Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-29072

Rule2024-29072

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Program Purpose and Work Requirement Provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023

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

December 17, 2024

Effective

January 16, 2025

Issuing agencies

Agriculture DepartmentFood and Nutrition Service

Abstract

This final rule implements three provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023, affecting the program purpose and individuals subject to the able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWD) time limit for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These changes do the following: add language about assisting low-income adults in obtaining employment and increasing their earnings to the program purpose; update and define exceptions from the ABAWD time limit; and adjust the number of discretionary exemptions available to State agencies each year. This rule also clarifies procedures for when State agencies must screen for exceptions to the time limit and verification requirements for exceptions.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 102342-102395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29072]

[[Page 102341]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 242

December 17, 2024

Part IV

Department of Agriculture

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

Food and Nutrition Service

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

7 CFR Part 271 and 273

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Program Purpose and Work
Requirement Provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023; Final
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 102342]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Part 271 and 273

[FNS 2023-0058]
RIN 0584-AF01

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Program Purpose and
Work Requirement Provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements three provisions of the Fiscal
Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023, affecting the program purpose and
individuals subject to the able-bodied adults without dependents
(ABAWD) time limit for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP). These changes do the following: add language about assisting
low-income adults in obtaining employment and increasing their earnings
to the program purpose; update and define exceptions from the ABAWD
time limit; and adjust the number of discretionary exemptions available
to State agencies each year. This rule also clarifies procedures for
when State agencies must screen for exceptions to the time limit and
verification requirements for exceptions.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 16, 2025.

ADDRESSES: SNAP Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition
Service, USDA, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catrina Kamau, Certification Policy
Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, 1320
Braddock Place, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a69747b6a796a78684f565f497a4f495e5b145d554c">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Phone: (703) 305-2022.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Acronyms or Abbreviations

Able-bodied adults without dependents, ABAWDs or time-limited
participants
Code of Federal Regulations, CFR
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, FRA
Fiscal Year, FY
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the Act
Food and Nutrition Service, FNS
State SNAP Agencies, State agencies or States
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP
U.S. Code, U.S.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department or USDA

I. Background

The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act), establishes national
eligibility standards for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP), including work requirements for certain individuals. The first
of these work requirements, referred to as the general work
requirements, requires certain individuals to register for work; accept
an offer of suitable employment; not voluntarily quit or reduce hours
of employment below 30 hours per week, without good cause; and
participate in workfare or the SNAP Employment and Training (SNAP E&T)
program if required by the State agency. Most SNAP participants are
exempt from the general work requirements because they are older
adults, have disabilities, are children, or meet another exemption from
the general work requirements listed in the Act.
Individuals who are not exempt from the general work requirements
may also be subject to an additional time-limit work requirement. The
Act limits these individuals, referred to as able-bodied adults without
dependents (ABAWDs) or time-limited participants, to receiving SNAP
benefits for three months in a 36-month period unless they are meeting
this additional time-limit work requirement, live in an area where the
time limit is waived due to a lack of sufficient jobs or a high rate of
unemployment, or are otherwise exempt. This is sometimes referred to as
the ABAWD time limit. Individuals can continue receiving SNAP beyond
the three-month time limit by working, participating in a qualifying
work program (including SNAP E&T), or any combination of the two, for
at least 20 hours a week (averaged monthly to 80 hours a month).
Individuals can also meet the time limit by participating in and
complying with workfare for the number of hours assigned (equal to the
result obtained by dividing a household's SNAP allotment by the higher
of the applicable Federal or State minimum wage). For the purposes of
the time limit, working includes unpaid or volunteer work that is
verified by the State agency. These requirements are sometimes referred
to as the ABAWD work requirement. For the purposes of the final rule,
the Department will use the term ``time limit'' to refer to both the
ABAWD work requirement and time limit, as this phrasing more accurately
describes the requirements applied to time-limited participants.
The Act provides exceptions from the time limit based on certain
individual circumstances, such as age, pregnancy, or meeting an
exemption from the general work requirements. Individuals who meet an
exception are not subject to the time limit. The Act also allows for
waivers of the time limit in areas with an unemployment rate over 10
percent or an insufficient number of jobs to provide employment for
individuals. Individuals residing in waived areas are not required to
meet the time limit. Lastly, the Act also establishes an annual
allotment of discretionary exemptions that State agencies may use to
extend eligibility for a time-limited participant who is not meeting
the requirement. Each discretionary exemption can extend eligibility
for one participant for one month, and there is no limit on the number
of discretionary exemptions a single participant can receive.
Sections 311 through 313 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of
2023 (Pub. L. 118-5) amended the Act, revising exceptions from the time
limit and the allotment of discretionary exemptions, as well as the
program purpose. Based on these changes, the Department first issued
guidance in June 2023 \1\ to assist State agencies in implementing the
FRA changes and then issued subsequent question-and-answer guidance in
July and August 2023.2 3 In April 2024, the Department
proposed to amend SNAP rules to reflect the requirements of the FRA and
included discretionary provisions to ensure consistent application of
these changes. These changes were proposed in the notice of proposed
rulemaking, titled Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Program
Purpose and Work Requirement Provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility
Act of 2023 (84 FR 34340), published April 30, 2024.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service.
Implementing SNAP Provisions in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of
2023. Washington, DC, 2023. Accessed August 2, 2024. <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/implementing-fra-provisions-2023">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/implementing-fra-provisions-2023</a>.
\2\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)--SNAP Provisions of
the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023--Questions and Answers #1.
Washington, DC, 2023. Accessed August 2, 2024. <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/provisions-fiscal-responsibility-act-2023-questions-and-answers-1">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/provisions-fiscal-responsibility-act-2023-questions-and-answers-1</a>.
\3\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)--SNAP Provisions of
the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023--Questions and Answers #1.
Washington, DC, 2023. Accessed August 2, 2024. <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/provisions-fiscal-responsibility-act-2023-questions-and-answers-2">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/provisions-fiscal-responsibility-act-2023-questions-and-answers-2</a>.
\4\ The notice of proposed rulemaking may be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0001">https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0001</a>.

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

[[Page 102343]]

II. Summary of Comments and Discussion of Rule Provisions

The Department received 41 public comment submissions on the
proposed rule.\5\ Most comments were supportive of the Department's
proposed implementation of the FRA requirements, such as the
flexibility for State agencies and alignment across public assistance
programs. In particular, commenters welcomed the new exceptions for and
definitions of individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, and
individuals aging out of foster care, because they help ensure some of
the most vulnerable populations can access SNAP benefits. Commenters
also commended the Department's efforts to ensure that individuals are
appropriately screened for work requirements in a thorough and timely
manner. In addition to their support, commenters also provided
suggestions to further clarify the definitions for the new exceptions
and strengthen screening requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Posted public comments may also be found at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>
(<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0001/comment">https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0001/comment</a> and
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0003/comment">https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0003/comment</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Twelve respondents wrote to oppose the FRA itself and work
requirements for SNAP in general. These commenters believe the changes
required by the FRA restrict access to SNAP for certain vulnerable
individuals and increase hardship without improving employment
outcomes. Despite this opposition to some of the underlying statutory
requirements, these commenters generally supported the Department's
proposed implementation of the FRA changes.
Three commenters expressed overall opposition to the rule,
believing the changes conflict with enforcement of the time limit and
the definitions for the new exceptions do not align with Congressional
intent. These respondents contended that the new definitions are overly
expansive and disagreed with current policy allowing self-attestation
to verify household information, claiming it leads to fraud and waste.
The Department reviewed and considered all comments received. A
discussion of each rule provision and the relevant comments is detailed
below.

7 CFR 271.1: Program Purpose

Section 313 of the FRA amends SNAP's purpose statement in Section 2
of the Act to include assisting low-income adults in obtaining
employment and increasing their earnings. The Department proposed to
amend 7 CFR 271.1(a) to reflect the language added by the FRA to the
SNAP purpose statement.
Twelve commenters, including 10 advocacy organizations and two
members of the public, opposed changing the SNAP purpose statement due
to their general opposition to work requirements for SNAP participants.
Commenters noted that time limits are harmful to vulnerable individuals
as they put access to food at risk during a time when they are needed.
These commenters requested the Department make clear that raising the
levels of nutrition among low-income households takes precedence over
supporting employment. The Department recognizes the concerns raised by
commenters, however, the change to the purpose statement was effective
with the enactment of the FRA. The new language encouraging employment
and earnings is in addition to the existing language around supporting
food security and nutrition and the Department remains committed to
supporting food security and nutrition for low-income households. As
commenters did not provide comments regarding the way the Department
proposed to amend the regulatory text to reflect this non-discretionary
change, the Department is finalizing 7 CFR 271.1(a) to include the new
statutory language. Due to Office of the Federal Register guidelines,
the Department is also amending 7 CFR 271.1(a) to summarize rather than
directly quote the statutory language in Section 2 of the Act.

7 CFR 273.24(c): Exceptions From the Time Limit

Age-Based Exception

Sec 311 of the FRA gradually increased the upper age limit of the
age-based exception as follows: by September 1, 2023, increased from 50
to 51 years of age or older; starting October 1, 2023, increased from
51 to 53 years of age or older; and starting October 1, 2024, increases
from 53 to 55 years of age or older. The FRA also prescribed that these
changes to the age-based exception sunset on October 1, 2030. The
Department proposed amending 7 CFR 273.24(c) to increase the upper age
limit of the age-based exception from 50 years of age or older to 55
years of age or older. The Department also proposed to capture the
sunset at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(10), which reflects that the upper age limit
will return to 50 years of age or older on October 1, 2030, unless
otherwise changed by law.
Fourteen commenters, representing ten advocacy organizations, three
public citizens, and one State agency, opposed the increase of the
upper age limit, citing that time limits undermine the effectiveness of
SNAP and are not a viable solution to mitigate food security or bolster
employment and earnings, especially for olde nr adults now subject to
the time limit. Commenters noted that older individuals may have more
difficulty obtaining employment and therefore, more difficulty in
meeting the time limit. Commenters requested the Department assist
State agencies in mitigating the potential for disproportionate impact
upon older adults, including providing guidance around screening for
exceptions from the time limit that may be less common in younger
individuals. The Department understands and appreciates the concerns
from commenters about maintaining program access for a vulnerable
population. The final increase in the age-based exception is a non-
discretionary change that was effective on October 1, 2024, and will
remain in effect until October 1, 2030. As commenters did not provide
comments regarding the way the Department amended regulatory text to
reflect these changes, the updates at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(1) are finalized
as proposed.

New Exceptions

Sec. 311 of the FRA adds three new exceptions from the time limit
for individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, and individuals
aging out of foster care which will sunset on October 1, 2030. The
Department proposed to add the three new exceptions to the list of
exceptions from the time limit provided at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(7), (8), and
(9), and capture the sunset at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(10).
Commenters were generally supportive of the addition of the three
new exceptions. One advocacy organization urged the Department to
extend the three new exceptions beyond October 1, 2030. The FRA
stipulates that these three new exceptions and the increase in the age-
based exception are to sunset on October 1, 2030. Therefore, only a
statutory change can extend these exceptions beyond October 1, 2030.
The Department is finalizing the sunset provision at 7 CFR
273.24(c)(10) as proposed. A discussion of comments received regarding
each of the new exceptions is detailed below.

Individuals Experiencing Homelessness

The first of the three new exceptions provided in the FRA is for
individuals experiencing homelessness. Sec. 3(l) of the Act and 7 CFR
271.2 provide an existing definition of ``homeless

[[Page 102344]]

individual'' for SNAP purposes. Under this definition, individuals are
considered homeless if they lack a fixed and regular nighttime
residence or if their primary nighttime residence falls into one of
four categories. These categories include a primary nighttime residence
that is a publicly or privately operated supervised shelter designed to
provide temporary living accommodations, an institution that provides a
temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized, a
temporary accommodation for not more than 90 days in the residence of
another individual, or a public or private place not designed for, or
ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
The Department proposed to use the existing definition for ``homeless
individual'' provided in 7 CFR 271.2 for the purposes of this exception
and add a reference to this definition at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(7).
To help streamline application of this new exception, the
Department also proposed a change at 7 CFR 271.2. This change clarified
that an individual who will imminently lose their nighttime residence
is considered homeless because they lack a fixed and regular nighttime
residence. This reflects the Department's consideration that those who
will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence are included in
the Act's definition of a homeless individual, as a nighttime residence
that will be imminently lost cannot reasonably be described as ``fixed
and regular.'' Further, the language also helps ensure State agencies
recognize how definitions employed by other public assistance programs
may align with SNAP and identify individuals for the purposes of this
exception more easily.
The Department received 17 comments on the definition of ``homeless
individual.'' Commenters included 10 advocacy organizations, three
policy organizations, two public citizens, one professional
association, and one State agency. Though commenters were generally
supportive of the inclusion of ``imminently homeless'' in the
definition, they requested the Department provide additional details in
the regulatory text.
Commenters asked the Department to provide a timeframe for what is
considered ``imminently homeless'' under 7 CFR 271.2. They also
requested additional circumstances be included in the regulatory text
beyond the proposed inclusion of imminently homeless. This request was
to ensure any definition is inclusive of vulnerable populations, such
as individuals fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence,
individuals who were recently incarcerated, and individuals facing
discrimination for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or
intersex.
In the proposed rule, the Department included ``imminently
homeless'' to better explain how State agencies can interpret a ``lack
of a fixed and regular primary nighttime residence'' and clarify how
the existing definition may align with definitions of other programs.
Through implementing the FRA, the Department received questions from
State agencies on how to help identify individuals now meeting this
exception. One method to help identify these individuals was through
other public assistance programs for individuals experiencing
homelessness that the State agency also operates. These programs often
use a definition for homeless individuals that explicitly includes
individuals who are imminently homeless. Including this language at 7
CFR 271.2 helps State agencies identify opportunities to streamline
with other programs by clarifying who is considered to ``lack a fixed
and regular nighttime residence'' under the existing statutory
definition. This change does not expand the regulatory definition
beyond the statutory definition in the Act.
The Department understands that commenters are concerned with
consistency across State agencies in applying this exception and the
``imminently homeless'' standard. The Department believes it is most
appropriate to provide further technical assistance through guidance to
State agencies and not specify additional detail in regulatory text.
This preserves flexibility for State agencies to review how other
assistance programs define homeless individuals and better coordinate
across programs to identify SNAP participants who meet this exception
and reduce administrative burden in verifying the exception, when
appropriate. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) considers individuals to be imminently homeless if
they will lose their housing within 14 days, have no subsequent housing
secured, and lack resources or support to secure subsequent housing.
The Department agrees this definition would constitute an individual as
experiencing homelessness for SNAP purposes. Further, the Department
recommends State agencies consider aligning with HUD's current
definition to streamline operations between programs and reduce
administrative burden on households and State agencies. However,
providing a specific timeframe or examples in regulatory text could
unnecessarily restrict flexibility and make it more difficult for State
agencies to align with other programs.
In using this flexibility, State agencies must incorporate
safeguards into their processes for identifying individuals
experiencing homelessness to ensure it does not include individuals who
are simply facing a change in housing within a certain timeframe. If an
individual is leaving their current residence for another fixed and
regular nighttime residence, they would not be considered imminently
homeless and would not qualify for the homeless exception. As discussed
above, an individual who is imminently losing their housing is
considered homeless if they lack a fixed and regular nighttime
residence and therefore, would qualify for the homeless exception.
Section 3(l) of the Act also considers individuals who are in
certain temporary living situations to be experiencing homelessness,
including, but not limited to, those who are in the residence of
another individual for no more than 90 days or a supervised shelter.
These individuals would qualify for the homeless exception as well. For
example, individuals fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence,
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who have no residence
other than one shared with or known to the abuser or inadequate
resources to secure housing would be considered homeless because they
lack a fixed and regular nighttime residence. Similarly, an individual
fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, or stalking would be considered homeless if they
secured a primary nighttime residence that is a temporary shelter or
temporary accommodation of another individual.
Commenters also requested the Department to adopt HUD's definition
of homeless individual and include a cross-reference to 42 U.S.C. 11302
at 7 CFR 271.2. The Department understands commenters desire for SNAP's
definition of ``homeless individual'' to align more directly with that
of HUD. While the Department supports State agencies applying the SNAP
definition of ``homeless individual'' in a manner that aligns with the
HUD definition, for reasons stated above, the Department is not
codifying the HUD definition in regulatory language.
While the final rule does not explicitly incorporate the definition
as requested by the commenters, the Department is committed to
facilitating coordination across all Federal programs that interact
with individuals experiencing homelessness, including

