[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28608-28622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08364]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Part 416

[Docket No. SSA-2023-0015]
RIN 0960-AI81


Expand the Definition of a Public Assistance Household

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are finalizing our proposed rule to expand the definition 
of a public assistance (PA) household for purposes of our programs, 
particularly the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, to include 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as an additional 
means-tested public income-maintenance (PIM) program. We are also 
revising the definition of a PA household from a household in which 
every member receives some kind of PIM payment to a household that has 
both an SSI applicant or recipient, and at least one other household 
member who receives one or more of the listed PIM payments (the any 
other definition). If determined to be living in a PA household, inside 
in-kind support and maintenance (ISM) would no longer need to be 
developed. The final rule will decrease the number of SSI applicants 
and recipients charged with ISM from others within their household. In 
addition, we expect this rule to decrease the amount of income we would 
deem to SSI applicants and recipients because we will no longer deem as 
income from ineligible spouses and parents who live in the same 
household: the value of the SNAP benefits that they receive; any income 
that was counted or excluded in figuring the amount of that payment; or 
any income that was used to determine the amount of SNAP benefits to 
someone else. These policy changes reduce administrative burden for 
low-income households and SSA.

[[Page 28609]]


DATES: This final rule will be effective September 30, 2024.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The SSI program provides monthly payments to: (1) adults and 
children with a disability or blindness; and (2) people aged 65 and 
older who have little or no income and resources. Eligible individuals 
must meet all the requirements in the Social Security Act (Act), 
including having resources and income below specified amounts.\1\ 
Generally, the more income an individual has, the less their SSI 
payment will be. Under the SSI program, resources are cash or other 
liquid assets or any real or personal property that an individual (or 
spouse, if any) owns and could convert to cash to be used for their 
support and maintenance.\2\ Income, on the other hand, is anything the 
SSI 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 SSI eligibility and payment amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 42 U.S.C. 1382 and 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(a).
    \3\ 20 CFR 416.1102. See also 20 CFR 416.1103 for examples of 
items that are not considered income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once an applicant is found eligible for SSI, their monthly payment 
is determined by subtracting countable monthly income from the Federal 
benefit rate (FBR), which is the monthly maximum Federal SSI 
payment.\4\ The FBR for 2024 is $943 for an individual and $1,415 for 
an eligible individual with an eligible spouse.\5\ The Act and our 
regulations \6\ define income as ``earned,'' such as wages from work, 
and ``unearned,'' such as gifted cash or ISM.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 20 CFR 416.405 through 416.415. Some States supplement 
the FBR amount.
    \5\ 88 FR 72803, 72804 (2023). 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.
    \6\ See 42 U.S.C. 1382a; 20 CFR 416.1102 through 416.1124.
    \7\ See 20 CFR 416.1104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISM

    As indicated above, income that affects an individual's monthly SSI 
payment can be provided in cash or in-kind. We calculate ISM 
considering any shelter that is given to the individual or that the 
individual receives because someone else pays for it.\8\ For example, 
if an applicant or recipient lives with their sibling and does not pay 
rent, we would consider the shelter that their sibling provides to be 
ISM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 20 CFR 416.1130(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like other forms of income, ISM can reduce the amount of a 
recipient's monthly SSI payment. For example, we reduce the SSI monthly 
payment by one-third of the FBR if an individual is living in another 
person's household, receives shelter from others living in the 
household, and others within the household pay for or provide the 
individual with all of the individual's meals.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 20 CFR 416.1130(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional circumstances regarding ISM are discussed further in our 
regulations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 20 CFR 416.1130 through 416.1148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deeming Income

    In addition to counting ISM that an applicant or recipient 
receives, the SSI program deems income of certain individuals to the 
SSI applicant or recipient.\11\ ``Deeming'' is the process of 
considering a portion of another person's income to be the income of an 
SSI applicant or recipient.\12\ When our deeming rules apply, it does 
not matter whether the other person's income is actually available to 
the applicant or recipient.\13\ In determining an SSI applicant's or 
recipient's eligibility and payment amount, we consider both the SSI 
applicant's or recipient's own income as well as any relevant deemed 
income from others. For example, when a child who is applying for or 
receiving SSI lives with a parent who is ineligible for SSI, we deem a 
portion of that parent's income to the child through the month in which 
the child reaches age 18.\14\ Likewise, when an adult who is applying 
for or receiving SSI lives with a spouse who is ineligible for SSI, we 
deem a portion of the ineligible spouse's income to the applicant or 
recipient.\15\ We look at the deemor's income to see if we must deem a 
portion of it to the applicant or recipient because we expect the 
deemor, based on their relationship with the SSI applicant or 
recipient, to use some of their income to take care of (some of) the 
applicant's or recipient's needs. Ultimately, only some of the deemor's 
income is assigned to the SSI applicant or recipient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 42 U.S.C. 1382c(f); 20 CFR 416.1160.
    \12\ See 20 CFR 416.1160.
    \13\ See 20 CFR 416.1160, 416.1161.
    \14\ See 20 CFR 416.1165.
    \15\ See 20 CFR 416.1163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some income from ineligible parents and spouses is not deemed to 
the SSI applicant or recipient. For example, our policy excludes from 
deeming: the amount of any PIM payments the ineligible parents and 
spouses receive under the programs listed in the PA household 
definition; \16\ any income that those programs counted or excluded in 
determining the amount of the PIM payments they received; and any 
income of the ineligible spouse or parent that is used by a PIM program 
to determine the amount of that program's benefit to someone else.\17\ 
For example, if an ineligible spouse or parent receives Temporary Aid 
for Needy Families (TANF) assistance based on their income of $400 per 
month, we do not consider the TANF benefit amount or the $400 in our 
income determination for the SSI applicant or recipient. This is based 
on the premise that the income used to demonstrate eligibility for a 
PIM program and the PIM payment itself are required for that 
individual's own needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 20 CFR 416.1142(a).
    \17\ See 20 CFR 416.1161(a)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior Policy

    We previously defined a PA household as one in which every member 
receives a PIM payment under at least one of the following:
    1. Title IV-A of the Social Security Act (Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families or TANF);
    2. Title XVI of the Social Security Act (Supplemental Security 
Income or SSI);
    3. The Refugee Act of 1980 (payments based on need);
    4. The Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act;
    5. General assistance programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
    6. State or local government assistance programs based on need (tax 
credits or refunds are not assistance based on need); and
    7. Department of Veterans Affairs program (payments based on 
need).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 20 CFR 416.1142(a) (prior version).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Policy

