[Federal Register: June 25, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 122)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37693-37697]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25jn03-1]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
[[Page 37693]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Part 274
[Amendment No. 384]
RIN 0584-AC91
Food Stamp Program: Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Systems
Interoperability and Portability
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action provides final rulemaking for an interim rule
published on August 15, 2000. It implements legislation in accordance
with the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability
Act of 2000. This rule finalizes revisions to the Food Stamp Program
regulations to ensure that recipients can use their electronic food
stamp benefits across state borders. The regulations require
interoperable state electronic issuance systems and establish national
standards to achieve this requirement. One hundred percent Federal
funding is available to pay for the operational cost of this
functionality, up to a national annual limit of $500,000. Costs beyond
this level will be covered at the standard fifty percent program
reimbursement rate for State administrative costs. Based on the
Department's experience to date, it is not expected that costs will
exceed $500,000.
DATES: This rule is effective July 25, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lizbeth Silbermann, Chief, Electronic
Benefit Transfer Branch, Benefit Redemption Division, Food and
Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia,
22302, or telephone (703) 305-2517.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be significant and was reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12372
The Food Stamp Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in 7 CFR Part
3015, Subpart V and related Notice (48 FR 29115), this Program is
excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372 which requires
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the
impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments and
consult with them as they develop and carry out those policy actions.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has considered the impact of this
rule which requires mandatory interoperability of Food Stamp Program
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Systems and portability of
electronically-used benefits nationwide in accordance with specific
requirements set forth in the Electronic Benefit Transfer
Interoperability and Portability Act of 2000. FNS is not aware of any
case where any of these provisions would in fact preempt State law and
no comments were made to that effect. This rule also does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments.
Some of the provisions, although not previously required by food stamp
regulations, have already been implemented by State agencies and,
therefore, have no incremental costs associated with them. Furthermore,
the Federal government will pay 100 percent for the cost of switching
and settling interstate food stamp transactions, up to an annual
nationwide limit of $500,000. Under current pricing trends, there is no
indication that total costs for switching and settling interstate food
stamp transactions will exceed the limit. Should this occur, however,
State agencies will continue to be paid at the 50 percent reimbursement
rate for the amount above the limit. The provisions implemented by this
rule are mandated by the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability
and Portability Act of 2000, Public Law No. 106-171. Therefore, a
federalism summary impact statement is not necessary under Section 6 of
Executive Order 13132.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Eric M. Bost,
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, has
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. State welfare agencies will be
the most affected to the extent that they administer or operate EBT
services for Food Stamp Program benefit delivery.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not alter the reporting or recordkeeping
requirements contained in the interim rule. Those requirements have
been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and assigned OMB control
number 0348-0004 for the SF-270 (Request for Advance or Reimbursement)
and 0348-0038 for the SF-269A (Financial Status Report--Short Form).
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have a preemptive effect with
respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which
conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full
implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect
unless so specified in the DATES paragraph of this preamble. Prior to
any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the
application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures
must be followed. In the Food Stamp Program, the administrative
procedures are as follows: (1) For Program benefit recipients--State
administrative procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(11) and 7
CFR 273.15; (2) for State agencies--administrative procedures issued
pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2023 set out at 7 CFR 276.7 (for rules related to
non-quality control (QC) liabilities) or 7 CFR Part 283 (for rules
related to QC liabilities); (3) for Program retailers and wholesalers--
administrative procedures
[[Page 37694]]
issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2023 set out at 7 CFR 278.8.
Public Law 104-4
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, FNS
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of
the UMRA generally requires FNS to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more
cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal
governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA.
