locations, and 

ensure that states’ policies are 

implemented in a non-discriminatory 

manner. 

IV. Discussion of Regulatory Provisions 

Part 262—Accountability Provisions— 

General 

The proposed rule in part 262 adds 

new penalties for failure to report or 

adequately implement the new 

requirements outlined in Public Law 

112–96, defines terms relevant to the 

new requirements, specifies when the 

penalty takes effect, and identifies the 

reporting form that ACF will use to 

determine whether a state warrants a 

penalty. 

Section 262.1 What penalties apply to 

states? 

Section 4004(b) of Public Law 112–96 

at Section 409(a)(16) of the Social 

Security Act (the Act) creates a new 

penalty. As provided in the statute, the 

penalty will be imposed if, by February 

22, 2014, a state fails to report to HHS 

its implementation of the policies and 

practices to prevent assistance provided 

under the state program funded under 

this part from being used in any 

electronic benefit transfer transaction in: 

(i) Any liquor store; (ii) any casino, 

gambling casino, or gaming 

establishment; or (iii) any retail 

establishment which provides adultoriented entertainment in which 

performers disrobe or perform in an 

unclothed state for entertainment. 

Furthermore, HHS may impose a 

penalty if it determines, based on the 

information provided in a state report, 

that the state has not implemented and 

maintained such policies and practices. 

If HHS determines that the state should 

be subject to a penalty, it will reduce the 

state family assistance grant by five 

percent or a lesser amount based on the 

degree of noncompliance. States should 

note that the regulations at 45 CFR 262.4 

through 262.7, concerning the processes 

for appealing a penalty, presenting a 

reasonable cause justification, and 

submitting a corrective compliance 

plan, apply to the new penalty added to 

45 CFR 262.1. 

Accordingly, we propose to add 

paragraph (16)(i) to § 262.1(a) to provide 

that a penalty of not more than five 

percent of the adjusted SFAG will be 

applied for failure to report by February 

22, 2014, the state’s implementation of 

policies and practices related to these 

prohibited EBT transactions and to add 

paragraph (16)(ii) to provide that a 

penalty likewise will be applied for FY 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7130 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2014 and each succeeding fiscal year if 

the state does not demonstrate that it 

has implemented and maintained such 

policies and practices. Note that if a 

state submits the initial report after 

February 22, 2014 (or a subsequently 

due report after February 22 of a 

subsequent year), and also fails to 

demonstrate its implementation of 

policies and practices, the combined 

penalty will not exceed five percent of 

its adjusted SFAG. Conforming changes 

also are proposed in paragraph (c)(2) to 

add reference to the penalties proposed 

in paragraphs (a)(16)(i) and (ii). 

Section 262.2 When do the TANF 

penalty provisions apply? 

We propose to amend § 262.2 to add 

new paragraph (e) indicating that the 

penalty for failure to report on how the 

state is implementing and maintaining 

policies and practices to prevent 

assistance from being used in electronic 

benefit transfer transactions in specified 

locations will be imposed for FY 2014 

and each succeeding fiscal year. 

Compliance requires the submission of 

an initial report by February 22, 2014, 

and annually by February 22 of each 

subsequent year. 

Section 262.3 How will we determine if 

a state is subject to a penalty? 

We propose to amend § 262.3 by 

adding a new paragraph (g) to specify 

we will use the information provided in 

an annual state report due by February 

22, 2014, and annually thereafter, to 

determine whether to impose a penalty 

authorized by section 409(a)(16) of the 

Social Security Act. Note that this 

reporting requirement is distinct from 

the provisions of Public Law 112–96 

related to additional state plan 

requirements (see Sec. 4004(c)). 

Part 264—Other Accountability 

Provisions 

Subpart A—What specific rules apply 

for other program penalties? 

The proposed rule in part 264 

explains in further detail what HHS 

expects of states when implementing 

the new requirements of Public Law 

112–96 by specifying the policies and 

procedures required, providing relevant 

definitions and addressing 

consequences if a state fails to meet the 

requirement. 

Section 264.0 What definitions apply 

to this part? 

In order to clarify the types of 

locations where states are required to 

block the use of TANF assistance via 

electronic benefit transfer transactions 

and to ensure that the policies and 

practices are applied consistently 

between states, we propose to amend 

section 264.0(b). 

We will incorporate the statutory 

definition of ‘‘electronic benefit transfer 

transaction,’’ which is ‘‘the use of a 

credit or debit card service at an 

automated teller machine, point-of-sales 

terminal, or access to an online system 

for the withdrawal of funds or the 

processing of a payment for 

merchandise or service.’’ The statutory 

language is broad and questions have 

been raised as to whether the definition 

includes TANF funds directly deposited 

into a recipient’s private bank account, 

and whether it is feasible for states and 

banks to implement such a requirement, 

particularly if the recipient also 

maintains non-TANF funds in the same 

account. Accordingly, we encourage 

commenters to address the question of 

whether states and banks have, or 

reasonably could have, the capacity to 

apply the EBT transaction restrictions to 

assistance funds deposited in private 

bank accounts and to monitor whether 

recipients use such funds in a 

prohibited manner. 

As provided in the statute, in 

proposed paragraph (b), the term ‘‘liquor 

store’’ refers to any retail establishment 

which sells exclusively or primarily 

intoxicating liquor, and does not 

include a grocery store which sells both 

intoxicating liquor and groceries 

including staple foods. 