    We are making changes based on the Commissioner of Social 
Security's

[[Page 28610]]

rulemaking authority specified in sections 205(a), 702(a)(5), 
1631(d)(1), 1631(e)(1)(A), and 1633(a) of the Social Security Act. 
Under those sections, the Commissioner may adopt rules regarding, among 
other things, the nature and extent of evidence needed to establish 
benefit eligibility, as well as methods of taking and furnishing such 
evidence.
    We are finalizing three changes discussed in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) that we published on September 29, 2023.\19\ First, 
we are finalizing a minor clarification to our definition of a PA 
household at 20 CFR 416.1142(a). The term ``public assistance'' may 
have implications outside our programs. We are finalizing, without 
change from the NPRM, the clarification that our definition of ``public 
assistance household,'' which we use as a term of art, applies only for 
purposes of our programs. Second, we are finalizing, without change 
from the NPRM, our proposed revision to the definition of a PA 
household in 20 CFR 416.1142(a) of adding SNAP to the existing list of 
PIM programs.\20\ Third, we are changing our definition of a PA 
household from one in which every member receives a PIM payment to one 
in which the household has both an SSI applicant or recipient, and at 
least one other household member who receives one or more of the listed 
PIM payments. If determined to be living in a PA household, inside ISM 
would no longer need to be developed. We discussed this potential 
change (from every to any other) in the NPRM and invited public 
comment; public commenters were largely supportive of the change.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 88 FR 67148.
    \20\ For more information on SNAP, visit https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program.
    \21\ In the NPRM, we referred to this potential change as from 
every to any other. In this final rule, we are adopting that 
proposed change but, for purposes of clarification, have slightly 
modified the new language defining a PA household in 20 CFR 
416.1142(a), such that the any other language is no longer used. 
Because the substance of the new definition is the same as the any 
other proposal, we continue to refer to the new definition as the 
any other definition throughout this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event of an invalidation of any part of this rule, our 
intent is to preserve the remaining portions of the rule to the fullest 
possible extent. Each of the three changes can be implemented 
independently of the others, and we intend each of the three changes to 
be severable from the others. The addition of SNAP to our list of PIM 
programs in 20 CFR 416.1142(a) is independent of our adoption of the 
any other definition--adding SNAP could be implemented separately even 
if we did not adopt the any other definition. Likewise, expanding our 
definition of a PA household by adopting the any other definition could 
be fully implemented whether or not SNAP is added to the list of PIM 
programs in 20 CFR 416.1142(a). The clarification that our definition 
of ``public assistance household'' is a term of art that applies only 
for purposes of our programs is a minor administrative clarification 
that is not contingent on the implementation of the two ways in which 
we are expanding the definition of a PA household with this final rule. 
If any of these three changes were to be invalidated, the others could 
still be implemented fully, as these changes relate to three separate 
aspects of the PA household policy.
    During the development of the NPRM, we considered other programs 
which are often considered means-tested programs, including 
Medicaid,\22\ the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
(LIHEAP),\23\ the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC),\24\ the Housing Choice Voucher 
Program,\25\ Project Based Rental Assistance, and Public Housing \26\ 
which we discussed in the ``Rationale for the Proposed Policy'' in the 
NPRM.\27\ At this time, we have decided to add SNAP with this expansion 
and continue to explore adding other programs in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For more information on Medicaid, visit https://www.medicaid.gov/.
    \23\ For more information on LIHEAP, visit https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/low-income-home-energy-assistance-program-liheap.
    \24\ For more information on WIC, visit https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic.
    \25\ For more information on the Housing Choice Voucher Program, 
visit https://www.hud.gov/hcv.
    \26\ For more information on Public Housing, visit https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph.
    \27\ 88 FR 67148, 67151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SNAP provides nutrition benefits via an Electronic Benefit Transfer 
(EBT) card, which can be used to buy groceries at authorized food 
stores and retailers.\28\ Everyone who lives together and purchases and 
prepares meals together is grouped together as one SNAP household; and, 
in most cases, the household must meet both gross and net income 
limits, which vary with household size, for the household to be 
eligible for and receive SNAP benefits.\29\ If everyone in the SNAP 
household is receiving TANF and/or SSI, the household may be deemed 
``categorically eligible'' for SNAP because they have already been 
determined eligible for another means-tested program.\30\ SNAP benefits 
meet the definition of income in our regulations.\31\ However, SNAP 
benefits are excluded from our income counting based on Federal 
statute.\32\ Because our policy links the types of PIM payments listed 
in 20 CFR 416.1142(a) with the income of ineligible spouses and parents 
that is excluded from deeming under 20 CFR 416.1161(a)(2)-(3), adding 
SNAP to the list of PIM programs will decrease the amount of income 
that is deemed to SSI applicants and recipients. If an SSI-ineligible 
spouse or parent is receiving SNAP benefits, the value of the SNAP 
benefit, as well as any income that was counted or excluded in figuring 
the amount of the SNAP benefits, would not be deemed to the SSI 
applicant or recipient. In addition, any income of the ineligible 
spouse or parent that is used to determine the amount of SNAP benefits 
to someone else would not be deemed to the SSI applicant or recipient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See ``How do I receive SNAP benefits?'' available at 
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility.
    \29\ See ``Who is in a SNAP household?'' and ``What are the SNAP 
income limits?'' available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility.
    \30\ See ``What are the SNAP income limits?'' available at: 
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility.
    \31\ See 20 CFR 416.1102.
    \32\ 7 U.S.C. 2017(b); see also 20 CFR 416, Subpart K, Appendix 
(I)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also discussed and invited public comment on broadening our 
definition of a PA household from one in which every member receives a 
PIM payment to one in which any member other than the SSI applicant or 
recipient receives a PIM payment. We have decided to adopt this change. 
Thus, under our new definition of PA household, if there is an SSI 
applicant or recipient in a household where at least one other member 
receives one or more of the listed PIM payments, the household will be 
considered a PA household, and we will not develop for inside ISM.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ ``Inside ISM'' is ISM that is provided to the SSI applicant 
or recipient from others within the same household in which the 
applicant or recipient is living. See POMS SI 00835.465.B.; see also 
POMS SI 00835.515. In contrast, ``[w]hen a person who is not a 
household member pays a vendor directly for any of the household's 
costs or provides the household with [ISM] for less than the current 
market value (CMV),'' we consider this ``outside ISM.'' See POMS SI 
00835.465.C.; see also POMS SI 00835.515. ISM that is neither 
inside, nor outside--such as ISM provided to only one person in the 
household--is considered ``other ISM.'' See POMS SI 00835.630.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we discussed in the NPRM, the previous definition of PA 
household (requiring every member to receive a PIM payment) may have 
disadvantaged individuals in low-income households where household 
members still needed their income (and resources) to meet their own 
needs but where a household member was not receiving a PIM payment for 
reasons unrelated to need.

[[Page 28611]]

For example, college students, who do not meet a student exception for 
SNAP, may not receive SNAP benefits even though the rest of the 
household does.\34\ In such circumstances, under our previous 
definition of PA household, the household would not qualify. But under 
the expanded definition of PA household that we are adopting, the 
household would not be disqualified as a PA household simply because 
one member was not receiving a PIM payment. In fact, many commenters 
supported the change we are now adopting based on their experiences, 
under the previous definition, of households that did not qualify for 
reasons unrelated to need.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/students.
    \35\ See public comments in the rulemaking docket at https://www.regulations.gov, under the docket SSA-2023-0015. Examples 
include Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Justice in Aging; 
The Legal Aid Society; and Community Legal Service of Philadelphia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, when we first established the PA household rule in 
1980, we explained that our rule ``relied on the fact that other 
agencies have determined that these individuals [receiving PIM 
payments] need all their income for their own needs.'' \36\ Because 
SNAP and several of the other PIM programs listed in our PA household 
definition provide, or may provide, benefits at the household (or 
family) level instead of the individual level (e.g., TANF, Refugee Act 
of 1980, Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and general 
assistance programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs), we note that in 
many circumstances a needs-based determination has been made for other 
household members. We discuss further justification for the change 
(from every member to any other member) in the Comments Summary section 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 45 FR 65542, https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/45-FR-65542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Summary

