Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24669 

specificity as possible, including the 

definitions used for any establishment 

type for which TANF benefit access was 

restricted. If the State’s restriction 

appears to differ from the EBT 

transaction restriction contained in 

section 4004 of the Middle Class Tax 

Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 

please describe those differences. 

b. Was the restriction put in place in 

response to a legislative mandate or by 

executive action without a specific 

legislative mandate? If in response to a 

legislative mandate, what did the 

legislature require? 

c. If your State imposes EBT 

transaction restrictions relating to liquor 

stores, casinos, gambling casinos, or 

other gaming establishments, or retail 

establishments which provide adultoriented entertainment in which 

performers disrobe or perform in an 

unclothed state for entertainment, can 

you please indicate: which of these 

locations are subject to restriction, and 

what is the definition used to describe 

the restricted location? 

d. What specific method and 

procedures does the State use? 

e. What challenges to implementation 

have been encountered and how did the 

State address them? 

f. Please provide any information 

available concerning initial and 

continuing costs. 

g. Does the State identify locations 

where benefit access is to be restricted 

through a manual process, an automated 

process or some combination of the 

two? Please describe the process for 

identifying these locations. 

h. Has your State implemented what 

you consider an effective method of 

restricting access to EBT usage at 

specified locations? Please describe why 

you think it is effective (e.g. cost 

effective, achieves desired outcomes)? 

i. What concerns have been raised by 

businesses, electronic benefit vendors, 

and/or TANF recipients, relating to 

access, cost, or other issues, in relation 

to the restrictions? Have particular 

concerns been raised relating to rural 

areas of the State? If so, what are those 

concerns, and how, if at all, have those 

concerns been addressed? 

j. If your State passes through child 

support to families receiving TANF 

assistance, how, if at all, do the TANF 

assistance restrictions affect provision of 

passed-through child support? 

k. Are your State’s restrictions limited 

to TANF assistance, or do they affect 

any other benefits provided 

electronically? If the restrictions are 

limited to TANF assistance, how, if at 

all, do restrictions on accessing TANF 

assistance affect access to any other 

benefits? 

l. Are there particular issues not 

discussed above that have arisen in 

design or implementation that could be 

useful for OFA to be aware of in the 

development of regulations relating to 

this topic? 

4. With regards to States that have not 

implemented EBT transaction 

restrictions, have you considered and 

examined issues relevant to 

implementation of such restrictions? If 

so, can you identify issues and 

considerations that have arisen for you 

as you considered such requirements? 

5. For any State, do you currently 

have information about the incidence of 

the use of TANF assistance EBT 

transactions in liquor stores, gaming 

establishments, and adult entertainment 

venues? 

Access Fees or Charges 

6. With respect to any State, please 

describe the fees and charges that TANF 

recipients face when accessing their 

TANF assistance benefits. If the fees or 

charges differ based on number of 

withdrawals or where or how benefits 

are accessed (such as via an ATM vs. 

point of sale transaction), please 

describe the differences in fees under all 

relevant benefit access mechanisms. 

7. Does your State provide any 

mechanism that allows TANF assistance 

recipients to access benefits without 

facing any fees or charges? If so, please 

describe. 

8. How, if at all, does your State make 

information available to TANF 

assistance recipients about where to 

access TANF benefits, the fees and 

charges associated with accessing 

benefits under various scenarios, and 

how benefits can be accessed without 

any fees or charges? 

9. What, if anything, do you think 

should be done to reduce the costs of 

accessing TANF benefits? 

10. Please describe any access 

barriers, that you think TANF assistance 

recipients currently face or could face 

under the restrictions and what 

mechanisms, if any, you think could 

reduce those access barriers while 

ensuring that TANF benefits are not 

accessed through EBT transactions at 

those establishments for which access is 

restricted under section 4004 of the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012. 

EBT Vendor Input 

11. For companies that provide 

electronic benefit services to States with 

respect to TANF assistance, please 

describe the implementation issues you 

think States could or would face in 

implementing the restriction required 

under section 4004 of the Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. 

Please describe technical issues, cost 

implications, and access implications as 

well as mechanisms for addressing 

problems identified. 

We welcome any other comments you 

have about the TANF EBT provisions 

contained in Section 4004 of the Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012. 

Dated: April 5, 2012. 

Earl Johnson, 

Director, Office of Family Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9260 Filed 4–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

RIN 0648–XB162 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Public Conference Call Regarding 

Recreational Yellowfin Tuna Fishery 

Data Collection 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public conference call. 

SUMMARY: In order to better inform the 

public and NMFS, a conference call that 

is open to the public will be held to 

discuss historical and future data 

collection in the U.S. recreational 

yellowfin tuna fishery and the 

relationship to international yellowfin 

tuna management (e.g., quota 

establishment or tracking landings). 

DATES: An operator-assisted conference 

call that is open to the public will be 

held on April 27, 2012, from 10 a.m. to 

noon, EDT (phone number 888–593– 

8429; participant pass code 1629891). 

During this call, members of the public 

may ask questions and provide 

comments, after a brief background 

presentation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randy Blankinship at 727–824–5399 or 

Dianne Stephan at 978–281–9347. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

tunas are managed under the dual 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the 

Atlantic Tuna Conventions Act (ATCA), 

which authorizes the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate 

regulations as may be necessary and 

appropriate to implement 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
24670 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

recommendations of the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The authority 

to issue regulations under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has 

been delegated from the Secretary to the 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

NOAA. On October 2, 2006, NMFS 

published in the Federal Register (71 

FR 58058) final regulations, effective 

November 1, 2006, implementing the 

2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS) Fishery Management 

Plan, which details the management 

measures for Atlantic HMS fisheries. 

At its 2011 meeting, the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) actively 

considered country-specific yellowfin 

tuna allocations, as well as the potential 

landings histories that could be the 

basis for those allocations. While the 

final recommendation did not establish 

any country-specific allocations, some 

members of the Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species Advisory Panel and 

the public have expressed an interest in 

discussing historical and future data 

collection in the U.S. recreational 

yellowfin tuna fishery, in case the issue 

comes up at the 2012 ICCAT meeting. 

NMFS is facilitating the public 

discussion of this topic through this 

public conference call. The purpose of 

this call is to discuss historical and 

future data collection in the U.S. 

recreational yellowfin tuna fishery and 

the relationship to international 

yellowfin tuna management (e.g., quota 

establishment or tracking landings). 

During the call, the background of 

recreational yellowfin tuna data 

collection—as well as recent 

international management 

developments—will be briefly reviewed. 

The potential for future data collection 

will also be discussed. The public will 

have the opportunity to ask questions 

and engage in the discussion. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: April 20, 2012. 

Galen Tromble, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9971 Filed 4–20–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1