The statute provides exclusions to the 

phrase ‘‘casino, gambling casino, or 

gaming establishment,’’ but does not 

provide a further definition. We propose 

to interpret the statutory reference to 

‘‘casino, gambling casino, or gaming 

establishment’’ to mean an 

establishment with a primary purpose of 

accommodating the wagering of money. 

Under the statutory definition provided 

in proposed paragraph (b), this would 

not include a grocery store which also 

offers, or is located within the same 

building or complex as casino, gambling 

or gaming activities or other 

establishments where such activities are 

incidental to the principal purpose of 

the business. 

The statute is silent of the definition 

of ‘‘retail establishment which provides 

adult-oriented entertainment in which 

performers disrobe or perform in an 

unclothed state to entertainment.’’ To 

clarify the intended locations to which 

restrictions apply, we add to proposed 

paragraph (b) that this term means 

‘‘such an establishment that prohibits 

the entrance of minors under the age 

specified by state law.’’ Therefore, a 

theater or cinema whose primary 

purpose is not to provide adult-oriented 

entertainment, but may, for instance, 

occasionally feature an unrated or Xrated movie, would be excluded from 

this definition because minors are 

generally allowed to enter such an 

establishment (though not permitted to 

attend the unrated or X-rated film). 

Section 264.60 What policies and 

procedures must a state implement to 

prevent assistance use in electronic 

benefit transfer transaction in locations 

prohibited by the Social Security Act? 

We propose to add a new section 

264.60 under subpart A. Under the 

proposed paragraph, states are required 

to implement policies and procedures to 

prevent assistance (defined at 

§ 260.31(a)) provided with federal TANF 

or state TANF MOE funds from being 

used in any electronic benefit transfer 

transaction in any: (a) Liquor store, (b) 

casino, gambling casino or gaming 

establishment, (c) retail establishment 

which provides adult-oriented 

entertainment in which performers 

disrobe or perform in an unclothed state 

for entertainment. As states consider the 

appropriate policies and practices that 

they will implement to comply with the 

new requirements of Public Law 112– 

96, we advise them to be mindful of the 

goals of the legislation. The new 

requirements not only aim to ensure 

that cash assistance is used in a manner 

consistent with the purposes of TANF, 

but also serve to promote the integrity 

of the program and the responsible 

stewardship of public funds. When HHS 

reviews state reports that outline their 

policies and procedures, we will accept 

any reasonable approaches that further 

these goals and comply with the 

statutory and regulatory requirements. 

We note that a state has flexibility in 

determining appropriate policies and 

practices to prevent the use of TANF 

assistance in electronic benefit transfer 

transactions at specified locations. At 

the same time, states’ policies and 

practices must prevent the use of TANF 

funds at the specified locations, while 

ensuring reasonable access to cash 

assistance, as directed by Congress. 

Below, we outline examples of 

approaches that HHS would accept as 

complying with statutory and regulatory 

requirements; at the same time, states 

have the option to elect other methods 

to achieve the goals of the legislation. 

Identifying Locations: When reporting 

policies and practices to prevent the use 

of TANF assistance at any liquor store; 

casino, gambling casino or gaming 

establishment; and retail establishment 

which provides adult-oriented 

entertainment in which performers 

disrobe or perform in an unclothed state 

for entertainment, states must describe 

an initial and on-going process for 

identifying the establishments in their 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 7131 

states that are subject to the 

requirements. Comments responding to 

the RFPC reflected a number of 

challenges associated with identifying 

the locations where access to TANF 

assistance via EBT transaction should be 

prevented; these predominately related 

to inaccurate or limited information in 

transaction data, e.g., wrong addresses, 

missing data elements. Comments 

explained that retailers do not always 

send accurate ATM location information 

to the third party processors and/or 

third party processors do not 

consistently populate ATM data fields 

accurately. Furthermore, commenters 

stated that ATM location information 

can change each time an ATM is moved 

or there is a change in ownership, 

which also makes it difficult to ensure 

that ATMs have the restrictions applied. 

The Government Accountability Office’s 

recent report on TANF Electronic 

Benefit Cards (GAO–12–535, July, 2012) 

confirms this in describing California’s 

experience identifying locations where 

EBT access would be blocked. State 

officials said that the EBT transaction 

data sometimes contain addresses that 

are misspelled or refer to the address of 

a retailer’s corporate offices rather than 

the locations where the transactions 

actually took place. GAO also found that 

address information was complete for 

only 30 percent of transactions in Texas, 

but also estimate that about 70.4 percent 

of those addresses could be simply 

standardized. Furthermore, while ATM 

transactions contain merchant category 

codes (MCCs), this information has 

limitations because some ATMs have an 

MCC that identifies it as a financial 

institution rather than referring to the 

type of establishment where the ATM is 

located. GAO concludes that 

‘‘preventing unauthorized transactions 

can be time-intensive and is impaired 

by flaws in available transaction data 

and other challenges. Addressing the 

limitations we found in the transaction 

data that impede the identification and 

monitoring of certain locations could 

require significant resources.’’ HHS 

understands these challenges, and we 

encourage states to explore an array of 

approaches aimed at identifying 

locations subject to restrictions. We 

would anticipate that a state’s 

methodology would involve multiple 

actions to identify the relevant 

establishments, such as reviewing 

transaction records, conducting Internet 

searches (e.g., searches of specific 

keywords associated with the types of 

establishments identified in the statute), 

and other forms of searches a state 

determines to be appropriate and 

feasible (e.g., visiting establishments). 

