[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9779-9796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02731]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Part 416

[Docket No. SSA-2021-0014]
RIN 0960-AI60


Omitting Food From In-Kind Support and Maintenance Calculations

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to update our regulations to remove food from the 
calculation of In-Kind Support and Maintenance (ISM). We also propose 
to add conforming language to our definition of income, excluding food 
from the ISM calculation. Accordingly, Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) applicants and recipients would no longer need to provide 
information about their food expenses for us to consider in our ISM 
calculations. We expect that these changes will simplify our rules, 
making them less cumbersome to administer and easier for the public to 
understand and follow. These simplifications would make it easier for 
SSI applicants and recipients to comply with our program requirements, 
which would save time for both them and us, and improve the equitable 
treatment of food assistance within the SSI program. The proposed rule 
also includes other, minor revisions to the regulations related to 
income, including clarifying our longstanding position that income may 
be received ``constructively'' (we will define this term below).

DATES: To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive 
them no later than April 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of three methods--
internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times 
or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, 
please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2021-0014 so 
that we may associate your comments with the correct regulation.
    Caution: You should be careful to include in your comments only 
information that you wish to make publicly available. We strongly urge 
you not to include in your comments any personal information, such as 
Social Security numbers or medical information.
    1. Internet: We strongly recommend that you submit your comments 
via the internet. Please visit the Federal eRulemaking portal at 
https://www.regulations.gov. Use the ``search'' function to find docket 
number SSA-2021-0014. The system will issue a tracking number to 
confirm your submission. You will not be able to view your comment 
immediately because we must post each comment manually. It may take up 
to one week for your comment to be viewable.
    2. Fax: Fax comments to 1-833-410-1631.
    3. Mail: Mail your comments to the Office of Regulations and 
Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, 3rd Floor (East) Altmeyer Building, Baltimore, Maryland 
21235-6401.
    Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal 
eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov or in person, during 
regular business hours, by arranging with the contact person identified 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Levingston, Office of Income 
Security Programs, 6401 Security Blvd., Robert M. Ball Building, Suite 
2512B,

[[Page 9780]]

Woodlawn, MD 21235, 410-966-7384. For information on eligibility or 
filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 
or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security 
Online, at https://www.socialsecurity.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    We administer the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. SSI 
provides monthly payments to: (1) adults and children with a disability 
or blindness; and (2) adults age 65 and older. These individuals must 
meet multiple eligibility requirements, including having resources and 
income below specified amounts.\1\ Resources are cash or other liquid 
assets, or any real or personal property that individuals (or their 
spouses, if any) own and could convert to cash to be used for their 
support and maintenance.\2\ Income is anything the applicant or 
recipient receives in cash or in-kind that can be used to meet food and 
shelter needs.\3\ Applicants' and recipients' resources may affect 
their SSI eligibility, while their income may affect both their 
eligibility and payment amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 20 CFR 416.202 for a list of the eligibility 
requirements. See also 20 CFR 416.420 for general information on how 
we compute the amount of the monthly payment by reducing the benefit 
rate by the amount of countable income as calculated under the rules 
in subpart K of 20 CFR part 416.
    \2\ 20 CFR 416.1201.
    \3\ 20 CFR 416.1102. See also 20 CFR 416.1103 for examples of 
items that are not considered income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once a claimant is found eligible for SSI, their monthly payment is 
determined by subtracting countable income from the Federal benefit 
rate (FBR), which is the monthly maximum Federal SSI payment.\4\ The 
FBR for 2023 is $914 for an individual and $1,371 for an eligible 
individual with an eligible spouse.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 20 CFR 416.405 through 416.415. Some States supplement 
the FBR amount.
    \5\ 87 FR 64296, 64298 (2022). A table of the monthly maximum 
Federal SSI payment amounts for an eligible individual, and for an 
eligible individual with an eligible spouse, is available at https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSIamts.html. When the FBR is adjusted for 
the cost of living, the amount of the potential ISM reduction 
adjusts accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Typically, after the first $65 earned each month, a recipient's SSI 
benefit will be reduced 50 cents for every $1 of earned income. For 
example, a recipient who earns $101 each month from a part-time job 
would receive $896 in monthly benefits in 2023. This is calculated by 
excluding the first $65 of the $101 earned ($36 remaining) and then 
reducing the SSI payment by half of that amount--an $18 reduction 
against the original payment of $914. Additionally, for income that is 
unearned (for example, cash received from a family member), after the 
first $20 received each month, for each dollar of unearned income a 
recipient's SSI payment is reduced by $1. For example, a recipient who 
received $50 from a grandparent each month would receive in $884 in 
monthly SSI benefits. This is calculated by excluding the first $20 of 
the $50 received ($30 remaining) and then reducing the SSI payment by 
that amount--a $30 reduction against the original payment of $914.
    Income that affects the monthly benefit amount can be provided in 
cash or in-kind. Generally, we assess in-kind items at their current 
market value \6\ under the presumption that they can be sold or 
otherwise converted to meet expenses. However, we treat the actual 
provision of in-kind contributions of food or shelter to an applicant 
or recipient differently than any other type of in-kind item.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Current market value (CMV) means the price of an item on the 
open market in your locality (20 CFR 416.1101). We generally 
determine that the CMV of food or shelter is equal to the amount a 
vendor would charge for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, when food,\7\ shelter, or both are provided to an SSI 
applicant or recipient (e.g., someone pays for rent, mortgage, food, or 
utilities), we consider it ``in-kind support and maintenance'' 
(ISM).\8\ For example, if an applicant or recipient lives with his 
brother and does not pay rent, we would consider the shelter that his 
brother provides as ISM. Similarly, if an applicant or recipient lives 
with a friend and consumes the food in her friend's home but does not 
contribute toward the food or rent, we consider the food and shelter 
that the friend provides as ISM. As another example, if an applicant or 
recipient lives alone but her parents bring her groceries each month 
and pay her utility bills, we consider her parents' help as ISM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We use the term ``food'' as commonly defined (e.g., it 
includes items like groceries and meals purchased from a 
restaurant).
    \8\ Cash provided to purchase food is not considered as ISM. It 
is considered cash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these circumstances, due to the complexity of determining the 
precise value of ISM and how these forms of support impact overall 
household operating expenses for a given individual, we typically 
reduce the SSI benefit by approximately one-third.\9\ We discuss the 
specific means of doing so in the next section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The SSI program included the one-third reduction provision 
in the statute to prevent us from having to determine the actual 
value of room and board when a recipient lives with a friend or 
relative. For more information, see Balkus, Richard; Sears, James; 
Wilschke, Susan; and Wixon, Bernard. Simplifying the Supplemental 
Security Income Program: Options for Eliminating the Counting of In-
kind Support and Maintenance. Social Security Bulletin, vol. 68, no. 
4, 2008, www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n4/v68n4p15.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because ISM requires that applicants or recipients receive food, 
shelter, or both, by definition, ISM does not apply if applicants or 
recipients live alone and pay for their own food and shelter, or if 
they live with other people and pay their pro rata share of the food 
and shelter expenses.\10\ Further, ISM does not apply when applicants 
or recipients live only with a spouse and minor children, and nobody 
outside the household pays for their food and shelter, regardless of 
whether the spouse or minor child provides food or shelter.\11\ 
Additional circumstances are discussed further in our regulations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As a general principle, if SSI recipients do not contribute 
their pro-rata share of household operating expenses, but they do 
contribute an amount within $20 of their pro rata share of household 
operating expenses, we treat the situation as if the recipients pay 
their pro-rata share under our tolerance policy, and do not reduce 
benefits because of ISM.
    \11\ See 20 CFR 416.1148.
    \12\ See 20 CFR 416.1142 through 416.1148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like other forms of income, ISM can reduce the amount of SSI 
benefits. When ISM applies, we determine its value using one of two 
rules: (1) the Value of the One-Third Reduction (VTR) rule or (2) the 
Presumed Maximum Value (PMV) rule.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 20 CFR 416.1130, 416.1131, and 416.1140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The VTR Rule

    The VTR rule applies when an applicant or recipient \14\ lives 
throughout a month in another person's household and receives both food 
and shelter from others living in that household.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ We refer to ``applicant or recipient'' here and throughout 
the NPRM when we mean ``applicant, recipient, or couple'' for ease 
of reference, except where reference to the couple is specifically 
relevant.
    \15\ See 20 CFR 416.1132 for how we define living in another 
person's household. To clarify, we note that under current rules, we 
apply the VTR rule when an applicant or recipient lives in another 
person's household throughout a month and all the food and shelter 
expenses are paid in part by others living inside the household and 
part from outside. See also Program Operations Manual System (POMS) 
SI 00835.200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example: Joe lives in his cousin's house and consumes the food in 
his cousin's house. He does not contribute toward the food or rent. We 
would assess the ISM Joe receives under the VTR rule because he lives 
in another person's household and receives food and shelter from 
someone in that household.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ SSI applicants and recipients are responsible for reporting 
changes to their living arrangements as they occur to ensure an 
accurate calculation of their monthly benefit amount. Recipients are 
informed of these reporting responsibilities during their initial 
claim, pre-effectuation, and redetermination. This means applicants 
and recipients are responsible for reporting many factors related to 
their benefits, including changes to food expenses, which may 
fluctuate from month to month. See 20 CFR 416.701 through 416.714 
for reporting responsibilities.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9781]]

    Under the VTR rule, we reduce by one-third the applicable FBR.\17\ 
Because the FBR for 2023 is $914 for an individual and $1,371 for an 
eligible individual with an eligible spouse, when we apply the VTR rule 
in 2023, we reduce SSI benefits by $304.66 ($914 x \1/3\) for 
individuals and $457 ($1,371 x \1/3\) for an eligible individual with 
an eligible spouse.\18\ This means the maximum this individual could 
receive in SSI benefits for that month is $609.34. This amount is 
calculated and applied before we look at certain other factors, such as 
earned income, which could further reduce the benefit amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The one-third reduction is established by statute. See 
section 1612(a)(2)(A) of Social Security Act (Act) (42 U.S.C. 
1382a(a)(2)(A)). Accordingly, we are not proposing changes to the 
calculation of benefits under the VTR rule.
    \18\ See 20 CFR 416.1147 through 416.1149 for special 
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PMV Rule

