Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 35570-35581 [2019-15670]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
35570
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 84, No. 142
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Part 273
[FNS–2018–0037]
RIN 0584–AE62
Revision of Categorical Eligibility in
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP)
Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS), USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Section 5(a) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended,
provides that households in which each
member receives benefits under a State
program funded under part A of Title IV
of the Social Security Act (SSA) (also
known as Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) block grants 1)
shall be categorically eligible for the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP). Currently, SNAP
regulations broadly interpret ‘‘benefits’’
to mean cash assistance and non-cash or
in-kind benefits or services from any
TANF-funded program.2 In operation,
this has allowed categorical eligibility
for SNAP to be conferred on households
based on receipt of minimal benefits
issued by TANF-funded programs
which may not conduct a robust
eligibility determination and do not
meaningfully move families toward self-
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
1 State programs funded under part A of Title IV
of the SSA include programs funded by Federal
TANF block grant funds, as well as programs not
funded by Federal TANF block grants but funded
by State maintenance-of-effort dollars that allow a
State to receive Federal TANF block grant funds.
For simplicity, this proposed rule will refer to all
State programs funded under part A of Title IV of
the SSA as ‘‘TANF-funded programs,’’ and to
benefits from such programs as ‘‘TANF benefits.’’
2 While some benefits that meet the TANF
definition of ‘‘assistance’’ at 45 CFR 260.31, such
as transportation and childcare, would be
considered ‘‘non-cash benefits’’ in this proposed
rule, references to ‘‘assistance’’ and ‘‘benefits’’ in
this proposed rule are for SNAP categorical
eligibility purposes only. The terms are not
intended to align with the TANF use of
‘‘assistance’’ or ‘‘benefits’’ in 45 CFR 260.31.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
sufficiency. The Food and Nutrition Act
has clear parameters regarding the
income and resource limits that SNAP
households must meet, and categorical
eligibility is intended to apply only
when the conferring program has
properly determined eligibility.
Extending categorical eligibility to
participants who have not been
screened for eligibility compromises
program integrity and reduces public
confidence that benefits are being
provided to eligible households.
Therefore, the Department proposes
updating the regulations to refine
categorical eligibility requirements
based on receipt of TANF benefits.
Specifically, the Department proposes:
(1) To define ‘‘benefits’’ for categorical
eligibility to mean ongoing and
substantial benefits; and (2) to limit the
types of non-cash TANF benefits
conferring categorical eligibility to those
that focus on subsidized employment,
work supports and childcare. The
proposed rule would also require State
agencies to inform FNS of all non-cash
TANF benefits that confer categorical
eligibility.
The proposed revisions would create
a clearer and more consistent
nationwide policy that ensures
categorical eligibility is extended only
to households that have sufficiently
demonstrated eligibility by qualifying
for ongoing and substantial benefits
from TANF-funded programs designed
to assist households and move them
towards self-sufficiency.
In addition, the revisions would help
ensure that receipt of nominal, one-time
benefits or services do not confer
categorical eligibility and would address
program integrity issues that have
surfaced since the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 changed the
programs whose benefits confer
categorical eligibility. The Department
believes these revisions will maintain
categorical eligibility’s dual purpose of
streamlining program administration
while ensuring that SNAP benefits are
targeted to the appropriate households.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 23,
2019 to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition
Service, USDA, invites interested
persons to submit written comments on
this proposed rule. Comments may be
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
submitted in writing by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Send comments to Program
Design Branch, Program Development
Division, Food and Nutrition Service,
USDA, 3101 Park Center Dr.,
Alexandria, VA 22302. Email: Send
comments to SNAPPDBRules@usda.gov.
Include Docket ID Number [FNS–2018–
0037], ‘‘Revision of Categorical
Eligibility in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance’’ in the subject line
of the message.
• All written comments submitted in
response to this proposed rule will be
included in the record and will be made
available to the public. Please be
advised that the substance of the
comments and the identity of the
individuals or entities submitting the
comments will be subject to public
disclosure. FNS will make the written
comments publicly available on the
internet via https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Program Design Branch, Program
Development Division, Food and
Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park
Center Dr., Alexandria, VA 22302.
SNAPPDBRules@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) outlines specific
income and resource eligibility
standards for SNAP. Generally, the
statute requires that SNAP households
who do not have elderly or disabled
members must have a monthly gross
income equal to or lower than 130% of
the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and a
net income equal to or lower than 100%
of the FPL in order to be eligible for
SNAP.3 The statute also requires that
SNAP households meet specific
resource limits: One for households
with elderly or disabled members, and
one for all other households.
Section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(a)) provides
categorical eligibility for households in
which all members receive TANF
3 Households with an elderly or disabled member
need only meet the net income test. All eligible oneand two-person households are guaranteed a
minimum benefit.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
benefits.4 Categorical eligibility
simplifies the SNAP application process
for both SNAP State agencies and
households by reducing the amount of
information that must be verified if a
household already qualifies and has
been determined eligible to receive
benefits from another assistance
program.
Categorical eligibility has changed
significantly over time because of
changes in the Social Security Act (SSA)
(42 U.S.C. 601). Section 5(a) of the Food
and Nutrition Act dates back to the
Food Security Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99–
198), which made households in which
all members receive Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) or
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
benefits categorically eligible for SNAP.
AFDC was an entitlement program
intended to support needy families by
providing cash welfare payments to
households who met certain State
eligibility requirements. While each
State designed its own eligibility criteria
and benefit levels, these requirements
were governed by Federal limitations;
States received matching Federal funds
for the cash payments to eligible
households.5 6 Therefore, categorical
eligibility as outlined in the Food and
Nutrition Act was contemplated when
State AFDC programs conferring
categorical eligibility had specific
income eligibility and resource 7 criteria
that were targeted toward low-income
households. While States had some
flexibility, overarching Federal
parameters for AFDC meant there was
greater consistency across States and
general alignment with the standards for
SNAP.
The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(Pub. L. 104–193) (PRWORA) amended
the SSA and replaced the cash AFDC
program with the TANF block grant,
providing a set amount of funding for
States to design and implement TANFfunded programs. Section 401 of the
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
4 Section
5(a) also provides categorical eligibility
for SNAP based on receipt of Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) and General Assistance (GA).
SSI and GA benefits are not affected by this
proposed rule.
5 https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/167036/
1history.pdf,
6 https://aspe.hhs.gov/aid-families-dependentchildren-afdc-and-temporary-assistance-needyfamilies-tanf-overview-0.
7 ‘‘States determined eligibility thresholds and
benefit amounts. However, Federal law established
a gross income limit (185% of the state-determined
need standard); an asset test (no more than $1,000
in countable assets); and rules for how states count
different forms of income, including earnings.’’
Gene Falk, The Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History,
Congressional Research Service 11 (April 2, 2019),
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44668.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
SSA outlined four broad purposes for
TANF block grants: (1) To provide
assistance to needy families so that
children can be cared for in their own
homes; (2) to reduce the dependence of
needy parents on government benefits
by promoting job preparation, work, and
marriage; (3) to prevent and reduce the
incidence of out-of-wedlock
pregnancies; and (4) to encourage the
formation and maintenance of twoparent families. The State Maintenanceof-Effort (MOE) requirement in Section
409(a)(7) of the SSA (42 U.S.C.
609(a)(7)) requires States to spend a
certain amount of their own funds for
qualified purposes under TANF to
receive Federal TANF block grants.
PRWORA allowed States to use Federal
TANF and State MOE funds to provide
cash and non-cash benefits to serve
needy families under TANF purposes
one and two, as well as potentially
broader populations under TANF
purposes three and four.
Under PRWORA, States gained
significant flexibility in TANF-funded
program administration, resulting in a
wide array of programs designed to
further TANF’s four purposes, including
ones that may not have meaningful
eligibility criteria.8 For example, States
define ‘‘needy’’ for TANF purposes one
and two and may develop their own
eligibility criteria absent any Federal
requirement or standard of ‘‘need’’. As
a result, TANF-funded programs vary
greatly from State to State,9 with some
States focusing more on basic cash
assistance for needy households and
other States developing programs that
are less likely to focus on low-income
households, and may not have
appropriate income or resource tests.
Prior to PRWORA, categorical
eligibility for SNAP was conferred by
receipt of cash AFDC benefits, as noncash AFDC benefits did not exist. While
PRWORA did not modify the categorical
eligibility provision in Section 5(a) of
8 Congressional Research Service, ‘‘The
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and
Federal Requirements,’’ updated December 14,
2017, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/
RL/RL32748, p.13; Congressional Research Service,
‘‘The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently
Asked Questions’’, updated June 3, 2019, https://
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32760.
9 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/tanf-andmoe-spending-and-transfers-by-activity-fy-2017contains-national-state-pie-charts. In Fiscal Year
2017, 22.7 percent of combined TANF Federal and
State MOE funds were used for basic assistance
(e.g., cash); 10.5 percent were used for work,
education, and training activities; and 16.1 percent
were used for child care. In Fiscal Year 2017, 27
States used less than 50 percent of their TANF
Federal and State MOE funds on a combination of
basic assistance; work, education, and training
activities; and child care.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35571
the Food and Nutrition Act, the
Department recognized that the changes
enacted by PRWORA and the move from
AFDC to TANF meant that categorical
eligibility could be conferred by both
cash and non-cash benefits. As a result,
programs conferring categorical
eligibility would change in scope and
types of benefits offered and might not
target families in need. The Department
issued regulations (65 FR 70133
(November 21, 2000)) that further
defined and limited the conferring of
non-cash categorical eligibility.
Specifically, the Department determined
that, to appropriately limit categorical
eligibility to needy households, those
TANF-funded programs serving
purposes three and four must have
income eligibility criteria at or below
200% of the FPL. As discussed in the
preamble to the November 21, 2000
rule, this threshold was based on advice
provided to the Department by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), the agency with
oversight of the TANF block grant
program. HHS analysis indicated that
most services with income eligibility
criteria had income limits set at 200%
FPL or lower.
However, after the change from AFDC
to TANF, under current regulations,
States have significant flexibility to
determine what types of non-cash
TANF-funded services and benefits can
confer categorical eligibility for SNAP
and what the eligibility criteria for those
benefits should be. As of March 2019,
43 States have used this flexibility to
expand categorical eligibility to
households that receive non-cash TANF
benefits, resulting in significant
variation across States in the SNAP
eligibility determination process, and in
program rules and operations.10 When
using non-cash TANF benefits as the
basis of categorical eligibility decisions,
many States use income thresholds and
resource limits that are higher than the
Federal standards for SNAP. Due to the
current broad flexibility afforded States
in the construction of TANF-funded
programs, these households, who would
not otherwise have qualified for SNAP
due to their income or resources, are
considered categorically eligible and
therefore able to receive SNAP. As a
result of these policies, it is estimated
that 4.1% of currently participating
SNAP households (767,000 households
or 1.4 million individuals) have
resources above the SNAP limit and
4.9% have incomes above the Federal
SNAP gross income limit of 130% FPL
10 https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/
files/snap/BBCE.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
35572
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(914,000 households or 1.7 million
individuals).
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Current Issues With Categorical
Eligibility
While categorical eligibility based on
the receipt of non-cash TANF benefits
reduces administrative burden for State
agencies and households, and
particularly benefits working
households, the current regulation on
categorical eligibility has created several
issues. The current broad interpretation
of ‘‘benefits,’’ which includes any noncash or in-kind benefits or services, and
the significant variation across State
TANF-funded programs permits
nominal non-cash benefits or services,
such as TANF-funded brochures or
hotline numbers, to confer categorical
eligibility for SNAP.11 12
Federal auditors have raised program
integrity concerns about the wide
adoption of categorical eligibility
policies and the prevalence of TANF
benefits with minimal value. A 2012
General Accountability Office (GAO)
audit found that the expansion of
categorical eligibility beyond pure cash
programs resulted in States conferring
categorical eligibility to households in
some cases without actually providing
the TANF-funded benefit or service
necessary to confer the categorical
eligibility determination for SNAP.13 In
some cases households may not receive
the TANF-funded benefit until after
their SNAP eligibility determination,
may only receive the benefit upon
request, or may not receive it at all,
which weakens the intended linkage
between the two programs. For example,
a USDA Office of Inspector General
(OIG) audit found that households who
were determined categorically eligible
based on the receipt of a family
planning brochure did not actually
receive the brochure unless they
specifically requested it from the
State.14
11 USDA Office of Inspector General, ‘‘FNS
Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate
Audit Report 27601–0002–41,’’ https://
www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27601-0002-41.pdf.
12 Examples of nominal benefits are brochures
provided to clients that explain referrals to social
services, pregnancy prevention, or the 2–1–1
hotline. Additionally, States may simply provide
information about these services or a phone number
to contact for more information on the application
for multiple benefit programs.
13 https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/593070.pdf
The GAO estimated that in fiscal year 2010, 2.6
percent (473,000) of households that received
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
benefits would not have been eligible for the
program without expanded categorical eligibility
because their incomes were over the Federal SNAP
eligibility limits (95% confidence interval of 2.4–
2.8%).
14 USDA Office of Inspector General, ‘‘FNS
Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate Audit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
Further, because of the flexibility
afforded States in the design and
operation of TANF-funded programs, it
is also possible that households who
may not have undergone a meaningful
TANF financial eligibility determination
through the TANF-funded program
become categorically eligible for SNAP.
Policies in 41 States indicate that they
have an income limit of 200% or less for
their expanded categorical eligibility
program, however, they also indicate
that ‘‘all households are eligible’’ for the
expanded categorical eligibility
benefit.15 For example, four States
utilize TANF funds to print their multibenefit applications for SNAP, TANF,
and other programs and include
information and referrals to other
services on those applications. The
applications are provided to anyone
who requests one, regardless of their
gross income, and confer expanded
categorical eligibility at the time the
household receives the application.
Conferring categorical eligibility in such
cases compromises the integrity of
SNAP by allowing households that did
not undergo a financial eligibility
determination before receiving TANFfunded benefits, to then be deemed
categorically eligible to receive SNAP.