When possible, we recommend that 

TANF agencies collaborate with state 

licensing agencies, such as a state’s 

gaming commission, for whatever 

information licensing agencies can 

provide in efforts to develop a list of 

locations that are subject to these 

requirements. When seeking to identify 

liquor stores, a TANF agency may 

contact the state liquor authority to 

obtain a list of all establishments with 

a liquor license; the TANF agency can 

then notify all the merchants that they 

must follow procedures to prevent 

TANF assistance from being used or 

accessed at their place of business 

unless they notify the state agency that 

they do not fall within the definition of 

‘‘liquor store.’’ Finally, states will need 

to develop on-going procedures for 

identifying new establishments to 

which the state’s requirements apply. 

Commenters noted that while gaming 

authorities may have a list of all affected 

gaming establishments, and liquor 

authorities may have a listing that 

includes all liquor stores (though the list 

is likely to be broader than just liquor 

stores), there may be no entity in the 

state charged with regulating adult 

entertainment, and accordingly, there 

may be no readily available list of such 

establishments. If that is the case, then 

a state may choose to conduct internet 

searches using key words as the 

principal way of identifying such 

establishments, but if the state relies on 

such a methodology, it will be 

appropriate to provide notice to 

identified entities so that they can 

inform states of any misclassification. 

We received a number of comments 

explaining that states do not have the 

authority to block transactions that 

occur on sovereign tribal lands in the 

state. While Congress did not apply the 

requirements in Public Law 112–96 to 

tribal TANF programs, we believe it is 

the responsibility of the state to develop 

appropriate policies for preventing 

access to TANF cash assistance 

provided by state programs at any 

‘‘liquor store,’’ ‘‘casino, gambling 

casino, or gaming establishment’’ or 

‘‘retail establishment which provides 

adult-oriented entertainment in which 

performers disrobe or perform in an 

unclothed state for entertainment,’’ 

including those that are located on 

sovereign tribal land. We encourage 

states to work with tribes to try to 

prevent state TANF assistance use at the 

prohibited locations located on 

sovereign tribal land. 

We also face the question of how to 

address internet transactions. We note 

that the statutory definition of 

‘‘electronic benefit transfer transaction’’ 

refers to ‘‘access to an online system for 

the withdrawal of funds or the 

processing of a payment for 

merchandise or a service’’ in the 

establishments identified in the statute. 

It has been suggested that the statute is 

only intended to apply to transactions 

occurring in the specified 

establishments and not to internet 

transactions. While we are mindful of 

the overall goals of the legislative 

provision, we recognize that there may 

be significant practical issues that states 

would face in any efforts to enforce 

restrictions on internet transactions. 

Accordingly, we invite comments in 

response to this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on the issue of whether the 

restrictions should extend to internet 

transactions, and if so, what 

mechanisms might be available to states 

to enforce such restrictions. 

Furthermore, many commenters 

recommended that regulations allow 

states the flexibility to avoid imposing 

a restriction at an ATM or POS terminal 

if such a restriction would limit the 

ability of recipients in a geographic area 

to access their cash assistance. While 

one of the new state plan requirements 

at Section 4004(c) of Public Law 112–96 

conveys a clear emphasis that states 

ensure adequate access to cash 

assistance for recipients, we do not 

interpret this language as providing 

states the option to avoid imposing a 

restriction at an ATM or POS terminal 

located in any of the three types of 

specified locations. Rather, it conveys a 

responsibility for states to take 

corrective actions to increase locations 

where TANF recipients may access their 

cash assistance if they find that there is 

an insufficient number of access points 

in a geographic area. Commenters 

provided the following examples of 

factors to take into consideration when 

aiming to ensure reasonable access by 

applying exceptions to restrictions: The 

number of recipients who would be 

affected if a location to access assistance 

is blocked and the number of ATMs 

available in a community (e.g., if a 

community within a defined geographic 

area or zip code has fewer than three 

locations to access cash assistance, none 

of those locations would be subject to 

any restrictions). One state TANF 

agency that has implemented blocking 

measures commented that it ‘‘maintains 

cash access plans for each county in the 

state to ensure that recipients have 

reasonable access to benefits. These 

plans are reviewed on an annual or asneed basis. The plans were reviewed 

prior to and after the deactivation of 

certain ATMs and it has been 

determined that sufficient cash access 

continues to be maintained.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7132 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Finally, we remind states of the other 

state plan requirement at Section 

4004(c) of Public Law 112–96, stating 

that a plan must also include an 

explanation of how the state plans to 

ensure that recipients of assistance 

‘‘have access to using or withdrawing 

assistance with minimal fees or charges, 

including an opportunity to access 

assistance with no fee or charges, and 

are provided information on applicable 

fees and surcharges that apply to 

electronic fund transactions involving 

the assistance, and that such 

information is made publicly available.’’ 

