Proposed Rule2023-18213
Expansion of the Rental Subsidy Policy for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Applicants and Recipients
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 24, 2023
Issuing agencies
Social Security Administration
Abstract
We propose to revise our regulations by applying nationwide the In-Kind Support and Maintenance (ISM) rental subsidy exception that is currently in place for SSI applicants and recipients residing in seven States. The exception recognizes that a "business arrangement" exists when the amount of required monthly rent for a property equals or exceeds the presumed maximum value. This proposed rule would improve nationwide program uniformity, and, we expect, improve equality in the application of the rental subsidy policy.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57910-57915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18213]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Part 416
[Docket No. SSA-2023-0010]
RIN 0960-AI82
Expansion of the Rental Subsidy Policy for Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) Applicants and Recipients
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to revise our regulations by applying nationwide
the In-Kind Support and Maintenance (ISM) rental subsidy exception that
is currently in place for SSI applicants and recipients residing in
seven States. The exception recognizes that a ``business arrangement''
exists when the amount of required monthly rent for a property equals
or exceeds the presumed maximum value. This proposed rule would improve
nationwide program uniformity, and, we expect, improve equality in the
application of the rental subsidy policy.
DATES: To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive
them no later than October 23, 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-2023-0010 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
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Use the ``search'' function to find docket
number SSA-2023-0010. 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 Legislation and
Congressional Affairs, Regulations and Reports Clearance Staff, Mail
Stop 3253 Altmeyer, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal
eRulemaking portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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, 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 <a href="https://www.ssa.gov">https://www.ssa.gov</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We administer the SSI program, which provides monthly payments to:
(1) adults and children with a disability or blindness; and (2) adults
aged 65 or older. Eligible individuals must meet all the requirements
in the Social Security Act (Act), including having resources and income
below specified amounts.\1\ Since SSI is a needs-based program for
persons with limited income and resources, we must consider the amount
of income an applicant or recipient has when determining whether that
person is eligible to receive SSI payments. If the individual is
eligible, their income is also a factor in calculating the amount of
their monthly SSI payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 part 416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, once an individual is determined eligible for SSI,
their monthly payment amount is determined by subtracting their
countable monthly income from the Federal benefit rate (FBR),\2\ which
is the monthly maximum Federal SSI payment.\3\ The FBR for 2023 is $914
for an individual and $1,371 for an eligible individual with an
eligible spouse.\4\ Generally, the more income an individual has, the
less their SSI payment will be.\5\ For the purposes of SSI, ``income''
is defined as anything that an individual receives in cash or in kind
that the individual can use to meet their needs for food and
shelter.\6\ The Act and our regulations \7\ define income as
``earned,'' such as wages from work, and ``unearned,'' such as gifted
cash.\8\ Our proposed regulatory change pertains to rental subsidy,
which is a type of ISM under the broader umbrella of unearned income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 20 CFR 416.1101.
\3\ See 20 CFR 416.405 through 416.415. Some States supplement
the FBR amount.
\4\ 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 <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSIamts.html">https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSIamts.html</a>. When the FBR is adjusted for
the cost of living, the amount of the potential ISM reduction
adjusts accordingly.
\5\ See 20 CFR 416.1100.
\6\ See 20 CFR 416.1102.
\7\ See 42 U.S.C. 1382a; and 20 CFR 416.1102-1124.