    The PMV rule applies when an applicant or recipient receives ISM, 
but the VTR rule does not apply. This means we apply the PMV rule when 
an applicant or recipient receives ISM but does not receive both food 
and shelter from the household in which the applicant or recipient 
lives.\19\ In other words, the PMV rule would apply when applicants or 
recipients live in their own household, but someone helps them with 
food, shelter, or both; they live in someone else's household, but only 
receive food or shelter (not both) from the household in which they 
live; \20\ or they live in a non-medical institution as described in 20 
CFR 416.1141(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Currently, when deciding whether to apply the PMV or VTR 
rule, we consider that an applicant or recipient is not subject to 
the VTR rule when the applicant or recipient (or at least one member 
of an eligible couple) designates part or all of his or her 
contribution toward household operating expenses for food or shelter 
and the contribution equals or exceeds the pro rata share of 
household operating expenses for food or shelter. This is because 
the applicant or recipient is not receiving both food and shelter 
from the household in which he or she resides. In other words, we 
evaluate ISM under the PMV rule when applicants or recipients 
contribute their share of food or shelter to their household 
operating expenses. See 20 CFR 416.1130 through 416.1141.
    \20\ Unlike the VTR rule, which as previously explained derives 
the one-third reduction explicitly from section 1612(a)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we established the PMV rule through our rulemaking authority. 
The PMV rule enables us to efficiently reduce benefits when ISM is 
involved instead of having to attempt to value the ISM, but also 
allows individuals to rebut and use a real valuation of the ISM if 
they believe it would be beneficial for their claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example: Lola lives with her minor daughter in an apartment. Lola's 
mother brings them groceries every week and pays two-thirds of Lola's 
rent. Although Lola receives assistance with both food and shelter, we 
assess the ISM Lola receives under the PMV rule, because she lives in 
her own household.
    Example: Michael lives with his sister in his sister's apartment. 
He does not pay rent but pays for his own food.\21\ He has special 
dietary restrictions and does not consume any of the household's food. 
Though he lives in another person's household, we would assess the ISM 
Michael receives under the PMV rule, because he does not receive both 
food and shelter from that household (he only receives shelter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ If applicable, under our current policies, we ask 
applicants or recipients if their contributions are allocated for 
food or shelter. When we ask if they are earmarking their 
contribution to either food or shelter and they say, ``no,'' we look 
at the contribution to determine if they meet their pro rata share 
of all expenses listed on the Household Expenses and Contributions 
page within the SSI Claims System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example: John, an eligible individual, leaves his permanent 
residence and enters a jail on March 15. He is released on May 6 to his 
home where he has rental liability and pays for all of his food and 
shelter. No ISM is charged in March for the period spent in jail 
because, as of the first of the month, he was in his permanent 
residence and he was not incarcerated throughout the month. In April, 
John is considered ineligible for a benefit payment due to 
incarceration for a full month. However, upon release, his benefits are 
reinstated, and John is charged ISM under the PMV rule for the food and 
shelter received while in jail from May 1 through May 6. He is not 
charged ISM under the VTR rule because he did not receive food and 
shelter throughout a month.
    Under the PMV rule, any food or shelter received is presumed to be 
worth a set maximum value, unless the applicant or recipient rebuts 
this presumption. The set maximum value is one-third of the FBR, plus 
the amount of the general income exclusion, which is currently $20.\22\ 
Therefore, when we use the set maximum value under the PMV rule, we 
reduce SSI benefits by $324.66 (one-third of the current FBR of $914 
($304.66), plus the general income exclusion of $20) for individuals 
and $477 (one-third of the current FBR of $1,371 ($457), plus the 
general income exclusion of $20) for couples. Applicants or recipients 
can rebut the presumption that the food or shelter is worth the set 
maximum value. If applicants or recipients successfully rebut that 
presumption, we reduce their benefits by a smaller amount or not at 
all.\23\ Note that the $20 general income exclusion does not apply when 
we use the VTR rule.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Sec.  416.1124(c)(12).
    \23\ 20 CFR 416.1140(2)(ii).
    \24\ See Sec.  416.1124(c)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To rebut the presumption that the food or shelter provided is worth 
the maximum value, the applicant or recipient, or the applicant's or 
recipient's representative payee, must provide evidence showing that 
either: (1) the current market value of any food or shelter received, 
minus any payment that someone makes for them, is less than the PMV; or 
(2) the actual amount someone else pays for the applicant's or 
recipient's food or shelter is less than the PMV. The applicant, 
recipient or representative payee has 30 days to submit evidence of a 
lower amount (e.g., a payment receipt, a bill with a lower amount, a 
bank payment). If the evidence is not provided, we calculate the 
applicant's or recipient's ISM using the set maximum value.
    When applying the PMV rule, we consider whether ISM is provided by 
someone inside the household, outside the household, or both; the 
number of people in the household; and whether the applicant or 
recipient is unmarried or part of an eligible couple.\25\ ISM 
calculations under the PMV rule account for these factors to determine 
an applicant's or recipient's pro rata share of the total household 
operating expenses.\26\ Once we have determined the pro rata share of 
the household operating expenses, we then consider the applicant's or 
recipient's contribution toward those expenses. The difference between 
the applicant's or recipient's share of the expenses and the 
applicant's or recipient's contribution toward those expenses is the 
amount by which we reduce the

[[Page 9782]]

applicant's or recipient's benefits for ISM (up to the applicable 
limit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For example, if the applicant or recipient is part of an 
eligible couple, we follow the same steps as we would to compute an 
individual's ISM amount using the PMV rule except we double the pro 
rata share of expenses (to account for two people), and we subtract 
the couple's combined contribution (instead of the individual's 
contribution) toward the household operating expenses.
    \26\ Household operating expenses are the household's total 
monthly expenditures for food, rent, mortgage, property taxes, 
heating fuel, gas, electricity, water, sewerage, and garbage 
collection service. (20 CFR 416.1133). Under the proposed policy, 
food would be omitted from this calculation. Note that this term is 
distinct from certain uses of ``household expenses'' in other 
aspects of the SSI program, such as the monthly household expenses 
information collected on the SSA-632 (Request for Waiver of 
Overpayment Recovery).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example: Larry lives with his brother and sister-in-law in their 
household. If he receives both food and shelter from his brother and 
sister-in-law, we would assess his ISM under the VTR rule, reducing his 
benefits by $304.66 each month. However, in this example, he provides 
evidence that he pays for his share of shelter expenses, so we assess 
his ISM under the PMV rule (because he is not receiving both food and 
shelter from the household in which he lives). He tells us that he 
consumes the household's food, but that he does not contribute toward 
the food expenses. Upon prompting from our technician about whether he 
wished to rebut the presumption of the maximum value, Larry rebuts the 
presumption that the food or shelter provided is worth the maximum 
value and demonstrates that the household's food expenses are $500 
monthly.\27\ We consider Larry's share of the food expenses to be 
$166.66 (the total household food expenses divided among three people), 
and we reduce Larry's benefits by this amount. For comparison, the set 
maximum value under the PMV rule would have reduced his benefits by 
$324.66, and the VTR rule would have reduced his benefits by $304.66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ When explaining PMV and the process of rebutting to an 
applicant or recipient, we do not provide a specific script to our 
technicians (see SI 00835.320 B.2 for the guidance we provide 
technicians.) In summary, technicians explain to applicants or 
recipients: (1) that they are receiving ISM, (2) what form of ISM we 
are charging and the value, and (3) that they have the right to 
rebut the PMV. While we do not require technicians to use the term 
``rebut,'' it has been used historically in our written 
communications with the applicant or recipient, including the 
``Rebuttal Rights Notification'' letter that is sent after the 
conversation.
    Procedurally, when applicants or recipients choose to rebut the 
PMV, the technician explains to them that they have 30 days to 
provide evidence showing that the actual value is less than the PMV. 
In some cases, an applicant or recipient may have evidence in-hand 
to present to us, the technician is able to verify the household 
expenses, and the rebuttal is easily processed. Otherwise, the 
applicant or recipient is responsible for providing us the necessary 
evidence within 30 days. However, if the individual indicates a need 
for assistance, the technician is responsible for assisting to 
obtain the necessary evidence, per policy.
    We have found that most applicants and recipients who state they 
wish to rebut the PMV follow up within 30 days with the necessary 
documentation. Some applicants and recipients state they want to 
rebut, but don't provide the documentation within 30 days, and so 
the PMV generally is applied.
    We do not have any indication that applicants and recipients for 
whom the PMV applies have any confusion surrounding the term 
``rebuttal'' or face procedural challenges or undue burdens with 
understanding or providing the necessary evidence to successfully 
rebut the PMV. We have also not historically received any feedback 
regarding concerns with how this information is presented in the 
``Rebuttal Rights Notification'' letter that is typically sent as 
follow-up after the conversation between the technician and the 
applicant or recipient. However, as noted in the section of this 
NPRM entitled ``Solicitation for Public Comment,'' we are 
specifically seeking comment regarding the experience of 
understanding and rebutting the PMV, including any feedback related 
to the clarity of the concept of ``rebuttal,'' suggestions for 
improving the ``Rebuttal Rights Notification'' letter (which we have 
documented), and other potential regulatory or programmatic 
improvements to simplify the rebuttal process. We note that while we 
may not be able to implement suggestions as an element of the final 
rule, feedback may still help inform future decisions regarding the 
rebuttal process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, we have provided the steps we use to calculate the 
value of ISM for an unmarried applicant or recipient, who has rental 
liability, when the ISM is provided by someone within the same 
household:
    Step 1: Divide the total household operating expenses (including 
food expenses) by the number of household members. The result is the 
applicant's or recipient's pro rata share.
    Step 2: Subtract the applicant's or recipient's contribution to the 
household operating expenses (including food expenses) from the 
applicant's or recipient's pro rata share. The result is the actual 
value of ISM. (The actual value cannot be less than $0.)
    Step 3: Compare the actual value of the ISM to the set maximum 
value under the PMV rule (currently $324.66). Select the lesser of the 
two values. Reduce the FBR by this amount.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ If there are other sources of ISM, there are additional 
calculations. For more examples of ISM computations, please see the 
section titled, ``HOW DOES MY LIVING ARRANGEMENT AFFECT MY SSI 
BENEFIT AMOUNT?'' available at https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-living-ussi.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When deciding whether to apply the PMV or VTR rule, we also follow 
the general principle that an applicant or recipient is not subject to 
the VTR rule when he or she (or at least one member of an eligible 
couple) designates part or all of his or her contribution toward 
household operating expenses for food or shelter, and the contribution 
equals or exceeds the pro rata share of household operating expenses 
for food or shelter. This is because such applicants or recipients are 
not receiving both food and shelter from the household in which they 
reside. In other words, we evaluate ISM under the PMV rule when 
applicants or recipients contribute their pro rata share of food or 
shelter to their household operating expenses.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See POMS SI 00835.170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In January 2022, there were approximately 7,341,000 individuals 
receiving SSI. Based on our internal data, we estimate that we reduced 
the payments of 793,000 SSI recipients because of ISM in the same 
month. Of these 793,000, we estimate that we reduced payments for 
358,000 SSI recipients under the VTR rule and that we reduced payments 
for 434,000 recipients under the PMV rule.\30\ Of those assessed under 
the PMV rule, we estimate that 207,000 (48%) successfully rebutted the 
presumed maximum value (i.e., their payments were reduced less than the 
PMV rule's set maximum value). In addition, we estimate that the mean 
ISM amount among all recipients evaluated under the PMV was $207 and 
the mean ISM amount among recipients who successfully rebutted the PMV 
was $112. Table 1 summarizes the status of ISM-impacted recipients in 
January 2022: \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Table 1 of our supplemental document titled, ``Tables 
of Administrative Data Related to In-Kind Support and Maintenance 
(ISM),'' available at www.regulations.gov as a supporting document 
for Docket SSA-2021-0014.
    \31\ The FBR for 2022 was $841 for an individual and $1,261 for 
an eligible individual with an eligible spouse. See 86 FR 58715, 
58717 (2021). When we applied the VTR rule in 2022, we reduced SSI 
benefits by $280.33 ($841 x \1/3\) for individuals and $420.33 
($1,261 x \1/3\) for an eligible individual with an eligible spouse.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 PMV--lower than
                                                                    VTR         PMV--maximum       the maximum
                                                                               amount applies        amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Recipients (count).................................         358,000           227,000           207,000
Affected Recipients (as percentage of all ISM recipients)...             45%               29%               26%
Mean ISM Amount.............................................         $280.33      \32\ $300.33              $112
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 9783]]