In 2016, FNS issued subsequent
guidance 16 to State agencies following
these audits regarding the proper
procedures under which categorical
eligibility may be conferred. The
Department has determined, however,
that due to the nominal nature of many
benefits offered under current expanded
categorical eligibility programs, further
rulemaking is required in order to
narrow the scope of potential TANF
benefits conferring categorical
eligibility, to ensure that applicant
eligibility is properly assessed.
Therefore, the Department wishes to
further strengthen the requirements
through this rulemaking to ensure that
TANF-funded programs conferring
categorical eligibility align more closely
with SNAP eligibility standards
outlined in the Food and Nutrition Act.
The Department has an obligation to
expend taxpayer funds in a fiscally
responsible manner and in alignment
with the intent of the Food and
Nutrition Act to alleviate hunger among
low-income households. Prior
rulemaking regarding categorical
eligibility was intended to use the
streamlined approach of categorical
Report 27601–0002–41,’’ https://www.usda.gov/oig/
webdocs/27601-0002-41.pdf.
15 https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/
files/snap/BBCE.pdf.
16 https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/
files/snap/clarification-bbce-memo.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
eligibility to support households in
need. The Department has seen that,
given the significant operational
flexibilities inherent in TANF-funded
programs, current regulations are
insufficient to achieve this goal. As a
result, the Department thinks revising
the categorical eligibility regulations at
7 CFR 273.2(j)(2) and limiting
categorical eligibility to those
households receiving ongoing and
substantial benefits from TANF-funded
programs strikes a prudent and
reasonable balance between
administrative flexibility and program
integrity. With this proposed rule, the
Department intends to ensure
consistency across TANF-funded
programs whose benefits confer
categorical eligibility and to discourage
the types of practices that States
developed for conferring categorical
eligibility with TANF non-cash benefits.
The Department believes that instituting
an ongoing and substantial threshold for
both cash and non-cash TANF benefits,
as described below, is an appropriate
way to achieve this goal.
Summary of Proposed Approach
Given the substantial variation across
all TANF State program operations, and
in the interest of program integrity, the
Department proposes revising the
requirements for cash and non-cash
TANF benefits that would confer
categorical eligibility for SNAP. Such
revisions would create a clearer and
more consistent nationwide policy
regarding the cash and non-cash TANF
benefits that confer categorical
eligibility. This proposal would limit
cash and non-cash categorical eligibility
to households that receive ongoing and
substantial benefits. In addition, noncash categorical eligibility would be
limited to specific types of TANF
benefits—subsidized employment, work
supports, and/or childcare—that
support family self-sufficiency. It is the
Department’s understanding that
programs providing such benefits have
meaningful eligibility determinations
because of the value of the benefits
provided. As SNAP and TANF
eligibility determinations may be
accomplished concurrently, the
Department also understands that a
household may not yet be in receipt of
the TANF benefit (e.g., be in physical
possession of a voucher or payment) at
the time categorical eligibility is
conferred. However, it is the
Department’s intent that the household
be enrolled in a TANF-funded program
expected to start on a date certain. Such
programs would need to be ongoing and
substantial in order to be considered
one that could confer categorical
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
eligibility for SNAP. The Department
requests comments to better understand
the eligibility determination and
enrollment processes for TANF-funded
programs. Specifically, the Department
is interested in comments on the
processes by which TANF-funded
programs actually determine applicant
financial and non-financial eligibility
for the conferring programs, and at what
point in the TANF enrollment process
this determination and delivery of
benefit(s) to the household may take
place relative to the SNAP eligibility
determination.
The Department believes the policies
explained further below will ensure
SNAP benefits reach those most in need
while balancing administrative
efficiency, customer service, and
program integrity.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Simplification of Terminology
The proposed rule simplifies some of
the terminology used when addressing
categorical eligibility. Current
regulations at § 273.2(j)(2) provide for
categorical eligibility based on the
receipt of ‘‘non-cash or in-kind benefits
or services.’’ Because no meaningful
distinction exists between ‘‘non-cash’’
and ‘‘in-kind,’’ or ‘‘benefits’’ and
‘‘services,’’ in this context, the
Department proposes simply using
‘‘non-cash benefits’’ in the revised
§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B).
Move From TANF Purposes to TANF
Benefits
Current regulations at
§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and (C) allow non-cash
programs designed to further TANF
block grant purposes one through four
to confer categorical eligibility. The
flexibility afforded States under the
TANF block grant allows for variation in
how States link their various TANFfunded programs to TANF purposes.
The Department has learned through
consultation with HHS that, for
example, one State may designate a
given benefit as furthering purposes one
and two of the TANF block grant, while
another State offering a substantially
similar benefit may designate it as
furthering TANF purposes three and
four. Since the distinction between
purposes is not necessarily meaningful
in conferring non-cash categorical
eligibility, the Department proposes to
link categorical eligibility to specific
types of TANF benefits rather than to
TANF block grant purposes.
Specifically, the Department is
proposing to limit categorical eligibility
to TANF non-cash benefits that support
meaningful work opportunities—
specifically, subsidized employment,
work supports, and childcare support—
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
that help move families from welfare to
self-sufficiency. The Department’s
proposal would remove mention of
TANF block grant purposes in
§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and eliminate
§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(C) and instead describe
TANF benefits in § 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)(2).
As described below, the Department
is proposing that these non-cash
benefits be both ongoing and substantial
to confer categorical eligibility for
SNAP.
Ongoing and Substantial Benefits in
Conferring Programs
This proposed rule would revise the
interpretation of ‘‘benefits’’ under
Section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition
Act to mean that, for purposes of
categorical eligibility, TANF or StateMOE funded benefits must be
‘‘ongoing’’ and ‘‘substantial’’. The
Department also proposes that, for the
purposes of alignment across all types of
TANF benefits, these thresholds be set
for both cash and non-cash benefits.
Current regulations at
§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and (C) provide for
categorical eligibility based on the
receipt of ‘‘non-cash or in-kind benefits
or services,’’ without further detail. As
explained above, such a policy means
an individual may be categorically
eligible for SNAP even if the individual
receives a one-time, minimal, non-cash
TANF benefit such as an information
brochure, hotline number, or referral to
other services.17 This practice threatens
the integrity of categorical eligibility,
the purpose of which is to streamline
services to households who have
received an eligibility determination
from a means-tested program.
To help address these issues, the
Department proposes clarifying in
§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)(1) that, to be
considered ‘‘ongoing’’, ‘‘benefits’’ under
Section 5(a) must be those that a
household receives or is authorized to
receive for a period of at least six
months. In the TANF context, this might
include a household that would be
eligible to receive benefits for a period
of at least six months, barring changes
in financial status or compliance. In
addition, six months is the certification
period length for many SNAP
households and a mid-point for the
most common certification period
length of 12 months.18 The Department
17 https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/
files/snap/BBCE.pdf.
18 https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/
files/ops/Characteristics2016.pdf. In Fiscal Year
2016, across all SNAP households the average
certification period length was 13 months. 25% of
all SNAP households and 37% of SNAP households
with children have a certification period length of
6 months. 50% of all SNAP households and 54%
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35573
believes that six months is long enough
to be considered ongoing, and would
maintain program alignment. The
Department welcomes comments about
using the six-month standard, including
whether another timeframe would be
more appropriate. These proposed
changes are reflected in
§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(A)(1) and
§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)(1).
The Department also proposes
requiring in § 273.2(j)(2)(i)(A)(2) and
§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)(2) that cash and noncash benefits be ‘‘substantial’’ to confer
categorical eligibility. In defining
substantial, the Department wants to
eliminate the practice of conferring
categorical eligibility based on receipt of
benefits that are nominal and of
minimal value. Allowing categorical
eligibility based on the receipt of
benefits nominal in value may
encourage cursory or nonexistent
eligibility determinations because the
amount of those TANF benefits do not
warrant the cost of staff time and
resources to administer. However, by
requiring the benefits to be substantial,
the proposed rule limits categorical
eligibility to those TANF benefits for
which a State is more likely to establish
a meaningful eligibility determination
and dedicate resources. The Department
consulted with HHS to determine an
appropriate definition of ‘‘substantial’’.
Based on this consultation, the
Department proposes that the benefit be
valued at a minimum of $50 per month
in order to confer categorical eligibility.
There is no minimum benefit amount
currently required by TANF, in keeping
with the flexibility afforded to States by
that program. However, should that ever
change, the Department also proposes in
§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(A) that, should HHS
develop a minimum threshold amount
for TANF cash benefits, the Department
would select the higher of the two
standards.
Because the types and amounts of
TANF benefits vary greatly among
States, the Department is particularly
seeking comments on appropriate
measures for ‘‘substantial’’ and
‘‘ongoing’’ benefits, as well as comments
on the proposed $50 threshold. The
Department will consider these
comments when formulating the final
rulemaking.
Types of Non-Cash Benefits Conferring
Categorical Eligibility
The President’s Executive Order on
Reducing Poverty in America by
Promoting Opportunity and Economic
Mobility (April 10, 2018) directed the
of SNAP households with children have a
certification period length of 12 months.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
35574
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Department to review its regulations
and to determine whether they are
consistent with the principles of
increasing self-sufficiency, well-being
and economic mobility. In keeping with
the principles of the Executive order,
and the Administration’s focus on
encouraging self-sufficiency, the
Department has determined that the
types of benefits conferring categorical
eligibility should be limited to those
that, in addition to being ongoing and
substantial, also provide meaningful
opportunities for households to obtain
employment and financial stability.
Therefore, the Department proposes
in § 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)(2) to limit the
conferring of categorical eligibility to
those non-cash TANF benefits that
provide subsidized employment, work
supports, and childcare benefits, that
are substantial and ongoing as defined
earlier. Based on consultation with
HHS, the Department is proposing to
limit these conferring benefits to the
following types:
• Subsidized employment for which
the employer or a third party receives a
subsidy to offset some or all of the
wages and costs of employing an
individual;
• Work supports, including
transportation benefits or vouchers to
assist families to participate in
employment or work activities; and/or
• Childcare subsidies or vouchers to
support working families.
The Department believes the
existence of a ready market valuation for
benefits conferring categorical eligibility
is important for administrative ease and
ensuring a consistent nationwide policy.
The Department understands that
additional non-cash TANF benefits,
such as education and training, job
search assistance, or work experience,
are provided on an hourly or weekly
basis to program participants. The
Department is unsure how to determine
a ready market valuation for such
benefits, which are less concrete and
measurable than subsidized
employment, work supports, and child
care benefits, which can be easily
valued at a cash equivalent. However,
the Department is interested in public
comment as to whether and how the
benefits from such hourly-based
programs could be valued for the
purposes of conferring categorical
eligibility, or other ways to determine
whether such benefits could be ongoing
and substantial.
Treatment of Non-Cash Benefit
Conferring Programs
The Department is seeking comments
on the current regulation’s distinction
among non-cash TANF-funded
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
programs conferring categorical
eligibility based on the amount of
Federal TANF and State MOE funding
for the non-cash TANF-funded
programs. Under current regulations, a
non-cash TANF-funded program funded
by more than 50 percent Federal TANF/
State MOE funds and serving TANF
purposes one and two must confer
categorical eligibility (§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)).
At the State’s option, categorical
eligibility may be conferred if the
TANF-funded program is funded by less
than 50 percent Federal TANF/State
MOE funds (§ 273.2(j)(2)(ii)). In such
cases, the State must inform FNS if the
program serves TANF purposes one and
two. Programs serving TANF purposes
three and four, no matter the funding
makeup, must have income limits below
200 percent FPL; those funded by less
than 50 percent Federal TANF/State
MOE funds must also be approved by
FNS.
The proposed rule would maintain
the funding distinction by: (1) Requiring
that States confer categorical eligibility
when a TANF-funded program
providing ongoing and substantial noncash benefits is funded with 50 percent
or more of combined Federal TANF or
State MOE money (§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B));
and (2) allowing States the option to
confer categorical eligibility when a
TANF-funded program that issues
ongoing and substantial non-cash
benefits is funded by less than 50
percent of a combination of Federal
TANF or State MOE money. However,
the Department seeks comments to
better understand current State funding
mixes for TANF-funded programs, and
to learn whether these funding
distinctions and practices have an
impact on the type and scope of benefits
provided to households. The
Department is interested in whether
eliminating the distinction, or adjusting
the 50 percent funding threshold would
help streamline SNAP regulations,
ensure consistency in serving
households through categorical
eligibility, and simplify administration.
The Department will take these
comments into consideration in
determining whether and how to adjust
these requirements in final rulemaking.
The Department would update the
regulatory language at § 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)
and 273.2(j)(2)(ii) to reflect the proposed
shift from conferring categorical
eligibility based on TANF purposes to
receipt of ongoing and substantial noncash TANF benefits. In addition, the
Department proposes to clarify the
funding threshold. The regulatory
language currently at § 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B),
273.2(j)(2)(i)(C), 273.2(j)(2)(ii)(A) and
273.2(j)(2)(ii)(B) describe TANF-funded
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
programs that are ‘‘more than 50
percent’’ and ‘‘less than 50 percent’’
funded by Federal TANF or State MOE
money. The Department proposes in
this rulemaking to change references
from ‘‘more than 50 percent’’ to ‘‘50
percent or more’’ so that it is clear into
which category programs funded with
50 percent Federal TANF or State MOE
money should fall. The Department also
proposes conforming changes to § 273.8
(e)(17) to align with the proposed
definition of ‘‘ongoing and substantial’’
benefits and to strike paragraph
references that would no longer be
applicable given the changes this
proposed rule would make to
§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and § 273.2(j)(2)(ii).
The proposed rule retains the policy
regarding household categorical
eligibility based on an individual
household member’s receipt of
qualifying benefits currently at
§ 273.2(j)(2)(iii). Under this policy, if
one member receives or is authorized to
receive such benefits and the State
determines the whole household
benefits, the whole household would be
categorically eligible. This policy allows
a household to be categorically eligible
for SNAP based on receipt of non-cash
benefits that, while provided at the
individual level, support overall family
self-sufficiency. For example, a State
may determine that a TANF-funded
childcare voucher provided to a mother
actually supports and benefits her and
her two children; pursuant to such a
determination, the entire household
would be categorically eligible, thereby
streamlining the family’s process of
applying for SNAP assistance. The
Department proposes incorporating this
policy into the revised § 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)
and § 273.2(j)(2)(ii) to consolidate the
criteria for non-cash TANF benefit
categorical eligibility.