[[Page 102345]]

those administered by HUD. The Department encourages State agencies to
review how various programs define homeless individual in their State
and how they may leverage those definitions to identify, and if
necessary, verify, individuals who are experiencing homelessness.
Two policy organizations and one public citizen opposed the changes
to the definition of ``homeless individual.'' These commenters
recommended the Department remove the inclusion of ``imminently
homeless'' and finalize the rule with no changes to the definition of
``homeless individual.'' Two of these commenters asserted the
definition in the proposed rule violates Congressional intent by
stretching beyond the statutory definition in Sec. 3(l) of the Act. The
Department disagrees that the inclusion of ``imminently homeless'' is
an expansion of the definition of ``homeless individual.'' The existing
definition defines individuals as homeless if they ``lack a fixed and
regular nighttime residence,'' which encompasses the diverse set of
circumstances that can constitute homelessness. The provision on
``imminently homeless'' is clarifying the types of individuals that may
already be considered homeless under the existing definition because
they lack a fixed and regular primary nighttime residence. The
Department's clarification reflects the understanding of subject matter
experts that work on homelessness issues and assists State agencies
identifying individuals experiencing homelessness.
These same three commenters argued the inclusion of ``imminently
homeless'' expands the definition of ``homeless individual'' to include
those who ``might'' lose their housing. One commenter further stated
that the proposed rule would undermine the time limit by exempting
individuals who have no fixed or regular nighttime residence because
they travel permanently and stay in vans, hotels, or short-term
rentals, or are individuals whose income fluctuates and have rent due
imminently. The Department also disagrees with these comments. The
proposed rule specifies that individuals are considered homeless if
they will imminently lose their nighttime residence. Individuals who
might lose their housing are not considered ``imminently homeless.''
State agencies should review the individual's circumstances and
determine if the individual's living arrangements constitute a lack of
a fixed and regular nighttime residence.
Therefore, because the Department interprets a ``homeless
individual'' to include those facing imminent homelessness and the need
to preserve flexibility for State agencies, the Department is
finalizing the changes to the definition at 7 CFR 271.2 ``Homeless
individual'' as proposed. The Department will issue guidance on how
State agencies can identify individuals experiencing homelessness and
verify individuals' housing status.
In addition to the comments regarding the imminently homeless
clarification, the Department also received four comments asking the
Department to add a definition of ``shelter for homeless persons'' at 7
CFR 271.2 in the final rule. ``Shelter for homeless persons'' is
referenced at 7 CFR 273.1(b)(7)(vi)(E), which exempts individuals
living in a shelter for homeless persons from eligibility rules for
individuals living in institutions. Commenters, including three
advocacy organizations and one State agency, requested the Department
specifically define ``shelter for homeless persons'' in relation to
rules for individuals living in institutions. These commenters
recommended the definition of ``shelter for homeless persons'' include
any facility described in paragraph (2)(i) or (ii) of the proposed
definition of ``homeless individual,'' including halfway houses for
recently incarcerated individuals. While the Department understands
commenters' concerns, creating a definition for ``shelter for homeless
persons'' is not necessary to implement the FRA but the Department will
take it under consideration for future rulemaking.

Veterans

The second new exception provided in the FRA is for veterans. The
Department proposed a definition of veteran at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(8) to
ensure individuals are identified consistently for this exception, as
the FRA did not reference a definition of veteran and the Act and SNAP
regulations do not include an existing definition. The Department
proposed to define veteran at 7 CFR 273.34(c)(8) as an individual who,
regardless of the conditions of their discharge or release from, served
in the United States Armed Forces (such as the Army, Marine Corps,
Navy, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, and National Guard),
including an individual who served in a reserve component of the Armed
Forces, or served as a commissioned officer of the Public Health
Service, Environmental Scientific Services Administration, or the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The Department received 20 comments on the definition of veteran,
with 18 of those comments supportive of the definition. Commenters
included 12 advocacy organizations, two policy organizations, two
professional associations, two State agencies, and two public citizens.
Commenters appreciated the Department's alignment with other Federal
programs by including commissioned officers of the Public Health
Service, Environmental Scientific Services Administration, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Commenters also
commended the Department's recognition of all individuals who served in
the Armed Forces, regardless of the circumstances of their departure
from the military.
However, one policy organization and one public citizen opposed the
definition of veteran in the proposed rule because it differs from the
definition used by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for
veterans' benefits eligibility. These commenters asserted the
Department violates Congressional intent by not using this definition,
and believe it is inappropriate to except individuals with other than
honorable discharges. Additionally, one of these commenters took issue
with the Department's use of a definition from Sec. 5126(f)(13)(F) of
the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year 2023 (Pub. L. 117-263). The commenter asserted the
Department should not interpret this definition, which is for a program
that provides food assistance to veterans and their families without
restriction based on discharge status, to mean Congress does not
consider discharge status to be relevant for veteran status.
The Department disagrees that the proposed rule's definition is
inconsistent with Congressional intent. The FRA did not provide a
specific definition of veteran, which led to confusion and questions
from State agencies around how to identify individuals who meet this
exception. The Department consulted with the VA to define veteran and
provide clarity for State agencies. Based on the input of subject
matter experts, the Department has determined that the definition from
the FY 2023 NDAA is the most appropriate definition because it
represents the most recent definition used to address food insecurity
among veterans, which is the same goal for SNAP.
Further, the definition of veteran provided at 38 CFR 3.1(d)
restricts veterans' benefits to individuals ``who served in the active
military, naval, air, or space service and who was discharged or
released under conditions other than dishonorable.'' Since the

[[Page 102346]]

FRA did not direct the Department to only apply the exception to a
subset of veterans, such as those with honorable discharges, using the
above definition would be more restrictive. In comparison, the
definition used in the proposed rule does not restrict the exception
based on discharge status.
The same two commenters disagreed with the Department's explanation
that individuals with former military service who do not consider
themselves to be veterans would still be considered veterans under this
definition. Some individuals may not consider themselves a veteran, and
therefore, may not seek out access to services for veterans, such as
veterans' benefits, despite serving in the military. The FRA did not
specify that the exception only applies to individuals who are
receiving veterans' benefits or who personally identify as a veteran.
Therefore, using the proposed definition of veteran appropriately
aligns with the FRA and clearly communicates that all individuals who
served in the military are eligible for the exception, regardless of
their discharge status or self-identification as a veteran.
These commenters also claimed that using the definition at 38
U.S.C. 101(2) for veterans' benefits would allow State agencies to
administer the exception more efficiently and effectively because it is
more readily verifiable. The Department disagrees that the proposed
definition would make program operations less efficient or effective.
First, State agencies are not required to verify exception status,
unless the information is questionable. Second, if verification is
needed, State agencies can still easily verify veterans' status for
individuals with an other than honorable discharge by a variety of
means. State agencies must follow verification requirements provided at
7 CFR 273.2(f), which allow State agencies and individuals to use
various types of verification, such as documentary evidence, data
matches, or collateral contacts.
For the reasons described above, the Department is finalizing the
definition of veterans at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(8) as proposed.

Individuals Who Were in Foster Care

The last new exception in the FRA is for individuals aging out of
foster care. This exception applies to an individual who is 24 years of
age or younger and was in foster care under the responsibility of a
State on their 18th birthday or such higher age as the State has
elected under Sec. 475(8)(B)(iii) of the Social Security Act. The
Department proposed to adopt this definition at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(9) and
included clarification that ``foster care under the responsibility of a
State'' includes foster care programs run by Districts, Territories, or
Indian Tribal Organizations, or the Unaccompanied Refugee Minors
Program, and that the exception applies to individuals who turned 18
while in a foster care program even if they leave extended foster care
before the maximum age.
The Department received 20 comments on the definition of
individuals aging out of foster care, with 18 commenters supportive of
the definition. Commenters included 12 advocacy organizations, two
policy organizations, two professional associations, two State
agencies, and two public citizens. Commenters were supportive of the
clarified definition because it helps ensure vulnerable young adults
facing unique barriers to food security and employment are not subject
to the time limit. Commenters also expressed appreciation for the
Department's inclusion of individuals who were in the care of
Territories, Tribal Nations, and the Unaccompanied Refugee Minors
Program within the definition.
Three commenters, including two advocacy organizations and one
State agency, asked for additional clarification on certain groups'
eligibility for this exception. These commenters requested the
Department to allow State agencies to exempt youth that were
incarcerated on their 18th birthday but were in foster care immediately
prior. The two advocacy organizations also urged the Department to
allow State agencies to exempt individuals who were in foster care but
who ran away from foster care before turning 18. Individuals can be
eligible for this exception if the child welfare or foster care agency
considered them to be in foster care under the responsibility of the
State when they turned 18, even if they were incarcerated or had run
away prior to turning 18. In these more complicated situations, State
agencies should review the individual's history with foster care and
relevant state policies, to determine if they meet the criteria for the
exception.
One public citizen opposed the definition. The commenter asserted
that the Department's proposed definition was too broad and
inconsistent with the FRA to allow the exception to cover individuals
who leave extended foster care before the maximum age. The FRA defined
an individual aging out of foster care as an individual who is 24 years
of age or younger and who was in foster care under the responsibility
of a State on the date of attaining 18 years of age or such higher age
as the State has elected under section 475(8)(B)(iii) of the Social
Security Act. The commenter interprets the ``or'' in ``date of
attaining 18 years of age or such higher age as the State has elected''
to mean the Department must use the date on which the individual
attains the maximum age of foster care in their State, either 18 years
of age or higher if the State has elected. The Department disagrees
with this commenter's interpretation of ``or.'' The use of ``or''
permits State agencies to exempt individuals who were in foster care
when they were 18, either in an extended or ``regular'' foster care
program, or when they reach the maximum age the State has elected. This
allows an individual who left extended foster care early but who was in
foster care at age 18 to still be eligible for this exception because
they were in foster care when they turned 18. This is consistent with
the Department of Health and Human Services' interpretation of the same
language used in the Affordable Care Act to establish a mandatory
Medicaid eligibility group serving youth formerly in foster
care.6 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services. Coverage of Youth Formerly in Foster
Care in Medicaid (Section 1002(a) of the SUPPORT Act). Washington,
DC, 2022. Accessed August 2, 2024. <a href="https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/sho22003.pdf">https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/sho22003.pdf</a>.
\7\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ``Medicaid,
Children's Health Insurance Programs, and Exchanges: Essential
Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, Eligibility Notices,
Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and Exchange
Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and
Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and Medicaid Premiums
and Cost Sharing.'' 78 FR 4594 at 4604 (January 22, 2013). <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-01-22/pdf/2013-00659.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-01-22/pdf/2013-00659.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, the Department is finalizing the definition of
individuals aging out of foster care at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(9) as proposed.