Proposed Change

    We propose to update our regulations to exclude food from the 
calculation of ISM. We also propose to add conforming language to our 
definition of income explaining that food would be an ISM exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ After the $20 general income exclusion is applied, if there 
is no other income, the benefit reduction in 2022 was $280.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we would no longer consider food expenses in our ISM 
calculations. Instead, we would consider only shelter expenses (i.e., 
rent, mortgage payments, real property taxes, heating fuel, gas, 
electricity, water, sewerage, and garbage collection services). We 
would continue to use the VTR or PMV rule to determine the value of the 
ISM provided. We would apply the VTR rule when applicants or recipients 
live in another person's household throughout a month and their shelter 
expenses (rent or mortgage, and utilities) are paid by others living 
inside the household,\33\ and when household operating expenses are 
paid by a combination of others living inside the household and others 
living outside the household. Alternatively, we would apply the PMV 
rule when applicants or recipients live in their own households, and 
someone outside the home pays for their shelter costs.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Example: If an applicant or recipient lives with a friend 
and does not pay for his share of the rent or mortgage and 
utilities, we would apply the VTR rule.
    \34\ Example: If an applicant or recipient lives by herself, but 
her sister pays her utility bills, we would use the PMV rule to 
evaluate the help provided by the applicant's or recipient's sister.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposal to remove food from ISM calculations could eliminate 
the benefit reduction that we currently apply to some recipients. This 
would occur in some cases in which an applicant or recipient allocated 
a higher proportion of their contribution toward shelter expenses. It 
could also occur in some cases if an applicant or recipient contributed 
to their household operating expenses generally. Further, in some 
circumstances, recipients may choose to reallocate their funds to 
adjust the amount they contribute toward shelter expenses.
    Example: Stan lives in an apartment with a friend, and Stan has 
rental liability, which means Stan is liable to a landlord for rent. 
Currently, his household operating expenses are $1,400 monthly ($1,000 
rent and utilities, and $400 food). Stan's pro rata share of the 
household operating expenses is $700. Stan contributes $500, 
specifically for rent. He does not contribute to the household's food 
expenses, though he consumes the household's food. In this example, 
during an interview with our technician, the technician informed Stan 
that they would apply the maximum value under the PMV rule and asked 
Stan if he intended to rebut the maximum value. Stan rebutted the 
amount of shelter ISM that he receives, indicating it is less than the 
maximum value. Under the current rule, we would apply the PMV rule and 
reduce Stan's monthly SSI benefits by $200 (the difference between his 
pro rata share and his contribution). Under the proposed rule, we would 
exclude food expenses, bringing the total household operating expenses 
to $1,000. This would reduce Stan's pro rata share to $500. If he still 
contributed $500 monthly to his household operating expenses, he would 
meet his pro rata share and we would no longer reduce his benefits 
because of ISM.
    Example: Jane lives in an apartment with her sister, and Jane has 
rental liability. Currently, their household operating expenses are 
$1,200 monthly ($900 rent and utilities, and $300 food). Jane's pro 
rata share of the household operating expenses is $600. Jane 
contributes $500. Currently, we would apply the PMV rule and reduce 
Jane's monthly SSI benefit by $100 (the difference between her pro rata 
share and her actual contribution). Under the proposed rule, we would 
exclude food expenses, bringing the total household operating expenses 
to $900. This would reduce Jane's pro rata share to $450. If she still 
contributed $500 monthly to her household operating expenses, we would 
no longer reduce her benefits because of ISM.
    We expect that some other applicants or recipients--those who do 
not contribute their full pro rata share even after food expenses would 
be omitted--may experience a smaller benefit reduction under the 
proposed policy. This could occur if a higher proportion of an 
applicant's or recipient's contribution is allotted toward shelter 
expenses, or if applicants or recipients contribute to their household 
operating expenses generally and they continue to contribute the same 
amount toward their household operating expenses even after, as 
proposed, food is no longer included in household operating expenses. 
When applicants or recipients pay a larger share of their expenses, 
they receive less ISM, meaning their benefits may be reduced less.
    Example: Mark owns his home, and his parents live with him. 
Currently, the household operating expenses are $2,050 monthly ($1,600 
for mortgage and utilities and $450 for food). Mark's pro rata share of 
the household operating expenses would be $683.33. Mark contributes 
$500. Currently, we would apply the PMV rule and reduce Mark's SSI 
benefit by $183.33 (the difference between his pro rata share and his 
actual contribution). Under the proposed rule, we would exclude food 
expenses, bringing the total household operating expenses down to 
$1,600. This would reduce Mark's pro rata share to $533.33. If he still 
contributed $500 monthly to his household operating expenses, we would 
reduce his benefits by $33.33 for ISM.
    Though we propose to eliminate food expenses from our ISM 
calculations, we would still consider food expenses for a narrow 
purpose: to determine whether to use the VTR rule or the PMV rule in 
certain circumstances. Food expenses would not be included in the 
actual calculation. We would continue to ask applicants and recipients 
certain questions about food. These questions are: (1) do you buy food 
separately from the household? (2) do you eat all meals out? and (3) do 
you receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits? 
If applicants or recipients answer ``yes'' to any of these questions, 
even if the applicant or recipient lives in another person's household, 
we would evaluate their ISM using the PMV rule to calculate ISM, and we 
propose to add this to our regulations.

 Summary of VTR Rule and PMV Rule Under Current and Proposed Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ISM rule             Current regulation    Proposed regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VTR Rule....................  When the Rule         When the Rule Would
                               Applies               Apply
                              We apply when            We would apply
                               applicants and           when applicants
                               recipients:              and recipients:
                                    live          live
                                    throughout a          throughout a
                                    month in              month in
                                    another               another
                                    person's              person's
                                    household; and.       household; and

[[Page 9784]]

 
                                                 
                                    receive both          receive
                                    food and              shelter from
                                    shelter from          others living
                                    others living         in the same
                                    in the same           household.
                                    household.
                              Amount We Reduce      Amount We Would
                               Benefits              Reduce Benefits
                              We reduce by one-        We would reduce
                               third of the             by one-third of
                               applicable FBR.          the applicable
                                                        FBR (no change).
PMV Rule....................  When the Rule         When the Rule Would
                               Applies               Apply
                                 We apply when the     We would apply
                                  applicant or          when the
                                  recipient             applicant or
                                  receives food or      recipient
                                  shelter but does      receives shelter
                                  not meet the          but does not
                                  conditions of         meet the
                                  the VTR rule.         conditions of
                                                        the VTR rule (no
                                                        change).
                              Amount We Reduce      Amount We Would
                               Benefits              Reduce Benefits
                                 If applicants or      If applicants or
                                  recipients            recipients
                                  successfully          successfully
                                  rebut the             rebut the
                                  presumption that      presumption that
                                  the food or           the shelter
                                  shelter provided      provided to them
                                  to them is worth      is worth a set
                                  a set maximum         maximum value,
                                  value, we             we would
                                  determine the         determine the
                                  actual value of       actual value of
                                  the ISM by            the ISM by
                                  subtracting the       subtracting the
                                  applicants' or        applicants' or
                                  recipients'           recipients'
                                  contribution          contribution
                                  from their pro        from their pro
                                  rata share of         rata share of
                                  the total             the total
                                  household             household
                                  operating             operating
                                  expenses              expenses
                                  (including food       (omitting food
                                  expenses).            expenses).
                              We reduce the            We would reduce
                               applicable FBR by        the applicable
                               the actual value.        FBR by the
                                                        actual value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we propose to update Sec.  416.1131 with clarifying 
language. Currently, our regulations state that for the VTR rule to 
apply, an applicant or recipient must receive both food and shelter 
from the person in whose household they are living. In practice, when 
determining whether to apply the VTR rule, we consider others in the 
household as well. We calculate the total household operating expenses 
and divide by the number of household members to calculate the pro rata 
share. If the applicant or recipient is paying his or her pro rata 
share, he or she would be eligible for a full benefit amount, before we 
take into consideration other factors (e.g., earned or unearned income) 
unrelated to the ISM policy that might impact the actual benefit amount 
for which they are eligible. We would clarify this longstanding 
practice in our regulations.
    Finally, we note that this proposal would not change our current 
rules that cover wages paid in kind (20 CFR 416.1110(a)(3)). Under 
section 1612(a)(1)(A) of the Act, we are required to consider food that 
an individual receives from an employer as wages. 20 CFR 416.1110(a)(3) 
will remain unchanged to stay consistent with the Act.

Codifying Counting Income Constructively

    Independent from removing food from the ISM calculation, we also 
propose to clarify that income may be received ``constructively.'' 
Income is received constructively, unless there are significant 
restrictions on the applicant's or recipient's ability to receive it, 
if it is under an applicant's or recipient's control or an applicant or 
recipient can use it despite not actually receiving it. Constructive 
receipt of income is part of our current policy and this change would 
make it clearer.

Justification for Change

    The basic purpose of SSI is to assure a minimum level of income to 
people who are aged, blind, or disabled and who have limited income and 
resources. As discussed above, we evaluate many types of income when 
determining whether someone is eligible under the program. We have 
historically included in-kind receipt of food in our consideration 
because food assistance helps people meet their basic needs. However, 
the complexities of our current food ISM policies may outweigh their 
utility. The Social Security Advisory Board stated in 2015 that ``the 
complexity of ISM rules contributes to the number of hours that SSA 
must spend to prevent under and overpayments--and diverts resources 
from other program integrity activities . . . .'' The Board also noted 
that ``collecting and verifying information to determine whether there 
is in-kind support at the application stage is time-consuming and 
having to continue to make that assessment is burdensome, both for the 
agency and the SSI recipient who must maintain constant communication 
with the agency.'' \35\ Moreover, the current ISM policy may insert 
barriers into what would otherwise be an innocuous receipt of a meal or 
food from an individual's friends or family. The current requirements 
for reporting in-kind food receipts could discourage SSI applicants and 
recipients from receiving an often informal but important form of help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See the Social Security Advisory Board Statement on the 
Supplemental Security Income Program, ``The Complexity of In-Kind 
Support and Maintenance.'' 2015, pgs, 4 and 6, https://www.ssab.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2015_-SSI_In-
Kind_SupportMaintenance.pdf#:~:text=The%20Complexity%20of%20In-
Kind%20Support%20and%20Maintenance%20Public,annual%20report%20to%20th
e%20President%20and%20the%20Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we propose to make the changes outlined for two 
reasons: to simplify our policy (which will allow for improved 
application, adjudication, compliance, and comprehension of our rules) 
and to promote equity by not disadvantaging an already vulnerable 
population when they receive food assistance. We expect that the 
proposed rules would provide increased financial security to impacted 
beneficiaries; provide consistent treatment of food support regardless 
of source; reduce unduly burdensome reporting requirements; and 
facilitate improved food security among certain beneficiaries.

Proposal Would Simplify the Policy

    The proposed change would simplify SSI policy in several ways. 
Removing a variable from our ISM calculations would: (1) reduce the 
amount of program rules an applicant or recipient needs to understand; 
(2) reduce the amount of information that applicants or recipients must 
report, both during the application process and in post-award 
reporting; \36\ (3) simplify and shorten processing; and (4) lead to 
fewer benefit recalculations (and therefore, for

[[Page 9785]]

example, possibly fewer ISM-related overpayments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Although we refer to the applicant or recipient for ease of 
reference, if the applicant or recipient has a representative payee, 
the representative payee would be responsible for reporting the 
information discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule follows a change we made to our program in 2005, 
when we published a final rule removing clothing from the definition of 
ISM,\37\ which simplified our policies and improved our work 
efficiency. Like the 2005 simplification, this proposal would simplify 
the ISM calculation with respect to a factor for which it is difficult 
to obtain accurate, verifiable estimates. Like clothing, food is an 
expense that fluctuates from month to month and may be provided from 
different sources at different intervals. We anticipate these 
simplifications will help make our program more equitable for 
applicants and recipients. We discuss the ways in which this policy is 
more equitable in the section titled, ``Proposal Would Promote 
Equity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 70 FR 6340 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Reduce the Amount of Program Rules an Applicant or Recipient Needs 
To Understand

    The ISM policy has been cited as one of the most complicated 
aspects of the SSI program, and applicants and recipients and their 
representatives have expressed difficulty in understanding and 
complying with our current ISM rules. As explained by Nicholas (2014), 
``a substantial portion of the ISM literature criticizes ISM policies 
for being inequitable, complex, intrusive, and burdensome.'' \38\ 
Complicated rules can lead to otherwise-eligible individuals' forgoing 
applying for benefits or taking on unnecessary burden while navigating 
application and award processes. We expect that reducing the number of 
variables may help applicants and recipients and their representatives 
understand the calculations more easily, which may reduce burden 
associated with both applying for benefits and maintaining eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Nicholas, Joyce. ``Source, Form, and Amount of In-kind 
Support and Maintenance Received by Supplemental Security Income 
Applicants and Recipients.'' Social Security Bulletin, vol. 74, no. 
3, 2014, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v74n3/v74n3p39.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reduce the Amount of Information That Applicants or Recipients Must 
Report