\8\ See 20 CFR 416.1104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISM
As noted above, income that affects an individual's monthly SSI
payment can also be provided in kind.\9\ Generally, we value in-kind
items at their current market value and apply the various exclusions
for both earned and unearned income; however, we have special rules for
valuing food or shelter that is received as unearned income (ISM).\10\
Under our current regulations, ISM means any food or shelter that is
given to an individual or that the individual receives because someone
else pays for it.\11\ Shelter includes room, rent, mortgage payments,
real property taxes, heating fuel, gas, electricity, water, sewerage,
and garbage collection services.\12\ For example, if an SSI recipient's
brother lets the recipient live rent-free in his home throughout a
calendar month, we would consider the shelter the brother provides as
ISM to the recipient. We have two rules for valuing the ISM that we
must count: (1) currently, the one-third reduction rule (VTR) applies
if the individual is living in the household of a person, throughout a
month, who provides the individual with both food and shelter, and (2)
the presumed maximum value rule (PMV) applies in all other situations
in which the individual is
[[Page 57911]]
receiving countable ISM.\13\ For example, a recipient lives with a
sibling. The recipient receives SNAP to pay for their own food, but
does not pay shelter expenses. The sibling pays all the shelter
expenses. Based on the recipient paying for their own food, SSI is
calculated under the PMV rule. The VTR cannot apply, because the
recipient is not receiving both food and shelter from the household.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 20 CFR 416.1102.
\10\ See 20 CFR 416.1130(a).
\11\ See 20 CFR 416.1130(b). We recently published a proposed
rule to remove food from the calculation of ISM. See 88 FR 9779
Omitting Food From In-Kind Support and Maintenance Calculations,
published February 15, 2023.
\12\ See 20 CFR 416.1130(b).
\13\ 20 CFR 416.1130(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VTR rule is governed by legislation and requires SSA to reduce
the applicable federal benefit rate by one-third when the recipient
receives both food and shelter, throughout a month, from the household
in which they reside.\14\ The PMV rule, which is one-third the federal
benefit rate plus $20, only applies if the recipient receives food or
shelter from within the household. In addition, the PMV rule allows
recipients to rebut the maximum amount of ISM being charged, by
providing the actual value of the ISM being received. Rebuttal is not
an option under the VTR rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Social Security Act Sec. 1612(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Subsidy
Our current regulation further clarifies that an individual is not
receiving ISM in the form of room or rent if they are paying the
required monthly rent charged under a ``business arrangement.'' \15\
Under the current general definition, a ``business arrangement'' exists
when the amount of monthly rent required to be paid equals the current
monthly rental value (CMRV)--that is, the price of the rent on the open
market in the individual's locality.\16\ For example, if the owner of
an apartment would rent that property to any potential tenant for $800
per month, then the CMRV is $800. Consequently, in this example, if an
SSI recipient agrees to pay the landlord rent in the amount of $800 per
month, a ``business arrangement'' would exist and the SSI recipient
would not be receiving ISM in the form of room or rent. Conversely,
under our current general definition of a ``business arrangement,'' if
the SSI recipient rented the same property but paid only $400 per
month, a ``business arrangement'' would not exist because $400 is less
than the CMRV.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 20 CFR 416.1130(b).
\16\ Id. See also 20 CFR 416.1101.
\17\ In this instance, we would apply ISM's PMV rule, as the
individual is receiving some level of support from the landlord by
paying less than the CMRV of the shelter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we develop possible rental subsidy, we first determine whether
the required monthly rent is equal to the CMRV. In practice, our
technicians must contact the landlord for information on the required
monthly rent or reach out to an appropriate source for information
about the CMRV for that property and locality. This source can be the
landlord or another knowledgeable source (e.g., a real estate firm or
rental management agency). With this information in hand, we then
compare the rent the individual is paying to the CMRV and document the
reason for any reduced monthly rent. If the required monthly rent is
less than the CMRV, we count the difference between the required
monthly rent and the CMRV as ISM to the SSI applicant or recipient.\18\
We use the presumed maximum value (PMV) rule to value this type of ISM.
In valuing shelter under the PMV rule, instead of determining the
actual dollar value of the shelter, we presume that the shelter is
worth one-third of the FBR plus the amount of the $20 general income
exclusion.\19\ SSI applicants and recipients may rebut this presumption
by showing that the value of the ISM they are receiving is less than
the PMV.\20\ Thus, under this current general policy, the amount of ISM
counted is capped at the PMV. Conversely, if the rent equals or exceeds
the CMRV, we determine that there is no rental subsidy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Program Operations Manual System (POMS) SI 00835.380E.
\19\ See 20 CFR 416.1140(a).
\20\ See 20 CFR 416.1140(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take the example of an SSI recipient living with their ineligible
spouse and child who is renting a single-family home owned by the
recipient's mother. The mother-landlord alleges the property has a CMRV
of $1,500 per month, but she is requiring the SSI household to pay only
$350 in rent per month. To calculate the rental subsidy under the
current general policy, we would subtract the required monthly rent
from the CMRV ($1,500 - $350 = $1,150), in which case the rental
subsidy would be $1,150. We would divide the total rental subsidy by
the number of people in the household ($1,150/3 = $383.33).\21\ Per
regulation, the maximum amount of ISM that can be charged is $324.66 a
month for 2023. Therefore, the recipient's SSI payment is $589.34 ($914
(FBR 2023)--$324.66 (PMV for 2023)). This is with the understanding
that the recipient has no other income.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The method for calculating the rental subsidy is described
in POMS SI 00835.380(E)(1) Procedure for valuing the actual value
(AV) of the rental subsidy. This methodology reflects our ISM
regulatory policy's approach of examining rental subsidy from the
perspective of the household (see e.g., 20 CFR 416.1130).
\22\ See 20 CFR 416.1140(a).
\23\ See 20 CFR 416.1130(b); Jackson v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1076
(7th Cir. 1982).
\24\ See Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 90-2(2): Ruppert v. Bowen, 871
F.2d 1172 (2d Cir. 1989)--Evaluation of a Rental Subsidy as In-Kind
Income for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Benefit Calculation
Purposes--Title XVI of the Social Security Act. If we finalize this
proposed rule, we will rescind AR 90-2(2) as obsolete, in accordance
with 20 CFR 416.1485(e)(4).
\25\ See Diaz v. Chater, No. 3:95-cv-01817-X (N.D. Tex. Apr. 17,
1996); POMS SIDAL 00835.380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following chart illustrates the above example:
Example 1-- Current General Rental Subsidy Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equation Application of the example
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMRV-Required Monthly Rent = Household $1,500 - $350 = $1,150.
ISM.
Household ISM/Number of people in $1,150/3 people in household =
household = ISM/Rental Subsidy to the $383.33.
SSI Recipient.
ISM is capped at the PMV............... $383.33 > $324.66.
SSI payment = FBR-PMV.................. SSI payment = $914 - $324.66 =
$589.34.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exception
Following court cases that challenged how we applied ISM rules for
rental subsidy, we provided an exception for residents living in
jurisdictions covered by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
(in our regulations),\23\ residents in the Second Circuit (in an
Acquiescence Ruling),\24\ and residents of Texas (in the Program
Operations Manual System).\25\ For residents of these seven excepted
States (Connecticut, New York, Vermont, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin,
and Texas), a ``business arrangement'' exists when the required monthly
rent the SSI recipient is required to pay equals or exceeds the
[[Page 57912]]
PMV.\26\ In these States, if the required amount of rent is less than
the PMV, then the value of the rental subsidy is the difference between
the required monthly rent and the PMV or the CMRV, whichever is less.
This means there may be a lower threshold for what qualifies as a
``business arrangement'' for applicants and recipients in these
excepted States because, in many cases, the PMV is lower than the CMRV.
Application of this exception tends to reduce the amount of ISM counted
towards an individual's SSI payment, which generally results in a
higher SSI payment amount. For example, an SSI recipient whose living
arrangement is identical to that discussed in the prior example, but
who resides in one of the seven States in which the exception applies,
would not be charged ISM because the required monthly rent exceeds the
PMV ($350 > $324.66). Consequently, the SSI recipient would continue to
receive the FBR (provided they did not receive any other income
countable for SSI purposes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See POMS SI 00835.380.B.7.
Example 2--Rental Subsidy Exception Policy Proposed To Be Extended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PMV < CMRV............................. $324.66 < $1,500.
Required Monthly Rent > PMV............ $350 > $324.66.
Therefore, no ISM to the SSI Recipient. = SSI Payment = $914.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As illustrated by these examples, our current application of the
ISM rules is not uniform nationwide, and the exception is an advantage
only for those SSI applicants and recipients living in the seven
excepted States.
Rationale for Regulatory Action
We propose to change the rental subsidy policy in our regulations
by applying nationally the definition of ``business arrangement'' that
currently applies in only seven States because of the court decisions
noted above. The rationale of the courts that resulted in the situation
currently in place in seven states, in particular in the Seventh
Circuit decision in Jackson and the Second Circuit decision in Ruppert,
also supports extending this policy to the other states, as outlined in
our proposed rule. In Jackson, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that it is
not enough for a claimant to be provided shelter at a rate below market
value for that difference to be counted as ``income'' for SSI purposes;
rather, to be counted as ``income,'' the difference between the market
value and the actual rental payment must result in increased purchasing
power to meet the claimant's basic needs.\27\ The Seventh Circuit
explained that ``purchasing power grows if in-kind contributions of
shelter either make cash available to purchase necessities of life
other than shelter or if, and to the extent, the quality of shelter
itself is enhanced to meet basic needs.'' \28\ Similarly, in Ruppert,
the Second Circuit found that the difference between the CMRV and the
required monthly rent does not always constitute an actual economic
benefit which should be counted as ``income'' for SSI purposes.\29\ To
implement Ruppert, for residents of the Second Circuit, we announced
that an applicant or recipient does not receive an ``actual economic
benefit'' from a rental subsidy when the amount of required monthly
rent equals or exceeds the PMV.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Jackson, 683 F.2d at 1082-87; In Jackson, the Seventh
Circuit addressed a situation where ``a very large percentage'' of
an individual's income was already committed to shelter costs before
the agency considered any unearned income from a rental subsidy.
Under those circumstances, the additional value of the rental
subsidy did not increase the individual's ability to pay for their
other basic needs. See also Supplemental Security Income for the
Aged, Blind, and Disabled; Subpart K--Income, 51 FR 13487, 13488
(Apr. 21, 1986).
\28\ Jackson, 683 F.2d at 1084.
\29\ Ruppert, 871 F.2d at 1179-81; Social Security Acquiescence
Ruling (AR) 90-2(2), 55 FR 28947, 28949 (July 16, 1990).
\30\ AR 90-2(2), 55 FR at 28949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying nationally the definition of ``business arrangement''
based on the PMV rather than the CMRV, and thus focusing on the SSI
recipient's purchasing power or the actual economic benefit they
receive, would also ensure that all SSI applicants and recipients,
regardless of where they reside, would have the same policy applied to
them regarding the definition of a business arrangement. This uniform
definition of business arrangement means that no recipient's SSI
payment amount would be lower simply because they reside in a State
where the exception policy described above does not currently apply.
This proposed policy change therefore supports our goal of enhancing
equality in the programs we administer for all applicants and
recipients.
This proposal will also foster efficiency in our administration of
the SSI program, because we no longer would have to apply different
policies on the definition of a business arrangement depending on the
SSI applicant or recipient's State of residence. In any program as
large as ours, ``the need for efficiency is self-evident.'' \31\ As
well, we expect that the proposal would improve customer service by
reducing the amount of time we need to calculate SSI payment amounts in
States in which the current exception does not apply. Because the
exception is currently in place in some States, we already have a well-
established procedure for applying the exception, and we are confident
that such a change can be applied nationwide with minimal operational
or systems impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 29 (2003); Heckler v.
Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 461, n.2 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing this rule in response to specific requests
from the public. Recently, we adopted the Social Security
Administration's Agency Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-2026
(Strategic Plan),\32\ which defines our long-term goals and objectives
over the next four years to further our overall mission. Among the
stated goals, we resolve to optimize the experience of our customers by
adopting policies aimed at serving individuals and communities. Our
Strategic Plan further commits to engage the public and external
stakeholders to better inform our regulatory activities.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Social Security Administration, Agency Strategic Plan:
Fiscal Years 2022-2026, page 9, Strategic Goal 1: Optimize the
Experience of SSA Customers and Strategic Objective 1.1--Identify
and Address Barriers to Accessing Services. available at: <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/agency/asp/">https://www.ssa.gov/agency/asp/</a>.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of these goals, we have been in communication since
October 2022 with advocate groups representing a wide variety of
claimants and beneficiaries from diverse backgrounds. In response, we
received numerous suggestions for ways to improve access to our
programs, particularly to our SSI program. Among the recommendations we
received were suggestions to update and streamline the SSI program's
rules on ISM.
As discussed above, the current lack of uniformity in our business
arrangement definition can disadvantage affected SSI applicants
[[Page 57913]]
and recipients who do not live in States where the rental subsidy
exception applies. The differing application of the business
arrangement definition was noted by the external parties, who
recommended that we apply the current rental subsidy exception
nationwide as one way to streamline the SSI program and make it more
equitable. We agree with this recommendation. The proposed rules, if
finalized, would benefit SSI applicants and recipients, no matter the
State they live in, and make the SSI program easier to administer. The
proposed change would also make the SSI program more equitable by
applying the rental subsidy policy uniformly to all affected SSI
applicants and recipients, regardless of where they live.
Moreover, as explained in the study Simplifying the Supplemental
Security Income Program: Options for Eliminating the Counting of In-
kind Support and Maintenance, ``[a]lthough SSI eligibility was intended
to be determined on the basis of objective information on income and
resources, development of ISM is often based on estimates of food and
shelter expenses provided by the applicant or recipient and verified by
other household members.'' \34\ By applying the rental subsidy
exception nationwide, the rent paid by the SSI applicant or recipient
will be compared to a standard dollar amount--the PMV. Our technicians
anticipate sending out fewer living arrangement development forms (form
SSA-L5061, OMB 0960-0454) by instead confirming the limited necessary
information with the landlord orally, namely: that the required rent
amount is equal to or greater than the PMV.\35\ The more detailed
estimates currently provided by the landlord or other household members
under our existing regulations are therefore less likely to be needed
or used in administering the SSI program. This reduced need to contact
landlords or other third parties for information regarding the CMRV
also increases the efficiency of the SSI program by reducing the number
of instances in which we have to seek out that information (We note
that we would need to contact someone other than the landlord only if
we cannot verify information with the landlord directly.). In summary,
then, this new policy will result in greater efficiency and time
savings for our employees, and a reduction in the reporting burden for
the public (see Paperwork Reduction Act section of the preamble).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 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,
<a href="http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n4/v68n4p15.html">www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n4/v68n4p15.html</a>.
\35\ Claimants may provide certain types of evidence (e.g., a
rental agreement or lease) to support their allegation of rent
amount, and in these circumstances an SSA technician does not need
to reach out to the landlord to further develop the allegation.
However, SSA finds that in many circumstances claimants do not
provide SSA with the necessary evidence. In these cases, SSA will
attempt to contact the landlord by phone to orally confirm the rent
amount. If the landlord is not successfully reached, SSA may still
be required to send the form SSA-L5061. SSA seeks comment on
additional procedural considerations and/or acceptable forms of
evidence (e.g., proof of electronic transfer of funds in the alleged
amount to the named landlord) that a claimant might provide that
would be minimally burdensome while satisfactorily demonstrating
proof of rent amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Change
As discussed above, we propose to apply nationwide the rental
subsidy exception currently in place in seven States. Accordingly, our
nationwide policy would be that a ``business arrangement'' exists when
the amount of monthly rent required to be paid equals or exceeds the
PMV. If the required amount of rent is less than the PMV, we would
impute as ISM the difference between the required amount of rent and
either the PMV or the CMRV, whichever is less. For example, if the
required household rent is $300, and the CMRV amount is greater than
the PMV, then the amount of household ISM would be $24.66 divided by
the number of household members. However, this charge may be offset by
other exclusions.
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 and
Executive Order 14094, 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:
<bullet> Would more, but shorter, sections be better?
<bullet> Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
<bullet> Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
<bullet> Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
<bullet> What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
<bullet> Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is
not clear?
<bullet> 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 and
Executive Order 14094
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 and Executive Order 14094. Therefore, OMB
reviewed it.
Anticipated Transfers to Our Program
Our Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that implementation of
this proposed rule would result in a total increase in Federal SSI
payments of $971 million over fiscal years 2024 through 2033, assuming
implementation of this rule on April 29, 2024. These transfers reflect
an estimation that approximately 41,000 individuals who would be
eligible under our current rules will have their Federal SSI payment
increased by an average of $128 per month attributable to
implementation of this rule. There would also be an additional 14,000
individuals who are not eligible under current rules who would be newly
eligible and would apply for benefits under the proposed rule.
Anticipated Net Administrative Cost Savings to the Social Security
Administration
The Office of Budget, Finance, and Management estimates that this
proposal will result in net
[[Page 57914]]
administrative savings of $10 million for the 10-year period from FY
2024 to FY 2033. The net administrative savings is mainly a result of
unit time savings as field office employees will not have to spend time
developing CMRV for all rental subsidy calculations during initial
claims, pre-effectuations reviews, redeterminations, and post-
eligibility actions. The savings are offset by costs to update our
systems, costs to send notices to inform current recipients of the
policy changes, costs to address inquiries from the notices, and costs
because of more individuals' being eligible for SSI benefits, which
increases claims, reconsiderations, appeals, redeterminations, and
post-eligibility actions.
Anticipated Time-Savings and Qualitative Benefits to the Public
We anticipate the following qualitative benefits generated from
this proposed policy:
<bullet> Saving time and effort for claimants and third parties who
may have evidence related to a claimant's application because they
would need to submit less information. SSA estimates at a minimum this
will result in more than 7,000 hours of time saved in annual reduced
paperwork burden, representing an opportunity cost of $1,140,526 (see
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of the preamble below for
specifics).
<bullet> Potentially get faster determinations or decisions
regarding SSI eligibility or payment amount, or both, which would have
both quantitative effects financially and, qualitatively, may alleviate
stress for applicants and recipients associated with the length of time
it may take to obtain SSI.
<bullet> Administratively easier to apply the same policy
nationwide.
Anticipated Qualitative Costs
We do not anticipate more than de minimis costs associated with
this rulemaking. 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.
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 rule does not anticipate any new collections or require
revisions to existing collections. However, the application of the
revisions to these rules may cause 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; and 0960-0454, the SSA-
L5061, Letter to Landlord Requesting Rental Information. Based on our
current management information data from the seven states currently
implementing these changes, we anticipate these changes will allow for
verbal responses from landlords in place of the current form in some
situations, thus reducing the overall burden as SSA will not require
those respondents to complete the entirety of Form SSA-L51061. In
addition, we note that for those who use the paper form, we will send a
revised version with question #5 removed. We also anticipate a slight
burden reduction to Form SSA-8006, as the respondents may not need to
provide as much detail pertaining to their rental subsidy agreement due
to the proposed rule.
The following chart shows the time burden information associated
with the proposed rule:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anticipated Anticipated
Current Current new burden estimated
average estimated per total Estimated
OMB No.; form No.; CFR citations Number of Frequency burden per total response burden burden
respondents of response response burden under under savings
(minutes) (hours) regulation regulation (hours)
(minutes) (hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0960-0174 SSA-8006 (Paper Form).............................. 12,160 1 7 1,419 6 1,216 203
0960-0174 SSA-8006 (SSI Claims System)....................... 109,436 1 7 12,768 6 10,944 1,824
0960-0454 SSA-L5061 (Paper Form)............................. 35,640 1 10 5,940 8 4,752 1,188
0960-0454 SSA-L5061 (Phone Call)............................. 35,640 1 10 5,940 3 1,782 4,158
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................................... 192,876 ........... ........... 26,067 ........... 18,694 7,373
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following chart shows the theoretical cost burdens associated
with the proposed rule:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anticipated Average
estimated Average combined wait
total burden theoretical time in field Total annual
OMB No.; form No.; CFR citations Number of under hourly cost office and/or opportunity
respondents regulation amount teleservice cost (dollars)
from chart (dollars) * centers ***
above (hours) (minutes) **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0960-0174 SSA-8006 (Paper Form). 12,160 1,216 * $12.81 ** 19 *** $77,885
0960-0174 SSA-8006 (SSI Claims 109,436 10,944 * 12.81 ** 24 *** 443,931
System)........................
0960-0454 SSA-L5061 (Paper Form) 35,640 4,752 * 29.76 ** 24 *** 565,678
0960-0454 SSA-L5061 (Phone Call) 35,640 1,782 * 29.76 .............. *** 53,032
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57915]]
Totals...................... 192,876 19,882 .............. .............. *** 1,140,526
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We based this figure on the average DI payments based on SSA's current FY 2023 data (<a href="https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2023factsheet.pdf">https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2023factsheet.pdf</a>); on the average U.S. citizen's hourly salary, as reported by Bureau of Labor
Statistics data (<a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm</a>).
** We based this figure on the average FY 2023 wait times for field offices and hearings office, as well as by
averaging both the average FY 2023 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.
SSA submitted a single new Information Collection Request which
encompasses the revisions to both information collections (currently
under OMB Numbers 0960-0174, and 0960-0454) to OMB for the approval of
the changes due to the proposed rule. After approval at the final rule
stage, we will adjust the figures associated with the current OMB
numbers for these forms to reflect the new burden. 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. In
addition, we are specifically seeking comment on whether you have any
questions or suggestions for edits to the forms referenced above in the
context of this proposed regulatory change. Questions to consider might
include (but are not limited to):
(1) Are there other SSA information collections we have not noted
that you believe we should modify as a result of this proposed policy
change?
(2) Do our new estimated time burdens accurately represent the time
burden associated with these forms? The burden estimate should include
both the time needed to answer the form's questions and activities such
as the time spent gathering records and documentation if necessary, or
travel time associated with developing and submitting the collection.
If you believe our reported estimate is inaccurate (when considering
that we anticipate a burden reduction associated with the rulemaking),
please explain why.
(3) Are there modifications to the forms or the information
collection processes associated with developing information about a
recipient's potential rental subsidy that the agency should consider in
developing this final rule (keeping in mind that there may be policy or
operational limitations on our ability to implement some types of new
information collection processes)?
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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#014e4853405e5274636c687272686e6f416e6c632f646e712f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="440b0d16051b173126292d37372d2b2a042b29266a212b346a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>
Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director,
Mail Stop 3253 Altmeyer, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore MD 21235, Fax:
410-966-2830, Email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c130e720e392c332e282f721f30393d2e3d323f391c2f2f3d723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="165944384473667964626538557a737764777875735665657738717960">[email protected]</span></a>
You can submit comments until October 23, 2023, which is 60 days
after the publication of this notice. However, your comments will be
most useful if you send them to SSA by October 23, 2023, which is 60
days after publication. 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 Programs No 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 is revised 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.In Sec. 416.1130 revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 416.1130 Introduction
* * * * *
(b) How we define in-kind support and maintenance. In-kind support
and maintenance means any food or shelter that is given to you or that
you receive because someone else pays for it. Shelter includes room,
rent, mortgage payments, real property taxes, heating fuel, gas,
electricity, water, sewerage, and garbage collection services. You are
not receiving in-kind support and maintenance in the form of room or
rent if you are paying the amount charged under a business arrangement.
A business arrangement exists when the amount of monthly rent required
to be paid equals or exceeds the presumed maximum value described in
Sec. 416.1140(a)(1). If the required amount of rent is less than the
presumed maximum value, we will impute as in-kind support and
maintenance the difference between the required amount of rent and
either the presumed maximum value or the current market rental value
(see Sec. 416.1101), whichever is less. In addition, cash payments to
uniformed service members as allowances for on-base housing or
privatized military housing are in-kind support and maintenance.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-18213 Filed 8-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 24, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.