7 CFR 273.24(l): Verification of Exception Status

For many exceptions, individuals may have already demonstrated
their status as homeless, an individual with disabilities, pregnant,
etc., through participation in another program. Through shared
operations, eligibility systems and data sharing agreements, State
agencies may already have information available that would verify an
individual's exception status. To ensure State agencies are using this
information and deter imposing a redundant burden on these individuals,
the Department proposed a requirement for State agencies to assist
individuals when verification of exception status is needed by first
exhausting all

[[Page 102347]]

information available to the State agency. The Department proposed this
requirement at 7 CFR 273.24(l) to clarify this requirement is specific
to verification of exception status when questionable and is not
intended to replace existing processes State agencies use to assist
households in obtaining verification for other household circumstances.
The Department expects State agencies to use existing information
available in their eligibility system or through data sharing
agreements. State agencies are not required to establish new data
sharing agreements. However, the Department highly encourages State
agencies to determine ways to collaborate with other State agencies,
improving the coordination and information sharing across programs.
The Department received 11 comments on the proposed verification
requirements for State agencies, with all but one supporting the
provision. Commenters included eight advocacy organizations, one policy
organization, one State agency, and one public citizen. Commenters were
supportive of the requirement for State agencies to employ all
available information prior to asking individuals to provide sources
for verification because it reduces the administrative burden on
vulnerable populations, especially for those that may have difficulty
providing documentary evidence of their exception status, such as
individuals experiencing homelessness or individuals aging out of
foster care. Commenters expressed appreciation for the Department's
efforts to foster better collaboration across programs that improves
coordination and data sharing.
Two advocacy organizations recommended the Department specify the
sequence of steps State agencies should take when verifying exceptions
from the time limit. Commenters believe this would help increase
standardization across State agencies and lead to equitable treatment
of time-limited participants. State agencies must accept self-
attestation of exception status, and only need to take additional steps
if information is considered questionable. If questionable, then the
State agency would first review all available information, such as
information already in the eligibility system or through data sharing
with other programs, to determine if it can verify exception status. If
the State agency is still unable to verify, then it would request the
individual provide verification, such as documentary evidence or a
collateral contact, to the State agency.
One policy organization asked the Department to clarify that State
agencies must comply with existing standards for timely verification to
ensure State agencies do not delay the review of already available
information and provide individuals sufficient time to respond to
additional requests for verification. The Department agrees that State
agencies must comply with existing standards for timely verification
provided at 7 CFR 273.2(f). This requirement includes requests for
verification of questionable information. The State agency must provide
itself sufficient time in reviewing available information at initial
application and recertification so that, if needed, a household has at
least 10 days to return additional verification, and the State agency
can maintain timely application processing standards. The Department
will work with State agencies in implementing this provision and
monitor to ensure it does not adversely affect application and
recertification processing timeliness.
One State agency commented that they appreciated the streamlining
goal but were concerned it would increase burden for State agencies.
This commenter requested the Department finalize the rule without the
provision at 7 CFR 273.24(l) and instead maintain standards at 7 CFR
273.2(f)(5)(i) for verifying exception status. Program rules at 7 CFR
273.2(f)(5)(i) already require State agencies to assist cooperating
households in obtaining verification. Such assistance includes, but is
not limited to, utilization of data sharing agreements with other State
agencies and information received from other public assistance programs
operated by the State agency. The proposed rule included the new
verification requirement to minimize unnecessary burden on individuals
and improve efficiency in verifying exception status, especially during
the certification period. Generally, State agencies are not required to
verify exception status and should consider if self-attestation is
sufficient. State agencies would only need to perform this review of
existing information when exception status is questionable as deemed by
a State agency per 7 CFR 273.2(f)(2). Further, the Department expects
this verification provision to reduce burden on both clients and State
agencies by lowering the number of actions needed to verify information
and decreasing the wait time for the individual to provide sources of
verification and for eligibility workers to verify the information.
The Department received an additional 23 comments asking for
further direction on how State agencies verify exception status.
Commenters included 13 advocacy organizations, four public citizens,
two policy organizations, two State agencies, and two professional
associations. Fifteen commenters urged the Department to require State
agencies to accept self-attestation of exception status or to prohibit
State agencies from always considering self-attestation of exception
status as questionable. Commenters expressed concerns over State agency
policies for self-attestation and questionable information impact on
how State agencies act on changes in exception status during the
certification period. Since these comments intersect with requirements
to screen for exceptions from the time limit, these comments are
discussed further in the screening section.
Three commenters, including one professional association, one
policy organization, and one advocacy organization, requested the
Department issue guidance for how to identify and verify if individuals
meet an exception, especially for the three new exceptions. The
Department has previously issued guidance to assist State agencies in
identifying and verifying exception status. This includes ``SNAP
Provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023--Questions &
Answers #1'' and ``SNAP Provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of
2023--Questions & Answers #2,'' which answered questions from State
agencies and advocates on how to implement the FRA
provisions.8 9 In this guidance, the Department provided
examples of ways State agencies can verify the new exceptions,
including but not limited to, official documentation from the military
such as the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty) or military ID to verify veteran status or information
from independent living coordinators who administer programs for
supporting youth in and transitioning out of foster care to verify
individuals aging out of foster care. The Department also clarified
that State agencies may use information from

[[Page 102348]]

other programs it operates to verify exception criteria and highly
encouraged State agencies to do so when that information is
available.\10\ The Department appreciates the difficulty in verifying
some of these exceptions for both State agencies and individuals and
that these are household circumstances previously not considered for
SNAP. The Department is committed to providing technical assistance for
these new exceptions and will continue to work with State agencies to
streamline the verification process for exception status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)--SNAP Provisions of
the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023--Questions and Answers #1.
Washington, DC, 2023. Accessed August 2, 2024. <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/provisions-fiscal-responsibility-act-2023-questions-and-answers-1">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/provisions-fiscal-responsibility-act-2023-questions-and-answers-1</a>.
\9\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)--SNAP Provisions of
the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023--Questions and Answers #2.
Washington, DC, 2023. Accessed August 2, 2024. <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/provisions-fiscal-responsibility-act-2023-questions-answers-2">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/provisions-fiscal-responsibility-act-2023-questions-answers-2</a>.
\10\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service.
SNAP Use of Information Received from Other Public Assistance
Programs. Washington, DC, 2023. Accessed August 2, 2024. <a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-use-info-other-pap.pdf">https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-use-info-other-pap.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One advocacy organization and one State agency requested the
Department amend 7 CFR 273.2(f)(2) and allow State agencies to use
another State agency's attestation that the individual meets an
exception, similar to what is done for verifying countable months
received in another State. However, it is unnecessary to amend 7 CFR
273.2(f)(2). Nothing in program rules at 7 CFR 273.2(f) prohibits State
agencies from using another State agency's attestation to verify an
individual meets an exception. As such, State agencies are permitted to
use another State agency's attestation to verify exception status.
The same two commenters asked the Department to allow individuals
to meet the veteran's exception temporarily for 90 days while they
await verification of their veteran status from the National Archives,
U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs. While individuals may experience delays in receiving
documentation of veteran status, this type of documentary evidence is
not the only way an individual can qualify and verify for the exception
for veterans. State agencies must accept an individual's self-
attestation that they meet the exception, unless it meets the State
agency's guidelines for questionable information. If more verification
is necessary, program rules at 7 CFR 273.2(f)(4) provide the various
sources of acceptable verification, which includes documentary evidence
and collateral contacts.
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, the Department is
finalizing 7 CFR 273.24(l) as proposed.

7 CFR 271.2, 273.7(b)(3), and 273.24(k): Screening and Assigning
Countable Months

To properly apply SNAP work requirements, State agencies must first
evaluate individuals potentially subject to the time limit to determine
if they are indeed subject to the time limit, or if they qualify for an
exception. The Department refers to this process as ``screening.''
State agencies must perform a thorough screening to correctly apply the
time limit or an exception and to ensure only the appropriate
individuals accrue countable months.\11\ The proposed rule added
requirements for when this screening must occur and what steps State
agencies must take prior to assigning countable months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ A countable month is a month in which a person is receiving
a full SNAP benefit allotment, is not meeting the time limit, and is
not otherwise exempt (i.e., the person is not meeting an exception
from the time limit, is not living in an area covered by a waiver,
is not receiving a discretionary exemption, does not have good cause
for not meeting the work requirement, or is not in the month of
notification from the State agency of a ``provider determination''
(from a SNAP E&T provider)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters were generally supportive of or silent on the screening
provisions overall. Nine commenters expressed support for the screening
requirement while also noting that these provisions cannot guarantee
individuals are not wrongly subjected to the work requirements, citing
the complexity of the work requirement rules and concerns with State
agency capacity to properly screen, especially for non-English
speakers. The Department recognizes the commenter concerns and is
committed to providing technical assistance for State agencies to
ensure proper implementation of these screening provisions and
compliance with language-access requirements. Three additional
commenters appreciated that the screening provisions would ensure
individuals have a right to a thorough screening before being subject
to the time limit and would help State agencies identify which
individuals are subject to the time limit in a timely manner. In
addition to these general comments, the Department received more
specific comments in support and in opposition of the various screening
provisions, which are detailed in the following sections.

Definition of Screening

The Department proposed to amend the definition of ``screening'' at
7 CFR 271.2 to include determining if an individual meets an exemption
from the general work requirements listed in Sec. 6(d)(2) of the Act or
an exception from the time limit listed in Sec. 6(o)(3) of the Act.
Six commenters, representing three advocacy organizations, one
policy organization, one professional association, and one State
agency, expressed support for the amended definition of screening,
stating that better consistency in screening will enhance program
integrity and prevent against the improper application of the time
limit. Two advocacy organizations requested the Department also require
State agencies to conduct screenings orally. Commenters explained that
State agencies cannot conduct a thorough and appropriate screening in
writing, especially for more complex exceptions. Proper screening is
one of the most important aspects of implementing the SNAP work
requirements. The Department agrees that State agencies must have a
plan on how to screen for exemptions from the general work requirement
and exceptions from the time limit. However, requiring State agencies
to perform screening orally in all cases can limit flexibility to
respond to changing needs of SNAP participants and State agencies.
Screening requires State agencies to develop a clear process that
includes training and guidance materials for eligibility workers. The
Department recommends that State agencies conduct screenings orally as
a best practice, as it allows eligibility workers to have a
conversation with the applicant and ask follow-up questions where
needed. However, State agencies should also consider what information
it obtains via the application process, including the interview, that
can assist eligibility workers in identifying and verifying an
individual's exception status. This includes information obtained on
the application, during the interview, in the eligibility system, or
through data sharing with other assistance programs. State agencies
should not rely solely on written materials to inform individuals of
the exemptions from the general work requirements and exceptions from
the time limit.
These commenters also noted that screening should predate the
issuance of the written consolidated work notice and the oral
explanation of the work requirements. Program rules at 7 CFR
273.7(c)(1)(ii) require State agencies to provide the consolidated work
notice and oral explanation to individuals who are subject to the work
requirements to explain all applicable work requirements and how to
fulfill those requirements. Since State agencies cannot reasonably know
what work requirements apply and what information to provide if it has
not screened and determined what work requirements these individuals
are required to meet, screening would likely occur before notification
of the work

[[Page 102349]]

requirements. The Department will continue to provide technical
assistance and ongoing support to ensure State agencies are following
the correct procedures for screening and applying the work
requirements.
Therefore, the Department is not amending the definition at 7 CFR
271.2 ``Screening'' in response to these comments. However, the
Department made one small technical clarification in the definition,
adjusting ``an approvable E&T component'' to ``a part of the E&T
program,'' as screening for referral to an E&T program occurs before
participation in an E&T program as defined at 7 CFR 271.2.
The Department also received comments requesting additional
guidance, checklists, and best practices for screening for exceptions.
One State agency specifically asked the Department to issue guidance
and best practices that ensures State agencies adequately screen for
all exceptions, especially for the individuals newly subject to the
time limit due to the increase in the age limit. The Department agrees
that additional guidance will help State agencies screen consistently
and will issue subsequent guidance that provides more best practices
and guidelines. Additionally, the Department reminds State agencies of
two existing guidance and technical assistance tools already available:
the SNAP Work Rules Screening Checklists and Flow Chart and the SNAP
Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents Policy Guide.12 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service.
SNAP Work Rules Screening Checklists and Flow Chart. Washington, DC,
2023. Accessed August 2, 2024. <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-rules-screening">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-rules-screening</a>.
\13\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service.
SNAP Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) Policy Guide.
Washington, DC, 2023. Accessed August 2, 2024. <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/guide-serving-abawds-time-limit-participation">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/guide-serving-abawds-time-limit-participation</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Screening at Initial and Recertification Application

Prior to the FRA, State agencies needed to screen individuals at
initial and recertification application to determine if household
members are subject to the general work requirements and time limit. In
implementing the FRA, the Department found sound screening practices to
be key in proper administration of the new exceptions, as screening is
the State agency's opportunity to identify exceptions and comply with
the Act, which provides that individuals must not be subject to the
time limit if they meet one of the exceptions listed in Sec. 6(o)(3).
The Department proposed adding 7 CFR 273.24(k) to require State
agencies to screen households for all exceptions from the time limit at
certification and recertification to ensure this important step happens
consistently across State agencies. The Department also proposed to
amend SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(b)(3) to require screening for
all exemptions from the general work requirements at certification and
recertification, as exemptions from the general work requirements
confer an exception from the time limit as well. These provisions
codify existing practices and clarify screening requirements to ensure
compliance with the FRA and the Act. Additionally, the Department seeks
to improve consistency in program operations and provide quality
customer service in line with the December 13, 2021, Executive Order on
Transforming Federal Customer Experience and Service Delivery to
Rebuild Trust in Government.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ ``Executive Order 14058 of December 16, 2021, Transforming
Federal Customer Experience and Service Delivery To Rebuild Trust in
Government,'' Federal Register, volume 86, no. 239 (2021): 71357-
71366, <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-27380">https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-27380</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department received 15 comments on the requirement to screen
for exceptions from the time limit at initial application and five
comments on the requirement to screen for exemptions from the general
work requirements at initial and recertification application.
Commenters included 12 advocacy organizations, three public citizens,
one policy organization, one professional association, and one State
agency. Commenters were generally supportive of the requirement, noting
that these changes are key to bolstering screening practices and
implementing the new exceptions to the time limit. Though commenters
were supportive of the provisions, they requested the Department
provide additional details in the regulatory text for both provisions.
Two commenters requested the Department use screening as a noun
instead of as a verb, replacing references of ``screening'' with
``conduct a screening.'' These commenters stated that using screening
as a verb is inconsistent with the definition in 7 CFR 271.2. The
Department disagrees that this change is necessary. The use of
``screening'' as a verb in the proposed rule is consistent with other
requirements to screen already included in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(2).
Therefore, the Department is not changing any references to screening
in 7 CFR 273.24(k).
Six commenters, including four advocacy organizations, one policy
organization, and one professional association, urged the Department to
require State agencies to assign the exception that will be in effect
the longest when individuals qualify for more than one exception from
the time limit. The same policy organization also requested the
Department add the same requirement for exemptions from the general
work requirements. In the proposed rule, the Department encouraged
State agencies to assign the longest exception as a best practice when
screening but did not require it. The Department agrees with commenters
that assigning the longest exception helps maintain program access for
individuals and lessen the workload for State agencies, resulting in
reduced administrative burden and cost for both clients and State
agencies. As such, the Department is adding a requirement for State
agencies to apply the exception from the time limit that will last the
longest at 7 CFR 273.24(k) and the exemption from the general work
requirements that will last the longest at 7 CFR 273.7(b)(3).
One policy organization and one advocacy organization noted that
the proposed rule would require State agencies to screen and determine
if an individual meets ``an'' exemption from the general work
requirements and recommended the Department change ``an'' to ``any.''
The Department agrees with these commenters that using ``an'' creates
the possibility that a State agency could screen for just one exemption
and fail to screen for others. The Department intended for State
agencies to screen for all exemptions and to continue screening even
once an individual meets one exemption. This is consistent with the
requirement to apply the exception that is in effect the longest when
an individual meets more than one exception. Therefore, the Department
is amending 7 CFR 273.7(b)(3), as well as the definition of screening
at 7 CFR 271.2, to clarify that State agencies must screen for all
exemptions and exceptions.