    Under our current regulations, we require applicants or recipients 
to provide detailed information about their household composition, 
their household operating expenses, and their contributions toward 
household operating expenses. We collect this information when 
applicants apply for benefits and when any of this information changes. 
The proposed changes would lessen the reporting burden on applicants or 
recipients by reducing the amount of information applicants or 
recipients must report. They would no longer need to inform us of their 
households' food expenses, their contributions to their households' 
food expenses, or changes to either, except under very limited 
circumstances. Under the proposal, these circumstances would be limited 
to changes that could affect whether their ISM is evaluated under the 
VTR or PMV rule. In other words, applicants or recipients would still 
inform us if they live in another person's household and if they answer 
``yes'' to any of the following questions: (1) do you buy food 
separately from the household? (2) do you eat all meals out? and (3) do 
you receive SNAP benefits?
    First, individuals applying for SSI may receive in-kind food 
support specifically because they lack any reliable source of income 
and are reliant on non-cash support from friends and family. By 
reporting this in-kind support on their application, they may receive a 
reduced benefit due to the ISM policy. However, the receipt of SSI may 
grant recipients the financial means to start obtaining their own food, 
and the change in how they obtain their food would need to be reported. 
The quick succession of having to provide newly updated income 
information to us imposes reporting and adjudication costs on the 
recipient and the agency, respectively. Moreover, if the recipient 
fails to report the reduction in in-kind food support, they may fail to 
receive the full benefit for which they were eligible. By no longer 
collecting this information during the application, we also reduce the 
need for newly awarded beneficiaries to have to provide an updated 
report.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ In 2007, we began redeveloping VTR cases three months after 
the first payment. During this redevelopment period, the technician 
determines if recipients should be assessed under the PMV rule based 
on household contribution or based on a relocation into their 
household. The data showed that the number of people who 
transitioned from VTR to PMV within a two-month period was low. For 
example, of those in pay status in December 2020, only 465 made a 
transition from VTR to PMV in January or February of 2021. For 
comparison, we also looked at those in pay in December 2021. Of 
those in pay status in December 2021, only 285 made the transition 
in January or February of 2022. We do not anticipate that this 
proposed rule, if finalized, would change our policy of contacting a 
recipient, who is receiving ISM under the VTR rule, and redeveloping 
the claimant's case three months after the first payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, current requirements to report detailed information about 
household composition, household operating expenses, and contributions 
toward household operating expenses may present challenges for 
applicants or recipients. It may be difficult for applicants or 
recipients to provide accurate estimates of their food expenses and 
contributions. Actual food purchases may involve varying intervals and 
multiple household members, vendors, and forms of payment. Further, the 
applicant's or recipient's estimates are tied to the price of food, 
which is variable. In fact, one popular measure of inflation excludes 
the food sector because it is a price category considered excessively 
volatile.\40\ Changing food prices means that applicants' or 
recipients' reported food expenses may not accurately reflect their 
future food expenses. When recipients report food expenses that do not 
reflect their actual food expenses, they must immediately report the 
discrepancy to ensure we calculate their benefit amount correctly. 
Otherwise, they risk an overpayment or underpayment.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See ``The trouble with food and energy.'' The FRED Blog, 29 
Feb. 2016, fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/02/the-trouble-with-food-and-energy/.
    \41\ Applicants and recipients are responsible for reporting 
many factors related to their benefits. While reporting food is just 
one of many, our proposal would simplify reporting by removing one 
of the frequently fluctuating variables applicants and recipients 
must report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Removing food from our ISM calculations would also eliminate 
challenges applicants and recipients experience to verify food expenses 
and their contributions toward those expenses. To verify food expenses, 
typically another household member must attest to the estimates 
provided.\42\ In most cases, there is no other method of expense 
verification. In contrast, for shelter costs, we can usually obtain 
verification through an applicant's or recipient's rental or mortgage 
agreement, tax records, and utility bills. Complying with these 
requirements can impose burdens on applicants and recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ When SSI applicants or recipients provide information about 
household expenses, our technicians contact the homeowner or another 
household member who is knowledgeable of the household expenses for 
verification. The contact information for the other knowledgeable 
household member is provided to us by the applicant or recipient and 
is also located on the Household Expenses and Contributions page 
within the SSI Claims System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Simplify and Shorten Processing

    As Balkus et al., noted in a 2008 analysis, we must make a 
determination concerning ISM receipt for most SSI recipients, but only 
about 9 percent of SSI recipients have their benefits reduced due to 
ISM. Further, they noted that ``a determination may involve a detailed 
accounting of household expenses and the individual's

[[Page 9786]]

contribution, to establish whether the individual pays his or her pro 
rata share of expenses. In addition to initial claims, this 
determination must be repeated if there is any change in household 
composition or expenses that might affect the amount of the SSI 
benefit.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ ISM rules have long been identified as a source of 
administrative complexity. For more information about administrative 
complexity related to ISM, see Balkus, Richard; Sears, James; 
Wilschke, Susan; and Wixon, Bernard. ``Simplifying the Supplemental 
Security Income Program: Options for Eliminating the Counting of In-
kind Support and Maintenance.'' Social Security Bulletin, vol. 68, 
no. 4, 2008, www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n4/v68n4p15.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The program complexities associated with administering the ISM 
policy also fall on our personnel who are responsible for reviewing and 
adjudicating claims, as well as other front-line personnel responsible 
for communicating the policy to applicants and recipients. By 
eliminating food from the ISM calculation and thus simplifying the ISM 
policy, our personnel would save time associated with training on the 
current ISM policy and with adjudicating and reviewing claims and post-
award reporting changes in in-kind food support when compared to the 
current ISM policy.

4. Lead to Fewer Benefit Recalculations and Fewer Improper Payments

    When an SSI recipient reports changes related to his or her food 
expenses or contributions, we must recalculate the recipient's benefit 
amount based on the updated information.\44\ If we eliminate food from 
our ISM calculations, recipients will no longer need to report these 
changes, nor would they be subject to recalculations for these changes. 
This will save beneficiaries time and reduce the required reporting 
frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Under the proposed rules, applicants or recipients would 
need to contact us if their response to a food question changes 
because this could affect whether their ISM is evaluated under the 
VTR or PMV rule. In other words, applicants or recipients would 
still contact us if they live in another person's household and 
their answer to any of the following questions changes: (1) do you 
buy food separately from the household? (2) do you eat all meals 
out? and (3) do you receive SNAP benefits? See 20 CFR 416.701 
through 416.714 for reporting responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, this could lead to fewer situations in which we 
determine a beneficiary has been overpaid due to unreported ISM. 
Similarly, if an overpayment still occurred, it could be lower since we 
would no longer consider food as part of the ISM calculation. We have 
noted that the ISM reporting requirement is challenging for 
beneficiaries to comply with. As Nicholas summarized, ``GAO and SSA's 
Office of the Inspector General have repeatedly declared ISM policy as 
one of the leading causes of SSI improper payments.'' \45\ For example, 
in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, ISM overpayments totaled $356 million.\46\ 
Removing food from the ISM calculation may help reduce overpayments, 
which can be time- and resource-consuming for both recipients and the 
agency. We expect simplifying the ISM policy will enhance compliance 
with SSI rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Nicholas, Joyce. ``Source, Form, and Amount of In-kind 
Support and Maintenance Received by Supplemental Security Income 
Applicants and Recipients.'' Social Security Bulletin, vol. 74, no. 
3, 2014, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v74n3/v74n3p39.html.
    \46\ See pages 188 and 195-196 of our FY 2019 Agency Financial 
Report available at https://best.ssa.gov/finance/2019/Payment%20Integrity.pdf. ISM is also a leading cause of 
underpayments. For example, ISM underpayments totaled $246 million 
in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal Would Promote Equity

    SSI recipients have low income and resources. Because low-income 
people disproportionately encounter barriers across a range of social, 
health, and economic outcomes, our goal is to improve their 
circumstances, thus improving equity, by removing benefit reductions 
for this population. As discussed below, we anticipate the policy may 
facilitate increased food security, which could lead to an overall 
greater sense of well-being and better health outcomes. As well, the 
new process would remove a disincentive for family and friends to 
provide food support, and be generally easier, less burdensome, and 
potentially less anxiety-provoking. Specifically, this proposed rule 
would promote equity by: (1) providing increased financial security to 
affected beneficiaries; (2) providing consistent treatment of food 
support regardless of source; (3) reducing reporting requirements and 
the effects of reporting on applicants and recipients; and (4) 
facilitating improved food security among certain beneficiaries. 
Removing these obstacles would ultimately promote equity by lessening 
the disparity between SSI applicants or recipients and others.

1. Providing Increased Financial Security to Affected Beneficiaries

    By design, the SSI program serves people who may be facing barriers 
in various aspects of their lives: individuals with low incomes, 
including older individuals, families with children, individuals with 
disabilities, and people who may have been historically underserved. 
This proposal would benefit disabled, blind, and aged persons who are 
struggling to meet basic food and shelter expenses, as the 2022 Federal 
maximum SSI benefit amount ($10,092/year) is lower than the current 
Federal poverty level, which is set at $13,590 for an individual. It 
removes barriers to food security for persons affected by persistent 
poverty. Individuals receiving SSI are disproportionately likely to 
encounter social, economic, and health inequities that are in part 
compounded by their, on-average, below-poverty level income.\47\ 
Removing food from the ISM calculation generally would increase the 
income support to recipients who may have reduced benefits due to the 
current ISM policy, which in turn generally would provide them 
additional financial security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Penalizing in-kind assistance from private sources may 
reduce social equity by discouraging social relationships for 
vulnerable individuals. For the importance of social relationships 
to people with disabilities, see Tough, Hannah; Siegrist, Johannes; 
and Fekete; Christine. 2017. ``Social relationships, mental health 
and wellbeing in physical disability: a systematic review.'' BMC 
Public Health 17 (414).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal would also remove a possible disincentive for family 
and friends to help applicants or recipients obtain food. In a United 
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) study of households that 
receive SNAP benefits,\48\ researchers found that, among food coping 
strategies cited by study participants, a significant minority of the 
food-secure SNAP households turn to family networks for assistance.\49\ 
Our proposed rule would ensure that, when applicants or recipients rely 
on networks of family or friends to help obtain the food they need, we 
will not reduce their benefits as a result. Under the current PMV rule, 
when we consider food provided to applicants or recipients, it is 
offset by dollar-for-dollar reductions in the

[[Page 9787]]

applicants' or recipients' benefits, up to the set presumed maximum 
value (currently $324.66). Because of this offset, in most cases, the 
help from family or friends does not improve the recipient's ability to 
meet his or her food needs because this would cause a reduction to the 
recipient's SSI benefit amount. This creates undesirable effects. For 
one, because food support generally does not prompt ISM if it comes 
from charitable or government sources, the current ISM policy could be 
seen to favor government or charitable sources of food support over 
support from friends and families. Second, the one-for-one offset means 
that for SSI applicants and recipients who would otherwise receive food 
support below the PMV threshold, there may be no incentive to receive 
said support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ SNAP is a Federal program that provides nutrition benefits 
to low-income individuals and families that are used at stores to 
purchase food. Most SSI recipients receive benefits from SNAP (For 
example, 62.8 percent of SSI recipients received SNAP in 2013). See 
Bailey, Michelle and Hemmeter, Jeffrey. ``Characteristics of 
Noninstitutionalized DI an SSI Program Participants, 2013 Update.'' 
Research and Statistics Note No. 2015-02. Released September 2015. 
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/rsnotes/rsn2015-02.html. The average 
monthly SNAP benefit was about $155 per person in 2020. See 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Aug. 6, 2021, available 
at https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-files/34SNAPmonthly-8.pdf https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-files/SNAPsummary-11.pdf.
    \49\ See U.S. Department of Agriculture. SNAP Food Security In-
Depth Interview Study (2013) at https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/SNAPFoodSec.pdf. p xiii. While this study 
focused on SNAP participants, not specifically SSI recipients 
receiving SNAP, there is some overlap. Some households in the study 
received SSI. See pg. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By removing food from ISM calculations, we would remove a 
consideration that recipients could view as discouraging establishing 
and maintaining these vital forms of familial, social, and community 
support that can be a critical, if informal, support structure. 
Encouraging these support networks for beneficiaries currently 
receiving SSI may also facilitate additional resiliency for individuals 
even if they stopped receiving benefits in the future.
    Example: Sheila lives alone and normally purchases her own food, 
but she is having trouble meeting her monthly food expenses. Her 
daughter wants to help her with her food expenses and buys Sheila $100 
of groceries each month. Under current regulations, Sheila would 
contact us to report the ISM her daughter is providing ($100 of 
groceries each month). We would then reduce Sheila's monthly SSI 
benefit by $100. Ultimately, Sheila would receive the same amount of 
assistance each month because without her daughter's help, Sheila's 
benefits would not be reduced by $100. She would receive no net benefit 
from receiving $100 in groceries (and would have to spend time 
reporting the receipt of groceries).