Therefore, as they develop plans to 

ensure adequate access to cash 

assistance, states must be sure to 

consider whether there is an adequate 

number of locations where recipients 

may obtain cash assistance at a minimal 

cost and at no cost. Comments conveyed 

that a reasonable cash access fee is 

between $0.25 and $1.00. Furthermore, 

most states offer a number of free ATM 

withdrawals per month, which would 

be stipulated in a state’s contract with 

its EBT vendor. The Electronic Funds 

Transfer Association (EFTA) 

commented that a survey of electronic 

payment program directors revealed that 

‘‘about 93% of [23] responding states 

say that their TANF beneficiaries 

exhaust their monthly cash in no more 

than three transactions.’’ In July of 2011, 

the median of all states’ maximum 

monthly benefit levels for a single 

parent family of three was $428, ranging 

from $170 in Mississippi to $923 in 

Alaska. With an amount that is ‘‘less 

than the estimated cost of a modest twobedroom apartment (based on HUD Fair 

Market Rents or FMRs) in all states, and 

less than half of the FMR in 26 states,’’ 

it is plausible that a recipient would 

withdraw all of his or her monthly 

benefits in few transactions (I. Finch & 

L. Schott, ‘‘TANF Benefits Fell Further 

in 2011 and Are Worth Much Less Than 

in 1996 in Most States,’’ Center on 

Budget and Policy Priorities, November 

21, 2011). If a state TANF agency has 

data that indicate that a majority of its 

TANF beneficiaries withdraw all of 

their cash in fewer than three 

transactions, it may consider providing 

three free transactions so that most 

TANF beneficiaries would incur little or 

no cost. 

Preventing Use of TANF Assistance 

via EBT transactions: Once a state or 

local TANF agency has identified the 

businesses that are subject to 

restrictions, the agency may implement 

one or a combination of approaches that 

aim to prevent a recipient from 

accessing or using his or her TANF 

assistance in EBT transactions at those 

locations. For example, a TANF agency 

may choose to implement electronic or 

automated prevention measures; this 

may involve the reprogramming of 

ATMs and POS terminals so that they 

deny TANF EBT or EPC transactions in 

specified locations. A TANF agency 

would need to notify relevant merchants 

that they must communicate to thirdparty processors or ATM owners to 

block bank identification numbers 

(BINs) associated with TANF benefit 

cards. Alternately, if feasible, a TANF 

agency or its EBT vendor may choose to 

contact the third-party processors who 

provide the network services to those 

devices directly and request that they 

block the EBT BIN at locations subject 

to restrictions. Regarding EPC, one 

commenter explained that ‘‘transaction 

servicers could block transactions by 

matching the terminal ID of the 

incoming transaction against a list of 

prohibited terminal IDs/locations 

provided by the State.’’ 

Another option that does not require 

electronic blocking of ATMs or POS 

terminals is to communicate to 

recipients and/or establishments that 

recipients are not permitted to access 

their TANF benefits via EBT 

transactions at the specified locations 

and enforce compliance with 

appropriate penalties for violations. 

This may involve requiring merchants 

to post signs next to terminals to inform 

TANF recipients of the restrictions, or 

providing a list of restricted 

establishments to recipients, which 

should be updated on a regular basis. 

However, if a state’s policies and 

practices do not electronically prevent 

access to cash assistance at restricted 

locations, the state should consider the 

need for procedures for monitoring 

compliance and taking action (e.g., 

warnings, penalties) when violations are 

identified. States are encouraged to 

periodically evaluate the effectiveness 

of these policies to prevent the use of 

TANF assistance via electronic benefit 

transfer transactions at specified 

locations, and adjust policies as 

necessary. We note that if a state 

chooses to implement policies and 

practices that do not involve steps to 

electronically block or prevent access of 

TANF assistance via EBT transfer, we 

encourage them to ensure that recipients 

are informed and reminded of the 

restrictions on a regular basis. 

Monitoring: State reports of policies 

and practices should include a 

description of implementation 

activities. For example, a state agency 

may have in place procedures for 

auditing a certain percentage of 

recipients’ transaction records to 

determine compliance by individuals 

and businesses; TANF agency staff or 

EBT/EPC vendors may review monthly 

ATM activity reports, matching them 

against a list of terminal IDs or 

addresses of restricted locations, to 

determine whether the owners and 

processors complied with the request to 

reprogram ATMs. A state agency may 

also conduct random site visits to 

establishments that are subject to the 

requirements. 

Enforcement of Compliance: In order 

to fulfill the goals of the legislation, a 

state should have mechanisms in place 

to maintain a state’s policies to prevent 

TANF assistance from being used or 

accessed in restricted locations. For 

example, a state may choose to impose 

penalties on the parties responsible for 

ensuring that ATMs and POS terminals 

are reprogrammed (e.g., merchants, 

ATM owners or third-party processors) 

if they do not block transactions with 

state EBT or EPC cards from being 

processed at relevant ATMs and POS 

terminals. Or if a state chooses to 

implement measures that do not involve 

steps to electronically block EBT access, 

then the state may choose to impose 

penalties on merchants who do not post 

signs informing TANF recipients that 

they cannot use their EBT cards or EPC 

to purchase goods at that establishment 

or access funds at an ATM located on 

the premises. If authorized by state law, 

the state could impose financial 

penalties in relation to entities that are 

subject to state licensing requirements. 

If a TANF agency develops policies 

under which it imposes a sanction or 

penalty on a recipient who is found to 

have used his or her EBT or EPC card 

at a prohibited location, such action 

would be subject to applicable appeals 

procedures needed to meet due process 

requirements. 