Screening and Applying Exceptions During the Certification Period

When the FRA was implemented, the Department received questions
from State agencies about how to identify, apply, and verify exceptions
during an individual's certification period. Individuals can experience
changes in circumstances during their certification period that may
lead to them no longer qualify for an exception, such as turning

[[Page 102350]]

18. Similarly, an individual may experience a change that results in
them now meeting an exception, such as becoming homeless. To address
these situations, the Department proposed 7 CFR 273.24(k)(1)(i) and
(ii), which specified State agency responsibilities when an individual
experiences a change in circumstances that results in them losing an
exception or newly meeting an exception.
The Department received 15 comments in support of these screening
requirements. Nine of those comments were particular to actions when an
individual loses an exception, and six comments were specific to
requirements when an individual is newly meeting an exception.
Commenters included multiple policy organizations, advocacy
organizations, and professional associations and two State agencies.
Commenters appreciated the Department's efforts to improve screening
practices by requiring State agencies to screen individuals before
applying the time limit, helping ensure individuals have access to a
thorough and timely screening. Commenters also applauded the
Department's clarifications on when State agencies should assign
countable months. However, some commenters also requested the
Department further outline State agency responsibilities to meet these
requirements during the certification period, which are discussed in
detail in the sections below.
Two policy organizations opposed the provisions because they did
not agree that the provisions are necessary to implement the FRA and
questioned if they align with statutory obligations to enforce the time
limit. One commenter further disagreed with prohibiting State agencies
from assigning countable months unless it determines that the
individual does not meet any exceptions. The commenter claimed this
process would provide benefits to individuals who are not verified as
eligible.
While the FRA requires State agencies to apply the new exceptions
at initial application and recertification, State agencies were
confused on how to act on information about the exceptions discovered
during the certification period. Some of the questions raised included
how State agencies account for individuals who appear to be newly
subject to the time limit due to the changes in age-based exceptions,
but the State agency has not screened to determine if they meet any
exception. Since these individuals were not subject to the time limit
at the time of their last certification, the State agency would likely
not have any information on whether the individual meets another
exception. Similarly, an individual subject to the time limit before
the FRA could now be excepted as a veteran, however, the State agency
may not know the individual is a veteran because the information is not
collected during the application process. In both scenarios for ongoing
households, the State agency could not properly determine if the
individual should be subject to the time limit.
These questions are emblematic of questions about screening and
assigning countable months during the certification period more
broadly, and not just specific to operationalizing the new exceptions.
In order to enforce the time limit, State agencies must first know who
is subject to the time limit before they can determine if that
individual is meeting the associated work requirements. Both pieces of
information are needed before a countable month can be assigned
correctly. If not, State agencies are liable to incur payment errors
for either incorrectly penalizing a household, or inappropriately
applying benefits. A State agency cannot reasonably know if the
individual is subject to the time limit if it has not screened an
individual for exceptions from the time limit. It is inconsistent with
Sec. 6(o)(3) of the Act for a State agency to apply the time limit and
assign countable months when it has not screened and determined an
individual does not meet any exceptions from the time limit. As such,
the Department found it necessary to provide additional clarification
at 7 CFR 273.24(k) in order to address this confusion and ensure
consistency amongst State agencies on how to accurately administer SNAP
work requirements and maintain program integrity.

Assigning Countable Months

Three advocacy organizations and one State agency asked the
Department to clarify additional circumstances not addressed in the
proposed rule where State agencies must screen individuals before
assigning countable months. These circumstances include when an
individual loses the exemption from the general work requirements for
working 30 hours per week, when an area loses a geographic waiver, or
when a time-limited participant's work hours drop below 20 hours per
week.
Individuals are not subject to the time limit if they meet an
exception, which includes meeting an exemption from the general work
requirements. Individuals who are working 30 or more hours a week or
are earning weekly wages equal to at least the Federal minimum wages
multiplied by 30 hours are exempt from the general work requirements,
and therefore, are not subject to the time limit. If an individual has
a change in circumstances during the certification that results in them
not meeting this exemption, such as involuntarily quitting or reducing
work hours, then the State agency must screen the individual and
determine if they meet any other exceptions from the time limit,
including any other exemption from the general work requirements,
before assigning countable months. If the State agency is unable to
reach the individual to screen during the certification period, the
State agency must not begin assigning countable months as attempts to
screen do not constitute screening for the exceptions.
Individuals who live in an area covered by a waiver of the time
limit will not receive any countable months while covered by the
waiver. State agencies must continue to screen individuals even when a
waiver is in place to determine which individuals are subject to the
time limit. If a State agency stops screening under a waiver, it is not
able to accurately administer the time limit when the waiver ends. When
the waiver does end, State agencies must ensure individuals who are
subject to the time limit have been notified of the applicable work
requirements and begin applying the time limit.
Individuals can fulfill the time limit by working, or by
participating in a work program, for 20 hours per week, averaged
monthly. Individuals who are meeting this 20 hour per week requirement
are complying with the time limit but are still considered subject to
the time limit. Therefore, when an individual reports their work hours
drop below 20 hours per week without good cause, the State agency would
assign a countable month. The State agency would have already
determined if the individual is subject to the time limit and does not
need to screen the individual again since they must screen at
certification and recertification. If the individual has had a change
in circumstances that results in them newly meeting an exception, the
individual can report that information to the State agency at any time.
The same four commenters suggested the Department clarify that
State agencies must issue expedited benefits to households and refrain
from subjecting individuals to the time limit while the State agency
completes screening. The same State agency further requested the
Department amend expedited service rules at 7 CFR

[[Page 102351]]

273.2(i)(4) accordingly. The Act and program rules require State
agencies to process applications that meet the expedited service
criteria within seven days and postpone verification (if necessary) to
meet this timeframe, as long as the State agency has verified identity.
Program rules at 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4)(B) emphasize that State agencies
must make all reasonable efforts to verify other information required
by 7 CFR 273.2(f) through collateral contacts or readily available
documentary evidence within the seven-day time frame.
State agencies should also make all reasonable efforts to screen
individuals at certification and recertification within that seven-day
time frame, especially when interviewing the individual. If the State
agency screens the individual and determines they do not meet any
exceptions from the time limit, the State agency would consider them
subject to the time limit and begin assigning countable months in the
first full month of benefits. If the State agency screens and
determines the individual meets an exception from the time limit, the
State agency would consider them not subject to the time limit and no
verification is needed. This is because State agencies are not required
to verify exception status unless it is questionable. If the
information about exception status is questionable, the State agency
must verify the information. The State agency would first follow the
new process outlined at 7 CFR 273.24(l), which requires State agencies
to use all available information to verify an individual's exception
status before reaching out to the household. If the State agency is
able to verify exception status via these means within seven days, it
would apply the exception and the individual is not subject to the time
limit. If the State agency is still unable to verify exception status
within the seven days, the State agency would postpone verification of
exception status in accordance with 7 CFR 273.2(i)(4). Because of this
postponed verification, the State agency would not assign countable
months until exception status is verified.
However, if an individual who has already received three countable
months reapplies and the State agency has no information from the
household or another source indicating that the individual has regained
eligibility or is now meeting an exception, the State agency would
determine that the individual remains ineligible for SNAP and is not
eligible for expedited service. The State agency would then process the
case according to normal application processing standards. If the State
does have information from the household or another source indicating
that they have regained eligibility or are now meeting an exception,
the State agency must attempt to obtain as much verification as
possible within the expedited service time frame. As noted above, State
agencies do not need to verify exception status unless it is
questionable, so the State agency may not need to postpone verification
of exception status and can apply the exception at that time. If the
verification cannot be obtained in the seven-day time frame, the State
agency would postpone the verification in order to issue benefits. The
State agency is responsible for making a determination of whether or
not to postpone verification within these parameters.
In addition to commenter requests for clarification on the specific
scenarios discussed above, six commenters, including two advocacy
organizations, two policy organizations, and two State agencies, asked
the Department to clarify if State agencies need to retrospectively
assign countable months when an individual has a change in exception
status during the certification period. Three commenters urged the
Department to prohibit State agencies from retrospectively assigning
countable months back to the date an individual lost their exception
status. Three commenters also requested the Department to require State
agencies to only assign countable months prospectively after screening.
Commenters requested these clarifications because existing guidance
requires State agencies to retrospectively assign countable months if
the State agency determines at recertification that an individual lost
their exception and should have been subject to the time limit, and
also called for the Department to rescind this guidance.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service.
Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWD) Questions and Answer.
Washington, DC, 2015. Accessed September 9, 2024. <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resource-files/ABAWD-Questions-and-Answers-June%202015.pdf">https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resource-files/ABAWD-Questions-and-Answers-June%202015.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department understands these comments reflect concerns that
individuals can accrue countable months and lose access to SNAP as a
result, even when they were not required to report a change. The new
screening provisions will mitigate these issues by limiting the
assignment of countable months until after State agencies evaluate an
individual and determine if they meet any other exception. Since State
agencies must screen before assigning countable months, if it did not
conduct a screening when the loss of the exception occurred, it cannot
go back in time and retrospectively screen the individual. This means
that in these situations State agencies should not retrospectively
adjust countable months at recertification while complying with this
screening requirement. If the State agency is unable to screen during
the certification period, the State agency should wait until the next
recertification to screen the individual, and then at that time, either
apply another exception or begin applying the time limit. Further, the
Department maintains it is important for program access and integrity
to preserve State agencies' ability to retrospectively adjust countable
months as a result of State agency or client error. As a result, it is
not necessary to add language prohibiting retrospective adjustment of
countable months to address the situations discussed by commenters.
One advocacy organization and one State agency requested the
Department allow State agencies to retrospectively remove countable
months back to the date an individual started meeting a new exception.
The advocacy organization also asked the Department to permit State
agencies to retrospectively apply exceptions back to the date it is
reported instead of the date it is verified. As discussed above, the
new screening provisions are intended to minimize the need for State
agencies to retrospectively adjust countable months. The new provision
at 7 CFR 273.24(k)(1)(ii) is clear on when State agencies should stop
assigning countable months when an individual is newly meeting an
exception: either after the State agency receives the information or
after the State agency verifies the information if it was questionable.
Further, screening is a forward-looking process and State agencies
should not be going back to the previous certification period when
screening an individual. As a result, State agencies should not need to
retrospectively adjust countable months in most circumstances.
One policy organization opposed these provisions and requested the
Department require State agencies to apply countable months immediately
when an individual is found not to qualify for an exception or comply
with a work requirement. This includes retrospectively applying
countable months when the State agency receives this information at a
later date. The Department agrees that State agencies must enforce the
time limit and apply countable months for individuals who are subject
to the time limit but are not

[[Page 102352]]

meeting the requirement. Individuals subject to the time limit are
required to report when their work hours fall below 20 hours per week,
averaged monthly. If an individual fails to report this information and
the State agency later determines it, the State agency must
retrospectively adjust countable months.
Individuals are not subject to the time limit if they meet an
exception from the time limit. During the certification period,
individuals may experience changes that result in them losing an
exception. Without additional screening, the State agency would only
know about the change in circumstances for that one exception, but not
if the individual meets another. As a result, loss of an exception
alone does not provide the State agency with sufficient information to
determine if the individual should now be subject to the time limit.
This is especially true given the fluid nature of some of the
exceptions, such as homelessness or pregnancy, which individuals may
meet only temporarily. Therefore, the State agency must screen to
determine if the individual meets another exception to know if the
individual should be subject to the time limit and comply with Sec.
6(o)(3) of the Act, which requires State agencies to only subject
individuals who do not meet an exception to the time limit.
For these reasons, the Department is not making any changes to 7
CFR 273.24(k)(1)(i) and (ii) and finalizing as proposed.

Acting on Changes During the Certification Period

Four commenters, including two advocacy organizations, one policy
organization, and one State agency, requested clarification for how the
screening provisions interact with rules for acting on changes during
the certification period. These commenters urged the Department to
include a cross-reference to unclear information rules at 7 CFR
273.12(c)(3) in both 7 CFR 273.24(k)(1)(i) and (ii). Unclear
information is information that is not verified or is verified but the
State agency needs more information to act on it. Program rules at 7
CFR 273.12(c)(3) outline the specific procedures State agencies must
follow when acting on unclear information. Program rules for acting on
unclear information apply to all changes occurring during the
certification period, regardless of whether the paragraph includes a
direct cross-reference to 7 CFR 273.12(c)(3). Further, a change in
circumstances during the certification period will not always result in
unclear information.
For individuals who are newly meeting an exception, State agencies
may not always need additional information to act on a report of a new
exception. This is because exception status does not require
verification unless the State agencies deem it questionable. If
verification is needed, the State agency must follow the new
verification provision at 7 CFR 273.24(l) and first attempt to verify
using all available information before reaching out to the household.
This means that the State agency could potentially verify the
information and apply the exception without ever needing to contact the
household. If the State agency still cannot verify the new exception
without contacting the household, then it would defer to unclear
information rules at 7 CFR 273.12(c)(3) for contacting the household.
The State agency would hold the information until the next
certification action, unless the unclear information meets the criteria
for sending a request for contact (RFC) at 7 CFR 273.12(c)(3). In most
circumstances, a change in exception status is unlikely to meet the
criteria for an RFC because it is not a required report under any
reporting system. If the information does not meet the criteria for an
RFC, State agencies may send a voluntary notice to individuals asking
them to provide verification for a new exception but must not penalize
individuals if they do not respond.
As a result of this new verification provision, one commenter also
asked the Department to include a cross-reference to 7 CFR 273.24(l) in
7 CFR 273.24(k)(1)(ii). The Department agrees that State agencies must
verify information on exception status in accordance with 7 CFR
273.24(l), even during the certification period. Therefore, the
Department is adding a cross-reference to 7 CFR 273.24(l) to ensure
State agencies follow the appropriate verification procedures during
the certification period.
For individuals who lose their exception during the certification
period, new language at 7 CFR 273.24(k)(1)(i) requires State agencies
to screen individuals after they lose their exception before applying
countable months. As the Department explained in the proposed rule
preamble, State agencies can choose to hold this information until next
recertification or attempt to screen the individual during the
certification period. If a State agency attempts to screen but is
unable to, the State agency must not penalize the individual for not
responding. This aligns with unclear information rules, as discussed
above. The Department also notes that State agencies cannot require the
household to come into or contact the office per program rules at 7 CFR
273.2(e)(1) or send an RFC unless it meets the criteria outlined at 7
CFR 273.12(c)(3).
One policy organization opposed the Department's explanation of
unclear information in the proposed rule and argued the application of
unclear information procedures would create challenges for State
agencies to enforce the time limit by not allowing State agencies to
penalize individuals for failing to respond to voluntary notices. The
commenter expressed concern that State agencies may hold information
for up to two years under this process. The Department believes this
commenter may misunderstand these requirements. First, the longest
certification period individuals subject to the time limit may be
eligible for is 12 months, and these individuals would not go more than
six months without a review of their household circumstances. State
agencies are permitted to set shorter certification periods for
individuals subject to the time limit and many do so due to the nature
of these households' circumstances and compliance with the time limit.
Second, the proposed rule did not amend the rules for unclear
information at 7 CFR 273.12(c)(3), which require State agencies to hold
unclear information until the next certification action and prohibit
them from penalizing individuals for not responding to a voluntary
notice. These requirements already exist, and the proposed rule only
clarified how State agencies must adhere to unclear information rules
when screening for exceptions and enforcing the time limit.
Therefore, the Department is not making any additional changes to 7
CFR 273.24(k)(1)(i) and (ii).

