DAR File No. 37644

Workforce Services, Employment Development

Section R986-100-117

Disqualification For Fraud (Intentional Program Violations or IPVs)

Notice of Proposed Rule

(Amendment)

DAR File No.: 37644
Filed: 05/16/2013 10:40:55 AM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The purpose of this amendment is to comply with statutory changes in H.B. 209 from the 2013 General Session. The Department filed a proposed amendment to comply with H.B. 209 in April 2013, Division of Administrative Rules (DAR) filing No. 37541, but inadvertently attached the wrong rule text. It is the Department's intention to let the filing under DAR No. 37541 lapse. (DAR Note: Filing No. 37541 was published in the May 15, 2013, issue of the Utah State Bulletin.)

Summary of the rule or change:

Prohibits recipients of assistance under the Family Employment Plan from accessing funds through an electronic benefit transfer in a place that exclusively or primarily sells intoxicating liquor, allows gambling, or provides adult entertainment where performers disrobe or perform unclothed.

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

• Section 35A-3-101 et seq.
• Subsection 35A-1-104(4)
• Section 35A-1-104
• Section 35A-3-401 et seq.
• Section 35A-3-301 et seq.

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

This applies to federally-funded programs so there are no costs or savings to the state budget.

local governments:

This is a federally-funded program so there are no costs or savings to the local government.

small businesses:

There will be no costs to small businesses to comply with these changes because this is a federally-funded program.

persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:

There will be no costs to persons other than small businesses, businesses or local government entities to comply with these changes because there are no costs or fees associated with these proposed changes.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

There are no compliance costs associated with these changes for any affected persons because this is a federally-funded program and there are no fees or costs associated with these proposed changes.

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

There are no compliance costs associated with this change. There are no fees associated with this change. There will be no cost to anyone to comply with these changes. There will be no fiscal impact on any business.

John Pierpont, Executive Director

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Workforce Services
Employment Development
140 E 300 S
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-2333

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

• Suzan Pixton at the above address, by phone at 801-526-9645, by FAX at 801-526-9211, or by Internet E-mail at spixton@utah.gov

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

07/15/2013

This rule may become effective on:

07/22/2013

Authorized by:

Jon Pierpont, Executive Director

R986. Workforce Services, Employment Development.

R986-100. Employment Support Programs.

R986-100-117. Disqualification For Fraud (Intentional Program Violations or IPVs).

(1) Any person who is at fault in obtaining or attempting to obtain, an overpayment of assistance, as defined in Section 35A-3-602 from any of the programs listed in R986-100-102 or otherwise intentionally breaches any program rule either personally or through a representative is guilty of an intentional program violation (IPV). Acts which constitute an IPV include but are not limited to:

(a) knowingly making false or misleading statements;

(b) misrepresenting, concealing, or withholding facts or information;

(c) posing as someone else;

(d) not reporting the receipt of a public assistance payment the individual knew or should have known they were not eligible to receive;

(e) not reporting a material change as required by and in accordance with these rules;[ and]

(f) committing an act intended to mislead, misrepresent, conceal or withhold facts or propound a falsity[.]; or

(g) accessing TANF public assistance funds through an electronic benefit transfer, including through an automated teller machine or point-of-sale device, in an establishment in the state that;

(i) exclusively or primarily sells intoxicating liquor,

(ii) allows gambling or gaming, or

(iii) provides adult-oriented entertainment where performers disrobe or perform unclothed.

(2) An IPV occurs when a person commits any of the above acts in an attempt to obtain, maintain, increase or prevent the decrease or termination of any public assistance payment(s).

(3) When the Department determines or receives notice from a court that fraud or an IPV has occurred, the client is disqualified from receiving assistance of the same type for the time period as set forth in rule, statute or federal regulation.

(4) Disqualifications run concurrently.

(5) All income and assets of a person who has been disqualified from assistance for an IPV continue to be counted and affect the eligibility and assistance amount of the household assistance unit in which the person resides.

(6) If an individual has been disqualified in another state, the disqualification period for the IPV in that state will apply in Utah provided the act which resulted in the disqualification would have resulted in a disqualification had it occurred in Utah. If the individual has been disqualified in another state for an act which would have led to disqualification had it occurred in Utah and is found to have committed an IPV in Utah, the prior periods of disqualification in any other state count toward determining the length of disqualification in Utah.

(7) The client will be notified that a disqualification period has been determined. The disqualification period shall begin no later than the second month which follows the date the client receives written notice of the disqualification and continues in consecutive months until the disqualification period has expired.

(8) Nothing in these rules is intended to limit or prevent a criminal prosecution for fraud based on the same facts used to determine the IPV.

 

KEY: employment support procedures

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [July 25, 2012]2013

Notice of Continuation: September 8, 2010

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 35A-3-101 et seq.; 35A-3-301 et seq.; 35A-3-401 et seq.