2. Providing Consistent Treatment of Food Support Regardless of Source

    This proposed rule would also allow us to treat food assistance 
uniformly, regardless of the source. Under current rules, as explained 
above, we apply our ISM rules to determine if we need to reduce 
recipients' benefits because of the food assistance they receive from 
private sources, like family and friends. However, we do not reduce a 
recipient's benefits for the food assistance they receive from public 
sources, such as SNAP. In other words, public sources of food 
assistance are not counted as ISM under current rules. Therefore, 
excluding food from the calculation of ISM would ensure that food 
assistance from public and private sources are treated uniformly (i.e., 
both excluded) under ISM rules. Removing this inconsistency would 
decrease the complexity of our program.

3. Reducing Reporting Requirements and the Effects of Reporting on 
Applicants and Recipients

    As previously discussed in our justifications focused on the time- 
and cost-savings associated with simplifying the ISM policy, the 
challenges associated with understanding and complying with ISM 
requirements likely compound existing inequities for SSI recipients. 
Manasi Desphande and Yue Li provide a detailed overview of contemporary 
research related to how these challenges can disproportionately lead to 
underutilization of critical services and programs by those most in 
need.\50\ Other behavioral science research has shown that burdens like 
the complicated food-support ISM reporting requirements can have 
negative effects for individuals already facing scarcity, as is the 
case for many SSI recipients.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Deshpande, Manasi, & Li, Yue. (2019). Who is screened out? 
Application costs and the targeting of disability programs. American 
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(4), 213-48.
    \51\ Mullainathan, S. & Shafr, E. (2013.) Scarcity: Why having 
so little means so much. Henry Holt and Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relatedly, current ISM policy requires that SSI recipients report 
simple acts of charity or support from friends or family, and 
beneficiaries may be improperly paid if they fail to report these 
events in a timely manner. Because the SSI program may be perceived as 
complicated and burdensome, there may be a psychological cost such as 
anxiety or stress related to reporting food. This could lead to 
individuals' not wanting to apply or failing to comply with the 
requirements for maintaining their SSI benefits. By treating the 
sharing and provision of food, a common human generosity, as something 
that must be reported, it is possible some beneficiaries may experience 
frustration, anxiety, or discomfit that in turn may reduce SSI 
participation (or may result in current recipients' failing to report 
in-kind food support). Questioning individuals about items as personal 
as a household's food purchases may be seen as overly intrusive without 
achieving a substantial program goal. This proposal has the potential 
to make our rules less intrusive and better protect beneficiaries' 
privacy and dignity while continuing to meet the requirements of the 
program.

5. Facilitating Improved Food Security Among Certain Beneficiaries

    This proposal would remove benefit reductions that applicants or 
recipients may incur when they receive help obtaining food from family 
or friends. By removing benefit reductions, we may remove a barrier to 
food security for individuals with low incomes. Food insecurity is 
defined as ``limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally 
adequate and safe foods, or limited or uncertain ability to acquire 
acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.'' \52\ Food insecurity is 
often associated with poor health. For example, after certain risk 
factors were controlled, studies found that ``food-insecure children 
are at least twice as likely to report being in fair or poor health and 
at least 1.4 times more likely to have asthma, compared to food-secure 
children; and food-insecure seniors have limitations in activities of 
daily living comparable to those of food-secure seniors fourteen years 
older.'' \53\ By implementing the policy, we will potentially increase 
food security for some SSI recipients, which may alleviate some of the 
ill-effects of food insecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See ``Measurement.'' USDA Economic Research Service, 
www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/measurement.aspx#insecurity.
    \53\ See Gundersen, Craig; Ziliak, James. ``Food Insecurity and 
Health Outcomes'' Health Affairs, vol. 34, no. 11, Nov. 2015, 
www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0645. In 
addition, ``even short-term food insecurity can have significant 
impacts on children's health, including poorer behavioral, 
emotional, and nutritional outcomes. Among children, food insecurity 
has been linked to increased risk of obesity.'' See Metallinos-
Katsaras, Elizabeth; Must, Aviva; Gorman, Kathleen. ``A longitudinal 
study of food insecurity on obesity in preschool children.'' Journal 
of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Dec. 2012, 
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23174682/, doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.08.031. 
As another example, a study found that in a national sample of older 
adults, there was ``an inverse association between food insecurity 
and cognitive function.'' See Frith, Emily; Loprinzi, Paul. ``Food 
insecurity and cognitive function in older adults: Brief Report.'' 
Clinical Nutrition, vol 37, no. 5, pp. 1765-1768, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2017.07.001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research shows that food insecurity rates are often higher than 
average for people facing certain barriers. The USDA's Economic 
Research Service published 2019 rates of food insecurity that were more 
than two and a half times higher for households with incomes below 185 
percent of the poverty threshold than for the national household 
average (27.6 percent vs. 10.5

[[Page 9788]]

percent).\54\ Further, a 2019 article noted findings suggesting that 
households with a disabled adult are ``disproportionately food 
insecure,'' and that ``disabilities are associated with food insecurity 
through multiple pathways.'' \55\ We do not know to what extent this 
rule will result in increased food security alongside other more 
prominent benefits, such as reduced burden associated with less 
reporting required by claimants. However, we intend for it to have an 
impact in this area. SSI applicants and recipients are a population 
likely to face challenges in food security. By removing food from the 
ISM calculation, we are removing obstacles to obtaining food that could 
help ease the burden of rising food costs for some recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See ``Key Statistics & Graphics.'' USDA Economic Research 
Service, www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.
    \55\ Heflin, Colleen; Altman, Colleen; Rodriguez, Laura. ``Food 
insecurity and disability in the United States.'' Disability and 
Health Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, 2019, pages 220-226, ISSN 1936-6574, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2018.09.006. Also, according to the 
USDA Economic Research Service, disability is an important risk 
factor for food insecurity. See Coleman-Jensen, Alisha; Nord, Mark. 
``Disability is an Important Risk Factor for Food Insecurity.'' 6 
May 2013, www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2013/may/disability-is-an-important-risk-factor-for-food-insecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justification for Retaining Food-Related Questions

    As explained above, we would still ask certain food-related 
questions for the narrow purpose of determining whether to use the PMV 
or VTR rule to assess ISM, and we would make this clear in our 
regulations. Using food expenses for this narrow purpose is a 
significant simplification of our current policies for the reasons 
provided above. Applicants or recipients would need only to answer 
three questions related to food expenses with a ``yes'' or ``no''; they 
would not need to provide dollar amounts.\56\ Similarly, this 
consideration would allow us to remain consistent with our current 
policy of when we evaluate applicants or recipients under the PMV rule. 
If we did not continue to consider food for this narrow purpose, some 
applicants or recipients who currently have their ISM evaluated under 
the PMV rule would be required to have their ISM evaluated under the 
VTR rule, which might be disadvantageous for them. Based on 
administrative data of recipients' current living arrangements as of 
May 19, 2022, we found the following: 12,977 recipients earmark their 
household operating expenses contributions for both food and shelter; 
3,427 earmark for food only; 39,412 recipients report that they ``eat 
all meals out;'' and 889,651 recipients report that they ``buy food 
separately.'' \57\ This data comes from the SSI Claims System, which 
includes all recipients receiving SSI as of May 19, 2022. While some of 
these recipients may no longer face an ISM reduction at all under our 
proposal because they exclusively receive food support and do not 
receive any shelter support (see, for example, our previous example 
with ``Larry''), many of these recipients are in in-kind support 
situations similar to our example with ``Michael.'' However, unlike in 
our example with ``Michael,'' which discusses rebutting the PMV under 
our current rules, if Michael were no longer able to earmark expenses 
for food, and we did not continue to ask these food questions, the VTR 
rule would apply. We do not have precise estimates of how much the 
average increase in ISM reductions would be in such situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ These questions are: (1) do you buy food separately from 
the household? (2) do you eat all meals out? and (3) do you receive 
SNAP payments? If applicants or recipients answer ``yes'' to any of 
these questions, we will evaluate their ISM using the PMV rule. Food 
expenses would not be included in the calculation.
    \57\ See Tables 2 and 3 of our supplemental document titled, 
``Tables of Administrative Data Related to In-Kind Support and 
Maintenance (ISM),'' available at www.regulations.gov as a 
supporting document for Docket SSA-2021-0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in greater detail in the E.O. 12866 section below, in 
addition to ensuring that our proposal to remove food from the ISM 
calculation does not inadvertently disadvantage individuals to whom the 
PMV rule currently applies, retaining these food-related questions 
would also result in our applying the PMV rule to certain individuals 
who are currently evaluated under the VTR rule. In our case study, we 
found that roughly one-third (i.e., 122 of 353) of recipients currently 
evaluated under VTR would instead be evaluated under PMV. Of those 122 
cases, 46 would receive more-favorable treatment under our proposal. We 
assumed that they would successfully rebut the PMV, and these 46 cases 
on average would see an increase of $166 in Federal SSI payments in 
2023 relative to current rules. We assumed that another 51 cases would 
not successfully rebut the PMV and have no change in SSI payment, 
because they have no other income. In the remaining 25 cases, however, 
we assumed that the PMV would not be rebutted and that the recipient 
has other income of at least $20, which would result in these 
recipients' experiencing a $20 decrease in monthly Federal SSI payments 
relative to current rules (because PMV reductions are subject to one-
third of the FBR plus the $20 general income exclusion).
    While we recognize that some applicants and recipients may not 
benefit from our proposed changes, we believe that retaining the three 
food questions is necessary to ensure that individuals who currently 
have the PMV rule applied to them, and thus have the ability to rebut 
the PMV, continue to have the PMV rule applied to them where 
appropriate. As discussed in the solicitation for comments, we welcome 
comments on alternative ways to achieve our stated goals related to 
retaining these food questions, including advancing equity and 
simplifying the program.

Clarifications to Our Definition of Income

    When we remove food from the calculation of ISM, we would make that 
clear in our general definition of income. This change would ensure 
consistency among our regulations. Separate from the removal of food 
from the calculation of ISM, we would use this opportunity to clarify 
that income may be received constructively. Constructive receipt of 
income is part of our current policy, and this change would make the 
definition of income clearer.

Explanation of Changes

    We propose to revise our ISM regulations to make clear in 20 CFR 
416.1130 that we have removed food from the calculation of ISM. We 
would also revise the general definition of income in 20 CFR 416.1102 
accordingly, and we would take the opportunity to clarify in the 
general definition of income that income may be constructively 
received. We would also make minor revisions to several other 
regulatory sections to conform and align with these updates. These 
other sections include 20 CFR 416.1103, 416.1104, 416.1121, 416.1131, 
416.1132, 416.1133, 416.1140, 416.1147, 416.1148, and 416.1149.