State Notification to FNS of Non-Cash
Conferring Benefits
For appropriate oversight purposes,
the proposed § 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) would
also require State agencies to inform
FNS of the non-cash TANF benefits that
confer categorical eligibility. Current
regulations require that State agencies
inform FNS if they elect the option to
confer categorical eligibility through a
program that is less than 50 percent
funded by Federal TANF or State MOE
dollars, and that furthers purposes one
and two of the TANF block grant. States
are not currently required to inform FNS
of conferring programs that are more
than 50 percent funded and that further
purposes one and two. Under the
proposed rule, a State would be
required to inform FNS of all non-cash
TANF benefits that confer categorical
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
eligibility. The notification requirement
would ensure appropriate monitoring
and transparency, as well as help ensure
consistency nationwide. States would
be required to report when this rule
takes effect and any time there is a
subsequent change to the conferring
programs. The Department expects the
notification requirement would not
unduly burden most State agencies
because the TANF benefits that confer
categorical eligibility do not frequently
change.
Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select 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.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be economically
significant and was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Impact Analysis
The Department estimates the net
reduction in Federal spending
associated with the proposed rule to be
approximately $9.386 billion over the
five years 2019–2023. Included in this is
an estimated reduction in Federal
transfers of approximately $10.543
billion over the five-year period as well
as a $1.157 billion increase in Federal
administrative costs. The Department
estimates an additional $1.157 billion in
Federal reimbursement of
administrative costs to State agencies
(for a total of $2.314 billion in
additional administrative costs). In
addition, the Department estimates that
households that remain eligible for
SNAP and new SNAP applicants will
face additional burden associated with
the application process, at a cost of
approximately $5 million annually. The
proposed rule may also negatively
impact food security and reduce the
savings rates among those individuals
who do not meet the income and
resource eligibility requirements for
SNAP or the substantial and ongoing
requirements for expanded categorical
eligibility.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
The Department estimates that
approximately 9 percent of currentlyparticipating SNAP households (an
estimated 1.7 million households in FY
2020, containing 3.1 million
individuals) will not otherwise meet
SNAP’s income and asset eligibility
prerequisites under the proposed rule.
These households are nearly evenly
split between those that fail the Federal
SNAP income test (4.9 percent) and
those that fail the Federal resource test
(4.1 percent). Collectively, these
households receive about 5 percent of
total SNAP benefits. However,
households who would not meet the
eligibility requirements due to the
resource test account for 80 percent of
the expected reduction in benefits. This
is because they have lower incomes
relative to households that fail the
Federal income test, and thus receive
larger monthly SNAP allotments.
Households with one or more elderly
individual(s) and/or earned income
would be disproportionately affected.
Approximately 13.2 percent of all SNAP
households with elderly members will
lose benefits (7.4 percent will fail the
income test and 5.8 percent will fail the
resource test), as will 12.5 percent of
households with earnings (8.6 percent
will fail the income test and another 3.9
percent will fail the resource test). The
proposed rule is relatively less likely to
affect households with children—only
7.4 percent are expected to no longer
meet eligibility requirements (4.1
percent will fail the income test and 3.4
percent will fail the resource test).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601–612) requires Agencies to
analyze the impact of rulemaking on
small entities and consider alternatives
that would minimize any significant
impacts on a substantial number of
small entities. Pursuant to that review,
it has been certified that this rule would
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would not have an
impact on small entities because the
proposed rule primarily impacts State
agencies and SNAP participants. State
agencies in affected States will need to
revise their procedures for processing
SNAP applications and recertifications
and will face increased administrative
costs associated with the revised
procedures.
Small entities, such as smaller SNAPauthorized retailers, would not be
subject to any new requirements.
However, all retailers would likely see
a drop in the amount of SNAP benefits
redeemed at stores if these provisions
were finalized, but impacts on small
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35575
retailers are not expected to be
disproportionate to the impact on large
entities. As of FY 2017, approximately
76 percent of authorized SNAP retailers
(nearly 200,000 retailers) were small
groceries, convenience stores,
combination grocery stores, and
specialty stores, store types that are
likely to fall under the Small Business
Administration gross sales threshold to
qualify as a small business for Federal
Government programs. While these
stores make up most authorized
retailers, collectively they redeem less
than 15 percent of all SNAP benefits.
The proposed rule is expected to
reduce SNAP benefit payments by about
$3 billion per year. This would equate
to about a $183 loss of revenue per
small authorized retailer on average per
month [(3 billion × 15%)/(200,000
stores/12 months)]. In 2017, the average
small store redeemed about $3,800 in
SNAP each month; the potential loss of
benefits represents less than 5 percent of
their SNAP redemptions and only a
small portion of their gross sales. Based
on 2017 store data, a 4.8 percent
reduction in SNAP redemptions
represented between 0.01 and 0.95
percent of these stores’ average gross
sales.
Executive Order 13771
Executive Order 13771 directs
agencies to reduce regulation and
control regulatory costs and provides
that the cost of planned regulations be
prudently managed and controlled
through a budgeting process. This
proposed rule is expected to be an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action. We estimate that it would
impose $415 million in annualized costs
at a 7% discount rate, discounted to a
2016 equivalent, over a perpetual time
horizon.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
regulatory actions on State, local and
tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
the Department generally must prepare
a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any one year. When such a
statement is necessary, Section 205 of
the UMRA generally requires the
Department to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the most cost
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
35576
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This proposed rule contains Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that
are expected to result in aggregate
expenditures by State, local and tribal
governments or the private sector of
more per year. Thus, the rule is subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis
conducted by FNS in connection with
this proposed rule includes a cost/
benefit analysis and explains the
alternatives considered to modify
categorical eligibility regulations. Based
on this analysis, the Department
believes there are no alternatives to the
proposal that would accomplish the
stated objectives in a less burdensome
manner. However, the Department
invites comments regarding less
burdensome approaches to achieving
the stated objectives. Per the Food and
Nutrition Act, the Federal government
would pay 50 percent of allowable State
administrative costs required under this
proposed rule.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 12372
SNAP is listed in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance under No.
10.551. For the reasons set forth in the
Federal Register notice, published June
24, 1983 (48 FR 29115), this Program is
excluded from the scope of Executive
Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials.
Federalism Summary Impact Statement
Executive Order 13132 requires
Federal agencies to consider the impact
of their regulatory actions on State and
local governments. Where such actions
have federalism implications, agencies
are directed to provide a statement for
inclusion in the preamble to the
regulations describing the agency’s
considerations in terms of the three
categories called for under Section
(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
The Department has considered the
impact of this rule on State and local
governments and has determined that
this rule does not have federalism
implications. Therefore, under section
6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism
summary is not required.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended
to have preemptive effect with respect
to any State or local laws, regulations or
policies which conflict with its
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
provisions or which would otherwise
impede its full and timely
implementation. This rule is not
intended to have retroactive effect.
Before any judicial challenge to the
provisions of the final rule, all
applicable administrative procedures
must be exhausted.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
FNS has reviewed this proposed rule
in accordance with USDA Regulation
4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact Analysis,’’
to identify any major civil rights
impacts the rule might have on program
participants on the basis of age, race,
color, national origin, sex or disability.
After review and analysis of the rule
and available data, it has been
determined that there is a potential for
civil rights impacts to result if the
proposed action is implemented
because more elderly individuals may
not otherwise meet the SNAP eligibility
requirements.
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175
requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with tribes on a governmentto-government basis on policies that
have tribal implications, including
regulations, legislative comments or
proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The USDA’s Office of Tribal Relations
(OTR) has assessed the impact of this
rule on Indian tribes and determined
that this rule has tribal implications that
require tribal consultation under E.O.
13175. FNS briefed Tribes on this rule
at the February 14, 2019, listening
session; Tribes were subsequently
provided the opportunity for
consultation on the issue, but the
Department received no feedback. If a
tribe requests consultation in the future,
FNS will work with OTR to ensure
meaningful consultation is provided.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR part 1320)
requires the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approve all collections of
information by a Federal agency before
they can be implemented. Respondents
are not required to respond to any
collection of information unless it
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
displays a current valid OMB control
number.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, this proposed
rule contains existing information
collection requirements that are subject
to review and approval by the Office of
Management and Budget; therefore, the
Department is submitting for public
comment the changes in the information
collection burden that would increase
the OMB burden inventory as a result of
adoption of the proposals in the rule.
These existing requirements impact a
current collection that has been used
without a valid OMB control number or
expiration date. The Department plans
to bring these burden requirements into
compliance, contingent upon OMB
approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. FNS plans to
account for and maintain these burden
hours under a new OMB control number
assigned by OMB. Written comments on
the information collection in this
information must be received by
September 23, 2019. When the
information collection requirements
have been approved, FNS will publish
a separate action in the Federal Register
announcing OMB’s approval.
Send written comments to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for FNS,
Washington, DC 20503. Please also send
a copy of your comments to Requests for
additional information or copies of this
information collection should be
directed to Program Design Branch,
Program Development Division, Food
and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park
Center Dr., Alexandria, VA 22302. Email: Send comments to
SNAPPDBRules@usda.gov. For further
information, or for copies of the
information collection requirements,
please contact the Program Design
Branch at the address indicated above.
Comments will also be accepted through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
https://www.regulations.gov, and follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments electronically.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
use of appropriate automated,
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
All responses to this document will
be summarized and included in the
request for Office of Management and
Budget approval. All comments will be
a matter of public record.
Title: Revision of Categorical
Eligibility in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.
OMB Number: 0584–NEW.
Expiration Date: [Not Yet
Determined.]
Type of Request: New collection.
Abstract: Section 5(a) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, (the
Act), provides that households in which
each member receives benefits under a
State program funded under part A of
Title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA)
(also known as Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) block grants)
shall be categorically eligible for SNAP.
Originally, categorical eligibility was
intended to reduce administrative
burden for States and households,
making the application process easier
for households that qualified for
benefits under means-tested programs
similar to SNAP by removing the
requirement that these households
verify eligibility twice for two separate
programs. However, TANF-funded
programs provide States with
considerable flexibility in program
administration, resulting in programs
that vary greatly from State to State.
Under current regulations, all States
must confer categorical eligibility to
households in which all members
receive cash assistance from TANF,
General Assistance (GA), or SSI. States
have significant flexibility to determine
what types of non-cash TANF-funded
services and benefits can confer
categorical eligibility for SNAP.
Currently, 43 States have expanded
categorical eligibility to households that
receive non-cash TANF benefits and
thirty-seven of these States currently
have no resource test.
The proposed rule would provide a
clearer and more consistent nationwide
policy that limits categorical eligibility
to households that qualify for TANFfunded programs designed to help move
them towards self-sufficiency and
ensure that receipt of nominal, one-time
benefits or services does not confer
categorical eligibility. Section 5(j) of the
Act indicates that households who are
considered to be categorically eligible
are considered to have met the SNAP
resource standards and therefore these
households do not undergo another
resource determination. The proposed
restriction of categorical eligibility
would reduce the number of households
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
who would be categorically eligible and,
therefore, would require States to assess
more households’ income and resources
to determine if they are eligible for
SNAP benefits. Under current policies,
it is estimated that 4.9% of SNAP
households have resources above the
SNAP limit and 4.1% have incomes
above the Federal SNAP gross income
limit of 130% FPL. However, the
proposed rule has a greater impact on
the need to verify resources since all
households (both eligible and ineligible)
that are not categorically eligible would
be subject to the resource verification
requirements, and as noted earlier, this
rule would reduce the number of
households who are categorically
eligible.
As discussed further below, to date,
FNS has been conducting the
information collection and imposing
burden for a limited set of States and
SNAP applicant households regarding
resource verification without OMB
approval.
This is an existing collection in use
without an OMB control number and
FNS is seeking OMB approval. FNS is
requesting a new OMB Control Number
for these requirements in this proposed
rule, Revision of Categorical Eligibility
in SNAP. Because State agencies do not
verify resources for applicants that are
currently considered categorically
eligible per 5(j) of the Act, they would
be required to make changes to their
application process to assess the
resources of those households’ that
would no longer be categorically
eligible. Out of 53 State agencies, 43
State agencies have adopted expanded
categorical eligibility policies:
Therefore, only 10 States are currently
collecting resource information as part
of the SNAP eligibility determination
process. The ten (10) State agencies that
have not taken the option to expand
categorical eligibility will be unaffected
by this proposed rule; these States are
currently conducting the information
collection and imposing burden for
States and SNAP applicant households
regarding resource verification without
OMB approval.
There is no new recordkeeping
burden required for this new
information collection request. The
recordkeeping burden for State agencies
is currently covered under the approved
information collection burden for
application processing, OMB Control
Number 0584–0064 (expiration date:
7/31/2020), which already accounts for
the casefile documentation that States
must maintain for each SNAP
household at § 273.2(f)(6).
Description of Costs and
Assumptions: This rule will narrow the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35577
types of programs whose benefits may
confer categorical eligibility. The
proposed restriction of categorical
eligibility would reduce the number of
households who would be categorically
eligible for SNAP and, therefore, would
require States to assess more
households’ resources to determine if
they are eligible for SNAP benefits;
under the rule, all 53 State agencies
(including the 10 States currently
collecting this data without OMB
approval) will now be required to
collect resource information from more
households. For example, States and
households will need to contact
financial institutions, Departments of
Motor Vehicles and other entities to
obtain documentation of household’s
resources.
Reporting Burden Activities:
Currently, all applicant households are
required to meet the SNAP resource
limits at § 273.8 (Resource eligibility
standards); applicants who are
categorically eligible are considered to
have met the SNAP resource standards
(Section 5(j) of the Food and Nutrition
Act). Recent data 19 shows that 21.9% of
SNAP households are pure public
assistance households (i.e., categorically
eligible through receipt of SSI, cash
TANF or GA); these households are
considered to have met the SNAP
income and resource requirements.
Therefore, the household estimates in
this burden narrative do not include the
21.9% of households who would remain
categorically eligible through their pure
public assistance status, and therefore
not subject to any additional burden
under this rulemaking. Under this
rulemaking, fewer SNAP households
will be categorically eligible through
their receipt of non-cash TANF benefits
and therefore considered to have met
the resource standards. As fewer SNAP
households will be categorically
eligible, more households will therefore
need to have their resources evaluated
by SNAP eligibility workers to
determine whether or not these
households meet the SNAP resource
standards. Resources are one of several
elements of eligibility that are used to
determine SNAP eligibility and are
subject to verification if questionable
(§ 273.2 (f)(2)). To come up with a
reporting burden estimate of how much
burden would be added to SNAP state
agencies and households, FNS
consulted with States to learn about
current State practices around resource
verification.
19 Characteristics of SNAP Households, FY2017,
Table B.12; https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/
default/files/resource-files/Characteristics2017.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
35578
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
State Agency Burden Assessment
Feedback
FNS first needed to estimate the
amount of time that resource
verification would take for State
agencies. To do so, FNS consulted with
eight States that currently do not have
expanded categorical eligibility and,
therefore, subject SNAP households to a
resource test and asked these States to
provide estimates of the amount of time
that State agency staff spent verifying
resources with clients at initial and
recertification. FNS learned that four of
these States verify resources when
resources are close to the resource limit,
two States only verify resources when
questionable and two States verified
resources at all times. FNS therefore
estimates that, of the 43 States who,
under this proposed rule, would now be
required to conduct substantially more
resource verification, 22 would adopt a
policy to verify a household’s resources
if close to the resource limit (for the
purposes of this discussion, ‘‘High Limit
States’’), 10 would verify resources only
when deemed questionable (‘‘SelfAttestation States’’) and 11 would verify
resources for households at all times
(‘‘Always’’ States). The burden table
column ‘‘Estimated Total Burden
Hours’’ also accounts for the 10 States
that are currently collecting resource
information without OMB approval (5
‘‘High Limit’’ States, 3 ‘‘Self-Attestation
States’’ and 2 ‘‘Always’’ States; so that
the total burden reflected in the table is
for all 53 State agencies at both initial
as well as recertification.
Using the estimates that each group of
States provided for the amount of time
needed to verify resources and
averaging the responses, FNS estimates
that State agency staff in States with a
policy to verify resources if close to the
limit or questionable would on average
spend 12.3 minutes (0.205 hours) per
case at initial certification and 7.4
minutes (0.123 hours) per case at
recertification. FNS estimates that State
agency staff in States who would adopt
a policy to verify resources at all times
would have a higher burden: 43.75
minutes (0.729 hours) per case at initial
certification and 26.25 minutes (0.4375
hours) per case at recertification.
FNS then needed to estimate the
percentage of a State’s caseload that
would be subject to these resource
verification requirements in order to
calculate the State agency burden. In the
estimated 13 States where caseworkers
would verify resources at all times, the
entire caseload would be subject to
verification. In ‘‘High Limit’’ and ‘‘SelfAttestation’’ States, only a certain
percent of SNAP applicants would meet
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
the criteria (e.g. substantial resources or
questionable information) that would
necessitate the caseworker undertaking
resource verification. Using caseload
data on households’ resource levels
from a recent study to determine how
many households would have resources
close to the resource limit,20 FNS
estimates that States that verify
resources near the limit (27) would have
to verify about 27% of the time; FNS
rounded up to 30% to take into account
caseworker discretion to verify when
questionable. For the States that verify
only when questionable (13) FNS
estimates that resources would be
verified 10% of the time. Accordingly,
in the burden tables the estimated
number of households whose resources
would be verified by a caseworker are
adjusted to 30% of the caseload in the
estimated 22 ‘‘High Limit’’ States and
10% of the caseload in the estimated 10
‘‘Self-Attestation’’ States. The estimated
number of households for the 13
‘‘Always’’ States would be all SNAP
applicant households in those States.
This rule would also require State
agencies to inform FNS of the types of
non-cash TANF benefits that confer
categorical eligibility in their States.
This specific reporting would be a new
reporting requirement under this rule.
FNS estimates that it would take one
hour of a State agency staff person’s
time to prepare and send this
information to FNS. As 10 States do not
currently have non-cash TANF-funded
programs that confer categorical
eligibility and would not be required to
report to FNS, FNS anticipates that only
the current 43 States with non-cash
programs would be required to report to
FNS under the new rule. This additional
burden is included in the burden tables
below. The Department seeks additional
comment on how long it would take
States to gather, review and report this
information.
Household Burden
The Department then had to estimate
the burden hours for households to
provide verification. FNS referenced the
currently approved estimated number of
applicants in OMB Control Number
0584–0064; Expiration Date: 7/31/2020
and updated these numbers to reflect
the most recently available participation
data (FY18) for SNAP initial applicants
20 Ratcliffe, Caroline, Sara Armstrong, Emma
Kalish, Signe-Mary McKernan, Christina Oberlin,
Catherine Ruggles, and Laura Wheaton. 2016.
‘‘Asset Limits, SNAP Participation, and Financial
Stability.’’ Washington, DC. Prepared by the Urban
Institute and Orlin Research for the U.S. Food and
Nutrition Service. Available online: https://fnsprod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/
SNAPAssets.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and recertification applicant
households.21
The Department finds it reasonable to
use the estimates from OMB approved
Information Collection 0054–0064
regarding household burden for
providing verification and estimates that
providing verification would take 4
minutes or .0668 hours per household at
initial certification and 6 minutes or
.1002 hours at recertification. Using the
estimates above for the number of
households in each State subject to
verification requirements (100% in 11
States, 30% in 22 States and 10% in 10
States), we then calculated the total
number of households that would have
to participate in this annual burden. We
have rounded these burden times in the
chart below.
The Department is very interested in
States comments on the requested
information burden, as the vast majority
of households in most States have been
certified under expanded categorical
eligibility, and therefore have not been
subject to resource verification in recent
years. All comments will be reviewed
and considered in the rulemaking
process. To date, The Department has
been conducting the information
collection and imposing burden for
States and SNAP applicant households
regarding resource verification without
OMB approval; however, as discussed
earlier, due to expanded categorical
eligibility policies, few States are
currently collecting resource
information as part of the SNAP
eligibility determination process. The
Department has estimated the current
reporting burden for the States without
expanded categorical eligibility policies
and provided these numbers in the
chart.
The burden estimates we are using
without OMB approval is for the current
ten states without expanded categorical
eligibility; the overall burden collected
without OMB approval is 833,745.10
burden hours, this burden total includes
691,092.51 total annual burden hours
and 1,747,515.79 total annual responses
for State agencies and 142,652.58 total
annual burden hours and 1,747,515.79
total annual responses for Individuals/
Households (SNAP Participants). The
overall estimated burden we are
requesting for both the Individuals/
Households and State agencies is
5,154,728.15 total annual burden hours
and 20,602,334 total annual responses.
The reporting burden details are
provided below for State Agencies and
SNAP applicant households. This
21 National Data Bank data from FY2018, FNS
366–B, Total Initial Applications and Total
Recertification Applications.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
request associated with rulemaking
reflects an increase of 3,622,736.20 total
annual burden hours and 8,553,672.90
total annual responses for State agencies
and 698,246.85 total annual burden
hours and 8,553,629.901 total annual
responses for Households (SNAP
Participants).
Estimated Number of Respondents: 53
State Agencies.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
Estimated Frequency of Responses per
Year: 643,822.61.
Estimated Total Annual Responses:
10,301,188.69.
Estimated Time per Response:
0.418769993.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 4,313,828.72.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
10,301,146 (SNAP households).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35579
Estimated Frequency of Response per
Year: 1.
Estimated Total Annual Responses:
10,301,146.
Estimated Time per Response:
0.081631642.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 840,899.43.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Verification of resources at initial
application (States verifying resources if questionable).
Verification of resources at initial
application (States verifying resources if close to limit).
Verification of resources at recertification (States verifying all resources).
Verification of resources at recertification (States verifying resources if questionable).
Verification of resources at recertification (States verifying resources if close to limit).
Inform FNS of TANF programs
that confer categorical eligibility.
Verification of resources at initial
application (States verifying all
resources).
Description of activity
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10,301,199
Total annual
responses
Number of
burden hours
per response
10,301,188.69
43
1,654,113.42
265,474.99
2,654,749.93
2,070,854.44
332,359.36
0.41877
1
0.123
0.123
0.4375
0.205
0.205
0.7292
0
1
1
1
20,602,334
10,301,146
4,574,338
5,726,807
0.2502012
0.0816316
0.1002
0.0668
Affected Public: Individual/Households
643,822.61
1
61,263.46
20,421.15
204,211.53
76,698.31
25,566.10
3,323,593.55
Affected Public: State Agencies
255,661.04
Estimated
frequency
of response
5,154,728.15
840,899.43
458,348.70
382,550.73
4,313,828.72
43
203,455.95
32,653.42
1,161,453.09
424,525.16
68,133.67
2,423,564.42
Estimated
total burden
hours
833,745.10
142,652.58
77,755.58
64,897.00
691,092.51
0
37,677.03
7,535.41
178,685.09
78,615.77
15,723.15
372,856.06
Previous
burden in
use without
approval
4,320,983.05
698,246.85
380,593.12
317,653.73
0.00
43.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Differences
due to
program
changes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,622,736.20
0.00
165,778.92
25,118.02
982,768.00
345,909.39
52,410.51
2,050,708.35
Difference
due to
adjustments
7.25
7.25
7.25
7.25
21.17
19.47
21.45
21.45
21.45
21.45
21.45
$21.45
Hourly
wage rate*
98,628,061.71
6,096,520.89
3,323,028.09
2,773,492.80
92,531,540.82
837.21
4,364,130.13
700,415.95
24,913,168.86
9,106,064.71
1,461,467.18
$51,985,456.79
Estimated
cost to
respondents
Note: The column ‘‘Estimated number of respondents’’ for rows with the regulatory citation 273.2(f) (1) & (2) and 273.2(f)(8)(i) includes both the 10 State Agencies collecting this information without OMB approval and the 43 that would collect this information as a result of the rulemaking, for a total of 53 State agencies affected at application and recertification.
Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2017 Occupational and Wage Statistics—the salaries of the eligibility workers are considered to be ‘‘Eligibility Interviewers, Government Programs’’ functions performed by State and local agency staff are
valued at $21.45 per staff hour 43–4061 (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes434061.htm). Social and Human Service Assistants 21–1093 functions are valued at $19.74 and the $7.25 used to calculate a cost to applicants is the Federal minimum wage.
Grand Total Reporting Burden with both affected public ................
10,301,146
5,726,807
Sub-Total Individual/Households .............................................................
Verification of resources at initial
application.
4,574,338
Applicants for recertification.
Applicants for initial certification.
53
43
27
13
13
27
13
13
Estimated
number of
respondents
Verification of resources at recertification.
273.2(f)(8)(i) .......
273.2(f)(1) & (2)
Sub-Total State Agencies .......................................................................
273.2(j)(2)(ii) &
State Agencies ..
273.2(j)(2)(i)(B).
State Agency Eligibility Worker.
State Agency Eligibility Worker.
273.2(f)(8)(i) .......
273.2(f)(8)(i) .......
State Agency Eligibility Worker.
273.2(f)(1) & (2)
State Agency Eligibility Worker.
State Agency Eligibility Worker.
273.2(f)(1) & (2)
273.2(f)(8)(i) .......
State Agency Eligibility Worker.
Respondent type
273.2(f)(1) & (2)
Reg. section
ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN FOR 0584–NEW, REVISION OF CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
35580
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
E-Government Act Compliance
The Department is committed to
complying with the E-Government Act
of 2002, to promote the use of the
internet and other information
technologies to provide increased
opportunities for citizen access to
Government information and services,
and for other purposes.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 273
Administrative practices and
procedure, Grant programs-social
programs, Supplemental Security
Income (SSI), Reporting and
recordkeeping.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 273 is
proposed to be amended to read as
follows:
PART 273—CERTIFICATION OF
ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 273 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2036.
2. In § 273.2:
a. Revise paragraph (j)(2)(i)(A);
b. Revise paragraph (j)(2)(i)(B);
c. Remove and reserve paragraph
(j)(2)(i)(C);
■ d. Revise paragraph (j)(2)(ii)
introductory text and remove (j)(2)(ii)(A)
and (B);
■ e. Remove and reserve paragraph
(j)(2)(iii); and
■ f. Amend paragraph (j)(2)(iv) by
removing the phrase ‘‘paragraphs
(j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), and (j)(2)(iii)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (j)(2)(i)
and (j)(2)(ii)’’.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
■
■
§ 273.2 Office operations and application
processing
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Any household (except those
listed in paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of this
section) in which all members receive or
are authorized to receive ongoing and
substantial cash benefits through a PA
program funded in full or in part with
Federal money under Title IV–A or with
State money counted for maintenance of
effort (MOE) purposes under Title IV–A;
(1) For the purposes of this paragraph
(j)(2)(i)(A), ongoing cash benefits are
benefits that a household receives or is
authorized to receive for at least six
months.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph
(j)(2)(i)(A), substantial cash benefits are
benefits that a household receives or is
authorized to receive that are valued at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:48 Jul 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
a minimum of $50 per month or any
minimum threshold determined by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services
for Title IV–A programs, whichever is
higher.
(B) Any household (except those
listed in paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of this
section) in which all members receive or
are authorized to receive ongoing and
substantial non-cash benefits, as
specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(B)(1)
and (2) of this section, from a program
that is funded with 50 percent or more
State money counted for MOE purposes
under Title IV–A of the Social Security
Act (Pub. L. 74–271) or Federal money
under Title IV–A of the Social Security
Act. States must inform FNS of the
types of non-cash TANF benefits that
confer categorical eligibility under this
paragraph. If one household member
receives or is authorized to receive such
benefits and the State determines the
whole household benefits, the whole
household shall be categorically eligible
(except those listed in (j)(2)(vii) of this
section).
(1) For the purposes of paragraphs
(j)(2)(i)(B) and (j)(2)(ii) of this section,
ongoing non-cash benefits are benefits a
household receives or is authorized to
receive for at least six months.
(2) For the purposes of paragraphs
(j)(2)(i)(B) and (j)(2)(ii) of this section,
substantial non-cash benefits are
benefits that a household receives or is
authorized to receive that are valued at
a minimum of $50 per month and that
are of at least one of the following types:
Subsidized employment for which the
employer or a third party receives a
subsidy from TANF or other public
funds to offset some or all of the wages
and costs of employing an individual;
work supports, including transportation
benefits or other allowances for workrelated expenses; and/or child care
subsidies or vouchers.
(C) [Reserved] * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) The State agency, at its option,
may extend categorical eligibility to any
households (except those listed in
paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of this section) in
which all members receive or are
authorized to receive ongoing and
substantial non-cash benefits, as
specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(B)(1)
and (2) of this section, from a program
that is less than 50 percent funded with
State money counted for MOE purposes
under Title IV–A of the Social Security
Act (Pub. L. 74–271) or Federal money
under Title IV–A of the Social Security
Act. States must inform FNS of the
types of non-cash TANF benefits that
confer categorical eligibility under this
paragraph. If one household member
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35581
receives or is authorized to receive such
benefits and the State determines the
whole household benefits, the whole
household shall be categorically eligible
(except those listed in (j)(2)(vii) of this
section). The State agency may exercise
this option only if doing so will further
the purposes of the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008.
(iii) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 273.8, revise the third sentence
of paragraph (e)(17).
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
§ 273.8
Resource Eligibility Standards
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(17) * * * For purposes of this
paragraph (e)(17), if an individual
receives ongoing and substantial noncash benefits from a program specified
in §§ 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) or (j)(2)(ii), the
State agency must determine whether
the individual or the household benefits
from the assistance provided. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: July 16, 2019.
Brandon Lipps,
Acting Deputy Under Secretary Food,
Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 2019–15670 Filed 7–23–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–105476–18]
RIN 1545–BO60
Withholding of Tax and Information
Reporting With Respect to Interests in
Partnerships Engaged in the Conduct
of a U.S. Trade or Business; Hearing
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notification of
hearing.
AGENCY:
This document provides a
notification of public hearing on
proposed regulations to implement
certain sections of the Internal Revenue
Code, including sections added to the
Internal Revenue Code by the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act, that relate to the
withholding of tax and information
reporting with respect to certain
dispositions of interests in partnerships
engaged in the conduct of a trade or
business within the United States.
DATES: The public hearing is being held
on Monday, August 26, 2019, at 10:00
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35570-35581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15670]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 35570]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Part 273
[FNS-2018-0037]
RIN 0584-AE62
Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP)
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as
amended, provides that households in which each member receives
benefits under a State program funded under part A of Title IV of the
Social Security Act (SSA) (also known as Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) block grants \1\) shall be categorically eligible for
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Currently, SNAP
regulations broadly interpret ``benefits'' to mean cash assistance and
non-cash or in-kind benefits or services from any TANF-funded
program.\2\ In operation, this has allowed categorical eligibility for
SNAP to be conferred on households based on receipt of minimal benefits
issued by TANF-funded programs which may not conduct a robust
eligibility determination and do not meaningfully move families toward
self-sufficiency. The Food and Nutrition Act has clear parameters
regarding the income and resource limits that SNAP households must
meet, and categorical eligibility is intended to apply only when the
conferring program has properly determined eligibility. Extending
categorical eligibility to participants who have not been screened for
eligibility compromises program integrity and reduces public confidence
that benefits are being provided to eligible households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State programs funded under part A of Title IV of the SSA
include programs funded by Federal TANF block grant funds, as well
as programs not funded by Federal TANF block grants but funded by
State maintenance-of-effort dollars that allow a State to receive
Federal TANF block grant funds. For simplicity, this proposed rule
will refer to all State programs funded under part A of Title IV of
the SSA as ``TANF-funded programs,'' and to benefits from such
programs as ``TANF benefits.''
\2\ While some benefits that meet the TANF definition of
``assistance'' at 45 CFR 260.31, such as transportation and
childcare, would be considered ``non-cash benefits'' in this
proposed rule, references to ``assistance'' and ``benefits'' in this
proposed rule are for SNAP categorical eligibility purposes only.
The terms are not intended to align with the TANF use of
``assistance'' or ``benefits'' in 45 CFR 260.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Department proposes updating the regulations to
refine categorical eligibility requirements based on receipt of TANF
benefits. Specifically, the Department proposes: (1) To define
``benefits'' for categorical eligibility to mean ongoing and
substantial benefits; and (2) to limit the types of non-cash TANF
benefits conferring categorical eligibility to those that focus on
subsidized employment, work supports and childcare. The proposed rule
would also require State agencies to inform FNS of all non-cash TANF
benefits that confer categorical eligibility.
The proposed revisions would create a clearer and more consistent
nationwide policy that ensures categorical eligibility is extended only
to households that have sufficiently demonstrated eligibility by
qualifying for ongoing and substantial benefits from TANF-funded
programs designed to assist households and move them towards self-
sufficiency.
In addition, the revisions would help ensure that receipt of
nominal, one-time benefits or services do not confer categorical
eligibility and would address program integrity issues that have
surfaced since the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 changed the programs whose benefits confer
categorical eligibility. The Department believes these revisions will
maintain categorical eligibility's dual purpose of streamlining program
administration while ensuring that SNAP benefits are targeted to the
appropriate households.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 23,
2019 to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites interested
persons to submit written comments on this proposed rule. Comments may
be submitted in writing by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Send comments to Program Design Branch, Program
Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park
Center Dr., Alexandria, VA 22302. Email: Send comments to
[email protected]. Include Docket ID Number [FNS-2018-0037],
``Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance'' in the subject line of the message.
All written comments submitted in response to this
proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available
to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and
the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments
will be subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the written
comments publicly available on the internet via https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Program Design Branch, Program
Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park
Center Dr., Alexandria, VA 22302. [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) outlines
specific income and resource eligibility standards for SNAP. Generally,
the statute requires that SNAP households who do not have elderly or
disabled members must have a monthly gross income equal to or lower
than 130% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and a net income equal to
or lower than 100% of the FPL in order to be eligible for SNAP.\3\ The
statute also requires that SNAP households meet specific resource
limits: One for households with elderly or disabled members, and one
for all other households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Households with an elderly or disabled member need only meet
the net income test. All eligible one- and two-person households are
guaranteed a minimum benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2014(a)) provides categorical eligibility for households in which all
members receive TANF
[[Page 35571]]
benefits.\4\ Categorical eligibility simplifies the SNAP application
process for both SNAP State agencies and households by reducing the
amount of information that must be verified if a household already
qualifies and has been determined eligible to receive benefits from
another assistance program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 5(a) also provides categorical eligibility for SNAP
based on receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and General
Assistance (GA). SSI and GA benefits are not affected by this
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Categorical eligibility has changed significantly over time because
of changes in the Social Security Act (SSA) (42 U.S.C. 601). Section
5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act dates back to the Food Security Act
of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-198), which made households in which all members
receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) benefits categorically eligible for SNAP. AFDC
was an entitlement program intended to support needy families by
providing cash welfare payments to households who met certain State
eligibility requirements. While each State designed its own eligibility
criteria and benefit levels, these requirements were governed by
Federal limitations; States received matching Federal funds for the
cash payments to eligible households.5 6 Therefore,
categorical eligibility as outlined in the Food and Nutrition Act was
contemplated when State AFDC programs conferring categorical
eligibility had specific income eligibility and resource \7\ criteria
that were targeted toward low-income households. While States had some
flexibility, overarching Federal parameters for AFDC meant there was
greater consistency across States and general alignment with the
standards for SNAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/167036/1history.pdf,
\6\ https://aspe.hhs.gov/aid-families-dependent-children-afdc-and-temporary-assistance-needy-families-tanf-overview-0.
\7\ ``States determined eligibility thresholds and benefit
amounts. However, Federal law established a gross income limit (185%
of the state-determined need standard); an asset test (no more than
$1,000 in countable assets); and rules for how states count
different forms of income, including earnings.'' Gene Falk, The
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A
Legislative History, Congressional Research Service 11 (April 2,
2019), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44668.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193) (PRWORA) amended the SSA and replaced the
cash AFDC program with the TANF block grant, providing a set amount of
funding for States to design and implement TANF-funded programs.
Section 401 of the SSA outlined four broad purposes for TANF block
grants: (1) To provide assistance to needy families so that children
can be cared for in their own homes; (2) to reduce the dependence of
needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation,
work, and marriage; (3) to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-
wedlock pregnancies; and (4) to encourage the formation and maintenance
of two-parent families. The State Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE)
requirement in Section 409(a)(7) of the SSA (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7))
requires States to spend a certain amount of their own funds for
qualified purposes under TANF to receive Federal TANF block grants.
PRWORA allowed States to use Federal TANF and State MOE funds to
provide cash and non-cash benefits to serve needy families under TANF
purposes one and two, as well as potentially broader populations under
TANF purposes three and four.
Under PRWORA, States gained significant flexibility in TANF-funded
program administration, resulting in a wide array of programs designed
to further TANF's four purposes, including ones that may not have
meaningful eligibility criteria.\8\ For example, States define
``needy'' for TANF purposes one and two and may develop their own
eligibility criteria absent any Federal requirement or standard of
``need''. As a result, TANF-funded programs vary greatly from State to
State,\9\ with some States focusing more on basic cash assistance for
needy households and other States developing programs that are less
likely to focus on low-income households, and may not have appropriate
income or resource tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Congressional Research Service, ``The Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing
and Federal Requirements,'' updated December 14, 2017, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32748, p.13; Congressional
Research Service, ``The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions'',
updated June 3, 2019, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32760.
\9\ https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/tanf-and-moe-spending-and-transfers-by-activity-fy-2017-contains-national-state-pie-charts. In Fiscal Year 2017, 22.7 percent of combined TANF Federal
and State MOE funds were used for basic assistance (e.g., cash);
10.5 percent were used for work, education, and training activities;
and 16.1 percent were used for child care. In Fiscal Year 2017, 27
States used less than 50 percent of their TANF Federal and State MOE
funds on a combination of basic assistance; work, education, and
training activities; and child care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to PRWORA, categorical eligibility for SNAP was conferred by
receipt of cash AFDC benefits, as non-cash AFDC benefits did not exist.
While PRWORA did not modify the categorical eligibility provision in
Section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act, the Department recognized
that the changes enacted by PRWORA and the move from AFDC to TANF meant
that categorical eligibility could be conferred by both cash and non-
cash benefits. As a result, programs conferring categorical eligibility
would change in scope and types of benefits offered and might not
target families in need. The Department issued regulations (65 FR 70133
(November 21, 2000)) that further defined and limited the conferring of
non-cash categorical eligibility. Specifically, the Department
determined that, to appropriately limit categorical eligibility to
needy households, those TANF-funded programs serving purposes three and
four must have income eligibility criteria at or below 200% of the FPL.
As discussed in the preamble to the November 21, 2000 rule, this
threshold was based on advice provided to the Department by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency with
oversight of the TANF block grant program. HHS analysis indicated that
most services with income eligibility criteria had income limits set at
200% FPL or lower.
However, after the change from AFDC to TANF, under current
regulations, States have significant flexibility to determine what
types of non-cash TANF-funded services and benefits can confer
categorical eligibility for SNAP and what the eligibility criteria for
those benefits should be. As of March 2019, 43 States have used this
flexibility to expand categorical eligibility to households that
receive non-cash TANF benefits, resulting in significant variation
across States in the SNAP eligibility determination process, and in
program rules and operations.\10\ When using non-cash TANF benefits as
the basis of categorical eligibility decisions, many States use income
thresholds and resource limits that are higher than the Federal
standards for SNAP. Due to the current broad flexibility afforded
States in the construction of TANF-funded programs, these households,
who would not otherwise have qualified for SNAP due to their income or
resources, are considered categorically eligible and therefore able to
receive SNAP. As a result of these policies, it is estimated that 4.1%
of currently participating SNAP households (767,000 households or 1.4
million individuals) have resources above the SNAP limit and 4.9% have
incomes above the Federal SNAP gross income limit of 130% FPL
[[Page 35572]]
(914,000 households or 1.7 million individuals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/BBCE.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Issues With Categorical Eligibility
While categorical eligibility based on the receipt of non-cash TANF
benefits reduces administrative burden for State agencies and
households, and particularly benefits working households, the current
regulation on categorical eligibility has created several issues. The
current broad interpretation of ``benefits,'' which includes any non-
cash or in-kind benefits or services, and the significant variation
across State TANF-funded programs permits nominal non-cash benefits or
services, such as TANF-funded brochures or hotline numbers, to confer
categorical eligibility for SNAP.11 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ USDA Office of Inspector General, ``FNS Quality Control
Process for SNAP Error Rate
Audit Report 27601-0002-41,'' https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27601-0002-41.pdf.
\12\ Examples of nominal benefits are brochures provided to
clients that explain referrals to social services, pregnancy
prevention, or the 2-1-1 hotline. Additionally, States may simply
provide information about these services or a phone number to
contact for more information on the application for multiple benefit
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal auditors have raised program integrity concerns about the
wide adoption of categorical eligibility policies and the prevalence of
TANF benefits with minimal value. A 2012 General Accountability Office
(GAO) audit found that the expansion of categorical eligibility beyond
pure cash programs resulted in States conferring categorical
eligibility to households in some cases without actually providing the
TANF-funded benefit or service necessary to confer the categorical
eligibility determination for SNAP.\13\ In some cases households may
not receive the TANF-funded benefit until after their SNAP eligibility
determination, may only receive the benefit upon request, or may not
receive it at all, which weakens the intended linkage between the two
programs. For example, a USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit
found that households who were determined categorically eligible based
on the receipt of a family planning brochure did not actually receive
the brochure unless they specifically requested it from the State.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/593070.pdf The GAO estimated
that in fiscal year 2010, 2.6 percent (473,000) of households that
received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits
would not have been eligible for the program without expanded
categorical eligibility because their incomes were over the Federal
SNAP eligibility limits (95% confidence interval of 2.4-2.8%).
\14\ USDA Office of Inspector General, ``FNS Quality Control
Process for SNAP Error Rate Audit Report 27601-0002-41,'' https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27601-0002-41.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, because of the flexibility afforded States in the design
and operation of TANF-funded programs, it is also possible that
households who may not have undergone a meaningful TANF financial
eligibility determination through the TANF-funded program become
categorically eligible for SNAP. Policies in 41 States indicate that
they have an income limit of 200% or less for their expanded
categorical eligibility program, however, they also indicate that ``all
households are eligible'' for the expanded categorical eligibility
benefit.\15\ For example, four States utilize TANF funds to print their
multi-benefit applications for SNAP, TANF, and other programs and
include information and referrals to other services on those
applications. The applications are provided to anyone who requests one,
regardless of their gross income, and confer expanded categorical
eligibility at the time the household receives the application.
Conferring categorical eligibility in such cases compromises the
integrity of SNAP by allowing households that did not undergo a
financial eligibility determination before receiving TANF-funded
benefits, to then be deemed categorically eligible to receive SNAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/BBCE.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, FNS issued subsequent guidance \16\ to State agencies
following these audits regarding the proper procedures under which
categorical eligibility may be conferred. The Department has
determined, however, that due to the nominal nature of many benefits
offered under current expanded categorical eligibility programs,
further rulemaking is required in order to narrow the scope of
potential TANF benefits conferring categorical eligibility, to ensure
that applicant eligibility is properly assessed. Therefore, the
Department wishes to further strengthen the requirements through this
rulemaking to ensure that TANF-funded programs conferring categorical
eligibility align more closely with SNAP eligibility standards outlined
in the Food and Nutrition Act. The Department has an obligation to
expend taxpayer funds in a fiscally responsible manner and in alignment
with the intent of the Food and Nutrition Act to alleviate hunger among
low-income households. Prior rulemaking regarding categorical
eligibility was intended to use the streamlined approach of categorical
eligibility to support households in need. The Department has seen
that, given the significant operational flexibilities inherent in TANF-
funded programs, current regulations are insufficient to achieve this
goal. As a result, the Department thinks revising the categorical
eligibility regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2) and limiting categorical
eligibility to those households receiving ongoing and substantial
benefits from TANF-funded programs strikes a prudent and reasonable
balance between administrative flexibility and program integrity. With
this proposed rule, the Department intends to ensure consistency across
TANF-funded programs whose benefits confer categorical eligibility and
to discourage the types of practices that States developed for
conferring categorical eligibility with TANF non-cash benefits. The
Department believes that instituting an ongoing and substantial
threshold for both cash and non-cash TANF benefits, as described below,
is an appropriate way to achieve this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/clarification-bbce-memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Proposed Approach
Given the substantial variation across all TANF State program
operations, and in the interest of program integrity, the Department
proposes revising the requirements for cash and non-cash TANF benefits
that would confer categorical eligibility for SNAP. Such revisions
would create a clearer and more consistent nationwide policy regarding
the cash and non-cash TANF benefits that confer categorical
eligibility. This proposal would limit cash and non-cash categorical
eligibility to households that receive ongoing and substantial
benefits. In addition, non-cash categorical eligibility would be
limited to specific types of TANF benefits--subsidized employment, work
supports, and/or childcare--that support family self-sufficiency. It is
the Department's understanding that programs providing such benefits
have meaningful eligibility determinations because of the value of the
benefits provided. As SNAP and TANF eligibility determinations may be
accomplished concurrently, the Department also understands that a
household may not yet be in receipt of the TANF benefit (e.g., be in
physical possession of a voucher or payment) at the time categorical
eligibility is conferred. However, it is the Department's intent that
the household be enrolled in a TANF-funded program expected to start on
a date certain. Such programs would need to be ongoing and substantial
in order to be considered one that could confer categorical
[[Page 35573]]
eligibility for SNAP. The Department requests comments to better
understand the eligibility determination and enrollment processes for
TANF-funded programs. Specifically, the Department is interested in
comments on the processes by which TANF-funded programs actually
determine applicant financial and non-financial eligibility for the
conferring programs, and at what point in the TANF enrollment process
this determination and delivery of benefit(s) to the household may take
place relative to the SNAP eligibility determination.
The Department believes the policies explained further below will
ensure SNAP benefits reach those most in need while balancing
administrative efficiency, customer service, and program integrity.
Simplification of Terminology
The proposed rule simplifies some of the terminology used when
addressing categorical eligibility. Current regulations at Sec.
273.2(j)(2) provide for categorical eligibility based on the receipt of
``non-cash or in-kind benefits or services.'' Because no meaningful
distinction exists between ``non-cash'' and ``in-kind,'' or
``benefits'' and ``services,'' in this context, the Department proposes
simply using ``non-cash benefits'' in the revised Sec.
273.2(j)(2)(i)(B).
Move From TANF Purposes to TANF Benefits
Current regulations at Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and (C) allow non-
cash programs designed to further TANF block grant purposes one through
four to confer categorical eligibility. The flexibility afforded States
under the TANF block grant allows for variation in how States link
their various TANF-funded programs to TANF purposes. The Department has
learned through consultation with HHS that, for example, one State may
designate a given benefit as furthering purposes one and two of the
TANF block grant, while another State offering a substantially similar
benefit may designate it as furthering TANF purposes three and four.
Since the distinction between purposes is not necessarily meaningful in
conferring non-cash categorical eligibility, the Department proposes to
link categorical eligibility to specific types of TANF benefits rather
than to TANF block grant purposes. Specifically, the Department is
proposing to limit categorical eligibility to TANF non-cash benefits
that support meaningful work opportunities--specifically, subsidized
employment, work supports, and childcare support--that help move
families from welfare to self-sufficiency. The Department's proposal
would remove mention of TANF block grant purposes in Sec.
273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and eliminate Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(C) and instead
describe TANF benefits in Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)(2).
As described below, the Department is proposing that these non-cash
benefits be both ongoing and substantial to confer categorical
eligibility for SNAP.
Ongoing and Substantial Benefits in Conferring Programs
This proposed rule would revise the interpretation of ``benefits''
under Section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act to mean that, for
purposes of categorical eligibility, TANF or State-MOE funded benefits
must be ``ongoing'' and ``substantial''. The Department also proposes
that, for the purposes of alignment across all types of TANF benefits,
these thresholds be set for both cash and non-cash benefits.
Current regulations at Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and (C) provide for
categorical eligibility based on the receipt of ``non-cash or in-kind
benefits or services,'' without further detail. As explained above,
such a policy means an individual may be categorically eligible for
SNAP even if the individual receives a one-time, minimal, non-cash TANF
benefit such as an information brochure, hotline number, or referral to
other services.\17\ This practice threatens the integrity of
categorical eligibility, the purpose of which is to streamline services
to households who have received an eligibility determination from a
means-tested program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/BBCE.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help address these issues, the Department proposes clarifying in
Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)(1) that, to be considered ``ongoing'',
``benefits'' under Section 5(a) must be those that a household receives
or is authorized to receive for a period of at least six months. In the
TANF context, this might include a household that would be eligible to
receive benefits for a period of at least six months, barring changes
in financial status or compliance. In addition, six months is the
certification period length for many SNAP households and a mid-point
for the most common certification period length of 12 months.\18\ The
Department believes that six months is long enough to be considered
ongoing, and would maintain program alignment. The Department welcomes
comments about using the six-month standard, including whether another
timeframe would be more appropriate. These proposed changes are
reflected in Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(A)(1) and Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2016.pdf. In Fiscal Year 2016, across all SNAP
households the average certification period length was 13 months.
25% of all SNAP households and 37% of SNAP households with children
have a certification period length of 6 months. 50% of all SNAP
households and 54% of SNAP households with children have a
certification period length of 12 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also proposes requiring in Sec.
273.2(j)(2)(i)(A)(2) and Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)(2) that cash and non-
cash benefits be ``substantial'' to confer categorical eligibility. In
defining substantial, the Department wants to eliminate the practice of
conferring categorical eligibility based on receipt of benefits that
are nominal and of minimal value. Allowing categorical eligibility
based on the receipt of benefits nominal in value may encourage cursory
or nonexistent eligibility determinations because the amount of those
TANF benefits do not warrant the cost of staff time and resources to
administer. However, by requiring the benefits to be substantial, the
proposed rule limits categorical eligibility to those TANF benefits for
which a State is more likely to establish a meaningful eligibility
determination and dedicate resources. The Department consulted with HHS
to determine an appropriate definition of ``substantial''. Based on
this consultation, the Department proposes that the benefit be valued
at a minimum of $50 per month in order to confer categorical
eligibility. There is no minimum benefit amount currently required by
TANF, in keeping with the flexibility afforded to States by that
program. However, should that ever change, the Department also proposes
in Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(A) that, should HHS develop a minimum threshold
amount for TANF cash benefits, the Department would select the higher
of the two standards.
Because the types and amounts of TANF benefits vary greatly among
States, the Department is particularly seeking comments on appropriate
measures for ``substantial'' and ``ongoing'' benefits, as well as
comments on the proposed $50 threshold. The Department will consider
these comments when formulating the final rulemaking.
Types of Non-Cash Benefits Conferring Categorical Eligibility
The President's Executive Order on Reducing Poverty in America by
Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility (April 10, 2018) directed
the
[[Page 35574]]
Department to review its regulations and to determine whether they are
consistent with the principles of increasing self-sufficiency, well-
being and economic mobility. In keeping with the principles of the
Executive order, and the Administration's focus on encouraging self-
sufficiency, the Department has determined that the types of benefits
conferring categorical eligibility should be limited to those that, in
addition to being ongoing and substantial, also provide meaningful
opportunities for households to obtain employment and financial
stability.
Therefore, the Department proposes in Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)(2) to
limit the conferring of categorical eligibility to those non-cash TANF
benefits that provide subsidized employment, work supports, and
childcare benefits, that are substantial and ongoing as defined
earlier. Based on consultation with HHS, the Department is proposing to
limit these conferring benefits to the following types:
Subsidized employment for which the employer or a third
party receives a subsidy to offset some or all of the wages and costs
of employing an individual;
Work supports, including transportation benefits or
vouchers to assist families to participate in employment or work
activities; and/or
Childcare subsidies or vouchers to support working
families.
The Department believes the existence of a ready market valuation
for benefits conferring categorical eligibility is important for
administrative ease and ensuring a consistent nationwide policy. The
Department understands that additional non-cash TANF benefits, such as
education and training, job search assistance, or work experience, are
provided on an hourly or weekly basis to program participants. The
Department is unsure how to determine a ready market valuation for such
benefits, which are less concrete and measurable than subsidized
employment, work supports, and child care benefits, which can be easily
valued at a cash equivalent. However, the Department is interested in
public comment as to whether and how the benefits from such hourly-
based programs could be valued for the purposes of conferring
categorical eligibility, or other ways to determine whether such
benefits could be ongoing and substantial.
Treatment of Non-Cash Benefit Conferring Programs
The Department is seeking comments on the current regulation's
distinction among non-cash TANF-funded programs conferring categorical
eligibility based on the amount of Federal TANF and State MOE funding
for the non-cash TANF-funded programs. Under current regulations, a
non-cash TANF-funded program funded by more than 50 percent Federal
TANF/State MOE funds and serving TANF purposes one and two must confer
categorical eligibility (Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)). At the State's
option, categorical eligibility may be conferred if the TANF-funded
program is funded by less than 50 percent Federal TANF/State MOE funds
(Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(ii)). In such cases, the State must inform FNS if
the program serves TANF purposes one and two. Programs serving TANF
purposes three and four, no matter the funding makeup, must have income
limits below 200 percent FPL; those funded by less than 50 percent
Federal TANF/State MOE funds must also be approved by FNS.
The proposed rule would maintain the funding distinction by: (1)
Requiring that States confer categorical eligibility when a TANF-funded
program providing ongoing and substantial non-cash benefits is funded
with 50 percent or more of combined Federal TANF or State MOE money
(Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B)); and (2) allowing States the option to confer
categorical eligibility when a TANF-funded program that issues ongoing
and substantial non-cash benefits is funded by less than 50 percent of
a combination of Federal TANF or State MOE money. However, the
Department seeks comments to better understand current State funding
mixes for TANF-funded programs, and to learn whether these funding
distinctions and practices have an impact on the type and scope of
benefits provided to households. The Department is interested in
whether eliminating the distinction, or adjusting the 50 percent
funding threshold would help streamline SNAP regulations, ensure
consistency in serving households through categorical eligibility, and
simplify administration. The Department will take these comments into
consideration in determining whether and how to adjust these
requirements in final rulemaking.
The Department would update the regulatory language at Sec.
273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and 273.2(j)(2)(ii) to reflect the proposed shift
from conferring categorical eligibility based on TANF purposes to
receipt of ongoing and substantial non-cash TANF benefits. In addition,
the Department proposes to clarify the funding threshold. The
regulatory language currently at Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B),
273.2(j)(2)(i)(C), 273.2(j)(2)(ii)(A) and 273.2(j)(2)(ii)(B) describe
TANF-funded programs that are ``more than 50 percent'' and ``less than
50 percent'' funded by Federal TANF or State MOE money. The Department
proposes in this rulemaking to change references from ``more than 50
percent'' to ``50 percent or more'' so that it is clear into which
category programs funded with 50 percent Federal TANF or State MOE
money should fall. The Department also proposes conforming changes to
Sec. 273.8 (e)(17) to align with the proposed definition of ``ongoing
and substantial'' benefits and to strike paragraph references that
would no longer be applicable given the changes this proposed rule
would make to Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(ii).
The proposed rule retains the policy regarding household
categorical eligibility based on an individual household member's
receipt of qualifying benefits currently at Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(iii).
Under this policy, if one member receives or is authorized to receive
such benefits and the State determines the whole household benefits,
the whole household would be categorically eligible. This policy allows
a household to be categorically eligible for SNAP based on receipt of
non-cash benefits that, while provided at the individual level, support
overall family self-sufficiency. For example, a State may determine
that a TANF-funded childcare voucher provided to a mother actually
supports and benefits her and her two children; pursuant to such a
determination, the entire household would be categorically eligible,
thereby streamlining the family's process of applying for SNAP
assistance. The Department proposes incorporating this policy into the
revised Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(ii) to
consolidate the criteria for non-cash TANF benefit categorical
eligibility.
State Notification to FNS of Non-Cash Conferring Benefits
For appropriate oversight purposes, the proposed Sec.
273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) would also require State agencies to inform FNS of
the non-cash TANF benefits that confer categorical eligibility. Current
regulations require that State agencies inform FNS if they elect the
option to confer categorical eligibility through a program that is less
than 50 percent funded by Federal TANF or State MOE dollars, and that
furthers purposes one and two of the TANF block grant. States are not
currently required to inform FNS of conferring programs that are more
than 50 percent funded and that further purposes one and two. Under the
proposed rule, a State would be required to inform FNS of all non-cash
TANF benefits that confer categorical
[[Page 35575]]
eligibility. The notification requirement would ensure appropriate
monitoring and transparency, as well as help ensure consistency
nationwide. States would be required to report when this rule takes
effect and any time there is a subsequent change to the conferring
programs. The Department expects the notification requirement would not
unduly burden most State agencies because the TANF benefits that confer
categorical eligibility do not frequently change.
Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select 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.
This proposed rule has been determined to be economically
significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
The Department estimates the net reduction in Federal spending
associated with the proposed rule to be approximately $9.386 billion
over the five years 2019-2023. Included in this is an estimated
reduction in Federal transfers of approximately $10.543 billion over
the five-year period as well as a $1.157 billion increase in Federal
administrative costs. The Department estimates an additional $1.157
billion in Federal reimbursement of administrative costs to State
agencies (for a total of $2.314 billion in additional administrative
costs). In addition, the Department estimates that households that
remain eligible for SNAP and new SNAP applicants will face additional
burden associated with the application process, at a cost of
approximately $5 million annually. The proposed rule may also
negatively impact food security and reduce the savings rates among
those individuals who do not meet the income and resource eligibility
requirements for SNAP or the substantial and ongoing requirements for
expanded categorical eligibility.
The Department estimates that approximately 9 percent of currently-
participating SNAP households (an estimated 1.7 million households in
FY 2020, containing 3.1 million individuals) will not otherwise meet
SNAP's income and asset eligibility prerequisites under the proposed
rule. These households are nearly evenly split between those that fail
the Federal SNAP income test (4.9 percent) and those that fail the
Federal resource test (4.1 percent). Collectively, these households
receive about 5 percent of total SNAP benefits. However, households who
would not meet the eligibility requirements due to the resource test
account for 80 percent of the expected reduction in benefits. This is
because they have lower incomes relative to households that fail the
Federal income test, and thus receive larger monthly SNAP allotments.
Households with one or more elderly individual(s) and/or earned
income would be disproportionately affected. Approximately 13.2 percent
of all SNAP households with elderly members will lose benefits (7.4
percent will fail the income test and 5.8 percent will fail the
resource test), as will 12.5 percent of households with earnings (8.6
percent will fail the income test and another 3.9 percent will fail the
resource test). The proposed rule is relatively less likely to affect
households with children--only 7.4 percent are expected to no longer
meet eligibility requirements (4.1 percent will fail the income test
and 3.4 percent will fail the resource test).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies
to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider
alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a
substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, it has
been certified that this rule would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would not have an impact on small entities
because the proposed rule primarily impacts State agencies and SNAP
participants. State agencies in affected States will need to revise
their procedures for processing SNAP applications and recertifications
and will face increased administrative costs associated with the
revised procedures.
Small entities, such as smaller SNAP-authorized retailers, would
not be subject to any new requirements. However, all retailers would
likely see a drop in the amount of SNAP benefits redeemed at stores if
these provisions were finalized, but impacts on small retailers are not
expected to be disproportionate to the impact on large entities. As of
FY 2017, approximately 76 percent of authorized SNAP retailers (nearly
200,000 retailers) were small groceries, convenience stores,
combination grocery stores, and specialty stores, store types that are
likely to fall under the Small Business Administration gross sales
threshold to qualify as a small business for Federal Government
programs. While these stores make up most authorized retailers,
collectively they redeem less than 15 percent of all SNAP benefits.
The proposed rule is expected to reduce SNAP benefit payments by
about $3 billion per year. This would equate to about a $183 loss of
revenue per small authorized retailer on average per month [(3 billion
x 15%)/(200,000 stores/12 months)]. In 2017, the average small store
redeemed about $3,800 in SNAP each month; the potential loss of
benefits represents less than 5 percent of their SNAP redemptions and
only a small portion of their gross sales. Based on 2017 store data, a
4.8 percent reduction in SNAP redemptions represented between 0.01 and
0.95 percent of these stores' average gross sales.
Executive Order 13771
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to reduce regulation and
control regulatory costs and provides that the cost of planned
regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting
process. This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action. We estimate that it would impose $415 million in
annualized costs at a 7% discount rate, discounted to a 2016
equivalent, over a perpetual time horizon.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments
and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When such a statement is necessary, Section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost
[[Page 35576]]
effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. This proposed rule contains Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that are expected to
result in aggregate expenditures by State, local and tribal governments
or the private sector of more per year. Thus, the rule is subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis conducted by FNS in connection with
this proposed rule includes a cost/benefit analysis and explains the
alternatives considered to modify categorical eligibility regulations.
Based on this analysis, the Department believes there are no
alternatives to the proposal that would accomplish the stated
objectives in a less burdensome manner. However, the Department invites
comments regarding less burdensome approaches to achieving the stated
objectives. Per the Food and Nutrition Act, the Federal government
would pay 50 percent of allowable State administrative costs required
under this proposed rule.
Executive Order 12372
SNAP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under
No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the Federal Register notice,
published June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29115), this Program is excluded from
the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental
consultation with State and local officials.
Federalism Summary Impact Statement
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the
impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments.
Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed
to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations
describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories
called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
The Department has considered the impact of this rule on State and
local governments and has determined that this rule does not have
federalism implications. Therefore, under section 6(b) of the Executive
Order, a federalism summary is not required.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have 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 and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect. Before any judicial challenge to the provisions of
the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be
exhausted.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
FNS has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with USDA
Regulation 4300-4, ``Civil Rights Impact Analysis,'' to identify any
major civil rights impacts the rule might have on program participants
on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex or disability.
After review and analysis of the rule and available data, it has been
determined that there is a potential for civil rights impacts to result
if the proposed action is implemented because more elderly individuals
may not otherwise meet the SNAP eligibility requirements.
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies
to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government
basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations,
legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The USDA's Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) has assessed the impact
of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule has tribal
implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. FNS
briefed Tribes on this rule at the February 14, 2019, listening
session; Tribes were subsequently provided the opportunity for
consultation on the issue, but the Department received no feedback. If
a tribe requests consultation in the future, FNS will work with OTR to
ensure meaningful consultation is provided.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR part
1320) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all
collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be
implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection
of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
proposed rule contains existing information collection requirements
that are subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and
Budget; therefore, the Department is submitting for public comment the
changes in the information collection burden that would increase the
OMB burden inventory as a result of adoption of the proposals in the
rule. These existing requirements impact a current collection that has
been used without a valid OMB control number or expiration date. The
Department plans to bring these burden requirements into compliance,
contingent upon OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FNS plans to account for and maintain these burden hours under a new
OMB control number assigned by OMB. Written comments on the information
collection in this information must be received by September 23, 2019.
When the information collection requirements have been approved, FNS
will publish a separate action in the Federal Register announcing OMB's
approval.
Send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for FNS, Washington, DC 20503.
Please also send a copy of your comments to Requests for additional
information or copies of this information collection should be directed
to Program Design Branch, Program Development Division, Food and
Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Dr., Alexandria, VA 22302. E-
mail: Send comments to [email protected]. For further information,
or for copies of the information collection requirements, please
contact the Program Design Branch at the address indicated above.
Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Go to https://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions
for submitting comments electronically.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including use of appropriate automated,
[[Page 35577]]
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
All responses to this document will be summarized and included in
the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments
will be a matter of public record.
Title: Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.
OMB Number: 0584-NEW.
Expiration Date: [Not Yet Determined.]
Type of Request: New collection.
Abstract: Section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as
amended, (the Act), provides that households in which each member
receives benefits under a State program funded under part A of Title IV
of the Social Security Act (SSA) (also known as Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) block grants) shall be categorically eligible
for SNAP. Originally, categorical eligibility was intended to reduce
administrative burden for States and households, making the application
process easier for households that qualified for benefits under means-
tested programs similar to SNAP by removing the requirement that these
households verify eligibility twice for two separate programs. However,
TANF-funded programs provide States with considerable flexibility in
program administration, resulting in programs that vary greatly from
State to State.
Under current regulations, all States must confer categorical
eligibility to households in which all members receive cash assistance
from TANF, General Assistance (GA), or SSI. States have significant
flexibility to determine what types of non-cash TANF-funded services
and benefits can confer categorical eligibility for SNAP. Currently, 43
States have expanded categorical eligibility to households that receive
non-cash TANF benefits and thirty-seven of these States currently have
no resource test.
The proposed rule would provide a clearer and more consistent
nationwide policy that limits categorical eligibility to households
that qualify for TANF-funded programs designed to help move them
towards self-sufficiency and ensure that receipt of nominal, one-time
benefits or services does not confer categorical eligibility. Section
5(j) of the Act indicates that households who are considered to be
categorically eligible are considered to have met the SNAP resource
standards and therefore these households do not undergo another
resource determination. The proposed restriction of categorical
eligibility would reduce the number of households who would be
categorically eligible and, therefore, would require States to assess
more households' income and resources to determine if they are eligible
for SNAP benefits. Under current policies, it is estimated that 4.9% of
SNAP households have resources above the SNAP limit and 4.1% have
incomes above the Federal SNAP gross income limit of 130% FPL. However,
the proposed rule has a greater impact on the need to verify resources
since all households (both eligible and ineligible) that are not
categorically eligible would be subject to the resource verification
requirements, and as noted earlier, this rule would reduce the number
of households who are categorically eligible.
As discussed further below, to date, FNS has been conducting the
information collection and imposing burden for a limited set of States
and SNAP applicant households regarding resource verification without
OMB approval.
This is an existing collection in use without an OMB control number
and FNS is seeking OMB approval. FNS is requesting a new OMB Control
Number for these requirements in this proposed rule, Revision of
Categorical Eligibility in SNAP. Because State agencies do not verify
resources for applicants that are currently considered categorically
eligible per 5(j) of the Act, they would be required to make changes to
their application process to assess the resources of those households'
that would no longer be categorically eligible. Out of 53 State
agencies, 43 State agencies have adopted expanded categorical
eligibility policies: Therefore, only 10 States are currently
collecting resource information as part of the SNAP eligibility
determination process. The ten (10) State agencies that have not taken
the option to expand categorical eligibility will be unaffected by this
proposed rule; these States are currently conducting the information
collection and imposing burden for States and SNAP applicant households
regarding resource verification without OMB approval.
There is no new recordkeeping burden required for this new
information collection request. The recordkeeping burden for State
agencies is currently covered under the approved information collection
burden for application processing, OMB Control Number 0584-0064
(expiration date: 7/31/2020), which already accounts for the casefile
documentation that States must maintain for each SNAP household at
Sec. 273.2(f)(6).
Description of Costs and Assumptions: This rule will narrow the
types of programs whose benefits may confer categorical eligibility.
The proposed restriction of categorical eligibility would reduce the
number of households who would be categorically eligible for SNAP and,
therefore, would require States to assess more households' resources to
determine if they are eligible for SNAP benefits; under the rule, all
53 State agencies (including the 10 States currently collecting this
data without OMB approval) will now be required to collect resource
information from more households. For example, States and households
will need to contact financial institutions, Departments of Motor
Vehicles and other entities to obtain documentation of household's
resources.
Reporting Burden Activities: Currently, all applicant households
are required to meet the SNAP resource limits at Sec. 273.8 (Resource
eligibility standards); applicants who are categorically eligible are
considered to have met the SNAP resource standards (Section 5(j) of the
Food and Nutrition Act). Recent data \19\ shows that 21.9% of SNAP
households are pure public assistance households (i.e., categorically
eligible through receipt of SSI, cash TANF or GA); these households are
considered to have met the SNAP income and resource requirements.
Therefore, the household estimates in this burden narrative do not
include the 21.9% of households who would remain categorically eligible
through their pure public assistance status, and therefore not subject
to any additional burden under this rulemaking. Under this rulemaking,
fewer SNAP households will be categorically eligible through their
receipt of non-cash TANF benefits and therefore considered to have met
the resource standards. As fewer SNAP households will be categorically
eligible, more households will therefore need to have their resources
evaluated by SNAP eligibility workers to determine whether or not these
households meet the SNAP resource standards. Resources are one of
several elements of eligibility that are used to determine SNAP
eligibility and are subject to verification if questionable (Sec.
273.2 (f)(2)). To come up with a reporting burden estimate of how much
burden would be added to SNAP state agencies and households, FNS
consulted with States to learn about current State practices around
resource verification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Characteristics of SNAP Households, FY2017, Table B.12;
https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-files/Characteristics2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 35578]]
State Agency Burden Assessment Feedback
FNS first needed to estimate the amount of time that resource
verification would take for State agencies. To do so, FNS consulted
with eight States that currently do not have expanded categorical
eligibility and, therefore, subject SNAP households to a resource test
and asked these States to provide estimates of the amount of time that
State agency staff spent verifying resources with clients at initial
and recertification. FNS learned that four of these States verify
resources when resources are close to the resource limit, two States
only verify resources when questionable and two States verified
resources at all times. FNS therefore estimates that, of the 43 States
who, under this proposed rule, would now be required to conduct
substantially more resource verification, 22 would adopt a policy to
verify a household's resources if close to the resource limit (for the
purposes of this discussion, ``High Limit States''), 10 would verify
resources only when deemed questionable (``Self-Attestation States'')
and 11 would verify resources for households at all times (``Always''
States). The burden table column ``Estimated Total Burden Hours'' also
accounts for the 10 States that are currently collecting resource
information without OMB approval (5 ``High Limit'' States, 3 ``Self-
Attestation States'' and 2 ``Always'' States; so that the total burden
reflected in the table is for all 53 State agencies at both initial as
well as recertification.
Using the estimates that each group of States provided for the
amount of time needed to verify resources and averaging the responses,
FNS estimates that State agency staff in States with a policy to verify
resources if close to the limit or questionable would on average spend
12.3 minutes (0.205 hours) per case at initial certification and 7.4
minutes (0.123 hours) per case at recertification. FNS estimates that
State agency staff in States who would adopt a policy to verify
resources at all times would have a higher burden: 43.75 minutes (0.729
hours) per case at initial certification and 26.25 minutes (0.4375
hours) per case at recertification.
FNS then needed to estimate the percentage of a State's caseload
that would be subject to these resource verification requirements in
order to calculate the State agency burden. In the estimated 13 States
where caseworkers would verify resources at all times, the entire
caseload would be subject to verification. In ``High Limit'' and
``Self-Attestation'' States, only a certain percent of SNAP applicants
would meet the criteria (e.g. substantial resources or questionable
information) that would necessitate the caseworker undertaking resource
verification. Using caseload data on households' resource levels from a
recent study to determine how many households would have resources
close to the resource limit,\20\ FNS estimates that States that verify
resources near the limit (27) would have to verify about 27% of the
time; FNS rounded up to 30% to take into account caseworker discretion
to verify when questionable. For the States that verify only when
questionable (13) FNS estimates that resources would be verified 10% of
the time. Accordingly, in the burden tables the estimated number of
households whose resources would be verified by a caseworker are
adjusted to 30% of the caseload in the estimated 22 ``High Limit''
States and 10% of the caseload in the estimated 10 ``Self-Attestation''
States. The estimated number of households for the 13 ``Always'' States
would be all SNAP applicant households in those States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Ratcliffe, Caroline, Sara Armstrong, Emma Kalish, Signe-
Mary McKernan, Christina Oberlin, Catherine Ruggles, and Laura
Wheaton. 2016. ``Asset Limits, SNAP Participation, and Financial
Stability.'' Washington, DC. Prepared by the Urban Institute and
Orlin Research for the U.S. Food and Nutrition Service. Available
online: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPAssets.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule would also require State agencies to inform FNS of the
types of non-cash TANF benefits that confer categorical eligibility in
their States. This specific reporting would be a new reporting
requirement under this rule. FNS estimates that it would take one hour
of a State agency staff person's time to prepare and send this
information to FNS. As 10 States do not currently have non-cash TANF-
funded programs that confer categorical eligibility and would not be
required to report to FNS, FNS anticipates that only the current 43
States with non-cash programs would be required to report to FNS under
the new rule. This additional burden is included in the burden tables
below. The Department seeks additional comment on how long it would
take States to gather, review and report this information.
Household Burden
The Department then had to estimate the burden hours for households
to provide verification. FNS referenced the currently approved
estimated number of applicants in OMB Control Number 0584-0064;
Expiration Date: 7/31/2020 and updated these numbers to reflect the
most recently available participation data (FY18) for SNAP initial
applicants and recertification applicant households.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ National Data Bank data from FY2018, FNS 366-B, Total
Initial Applications and Total Recertification Applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds it reasonable to use the estimates from OMB
approved Information Collection 0054-0064 regarding household burden
for providing verification and estimates that providing verification
would take 4 minutes or .0668 hours per household at initial
certification and 6 minutes or .1002 hours at recertification. Using
the estimates above for the number of households in each State subject
to verification requirements (100% in 11 States, 30% in 22 States and
10% in 10 States), we then calculated the total number of households
that would have to participate in this annual burden. We have rounded
these burden times in the chart below.
The Department is very interested in States comments on the
requested information burden, as the vast majority of households in
most States have been certified under expanded categorical eligibility,
and therefore have not been subject to resource verification in recent
years. All comments will be reviewed and considered in the rulemaking
process. To date, The Department has been conducting the information
collection and imposing burden for States and SNAP applicant households
regarding resource verification without OMB approval; however, as
discussed earlier, due to expanded categorical eligibility policies,
few States are currently collecting resource information as part of the
SNAP eligibility determination process. The Department has estimated
the current reporting burden for the States without expanded
categorical eligibility policies and provided these numbers in the
chart.
The burden estimates we are using without OMB approval is for the
current ten states without expanded categorical eligibility; the
overall burden collected without OMB approval is 833,745.10 burden
hours, this burden total includes 691,092.51 total annual burden hours
and 1,747,515.79 total annual responses for State agencies and
142,652.58 total annual burden hours and 1,747,515.79 total annual
responses for Individuals/Households (SNAP Participants). The overall
estimated burden we are requesting for both the Individuals/Households
and State agencies is 5,154,728.15 total annual burden hours and
20,602,334 total annual responses. The reporting burden details are
provided below for State Agencies and SNAP applicant households. This
[[Page 35579]]
request associated with rulemaking reflects an increase of 3,622,736.20
total annual burden hours and 8,553,672.90 total annual responses for
State agencies and 698,246.85 total annual burden hours and
8,553,629.901 total annual responses for Households (SNAP
Participants).
Estimated Number of Respondents: 53 State Agencies.
Estimated Frequency of Responses per Year: 643,822.61.
Estimated Total Annual Responses: 10,301,188.69.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.418769993.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,313,828.72.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,301,146 (SNAP households).
Estimated Frequency of Response per Year: 1.
Estimated Total Annual Responses: 10,301,146.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.081631642.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 840,899.43.
[[Page 35580]]
Estimated Annual Burden for 0584-New, Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous
Description of Estimated Estimated Total annual Number of Estimated burden in use Differences Difference due Hourly wage Estimated cost to
Reg. section Respondent type activity number of frequency of responses burden hours total burden without due to program to adjustments rate* respondents
respondents response per response hours approval changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Public: State Agencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
273.2(f)(1) & (2).............. State Agency Verification of 13 255,661.04 3,323,593.55 0.7292 2,423,564.42 372,856.06 0.00 2,050,708.35 $21.45 $51,985,456.79
Eligibility resources at
Worker. initial
application
(States
verifying all
resources).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
273.2(f)(1) & (2).............. State Agency Verification of 13 25,566.10 332,359.36 0.205 68,133.67 15,723.15 0.00 52,410.51 21.45 1,461,467.18
Eligibility resources at
Worker. initial
application
(States
verifying
resources if
questionable).
273.2(f)(1) & (2).............. State Agency Verification of 27 76,698.31 2,070,854.44 0.205 424,525.16 78,615.77 0.00 345,909.39 21.45 9,106,064.71
Eligibility resources at
Worker. initial
application
(States
verifying
resources if
close to limit).
273.2(f)(8)(i)................. State Agency Verification of 13 204,211.53 2,654,749.93 0.4375 1,161,453.09 178,685.09 0.00 982,768.00 21.45 24,913,168.86
Eligibility resources at
Worker. recertification
(States
verifying all
resources).
273.2(f)(8)(i)................. State Agency Verification of 13 20,421.15 265,474.99 0.123 32,653.42 7,535.41 0.00 25,118.02 21.45 700,415.95
Eligibility resources at
Worker. recertification
(States
verifying
resources if
questionable).
273.2(f)(8)(i)................. State Agency Verification of 27 61,263.46 1,654,113.42 0.123 203,455.95 37,677.03 0.00 165,778.92 21.45 4,364,130.13
Eligibility resources at
Worker. recertification
(States
verifying
resources if
close to limit).
273.2(j)(2)(ii) & State Agencies... Inform FNS of 43 1 43 1 43 0 43.00 0.00 19.47 837.21
273.2(j)(2)(i)(B). TANF programs
that confer
categorical
eligibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total State Agencies......................................... 53 643,822.61 10,301,188.69 0.41877 4,313,828.72 691,092.51 0.00 3,622,736.20 21.17 92,531,540.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Public: Individual/Households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
273.2(f)(1) & (2).............. Applicants for Verification of 5,726,807 1 5,726,807 0.0668 382,550.73 64,897.00 317,653.73 0.00 7.25 2,773,492.80
initial resources at
certification. initial
application.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
273.2(f)(8)(i)................. Applicants for Verification of 4,574,338 1 4,574,338 0.1002 458,348.70 77,755.58 380,593.12 0.00 7.25 3,323,028.09
recertification. resources at
recertification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total Individual/Households.................................. 10,301,146 1 10,301,146 0.0816316 840,899.43 142,652.58 698,246.85 0.00 7.25 6,096,520.89
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Grand Total Reporting Burden with both affected public....... 10,301,199 0 20,602,334 0.2502012 5,154,728.15 833,745.10 4,320,983.05 0.00 7.25 98,628,061.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The column ``Estimated number of respondents'' for rows with the regulatory citation 273.2(f) (1) & (2) and 273.2(f)(8)(i) includes both the 10 State Agencies collecting this information without OMB approval and the 43 that
would collect this information as a result of the rulemaking, for a total of 53 State agencies affected at application and recertification.
Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2017 Occupational and Wage Statistics--the salaries of the eligibility workers are considered to be ``Eligibility Interviewers, Government Programs'' functions performed by State and local
agency staff are valued at $21.45 per staff hour 43-4061 (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes434061.htm). Social and Human Service Assistants 21-1093 functions are valued at $19.74 and the $7.25 used to calculate a cost to
applicants is the Federal minimum wage.
[[Page 35581]]
E-Government Act Compliance
The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act
of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information
technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to
Government information and services, and for other purposes.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 273
Administrative practices and procedure, Grant programs-social
programs, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Reporting and
recordkeeping.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 273 is proposed to be amended to read as
follows:
PART 273--CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 273 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
0
2. In Sec. 273.2:
0
a. Revise paragraph (j)(2)(i)(A);
0
b. Revise paragraph (j)(2)(i)(B);
0
c. Remove and reserve paragraph (j)(2)(i)(C);
0
d. Revise paragraph (j)(2)(ii) introductory text and remove
(j)(2)(ii)(A) and (B);
0
e. Remove and reserve paragraph (j)(2)(iii); and
0
f. Amend paragraph (j)(2)(iv) by removing the phrase ``paragraphs
(j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), and (j)(2)(iii)'' and adding in its place
``paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii)''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 273.2 Office operations and application processing
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Any household (except those listed in paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of
this section) in which all members receive or are authorized to receive
ongoing and substantial cash benefits through a PA program funded in
full or in part with Federal money under Title IV-A or with State money
counted for maintenance of effort (MOE) purposes under Title IV-A;
(1) For the purposes of this paragraph (j)(2)(i)(A), ongoing cash
benefits are benefits that a household receives or is authorized to
receive for at least six months.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph (j)(2)(i)(A), substantial
cash benefits are benefits that a household receives or is authorized
to receive that are valued at a minimum of $50 per month or any minimum
threshold determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for
Title IV-A programs, whichever is higher.
(B) Any household (except those listed in paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of
this section) in which all members receive or are authorized to receive
ongoing and substantial non-cash benefits, as specified in paragraphs
(j)(2)(i)(B)(1) and (2) of this section, from a program that is funded
with 50 percent or more State money counted for MOE purposes under
Title IV-A of the Social Security Act (Pub. L. 74-271) or Federal money
under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act. States must inform FNS of
the types of non-cash TANF benefits that confer categorical eligibility
under this paragraph. If one household member receives or is authorized
to receive such benefits and the State determines the whole household
benefits, the whole household shall be categorically eligible (except
those listed in (j)(2)(vii) of this section).
(1) For the purposes of paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(B) and (j)(2)(ii) of
this section, ongoing non-cash benefits are benefits a household
receives or is authorized to receive for at least six months.
(2) For the purposes of paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(B) and (j)(2)(ii) of
this section, substantial non-cash benefits are benefits that a
household receives or is authorized to receive that are valued at a
minimum of $50 per month and that are of at least one of the following
types: Subsidized employment for which the employer or a third party
receives a subsidy from TANF or other public funds to offset some or
all of the wages and costs of employing an individual; work supports,
including transportation benefits or other allowances for work-related
expenses; and/or child care subsidies or vouchers.
(C) [Reserved] * * *
* * * * *
(ii) The State agency, at its option, may extend categorical
eligibility to any households (except those listed in paragraph
(j)(2)(vii) of this section) in which all members receive or are
authorized to receive ongoing and substantial non-cash benefits, as
specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(B)(1) and (2) of this section, from a
program that is less than 50 percent funded with State money counted
for MOE purposes under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act (Pub. L.
74-271) or Federal money under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act.
States must inform FNS of the types of non-cash TANF benefits that
confer categorical eligibility under this paragraph. If one household
member receives or is authorized to receive such benefits and the State
determines the whole household benefits, the whole household shall be
categorically eligible (except those listed in (j)(2)(vii) of this
section). The State agency may exercise this option only if doing so
will further the purposes of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
(iii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 273.8, revise the third sentence of paragraph (e)(17).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 273.8 Resource Eligibility Standards
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(17) * * * For purposes of this paragraph (e)(17), if an individual
receives ongoing and substantial non-cash benefits from a program
specified in Sec. Sec. 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) or (j)(2)(ii), the State
agency must determine whether the individual or the household benefits
from the assistance provided. * * *
* * * * *
Dated: July 16, 2019.
Brandon Lipps,
Acting Deputy Under Secretary Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 2019-15670 Filed 7-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