Once a state has implemented policies 

and practices to comply with these new 

requirements, in addition to the four 

areas described above (i.e., identifying 

locations; methods to prevent use of 

TANF assistance via EBT transactions in 

restricted locations; monitoring; and 

enforcement of compliance), we 

encourage states to share any 

information they develop concerning 

the effectiveness of policies and 

enforcement practices (e.g., data related 

to the incidence of the use of TANF 

assistance via EBT transactions in 

restricted locations), whether the state 

was able to achieve desired outcomes, 

and any potential plans to modify 

policies in order to address challenges 

or improve effectiveness. This 

information may be useful to other 

states as they consider adjustments to 

their procedures over time. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 7133 

Section 264.61 What happens if a state 

fails to report or implement and 

maintain policies and practices required 

in Section 264.60 of this Subpart? 

We propose to add a new section 

264.61 to address the penalty associated 

with the new requirements. Under 

paragraph (a), HHS will impose a 

penalty of not more than five percent of 

a state’s adjusted SFAG for failure to 

submit by February 22, 2014 a report 

demonstrating the state’s 

implementation of policies and 

practices to prevent EBT use in the 

locations specified in Public Law 

112–96. Under paragraph (b), HHS will 

impose a penalty of not more than five 

percent of a state’s adjusted SFAG each 

fiscal year succeeding FY 2014 in which 

the state does not demonstrate it has 

implemented and maintained the 

required policies and practices. In order 

to meet this requirement, states’ reports 

must fully explain the policies and 

practices that are being implemented 

and maintained; reports should address 

each of the following four areas: 

Identifying locations; methods to 

prevent use of TANF assistance via EBT 

transactions in restricted locations; 

monitoring; and enforcement of 

compliance. Note that if a state submits 

a report after February 22 and also fails 

to demonstrate its implementation of 

policies and practices, the combined 

penalty will not exceed five percent of 

its adjusted SFAG. 

All penalties will be imposed in 

accordance with 45 CFR Part 262, which 

provides states with procedures for 

appealing a penalty, and submitting a 

reasonable cause justification or 

corrective compliance. Furthermore, 

Section 409(a)(16)(C) of the Act, as 

amended by Section 4004(b) of Public 

Law 112–96 provides HHS the 

discretion to reduce the penalty amount 

based on the degree of noncompliance 

of the state. 

Section 409(a)(16)(C) of the Act, as 

amended by Section 4004(b) of Public 

Law 112–96, also specifies that 

‘‘Fraudulent activity by any individual 

in an attempt to circumvent the policies 

and practices required by Section 

408(a)(12) shall not trigger a state 

penalty under subparagraph (A);’’ as 

such, HHS will not base any penalty on 

such information. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule establishes new 

information collection requirements in 

§ 262.3(g). As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, codified at 44 

U.S.C. 3507, the Administration for 

Children and Families will submit a 

copy of these sections to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and they will not be effective 

until they have been approved and 

assigned a clearance number. 

Requirement Number of 

respondents 

Yearly 

submittals 

Average 

burden per 

respondent 

(hours) 

Total burden 

hours 

Annual reporting on policies and practices to prevent TANF assistance from 

being used in electronic benefit transfer transactions in liquor stores; casinos, gambling casinos, or gaming establishments; or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers 

disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment ........................ 54 1 40 2,160 

We estimate the costs of 

implementing these proposed 

requirements would be approximately 

$108,000 annually. We calculated this 

estimate by multiplying 2,160 hours by 

$50 (average cost per hour). 

With respect to these provisions, the 

Administration for Children and 

Families will consider comment by the 

public on this collection of information 

in the following areas: 

• Evaluating whether the proposed 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of ACF, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

• Evaluating the accuracy of ACF’s 

estimate of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and the assumptions 

used; 

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarify of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimizing the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

contained in this proposed regulation 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 

is best assured of having its full effect 

if OMB receives it within 30 days of 

publication. This does not affect the 

deadline for the public to comment to 

the Department on the regulations. 

Written comments to OMB for the 

proposed collection of information 

should be sent directly to the following: 

Office of Management and Budget, 

either by fax to 202–395–6974 or by 

email to OIRA at submission@

omb.eop.gov. Please mark faxes and 

emails to the attention of the desk 

officer for ACF. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354), that 

this proposed regulation will not result 

in a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. We note that 

any impact on businesses emanates 

from statutory mandate and the policies 

that states adopt in implementing the 

statutory requirement. HHS sought 

information related to concerns of 

businesses resulting from restrictions on 

TANF EBT access when we released a 

Request for Public Comment on April 

25, 2012. A limited number of 

commenters addressed this issue, and 

most conveyed that they are not aware 

of any concerns at this time. In fact, the 

Western Center on Law and Poverty 

stated that in California, which 

prohibits TANF EBT access to 12 

location types, many banned businesses 

expressed support for the policy. One 

commenter, the Electronic Funds 

Transfer Association (EFTA), did 

however summarize concerns of EBT 

vendors, such as Xerox and J.P. Morgan. 

EFTA stated that EBT vendors have 

expressed concerns over the expense of 

implementing the new requirements 

and notes that any system modifications 

that may be required would be 

extra-contractual for the processors and 

their states; despite the financial 

opportunity this presents, EBT vendors 

say that such modifications are not cost 

beneficial for either them or the states. 