    We received 221 public comments on our NPRM from September 29 
through November 29, 2023. Of the total comments, 219 are available for 
public viewing at https://www.regulations.gov/document/SSA-2023-0015-0001.\37\ These comments were from:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ We excluded two comments. One comment was identical from 
the same commenter, and one was a partial submission that was 
missing pages that was resubmitted by the commenter for 
completeness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Individuals; and
     Advocacy groups, such as the National Organization of 
Social Security Claimants' Representatives and the National Association 
of Disability Representatives.
    We carefully considered the public comments we received. More than 
95 percent of commenters supported the proposals in the NPRM to add 
SNAP and to adopt the change from every member to any other member, 
meaning the household has both an SSI applicant or recipient, and at 
least one other household member who receives one or more of the listed 
PIM payments. Some commenters agreed with the overarching proposals but 
recommended amendments. Other commenters asked questions and offered 
opinions on the potential financial and legal implications of the 
proposals. A few commenters disagreed with the proposals altogether.
    We received some comments that were outside the scope of this 
rulemaking because they did not relate to our proposals either to add 
SNAP to our list of PIM programs or to change our definition from every 
member to any other member. Even though outside the scope, we address 
some of these other comments where they related to ISM more generally 
because a response might help the public understand our program better.
    The next section summarizes and responds to the public comments.

Comments and Responses

General Support

    Comment: Many commenters broadly supported, and encouraged us to 
quickly finalize and implement, adding SNAP to the list of PIM programs 
in our definition of a PA household.
    Response: We acknowledge and appreciate the support for that 
change.

Comments Regarding Scope of Change

    Comment: Many commenters supported the proposed change in the PA 
household definition from one in which every member receives some kind 
of PIM payments to one that has both an SSI applicant or recipient, and 
at least one other household member who receives one or more of the 
listed PIM payments. Some commenters stated that the any other proposal 
would simplify our processing of SSI claims, save time, and increase 
the speed with which we serve applicants and recipients. Some 
commenters noted that some SNAP households face barriers to SNAP 
enrollment for all household members, including households with: 
college students who do not meet a student exemption for SNAP; 
individuals with Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependent (ABAWD) status 
who are otherwise eligible for SNAP, but who are generally limited to 
no more than three months of SNAP benefits within a three-year period 
if they are not meeting certain work requirements or they do not 
qualify for an exception; and households with mixed immigration 
status.\38\ These commenters stated that such households, where some, 
but not all, members may be eligible for SNAP, would not benefit from 
the addition of SNAP to our list of PIM programs unless we adopted the 
any other proposal. In support of this point, commenters stated that 
the change to any other member would be consistent with Executive Order 
(E.O.) 13985.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For additional details on USDA/FNS's policy regarding 
families with mixed immigration status, see https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility/citizen/non-citizen-policy.
    \39\ Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support 
for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. January 
20, 2021. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01753/advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter objected to the examination and discussion of the any 
other proposal because they want further analysis and justification of 
the change. The commenter suggested that such a change should be 
explored through an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Response: We carefully considered the comments on the any other 
proposal and have decided to adopt the any other change in this final 
rule.
    First, the commenters cited examples of how requiring every member 
of the household to receive a PIM payment has disadvantaged individuals 
in low-income households under the previous definition when there was a 
household member who did not receive a PIM payment for reasons 
unrelated to need. We found these examples to be persuasive. The 
commenters noted, for example, that SNAP and TANF restrict certain 
individuals in the household from receiving benefits even if their 
income is used to determine the household's eligibility for the 
benefits.\40\ Specifically, several commenters \41\ pointed out that 
some members of a household are not eligible to receive SNAP because of 
their immigration

[[Page 28612]]

status, even if they would otherwise qualify for SNAP benefits based on 
their income (or need).\42\ In such a case, under the previous policy, 
although the SSI recipient lives in a household where all but one of 
the other members are receiving SNAP, we would not have considered this 
a PA household because not every member of the household was receiving 
a PIM payment. As a result, we may have treated the SSI recipient as 
receiving inside ISM and would have reduced their benefit despite the 
fact that the household was still sufficiently low income to qualify 
everyone in the household for the PIM payments based on financial need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ For example, adults who have exceeded eligibility time 
limits and certain non-citizens are not eligible to receive TANF, 
even if their income is used to determine a household's eligibility 
for TANF benefits. See ``Characteristics and Financial Circumstances 
of TANF Recipients Fiscal Year (FY) 2021,'' available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/fy2021_characteristics.pdf.
    \41\ Comments are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for docket ``SSA-2023-0015.'' See 
comments from: National Organization of Social Security Claimants' 
Representatives (NOSSCR); California Association of Food Banks 
(CAFB); Californians for SSI (CA4SSI); Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities (CBPP); Justice in Aging; and the Legal Aid Society.
    \42\ See ``Are non-citizens eligible for SNAP?'' at https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, for households with an SSI applicant or recipient and at 
least one other member who receives means-tested PIM payments, we find 
it reasonable to conclude that members of the household likely would 
not be able to provide the SSI applicant or recipient with inside ISM. 
This conclusion is supported by the data we have about the composition 
of households that receive the types of PIM payments covered by our PA 
household policy. This data generally shows that individuals eligible 
for PIM payments live in low-income households. For example:
     The average monthly income for TANF households is $958 (or 
under $12,000 annually). These income levels indicate that if someone 
in a household is receiving TANF, the entire household is likely to be 
low income.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Table 40 (``TANF Recipient Families by Receipt of Non-
TANF Income: FY 2021), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/data/characteristics-and-financial-circumstances-tanf-recipients-fiscal-year-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In 2014, a study showed that families who receive public 
assistance are significantly lower income than families who do not, 
with annual incomes averaging $33,549 for a family of four who receive 
at least one form of public assistance versus $74,597 for a family of 
four who do not receive any assistance.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Program participation and spending patterns of families 
receiving government means-tested assistance: Monthly Labor Review: 
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, available at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2018/article/program-participation-and-spending-patterns-of-families-receiving-means-tested-assistance.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     70 percent of SSI recipients live in households with 
family incomes below $30,000, including income from assistance 
benefits.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Messel and Trenkamp. 2022. ``Characteristics of 
Noninstitutional DI, SSI, and OASI Program Participants 2016 
Update.'' Research and Statistics Note No. 2022-01. Washington, DC: 
SSA. Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/rsnotes/rsn2022-01.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In FY 2020, 81 percent of SNAP households had gross 
monthly income less than or equal to the poverty line.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See USDA FNS. 2022. Characteristics of U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: 
Fiscal Year 2020. Available at https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/Characteristics2020-Summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An analysis of families receiving multiple public benefits 
(but not necessarily where every member received some form of public 
assistance) found that higher levels of benefit receipt are associated 
with lower income, earnings, and employment, and greater material 
hardship.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Edelstein, Pergamit, and Ratcliffe. 2014. Characteristics 
of Families Receiving Multiple Public Benefits. The Urban Institute. 
Available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22366/413044-Characteristics-of-Families-Receiving-Multiple-Public-Benefits.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A 2013 study found that about 25 percent of SSI recipients 
lived in a household where the total family income was below 100 
percent of the applicable family poverty threshold, even though the 
household contained at least one member who was not receiving PIM 
payments. This was true regardless of whether the SSI recipients were 
individuals/couples or noncouple multi-recipient.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Nicholas. 2013. Prevalence, Characteristics, and Poverty 
Status of Supplemental Security Income Multirecipients. Social 
Security Bulletin, Vol. 73, No. 3. Washington, DC: SSA. Available at 
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v73n3/v73n3p11.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The 2019 Survey of Income and Program Participation found 
that in households that receive both TANF and SSI, 85.7 percent (+/- 
8.4 percent) have incomes less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty 
rate, even after all transfers (that is, including the income the 
household receives from all sources of cash public assistance 
payments).\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ We selected the 2019 (reference year 2018) SIPP survey 
because it had the largest sample size of pre-COVID 19 SIPP surveys. 
U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. Survey of Income and Program 
Participation. Available at https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/social-safety-net-benefits.html. The most 
recent SIPP survey found that 61.2 percent (+/- 21.4 percent) of 
these same households had incomes less than 200 percent of the 
Federal poverty rate. The 2021 SIPP is inclusive of COVID-era 
stimulus payments and other transfer programs that no longer exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Lastly, related to the policy to add SNAP to the list of 
PIM programs, among households receiving SSI in 2021, 64.7 percent also 
qualified for and received SNAP.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. Who Is Receiving Social Safety 
Net Benefits? available at https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiving-social-safety-net-benefits.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, as discussed above and in our NPRM, SNAP and several other 
listed PIM programs provide, or may provide, household-level (or 
family-level) benefits (e.g., TANF, Refugee Act of 1980, Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and General assistance programs of 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs). This means a government agency has 
already determined that a household's income is sufficiently low such 
that the household is in need of public assistance. Based on that 
finding, it is reasonable for us to conclude that household members 
require their own income (and resources) to meet their own needs.
    Finally, regarding the suggestion that we explore whether to adopt 
the any other definition through an ANPRM, we used the NPRM to explore 
this option. In the NPRM, we discussed the possible policy change, 
examined evidence that supported the change, invited public comment 
specifically on the proposed change, and included an estimate and cost 
analysis from our Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT) over the fiscal 
years 2024 to 2033. The OCACT estimate projected SSI payments, and 
estimated changes for both recipients and new individuals who will be 
eligible under the revised any other definition that would not have 
been eligible under our previous rules.
    Comment: Some commenters encouraged us to go beyond the any other 
proposal and change the definition of a PA household to refer simply to 
any member, including the SSI applicants or recipients themselves.
    Response: Under the commenters' alternative proposal, every SSI 
recipient would live in a PA household and, thus, would be considered 
not to be receiving ISM from other members of the household (i.e., 
inside ISM). We do not think that result would be supportable because 
it would mean that we would never apply the one-third reduction (VTR) 
rule,\51\ which is based on a provision in the Social Security Act.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 20 CFR 416.1131; POMS SI 00835.200.
    \52\ See 42 U.S.C. 1382a(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters encouraged us to expand the definition of 
PA household to include additional programs, whether in this final rule 
or in a future rulemaking, including: Medicaid; LIHEAP and similar 
energy assistance programs; housing assistance from the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD); WIC; CHIP; and the earned income 
tax credit (EITC).
    Response: As we discussed in the NPRM,\53\ this is our first 
expansion of the definition of a PA household since 1980, when the 
policy was first established. Therefore, we decided to add SNAP 
initially and will consider other programs in the future; our