Solicitation for Public Comment

    As discussed elsewhere in this rulemaking, we are seeking public 
comment on this proposed rule. Questions the public may wish to 
consider when evaluating this proposed rule:
     Are there additional aspects of the ISM policy that we 
could simplify under current statutory authorities? What would be the 
effects of doing so?
     Are there any other policies that are related to ISM that 
we should consider

[[Page 9789]]

in the context of this proposed rulemaking?
     Do you have additional information that relates to or 
otherwise informs our description of the applicant or recipient 
experience under current ISM policies?
     Are there forms or other information collections that we 
have not noted that would or should require modification as a result of 
this proposed policy change?
     Are there other information collection improvements that 
could further reduce respondent burden, either under the current ISM 
policy or under the policy proposed in this rule?
     Is there data or research related to equity and the SSI 
population (or, more generally, low-income or disabled populations) 
that could also be used to inform the final rule?
     Is there data or research related to administrative burden 
and the SSI population (or, more generally, low-income or disabled 
populations) that could also be used to inform the final rule?
     Do you have any additional justifications for, or 
arguments against, this proposed rule?
     Are there other methods we could use to measure the time-
savings associated with this proposed rule? Are there other methods of 
the value of time we could use to measure the opportunity costs 
associated with this policy?
     If you have had experience with the rebuttal process:
    [cir] Are applicants and recipients to whom the PMV rule applies 
typically able to comprehend the requirements associated with rebuttal? 
Are there terminological or other plain-language improvements we could 
make to the rebuttal process to improve clarity or reduce burden on 
applicants and recipients?
    [cir] Does the ``Rebuttal Rights Notification'' (included in the 
docket for this rulemaking) clearly communicate the purpose of and 
requirements for rebutting the PMV? Are there ways we could improve how 
this information is communicated?
    [cir] Are there any regulatory, sub-regulatory, paperwork, or 
process improvements we could make to the PMV rebuttal process to 
reduce respondent burden or otherwise increase successful submission of 
rebuttal evidence?

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the close of 
business on the comment closing date indicated above. The comments will 
be available for examination in the rulemaking docket for these rules 
at the above address. We will file comments received after the comment 
closing date in the docket and may consider those comments to the 
extent practicable. However, we will not respond specifically to 
untimely comments. We may publish a final rule at any time after close 
of the comment period.

Clarity of This Rule

    Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, 
requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition 
to your substantive comments on this proposed rule, we invite your 
comments on how to make the rule easier to understand.
    For example:
     Would more, but shorter, sections be better?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is 
not clear?
     Would a different format make the rule easier to 
understand, e.g., grouping and order of sections, use of headings, 
paragraphing?

When will we start to use this rule?

    We will not use this rule until we evaluate public comments and 
publish a final rule in the Federal Register. All final rules include 
an effective date. We will continue to use our current rules until that 
date. If we publish a final rule, we will include a summary of those 
relevant comments we received along with responses and an explanation 
of how we will apply the new rule.

Regulatory Procedures

Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

    We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 
determined that this rule meets the criteria for a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by 
Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed it.

Anticipated Transfers to Our Program

    The primary anticipated impact of this rule is a small increase in 
monetary transfers from the government to SSI recipients. To estimate 
this, our Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT) took a sample of 0.1% of 
all SSI recipients who are impacted by the current ISM policy--a total 
sample of 764 recipients. Based on the best available data, OCACT 
estimated that implementation of these proposed rules for all 
eligibility and payment determinations effective April 1, 2023, and 
later will result in an increase in Federal SSI payments of a total of 
about $1.5 billion over the period of fiscal years 2023 through 2032. 
This represents an increase in Federal SSI payments of 0.2%.
    Of the 764 cases in our sample:
    (1) (PMV to PMV) We estimate that 411 cases (54%) are individuals 
who are currently evaluated under PMV and would continue to be 
evaluated under PMV. As discussed in the preamble, there are multiple 
types of living arrangements that result in assessment under the PMV 
rule, including (1) individuals who live in another person's household 
and receive either food or shelter support, but not both; and (2) 
individuals who live in their own household and who receive in-kind 
shelter or food support, or both. In each of these PMV scenarios, some 
recipients currently receive the PMV reduction, currently $324.66 
(after the general income exclusion is applied, if there is no other 
income, the current reduction is $304.66--the same as the VTR), while 
others rebut the PMV and have their Federal SSI payment reduced by a 
smaller amount. We estimate that of these 411 cases, 42 would have an 
increase in the monthly SSI payment as a result of this proposed rule. 
Of these 42 individuals, we estimate that 24 recipients would have no 
PMV reduction and that the other 18 recipients would have a lesser PMV 
reduction. We estimate that the average increase in the monthly Federal 
SSI payment among those 42 cases would be $91 in 2023. We estimate that 
roughly 10% of all PMV-impacted recipients, or roughly 43 thousand, (5% 
of the total population of ISM-impacted recipients), will see an 
increase in their Federal SSI payment as a result of this aspect of the 
rule.
    In our review of these cases, we did not examine which types of the 
above-described living arrangements would see changes due to the 
proposed rule. There are three main groups of individuals who could see 
this type of change: (1) Individuals who live in someone else's home 
and receive only food support because they earmark their contribution 
to household shelter expenses. These individuals would not be 
considered to be receiving countable ISM under the proposed rule as 
long as their contribution to shelter expenses meets their pro rata 
share. (2) Individuals who live in someone else's home and receive only 
shelter support,

[[Page 9790]]

because they earmark their contribution to household food expenses. 
These individuals might see their ISM decrease to zero dollars if they 
no longer need support and are able to contribute to their household 
expenses that cover their pro rata share. (3) Individuals who live in 
their own household and receive both food and shelter support. These 
individuals would see a decrease in their ISM amount, if their 
countable ISM falls below the PMV and they choose to rebut.
    (2) (VTR to VTR) We estimate that 231 cases (30%) are individuals 
who are currently evaluated under VTR and would continue to be 
evaluated under VTR. These are recipients who under current rules live 
throughout a month in another person's household and receive both food 
and shelter support from others living in the household, and under the 
proposed rules live throughout a month in another person's household 
and receive shelter support from others living in the household. Where 
the VTR rule applied under current policy and would apply under the 
proposed policy, there would be no change in ISM as a result of the 
proposed rule.
    (3) (VTR to PMV) We estimate that 122 cases (16%) are individuals 
who are currently evaluated under VTR and would be evaluated under PMV 
under proposed rules. These are individuals who live in another 
person's household and receive in-kind shelter support, but who we 
anticipate will indicate they consume all their food separately, by 
asserting that they buy food separately from the household, that they 
eat all meals out, or that they receive Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. We estimate that 46 of these 
individuals would have an increase in their monthly SSI payment. On 
average we estimate that the increase in the monthly SSI payment would 
be $166 in 2023. Of these 46 individuals, we estimate that 11 would 
have no PMV reduction and that 35 would be charged less than the 
maximum amount. We estimate that roughly 6% of all ISM-impacted 
recipients, or roughly 48 thousand recipients, will see an increase in 
their payment as a result of this aspect of the rule. We estimate that 
another 51 individuals who would shift from VTR to PMV would not 
successfully rebut the PMV and would have no change in payment due to 
the proposed rule because they have no other income. We estimate that 
roughly 7% or 52 thousand ISM-impacted recipients would see no change 
in payment as a result of this aspect of the rule. By contrast, the 
other 25 individuals who would shift from VTR to PMV would not 
successfully rebut the PMV and would have other income. In these 
instances, recipients would experience a $20 reduction in their monthly 
Federal SSI payment. This is because under current rules they receive 
the VTR ISM reduction, which is one-third of the Federal benefit rate 
(currently $304.66), whereas under the proposed rule these recipients 
would receive the PMV ISM reduction, which is one-third of the Federal 
benefit rate plus the amount of the general income exclusion (currently 
$20) for a total Federal payment reduction for an individual of 
$324.66. When a recipient does not have other income, the $20 general 
income exclusion reduces the countable ISM amount. However, when a 
recipient has other income totaling at least $20, the $20 general 
exclusion is already used to reduce that income, and the payment is 
thus reduced by the full PMV amount when the PMV is not successfully 
rebutted. We estimate that roughly 3% of all ISM-impacted recipients, 
or roughly 26 thousand, will see a decrease in their Federal SSI 
payment as a result of this aspect of the rule.
    Therefore, of the 764 cases in our sample, we estimate that 88 
total cases (12% of those affected by current ISM rules and 1% of all 
Federal SSI recipients) would have an increase in monthly SSI payments. 
25 total cases (3% of ISM-impacted recipients, less than 1% of all 
Federal SSI recipients) would have a decrease in monthly Federal SSI 
payments. We estimate that the average increase in the monthly Federal 
SSI payment would be $131 in 2023 for recipients experiencing an 
increase, and that the average Federal SSI payment reduction would be 
$20 for recipients experiencing a decrease. The table below provides a 
summarization of the case study.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Aggregate
                                                                                                          Average change   Extrapolation     change in
          Current rules             Proposed rules          Impact             Count        Percentage      in monthly      to all ISM        monthly
                                                                                                            payments in   recipients (in    payments in
                                                                                                               2023         thousands)         2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PMV.............................  PMV...............  No change in                   369              48  ..............             383  ..............
                                                       payment.
PMV.............................  PMV...............  Increase in                     18               2            $105              19          $1,889
                                                       payment.
PMV.............................  No ISM............  Increase in                     24               3              81              24           1,934
                                                       payment.
VTR.............................  VTR...............  No change in                   231              30  ..............             240  ..............
                                                       payment.
VTR.............................  PMV...............  Increase in                     46               6             166              48           7,658
                                                       payment.
VTR.............................  PMV...............  No change in                    51               7  ..............              52  ..............
                                                       payment.
VTR.............................  PMV...............  Reduction in                    25               3            (20)              26           (500)
                                                       payment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anticipated Administrative Cost-Savings to the Social Security 
Administration

    The Office of Budget, Finance, and Management estimates that this 
proposal will result in net administrative savings of $25 million for 
the 10-year period from FY 2023 to FY 2032. The net administrative 
savings is mainly a result of unit time savings as field office 
employees will not have to spend time explaining and developing food as 
part of ISM during initial claims, pre-effectuations reviews, 
redeterminations, and post-eligibility actions. The savings are offset 
by costs to update our systems to remove food from the ISM calculation, 
costs to send notices to inform current recipients of the policy 
changes, costs to address inquiries from the notices, and costs as a 
result of more individuals' being eligible for SSI benefits, which 
increases claims, reconsiderations, appeals, CDRs, redeterminations, 
and post-eligibility actions.

Anticipated Time-Savings and Qualitative Benefits

    We anticipate qualitative benefits from this proposal because, if 
implemented, it would simplify our policy and make the SSI claims 
process easier for applicants and recipients. The public benefits from 
simplifications to our program because it may take less time and effort 
to understand our program and its requirements, and may make it easier 
to comply with the program's requirements. Also, because SSI applicants 
and recipients would not

[[Page 9791]]

need to report as much information related to food expenses, they may 
save time that they otherwise would have spent gathering information 
and contacting us to report this information. As discussed in the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section below, we estimate the time 
savings just on the SSI Application forms to be 1 minute per response. 
This represents an annual burden reduction of 95,668 hours. We estimate 
that these time-savings will result in cost-savings of $1,691,311 for 
the first year, and an estimated cost-savings of $16,913,110 over a 10-
year period (we developed this figure by approximating the 
``opportunity cost'' for the respondents, which varies per form).
    However, we anticipate that the time-savings on the SSI application 
are only a limited component of the overall time-savings to the public. 
By eliminating the need to report food support, recipients will no 
longer need to report changes across the course of their receipt of 
SSI. Additionally, reporting food support, whether on the initial 
application or at a later point during post-award eligibility, 
oftentimes requires us to develop further, which may require completion 
of a variety of information collections and forms, to include SSA-8006-
F4 (Statement of Living Arrangements, In-Kind Support and Maintenance); 
SSA-8011-F3 Statement of Household Expenses and Contributions); SSA-
8000 (Application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI); SSA 8202-BK 
(Statement for Determining Continuing Eligibility for Supplemental 
Security Income Payment); SSA-8203-BK (Statement for Determining 
Continuing Eligibility for Supplemental Security Income Payment; SSA-
5062 (Claimant Statement about Loan of Food or Shelter); SSA-L5063-F3 
(Statement about Food or Shelter Provided to Another). As discussed in 
the PRA section, we estimate that this proposed change would not result 
in fewer forms completed. However, with a time savings of one minute 
per response, we estimate an overall time savings of 95,668 hours. Time 
savings in completing these forms not only benefits the recipient; we 
often must develop this information from third parties, whose time will 
also be saved through this proposal. While we do not maintain 
administrative data on the volume of post-award information collections 
pertaining to food-support reporting, we anticipate administrative time 
savings.
    In many situations recipients fail to report receiving food in a 
timely manner. This requires us to redevelop this issue after a 
recipient's monthly benefit amount has been paid. This, in turn, may 
create an overpayment, which would require us to develop the issue 
further and contact the recipient for an interview. As discussed in the 
preamble, we expect that simplifying the ISM policy will reduce 
improper payments. The overpayment recovery process can, at times, be a 
time-intensive process to navigate, particularly for beneficiaries 
seeking to have their overpayment waived or reconsidered. While we have 
not quantified the amount of time beneficiaries spend working to 
resolve overpayments related to food ISM, we anticipate that this 
proposal would result in time savings associated with reduced improper 
payments.
    Further, as discussed in the preamble, there are potential 
qualitative benefits to the proposal such as reduced food insecurity, 
enhanced social support networks, reduced frustration and anxiety among 
the beneficiary population associated with understanding and complying 
with complicated food-support ISM policies, potentially enhanced 
dignity with elimination of the need to report receipt of food to the 
government (which may appear intrusive to some applicants and 
recipients), and more consistent and equitable treatment of 
beneficiaries' various sources of food assistance.