In order to address these concerns, 

HHS has drafted the proposed 

regulations in a manner that minimizes 

the impact on businesses, including 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7134 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

small businesses, by providing states 

flexibility when implementing policies 

and practices that comply with the new 

requirements. In particular, states have 

the flexibility to implement approaches 

that do not place significant burden or 

impose large costs on its EBT vendor, 

small businesses, or any one particular 

party. Therefore any costs resulting from 

policies under which states require 

action by small entities, including small 

businesses, are the result of choices 

states make when implementing the 

statutory requirements. 

The primary impact of this proposed 

regulation is on state governments. State 

governments are not considered small 

entities under the Act. 

VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if the regulation is 

necessary, to select the 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. These 

proposed rules meet the criteria for a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866. Therefore, the Office of 

Management and Budget has reviewed 

this rule. 

Need for the Regulation 

These regulations incorporate 

statutory changes to the TANF program 

enacted in the Middle Class Tax Relief 

and Job Creation Act of 2012. These 

proposed regulations are limited to the 

penalty provisions of Section 4004 of 

Public Law 112–96. Because states have 

a range of systems for disbursement of 

assistance, and a number of questions 

have arisen regarding the applicability 

and requirements of the statutory 

language, the proposed regulations are 

being released in order to clarify for 

states the information they should 

submit in order to avoid a penalty. 

ACF does not believe there would be 

a significant economic impact from this 

proposed regulatory action. The 

regulatory requirement is to implement, 

maintain, and report on policies and 

practices that prevent the use or 

withdrawal of TANF assistance in any 

electronic benefit transfer transactions 

in the three specified locations. The 

costs associated with implementation, 

and the parties that bear these costs, 

largely depend on the policies and 

practices a state chooses to in order to 

comply with the statutory requirements. 

For example, if a state chooses to take 

on a centralized oversight role, it will 

face additional resources at the agencylevel; at the same time, if it chooses to 

place the responsibility to prevent 

assistance from being used in restricted 

locations via EBT transactions on its 

EBT service provider, additional 

contract costs will need to be 

negotiated. Or if a state chooses to direct 

ATM and business owners to take the 

necessary steps to reprogram ATM and 

POS terminals within the restricted 

establishments, then costs are passed on 

to these parties. 

At the same time, states have 

flexibility in policies and practices they 

choose to implement in order to comply 

with the statutory requirements that 

prevent assistance (defined at 

§ 260.31(a)) provided with federal TANF 

or state TANF MOE funds from being 

used in any electronic benefit transfer 

transaction in any liquor store; casino, 

gambling casino or gaming 

establishment; and retail establishment 

which provides adult-oriented 

entertainment in which performers 

disrobe or perform in an unclothed state 

for entertainment. States may develop 

approaches that are cost effective and fit 

within the existing structure of state 

operations, yet at the same time meet 

the requirements of the law. 

Nevertheless, regardless of the 

approach a state may take when 

implementing policies in order to 

comply with the statute and regulations, 

there will be, at a minimum, 

administrative costs for the state agency 

responsible for administering the TANF 

benefits. We believe that states will 

spend funds on the following types of 

costs to implement the changes in order 

to complete the annual progress report 

to ACF: 

• Costs for identifying the prohibited 

locations; 

• Costs to modify existing tracking of 

recipient use of electronic benefits and/ 

or electronic banking; 

• Costs to monitor recipient use of 

electronic benefit transfers; 

• Costs to investigate and follow up 

on violations of electronic benefit 

transfers; 

• Cost of processing and responding 

to appeals. 

With regards to the reporting 

requirement, based on our estimate 

described under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act section of this preamble, 

the total costs for all states to comply 

with this requirement would fall well 

below the $100 million threshold. 

The statutory requirements and 

proposed regulations also provide 

potential benefits that coincide with 

goal of financial responsibility. For 

example, the policies and practices that 

state implement may result in 

reductions in inappropriate 

expenditures of government funds, and 

provide opportunities to educate 

recipients on budgeting (emphasizing to 

recipients that they should ensure 

assistance is spent only on basic needs) 

and ways to minimize access fees. 

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 

that a covered agency prepare a 

budgetary impact statement before 

promulgating a rule that includes any 

federal mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by state, tribal and local 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year. ACF has determined 

that this proposed rule would not result 

in the expenditure by state, local and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of more than $100 

million in any one year. 

IX. Congressional Review 

This regulation is not a major rule as 

defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8. 

X. Assessment of Federal Regulation 

and Policies on Families 

Section 654 of The Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

federal agencies to determine whether a 

proposed policy or regulation may 

negatively affect family well-being. If 

the agency’s determination is 

affirmative, then the agency must 

prepare an impact assessment 

addressing seven criteria specified in 

the law. 

This regulation will not have an 

impact on family well-being as defined 

in the legislation. 