[[Page 28613]]

choosing not to do so now does not preclude adding other programs via 
future rulemaking. As discussed in our NPRM, SNAP recipients have been 
determined to be low-income and, therefore, need their income (and 
resources) to take care of their own needs, which is consistent with 
the rationale underlying our policy when it was first established.\54\ 
The other programs cited by the commenter do not align as easily with 
the criteria we used. For example, while the benefits of the EITC are 
concentrated among low-income households, some moderate-income 
taxpayers are eligible for a small credit, including taxpayers with 
three or more children earning up to $63,398 and with up to $11,000 in 
investment income (in 2023). This demonstrates that the EITC does not 
align with the underlying intent of our initially established PA 
household policy to the extent that SNAP does.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 88 FR 67152-67153.
    \54\ 88 FR 67152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, SNAP has several advantages over other programs that 
we considered that make it the best fit for this first expansion of our 
PA household definition. First, SNAP eligibility and receipt have 
relatively low State variability because SNAP is a nationwide program 
with relatively uniform eligibility standards. In general, net monthly 
income limits for SNAP eligibility are set at 100 percent of the 
poverty level.\55\ In contrast, Medicaid, for example, has varying 
income limits based on an individual's State of residence.\56\ 
Likewise, the upper eligibility levels for CHIP vary by State and range 
widely,\57\ as do the types of CHIP programs and groups covered by 
States. In contrast, the relative uniformity in SNAP eligibility 
requirements makes this initial expansion of our PA household policy 
more consistent and supportable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See ``What are the SNAP income limits?'' available at 
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility. Note that 
Alaska and Hawaii have separate, higher income eligibility standards 
for the SNAP program.
    \56\ https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/national-medicaid-chip-program-information/medicaid-childrens-health-insurance-program-basic-health-program-eligibility-levels/index.html
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, SNAP benefits are typically certified for relatively longer 
periods than other government benefit programs. For example, many SNAP 
participants are certified for 12 months, and older individuals and 
individuals with disabilities may be certified for up to 24 or 36 
months. In contrast, other programs with shorter or less predictable 
benefit periods might require more frequent development of individuals' 
living arrangements, which could be burdensome for recipients and our 
staff. For example, LIHEAP benefits, which help low-income households 
pay for heating or cooling, are typically seasonal, meaning that 
eligibility can vary within a 12-month period.
    Moreover, SNAP does not have a cap on enrollment, meaning those who 
qualify or meet eligibility requirements receive benefits. This ensures 
that we can include the entire SNAP-eligible population when we 
determine what households qualify as PA households. In contrast, 
programs like WIC, LIHEAP, and HUD housing are capped based on the 
availability of resources, which means there are waiting lists for 
those who are financially eligible and priority levels to receive 
benefits.\58\ As we strive for uniformity across the SSI program, we 
are concerned that including government benefit programs with 
enrollment caps or waiting lists may lead to disparate treatment of 
similarly situated SSI applicants and recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Dorn, Stan, et al. (2013). Overlapping Eligibility and 
Enrollment: Human Services and Health Programs Under the Affordable 
Care Act. The Urban Institute. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/76961/rpt_integrationproject.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we note that SNAP participation overlaps to a great extent 
with participation in other means-tested programs and, thus, by adding 
SNAP to the definition of PA household, we anticipate that we will also 
capture many of the individuals who receive benefits from other means-
tested programs. We would like to observe how adding SNAP to the PA 
household definition affects the SSI population before we determine 
whether to add additional programs, and if so, which programs.
    Despite the considerations cited above, we are not precluding 
adding other programs to the list of PIM payments in our PA Household 
definition. As well, changes to the programs discussed here might also 
cause us to reconsider them for inclusion on the list. Expanding the 
definition of PA household to include additional programs would require 
further, program-specific consideration.

Use of Data Sharing To Implement New Policy

    Comment: One commenter encouraged us to proactively recalculate 
benefits for existing recipients based on this new rule, rather than 
waiting until the recipients' next scheduled redetermination. The 
commenter wanted us to do this to ensure recipients received the 
benefit of the new policy as soon as possible. The commenter also 
stated that this process of proactive recalculation could be simplified 
by utilizing data we already receive through existing data matches. The 
commenter further stated that ``SSA should conduct Limited Issue 
reviews of all VTR and ISM records in order to comply with the new 
rules, as well as of all claims denied in the previous twelve months to 
identify erroneously denied applicants.''
    Similarly, many commenters, in their support for finalizing the 
proposed rule, encouraged us to expand or implement data sharing 
agreements with State SNAP administrators across the country. They 
advocated that expanded data sharing with SNAP administrators would be 
an improvement over using redeterminations to identify and correct 
``over-reduction'' of payment and ineligibility decisions.
    Response: We acknowledge and share the commenter's desire to ensure 
existing recipients receive the benefit of the new PA household policy 
as soon as possible. However, due to limited resources it is not 
administratively feasible to conduct Limited Issue reviews of all the 
VTR and ISM records. Further, this final rule does not apply to any 
claims denied before its effective date.
    Expanding or implementing data sharing agreements with States 
across the country would involve several important considerations that 
are outside the scope of this rulemaking, including the interest, 
capacity, and requirements of the States. We have an established 
process for data exchanges that we follow to implement any data 
exchange, including establishing the agreements. We currently have 174 
data sharing agreements with States/State agencies under which we 
provide data for the State/State agency to determine entitlement and 
eligibility for federally funded benefit programs, including Medicaid, 
SNAP, and TANF.

Income From Family or Friends

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that our regulations that 
deem income create a disincentive for SSI recipients to get married, 
and implied tension or conflict with the Supreme Court's holding in 
Obergefell v. Hodges,\59\ which holds that same-sex couples may not be 
deprived of the fundamental right to marry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: In general, deeming from a spouse is required by the 
Social Security Act.\60\ In the context of this rulemaking, as we 
explained in the NPRM, adding SNAP to our list of PIM programs will 
``decrease the amount of

[[Page 28614]]

income we [will] deem to SSI applicants and recipients because we 
[will] no longer deem income from ineligible spouses . . . who receive 
SNAP benefits and live in the same household.'' There is no tension or 
conflict between spouse-to-spouse deeming and the Supreme Court's 
holding in Obergefell: spouse-to-spouse deeming applies equally to 
opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 42 U.S.C. 1382c(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters made a broad suggestion to entirely 
eliminate ISM because counting ISM discourages friends and family from 
providing assistance to disabled loved ones, while one commenter 
acknowledged that a statutory change would be required to eliminate 
ISM.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenters' desired policy change, but 
as the one commenter stated, entirely removing ISM from our income 
calculations would require a statutory change.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See 42 U.S.C. 1382a(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opposition to the Rule

    Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed rulemaking because the 
NPRM did not extensively discuss the distinctions in the definitions of 
household composition for SSI and SNAP.
    Response: This rulemaking does not change the definition of a 
household for SSI purposes \62\ or for SNAP purposes.\63\ The commenter 
did not explain how the distinctions in the household composition 
definitions are relevant to our addition of SNAP, and we do not believe 
that the distinctions preclude us from adding SNAP to our regulatory 
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ SSA--POMS: SI 00835.020--Definitions of Terms Used in 
Living Arrangements (LA) and In-Kind Support and Maintenance (ISM) 
Instructions--8/2023. https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0500835020.
    \63\ See ``Who is in a SNAP household?'' at SNAP Eligibility 
[verbar] Food and Nutrition Service (usda.gov). https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter asserted that because a federal food-stamp 
program existed in 1980, when the PA household policy was first 
created, the relative increase in SNAP participation since that time 
does not sufficiently justify the change to include SNAP in the list of 
PIM programs in our definition of a PA household. The commenter further 
noted that ``the large increase in SNAP users and concurrent decline in 
the poverty rate since 1980 . . . is not a relevant indication of 
increased need.''
    Response: When we first established the PA household policy in 
1980, we explained that it was based on the idea that if the other 
individuals in the household were receiving a PIM payment, they needed 
their income (and resources) to meet their own needs. This meant they 
could not support the SSI applicant or recipient because they had no 
extra income (or resources) to share. The determination of need, made 
by the applicable Federal or State agency providing the PIM payments, 
supported the assumption that the others in the household could not 
provide ISM to the SSI applicant or recipient. The fluctuations in the 
overall poverty rate in the United States are not directly relevant to 
whether the household members are able to provide ISM to the SSI 
applicant or recipient. As we discussed in the NPRM, when the PA 
household policy was first created in 1980, the list of PIM programs in 
our definition of a PA household reflected the most widely used means-
tested public benefit programs at that time.\64\ The nationwide food-
stamp program began in 1974--just six years before the establishment of 
the PA household policy--and had approximately 21.1 million 
participants in 1980.\65\ In contrast, approximately 42.1 million 
people receive SNAP benefits today,\66\ making SNAP now one of the most 
widely used public benefit programs. As we discussed in the NPRM, we 
have not updated our list of PIM programs for the PA household policy 
since 1980, despite the significant shifts in the landscape of public 
assistance programs since that time. SNAP recipients have been 
determined to be low-income and, therefore, need their income (and 
resources) to meet their own needs.\67\ Indeed, a USDA report from 2019 
showed that approximately 80 percent of all SNAP households had gross 
monthly income that was less than or equal to the Federal poverty 
level.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See 88 FR 67151-52.
    \65\ See Congressional Budget Office, ``The Food Stamp Program: 
Eligibility and Participation,'' Nov. 1988, p. 2, available at 
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/100th-congress-1987-1988/reports/88-cbo-0010.pdf.
    \66\ See USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), SNAP Data 
Tables, ``FY19 through FY23 National View Summary,'' Sept. 2023, 
available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap.
    \67\ See 88 FR 67152.
    \68\ See USDA, ``Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2019,'' March 2021, 
Report No. SNAP-20-CHAR, available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/Characteristics2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter opposed adding other programs, such as ``in-
kind assistance programs like food and medical care,'' that are not 
cash assistance programs, to the programs listed in our definition of a 
PA household. Further, the commenter asserted that we had taken an 
inconsistent stance by calling our treatment of food ``insignificant'' 
in a different rulemaking \69\ but ``including SNAP . . . as 
significant'' in this PA household rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ The commenter appears to be referring to the NPRM the 
agency published on ``Omitting Food from In-Kind Support and 
Maintenance.'' See 88 FR 9779 (Feb. 15, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Regarding the commenter's statement that we should not 
add in-kind assistance programs like food and medical care to our PA 
household definition, we have determined that means-tested programs 
largely have shifted over the last several decades from cash assistance 
programs toward voucher-based or in-kind support programs. Because of 
this shift over time, we have a reduced ability to effectively identify 
the individuals we intended to serve under our PA household definition.
    As we noted in the NPRM, SNAP benefits meet our definition of 
income in 20 CFR 416.1102.\70\ The commenter's reference to our NPRM on 
Omitting Food from In-Kind Support and Maintenance is generally outside 
the scope of this rulemaking. However, we note that, contrary to the 
commenter's assertion, we have not described food assistance as 
``insignificant,'' nor is food assistance treated inconsistently under 
the two rules. Here, we are adding SNAP benefits to the list of PIM 
programs under the PA household policy. This change means that if the 
household has both an SSI applicant or recipient, and at least one 
other household member who receives SNAP benefits (or other PIM 
payments listed in the PA household definition), we will not develop 
inside ISM because we consider that the household is sufficiently low 
income such that the members need all of their income (and resources) 
to meet their own needs--they are not able to share with or provide ISM 
to the SSI applicant or recipient. In contrast, under the final rule 
Omitting Food from In-Kind Support and Maintenance, we removed food 
from our calculations of ISM. More importantly, it is less accurate to 
compare potentially partial, inconsistent food assistance that an 
individual receives from family or friends with something like SNAP, a 
Federal benefit one can only qualify for after demonstrating they do 
not have enough income or resources to fulfill their own basic 
nutrition needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See 88 FR 67151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter described the NPRM as incomplete because 
there was ``no federalism, no distributional

[[Page 28615]]

analysis, no alternatives considered[.]'' The commenter also desired 
estimates of costs from Medicaid, and other programs using an SSI 
Financial Eligibility Model (FEM). The same commenter asserted that 
data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) was 
better for this rulemaking than the Current Population Survey (CPS) 
data used in our proposed rule. The commenter asserted that CPS data 
undercounts income and suggested our estimates might be incorrect.
    Response: Regarding federalism, section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 defines 
``policies that have federalism implications'' as ``refer[ring] to 
regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other 
policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on 
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.'' \71\ As stated in the NPRM and this 
final rule, we analyzed the rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria established by E.O. 13132 and determined that the rule will 
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation 
of a federalism assessment. As also stated in the NPRM and this final 
rule, we also determined that the rule will not preempt any State law 
or State regulation or affect States' abilities to discharge 
traditional State governmental functions. We maintain that those 
determinations are accurate, and the commenter did not give any reason 
to believe they are not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-08-10/html/99-20729.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a matter of protocol, the estimates prepared by SSA's Office of 
the Chief Actuary (OCACT) focus on the impact on SSA. The commenter is 
incorrect in stating regarding the NPRM that ``no alternatives [were] 
considered[.]'' For example, the reasons that we provided in support of 
the proposal, particularly in the ``Rationale for the Proposed Policy'' 
section of the NPRM, demonstrate that we considered the proposal 
against the alternative of making no change.\72\ Also, as we stated in 
the ``Proposed Policy'' section of the NPRM, ``[d]uring the development 
of [the NPRM], we considered other means-tested programs, including 
Medicaid, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), the 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
(WIC), the Housing Choice Voucher Program, Project Based Rental 
Assistance, and Public Housing, which we discuss[ed] in the `Rationale 
for the Proposed Policy' section'' of the NPRM.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See 88 FR 67148, 67151-52 (Sept. 29, 2023).
    \73\ Id. at 67150-51 (footnotes omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the commenter's assertion that SIPP data was better 
for this rulemaking than CPS data, in our development of the estimated 
Federal SSI program cost effects, we did not use the income fields from 
the CPS to estimate the effects of this proposal. The CPS was only used 
for the purpose of determining how many SSI households were also 
receiving SNAP and would thus be impacted by implementation of the 
proposal. Regarding the research cited in the NPRM that used the CPS, 
the CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) is the source 
of official poverty measures, and we consider it sufficiently reliable 
for other government estimates. A chief advantage of the CPS ASEC over 
the SIPP (used by the FEM) is larger sample size. Because PA households 
represent a small fraction of the SSI caseload, we rely on the larger 
data source to make more precise estimates. Even the CPS ASEC does not 
include enough cases to support the additional detailed analyses that 
the commenter would like to see.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that the NPRM should comply with the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, known as the Administrative Pay-As-
You-Go Act of 2023.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Public Law 118-5, div. B, title III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: This rule complies with the Administrative Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2023. That Act does not impose requirements at the NPRM stage. 
Additionally, this final rule is not subject to the Act's requirements 
because it is not estimated to increase direct spending by at least 
$100 million for FY 2024 (the first fiscal year during the 10-year 
period). See section 266 of the Act.
    Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed rule based on the 
administrative implementation cost of $105 million because, in the 
commenter's view, it conflicts with our anticipated administrative 
burden reduction from simplified calculations. The commenter also 
stated that there will be more redeterminations and more applications 
because of the new policy.
    Response: To clarify, administrative costs to implement a new 
regulation (stemming from a variety of sources, such as new systems) 
are distinct from non-financial administrative burden sources such as 
time, ease, and efficiency. Administrative costs and non-financial 
burdens, then, will not necessarily move in the same direction. As 
explained in the NPRM, we anticipate this policy change will result in 
administrative costs that will be only partially offset by 
administrative savings. At the same time, we expect processing time 
savings because employees will spend less time developing household 
expenses and making inside ISM determinations. Nonetheless, as the 
comment suggests, we estimated that there will be costs to process 
additional claims, reconsiderations, and appeals. As we stated in the 
NPRM, we anticipate that this expansion of our PA household policy will 
increase the amount of monthly SSI benefits for those to whom the 
policy applies and make more individuals eligible for SSI benefits. 
Consequently, we anticipate that there will be additional costs to 
process redeterminations and post-eligibility actions associated with 
this rule change.
    In summary, we acknowledge what the commenter is expressing, and we 
provided revised estimate text in the preamble to clarify that the 
administrative burden would be reduced in a subset of cases, which 
would only partially offset the greater amount of costs from newly 
eligible recipients. However, as further discussed in the preamble and 
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, we have determined that the benefits 
of the rule justify the costs, and that the rule can have 
administrative benefits even while it imposes administrative costs.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that using SNAP to confirm SSI 
eligibility will result in overpayments in multiple programs, thereby 
increasing financial burdens on beneficiaries to repay the funds. The 
commenter stated that ``SNAP income and asset testing has changed 
dramatically with the creation and expansion of Broad-Based Categorical 
Eligibility (BBCE). This has contributed to a massive increase in SNAP 
participation rolls and a greater reliance on recipient self-
attestation--the number one contributor to program overpayments.'' The 
commenter also asserted that our proposed rule ``will increase the 
participation in SSI, not decrease as imagined in [the] NPRM.''
    Response: Under this final rule, receipt of SNAP is not dispositive 
of the applicant's or recipient's SSI eligibility. It is true that 
under this final rule, receipt of SNAP by one or more household members 
(other than the SSI applicant or recipient) may factor into our 
determination of whether the SSI applicant or recipient lives in a PA 
household, but this is advantageous to the individual applying for or 
receiving SSI. If the SSI applicant or recipient lives in a PA 
household, that means

[[Page 28616]]

only that we consider the SSI applicant or recipient not to be 
receiving ISM from members of the household--not necessarily that the 
SSI applicant or recipient is eligible for SSI.
    We carefully considered the commenter's reservations about SNAP. 
However, we continue to maintain that adding SNAP is consistent with 
the rationales and purposes of our PA household policy, as discussed in 
the NPRM and in this final rule. We would add, first, that we find it 
reasonable and supportable to consider a needs-based eligibility 
determination by a government entity, on a matter within its 
competence, as reliable. Second, an overpayment determination for a 
given type of benefit does not necessarily mean that the applicant or 
recipient was not entitled or eligible to receive any such benefits for 
the period at issue; and our PA household policy looks at receipt of a 
PIM payment generally, not the amount of the PIM payment. Third, if we 
determined, in light of another government entity's overpayment 
determination, that a household member did not receive a PIM payment, 
we could and would make a correction, as appropriate and subject to all 
our usual rules, including administrative finality.\75\ Fourth, BBCE 
``is a policy in which households may become categorically eligible for 
SNAP because they qualify for a non-cash Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF) or state maintenance of effort (MOE) funded benefit.'' 
\76\ BBCE is consistent with our longstanding list of PIM programs, 
which includes both TANF and State or local government assistance 
programs based on need.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See 20 CFR 416.1488.
    \76\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/broad-based-categorical-eligibility.
    \77\ See 20 CFR 416.1142(a)(1), (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, contrary to the commenter's statement, our proposed rule 
did not indicate that we anticipated a decrease in SSI participation. 
In the NPRM, we stated that there would be a ``decrease [in] the number 
of SSI applicants and recipients charged with in-kind support and 
maintenance (ISM)'' and a ``decrease [in] the amount of income we would 
deem to SSI applicants or recipients because we would no longer deem 
income from ineligible spouses and parents who receive SNAP benefits 
and live in the same household.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 88 FR 67148, 67148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter suggested reducing administrative burden 
when we determine eligibility by conducting mandatory verifications of 
all income and assets in SSI applications, because self-attestation 
creates ``an environment favorable to first and third-party fraud[.]'' 
The commenter stated that ``the `pay and chase' implications in 
overpayment recoveries infers an administrative burden upon state and 
local welfare agencies.''
    Response: Verification of ``all income and assets in SSI 
applications'' is outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, we 
note that in administering the SSI program, we carefully ensure that 
our policies and procedures are consistent with the requirement in the 
Social Security Act: ``that eligibility for [SSI] benefits . . . will 
not be determined solely on the basis of declarations by the applicant 
concerning eligibility factors or other relevant facts, and that 
relevant information will be verified from independent or collateral 
sources and additional information obtained as necessary in order to 
assure that such benefits are provided only to eligible individuals (or 
eligible spouses) and that the amounts of such benefits are correct.'' 
\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 42 U.S.C. 1383(e)(1)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding our PA household policy, we do not rely on self-
attestation alone. For initial claims, we ``substantiate receipt of PA 
payments'' (or PIM payments) with ``evidence . . . [in] the form of an 
award letter, report of contact with the paying agency, etc.''; and, in 
post-eligibility situations, we appropriately document or substantiate 
PIM payments depending on indications of a changed living 
arrangement.\80\ Lastly, after over 40 years of applying our PA 
household policy, we are aware of no evidence that the policy as such 
leads to overpayments or that overpayments occur with respect to PA 
household determinations more than other comparable determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ POMS SI 00835.130E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miscellaneous Comments

    Comment: One commenter asserted the proposed rule would not benefit 
the quality of life of all U.S. citizens and that ``[t]here is no 
defined option to revert changes if [the rulemaking] proves to be 
incorrect.''
    Response: Under the Social Security Act, we have broad authority to 
make and revise rules and regulations, consistent with the Act, that 
are necessary or appropriate for the administration of our programs, 
including the SSI program.\81\ Adding SNAP to the list of PIM programs 
in our definition of a PA household and adopting the any other 
definition are proper exercises of the Commissioner's rulemaking 
authority under the Act, and these changes are appropriate and 
justified. For the reasons articulated in the NPRM and this final rule, 
we believe these changes will help us administer the SSI program and 
provide better support to individuals with limited income and 
resources. Administering the SSI program as we have been charged to do 
benefits the public more broadly and the common good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See 42 U.S.C. 405(a), 902(a)(5), 1383(d)(1), 1383b(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed rule in light of 
inflation, which ``is presenting challenges for low/no income 
individuals with their SSI payment and SNAP benefits taken together. 
Any cuts to their SSI payment at this time will place such individuals 
at a disadvantage in paying their bills and living with dignity in 
their households.'' The commenter also suggested that we tax ``the 
super-rich'' and ``[s]top illegal immigrants at the border and stop 
them from exploiting the benefits budgeted for legal residents with 
genuine needs.''
    Response: This rulemaking will not result in cuts to SSI payments. 
We anticipate that the expansion of our PA household policy will 
increase SSI payments for those to whom the policy applies. Taxation 
and border control are outside our administrative authority and outside 
the scope of this rulemaking. Immigration status may be relevant for 
SSI purposes, but changes to national immigration policy are outside 
the scope of this rulemaking.

Regulatory Procedures

E.O. 12866, as Amended by E.O. 14094

    We consulted with the OMB, and OMB determined that this final rule 
meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under section 
(3)(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, and is subject to 
OMB review.

Anticipated Transfers to Our Program

    The primary anticipated impact of this rule is an increase in 
monetary transfers from the government to SSI recipients. Our Office of 
the Chief Actuary (OCACT) estimates that implementation of this rule 
would result in a total increase in Federal SSI payments of $15 billion 
over fiscal years 2024 through 2033, assuming implementation of this 
rule beginning on September 30, 2024. When the effects of implementing 
this rule are fully realized, the annual increase in Federal SSI 
payments is estimated to be about two percent relative to what would 
have occurred under previous rules. To estimate the impact, OCACT used 
the Annual and Social Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current

[[Page 28617]]

Population Survey (CPS) and our administrative data. We expect that 
adding SNAP to the list of PIM programs and changing to the any other 
definition of a PA household will increase the number of PA households 
for which we do not charge inside ISM, which will increase Federal SSI 
payments for these recipients. In addition, we expect that no longer 
deeming income from ineligible spouses and parents whose income is used 
to determine eligibility for or amount of SNAP payments will also 
increase Federal SSI payments. We expect that implementation of this 
final rule will also cause some individuals to receive Federal SSI 
payments who would not have been eligible under the previous rules.
    According to our Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of 
Benefit Information Systems, as of January 2023, there were 303,609 SSI 
recipients living in a PA household according to the previous 
definition, approximately four percent of our total 7.5 million SSI 
recipients.\82\ We expect the share of SSI recipients living in a PA 
household, as defined under this rule, to increase substantially when 
this final rule is implemented. Specifically, OCACT estimates that once 
this rule is implemented and the effects have stabilized, in fiscal 
year 2033 roughly 277,000 Federal SSI recipients (4 percent of all SSI 
recipients) will have an increase in monthly payments compared to 
current rules, and an additional 109,000 individuals (1 percent 
increase) will receive Federal SSI payments who would not have been 
eligible under current rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Annual Statistical Supplement, 2023--Summary of SSI. 
Available at: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2023/7a.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the expansions of our PA household definition could 
result in a reduction of SNAP benefits due to potential interaction 
between SSI and SNAP. For example, if an ineligible spouse or parent 
were receiving SNAP, we would no longer deem their income to an SSI 
applicant or recipient. Not deeming income for SSI purposes could lead 
to an increase in the SSI payment, which could in turn cause the 
household to receive a SNAP reduction that is 30 percent of the SSI 
increase, up to the point of ineligibility.\83\ The household's 
ineligibility for SNAP could mean, in turn, that the SSI recipient is 
no longer part of a PA household for SSI purposes. Our understanding is 
that: an individual or household generally would prefer cash to SNAP 
benefits; an increase in SSI could not result in a decrease in SNAP 
benefits greater than the increase in SSI; and, in the main, the 
increase in SSI that may result from the expansions of our definition 
of a PA household will be favorable on net to individuals and 
households. However, we recognize that the interplay among various 
benefit types, as well as the relationships and financial interests of 
the SSI individual and other household members, can be complicated. We 
cannot necessarily predict how the change could affect individuals 
participating in other programs within these households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Because SNAP households are expected to spend about 30 
percent of their own resources on food, the maximum monthly 
allotment is calculated by multiplying a household's net monthly 
income by 0.3 and subtracting the result from the maximum monthly 
allotment for the household size. See ``How much could I receive in 
SNAP benefits?'' at https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anticipated Net Administrative Cost to the Social Security 
Administration

    The Office of Budget, Finance, and Management estimates that this 
proposal will result in a total net administrative cost of $83 million 
for the 10-year period from FY 2024 to FY 2033. This estimate includes 
costs to update our systems, to send notices to inform current 
recipients of the policy changes, to address inquiries from the 
notices, to verify receipt of SNAP benefits, and to perform additional 
post-eligibility actions to account for changes in living arrangements. 
Under this final rule, more individuals will be newly eligible for SSI 
benefits than under the current rule, resulting in additional costs to 
process additional claims, reconsiderations, appeals, redeterminations, 
and post-eligibility actions. In addition to the costs, our estimate 
also includes processing time savings as field office employees will 
not have to spend time developing for household expenses/contributions 
or the full income of deemors (ineligible parents and spouses) or go 
through the inside ISM determination process during initial claims, 
pre-effectuation reviews, redeterminations, and post-eligibility 
actions. While our estimate includes savings due to the reduction in 
processing times for affected cases, we expect that the costs to 
process new claims, reconsiderations, and appeals for additional newly 
eligible individuals will outweigh the savings.

Anticipated Qualitative Costs & Benefits

    We anticipate qualitative benefits from the revision of adding SNAP 
to the PA household definition, thereby ensuring that ISM and income 
deeming do not undermine the economic security of households who 
receive nutrition assistance.
    Additionally, the revision will reduce administrative burdens for 
SSI applicants or recipients. Under our finalized policy, the list of 
PIM programs includes SNAP, and the definition of PA household has 
changed to refer to a household which has both the SSI applicant or 
recipient, and at least one other household member who receives a PIM 
payment. Once we identify that an SSI applicant or recipient lives in a 
PA household, the applicant or recipient would not have to provide 
household expenses information.
    Our change from every member to any other member receiving a PIM 
payment to meet the definition of a PA household further simplifies the 
development of living arrangements and ISM, reduces SSA's 
administrative costs and compliance costs during initial determinations 
and redeterminations for applicants and recipients living in PA 
households, and reduces ISM complexities that lead to payment errors. 
Removing the requirement that every member be in receipt of a PIM 
payment will help ensure that we reach more SSI applicants and 
recipients based on their need, especially in cases where one 
individual in a household was categorically ineligible for a PIM 
payment for reasons unrelated to their potential need. For example, the 
change to any other will save time for individuals, household members, 
and us, since we will no longer have to develop for the entire 
household once we identify one other person in the household receiving 
a PIM payment. We acknowledge that if the individual receiving the PIM 
payment leaves the household we would subsequently inquire if there is 
another household member also receiving a PIM payment, and this would 
impose a small administrative burden. However, this burden is not 
meaningfully different from those caused by other changes in 
circumstances that would lead us to verify whether the SSI recipient 
remains eligible for SSI benefits. We anticipate this final rule will 
still reduce administrative burden overall.
    We also anticipate some qualitative costs. Specifically, because of 
our new definition of a ``public assistance household,'' the SSI 
applicant or recipient will now need to answer new questions and 
provide documentation about the public assistance they and others in 
their household receive, so we can accurately determine if they live in 
a ``public assistance household.'' As well, since SNAP is being added 
to the list of programs considered for PA household determinations, 
processing times may temporarily increase as we

[[Page 28618]]

verify receipt of SNAP benefits. This additional information is a 
qualitative cost of the regulation, although ultimately, providing the 
information may be beneficial to the SSI applicant or recipient.
    Additionally, the rule change may impose quantitative costs on us 
due to our increased need for additional development in certain 
circumstances. For instance, it is possible our regulatory change may 
incentivize current SSI recipients to change living arrangements to co-
locate with family or friends who are receiving SNAP. This is similar 
to our current policy that requires SSI applicants and recipients to 
notify us of changes in their living arrangements. SSI applicants and 
recipients will need to ask ineligible spouses or parents whether their 
income was used to determine eligibility for, or the amount of, the 
SNAP benefits. If it was, and if this information is verified by SSA 
during the initial claim, we would exclude the income for deeming 
purposes in the SSI program.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See POMS SI 01320.141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule 
as meeting the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    We analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and 
criteria established by E.O. 13132 and determined that the rule will 
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation 
of a federalism assessment. We also determined that this 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 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

    The final rule requires minor revisions to our existing information 
collections to expand our definition of PA Household and include SNAP 
as an example of a PIM program. In addition, the application of the 
revisions to these rules causes a burden change to our currently 
approved information collections under the following information 
collection requests: 0960 0174, the SSA-8006, Statement of Living 
Arrangements, In Kind Support and Maintenance; 0960-0456, the SSA-8011, 
Statement of Household Expense and Contributions; and 0960-0529, the 
SSA-5062, Claimant Statement about Loan of Food or Shelter, and the SSA 
L5063-F3, Statement about Food or Shelter Provided to Another. We also 
anticipate a small burden reduction per response for the SSA 8006 
(0960-0174) as respondents will not need to develop the responses about 
their household. In addition, we anticipate a 50% reduction in the 
number of respondents based on those who indicate they are part of a 
Public Assistance Household and who may not need to complete the 
follow-up forms SSA-5062, SSA L5063, SSA-8006, and SSA 8011. We 
anticipate this will result in a reduction in the overall burden for 
these information collections.
    We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 29, 2023, 
at 88 FR 67148. In that notice, we solicited comments under the PRA on 
the burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical 
utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways 
to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The 
comments section above includes our responses to the PRA-related public 
comments we received under the NPRM.
    The following chart shows the reduction in time burden information 
associated with the final rule:
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P

[[Page 28619]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19AP24.106


[[Page 28620]]


    The following chart shows the reduction in theoretical cost burdens 
associated with the final rule:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19AP24.107


[[Page 28621]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19AP24.108


[[Page 28622]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19AP24.109

    As we have revised the associated burdens for the above-mentioned 
forms since we made revisions to the final rule which were not included 
at the NPRM stage, we are currently soliciting comment on the burden 
for the forms as shown in the charts above. If you would like to submit 
comments, please send them to the following locations:

BILLING CODE 4191-02-C
Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax 
Number: 202-395-6974
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 May 20, 2024, 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.

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 416

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

    The Commissioner of Social Security, Martin O'Malley, 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 amend 20 CFR chapter 
III, part 416, as follows:

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:  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.  416.1142 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, 
(a)(6) and (7) and adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  416.1142  If you live in a public assistance household.

    (a) Definition. For purposes of our programs, a public assistance 
household is one that has both an SSI applicant or recipient, and at 
least one other household member who receives one or more of the listed 
public income maintenance payments. These are payments made under--
* * * * *
    (6) State or local government assistance programs based on need 
(tax credits or refunds are not assistance based on need);
    (7) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs programs (those payments 
based on need); and
    (8) The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-08364 Filed 4-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P