Background
In this rule, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Department), FNS
finalizes revisions to the Food Stamp Program (FSP) regulations to
require interoperability of all State EBT Systems and portability of
all electronically-issued benefits. This requirement is in accordance
with the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability
Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-171, (hereinafter ``Pub. L. 106-171'') which
amended Section 7(k) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2016(k),
to mandate nationwide interoperability of FSP EBT systems and
portability of electronically issued benefits and directs the Secretary
to establish standards to accomplish this. In accordance with the
regulations promulgated by the Secretary, the Department will pay one
hundred percent of the costs incurred by a State agency for switching
and settling transactions, up to an annual limit of $500,000
nationwide. Pub. L. 106-171 required the Department to promulgate
regulations to require interoperability and establish a uniform
national standard of interoperability for Food Stamp EBT systems within
210 days of its enactment. In order to meet this requirement, interim
regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2000
at 65 FR 49719. This final action takes the comments received in
response to the interim rulemaking into account. Readers are referred
to the interim regulation for a more complete understanding of this
final action.
Readers should note that another EBT rule was published in the
Federal Register at around the same time that the interim
interoperability rule was published. That rule, EBT Provisions of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) of 1996 (65 FR 59105, October 4, 2000), redesignated several
paragraphs in the EBT regulations. Therefore, readers should refer to
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the most accurate regulatory
citations of provisions implemented by the interim rule. Furthermore,
this rule reinstates a paragraph from the August 15, 2000 interim
Interoperability rule that was inadvertently deleted by the October 4,
2000 EBT Provisions of the PRWORA rule regarding the interoperability
funding provisions.
Comments on the interim rule were solicited through November 13,
2000. Eight comment letters were received in response to the interim
rule. Comments were received from 5 State agencies, one retailer
association, one EBT processor, and one public interest group. This
final rule makes one revision to the interim regulations, taking into
consideration all comments received.
In general, the commenters supported EBT system interoperability
and food stamp benefit portability. Various provisions of the interim
rule mandated interoperability of FSP EBT systems and the portability
of FSP benefits by requiring: The use of the EBT standard message
format; the establishment of the necessary telecommunication links; the
use of an Issuer Identification Number on the State's EBT card; and the
use of the Retailer EBT Data Exchange (REDE) system. The rule also
provides for 100 percent enhanced Federal funding for the cost of
switching and settling interstate EBT food stamp transactions, up to an
annual nationwide limit of $500,000. The specific provisions are
discussed below.
Interoperability Mandate
The interim rule mandated that each State agency implement the
functionality for nationwide interoperability of their EBT systems and
portability of electronically-issued food stamp benefits by October 1,
2002. The interim rule provided for exemptions from the deadline for
State agencies with signed contracts before October 16, 2000 until they
re-negotiate or reprocure their EBT contracts. The rule also exempted
Smart Card systems from the mandate until the Department determines
that a practicable technological method is available for
interoperability with on-line systems. We received no comments opposing
the mandate. Three commenters expressed support for the
interoperability and portability of FSP benefits because it ensures
that food stamp recipients will be able to use their food stamp
benefits at authorized retail stores across the country in the same way
they were able to use paper food coupons.
System Standards for Interoperability
The interim rule established uniform national standards of
interoperability and portability based on the standards used by a
majority of State agencies. Although the Departmental standards are
based on the Quest Operating Rules (hereinafter ``Quest''), which have
already been adopted by a majority of State agencies, the Department
did not adopt Quest in its entirety. Instead the Department chose to
require only those components that are essential to interoperability.
One commenter supported this decision because it allows the Quest
standards to be modified to reflect the emerging industry practices
without the burden of obtaining a change in federal regulation.
However, two other commenters opposed it, believing that all State
agencies should follow the Quest rules to ensure standardization and,
therefore, nationwide interoperability.
The Department is aware of no other technical standards, other than
those established in the rule, that are fundamental to the achievement
of nationwide interoperability. Furthermore, the Quest rules contain
requirements that are not essential to interoperability but that would
require procedural and card modifications at an expense to the State
agencies that have chosen not to adopt the Quest rules. If the
Department were to require all State agencies to adopt the Quest rules
in their entirety, this would impose added burdens, costs, and rigidity
without strong justification. Accordingly, this rule maintains the
interoperability standards established in the interim rule and does not
specifically require State agencies to adopt Quest.