XI. Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, 

prohibits an agency from publishing any 

rule that has Federalism implications if 

the rule either imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs on state and 

local governments and is not required 

by statute, or the rule preempts state 

law, unless the agency meets the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of section 6 of the Executive Order. We 

do not believe the regulation has 

Federalism implications as defined in 

the Executive Order. However, 

consistent with Executive Order 13132, 

the Department specifically solicits and 

welcomes comments from state and 

local government officials on this 

proposed rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 7135 

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Parts 262 and 

264 

Administrative practice and 

procedures, Day care, Employment, 

Grant programs-social programs, Loan 

programs-social programs, Manpower 

training programs, Penalties, Public 

assistance programs, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Vocational 

education. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 93.558 Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families) 

Dated: January 13, 2014. 

Mark Greenberg, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and 

Families. 

Approved: January 15, 2014. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, we propose to amend Parts 

262 and 264 of 45 CFR as follows: 

PART 262—ACCOUNTABILITY 

PROVISIONS-GENERAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for 45 CFR 

part 262 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.; 42 

U.S.C. 606, 609 and 610; Pub. L. 109–171; 

Pub. L. 112–96. 

■ 2. Amend § 262.1 by adding paragraph 

(a)(16) and revising paragraph (c)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 262.1 What penalties apply to states? 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * 

(16)(i) A penalty of not more than five 

percent of the adjusted SFAG (in 

accordance with § 264.61(a)), for failure 

to report by February 22, 2014 on the 

state’s implementation and maintenance 

of policies and practices required in 

§ 264.60 of this chapter. 

(ii) A penalty of not more than five 

percent of the adjusted SFAG (in 

accordance with § 264.61(b)), for FY 

2014 and each succeeding fiscal year in 

which the state does not demonstrate 

that it has implemented and maintained 

policies and practices required in 

§ 264.60 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

■ (2) We will take the penalties 

specified in paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), 

(a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(8), (a)(9), (a)(10), (a)(11), 

(a)(12), (a)(13), (a)(14), (a)(15), and 

(a)(16) of this section by reducing the 

SFAG payable for the fiscal year that 

immediately follows our final decision. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 262.2 by adding paragraph 

(e) to read as follows: 

§ 262.2 When do the TANF penalty 

provisions apply? 

* * * * * 

■ (e) In accordance with § 264.61(a) and 

(b), the penalty specified in 

§ 262.1(a)(16) will be imposed for FY 

2014 and each succeeding fiscal year. 

■ 4. Amend § 262.3 by adding paragraph 

(g) as follows: 

§ 262.3 How will we determine if a State is 

subject to a penalty? 

* * * * * 

(g) To determine if a State is subject 

to a penalty under § 262.1(a)(16), we 

will use the information provided in 

annual state reports due by February 22, 

2014, and annually thereafter in 

accordance with section 409(a)(16) of 

the Social Security Act. State reports 

must address the policies and practices 

that are being implemented and 

maintained with respect to each of the 

following: Identifying locations; 

methods to prevent use of TANF 

assistance via EBT transactions in 

restricted locations; monitoring; and 

enforcement of compliance. 

PART 264—OTHER ACCOUNTABILITY 

PROVISIONS 

■ 5. The authority citation for 45 CFR 

part 264 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 7501 et seq.; 42 

U.S.C. 608, 609, 654, 1302, 1308, and 1337. 

■ 6. Amend § 264.0(b) to add definitions 

of Casino, gambling casino, or gaming 

establishment; Electronic benefit 

transfer transaction; Liquor Store; and 

Retail establishment which provides 

adult-oriented entertainment in which 

performers disrobe or perform in an 

unclothed state for entertainment in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 264.0 What definitions apply to this part? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Casino, gambling casino, or gaming 

establishment means an establishment 

with a primary purpose of 

accommodating the wagering of money. 

It does not include: 

(i) A grocery store which sells 

groceries including staple foods and 

which also offers, or is located within 

the same building or complex as, casino, 

gambling, or gaming activities; or 

(ii) Any other establishment that 

offers casino, gambling, or gaming 

activities incidental to the principal 

purpose of the business. 

* * * * * 

Electronic benefit transfer transaction 

means the use of a credit or debit card 

service, automated teller machine, 

point-of-sales terminal, or access to an 

online system for the withdrawal of 

funds or the processing of a payment for 

merchandise or a service. 

* * * * * 

Liquor Store means any retail 

establishment which sells exclusively or 

primarily intoxicating liquor. Such term 

does not include a grocery store which 

sells both intoxicating liquor and 

groceries including staple foods (within 

the meaning of section 3(r) of the Food 

and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 

2012(r))). 

Retail establishment which provides 

adult-oriented entertainment in which 

performers disrobe or perform in an 

unclothed state for entertainment means 

such an establishment that prohibits the 

entrance of minors under the age 

specified by state law. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Add § 264.60 and § 264.61 to 

subpart A to read as follows: 

§ 264.60 What policies and practices must 

a state implement to prevent assistance use 

in electronic benefit transfer transactions in 

locations prohibited by the Social Security 

Act? 

Pursuant to section 408(a)(12) of the 

Act, states are required to implement 

policies and procedures to prevent 

assistance (defined at § 260.31(a)) 

provided with federal TANF or state 

TANF MOE funds from being used in 

any electronic benefit transfer 

transaction in any: 

(a) Liquor store 

(b) Casino, gambling casino or gaming 

establishment 

(c) Retail establishment which 

provides adult-oriented entertainment 

in which performers disrobe or perform 

in an unclothed state for entertainment. 

§ 264.61 What happens if a state fails to 

report or implement and maintain policies 

and practices required in § 264.60 of this 

subpart? 