Self-Attestation and Questionable Information

Commenters also asked the Department to clarify the process for
applying and verifying a new exception during the certification period.
Two advocacy organizations requested the Department provide a timeframe
for ``prompt action'' to protect against interruption or termination of
benefits. Prompt action is already used at 7 CFR 273.12(c) in relation
to acting on changes during the certification period. Introducing a
separate time frame here would cause confusion. State agencies should
instead ensure their processes for requesting verification of an
exception during the certification period align with prompt action for
acting on changes.

[[Page 102353]]

Two advocacy organizations and one policy organization urged the
Department to remove the reference to ``questionable information'' and
replace it with different language, such as contradictory information
or inconsistent information. Commenters were concerned that using
``questionable information'' in this provision would invite State
agencies to always consider self-attestation as questionable and
require verification of exception status, increasing the burden on
individuals to claim an exception. Similarly, 15 commenters, including
11 advocacy organizations, two private citizens, one professional
association and one State agency, requested the Department prohibit
State agencies from universally considering self-attestation of
exception status to be questionable and instead require State agencies
to accept self-attestation of exception status, unless the information
is contradictory or inconsistent. Commenters expressed concerns that
State agencies would set a policy that self-attestation of exception
status is always questionable, when in most cases, self-attestation is
sufficient to confirm an individual meets an exception and providing
verification would create substantial burden, especially for vulnerable
populations, such as individuals experiencing homelessness, who may not
have access to documents and records for verification.
Program rules at 7 CFR 273.2(f) require State agencies to verify
certain factors, including, but not limited to, income, identity, and
residency. These rules also require State agencies to verify any
information the State agencies consider to be ``questionable'' (7 CFR
273.2(f)(2)) and permit State agencies to require verification of
additional factors at their discretion (7 CFR 273.2(f)(3)). State
agencies must treat verification of questionable exception status
consistent with verifications of other types of questionable
information.
While State agencies have discretion to set guidelines for the
additional verifications and for questionable information, State
agencies cannot prescribe verification based on race, religion, ethnic
background or national origin and cannot set guidelines that target
specific groups, such as migrant farmworkers, for more intensive
verification. In other words, State agencies may not set verification
standards that target certain participants as a group in a
discriminatory manner for more intensive verification by always
requiring verification of exception status for time-limited
participants. This includes setting standards that categorically
consider self-attestation of exception status to be questionable.
Per SNAP verification rules, State agencies should determine on a
case-by-case basis if the information provided by an individual meets
the State agency's criteria for questionable information, regardless of
whether it is provided via self-attestation. The Department reminds
State agencies that placing additional and unnecessary burden on the
applicants to provide verification may put these vulnerable individuals
at risk, and State agencies must accept self-attestation of exception
status unless it meets the State agency's guidelines for questionable
information.
One policy organization requested the Department require
verification of exception status in all circumstances because self-
attestation results in fraud and waste. Similarly, another commenter
asserted this will exacerbate the problems of improper payments.
However, the commenters did not provide evidence to show that self-
attestation leads to fraud and waste in SNAP. The Act and program rules
at 7 CFR 273.2(f)(1) do not require State agencies to verify exception
status, unless the information is considered questionable. As the
Department discusses above, State agencies have discretion for
determining what information is considered questionable and what other
information it decides to verify, as long as the policy does not
discriminate against or target any group for more intensive
verification.
As a result, the Department is not making any changes to 7 CFR
273.24(k)(1)(ii) in response to commenter concerns on questionable
information.

7 CFR 273.24(g) and (h): Discretionary Exemptions

Annual Allotment of Exemptions

Sec. 312 of the FRA decreases State agencies' annual allotment of
discretionary exemptions from 12 percent to 8 percent of the caseload
subject to the ABAWD time limit. The Department proposed to amend 7 CFR
273.24(g)(3) to reflect this reduction in the allotment of
discretionary exemptions from 12 percent to 8 percent of covered
individuals in the State.
Fourteen commenters, including 10 advocacy organizations, two
private citizens, one professional association, and one State agency,
opposed the decrease in the allotment of discretionary exemptions
because it would reduce the State agencies' effectiveness to respond to
the needs of households. Commenters cited the importance of
discretionary exemptions in providing benefits to individuals who are
in transition and in helping State agencies respond to local crises
that temporarily impact employment opportunities in the State, such as
a large employer closing or a natural disaster interrupting labor
markets. The change in the annual allotment of discretionary exemptions
is statutory requirement and was effective with FY 2024 allotment of
exemptions.
Three commenters, including one advocacy organization, one
professional association, and one State agency, also urged the
Department to revise the methodology for calculating the proportion of
time limited participants covered by ABAWD waivers used to calculate
the allotment of discretionary exemptions, referred to as the ``waiver
factor.'' Sec. 6(o)(6)(F) of the Act and SNAP regulations at 7 CFR
273.24(g)(3) require the Department to calculate State agencies' annual
allotment of discretionary exemptions each fiscal year, based on the
size of the ABAWD caseload, adjusted for changes in the growth of the
SNAP caseload and the waiver factor. The professional association asked
the Department to reconsider the reference date used to estimate State
agencies' waiver status for the fiscal year. The other two commenters
requested the Department consider allowing State agencies to request
its waiver factor be recalculated when the State agency's implements a
new ABAWD waiver during the fiscal year. However, changes to the
methodology for calculating discretionary exemptions are outside the
scope of this rulemaking. Further, the current reference date of July 1
aligns with data periods used to estimate the size and growth of the
ABAWD caseload and allows the Department to make the best estimate of a
State agency's overall SNAP and ABAWD caseload.
The Department also received one comment from an advocacy
organization urging the Department to require State agencies to justify
any non-use of discretionary exemptions and demonstrate that the non-
use did not contribute to food insecurity. The Act provides State
agencies with discretion on if and how they want to use discretionary
exemptions. In some instances, State agencies are unable to use
discretionary exemptions because the State is covered by a waiver of
the time limit or because of restrictions implemented by their State
legislature. As the Act does not require State agencies to use these
exemptions, it is inconsistent to impose additional

[[Page 102354]]

requirements and administrative burden by mandating State agencies use
discretionary exemptions or explain why they have not used them. The
Department appreciates this commenter's concerns and remains committed
to engaging with State agencies and providing technical assistance to
ensure proper implementation of the SNAP work requirements.
As commenters did not provide comments within the scope about the
way the Department amended regulatory text to reflect these changes and
for the reasons stated above, the rule finalizes the updates at 7 CFR
273.24(g)(3) as proposed.

Carryover of Unused Exemptions

Sec. 312 of the FRA also limits State agencies' ability to only
carryover unused discretionary exemptions earned in the previous fiscal
year. The Department also proposed to amend 7 CFR 273.24(h)(2)(i) to
limit carryover of unused discretionary exemptions to only those earned
for the provision fiscal year starting in FY 2026.
Two advocacy organizations and one State agency requested the
Department codify, that for the purposes of carryover, discretionary
exemptions are used in order of accrual. This means discretionary
exemptions are used in a ``first-in, first-out'' basis, such that State
agencies would first use any unused exemptions carried over from the
previous fiscal year since those were earned first. Once the State
agency exhausts those exemptions, it would start using exemptions from
the balance of newly earned exemptions for the current fiscal year. Any
leftover exemptions from the current fiscal year would be carried over
into the next fiscal year. Prior to the FRA, the Department had no need
to specify the order of use because all unused exemptions from prior
fiscal years were carried over. With the introduction of carryover
limited to only the previous year, the Department agrees that the order
of use must now be specified in regulation, ensuring State agencies'
are able to carryover unused exemptions as allowed by the Act.
Therefore, in the final rule, the Department is revising the regulatory
language at 7 CFR 273.24(h)(2)(i) to clarify that for the purposes of
determining carryover, discretionary exemptions are used in order of
accrual (first-in, first-out).
One public citizen asserted the Department must further amend
regulations to comply with the carryover limitations in the FRA. First,
the commenter took issue with the Department's explanation that State
agencies would carryover their historical balance of discretionary
exemptions into the subsequent fiscal year for FY2024 and FY2025. In
particular, the commenter does not agree with the Department's concept
of a historical balance of discretionary exemptions.
There are two parts to a State agency's available allotment of
discretionary exemptions: (1) the fiscal year allotment and (2) any
carryover exemptions. Prior to the FRA, the Act did not require the
Department to distinguish between the two parts because State agencies
could carryover all unused exemptions from prior years. As a result,
State agencies would receive a new allotment of discretionary
exemptions each fiscal year that was added to their available balance
of unused exemptions, hence the concept of a ``historical balance'' of
exemptions. Each time the State agency had unused discretionary
exemptions, they became part of the total number of exemptions
available to the State agency during the next fiscal year.
The FRA introduced the prohibition on accumulating unused
exemptions beyond the subsequent fiscal year during FY 2024 and beyond.
This means that State agencies' available discretionary exemptions,
including both the newly earned in fiscal year and any carryover, will
have a two-year shelf-life because State agencies cannot accumulate
unused exemptions beyond the subsequent fiscal year. As the
restrictions on carryover begin during FY 2024, State agencies could
use newly earned exemptions and their already accumulated historical
balance in FY 2024. Then, in FY 2025, State agencies could carryover
any unused exemptions from FY 2024, which includes the newly earned
exemptions and the historical balance. Finally, in FY 2026, the
historical balance provided in FY 2024 would expire because of the
subsequent fiscal year restriction and only unused exemptions earned in
FY 2025 could carryover.
Second, the commenter contended that the Department must repeal
existing language at 7 CFR 273.24(h)(2)(i) to sufficiently limit
carryover as prescribed by the FRA. Program rules at 7 CFR 273.24(2)(i)
specify that the Department will increase the estimated number of
exemptions allocated to a State agency when the State agency does not
use all of its exemptions by the end of the fiscal year. The proposed
rule did not repeal or modify the existing language at 7 CFR
273.24(h)(2)(i) but rather added language that limits carryover to only
unused exemptions earned in the previous fiscal year in accordance with
the FRA. The commenter contended that failing to remove this language
would allow the Department to continue unlimited carryover of
discretionary exemptions.
The Department disagrees that the rule must repeal the existing
language at 7 CFR 273.24(2)(i) to sufficiently modify this provision to
reflect the FRA. The proposed rule clarifies that starting in FY 2026,
carryover will now be limited to only unused exemptions earned in the
previous fiscal year. The existing language does not state that
carryover is unlimited, but rather that the Department will adjust the
allocation of discretionary exemptions based on the number of unused
discretionary exemptions from the previous fiscal year. The Department
proposed to amend 7 CFR 273.24(h)(2)(i) to clarify the change in State
agencies' ability to accumulate and carryover unused exemptions in
accordance with the FRA.
Since there is no contradiction that would allow for unlimited
carryover, the Department is finalizing 7 CFR 273.24(h)(2)(i) with only
one change to account for first-in, first-out use of carryovers.

Procedural Matters

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 direct agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This proposed rulemaking has been determined to be
significant under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094, and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Impact Analysis Summary

A Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that includes both with-statute
and without-statute comparisons was developed for this final rule. It
follows this rule as an Appendix. The following summarizes the
conclusions of the regulatory impact analysis:
When compared to a without-statute baseline, the Department
estimates the total increase in federal transfers (SNAP

[[Page 102355]]

benefit spending) associated with the provisions of this final rule to
be approximately $3.5 billion over the nine years Fiscal Year (FY)
2023-FY 2031, averaging $393.1 million per year. This is the net result
of a reduction in transfers of $5.1 billion by terminating benefits to
about 1.8 million individuals, a reduction to the benefits of 123,000
individuals of $149.1 million, and an increase in transfers of $8.7
billion due to about 2.6 million individuals meeting exceptions from
the time limit. Over the nine-year period FY 2023-FY 2031,\16\ federal
administrative costs (not including transfers) are estimated to total
approximately $283.9 million, or an annual average of $31.5 million.
Total State agency administrative expenses are also estimated to be
approximately $283.9 million over the nine-year period, or an annual
average of $31.5 million. Costs associated with administrative burden
to individual SNAP participants are estimated to be approximately
$358.3 million over the nine-year period, or an annual average of $39.8
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ A nine-year analysis period is used to align with the
implementation and sunset periods established by the FRA. See
discussion of baseline and time horizon of analysis in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule will primarily affect SNAP participants who are
subject to the ABAWD time limit, which the Department estimates to be,
upon full implementation of the FRA's provisions in FY 2026,
approximately 9.2 percent of SNAP participants. However, far fewer will
lose eligibility for SNAP. Hence, most SNAP participants will not be
affected by this final rule. The estimated net impact of the final
rule's change in the age-based exceptions and three new exceptions is a
net increase in SNAP participation of about 89,000-95,000 individuals
per year when fully implemented. In FY 2026, this includes 301,000
participants losing eligibility, 367,000 participants retaining
eligibility through one of the new exceptions, and about 29,000 new
participants.
When compared to a with-statute baseline, the Department estimates
the net total cost of the final rule to be $58.1 million over the nine-
year period FY 2023-FY 2031, averaging $6.5 million per year. The total
cost includes approximately $29 million in State agency administrative
expenses and approximately $29.1 million in total federal
administrative costs. There are no estimated impacts to benefit
transfers or to participant burden when using a with-statute baseline.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies
to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider
alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a
substantial number of small entities. Section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act stipulates that the requirements to prepare and publish
an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis ``shall not apply
to any proposed or final rule if the head of the agency certifies that
the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.'' The Department has
certified that this rule would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the changes required by
the regulations are directed toward State agencies operating SNAP
programs.

Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule does not meet the criteria set forth by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year, updated annual for inflation. In 2024, that
threshold is approximately $183 million. When such a statement is
needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the
Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This final rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and
tribal governments or the private sector of $183 million or more in any
one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 12372

This Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is listed in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.551 and is
subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental
consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
Since SNAP is State-administered, FNS has formal and informal
discussions with State and local officials on an ongoing basis
regarding program requirements and operations. This provides USDA with
the opportunity to receive regular input from program administrators
and contributes to the development of feasible program requirements.
For example, SNAP participated in three webinars covering FRA
implementation and responded to State agency questions and concerns
over implementation. SNAP also is providing ongoing technical
assistance with State agencies covering implementation of the FRA and
work requirements more generally.

Federalism Summary Impact Statement

Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the
impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments.
Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed
to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations
describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories
called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
In the proposed rule, the Department determined this rule did not
have federalism implications and no federalism summary was required.
One commenter expressed opposition to the Department's determination
that the proposed rule would have no federalism implications under the
requirements of Executive Order 13132. The commenter asserted that the
compliance costs and the increased administrative costs that the
proposed rule would impose could have substantial direct effects on the
States and on the relationship between the national government and the
States. Therefore, the commenter concluded that a federalism summary is
required before the proposed rule can be finalized.
The Department disagrees with this commenter. Section 6(b) of
Executive Order 13132 states ``To the extent practicable and permitted
by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State
and local governments, and that is not required by statute, unless . .
. .'' Further, Section 6(b)(1) of Executive Order 13132 provides an
exception from 6(b) if the ``funds necessary to pay the direct costs
incurred by the State and local governments in complying with the

[[Page 102356]]

regulation are provided by the Federal Government.'' This rule reflects
changes already in effect and required by statute (the FRA), and
therefore, are not subject to Section 6(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order
13132. The direct compliance costs to State agencies for the
discretionary provisions are not substantial, as these reflect
processes already in practice and administrative costs are split
equally between the federal and State governments. Further, the revised
verification procedures may also help to streamline State agency
processes and reduce burden on State agencies and households.
Therefore, the Department maintains that this rule has no federalism
implications, and no federalism summary is needed.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect
with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which
conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full
and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Dates section
of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be
exhausted.

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

FNS has reviewed the final rule, in accordance with Departmental
Regulation 4300-004, ``Civil Rights Impact Analysis,'' to identify and
address any major civil rights impacts the final rule might have on
program participants on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex
(including gender identity and sexual orientation), religious creed,
disability, age, political beliefs.
The Department believes that the provisions of the FRA and the
requirements for verification and screening will have a potential
impact on certain protected groups as it relates to SNAP work
requirements. The Department also believes that the addition of the new
exceptions will provide greater and continuous access to SNAP benefits
for SNAP applicants and participants. The Department finds that the
implementation of mitigation strategies and monitoring will lessen
these impacts. The Department has collaborated with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to develop mitigation strategies to
support protected classes that may be adversely impacted. The
Department will continue to provide guidance and technical assistance
to State agencies and Regional Offices on the FRA and will provide
additional assistance after the publication of the rule explaining the
provisions on the final rule. The Department will also monitor State
agencies compliance with the provisions in the final rule and
collaborate with Regional Offices to ensure State agencies are applying
the provisions of the rule fairly, equitably, and consistently
throughout the State.

Executive Order 13175

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies
that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or
actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
FNS provided an opportunity for consultation on March 15, 2024. The
Tribes had minimal comments, but one Tribe raised two concerns. First,
the Tribe described the challenges and burden that former foster care
youth face in obtaining formal documentation needed to verify that they
were in foster care, especially in rural areas. FNS appreciates these
concerns and the proposed requirements in this rule are intended to
reduce this burden on individuals by requiring the State agency to use
information already available to verify exception status. Second, the
Tribe raised concerns over the decrease in the allotment of
discretionary exemptions from 12 to 8 percent of the ABAWD caseload.
FNS recognizes this concern, however, the decrease in discretionary
exemptions is a statutory provision of the FRA and therefore, cannot be
changed by this rulemaking.
If a Tribe requests further consultation in the future, FNS will
work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful
consultation is provided.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR
1320) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all
collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be
implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection
of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.
The Department is requesting a revision for OMB Control Number 0584-
0479 for these new, existing, and changing provisions in this rule.
These changes are contingent upon OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. Additionally, when the information collection
requirements have been approved, FNS will publish a separate action in
the Federal Register announcing OMB's approval.
Title: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Work Requirements
and Screening.
OMB Number: 0584-0479.
Expiration Date: 2/28/2026.
Type of Request: Revision to an existing collection.
Abstract: This final rule would amend SNAP regulations to implement
changes made by the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023. Some of
the changes would modify current regulations resulting in an increase
in the reporting burden for State agencies, while others will result in
no change.
The FRA amended the exceptions from the time limit, increasing the
upper limit of the age-based exception from 50 to 55 over two years and
adding three new exceptions for homeless individuals, veterans, and
individuals aging out of foster care. The changes to the age-based
exception will result in an increase in the number of individuals
subject to the time limit, while the new exceptions will result in a
decrease. The Department estimates a net increase in the number of
individuals subject to the time limit. As a result, the Department
estimates an increase in burden for State agencies and individuals. The
Department anticipates additional burden related to verification of
work hours and countable months, issuance and review of the
Consolidated Work Notice, and the review of the oral explanation of the
work requirements for individuals newly subject to the time limit. The
Department also anticipates additional burden related to the issuance
and review of the Notice of Adverse Action for individuals newly
subject to the time limit who reach three countable months and become
ineligible. The Department is accounting for this net increase in
individuals subject to the time limit and the resulting additional
burden in this information collection.
The FRA amended the SNAP program purpose to include assisting low-
income individuals in obtaining employment and earnings. The Department
does not anticipate any burden related to this change. The FRA also
reduced the annual allotment of discretionary exemptions and reduced
carryover of

[[Page 102357]]

unused exemptions. The Department does not estimate any change in
burden related to reporting of discretionary exemptions, which is
covered under OMB Control Number 0584-0594 (Food Programs Reporting
System (FPRS); expiration date: 09/30/2026).
In addition to implementing the provisions of the FRA, this final
rule establishes regulations that require State agencies to screen
individuals for exemptions from the general work requirements and
exceptions from the time limit. Currently, State agencies are required
to screen individuals for exemptions from the general work requirements
and exceptions from the time limit at initial and recertification
application. However, this requirement is not captured in regulations
and the related burden not captured in any existing information
collection. The Department is including new burden related to screening
in this information collection, which is required to ensure State
agencies apply time limit policy correctly. One professional
association expressed concern that the Department did not account for
an increased burden stemming from the reduction in the annual allotment
of discretionary exemptions and the limitations on carryover. However,
prior to the FRA, State agencies used discretionary exemptions to
extend benefits for specific populations that are now exempt from the
time limit, such as individuals that are experiencing homelessness. As
a result, this will reduce the need for State agencies to use
discretionary exemptions cover individuals after they lose an exception
during the certification period and reduce the number of actions State
agencies must take on a case.
This final rule also requires State agencies to use all available
information to verify exception status, when questionable, before
requiring individuals to provide verification. The Department does not
anticipate a change in the burden related to the verification of
questionable information, which is covered under OMB Control Number
0584-0064 (SNAP Forms: Applications, Periodic Reporting, Notices;
expiration date: 06/30/2027). The Department received two comments on
the estimated burden related to verification of exception status. One
State agency and one professional association expressed concern that
the rule would increase burden of verifying information for State
agencies. Because State agencies are not required to verify exception
status unless it is questionable and they cannot discriminate or target
one group when setting guidelines for what information is questionable,
the Department does anticipate that increase in the number of time-
limited participants would necessarily mean a substantial increase in
burden and cost related to verification of questionable information.
Further, the rule included the new verification requirement to minimize
unnecessary burden on individuals and improve efficiency in verifying
exception status, especially during the certification period. As a
result, the Department anticipates a slight increase in burden related
to verification of questionable exception status, which will be offset
by a decrease in burden related to the verification provision of this
final rule and the Department is making any changes to the burden
estimates for verification of questionable information in OMB Control
Number 0584-0064.
The Department also anticipates start-up burden related to the
statutory and regulatory changes. State agencies will need to update
their eligibility systems and notices to include the new exceptions and
changes to the age-based exception. State agencies will also need to
update their policy manuals and documents with the changes to ABAWD
eligibility and the screening requirements. Lastly, State agencies will
need to develop and provide training on the new requirements to State
agency staff.
These new requirements necessitate a revision to OMB Control Number
0584-0479 (Expiration Date: 02/28/2026). The Department is seeking a
three-year renewal of OMB Control Number 0584-0479 with the Final Rule.
OMB Control Number 0584-0479 currently covers burden related to
preparation and submission of time limit waivers. Time limit waivers
are submitted via the Waiver Information Management System (WIMS), and
the burden for this submission is covered which is covered under OMB
Control Number 0584-0083 (Operating Guidelines, Forms, Waivers, Program
and Budget Summary Statement; expiration date: 9/30/2026). The final
rule does not make changes to burden covered under OMB Control Number
0584-0083. Due to the addition of new burden items, the Department is
changing the title of 0584-0479 to ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program: Work Requirements and Screening.''
The Department has updated the burden and cost estimates based on
more recent data on SNAP participation and labor rates. The Department
did not need to make any adjustments to the burden and costs estimates
as a result of comments on the proposed rule or changes in the final
rule.

Start-Up Burden

Respondents: State Agencies.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 53 State Agencies and 105,030
eligibility workers.
Estimated Number of Respondents per Respondent: One (1) response.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 469,177 hours, an
increase of 469,177 hours from current inventory of 0 hours in 0584-
0479.

Ongoing Burden

Respondents: State Agencies and Individuals.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 53 State Agencies and
29,778,855.42 Individuals.
Estimated Number of Respondents per Respondent: 609,811.75
responses per State Agency and one (1) per Individual.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 4,032,013.61 hours
(2,016,588.31 hours for State Agencies and 2,015,425.31 hours for
Individuals), an increase of 4,030,850.61 hours from current inventory
of 1,163 hours in 0584-0479.
The total burden for this rulemaking is 4,501,190.61 burden hours
and 59,662,934.85 total annual responses. This represents an increase
to the burden hours for OMB Control Number 0584-0479, resulting in a
total inventory of 4,091,394.24 burden hours (4,504,707.61 new burden
hours + 1,163 existing burden hours) and 59,662,934.85 responses
(59,662,899.85 new responses + 35 existing responses).
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P

[[Page 102358]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.000

[[Page 102359]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.001

[[Page 102360]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.002

[[Page 102361]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.003

BILLING CODE 3410-30-C

[[Page 102362]]

E-Government Act Compliance

The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act
of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information
technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to
Government information and services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 271

Administrative practice and procedures, Employment, Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.

7 CFR Part 273

Administrative practice and procedure, Able-bodied adults without
dependents, Employment, Time limit, Work requirements.

Accordingly, the Food and Nutrition Service amends 7 CFR part 271
and 273 as follows:

0
1. The authority citation for parts 271 and 273 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.

PART 271--GENERAL INFORMATION AND DEFINITIONS

0
2. In Sec. 271.1, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 271.1 General purpose and scope.