Anticipated Costs

    Outside of transfers, we do not anticipate more than de minimis 
costs associated with this rulemaking. Since this regulation would 
reduce reporting requirements and simplify the evaluation process for 
adjudicators, there are no costs in those areas. The SSI ISM policy is 
complex by nature, and sometimes those complexities make it difficult 
for the public to understand and follow the rules of the program. 
Better understanding of SSI program rules may occur over time. We do 
not anticipate that this proposal would affect labor market 
participation in any significant way, in part because of the limited 
understanding of the current policy in the beneficiary community that 
has been noted by some, including the SSAB.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See the Social Security Advisory Board Statement on the 
Supplemental Security Income Program, ``The Complexity of In-Kind 
Support and Maintenance.'' 2015, https://www.ssab.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2021/03/2015_-SSI_In-
Kind_SupportMaintenance.pdf#:~:text=The%20Complexity%20of%20In-
Kind%20Support%20and%20Maintenance%20Public,annual%20report%20to%20th
e%20President%20and%20the%20Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    We analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria established by Executive Order 13132 and determined that 
the proposed rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. We also determined 
that this proposed rule will not preempt any State law or State 
regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional 
State governmental functions.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it 
affects individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule will require minor changes to the following forms:
    1. SSA-8000-BK (OMB No. 0960-0229), Application for Supplemental 
Security Income;
    2. SSA-8006 (OMB No. 0960-0174), Statement of Living Arrangements, 
In-Kind Support and Maintenance;
    3. SSA-8011 (OMB No. 0960-0456), Statement of Household Expenses 
and Contributions;
    4. SSA-5062 & SSA-L5063 (OMB No. 0960-0529), Claimant Statement 
about Loan of Food or Shelter and Statement about Food or Shelter 
Provided to Another;
    5. SSA-8202-BK (OMB No. 0960-0145), Statement for Determining 
Continuing Eligibility for Supplemental Security Income Payment; and
    6. SSA-8203-BK (OMB No. 0960-0416), Statement for Determining 
Continuing Eligibility for Supplemental Security Income Payment.
    The form changes will result in a burden reduction of one minute 
per response per affected form, resulting in a 95,668-hour total burden 
savings. This figure represents the difference between the previous and 
new total estimated annual burden. See below for details of the burden 
calculations.
    Below are charts showing the revised burden estimates, to be 
effective when we finalize the rule.
    (1) SSA-8000-BK (0960-0229):

[[Page 9792]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Average wait
                                                                                                           Average      time in field
                                          Number of     Frequency of   Average burden     Estimated      theoretical    office or for     Total annual
        Modality of completion           respondents      response      per response    total annual     hourly cost     teleservice    opportunity cost
                                         (annually)                       (minutes)    burden (hours)      amount          centers       (dollars) ***
                                                                                                         (dollars) *    (minutes) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSI Claim System.....................       1,646,520               1              34         933,028        * $19.86           ** 21    *** $29,974,897
SSA-8000-BK (Paper Form).............             705               1              39             458         * 19.86           ** 21         *** 14,001
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals...........................       1,647,225  ..............  ..............         933,486  ..............  ..............     *** 29,988,898
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We based this figure by averaging both the average DI payments based on SSA's current FY 2022 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2022factsheet.pdf), and the average U.S. worker's hourly wages, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm).
** We based this figure on averaging both the average FY 2022 wait times for field offices and teleservice centers, based on SSA's current management
  information data.
*** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather,
  these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to
  respondents to complete the application.

    (2) SSA-8006 (0960-0174):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Average wait
                                                                                                           Average      time in field
                                          Number of     Frequency of   Average burden     Estimated      theoretical      office or       Total annual
        Modality of completion           respondents      response      per response    total annual     hourly cost   telephone wait   opportunity cost
                                                                          (minutes)    burden (hours)      amount      time (minutes)    (dollars) ***
                                                                                                         (dollars) *         **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSI Claims System....................         109,436               1               6          10,944        * $11.70           ** 21       *** $576,190
SSA-8006 (Paper Form)................          12,160               1               6           1,216         * 11.70           ** 21         *** 64,022
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals...........................         121,595  ..............  ..............          12,160  ..............  ..............        *** 640,212
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We based this figure on the average DI payments based on SSA's current FY 2022 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2022factsheet.pdf).
** ** We based this figure on averaging both the average FY 2022 wait times for field offices and teleservice centers, based on SSA's current management
  information data.
*** *** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather,
  these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to
  respondents to complete the application.

    (3) SSA-8011 (0960-0456):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Average wait
                                                                                                           Average      time in field
                                          Number of     Frequency of   Average burden     Estimated      theoretical    office or for     Total annual
        Modality of completion           respondents      response      per response    total annual     hourly cost     teleservice    opportunity cost
                                                                          (minutes)    burden (hours)      amount          centers       (dollars) ***
                                                                                                         (dollars) *    (minutes) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSI Claims System....................         398,759               1              14          93,044        * $28.01           ** 21     *** $6,515,406
SSA-8011 (Paper Form)................          21,000               1              14           4,900         * 28.01           ** 21        *** 343,123
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals...........................         419,759  ..............  ..............          97,944  ..............  ..............      *** 6,858,529
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We based this figure on the average U.S. worker's hourly wages, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm).
** We based this figure on averaging both the average FY 2022 wait times for field offices and teleservice centers, based on SSA's current management
  information data.
*** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather,
  these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to
  respondents to complete the application.

    (4) SSA-5062 & SSA-L5063 (0960-0529):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Average wait
                                                                                                           Average      time in field
                                          Number of     Frequency of   Average burden     Estimated      theoretical    office or for     Total annual
        Modality of completion           respondents      response      per response    total annual     hourly cost     teleservice    opportunity cost
                                                                          (minutes)    burden (hours)      annual          centers       (dollars) ***
                                                                                                         (dollars) *    (minutes) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSA-5062 (SSI Claims System).........          29,026               1              19           9,192        * $19.86           ** 21       *** $384,311
SSA-L5063 (SSI Claims System)........          29,026               1              19           9,192         * 19.86           ** 21        *** 384,311
SSA-5062 (Paper Form)................          29,026               1              29          14,029         * 19.86           ** 21        *** 480,374
SSA-L5063 (Paper Form)...............          29,026               1              29          14,029         * 19.86           ** 21        *** 480,374
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................         116,104  ..............  ..............          46,442  ..............  ..............      *** 1,729,370
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We based this figure by averaging both the average DI payments based on SSA's current FY 2022 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2022factsheet.pdf), and the average U.S. worker's hourly wages, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm).
** We based this figure on averaging both the average FY 2022 wait times for field offices and teleservice centers, based on SSA's current management
  information data.
*** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather,
  these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to
  respondents to complete the application.


[[Page 9793]]

    (5) SSA-8202-BK (0960-0145):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Average wait
                                                                                                           Average      time in field
                                          Number of     Frequency of   Average burden     Estimated      theoretical    office or for     Total annual
        Modality of completion           respondents      response      per response    total annual     hourly cost     teleservice    opportunity cost
                                                                          (minutes)    burden (hours)      annual          centers       (dollars) ***
                                                                                                         (dollars) *    (minutes) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSI Claims System....................       1,764,207               1              19         558,666        * $11.70           ** 21    *** $13,760,815
SSA-8202-BK (Paper Form).............          67,698               1              20          22,566         * 11.70           ** 21        *** 541,242
    Totals...........................       1,831,905  ..............  ..............         581,232  ..............  ..............     *** 14,302,057
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We based this figure on the average DI payments based on SSA's current FY 2022 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2022factsheet.pdf).
** We based this figure on averaging both the average FY 2022 wait times for field offices and teleservice centers, based on SSA's current management
  information data.
*** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather,
  these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to
  respondents to complete the application.

    (6) SSA-8203-BK (0960-0416):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Average wait
                                                                                                           Average      time in field
                                          Number of     Frequency of   Average burden     Estimated      theoretical    office or for     Total annual
        Modality of completion           respondents      response      per response    total annual     hourly cost     teleservice    opportunity cost
                                                                          (minutes)    burden (hours)      annual          centers       (dollars) ***
                                                                                                         (dollars) *    (minutes) **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSI Claims System....................       1,468,220               1              18         440,466        * $19.86           ** 21    *** $18,953,252
SSA-8203-BK (Paper Form).............         135,357               1              19          42,863         * 19.86           ** 21      *** 1,792,127
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals...........................       1,603,577  ..............  ..............         483,329  ..............  ..............     *** 20,745,379
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We based this figure by averaging both the average DI payments based on SSA's current FY 2022 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2022factsheet.pdf), and the average U.S. worker's hourly wages, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm).
** We based this figure on averaging both the average FY 2022 wait times for field offices and teleservice centers, based on SSA's current management
  information data.
*** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; rather,
  these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual charge to
  respondents to complete the application.

    We calculated the aggregate burden saving associated with this 
proposed rule as follows:
    2,250,261 (total current reporting burden across all six 
information collections)-2,154,593 (total reporting burden across all 
six information collections reflecting a 1 minute burden reduction due 
to implementation of this rule) = 95,668 burden hours saved.
    SSA is submitting an Information Collection Request for clearance 
to OMB. We are soliciting comments on the burden estimate; the need for 
the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, 
utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize the burden on respondents, 
including the use of automated techniques or other forms of information 
technology. If you would like to submit comments, please send them to 
the following locations:

Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax 
Number: 202-395-6974, Email address: [email protected]

Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 
3100 West High Rise, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 
410-966-2830, Email address: [email protected]

    You can submit comments until March 17, 2023, which is 30 days 
after the publication of this notice. To receive a copy of the OMB 
clearance package, contact the SSA Reports Clearance Officer using any 
of the above contact methods. We prefer to receive comments by email or 
fax.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 9601, 96.006 
Supplemental Security Income)

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 416

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

    The Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Kilolo Kijakazi, Ph.D., 
M.S.W., having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the 
authority to electronically sign this document to Faye I. Lipsky, who 
is the primary Federal Register Liaison for SSA, for purposes of 
publication in the Federal Register.

Faye I. Lipsky,
Federal Register Liaison, Office of Legislation and Congressional 
Affairs, Social Security Administration.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR 
chapter III, part 416, as set forth below:

PART 416--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND 
DISABLED

Subpart K--Income

0
1. The authority citation for subpart K of part 416 continues to read 
as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1602, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614(f), 
1621, 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
902(a)(5), 1381a, 1382, 1382a, 1382b, 1382c(f), 1382j, 1383, and 
1383b); sec. 211, Pub. L. 93-66, 87 Stat. 154 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note).

0
2. Amend Sec.  416.1102 by revising to read as follows:


Sec.  416.1102  What is income?

