In an effort to reduce fraud, waste and abuse, we are issuing this memorandum to clarify SNAP Electronic Benefits Transfer expungement policy. States are strongly encouraged to expunge benefit allotments nine months after issuance, regardless of the household’s SNAP activity, in accordance with regulatory requirements.
This collection is for providing SNAP households advance or concurrent notice of state agency action to store unused SNAP benefits offline due to three or more months of account inactivity and for those households to seek reinstatement of benefits prior to permanent expungement. Additionally, this collection is for providing SNAP households advance or concurrent notice prior to the state agency expunging unused SNAP benefits from the household's Electronic Benefit Transfer account due to nine months of account inactivity.
Retailer notice with instructions for SNAP EBT chip card transactions at point of sale. Customers who have EBT chip cards should always attempt a chip (insert or tap) transaction first. The transaction may need to be completed with a swipe of the magnetic stripe, but the first transaction attempt should always use the chip.
This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the levels of monthly benefits in the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (Summer EBT) Program. These adjustments reflect changes in the Thrifty Food Plan, as required under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
This rule allows state agencies the option to use their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program vehicle allowance rules rather than the vehicle rules ordinarily used in the Food Stamp Program where doing so will result in a lower attribution of resources to food stamp households.
This rulemaking proposes to amend Food Stamp Program regulations to implement 11 provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 that establish new eligibility and certification requirements for the receipt of food stamps.
The head of household may not be held "automatically" responsible for trafficking the household's benefits if there is no direct evidence identifying him/her as the guilty party. However, OGC was also supportive of holding the head of household responsible when there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show his/her complicity in the violative act.