ISO 8583 Message Format
The interim final rule required State agencies to use the
International Organization for Standards (ISO) 8583 message format,
modified for EBT, in order to facilitate interstate transactions. One
commenter opposed language
[[Page 37695]]
which requires State agencies to adopt the ISO 8583 message format in
``a version mutually agreed to between the authorization agent and the
party connected for all transactions.'' Instead, the commenter
supported adoption of the ISO standard currently being developed by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) X9A11 EBT Working Group.
The Department would like to clarify that the provision requires State
agencies to use the ISO 8583 message format as updated by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). The requirement refers to the base
8583 message format in order to provide enough flexibility to ensure
automatic updates of the message format by State agencies without the
need to issue new regulations in the future. The Department, therefore,
would expect State agencies to update the message format specifications
of their respective EBT systems in accordance with the most current
version of the ISO 8583 message format upon adoption by ANSI or
reprocurement of a State EBT contract.
Issuer Identification Number (IIN)
The interim final rule requires that the Primary Account Number
(PAN) on the State-issued EBT card be standardized to include State
routing information so that transactions can be routed to the
appropriate State system for authorization, regardless of the
transaction's point of origin. There were no comments opposing the
requirement to include the Issuer Identification Number (IIN) in the
PAN. However, one commenter requested clarification regarding the use
of the term ``IIN'', and opposed the requirements regarding the
distribution and updating of the State IIN files.
Specifically, the commenter requested clarification as to whether
an ``IIN'' is the same as a Bank Identification Number (BIN). We
consider the two terms to be interchangeable. We chose to use the term,
``IIN,'' because the number is used to route transactions to the
various State authorization systems and not to banking institutions as
the term ``BIN'' implies.
The commenter also opposed language which requires each State
agency to be responsible for distributing all State IINs to each
retailer, processor, or acquirer that is directly connected to the
State's authorization system. Instead, the commenter believes that
State IIN distribution should be the responsibility of the Federal
government to avoid excessive and redundant updates. We are in
agreement that redundant updates of IIN information should be avoided.
However, in the time since FNS published the interim rule, several
State agencies implemented interoperability without any indications of
redundant IIN distribution, nor was redundant IIN distribution raised
as a possible issue by any of the parties involved.
Although the Department is directing the interoperability
provisions to all 53 State agencies, most State agencies delegate
responsibilities to their prime EBT contractor or other designated
agent of the State. This results in many fewer entities involved in the
IIN dissemination process. Furthermore, because FNS does not have a
direct relationship with the processors or acquirers that are directly
connected to the State agency's authorization system, having FNS be
responsible for distributing IINs to those entities would place a
greater burden on State agencies. Each State agency would be
responsible for ensuring that FNS has the most current listing and
contact information of such entities. State agencies would also need to
inform FNS when a new processor or acquirer enters the system and
necessitates the IIN information. Therefore, the requirement that each
State agency be responsible for the distribution of State IINs is
unchanged in this rule.
The commenter further questioned how a State agency could ensure
that parties not directly connected to its system update their IIN
information. Because of the several different levels of third party
service providers and acquirers involved in the routing of EBT
transactions, we understand the commenter's concern with getting
information updated throughout the system. State agencies must,
therefore, use the required third party processor (TPP) agreements to
ensure that IIN files or routing tables are updated by all entities
involved. These are the agreements each State agency is required to
enter into with a TPP or acquirer directly connected to its
authorization system. Once the agreements are in place, each TPP or
acquirer has primary responsibility for having all the State IINs
loaded into its system.
Third Party Processor
One comment was received regarding the third party processor
interface requirements. The interim rule requires each terminal
operator to interface directly with a State authorization system or
with a third party service provider to obtain access to one or more
State authorization systems. The commenter opposed the provision,
believing that it does not allow retailers to connect directly to a
State agency's EBT processor. We would like to clarify that, by
referencing direct interfaces with a State's authorization systems, we
are referring to interfaces with a State agency's EBT processor or
transaction switching agent. The purpose of the provision is to ensure
that terminal operators make the necessary accommodations that will
enable them to accept EBT cards from all States without requiring a
system with multiple connections. Therefore, giving terminal operators
the option to directly connect with a State's authorization system or
with a third party processor provides them with the flexibility to
establish the required interfaces in an efficient manner.
FNS REDE System
The interim final rule requires State agencies or their designated
agent to access the FNS automated REDE system to update retailer
authorization information on a daily basis. The requirement ensures
that State agencies' EBT systems are using the most current Federally
posted information on retailer authorizations nationwide when approving
in-State and out-of-State EBT transactions. The requirement also helps
to improve the efficiency of retailer operations overall. One commenter
considered the requirement an unnecessary, time-consuming, and unfunded
mandate due to the added time needed for additional ``checks.'' We
would like to clarify that transactions do not actually touch the
national REDE file. Instead, the contractor uses the REDE file to
update its own retailer database which is used to authorize
transactions. While we understand that this is a new requirement, most
State agencies or their vendors were already accessing REDE voluntarily
prior to the publication of the interim rule because the manual process
of receiving updated information via telefax or e-mail was more
cumbersome. Currently, all State agencies that operate an EBT system
are using the FNS automated REDE system. None of these State agencies
have indicated that the system is overly burdensome. Furthermore, the
requirement that State agencies access the REDE system on a daily basis
is consistent with the level of importance we place on ensuring that
food stamp benefits be approved only at authorized retailer locations.
The commenter also asked for clarification on State agencies'
responsibility for the accuracy of the REDE file. This provision does
not make State agencies responsible for the accuracy of the REDE file,
but rather for
[[Page 37696]]
downloading REDE updates on a daily basis.
Border Stores and Manual Vouchers
Except where necessary for border store access, the interim final
rule excludes manual transactions from the interoperability
requirements. In general, commenters were in support of the requirement
that manual transactions continue to be interoperable in border stores
necessary for access, with one commenter stating that all EBT retailers
should be able to process interstate manual transactions nationwide.
However, two commenters opposed the requirement that any retailer be
required to process interstate manual transactions because of the
administrative burden to the retailer. Although we understand this
concern, border store retailers are already required to have the
capability to participate in the neighboring State EBT system via a
manual voucher process when the system is down or if the retailer is
not equipped with a POS device. The requirement is in place because
border stores, by definition, are necessary for clients to be able to
make food stamp purchases without having to travel excessive distances.
State agencies must, therefore, ensure that there is a process in place
for these clients to purchase food regardless of system availability at
the time. Given the high degree of client dependence on these stores
and because the interim rule does not place an additional burden on
these retailers, the Department is maintaining the manual voucher
requirement in the final rule.
Benefit Conversion
The interim rule requires State agencies to have the capability to
convert electronic benefits to paper coupons when the household
relocates to a State that is not interoperable with, and where
electronic benefits are not portable from, the household's current
State of residence. One commenter opposed the requirement because
retailers are increasingly reluctant to accept coupons from recipients
and banks are refusing to redeem coupons for retailers. Although other
commenters did not oppose the requirement under current EBT
implementation realities, they wanted acknowledgement that coupons will
soon become obsolete.
The Department is indeed preparing for the time when paper coupons
will no longer be needed. The Department is also sympathetic to State
agency concerns that as EBT is implemented in the remaining State
agencies, coupons will become increasingly unfamiliar to both clients
and retailers. Currently, there are only six State agencies that do not
have a Statewide EBT system in place. Four of these State agencies are
scheduled to have EBT fully implemented within the next year, at which
time approximately 95 percent of all food stamp benefits will be issued
electronically.
The Department is also mindful, however, of Ohio and Wyoming's
indefinite off-line exemptions from the interoperability requirements.
Although many third party processor stores in these two States are able
to accept out-of-State EBT cards, no retailers in the other States can
accept the Ohio and Wyoming EBT smartcards. Therefore, the long-term
impacts of eliminating the benefit conversion requirement would affect
Ohio and Wyoming clients who move to another State. Estimates indicate
that one percent of a State agency's caseload moves to another State in
a given year. Currently, Ohio converts to coupons approximately $92,000
in benefits a year. Wyoming converts approximately $4,000 in benefits a
year.
Given the limited instances in which benefit conversion would be
necessary, the Department is convinced that requiring each State agency
to have a benefit conversion process in place is no longer justified.
Therefore, the Department is making optional the requirement that State
agencies be able to convert electronic benefits to paper coupons when a
household relocates to a State that is not interoperable with the
household's current State of residence. However, clients must still be
able to use their remaining electronic benefits upon relocation.
State agencies that wish to rely on third party processor access
when a client moves to another State will need to assist clients in
finding a store where their out-of-State benefits can be used and, if
necessary, work with other State EBT directors, store managers, or
third party processors to get the State's IIN loaded into a store's IIN
files or routing tables.
Since it is not yet technically feasible for EBT smartcards to be
interoperable at this time, Ohio and Wyoming State agencies will need
to continue converting benefits to coupons whenever a household moves
to another State.
Funding Provisions
Pub. L. 106-171 provided one hundred percent Federal funding for
the cost of switching and settling interstate food stamp transactions.
The total amount of funding available annually is limited to $500,000.
The $500,000 funding limit was based on a study of interoperability
fees conducted by the National Automated Clearing House Association
(NACHA). Four commenters opposed the funding limit stating that
interoperability should be an obligation of the Federal government.
The Department does not have the discretion to change the amount of
one hundred percent funding available for interoperability costs
incurred by State agencies. Although only about half of all State
agencies have requested interoperability funding to date, there is no
indication that total interoperability costs will exceed the $500,000
limit given current pricing trends. In the event that interoperability
costs do exceed the funding limit, State agencies will continue to be
reimbursed at the fifty percent rate for the amount over the limit.
Should such an instance occur, the Department expects the additional
cost to individual State agencies to be nominal.
Other comments were raised regarding one hundred percent
reimbursement for administrative fees related to interoperability that
are passed onto State agencies. Public Law 106-171 (7 U.S.C.
2016(k)(6)A)) specifically states, ``the Secretary shall pay 100
percent of the costs incurred by a State agency under this Act for
switching and settling interstate transactions * * *.'' Therefore, the
legislation does not give the Department authority to provide one
hundred percent Federal reimbursement for administrative costs related
to interoperability. Accordingly, one hundred percent Federal funding
for interoperability costs will continue to be limited to costs
incurred specifically for switching and settling interstate food stamp
transactions.
Two commenters expressed concern over the nature, amount and
organization of billing information required to receive enhanced
interoperability funding. The Department distributes to State agencies
more detailed information on these requirements each fiscal year as
part of the ``Request for Interoperability Funding, Administrative
Procedures.'' This document includes specific procedures outside the
regulatory process. We have worked closely with State agencies since
the publication of the interim rule to make the request and payment
process for interoperability funding as streamlined as possible within
our regulatory constraints. As a result, we believe we have achieved a
process that is agreeable to all parties involved and welcome continued
input.
[[Page 37697]]
National Switch
We received three comments regarding FNS administration and control
of a national switch (Gateway). Two commenters supported the
development of a national switch while one commenter opposed it. In
accordance with Pub. L. 106-171, the Department employed Phoenix
Maximus to examine the feasibility of developing a Federal Gateway for
handling interstate food stamp transactions. Although the report did
not find technical barriers to having FNS support its own EBT
transaction switch, it found that such an undertaking would not be cost
effective. The Benton International Study of the interoperability costs
of EBT transactions estimates that nationwide interoperability fees
would amount to approximately $450,000 annually using private switches.
In contrast, Phoenix Maximus estimates that the annual cost of
operating a Federal EBT Gateway would be approximately $17 million.
Another $2.2 million would be needed for initial implementation costs.
Therefore, the Department is convinced that it would not be fiscally
prudent to pursue the development of a Federal EBT Gateway at this
time. As EBT expands across all States as the prevailing method for
issuing food stamp benefits, we will continue to look into ways to make
interoperability efficient and cost effective for all parties involved.
Disposition of Disputes, Error Resolution and Adjustments
Two commenters raised issues regarding the handling of disputes,
error resolution, and adjustments across State lines. One commenter
favored a specific reference to the Quest rules while the other
commenter favored having FNS take the lead in facilitating standards
for error resolution. The Department has chosen to define standards for
error resolution within a separate rulemaking body. The EBT Benefit
Adjustments Final Rule, published on July 5, 2000 at 65 FR 41321
specifically addresses the process for making retailers or clients
whole when a system error occurs.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 274
Administrative practice and procedure, Food stamps, Fraud, Grant
programs--social programs, Reporting and record keeping requirements,
State liabilities.
0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR parts 272 and 274 which
was published at 65 FR 49719 on August 15, 2000, as amended by the
final rule which was published at 65 FR 59105 on October 4, 2000 is
adopted as a final rule with the following changes:
PART 274--ISSUANCE AND USE OF COUPONS
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 274 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
0
2. In Sec. 274.12:
0
a. Paragraph (g)(6)(i) is amended by revising the second sentence; and
0
b. Paragraph (l)(6) is correctly reinstated.
The revision and reinstatement read as follows:
Sec. 274.12 Electronic Benefit Transfer issuance system approval
standards.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) * * * States must provide a means for a client to be able to
use their benefits upon relocation. A State agency may convert
electronic benefits to paper coupons if a household is relocating to a
State that is not interoperable and where electronic benefits are not
portable from the household's current State of residence, or assist
clients in finding an authorized retail location where out-of-State
electronic benefits can be used. * * *
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(6) State agencies may receive one hundred percent federal funding
for the costs they incur for switching and settling all food stamp
interstate transactions. For purposes of this section, the term
``switching'' means the routing of an interstate transaction that
consists of transmitting the details of a transaction electronically
recorded through the use of an EBT card in one State to the issuer of
the card that is in another State; and the term ``settling'' means
movement, and reporting such movement, of funds from an EBT card issuer
located in one to a retail food store, or wholesale food concern, that
is located in another State, to accomplish an interstate transaction.
The total amount of one hundred percent funding available annually is
limited to $500,000 nationwide. Once the $500,000 limitation is
exceeded, federal financial participation reverts to the standard fifty
percent program reimbursement rate and procedure. In order to qualify
for this funding, the State agency must:
(i) Adhere to the standard of interoperability and portability
adopted by a majority of State agencies for interoperability costs
incurred for the period from February 11, 2000 through September 30,
2002;
(ii) Meet standards of interoperability and portability under
paragraphs (e) and (h) of this section for costs incurred after
September 30, 2002;
(iii) Sign and submit, in each fiscal year for which the State
agency requests enhanced funding, an Interoperability Funding Agreement
to comply with the administrative procedures established by the
Department. The State agency must submit the signed agreement to the
Department before the end of the fiscal year in which costs are
incurred in order to qualify for payment for that fiscal year, and
(iv) Submit requests for payment on a quarterly basis after the end
of the quarter in which interoperability costs are incurred, in
accordance with the Department's administrative procedures. Requests
for payments shall be due February 15 (for the period October through
December), May 15 (January through March), August 15 (April through
June), and November 15 (July through September). Requests for payment
submitted after the required date for a quarter shall not be considered
until the following quarter, when such requests for payments are
scheduled to be processed.
* * * * *
Dated: June 17, 2003.
Eric M. Bost,
Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 03-15897 Filed 6-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P