(a) Pursuant to section 409(a)(16) of 

the Act and in accordance with 45 CFR 

part 262, a penalty of not more than five 

percent of the adjusted SFAG will be 

imposed for failure to report by 

February 22, 2014 and each succeeding 

fiscal year on the state’s implementation 

of policies and practices required in 

§ 264.60. The penalty will be imposed 

in the succeeding fiscal year subject to 

§ 262.4(g) of this chapter. 

(b) Pursuant to section 409(a)(16) of 

the Act and in accordance with 45 CFR 

part 262, a penalty of not more than five 

percent of the adjusted SFAG will be 

imposed for FY 2014 and each 

succeeding fiscal year in which the state 

fails to demonstrate the state’s 

implementation of policies and 

practices required in § 264.60. The 

penalty will be imposed in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7136 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Application 

of the IP Closed Captioning Rules to Video Clips, 

Public Notice, MB Docket No. 11–154, DA 13–2392 

(Dec. 13, 2013) (‘‘Video Clips PN’’). 

2Motion for Extension of Time of the National 

Association of Broadcasters, MB Docket No. 11–154 

(filed January 17, 2014). 

3 47 CFR § 1.46. 

succeeding fiscal year subject to 

§ 262.4(g) of this chapter. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02488 Filed 2–4–14; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 79 

[MB Docket No. 11–154; DA 14–72] 

Deadline Extended for Comment on 

Media Bureau Public Notice on 

Application of the IP Closed 

Captioning Rules to Video Clips 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment and reply comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Media Bureau extends 

the deadline for filing comments and 

reply comments on application of the 

Internet protocol (‘‘IP’’) closed 

captioning rules to video clips, which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on December 26, 2013. The extension 

will facilitate the development of a full 

record. 

DATES: The comment and reply 

comment period for the proposed rule 

published December 26, 2013 (78 FR 

78319) is extended. Submit comments 

on or before February 3, 2014. Submit 

reply comments on or before March 5, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. For detailed 

instructions on submitting comments 

and additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the Public 

Notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diana Sokolow, Policy Division, Media 

Bureau, at (202) 418–2120, or email at 

Diana.Sokolow@fcc.gov. Press contact: 

Janice Wise, (202) 418–8165. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Public 

Notice in MB Docket No. 11–154, DA 

14–72, released on January 22, 2014, 

which extends the comment and reply 

comment filing deadline established in 

DA No. 13–2392, published at 78 FR 

78319, December 26, 2013. 

1. The Media Bureau extends the 

deadlines for filing comments and reply 

comments in the above-captioned 

proceeding. On December 13, 2013, the 

Media Bureau sought updated 

information on the closed captioning of 

video clips delivered by Internet 

protocol (‘‘IP’’), including the extent to 

which industry has voluntarily 

captioned IP-delivered video clips.1 The 

Video Clips PN established a comment 

deadline of January 27, 2014 and a reply 

comment deadline of February 26, 2014. 

On January 17, 2014, the National 

Association of Broadcasters (‘‘NAB’’) 

requested a one week extension of the 

comment deadline.2 NAB explained that 

it is ‘‘currently working diligently on a 

sister docket’’ regarding the closely 

related subject matter of closed 

captioning quality, and that a one week 

extension of the video clips comment 

deadline would enable NAB and others 

‘‘to continue their collaborative work’’ 

in that other docket and to more fully 

address the issues in the Video Clips 

PN. We grant NAB’s request. 

2. As set forth in Section 1.46(a) of the 

Commission’s Rules,3 the Commission’s 

policy is that extensions of time shall 

not be routinely granted. Given the 

closely related subject matter of the two 

pending proceedings, however, we 

believe that granting NAB’s request is 

necessary to facilitate the development 

of a full record. Accordingly, we extend 

the comment deadline by one week, 

until February 3, 2014. To ensure that 

interested parties have sufficient time to 

respond fully to the comments, on our 

own motion we also extend the reply 

comment deadline by one week, until 

March 5, 2014. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

William T. Lake, 

Chief, Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02444 Filed 2–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2014–0002: 

FXES11130900000C6–145–FF09E42000] 

RIN 1018–BA28 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removing the Oregon 

Chub From the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

draft post-delisting monitoring plan. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

remove (delist) the Oregon chub 

(Oregonichthys crameri) from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. This proposed 

action is based on a thorough review of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information, which 

indicates that the Oregon chub has 

recovered and no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Our review of the status 

of this species shows that the threats to 

this species have been eliminated or 

reduced and populations are stable so 

that the species is not currently, and is 

not likely to again become, a threatened 

species within the foreseeable future in 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

This proposed rule, if made final, would 

remove the currently designated critical 

habitat for the Oregon chub throughout 

its range. We also announce the 

availability of a draft post-delisting 

monitoring plan for the Oregon chub. 

We seek information, data, and 

comments from the public regarding 

this proposal to delist the Oregon chub 

and on the draft post-delisting 

monitoring plan. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

April 7, 2014. Please note that if you are 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(see ADDRESSES), the deadline for 

submitting an electronic comment is 

Eastern Standard Time on this date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section by March 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R1–ES–2014–0002, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, in the Search panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, click on the Proposed 

Rules link to locate this document. You 

may submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–ES–2014– 

0002; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS