Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Standardization of State Heating and Cooling Standard Utility Allowances, 52809-52815 [2019-21287]
Download as PDF
52809
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 84, No. 192
Thursday, October 3, 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–2019–0009]
RIN 0584–AE69
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program: Standardization of State
Heating and Cooling Standard Utility
Allowances
Background
Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS), USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The proposed rule would
revise Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations
to standardize the methodology for
calculating standard utility allowances
(SUAs or standards). The new
methodology would set the largest
standard, the heating and cooling
standard utility allowance (HCSUA), at
the 80th percentile of low-income
households’ utility costs in the State.
Standard allowances for other utility
costs would subsequently be capped at
a percentage of the HCSUA with the
exception of an updated
telecommunications SUA that would be
a standard amount set nationally. These
figures would continue to be updated
annually and reflective of utility costs in
each State.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before December 2, 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:
• Preferred Method: Federal
eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Send comments to
Certification Policy Branch, Program
Development Division, Food and
Nutrition Services, FNS, 3101 Park
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
Center Drive, Room 812, Alexandria,
Virginia 22302.
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:
Certification Policy Branch, Program
Development Division, FNS, 3101 Park
Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia
22302. SNAPCPBRules@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms or Abbreviations
American Community Survey, ACS
Code of Federal Regulations, CFR
Consumer Price Index, CPI
Fiscal Year, FY
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the Act
Food and Nutrition Service, FNS
Heating and Cooling Standard Utility
Allowance, HCSUA
Limited Utility Allowance, LUA
Residential Energy Consumption Survey,
RECS
Standard Utility Allowance, SUA
State SNAP Agencies, State agencies or States
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
SNAP
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
Department or USDA
References
• Title 7 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, part 273
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy
Support, Characteristics of
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Households: Fiscal Year
2017, by Kathryn Cronquist and Sarah
Lauffer. Project Officer, Jenny Genser.
Alexandria, VA, 2019. https://
www.fns.usda.gov/snap/
characteristics-supplementalnutrition-assistance-programhouseholds-fiscal-year-2017
• Holleyman, Chris, Timothy Beggs,
and Alan Fox. Methods to
Standardize State Standard Utility
Allowances. Prepared by
Econometrica for the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service, August 2017. https://
www.fns.usda.gov/snap/methods-
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
standardize-state-standard-utilityallowances
Background
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(the Act) establishes national eligibility
standards for SNAP, including
allowable deductions from gross
income. With the exception of a
standard deduction for all households,
most allowable deductions are available
to households based on their
circumstances. Some of these
deductions include those for: Earned
income; dependent care costs when
needed for work, searching for work,
training, or education; medical expenses
over $35 for elderly or disabled
households; and excess shelter costs.
The excess shelter deduction allows
households to deduct shelter expenses
that exceed 50 percent of their income
after all other deductions are taken. For
households without an elderly or
disabled member, the deduction must
not exceed a maximum limit.
Households with elderly or disabled
members do not face a limit. Shelter
expenses include the basic cost of
housing as well as certain utilities and
other allowable expenses listed in 7 CFR
273.9(d)(6)(ii). To help streamline the
application and certification process,
section 5(e)(6) of the Act permits States
to use SUAs in lieu of actual utility
expenses in determining a household’s
shelter costs for the purposes of the
excess shelter deduction.
States may develop their own SUAs
in accordance with criteria set forth in
7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii). States are not
required to use a particular
methodology when developing SUAs
under current program rules. States
must update SUAs annually, but are not
directed to use particular data sources,
and can revise their methodology at any
time so long as they receive FNS
approval. In the absence of formal
guidelines outlining recommended
methodologies, States have considerable
flexibility in developing the
methodologies and amounts for the
standards.
Multiple SUAs may be created by the
State to reflect the differences in utility
expenses that SNAP households incur.
There are three different types of SUAs:
Heating and cooling SUAs (HCSUAs); a
limited utility allowance (LUAs); and
single utility allowances (also referred
to as ‘‘individual standards’’). The
HCSUA is the largest of the SUAs and
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
52810
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
available to households that pay heating
or cooling expenses separate from their
rent or mortgage. The HCSUA includes
costs for all other utilities covered by
SUAs as well as heating or cooling
costs. States may also choose to develop
a LUA that includes expenses for at
least two utilities, and single utility
allowances may be used for stand-alone
utility costs. Utility expenses that may
be captured in a LUA or a single utility
allowance include: Electricity or fuel for
purposes other than heating or cooling;
water; sewerage; well and septic tank
installation and maintenance;
telephone; and garbage or trash
collection.
Though most SNAP eligibility
parameters are set at the Federal level,
SUAs are an exception because States
determine which SUAs are available in
their State and how to calculate them.
This can lead to considerable variation
from State to State. Current rules grant
broad discretion to States in
determining how SUAs are calculated
and the sources of information used. In
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, HCSUA amounts
ranged from $278 to $826. The variation
in SUA amounts can cause variation in
benefit amounts as larger SUAs provide
for greater excess shelter deductions
resulting in higher benefit amounts.
In FY 2017, HCSUAs were used to
determine 63 percent of household
eligibility and benefit amounts.1 Wide
variation in SUAs means that
households that have otherwise similar
shelter costs and household
circumstances but live on opposite sides
of a State border would have differing
benefit amounts based on the choices
their States made in developing SUAs.
For example, in FY2019, the difference
in HCSUAs between two bordering
States was as high as $339, which
would cause a difference in benefits of
$55. While differences in utility costs
are expected across State lines, the
degree of the variation in methodologies
and therefore SUA amounts is of
concern as similarly situated
households living a few miles apart
could have significantly different
benefit amounts.
2017 SUA Study
In August 2017, USDA published a
study that reviewed States’ SUA
methodologies titled, Methods to
Standardize State Standard Utility
Allowances (Holleyman, et al., 2017).
The 2017 SUA Study looked at HCSUAs
from 2014 and found that most of the
1 Holleyman, Chris, Timothy Beggs, and Alan
Fox. Methods to Standardize State Standard Utility
Allowances. Prepared by Econometrica for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service, August 2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
methodologies States employ fall into
one of two categories: (1) Those that rely
on recent State-specific utility data; and
(2) those that adjust a base number
using an inflation measure such as the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) of utility
costs. States relying on State-specific
utility data use a variety of data sources,
including information obtained from
utility providers through public service
commissioners or consumption
information available from other
sources. States that adjust a base
number annually predominately use
changes in the price indexes (for
electricity, natural gas, etc.) to make
these changes. For States using the
second methodology, the frequency of
updates to the underlying base number
are often infrequent or nonexistent. The
report found that less than half (42
percent) of States that update a base
number know the source of their base
number and many do not know what
year it was established.
The 2017 SUA Study also found
differences in how State’s FY 2014
HCSUA values reflected actual utility
expenditures among low-income
households in their State.2 One State
had an HCSUA lower than average lowincome household utility expenses in
the State, five States had an HCSUA
lower than the 70th percentile of lowincome household utility expenses in
the State, and 20 States had HCSUAs
lower than the 80th percentile of lowincome household utility expenses in
the State. The 2017 SUA Study found
that in 22 States the HCSUA met or
exceeded the utility expenses of 85
percent of low-income households.
As part of the 2017 SUA Study,
additional methodologies and data
sources were considered to identify
alternative methods for calculating
SUAs. These options were evaluated to
determine which methodology and
sources could more accurately reflect
utility costs for low-income households,
be applied nationally, and allow for
annual adjustments. Of the
methodologies considered, the report
recommended using a combination of
the American Community Survey (ACS)
and the Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (RECS) to develop
base-year SUAs, and a 3-year average of
the CPI for fuels and utilities to make
annual adjustments.
Standardizing HCSUA Methodology
The Department is concerned that the
degree of flexibility in current
regulations causes inequities from State
2 The 2017 SUA Study defined ‘‘low-income’’ as
households with incomes at or below 150 percent
of the Federal poverty level.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to State. The 2017 SUA Study revealed
that many States’ SUAs are overinflated,
which leads to additional benefits, and
some States’ SUAs underestimate how
much households actually pay in
utilities, resulting in lower benefits. The
Department believes that standardizing
SUA methodology would make SUAs
and the program more equitable.
Removing the inequities related to this
deduction will also improve integrity by
ensuring SUAs better reflect what lowincome households are actually paying
for utilities so that eligible households
receive SNAP benefit amounts which
more accurately reflect their
circumstances, no matter the State in
which they reside.
In order to address the variations
found in the 2017 SUA Study and help
ensure benefit equity across States, the
Department is proposing to calculate
each State’s HCSUA using a standard
methodology. The proposed
standardization would set the HCSUA at
the 80th percentile of utility costs for
low-income households in the State.
Standardizing at this level will reduce
the amount of variation between utility
costs and HCSUA amounts across
States. Additionally, setting HCSUA
values at the 80th percentile balances
the need to create more accurate
standards while still capturing
households that have higher than
average utility costs, as most States
require use of SUAs in lieu of actual
costs. As noted earlier, the 2017 SUA
Study found that there was greater
variation in State-established HCSUA
values than there was in utility
expenditures. This new standardized
methodology would apply to all States
that choose to use an HCSUA, with a
few exceptions noted below.
The proposed methodology would use
best-available utility cost information
from national Federal sources, such as
the ACS and the RECS, to calculate
HCSUAs annually. A combination of
these two sources was recommended in
the 2017 SUA Study to account for
different utility end-uses, determining
which energy costs are for heating or
cooling versus other utilities, and to
correct for upward bias in self-reported
utility expenditures reflected in the
source information. Under the proposed
rule, base year HCSUAs would be
calculated using ACS and RECS and
interim years (RECs is not conducted
annually) would be updated using a 3year CPI average for fuel and utilities to
make annual adjustments. All
calculations would be conducted by
FNS, alleviating State administrative
burden associated with determining
HCSUA values and reporting to FNS.
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
The Department intends to use ACS
and RECS as the sources for base-year
HCSUA calculations. The use of these
specific sources, however, would not be
codified in the proposed rule in order to
maintain flexibility in the event better
sources become available or these
surveys cease to provide the necessary
information. These sources would need
to be able to determine accurate utility
costs for low-income households,
applied nationally, and allow for annual
adjustments. If changes in the data
sources from the previous year occur,
FNS would notify State agencies prior to
release of the updated figures for that
year.
ACS and RECS were found to be the
best available sources for calculating the
majority of HCSUAs; however, these
surveys do not collect information for
Guam and the Virgin Islands.
Additionally, Guam and the Virgin
Islands do not currently use an HCSUA.
The Department is proposing to
continue to allow these territories to use
their own methodologies, and conduct
their own calculations, subject to FNS
approval. The Department is interested
in receiving public comments about this
proposed exception or other possible
methods for developing HCSUAs for
Guam and the Virgin Islands.
The proposed rule would not
eliminate the State option to mandate
SUAs (HCSUAs, LUAs, and single
utility allowances) for all households
with qualifying expenses. In States that
use but do not mandate a SUA, the
proposed rule would maintain a
household’s ability to choose using
actual costs in determining eligibility
and benefit amount. For States that use
an HCSUA, mandatory or not, the
HCSUA would be set by FNS using the
standardized methodology, annually, on
the fiscal year calendar. FNS would be
responsible for releasing the HCSUA
figures via memo to the State agencies
near the same time that cost of living
adjustments are announced and would
make them available publicly on the
FNS website. The Department intends
for the proposed standardization to
begin the first fiscal year following
publication of the final rule.
Changes to Current SUA Options
Program rules currently allow State
agencies to vary SUAs by factors such
as household size, geographical areas, or
season. For FY2019, no State chose to
vary by season, only two States elected
to vary by geographical area, and six
States varied by household size. The
number of States taking these options
has been consistent in recent years.
The proposed rule would eliminate
the State options to vary allowances by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
household size and geographic areas as
part of the Department’s efforts to bring
greater benefit equity across States and
in recognition of the low number of
States taking these options.
One of the two States that currently
choose to vary standards by
geographical areas is Alaska. Alaska and
Hawaii are granted additional
considerations under program rules to
account for cost of living differences, as
well as further program flexibilities for
Alaska because of extremely remote
geography. Although no exceptions for
Alaska and Hawaii are included in the
proposed rule, the Department is
interested in receiving public comments
on whether additional attention or
exceptions should be granted to Alaska
and Hawaii in the proposed changes
and how those might be best
accomplished.
Consistent with the proposed rule’s
standardization efforts to promote more
benefit equity, the Department is also
proposing to eliminate the option for
State agencies to include the excess
heating and cooling costs of public
housing residents in the LUA if they
wish to offer the lower standard to such
households. The proposed rule would
also eliminate the option for States to
include the cooling expense in the
electricity utility allowance for States
where cooling expenses are minimal.
Such flexibility would not support
efforts to promote consistency and
parity with this deduction and therefore
the Department believes the option
would no longer be appropriate to offer.
As such, the proposed rule clarifies that
residents of public housing who incur
heating or cooling costs in States that
mandate SUAs would receive the
HCSUA. The Department is particularly
interested in receiving comments from
State agencies as to whether removing
these options pose administrative
challenges based on their current
practices.
LUAs and Single Utility Allowances
Under the proposed rule, States
would continue to use their own
methodologies to determine LUA and
single utility allowance amounts that do
not exceed maximum limits established
by the Department. In FY 2017, less
than 8 percent of households used a
single utility allowance or LUA when
determining SNAP eligibility and
benefit levels. Although a small portion
of SNAP participants are impacted, the
Department is proposing that these
standards be capped at a percentage of
the HCSUA to extend standardization
efforts and mitigate future
inconsistencies. The Department is
proposing to cap LUAs at 70 percent of
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52811
a State’s HCSUA amount and single
utility allowances at 35 percent of a
State’s HCSUA. When analyzing the
SUA values developed as part of the
2017 SUA Study, it was found that most
States’ single utility allowances were
near 35 percent of their HCSUA.
Similarly, most States’ LUAs did not
exceed 70 percent of their HCSUA.
States would still need to calculate
their own LUA and single utility
allowance figures annually under the
proposed changes. The methodology
and final figures would continue to be
subject to the cap, as well as FNS review
and approval. FNS would be
responsible for releasing the capped
amounts via memo to the State agencies
near the same time that HCSUA figures
and cost of living adjustments are
announced and would make them
available publicly on the FNS website.
The Department is interested in
receiving public comments on the
proposed percentage caps, particularly
from State agencies.
Updating the Telephone SUA
State agencies may use SUAs for any
allowable utility expense listed at 7 CFR
273.9(d)(6)(ii)(C). Allowable utility
expenses listed in the section include
the costs of: Heating and cooling;
electricity or fuel used for purposes
other than heating or cooling; water;
sewage; well and septic tank installation
and maintenance; garbage collection;
and telephone. The Department is
proposing to amend this section to add
the cost of basic internet service.
The proposed inclusion of costs for
basic internet service as an allowable
utility expense for the shelter deduction
is in recognition of internet access
becoming a necessity for school, work,
and job search. The proposed rule
replaces the telephone standard (i.e., the
single utility allowance for telephone
costs) with a broader
telecommunications standard that
consists of costs for one telephone, basic
internet service, or both. State agencies
would not be authorized to create a
single utility allowance solely for basic
internet service; rather, basic internet
service costs would be allowed as part
of the new telecommunications
standard. FNS will calculate the
maximum amount annually by
reviewing nationally available low-cost
plans for one telephone line and basic
internet access. The Department
estimates that the telecommunications
standard would be approximately $55 in
FY 2020. Similar to LUAs and single
utility allowances, States would still
need to calculate their own
telecommunications figures annually
under the proposed changes. The
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
52812
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
methodology and final figures would be
subject to the cap, as well as FNS review
and approval.
The new telecommunications
standard would be available to
households with utility costs for one
telephone, basic internet service, or
both. Households with basic internet
and/or telephone costs would be able to
either receive the telecommunications
standard or have their actual costs
counted, but actual costs would be
limited up to the amount of the
telecommunications standard. For
example, households with more than
basic internet packages, such as those
combined with cable television service,
would not have the cost of their entire
package counted. Rather these
households would either receive the
telecommunications SUA or have their
actual costs of phone and/or basic
internet counted, up to the amount of
the standard, depending on the option
their State selects. Additionally, States
may include the telecommunications
costs as part of their LUA so long as the
telecommunications share of the LUA
would not exceed the amount set for the
telecommunications standard. The
Department is interested in receiving
public comments, particularly from
State agencies, on this proposed 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
As required for rules that have been
designated as economically significant
by the Office of Management and
Budget, a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) was developed for this proposed
rule. It follows this rule as an Appendix.
The following summarizes the
conclusions of the RIA:
The Department has estimated the
total reduction in Federal spending
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
associated with the proposed rule to be
approximately $4.5 billion over the five
years 2021–2025. This represents a
reduction in Federal transfers (SNAP
benefits). The Department estimates that
approximately 16 percent of households
will see an increase in their monthly
SNAP allotment and another 19 percent
will see a decrease in their monthly
SNAP allotment. A very small number
of households are estimated to lose
eligibility for SNAP (less than 8,000
households).
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 and significant
impacts on a substantial number of
small entities. Pursuant to that review,
the Secretary certifies that this rule
would not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would not have an
impact on small entities because it
primarily impacts SNAP households.
Small entities, such as smaller SNAPauthorized retailers, would not be
subject to any new requirement. On
average, SNAP 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 impacts on large
entities. As of FY 2017, approximately
76 percent of authorized SNAP retailers
(about 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
$1 billion per year in net. However, not
all States will see benefit losses; in some
States HCSUAs will increase under the
proposed rule, resulting in larger SNAP
benefits for many households. In total,
29 States are expected to see a net loss
of SNAP benefits (about $1.54 billion
annually) and 22 are expected to see a
net gain (about $540 million annually).
Based on USDA data, about 53 percent
of stores would likely see lower
redemptions and 47 percent would
likely see increased redemptions.3
3 Data from the USDA Store Tracking and
Redemption System (STARS).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
In States with reduced benefits, this
would equate to about a $177 loss of
revenue per small store on average per
month [(1.54 billion × 15%)/(109,000
stores/12 months)]. In 2017 the average
small store redeemed more than $3,800
in SNAP each month; the potential loss
of benefits represents about 4.7 percent
of their SNAP redemptions and only a
small portion of their gross sales. Based
on 2017 redemption data, a 4.7 percent
reduction in SNAP redemptions
represented between 0.01 and 0.92
percent of these stores’ gross sales.
In States that gain benefits, this would
equate to about a $70 increase in
revenue per small store on average per
month [(0.54 billion × 15%)/(96,000
stores/12 months)]. This potential
increase in benefits represents about 1.8
percent of their SNAP redemptions and
between 0.01 and 0.36 percent of these
stores’ 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. The
designation, as regulatory or
deregulatory under E.O. 13771, of any
final rule resulting from the notice of
proposed rulemaking will be informed
by comments received. Details on the
preliminary estimates of costs and cost
savings may be found in the economic
analysis.
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
their 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 needed for a rule, Section
205 of the UMRA generally requires the
Department to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the most cost
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This proposed rule does not contain
Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local and tribal governments or
the private sector of $100 million or
more in any one year. Thus, the rule is
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 12372
SNAP is listed in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance under
Number No.10.551. For the reasons set
forth in the Final Rule codified in 7 CFR
part 3015, subpart V and related Notice
(48 FR 29115), this Program is excluded
from the scope of Executive Order
12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials.
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, impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
State and local governments, and are not
required by statute, 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 setting HCSUA and SUA
national standards and determined that
this rule has federalism impacts.
However, this rule does not preempt
State or local law and does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
State and local governments, so under
section (6)(b) of the Executive Order, a
federalism summary is not required.
The Department requests comments
from State and local officials as to the
need for national standards and any
alternatives to the standards proposed.
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
unless so specified in the Effective Dates
section of the final rule. Prior to 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
impacts the rule might have on program
participants on the basis of age, race,
color, national origin, sex or disability.
After a careful review of the rule’s
objective and implementation, FNS has
determined that this rule is likely to
have an adverse or disproportionate
impact on protected groups. Households
with an elderly or disabled individual
will be disproportionally affected by
changes to HCSUAs, both positively and
negatively, because these households do
not face the cap on excess shelter costs
and therefore would experience a
greater benefit increase or decrease.
Executive Order 13175
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.
Additionally, other policy statements or
actions that have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian Tribes, the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes also
require consultation. FNS provided
opportunity for consultation on the
issue on June 27, 2019, but received no
feedback. If further consultation is
requested, the Office of Tribal Relations
will work with FNS to ensure quality
consultation is provided.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR 1320)
requires that 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 will alter information collection
requirements that are subject to review
and approval by the Office of
Management and Budget; therefore, FNS
is submitting for public comment the
changes in the information collection
burden that would change the OMB
burden inventory as a result of adoption
of the proposals in the rule. While FNS
is requesting a new OMB Control
Number for these requirements in this
proposed rule, this proposal would
reduce the existing burden on State
agencies currently approved under OMB
Control Number 0584–0496; Expiration
Date 3/31/2020. FNS intends to merge
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52813
this new collection to currently
approved burden after the final
rulemaking information collection
request is approved.
Written comments on the information
collection requirements included in this
proposed rule must be received by
November 4, 2019.
Send written comments to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for FNS,
725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC
20503, or via OIRA_Submissions@
omb.eop.gov. Please reference the title
of this rule in your message. Please also
send a copy of your comments to
SNAPCPBrules@usda.gov.
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,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be
summarized and included in the request
for Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approval. All comments will be
a matter of public record. Once OMB
approves the information collection
request (ICR), the agency will publish a
separate notice in the Federal Register
announcing its approval.
Title: Standardization of State Heating
and Cooling Standard Utility
Allowances.
OMB Number: 0584–NEW.
Expiration Date: [Not Yet
Determined.]
Type of Request: New collection.
Abstract: Section 5 of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended,
permits States to use standard utility
allowances (SUAs) in lieu of actual
utility expenses in determining a
household’s shelter costs for the
purposes of the excess shelter
deduction.
Under current regulations, all States
may develop SUAs for their SNAP
households to be used in lieu of actual
costs. States currently can decide which
of the allowable utility expenses will be
covered by SUAs and how they are
calculated. The proposed rule would
provide a clearer and more consistent
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
52814
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
policy by standardizing the
methodology for calculating SUAs.
In the currently approved burden,
FNS estimates 53 State agencies will
submit one request each to adjust the
SUAs, for a total annual response of 53
requests at a minimum of 10 hours
annually (53 State agencies × 1 SUAs
request = 53 total annual responses ×10
hours = 530 hours). The total burden for
this provision is estimated to be 530
hours per year. However, with this rule
FNS estimates 53 State agencies will
submit one request each to adjust the
SUAs, for a total annual response of 53
requests at a minimum of 1 hour
annually (53 State agencies × 1 SUAs
request = 53 total annual responses × 1
hours = 53 hours). The total burden for
this altered provision is estimated to be
53 hours per year. This is a decrease of
¥447 burden hours for this
requirement.
The rule would make FNS responsible
for calculating the heating and cooling
SUA (HCSUA) for all States. States still
have the option to not use the HCSUA
Estimated
number of
respondents
and take a household’s actual costs
instead, however, if a State uses an
HCSUA, it has to be the amount that
FNS calculated. The rule would also cap
the amounts of the LUAs and single
utility expenses. States would continue
to calculate these figures; however, their
values cannot exceed the capped
amount set by FNS.
States would continue to choose
which types of SUAs they will use and
report this information to FNS annually.
Because FNS would calculate HCSUA,
telecommunications SUA, and caps for
LUAs and single utility allowance, the
required burden on States would be
significantly reduced. This is the lone
reporting requirement that is being
addressed in this section.
The recordkeeping is maintained
under OMB Control Number 0584–0496;
Expiration Date: 3/31/2020. There is no
additional recordkeeping burden
required for this new OMB Control
Number because there is no requirement
to maintain the reports submitted to
FNS.
Estimated
frequency
of response
Reg. section
Affected public
273.9(d)(6)(iii)(B) ...
State Agencies ......
53
Grand Total ....
................................
53
Estimated
total
burden
hours
Description of Costs and
Assumptions: States will be required to
report to FNS annually. The Department
estimates that this reporting will require
an hour to prepare and process.
Reporting Burden Activities: The
activity is limited to preparation,
processing and submitting a report to
FNS annually regarding the SUA(s) the
State will use in SNAP.
We have rounded these burden times
in the chart below.
The overall estimated burden we are
requesting for States is 53 total annual
burden hours and 53 total annual
responses.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 53
State Agencies.
Estimated Frequency of Response: 1.
Estimated Total Annual Responses:
53.
Estimated Time per Response: 1.0
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 53.
Previous
submission
total
person
hours
Difference
due to
program
changes
Total
annual
responses
Number of
burden hours
per response
Differences
due to
adjustments
Hourly
wage
rate *
Estimated
cost to
respondents
1
53
1
53
530
¥-477
0
30.12
$1,596
1
53
1
53
530
¥477
0
30.12
1,596
* Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2018 Occupational and Wage Statistics—the salaries of the case managers are considered to be ‘‘Social Workers—other’’ functions performed
by State and local agency staff are valued at $30.12 per staff hour 21–1029 (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes211029.htm).
§ 273.9
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 practice and
procedure, Claims, Employment, Food
stamps, Fraud, Government employees,
Grant programs—social programs,
Supplemental Security Income, Wages.
Determining household eligibility and
benefit levels, Income and deductions.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 273 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 273—CERTIFICATION OF
ELIGIBILE HOUSEHOLDS
1. The authority citation for part 273
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2036.
2. In § 273.9, revise paragraphs
(d)(6)(ii)(C), (d)(6)(iii)(A),(d)(6)(iii)(D)
and (E) to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
Income and deductions.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The cost of fuel for heating;
cooling (i.e., the operation of air
conditioning systems or room air
conditioners); electricity or fuel used for
purposes other than heating or cooling;
water; sewerage; well installation and
maintenance; septic tank system
installation and maintenance; garbage
and trash collection; all service fees
required to provide service for one
telephone, including, but not limited to,
basic service fees, wire maintenance
fees, subscriber line charges, relay
center surcharges, 911 fees, and taxes
(not to exceed the amount of
telecommunications standard described
in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(B)(3) of this
section); basic internet connection (not
to exceed the amount of
telecommunications standard described
in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(B)(3) of this
section); and fees charged by the utility
provider for initial installation of the
utility. One-time deposits cannot be
included.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(iii) * * *
(A) A State agency may use standard
utility allowances (standards) in place
of actual costs in determining a
household’s excess shelter deduction.
The State agency may use different
types of standards but cannot allow
households the use of two standards
that include the same expense. Only
utility costs identified in paragraph
(d)(6)(ii)(C) of this section may be used
in developing standards described in
(d)(6)(iii)(A)(1) and (3). The following
standards are allowable:
(1) An individual standard for each
type of utility expense;
(2) A standard utility allowance for all
utilities that includes heating or cooling
costs (HCSUA); and
(3) A limited utility allowance (LUA)
that includes electricity and fuel for
purposes other than heating or cooling,
water, sewerage, well and septic tank
installation and maintenance, and
garbage or trash collection. The LUA
must include expenses for at least two
utilities. The LUA may also include
telecommunication costs so long as the
share of telecommunications costs in
the LUA does not exceed the maximum
amount set annually by FNS, as
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(B)(3)
of this section.
(B) FNS will calculate the standards
and caps described in paragraph
(d)(6)(iii)(A) of this section annually,
with the exception of the standards
described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(B)(4)
of this section. The State agency must
review the standards described in
paragraphs (d)(6)(iii)(B)(2),
(d)(6)(iii)(B)(3), and (d)(6)(iii)(B)(4),
annually and make adjustments to
reflect changes in costs, rounded to the
nearest whole dollar. State agencies
must provide the amounts of standards
to FNS when they are changed annually
and submit methodologies used in
developing and updating standards to
FNS for approval when the
methodologies are developed or
changed.
(1) For the HCSUA described in
paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A)(2), standards
will be calculated by FNS based on the
80th percentile of low income
households’ utility costs in the State.
FNS will use the best-available utility
cost information from national Federal
surveys, such as the American
Community Survey (ACS) and the
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(RECS).
(2) For the LUA described in
paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A)(3), standards
will be capped at 70 percent of the
State’s HCSUA.
(3) For individual utility expenses
described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A)(1),
standards will be capped at 35 percent
of the State’s HCSUA, with the
exception of the telecommunications
standard. The telecommunications
standard will have a maximum amount
for all States set annually by FNS. The
telecommunications standard includes
the cost of one telephone, basic internet
service, or both.
(4) Standards for Guam and the Virgin
Islands may be developed by the State
agency for utility costs identified in
paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(C).
*
*
*
*
*
(D) At initial certification,
recertification, and when a household
moves, the household may choose
between a standard or verified actual
utility costs for any allowable expense
identified in paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(C) of
this section, unless the State agency has
opted, with FNS approval, to mandate
use of a standard. Households certified
for 24 months may also choose to switch
between a standard and actual costs at
the time of the mandatory interim
contact required by § 273.10(f)(1) if the
State agency has not mandated use of
the standard.
(E) Option to make standard utility
allowances mandatory (1) A State
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Oct 02, 2019
Jkt 250001
agency may mandate use of standard
utility allowances for all households
with qualifying expenses if the State
uses one or more standards that include
the costs of heating and cooling and one
or more standards approved by FNS that
do not include the costs of heating and
cooling, and the standards will not
result in increased program costs. The
prohibition on increasing program costs
does not apply to necessary increases to
standards resulting from utility cost
increases.
(2) If the State agency chooses to
mandate use of standard utility
allowances, it must use a standard
utility allowance that includes heating
or cooling costs to residents of public
housing units which have central utility
meters and which charge the
households only for excess heating or
cooling costs. The State agency also
must not prorate a standard utility
allowance that includes heating or
cooling costs provided to a household
that lives and shares heating or cooling
expenses with others.
(3) In a State that chooses this option,
households entitled to the standard may
not claim actual expenses, even if the
expenses are higher than the standard.
Households not entitled to the standard
may claim actual allowable expenses.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 24, 2019.
Stephen L. Censky,
Deputy Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 2019–21287 Filed 10–2–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[NRC–2019–0160]
RIN 3150–AK36
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage
Casks: Holtec International HI–STORM
100 Multipurpose Canister Cask
System, Certificate of Compliance No.
1014, Amendment No. 14
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend its spent fuel storage regulations
by revising the Holtec International HI–
STORM 100 Multipurpose Canister Cask
System listing within the ‘‘List of
approved spent fuel storage casks’’ to
include Amendment No. 14 to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52815
Certificate of Compliance No. 1014.
Amendment No. 14 revises the technical
specifications to add new heat loading
patterns, reduce the minimum cooling
time, allow use of a damaged fuel
isolator for storing damaged fuel, and
modify the description of vents in
overpack. Amendment No. 14 also
makes other administrative changes to
the technical specifications.
DATES: Submit comments by November
4, 2019. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2019–0160. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Email comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive an automatic email reply
confirming receipt, then contact us at
301–415–1677.
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
• Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Federal workdays;
telephone: 301–415–1677.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: YenJu Chen, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301–
415–1018; email: Yen-Ju.Chen@nrc.gov
or Torre Taylor, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards;
telephone: 301–415–7900; email:
Torre.Taylor@nrc.gov. Both are staff of
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting
Comments
II. Rulemaking Procedure
E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM
03OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52809-52815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21287]
========================================================================
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. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 52809]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Part 273
[FNS-2019-0009]
RIN 0584-AE69
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Standardization of
State Heating and Cooling Standard Utility Allowances
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed rule would revise Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations to standardize the methodology
for calculating standard utility allowances (SUAs or standards). The
new methodology would set the largest standard, the heating and cooling
standard utility allowance (HCSUA), at the 80th percentile of low-
income households' utility costs in the State. Standard allowances for
other utility costs would subsequently be capped at a percentage of the
HCSUA with the exception of an updated telecommunications SUA that
would be a standard amount set nationally. These figures would continue
to be updated annually and reflective of utility costs in each State.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 2, 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:
Preferred Method: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Send comments to Certification Policy Branch,
Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Services, FNS, 3101
Park Center Drive, Room 812, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.
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: Certification Policy Branch, Program
Development Division, FNS, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia
22302. [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Acronyms or Abbreviations
American Community Survey, ACS
Code of Federal Regulations, CFR
Consumer Price Index, CPI
Fiscal Year, FY
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the Act
Food and Nutrition Service, FNS
Heating and Cooling Standard Utility Allowance, HCSUA
Limited Utility Allowance, LUA
Residential Energy Consumption Survey, RECS
Standard Utility Allowance, SUA
State SNAP Agencies, State agencies or States
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department or USDA
References
Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 273
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
Office of Policy Support, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2017, by Kathryn Cronquist
and Sarah Lauffer. Project Officer, Jenny Genser. Alexandria, VA, 2019.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/characteristics-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-households-fiscal-year-2017
Holleyman, Chris, Timothy Beggs, and Alan Fox. Methods to
Standardize State Standard Utility Allowances. Prepared by Econometrica
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
August 2017. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/methods-standardize-state-standard-utility-allowances
Background
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) establishes national
eligibility standards for SNAP, including allowable deductions from
gross income. With the exception of a standard deduction for all
households, most allowable deductions are available to households based
on their circumstances. Some of these deductions include those for:
Earned income; dependent care costs when needed for work, searching for
work, training, or education; medical expenses over $35 for elderly or
disabled households; and excess shelter costs.
The excess shelter deduction allows households to deduct shelter
expenses that exceed 50 percent of their income after all other
deductions are taken. For households without an elderly or disabled
member, the deduction must not exceed a maximum limit. Households with
elderly or disabled members do not face a limit. Shelter expenses
include the basic cost of housing as well as certain utilities and
other allowable expenses listed in 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii). To help
streamline the application and certification process, section 5(e)(6)
of the Act permits States to use SUAs in lieu of actual utility
expenses in determining a household's shelter costs for the purposes of
the excess shelter deduction.
States may develop their own SUAs in accordance with criteria set
forth in 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii). States are not required to use a
particular methodology when developing SUAs under current program
rules. States must update SUAs annually, but are not directed to use
particular data sources, and can revise their methodology at any time
so long as they receive FNS approval. In the absence of formal
guidelines outlining recommended methodologies, States have
considerable flexibility in developing the methodologies and amounts
for the standards.
Multiple SUAs may be created by the State to reflect the
differences in utility expenses that SNAP households incur. There are
three different types of SUAs: Heating and cooling SUAs (HCSUAs); a
limited utility allowance (LUAs); and single utility allowances (also
referred to as ``individual standards''). The HCSUA is the largest of
the SUAs and
[[Page 52810]]
available to households that pay heating or cooling expenses separate
from their rent or mortgage. The HCSUA includes costs for all other
utilities covered by SUAs as well as heating or cooling costs. States
may also choose to develop a LUA that includes expenses for at least
two utilities, and single utility allowances may be used for stand-
alone utility costs. Utility expenses that may be captured in a LUA or
a single utility allowance include: Electricity or fuel for purposes
other than heating or cooling; water; sewerage; well and septic tank
installation and maintenance; telephone; and garbage or trash
collection.
Though most SNAP eligibility parameters are set at the Federal
level, SUAs are an exception because States determine which SUAs are
available in their State and how to calculate them. This can lead to
considerable variation from State to State. Current rules grant broad
discretion to States in determining how SUAs are calculated and the
sources of information used. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, HCSUA amounts
ranged from $278 to $826. The variation in SUA amounts can cause
variation in benefit amounts as larger SUAs provide for greater excess
shelter deductions resulting in higher benefit amounts.
In FY 2017, HCSUAs were used to determine 63 percent of household
eligibility and benefit amounts.\1\ Wide variation in SUAs means that
households that have otherwise similar shelter costs and household
circumstances but live on opposite sides of a State border would have
differing benefit amounts based on the choices their States made in
developing SUAs. For example, in FY2019, the difference in HCSUAs
between two bordering States was as high as $339, which would cause a
difference in benefits of $55. While differences in utility costs are
expected across State lines, the degree of the variation in
methodologies and therefore SUA amounts is of concern as similarly
situated households living a few miles apart could have significantly
different benefit amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Holleyman, Chris, Timothy Beggs, and Alan Fox. Methods to
Standardize State Standard Utility Allowances. Prepared by
Econometrica for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service, August 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 SUA Study
In August 2017, USDA published a study that reviewed States' SUA
methodologies titled, Methods to Standardize State Standard Utility
Allowances (Holleyman, et al., 2017). The 2017 SUA Study looked at
HCSUAs from 2014 and found that most of the methodologies States employ
fall into one of two categories: (1) Those that rely on recent State-
specific utility data; and (2) those that adjust a base number using an
inflation measure such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of utility
costs. States relying on State-specific utility data use a variety of
data sources, including information obtained from utility providers
through public service commissioners or consumption information
available from other sources. States that adjust a base number annually
predominately use changes in the price indexes (for electricity,
natural gas, etc.) to make these changes. For States using the second
methodology, the frequency of updates to the underlying base number are
often infrequent or nonexistent. The report found that less than half
(42 percent) of States that update a base number know the source of
their base number and many do not know what year it was established.
The 2017 SUA Study also found differences in how State's FY 2014
HCSUA values reflected actual utility expenditures among low-income
households in their State.\2\ One State had an HCSUA lower than average
low-income household utility expenses in the State, five States had an
HCSUA lower than the 70th percentile of low-income household utility
expenses in the State, and 20 States had HCSUAs lower than the 80th
percentile of low-income household utility expenses in the State. The
2017 SUA Study found that in 22 States the HCSUA met or exceeded the
utility expenses of 85 percent of low-income households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 2017 SUA Study defined ``low-income'' as households with
incomes at or below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the 2017 SUA Study, additional methodologies and data
sources were considered to identify alternative methods for calculating
SUAs. These options were evaluated to determine which methodology and
sources could more accurately reflect utility costs for low-income
households, be applied nationally, and allow for annual adjustments. Of
the methodologies considered, the report recommended using a
combination of the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Residential
Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) to develop base-year SUAs, and a 3-
year average of the CPI for fuels and utilities to make annual
adjustments.
Standardizing HCSUA Methodology
The Department is concerned that the degree of flexibility in
current regulations causes inequities from State to State. The 2017 SUA
Study revealed that many States' SUAs are overinflated, which leads to
additional benefits, and some States' SUAs underestimate how much
households actually pay in utilities, resulting in lower benefits. The
Department believes that standardizing SUA methodology would make SUAs
and the program more equitable. Removing the inequities related to this
deduction will also improve integrity by ensuring SUAs better reflect
what low-income households are actually paying for utilities so that
eligible households receive SNAP benefit amounts which more accurately
reflect their circumstances, no matter the State in which they reside.
In order to address the variations found in the 2017 SUA Study and
help ensure benefit equity across States, the Department is proposing
to calculate each State's HCSUA using a standard methodology. The
proposed standardization would set the HCSUA at the 80th percentile of
utility costs for low-income households in the State. Standardizing at
this level will reduce the amount of variation between utility costs
and HCSUA amounts across States. Additionally, setting HCSUA values at
the 80th percentile balances the need to create more accurate standards
while still capturing households that have higher than average utility
costs, as most States require use of SUAs in lieu of actual costs. As
noted earlier, the 2017 SUA Study found that there was greater
variation in State-established HCSUA values than there was in utility
expenditures. This new standardized methodology would apply to all
States that choose to use an HCSUA, with a few exceptions noted below.
The proposed methodology would use best-available utility cost
information from national Federal sources, such as the ACS and the
RECS, to calculate HCSUAs annually. A combination of these two sources
was recommended in the 2017 SUA Study to account for different utility
end-uses, determining which energy costs are for heating or cooling
versus other utilities, and to correct for upward bias in self-reported
utility expenditures reflected in the source information. Under the
proposed rule, base year HCSUAs would be calculated using ACS and RECS
and interim years (RECs is not conducted annually) would be updated
using a 3-year CPI average for fuel and utilities to make annual
adjustments. All calculations would be conducted by FNS, alleviating
State administrative burden associated with determining HCSUA values
and reporting to FNS.
[[Page 52811]]
The Department intends to use ACS and RECS as the sources for base-
year HCSUA calculations. The use of these specific sources, however,
would not be codified in the proposed rule in order to maintain
flexibility in the event better sources become available or these
surveys cease to provide the necessary information. These sources would
need to be able to determine accurate utility costs for low-income
households, applied nationally, and allow for annual adjustments. If
changes in the data sources from the previous year occur, FNS would
notify State agencies prior to release of the updated figures for that
year.
ACS and RECS were found to be the best available sources for
calculating the majority of HCSUAs; however, these surveys do not
collect information for Guam and the Virgin Islands. Additionally, Guam
and the Virgin Islands do not currently use an HCSUA. The Department is
proposing to continue to allow these territories to use their own
methodologies, and conduct their own calculations, subject to FNS
approval. The Department is interested in receiving public comments
about this proposed exception or other possible methods for developing
HCSUAs for Guam and the Virgin Islands.
The proposed rule would not eliminate the State option to mandate
SUAs (HCSUAs, LUAs, and single utility allowances) for all households
with qualifying expenses. In States that use but do not mandate a SUA,
the proposed rule would maintain a household's ability to choose using
actual costs in determining eligibility and benefit amount. For States
that use an HCSUA, mandatory or not, the HCSUA would be set by FNS
using the standardized methodology, annually, on the fiscal year
calendar. FNS would be responsible for releasing the HCSUA figures via
memo to the State agencies near the same time that cost of living
adjustments are announced and would make them available publicly on the
FNS website. The Department intends for the proposed standardization to
begin the first fiscal year following publication of the final rule.
Changes to Current SUA Options
Program rules currently allow State agencies to vary SUAs by
factors such as household size, geographical areas, or season. For
FY2019, no State chose to vary by season, only two States elected to
vary by geographical area, and six States varied by household size. The
number of States taking these options has been consistent in recent
years.
The proposed rule would eliminate the State options to vary
allowances by household size and geographic areas as part of the
Department's efforts to bring greater benefit equity across States and
in recognition of the low number of States taking these options.
One of the two States that currently choose to vary standards by
geographical areas is Alaska. Alaska and Hawaii are granted additional
considerations under program rules to account for cost of living
differences, as well as further program flexibilities for Alaska
because of extremely remote geography. Although no exceptions for
Alaska and Hawaii are included in the proposed rule, the Department is
interested in receiving public comments on whether additional attention
or exceptions should be granted to Alaska and Hawaii in the proposed
changes and how those might be best accomplished.
Consistent with the proposed rule's standardization efforts to
promote more benefit equity, the Department is also proposing to
eliminate the option for State agencies to include the excess heating
and cooling costs of public housing residents in the LUA if they wish
to offer the lower standard to such households. The proposed rule would
also eliminate the option for States to include the cooling expense in
the electricity utility allowance for States where cooling expenses are
minimal. Such flexibility would not support efforts to promote
consistency and parity with this deduction and therefore the Department
believes the option would no longer be appropriate to offer. As such,
the proposed rule clarifies that residents of public housing who incur
heating or cooling costs in States that mandate SUAs would receive the
HCSUA. The Department is particularly interested in receiving comments
from State agencies as to whether removing these options pose
administrative challenges based on their current practices.
LUAs and Single Utility Allowances
Under the proposed rule, States would continue to use their own
methodologies to determine LUA and single utility allowance amounts
that do not exceed maximum limits established by the Department. In FY
2017, less than 8 percent of households used a single utility allowance
or LUA when determining SNAP eligibility and benefit levels. Although a
small portion of SNAP participants are impacted, the Department is
proposing that these standards be capped at a percentage of the HCSUA
to extend standardization efforts and mitigate future inconsistencies.
The Department is proposing to cap LUAs at 70 percent of a State's
HCSUA amount and single utility allowances at 35 percent of a State's
HCSUA. When analyzing the SUA values developed as part of the 2017 SUA
Study, it was found that most States' single utility allowances were
near 35 percent of their HCSUA. Similarly, most States' LUAs did not
exceed 70 percent of their HCSUA.
States would still need to calculate their own LUA and single
utility allowance figures annually under the proposed changes. The
methodology and final figures would continue to be subject to the cap,
as well as FNS review and approval. FNS would be responsible for
releasing the capped amounts via memo to the State agencies near the
same time that HCSUA figures and cost of living adjustments are
announced and would make them available publicly on the FNS website.
The Department is interested in receiving public comments on the
proposed percentage caps, particularly from State agencies.
Updating the Telephone SUA
State agencies may use SUAs for any allowable utility expense
listed at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(ii)(C). Allowable utility expenses listed
in the section include the costs of: Heating and cooling; electricity
or fuel used for purposes other than heating or cooling; water; sewage;
well and septic tank installation and maintenance; garbage collection;
and telephone. The Department is proposing to amend this section to add
the cost of basic internet service.
The proposed inclusion of costs for basic internet service as an
allowable utility expense for the shelter deduction is in recognition
of internet access becoming a necessity for school, work, and job
search. The proposed rule replaces the telephone standard (i.e., the
single utility allowance for telephone costs) with a broader
telecommunications standard that consists of costs for one telephone,
basic internet service, or both. State agencies would not be authorized
to create a single utility allowance solely for basic internet service;
rather, basic internet service costs would be allowed as part of the
new telecommunications standard. FNS will calculate the maximum amount
annually by reviewing nationally available low-cost plans for one
telephone line and basic internet access. The Department estimates that
the telecommunications standard would be approximately $55 in FY 2020.
Similar to LUAs and single utility allowances, States would still need
to calculate their own telecommunications figures annually under the
proposed changes. The
[[Page 52812]]
methodology and final figures would be subject to the cap, as well as
FNS review and approval.
The new telecommunications standard would be available to
households with utility costs for one telephone, basic internet
service, or both. Households with basic internet and/or telephone costs
would be able to either receive the telecommunications standard or have
their actual costs counted, but actual costs would be limited up to the
amount of the telecommunications standard. For example, households with
more than basic internet packages, such as those combined with cable
television service, would not have the cost of their entire package
counted. Rather these households would either receive the
telecommunications SUA or have their actual costs of phone and/or basic
internet counted, up to the amount of the standard, depending on the
option their State selects. Additionally, States may include the
telecommunications costs as part of their LUA so long as the
telecommunications share of the LUA would not exceed the amount set for
the telecommunications standard. The Department is interested in
receiving public comments, particularly from State agencies, on this
proposed 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
As required for rules that have been designated as economically
significant by the Office of Management and Budget, a Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) was developed for this proposed rule. It follows this
rule as an Appendix. The following summarizes the conclusions of the
RIA:
The Department has estimated the total reduction in Federal
spending associated with the proposed rule to be approximately $4.5
billion over the five years 2021-2025. This represents a reduction in
Federal transfers (SNAP benefits). The Department estimates that
approximately 16 percent of households will see an increase in their
monthly SNAP allotment and another 19 percent will see a decrease in
their monthly SNAP allotment. A very small number of households are
estimated to lose eligibility for SNAP (less than 8,000 households).
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 and significant impacts on a
substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, the
Secretary certifies that this rule would not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would not have an impact on small entities
because it primarily impacts SNAP households. Small entities, such as
smaller SNAP-authorized retailers, would not be subject to any new
requirement. On average, SNAP 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 impacts on large entities. As of FY 2017,
approximately 76 percent of authorized SNAP retailers (about 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 $1 billion per year in net. However, not all States will see
benefit losses; in some States HCSUAs will increase under the proposed
rule, resulting in larger SNAP benefits for many households. In total,
29 States are expected to see a net loss of SNAP benefits (about $1.54
billion annually) and 22 are expected to see a net gain (about $540
million annually). Based on USDA data, about 53 percent of stores would
likely see lower redemptions and 47 percent would likely see increased
redemptions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Data from the USDA Store Tracking and Redemption System
(STARS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In States with reduced benefits, this would equate to about a $177
loss of revenue per small store on average per month [(1.54 billion x
15%)/(109,000 stores/12 months)]. In 2017 the average small store
redeemed more than $3,800 in SNAP each month; the potential loss of
benefits represents about 4.7 percent of their SNAP redemptions and
only a small portion of their gross sales. Based on 2017 redemption
data, a 4.7 percent reduction in SNAP redemptions represented between
0.01 and 0.92 percent of these stores' gross sales.
In States that gain benefits, this would equate to about a $70
increase in revenue per small store on average per month [(0.54 billion
x 15%)/(96,000 stores/12 months)]. This potential increase in benefits
represents about 1.8 percent of their SNAP redemptions and between 0.01
and 0.36 percent of these stores' 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. The designation, as regulatory or deregulatory under E.O.
13771, of any final rule resulting from the notice of proposed
rulemaking will be informed by comments received. Details on the
preliminary estimates of costs and cost savings may be found in the
economic analysis.
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 their 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 needed for a rule,
Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule.
This proposed rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any
one year. Thus, the rule is
[[Page 52813]]
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 12372
SNAP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under
Number No.10.551. For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule codified
in 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V and related Notice (48 FR 29115), this
Program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which
requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
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, impose substantial
direct compliance costs on State and local governments, and are not
required by statute, 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 setting HCSUA and SUA
national standards and determined that this rule has federalism
impacts. However, this rule does not preempt State or local law and
does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments, so under section (6)(b) of the Executive Order, a
federalism summary is not required. The Department requests comments
from State and local officials as to the need for national standards
and any alternatives to the standards proposed.
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 unless so specified in the Effective Dates section
of the final rule. Prior to 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 a careful review of the rule's objective and implementation, FNS
has determined that this rule is likely to have an adverse or
disproportionate impact on protected groups. Households with an elderly
or disabled individual will be disproportionally affected by changes to
HCSUAs, both positively and negatively, because these households do not
face the cap on excess shelter costs and therefore would experience a
greater benefit increase or decrease.
Executive Order 13175
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. Additionally, other policy statements
or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes also require consultation. FNS
provided opportunity for consultation on the issue on June 27, 2019,
but received no feedback. If further consultation is requested, the
Office of Tribal Relations will work with FNS to ensure quality
consultation is provided.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR
1320) requires that 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 will alter information collection requirements that are
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget;
therefore, FNS is submitting for public comment the changes in the
information collection burden that would change the OMB burden
inventory as a result of adoption of the proposals in the rule. While
FNS is requesting a new OMB Control Number for these requirements in
this proposed rule, this proposal would reduce the existing burden on
State agencies currently approved under OMB Control Number 0584-0496;
Expiration Date 3/31/2020. FNS intends to merge this new collection to
currently approved burden after the final rulemaking information
collection request is approved.
Written comments on the information collection requirements
included in this proposed rule must be received by November 4, 2019.
Send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for FNS, 725 17th St. NW,
Washington, DC 20503, or via [email protected]. Please
reference the title of this rule in your message. Please also send a
copy of your comments to [email protected]
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, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology. All responses to this notice will be
summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Once OMB approves the information collection request (ICR), the agency
will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register announcing its
approval.
Title: Standardization of State Heating and Cooling Standard
Utility Allowances.
OMB Number: 0584-NEW.
Expiration Date: [Not Yet Determined.]
Type of Request: New collection.
Abstract: Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as
amended, permits States to use standard utility allowances (SUAs) in
lieu of actual utility expenses in determining a household's shelter
costs for the purposes of the excess shelter deduction.
Under current regulations, all States may develop SUAs for their
SNAP households to be used in lieu of actual costs. States currently
can decide which of the allowable utility expenses will be covered by
SUAs and how they are calculated. The proposed rule would provide a
clearer and more consistent
[[Page 52814]]
policy by standardizing the methodology for calculating SUAs.
In the currently approved burden, FNS estimates 53 State agencies
will submit one request each to adjust the SUAs, for a total annual
response of 53 requests at a minimum of 10 hours annually (53 State
agencies x 1 SUAs request = 53 total annual responses x10 hours = 530
hours). The total burden for this provision is estimated to be 530
hours per year. However, with this rule FNS estimates 53 State agencies
will submit one request each to adjust the SUAs, for a total annual
response of 53 requests at a minimum of 1 hour annually (53 State
agencies x 1 SUAs request = 53 total annual responses x 1 hours = 53
hours). The total burden for this altered provision is estimated to be
53 hours per year. This is a decrease of -447 burden hours for this
requirement.
The rule would make FNS responsible for calculating the heating and
cooling SUA (HCSUA) for all States. States still have the option to not
use the HCSUA and take a household's actual costs instead, however, if
a State uses an HCSUA, it has to be the amount that FNS calculated. The
rule would also cap the amounts of the LUAs and single utility
expenses. States would continue to calculate these figures; however,
their values cannot exceed the capped amount set by FNS.
States would continue to choose which types of SUAs they will use
and report this information to FNS annually. Because FNS would
calculate HCSUA, telecommunications SUA, and caps for LUAs and single
utility allowance, the required burden on States would be significantly
reduced. This is the lone reporting requirement that is being addressed
in this section.
The recordkeeping is maintained under OMB Control Number 0584-0496;
Expiration Date: 3/31/2020. There is no additional recordkeeping burden
required for this new OMB Control Number because there is no
requirement to maintain the reports submitted to FNS.
Description of Costs and Assumptions: States will be required to
report to FNS annually. The Department estimates that this reporting
will require an hour to prepare and process.
Reporting Burden Activities: The activity is limited to
preparation, processing and submitting a report to FNS annually
regarding the SUA(s) the State will use in SNAP.
We have rounded these burden times in the chart below.
The overall estimated burden we are requesting for States is 53
total annual burden hours and 53 total annual responses.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 53 State Agencies.
Estimated Frequency of Response: 1.
Estimated Total Annual Responses: 53.
Estimated Time per Response: 1.0 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 53.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous
Estimated Estimated Total Number of Estimated submission Difference Differences Hourly Estimated
Reg. section Affected public number of frequency annual burden hours total total due to due to wage rate cost to
respondents of response responses per burden person program adjustments * respondents
response hours hours changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
273.9(d)(6)(iii)(B)................. State Agencies........ 53 1 53 1 53 530 --477 0 30.12 $1,596
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total..................... ...................... 53 1 53 1 53 530 -477 0 30.12 1,596
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2018 Occupational and Wage Statistics--the salaries of the case managers are considered to be ``Social Workers--other'' functions performed by
State and local agency staff are valued at $30.12 per staff hour 21-1029 (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes211029.htm).
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 practice and procedure, Claims, Employment, Food
stamps, Fraud, Government employees, Grant programs--social programs,
Supplemental Security Income, Wages.
Determining household eligibility and benefit levels, Income and
deductions.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 273 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 273--CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILE HOUSEHOLDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 273 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
0
2. In Sec. 273.9, revise paragraphs (d)(6)(ii)(C),
(d)(6)(iii)(A),(d)(6)(iii)(D) and (E) to read as follows:
Sec. 273.9 Income and deductions.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The cost of fuel for heating; cooling (i.e., the operation of
air conditioning systems or room air conditioners); electricity or fuel
used for purposes other than heating or cooling; water; sewerage; well
installation and maintenance; septic tank system installation and
maintenance; garbage and trash collection; all service fees required to
provide service for one telephone, including, but not limited to, basic
service fees, wire maintenance fees, subscriber line charges, relay
center surcharges, 911 fees, and taxes (not to exceed the amount of
telecommunications standard described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(B)(3) of
this section); basic internet connection (not to exceed the amount of
telecommunications standard described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(B)(3) of
this section); and fees charged by the utility provider for initial
installation of the utility. One-time deposits cannot be included.
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) A State agency may use standard utility allowances (standards)
in place of actual costs in determining a household's excess shelter
deduction. The State agency may use different types of standards but
cannot allow households the use of two standards that include the same
expense. Only utility costs identified in paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(C) of
this section may be used in developing standards described in
(d)(6)(iii)(A)(1) and (3). The following standards are allowable:
(1) An individual standard for each type of utility expense;
(2) A standard utility allowance for all utilities that includes
heating or cooling costs (HCSUA); and
(3) A limited utility allowance (LUA) that includes electricity and
fuel for purposes other than heating or cooling, water, sewerage, well
and septic tank installation and maintenance, and garbage or trash
collection. The LUA must include expenses for at least two utilities.
The LUA may also include telecommunication costs so long as the share
of telecommunications costs in the LUA does not exceed the maximum
amount set annually by FNS, as
[[Page 52815]]
described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(B)(3) of this section.
(B) FNS will calculate the standards and caps described in
paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A) of this section annually, with the exception
of the standards described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(B)(4) of this
section. The State agency must review the standards described in
paragraphs (d)(6)(iii)(B)(2), (d)(6)(iii)(B)(3), and (d)(6)(iii)(B)(4),
annually and make adjustments to reflect changes in costs, rounded to
the nearest whole dollar. State agencies must provide the amounts of
standards to FNS when they are changed annually and submit
methodologies used in developing and updating standards to FNS for
approval when the methodologies are developed or changed.
(1) For the HCSUA described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A)(2),
standards will be calculated by FNS based on the 80th percentile of low
income households' utility costs in the State. FNS will use the best-
available utility cost information from national Federal surveys, such
as the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (RECS).
(2) For the LUA described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A)(3), standards
will be capped at 70 percent of the State's HCSUA.
(3) For individual utility expenses described in paragraph
(d)(6)(iii)(A)(1), standards will be capped at 35 percent of the
State's HCSUA, with the exception of the telecommunications standard.
The telecommunications standard will have a maximum amount for all
States set annually by FNS. The telecommunications standard includes
the cost of one telephone, basic internet service, or both.
(4) Standards for Guam and the Virgin Islands may be developed by
the State agency for utility costs identified in paragraph
(d)(6)(ii)(C).
* * * * *
(D) At initial certification, recertification, and when a household
moves, the household may choose between a standard or verified actual
utility costs for any allowable expense identified in paragraph
(d)(6)(ii)(C) of this section, unless the State agency has opted, with
FNS approval, to mandate use of a standard. Households certified for 24
months may also choose to switch between a standard and actual costs at
the time of the mandatory interim contact required by Sec.
273.10(f)(1) if the State agency has not mandated use of the standard.
(E) Option to make standard utility allowances mandatory (1) A
State agency may mandate use of standard utility allowances for all
households with qualifying expenses if the State uses one or more
standards that include the costs of heating and cooling and one or more
standards approved by FNS that do not include the costs of heating and
cooling, and the standards will not result in increased program costs.
The prohibition on increasing program costs does not apply to necessary
increases to standards resulting from utility cost increases.
(2) If the State agency chooses to mandate use of standard utility
allowances, it must use a standard utility allowance that includes
heating or cooling costs to residents of public housing units which
have central utility meters and which charge the households only for
excess heating or cooling costs. The State agency also must not prorate
a standard utility allowance that includes heating or cooling costs
provided to a household that lives and shares heating or cooling
expenses with others.
(3) In a State that chooses this option, households entitled to the
standard may not claim actual expenses, even if the expenses are higher
than the standard. Households not entitled to the standard may claim
actual allowable expenses.
* * * * *
Dated: September 24, 2019.
Stephen L. Censky,
Deputy Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 2019-21287 Filed 10-2-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P