    Income is anything that you receive in cash or in kind that you can 
use to meet your needs for food or shelter. For purposes of this 
definition, income may be received ``actually'' or ``constructively.'' 
Income is received constructively, unless there are significant 
restrictions on your ability to receive it, if it is under your control 
or you can use it despite not actually receiving it. Sometimes income 
also includes more or less than you actually receive (see Sec.  
416.1110 and Sec.  416.1123(b)). In-kind income is not cash but is 
something else that you can use to meet your needs for food or shelter. 
Exception: Food is not included in the calculation of in-kind support

[[Page 9794]]

and maintenance, which is a type of unearned income that we have 
special rules for valuing (see Sec. Sec.  416.1130 through 416.1148).
0
3. Amend Sec.  416.1103 by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(2), the 
example in paragraph (g) and paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  416.1103  What is not income?

    (a) * * *
    (4) In-kind assistance (except shelter) provided under a 
nongovernmental program whose purpose is to provide medical care or 
medical services;
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) In-kind assistance (except shelter) provided under a 
nongovernmental program whose purpose is to provide social services; or 
* * *
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    Examples: If your daughter uses her own money to pay your mortgage 
payment directly to the mortgage lender, the payment itself is not your 
income because you do not receive it. However, because of your 
daughter's payment, the transaction provides you with shelter; the 
mortgage payment is in-kind income for shelter to you. Similarly, if 
you book a hotel room on credit and your son later pays the bill, the 
payment to the hotel is not income to you, but the payment of the bill 
is in-kind income for shelter to you. In this example, if your son pays 
for the hotel bill in a month after the month of the hotel stay, we 
will count the in-kind income to you in the month in which he pays the 
bill. On the other hand, if your brother pays a lawn service to mow 
your grass, the payment is not income to you because the mowing cannot 
be used to meet your needs for food or shelter. Therefore, the payment 
for the lawn service is not in-kind income as defined in Sec.  
416.1102.
* * * * *
    (j) Receipt of certain noncash items. Any item you receive (except 
shelter as defined in Sec.  416.1130) which would be an excluded 
nonliquid resource (as described in subpart L of this part) if you kept 
it, is not income.
    Example 1: A community takes up a collection to buy you a specially 
equipped van, which is your only vehicle. The value of this gift is not 
income because the van does not provide you with food or shelter and 
will become an excluded nonliquid resource under Sec.  416.1218 in the 
month following the month of receipt.
    Example 2: You inherit a house which is your principal place of 
residence. The value of this inheritance is income because the house 
provides you with shelter and shelter is income. However, we value the 
house under the rule in Sec.  416.1140.
0
4. Amend Sec.  416.1104 by revising the fourth sentence and removing 
the fifth sentence in the paragraph to read as follows:


Sec.  416.1104  Income we count.

    * * * One type of unearned income is in-kind support and 
maintenance (shelter), which we value depending on your living 
arrangement.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  416.1121 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  416.1121  Types of unearned income.

* * * * *
    (h) Support and maintenance in kind. This is shelter furnished to 
you that we value depending on your living arrangement. We use one rule 
if you are living throughout a month in another person's household 
receiving all your shelter from others living in the household. We use 
different rules for other situations in which you receive shelter. We 
discuss all of the rules in Sec. Sec.  416.1130 through 416.1148.
0
6. Amend Sec.  416.1130 by revising paragraphs (a), the first, sixth 
and seventh sentence in paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  416.1130  Introduction.

    (a) General. Both earned income and unearned income include items 
received in kind (see Sec.  416.1102). Generally, we value in-kind 
items at their current market value, and we apply the various 
exclusions for both earned and unearned income. However, we have 
special rules for valuing shelter that is received as unearned income 
(in-kind support and maintenance). This section and the ones that 
follow discuss these rules. In these sections (i.e., Sec. Sec.  
416.1130 through 416.1148) we use the in-kind support and maintenance 
you receive in the month as described in Sec.  416.420 to determine 
your SSI benefit. We value the in-kind support and maintenance using 
the Federal benefit rate for the month in which you receive it. 
Exception: For the first 2 months for which a cost-of-living adjustment 
applies, we value in-kind support and maintenance you receive using the 
VTR or PMV based on the Federal benefit rate as increased by the cost-
of-living adjustment.
    Example: Mr. Jones resides in his son's house. Mr. Jones receives a 
monthly SSI Federal benefit rate that is reduced by one-third. This 
one-third represents the value of the income he receives because he 
lives in the household of a son, throughout a month, who provides all 
of his shelter (in-kind support and maintenance). In January, we 
increase his SSI benefit because of a cost-of-living adjustment. We 
determine his SSI payment for that month considering the shelter he 
received from his son two months earlier in November. In determining 
the value of that shelter he received in November, we use the Federal 
benefit rate for January.
    (b) * * * We calculate in-kind support and maintenance considering 
any shelter that is given to you or that you receive because someone 
else pays for it. * * * In those States, if the required amount of rent 
is less than the presumed maximum value, we will consider as in-kind 
support and maintenance the difference between the required amount of 
rent and either the presumed maximum value or the current market value, 
whichever is less. In addition, cash payments made to uniformed service 
members as allowances for on-base housing or privatized military 
housing are in-kind support and maintenance. * * *
    (c) How we value in-kind support and maintenance. We have two rules 
for valuing the in-kind support and maintenance that we must count. The 
one-third reduction rule applies if you are living in the household of 
a person who provides you with shelter, unless we determine that you 
buy your food separately from the household, eat all meals out, or 
receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits (see 
Sec. Sec.  416.1131 through 416.1133). The presumed value rule applies 
in all other situations in which you receive countable in-kind support 
and maintenance (see Sec. Sec.  416.1140 through 416.1145). If certain 
conditions exist, we do not count in-kind support and maintenance. 
These conditions are discussed in Sec. Sec.  416.1141 through 416.1145.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  416.1131 by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding 
paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  416.1131  The one-third reduction rule.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Receive shelter from others living inside the household or from 
a combination of others living inside the household and others living 
outside the household. (If you do not receive shelter from others 
living in the household, see Sec.  416.1140.)
    (3) Do not buy food separately from the household, eat all meals 
out, or receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. If 
you buy food separately from the household, eat all meals out, or 
receive Supplemental

[[Page 9795]]

Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, any ISM received for shelter 
will be calculated under the PMV rule (see Sec.  416.1140).
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  416.1133 by revising the last sentence of paragraph (a) 
and the first sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  416.1133  What is a pro rata share of household operating 
expenses.

    (a) * * * (If you are receiving shelter from someone outside the 
household, we value it under the rule in Sec.  416.1140.)
* * * * *
    (c) Household operating expenses are the household's total monthly 
expenditures for rent, mortgage, property taxes, heating fuel, gas, 
electricity, water, sewerage, and garbage collection service. * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  416.1140 by revising to read as follows:


Sec.  416.1140  The presumed value rule.

    (a) How we apply the presumed value rule. (1) When you receive in-
kind support and maintenance and the one-third reduction rule does not 
apply, we use the presumed value rule. Instead of determining the 
actual dollar value of any shelter you receive, we presume that it is 
worth a maximum value. This maximum value is one-third of your Federal 
benefit rate plus the amount of the general income exclusion described 
in Sec.  416.1124(c)(12).
    (2) The presumed value rule allows you to show that your in-kind 
support and maintenance is not equal to the presumed value. We will not 
use the presumed value if you show us that--
    (i) The current market value of any shelter you receive, minus any 
payment you make for it, is lower than the presumed value; or
    (ii) The actual amount someone else pays for your shelter is lower 
than the presumed value.
    (b) How we determine the amount of your ISM under the presumed 
value rule. (1) If you choose not to question the use of the presumed 
value, or if the presumed value is less than the actual value of the 
shelter you receive, we use the presumed value to figure your ISM.
    (2) If you show us, as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, that the presumed value is higher than the actual value of the 
shelter you receive, we use the actual amount to figure your ISM.
0
10. Amend Sec.  416.1147 by revising paragraph (a), the paragraph 
heading in paragraph (b) and first sentence in paragraph (b)(1), 
paragraph (c) and the third sentence in paragraph (d)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  416.1147  How we value in-kind support and maintenance for a 
couple.

    (a) Both members of a couple live in another person's household and 
receive shelter from others living in the household or a combination of 
others living inside the household and others living outside the 
household. When both of you live in another person's household 
throughout a month and receive shelter from others living in the 
household or a combination of others living inside the household and 
others living outside the household, we apply the one-third reduction 
to the Federal benefit rate for a couple (Sec.  416.1131).
    (b) One member of a couple is in a medical institution and the 
other member of the couple lives in another person's household and 
receives shelter from others living in the household or a combination 
of others living inside the household and others living outside the 
household. (1) If one of you is living in the household of another 
person who provides you with shelter, and the other is temporarily 
absent from the household as provided in Sec.  416.1149(c)(1) (in a 
medical institution that receives substantial Medicaid payments for his 
or her care (Sec.  416.211(b))), and is ineligible in the month for 
either benefit payable under Sec.  416.212, we compute your benefits as 
if you were separately eligible individuals (see Sec.  416.414(b)(3)). 
* * *
    (c) Both members of a couple are subject to the presumed value 
rule. If the presumed value rule applies to both of you, we value any 
shelter you and your spouse receive at one-third of the Federal benefit 
rate for a couple plus the amount of the general income exclusion 
(Sec.  416.1124(c)(12)), unless you can show that its value is less as 
described in Sec.  416.1140(a)(2).
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * * We value any shelter received by the one outside of the 
medical institution at one-third of an eligible individual's Federal 
benefit rate, plus the amount of the general income exclusion (Sec.  
416.1124(c)(12)), unless you can show that its value is less as 
described in Sec.  416.1140(a)(2). * * *
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec.  416.1148 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  416.1148  If you have both in-kind support and maintenance and 
income that is deemed to you.

* * * * *
    (b) The presumed value rule and deeming of income. (1) If you live 
in the same household with someone whose income can be deemed to you 
(Sec. Sec.  416.1160 through 416.1169), or with a parent whose income 
is not deemed to you because of the provisions of Sec.  416.1165(i), 
any shelter that person provides is not income to you. However, if you 
receive any shelter from another source, it is income and we value it 
under the presumed value rule (Sec.  416.1140). We also apply the 
deeming rules.
    (2) If you are a child under age 18 who lives in the same household 
with an ineligible parent whose income may be deemed to you, and you 
are temporarily absent from the household to attend school (Sec.  
416.1167(b)), any shelter you receive at school is income to you unless 
your parent purchases it. Unless otherwise excluded, we value this 
income under the presumed value rule (Sec.  416.1140). We also apply 
the deeming rules to you (Sec.  416.1165).
0
12. Amend Sec.  416.1149 by revising paragraph (c)(1)(i) and (ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  416.1149  What is a temporary absence from your living 
arrangement.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1)(i) If you enter a medical treatment facility where you are 
eligible for the reduced benefits payable under Sec.  416.414 for full 
months in the facility, and you are not eligible for either benefit 
payable under Sec.  416.212 (and you have not received such benefits 
during your current period of confinement) and you intend to return to 
your prior living arrangement, we consider this a temporary absence 
regardless of the length of your stay in the facility. We use the rules 
that apply to your permanent living arrangement to value any shelter 
you receive during the month (for which reduced benefits under Sec.  
416.414 are not payable) you enter or leave the facility. During any 
full calendar month you are in the medical treatment facility, you 
cannot receive more than the Federal benefit rate described in Sec.  
416.414(b)(1). We do not consider shelter provided during a medical 
confinement to be income.
    (ii) If you enter a medical treatment facility and you are eligible 
for either benefit payable under Sec.  416.212, we also consider this a 
temporary absence from your permanent living arrangement. We use the 
rules that apply to your permanent living arrangement to value any 
shelter you receive during the month you enter the facility and 
throughout the period you are eligible for these benefits. We consider 
your absence to be temporary through the last month benefits under 
Sec.  416.212 are paid unless you are discharged from the

[[Page 9796]]

facility in the following month. In that case, we consider your absence 
to be temporary through the date of discharge.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-02731 Filed 2-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P