(a) Purpose of SNAP. SNAP is designed to promote the general
welfare and to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's
population by raising the levels of nutrition among low-income
households. In keeping with section 2 of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008, the USDA established SNAP under the Act as the limited food
purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger and
malnutrition among members of such households. The increased
utilization of food in establishing and maintaining adequate national
levels of nutrition also promotes the distribution in a beneficial
manner of the Nation's agricultural abundance and strengthens the
Nation's agricultural economy, as well as result in more orderly
marketing and distribution of foods. To alleviate hunger and
malnutrition, SNAP permits low-income households to obtain a more
nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food
purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for
participation. SNAP includes as a purpose to assist low-income adults
in obtaining employment and increasing their earnings. Such employment
and earnings, along with program benefits, permits low-income
households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of
trade by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households
who apply for participation.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec. 271.2, revise the definitions of ``Homeless individual''
and ``Screening'' to read as follows:

Sec. 271.2 Definitions

* * * * *
Homeless individual means
(1) An individual who lacks a fixed and regular nighttime
residence, including, but not limited to, an individual who will
imminently lose their nighttime residence; or
(2) An individual whose primary nighttime residence is:
(i) A supervised shelter designed to provide temporary
accommodations (such as a welfare hotel or congregate shelter);
(ii) A halfway house or similar institution that provides temporary
residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized;
(iii) A temporary accommodation for not more than 90 days in the
residence of another individual; or
(iv) A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily
used, as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (a hallway,
a bus station, a lobby, or similar places).
* * * * *
Screening means an evaluation by an eligibility worker of an
individual for all exemptions from the general work requirements, all
exceptions from the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit,
and whether the individual should be referred for participation in an
employment and training program. Screening for participation in
employment and training programs is not considered a part of the E&T
program.
* * * * *

PART 273--CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

0
4. In Sec. 273.7, add paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 273.7 Work provisions.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) State agencies must screen individuals for all exemptions
listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section at certification and
recertification. The State agency must apply the exemption that will be
in effect the longest when an individual qualifies for more than one
exemption.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec. 273.24:
0
a. Amend paragraph (c)(1) by removing the number ``50'' and adding in
its place ``55'';
0
b. Amend paragraph (c)(5) by removing ``or'' at the end of the
paragraph;
0
c. Amend paragraph (c)(6) by removing the period and adding a semicolon
in its place;
0
d. Add paragraphs (c)(7) through (10);
0
e. Amend paragraph (g)(3) by removing the number ``12'' and adding in
its place ``8'';
0
f. Amend paragraph (h)(2)(i) by adding a sentence at the end; and
0
g. Add paragraphs (k) and (l).
The additions read as follows:

Sec. 273.24 Time Limit for able-bodied adults.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(7) Homeless, as defined in Sec. 271.2 of this chapter;
(8) A veteran, defined as an individual who, regardless of the
conditions of their discharge or release from, served in the United
States Armed Forces (such as Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space
Force, Coast Guard, and National Guard), including an individual who
served in a reserve component of the Armed Forces, or served as a
commissioned officer of the Public Health Service, Environmental
Scientific Services Administration, or the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; or
(9) An individual who is 24 years of age or younger and who was in
foster care under the responsibility of any State, District, U.S.
Territories, Indian Tribal Organization, or Unaccompanied Refugee
Minors Program on the date of attaining 18 years of age, including
those who remain in extended foster care in States that have elected to
extend foster care in accordance with section 475(8)(B)(iii) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(8)(B)(iii)) or those who leave
extended foster care before the maximum age.
(10) Unless otherwise changed by law, the exceptions provided at
paragraphs (c)(7) through (9) of this section cease to have effect on
October 1, 2030, and the age limit provided in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section reverts from ``55 years of age or older'' to ``50 years of age
or older'' on October 1, 2030.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * * Starting in FY 2026, FNS will increase the estimated
number of exemptions allocated to the State agency for the subsequent
fiscal year by the remaining balance of unused exemptions earned for
the previous

[[Page 102363]]

fiscal year. FNS will consider the State agency to use exemptions in
order of accrual (first-in, first-out) for the purposes of calculating
carryover of unused exemptions.
* * * * *
(k) Screening. The State agency must screen individuals for all
exceptions from the time limit listed under paragraph (c) of this
section at certification and recertification. The State agency must not
assign countable months unless it has screened the individual and
determined that no exception applies. When an individual qualifies for
more than one exception, the State agency must apply the exception that
will be in effect the longest.
(1) Changes in exception status during the certification period.
(i) Loss of an exception. If during the certification period an
individual has a change in circumstances that results in the loss of an
exception from the time limit, the State agency cannot begin assigning
countable months until it screens the individual to determine whether
any other exception applies.
(ii) Newly meeting an exception. If during the certification period
an individual subject to the time limit has a change in circumstance
that results in the individual now meeting an exception, the State
agency must act promptly to apply the exception and cannot assign a
countable month once the State receives information that is not
questionable. If the State agency determines the information is
questionable, the State agency must act promptly to verify the
information in accordance with paragraph (l) of this section. Once
verified, the State agency must apply the exception and cannot assign
countable months.
(l) Verification of exceptions. If the State agency determines an
individual's exception status under paragraph (c) of this section is
questionable, the State agency must first attempt to verify exception
status using information available to the State agency, such as
information from other public assistance programs through data sharing,
before requiring individuals provide documentary evidence or other
sources of verification.

Tameka Owens,
Acting Administrator and Assistant Administrator, Food and Nutrition
Service.

Note: This appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

Appendix A--Regulatory Impact Analysis

I. Statement of Need

This rulemaking is necessary to amend Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations to reflect mandates within the
Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023 (Public Law 118-5)
establishing changes to SNAP's work requirements and time limit for
several groupings of adults. The FRA also directs the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (the Department) to add to the program
purpose language in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act), as
amended. The final rule amends SNAP regulations to incorporate
several provisions of the FRA: adjust SNAP's able-bodied adults
without dependents (ABAWDs) work requirement and time limit \17\ on
a phased-in approach to newly included individuals who are aged 50-
54; establish new exceptions for individuals who are veterans,
homeless, and youth aged 24 or younger who have aged out of a foster
care program from the time limit; decrease State agencies' annual
allotment of discretionary exemptions for individuals subject to the
time limit from 12 percent to 8 percent; and limit State agencies'
ability to carryover unused discretionary exemptions beyond one
year. The provisions outlined above will be phased in between the
enactment of the legislation in June 2023, through October 2025,
with several provisions sunsetting October 1, 2030. The final rule
also codifies regulations requiring State agencies to screen
individuals for exceptions to the time limit, as well as exemptions
from the general work requirement, as State agencies must screen for
both to adequately determine if an individual should be subject to
the time limit. The Department is amending the regulations to
clarify screening requirements to improve consistency in program
operations across States and provide quality customer service, as
well as to require State agencies to apply the longest-lasting
exception to a client's case. The provisions of the final rule are
compared to a ``without-statute baseline,'' as well as a ``with-
statute baseline,'' in this regulatory impact analysis (RIA) to
fully assess impacts of the rule. Unless otherwise noted, estimates
in this RIA use a without-statute baseline for comparison, meaning
they reflect the full costs and savings of the provisions required
by the FRA and non-statutory amendment clarifying screening for the
longest exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ For the purposes of the final rule, the Department will use
the term ``time limit'' to refer to both the ABAWD work requirement
and time limit, as this phrasing more accurately describes the
requirements applied to time-limited participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Impacts

When compared to a without-statute baseline, the Department
estimates the net total increase in federal transfers (SNAP benefit
spending) associated with the provisions of this final rule to be
approximately $3.5 billion over the nine years Fiscal Year (FY)
2023-FY 2031, averaging $393.1 million per year. Over the nine-year
period FY 2023-FY 2031,\18\ this is the net result of a reduction in
transfers of $5.1 billion by terminating benefits to about 1.8
million individuals, a reduction to the benefits of 123,000
individuals of $149.1 million, and an increase in transfers of $8.7
billion due to about 2.6 million individuals meeting exceptions from
the time limit. Over the nine-year period, federal administrative
costs (not including transfers) are estimated to total $283.9
million, or an annual average of $31.5 million. Total State agency
administrative expenses are also estimated to be approximately
$283.9 million over the nine-year period, or an annual average of
$31.5 million. Costs associated with administrative burden to
individual SNAP participants are estimated to be approximately
$358.3 million over the nine-year period, or an annual average of
$39.8 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ A nine-year analysis period is used to align with the
implementation and sunset periods established by the FRA. See
discussion of baseline and time horizon of analysis for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When compared to a with-statute baseline,\19\ the Department
estimates the net total cost of the final rule to be $58.1 million
over the nine-year period FY 2023-FY 2031, averaging $6.5 million
per year. The total cost includes approximately $29 million in State
agency administrative expenses and approximately $29.1 million in
total federal administrative costs. There are no estimated impacts
to benefit transfers or to participant burden when using a with-
statute baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Comparison to a with-statute baseline permits the
Department to isolate the cost and savings from the discretionary
amendment to SNAP regulations in the final rule, by assuming the
effects of the FRA's statutory requirements are fully incorporated
into the baseline. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
Circular No. A-4 specifies that analysis using multiple baselines
may be appropriate to enhance transparency. This RIA uses with-
statute and without-statute baselines. Circular No. A-4 can be
viewed here: <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf</a>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final rule will primarily affect SNAP participants who are
subject to the ABAWD time limit, which the Department estimates to
be approximately 9.2 percent of SNAP participants upon full
implementation of the FRA's provisions in FY 2026. However, many of
these participants will meet the time limit or receive an exception,
so far fewer will lose eligibility for SNAP.
The estimated net impact of the final rule's change in the age-
based exceptions and three new exceptions is a net increase in SNAP
participation of about 89,000 to 95,000 individuals per year when
fully implemented. In FY 2026, this includes 301,000 participants
losing eligibility, 367,000 participants retaining eligibility
through one of the new exceptions, and about 29,000 new
participants. See Table 8 for year-by-year details on additional
participation and transfer impacts. Beyond the direct, quantifiable
impacts to individuals that are estimated in this RIA, these
provisions are also expected to cause secondary impacts to
individuals and society around them; these effects are discussed in
more detail in Section VI, Qualitative Assessment.
The final rule is estimated to increase administrative burden
for most State SNAP

[[Page 102364]]

agencies at initial implementation, throughout the period the
provisions are in effect, and at the sunset of the provisions that
expire on October 1, 2030. Against a without-statute baseline, the
rule is estimated to result in a one-time administrative burden of
469,177 total hours (about $10.3 million during FYs 2023 and 2024
after 50 percent federal cost reimbursement) \20\ in start-up costs
for State agencies. Ongoing State agency administrative burden is
expected to increase by about 1.6 million hours annually, nationwide
(a cost to State agencies of about $28.8 million annually after 50
percent federal cost reimbursement). The one-time total State agency
administrative burden of sunsetting the applicable provisions within
this final rule is estimated to be 575,583 total hours (about $14.3
million in FYs 2030 and 2031 after 50 percent federal cost
reimbursement). The final rule imposes additional administrative
burden on participants who are subject to the time limit, estimated
to be an ongoing average annual burden of 1.6 million hours for all
individuals impacted at a cost of $39.5 million annually.
Additionally, the final rule imposes a one-time burden of 106,406
hours on affected SNAP participants during the sunsetting of
applicable provisions in FY 2031 at a cost of $2.8 million. In
addition to the federal share of State agencies' administrative
expenses, the rule is estimated to result in a one-time
administrative burden of 90 hours at implementation (or $6,902 in FY
2024) and a one-time administrative burden of 63 hours at sunset (or
$5,949 in FY 2030) to the Federal Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Fifty percent of State agencies' allowable SNAP
administrative costs are reimbursed by the Federal Government, as
defined at 7 CFR 277.4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compared to a with-statute baseline, there are no estimated
implementation or sunsetting costs for State agencies. The ongoing
administrative burden to State agencies is approximately 177,142
hours annually on average (about $3.2 million annually after 50
percent federal cost reimbursement). In addition to the federal
share of State agencies' administrative expenses, the rule is
estimated to result in a one-time administrative burden of 1.25
hours at implementation (or $97 in FY 2024) and a one-time
administrative burden of 2.25 hours at sunset (or $187 in FY 2030)
to the Federal Government. There is no estimated impact to
participant burden when using a with-statute baseline.
See Tables 1a and 1b for a year-by-year presentation of changes
to transfers, federal administrative costs, State agency
administrative costs, and burden costs to individual participants.
Table 1a uses a without-statute baseline for comparison, while Table
1b uses a with-statute baseline.
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P

[[Page 102365]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.004

[[Page 102366]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.005

[[Page 102367]]

As required by OMB's Circular A-4, in Table 2 below, the
Department has prepared an accounting statement showing the
annualized estimates of benefits, costs, and transfers associated
with the provisions of this rule. Due to the primary focus on
transfer effects in this near-term analysis, the Department has used
a discount rate of 2 percent. Increases in SNAP benefit payments are
categorized as transfers; increases in administrative burden for
State agencies, households, and the Federal Government are
categorized as costs.

[[Page 102368]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.006

BILLING CODE 3410-30-C
In the discussion that follows, there is a section-by-section
description of the effects of the final rule on SNAP participants,
the

[[Page 102369]]

Federal Government, and State agencies administering SNAP.

III. Proposed Rule and Comments Received

The proposed version of this final rule, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program: Program Purpose and Work Requirement Provisions
of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, was published in the
Federal Register (2024-08338) on April 29, 2024, with an initial
comment period of 30 days through May 30, 2024. The comment period
was subsequently extended by 15 days and closed on June 14, 2024.
There were 41 comments received.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Posted public comments may be found at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>
(<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0001/comment">https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0001/comment</a> and
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0003/comment">https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0003/comment</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of the public comments submitted that related to the RIA, three
themes in the feedback were identified. Details, as well as USDA's
response, are as follows:

A. Baseline Used for Aanalysis

The proposed rule used the Mid-Session Review (MSR) of the FY
2024 President's Budget baseline estimates for SNAP benefits and
participation to produce estimates of changes in participation and
benefit spending (in nominal dollars) against a without-statute
baseline; this was the most recent baseline available at the time
the RIA was prepared. The use of the MSR FY 2024 President's Budget
baseline was critiqued by a policy organization as being outdated.
As noted, the Department used the most recent SNAP benefits and
participation estimates available at the time the proposed rule's
RIA was prepared. The RIA for the final rule has been updated to use
SNAP benefits and participation estimates for the MSR of the FY 2025
President's Budget baseline, which was the most recent baseline
available when the final rule's RIA was prepared.
The commenter also noted that the MSR FY 2024 President's Budget
SNAP baseline differs from the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO)
baseline used in CBO analyses of the FRA and requested this final
rule RIA be performed with a multi-baseline analysis. We acknowledge
that CBO's baseline differs from the President's Budget and MSR
baselines, which reflect the level of SNAP participation and
benefits spending anticipated under current law, using the Budget's
economic and technical assumptions. FNS uses historical program data
as well as the Administration's economic assumptions for economic
indicators, such as unemployment rates, to produce projections of
SNAP participation and benefits over a 10-year budget window. FNS is
unable to reproduce CBO's independent, economic and technical
baseline assumptions. Because the MSR of the FY2025 President's
Budget represents USDA's most recent projections for SNAP
participation and benefits, and it is adaptable to a with-statue and
without-statute comparison,\22\ it was selected as the most
appropriate participation and benefits baseline for this final rule
RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Adaptation of the MSR of the FY 2025 President's Budget for
without-statute analysis is discussed further in Section IV. F.
Methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted previously, the Department has also added a secondary
comparison to a with-statute baseline to this RIA. Distinctions
between the two analyses will be noted when appropriate.

B. Considering Secondary Impacts

A policy organization and a member of the public commented that
they believed the proposed rule's RIA did not adequately consider
the secondary impacts of the provisions of the rule, such as what
the policy organization noted to be the ``significant benefits of
work and the negative effects of dependency and reduced incentives
for employment associated with weakening work requirements,'' and
what the public commenter called the secondary impacts of losing
SNAP eligibility, including ``effects of the policy on food
security, poverty, and health care costs.''
In regard to the policy organization's comment citing the
``significant benefits of work,'' USDA does not dispute the general
benefits of employment noted by the commenter, including potential
benefits for a person's economic, physical, and mental well-being;
\23\ however, as noted by a 2021 USDA study cited by the commenter,
a reduction in SNAP participation cannot be equated to a meaningful
increase in employment or earnings among individuals subject to the
ABAWD time limit.\24\ This study additionally finds that the time
limit has a small, statistically significant negative impact on
employment outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Gordon Wadell and A. Kim Burton, ``Is work good for your
health and well-being? An independent review,'' U.K. Department for
Work and Pensions, January 1, 2006, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/is-work-good-for-your-health-and-well-being">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/is-work-good-for-your-health-and-well-being</a>.
\24\ Wheaton, Laura et al. (2021) The Impact of SNAP Able-Bodied
Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) Time Limit Reinstatement in Nine
States. Prepared by the Urban Institute for the USDA Food and
Nutrition Service, 2021. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/impact-snap-able-bodied-adults-without-dependents-abawd-time-limit-reinstatement-nine">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/impact-snap-able-bodied-adults-without-dependents-abawd-time-limit-reinstatement-nine</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An additional source cited by this commenter similarly noted
that individuals lose SNAP eligibility due to the time limit without
necessarily experiencing improved employment outcomes, finding that
``work requirements increase [SNAP] program exits by 23 percentage
points (64 percent) among incumbent participants after 18 months,''
though the study finds no effects on employment.\25\ In other words,
while the authors found clear evidence that the time limit leads
participants to leave the program, they did not find significant
evidence that those participants experience improved employment and
earnings outcomes, nor the benefits that employment and earnings
could confer. A third study cited by the policy organization finds
there to be a ``marginal'' increase to employment as a result of
work requirements, but a ``significant'' decrease to SNAP
participation.\26\ Research indicates that the SNAP time limit does
result in participants leaving the program but does not indicate
meaningful increases in employment among those who lose eligibility
due to the time limit. Therefore, we do not expect the final rule's
provision subjecting additional participants to the time limit to
result in benefits associated with increased employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Colin Gray, Adam Leive, Elena Prager, Kelsey B. Pukelis &
Mary Zaki, ``Employed in a SNAP? The Impact of Work Requirements on
Program Participation and Labor Supply,'' National Bureau of
Economic Research, Working Paper 28877, June 2021, <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w28877">https://www.nber.org/papers/w28877</a>.
\26\ Timothy F. Harris, ``Do SNAP Work Requirements Work?,''
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, December 13, 2018,
<a href="https://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers/297/">https://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers/297/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The member of the public noted that research indicates SNAP
participation impacts food security, poverty, and health care costs.
Although the Department is unable to use this research to produce
specific cost or saving estimates associated with the final rule, we
agree that secondary effects related to food security, poverty, and
health care costs are likely to occur among the SNAP participants
affected by the final rule. In response to this comment, USDA has
expanded on the qualitative analysis of the rule in a new section
discussing the research on secondary impacts of SNAP participation,
Section VI. Qualitative Assessment.

C. Estimates Relating to Definition of ``Homeless Individual''

Two commenters expressed concerns regarding the proposed rule's
definition of ``homeless individual'' and the data used to estimate
the number of homeless individuals impacted by the proposed rule in
the RIA.
An individual commenter cited concern that the use of
``imminently homeless'' within the definition of ``homeless
individual'' is too broad to enable an accurate estimate of the
number of individuals who will be impacted. They also noted a
discrepancy between the definition of ``homeless individual''
between the RIA and the proposed rule. USDA has confirmed
consistency of the definition throughout the final rule and RIA and
maintains that the methodology used in the proposed rule RIA is
appropriate.
Because State SNAP agencies already screen SNAP participants for
homelessness, we believe SNAP Quality Control (QC) data \27\ are the
most accurate source of information about the scale of homelessness
among SNAP participants who are subject to the time limit. Our
estimates in the proposed rule RIA were directly based on the share
of SNAP participants experiencing homelessness and did not
incorporate any expansions in the relative size of this group. The
existing definition of ``homeless individual'' for SNAP purposes
defines individuals as homeless if they ``lack a fixed and regular
nighttime residence,'' which encompasses a diverse set of
circumstances that can constitute homelessness. The proposed and
final rule clarify that individuals who will be ``imminently
homeless'' may already be considered homeless under SNAP's existing
definition because they lack a fixed and regular nighttime
residence. This clarification is not

[[Page 102370]]

expected to substantively change the way State SNAP agencies define
a ``homeless individual,'' and therefore the current share of SNAP
participants experiencing homelessness is an appropriate indication
of who may benefit from the proposed and final rule's exception for
individuals experiencing homelessness. We also provide additional
clarification in the methodology section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ SNAP QC data are further discussed in Section IV. F.
Methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A policy organization noted a concern that USDA's use of SNAP QC
data in the proposed rule's RIA to estimate the number of
individuals participating in SNAP who are experiencing homelessness
is an incorrectly high estimate, citing a lower estimate of
individuals in the United States experiencing homelessness as
measured by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) Point-in-Time Count, which estimates that
653,104 individuals were experiencing homelessness in the United
States at a specific time in January 2023.\28\ HUD's Point-in-Time
Count methodology provides processes for counting individuals
experiencing homelessness, both in sheltered (an emergency shelter,
Safe Haven, or transitional housing project) and unsheltered
(defined as ``. . . a primary nighttime residence that is a public
or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a sleeping
accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned
building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground'')
situations.\29\ The volunteers completing the assessment aim to
capture this count on one night during the last ten days in January,
with each collecting entity (known as a ``Continuum of Care,'' or
CoC) having the discretion to complete the assessment on the night-
of, within the 7 days following the night, or a combination thereof.
Each CoC also has the discretion to determine whether the count will
be completed using a census method or a sampling method and whether
to complete a `complete coverage count' or a count within `known
locations' where people who are unsheltered could be located at
night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ The United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Fact Sheet: 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment
Report Key Findings from the Point-in-Time Counts'', <a href="https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUD_No_23_278_4.pdf">https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUD_No_23_278_4.pdf</a>.
\29\ United Stated Department of Housing and Urban Development,
``Point-in-Time Count Methodology Guide,'' March 2015, <a href="https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/PIT-Count-Methodology-Guide.pdf">https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/PIT-Count-Methodology-Guide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several reasons the HUD Point-in-Time count
underestimates the true count of individuals experiencing
homelessness over the course of a year.\30\ For example, individuals
experiencing homelessness would be uncounted through this method if
they stay temporarily in a motel or with friends or relatives on the
night the count is conducted in their area. Additionally, they may
not be identified as a homeless individual while sleeping in a car,
may not be identified as a homeless individual while at a
campground, could be uncounted if they move locations throughout the
duration of the Point-in-Time count, could be in a location that is
under-sampled or thought to be a location where no homeless
individuals reside, could be incarcerated at the time of the Point-
in-Time count, or could strategically choose to sleep in more hidden
locations for safety or to avoid law enforcement. The design of the
Point-in-Time count does not account for fluctuations in the number
of individuals experiencing homelessness throughout the year, nor
the fact that individuals move in and out of homelessness throughout
a year. Potential inconsistencies in variables like volunteer number
and training, weather during the count, and the parameters chosen
for the count by each CoC could also introduce inaccuracies in the
Point-in-Time count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ National Law Center on Homelessness, ``Don't Count On It:
How the HUD Point-in-Time Count Underestimates the Homelessness
Crisis in America,'' <a href="https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/HUD-PIT-report2017.pdf">https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/HUD-PIT-report2017.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other government entities use different methods to count
individuals experiencing homelessness. For example, the United
States Department of Education regularly produces an estimate of
students experiencing homelessness that is also considerably higher
than HUD's Point-in-Time Count. The Department of Education
estimates 1,205,529 children or youth experiencing homelessness
enrolled in public school during the 2021-2022 school year,\31\
which is more than double HUD's estimate of 582,462 people of all
ages experiencing homelessness during the January 2022 Point-in-Time
estimate \32\ from the same time period as the 2021-2022 school
year. The number of enrolled students experiencing homelessness is
reported directly by schools to the Department of Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ U.S. Department of Education, ED Data Express file
specification 118, SEA Level (2021-2022); <a href="https://eddataexpress.ed.gov/download/data-library?field_year_target_id=2919&field_population_value=Homeless+Students&field_data_topic_target_id=All&field_reporting_level_target_id=26&field_program_target_id=All&field_file_spec_target_id=1005&field_data_group_id_target_id=All&combine=">https://eddataexpress.ed.gov/download/data-library?field_year_target_id=2919&field_population_value=Homeless+Students&field_data_topic_target_id=All&field_reporting_level_target_id=26&field_program_target_id=All&field_file_spec_target_id=1005&field_data_group_id_target_id=All&combine=</a>.
\32\ The United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, <a href="https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUD_No_23_278_4.pdf">https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUD_No_23_278_4.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the limitations to this specific HUD data set, the
Department believes SNAP QC data provide the best-available estimate
of how many SNAP participants experience homelessness, since State
SNAP agencies are required to screen for homelessness at SNAP
application and recertification. Therefore, we maintain that SNAP QC
data provide a more accurate estimate of homelessness among SNAP
participants than any other agency's data on homelessness.

IV. Background

A. Work Requirements in SNAP

The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act), as amended,
establishes national eligibility standards for SNAP, including work
requirements for certain individuals. The first of these
requirements, referred to as the general work requirement, requires
certain individuals between the ages of 16-59 who are able to work
to register for work; accept an offer of suitable employment; not
voluntarily quit or reduce hours of employment below 30-hours per
week, without good cause; and participate in workfare or SNAP
Employment and Training (E&T) \33\ if required by the State agency.
Most SNAP participants are exempt from the general work requirement
because they are older adults, children, have a disability, or meet
another exemption from the general work requirement listed in the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ The SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) program helps SNAP
participants gain skills and find work that moves them forward to
self-sufficiency. Depending on whether a State agency operates a
mandatory E&T program, individuals in some States may be required to
participate in the State's E&T program as a condition of meeting
work requirements. Federal funding for SNAP E&T was $599 million in
FY 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A subset of individuals who are subject to the general work
requirement are also subject to an additional requirement, referred
to as the ABAWD work requirement or the time limit. Prior to the
FRA, individuals subject to the time limit were individuals ages 18
to 49 who do not have a child (under age 18) in their SNAP household
and are not considered disabled by SNAP rules.\34\ The Act limits
individuals who are subject to the time limit, also referred to as
time-limited participants, to receiving SNAP benefits for 3 months
in a 36-month period (the time limit) unless they are meeting the
additional work requirement, live in an area where the time limit is
waived due to a lack of sufficient jobs or a high unemployment rate,
or are otherwise exempt. If an individual subject to the time limit
receives SNAP benefits in a month when they did not meet the work
requirement or otherwise were waived or excepted from the time limit
as noted above, that month is considered a ``countable'' month and
counts as 1 of the 3 months within the 36-month period where the
individual may still retain SNAP eligibility. The Act provides
exceptions from the time limit based on certain individual
circumstances, such as physical or mental limitations that limit
ability to work, a certain student status, need to care for a
dependent household member, pregnancy, or meeting an exemption from
the general work requirement. Individuals can continue receiving
SNAP beyond the three-month time limit by working, participating in
a qualifying work program (including SNAP E&T), or any combination
of the two, for at least 20 hours per week (averaged monthly to 80
hours per month). Individuals can also meet the time limit by
participating in and complying with workfare for the number of hours
assigned (equal to the result obtained by dividing a household's
SNAP allotment by the higher of the applicable Federal or State
minimum wage). For the purposes of the time

[[Page 102371]]

limit, working includes unpaid or volunteer work that is verified by
the State agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ In SNAP, an individual is considered disabled if they
receive federal disability or blindness payments under the Social
Security Act, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI), receive
state disability or blindness payments based on SSI rules, receive
disability retirement benefits from a governmental agency because of
a permanent disability, receive an annuity under the Railroad
Retirement Act and are eligible for Medicare or are considered
disabled under SSI; are a veteran who is totally disabled,
permanently homebound, or in need of regular aid and attendance; or
are the surviving spouse or child of a veteran who is receiving VA
benefits and is considered permanently disabled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Characteristics of Individuals Subject to the ABAWD Time Limit

The Department estimates that in FY 2024, approximately 9.1
percent of SNAP participants are ages 18 to 49 and subject to the
time limit, and 78 percent of them are in one-person SNAP
households.\35\ These time-limited participants have very low
household gross income, averaging only 41 percent of the federal
poverty level (FPL). For comparison, the average SNAP household has
a gross income of about 69 percent of the FPL. About 18 percent of
time-limited participants are experiencing homelessness at the time
of SNAP certification or recertification.\36\ Research indicates
that time-limited participants who are not meeting the time limit
can face significant barriers to finding or increasing their
employment and earnings. A 2021 USDA study in 9 States found that 5
to 12 percent of SNAP participants subject to the time limit were
meeting the time limit when those States reinstated the time limit
after the Great Recession.\37\ Participants who were homeless were
much less likely to meet the time limit. The study also found the
reinstatement of the time limit substantially reduced SNAP
participation among individuals subject to the time limit, with no
evidence of increased employment or earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ Note: The Department estimates that individuals subject to
the ABAWD time limit in FY 2024 are a comparable share of the
caseload to the most recent SNAP QC data available (from FY 2022),
which were gathered during an extended suspension of the ABAWD time
limit during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency by the Families
First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). Because States were still
unwinding the COVID-19 waivers at the start of FY 2024, the
Department estimates these individuals would make up a similar share
of the caseload at both points in time.
\36\ Based on tabulation of FY 2022 SNAP QC data.
\37\ Wheaton, Laura et al. (2021) The Impact of SNAP Able-Bodied
Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) Time Limit Reinstatement in Nine
States. Prepared by the Urban Institute for the USDA Food and
Nutrition Service, 2021. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/impact-snap-able-bodied-adults-without-dependents-abawd-time-limit-reinstatement-nine">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/impact-snap-able-bodied-adults-without-dependents-abawd-time-limit-reinstatement-nine</a>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Factors That Permit Time-Limited Individuals To Continue
Participating in SNAP Beyond Three Months

As previously discussed, some individuals who are subject to the
time limit may meet an exception from the time limit. The Act also
allows for waivers of the time limit in geographic areas with an
unemployment rate over 10 percent or an insufficient number of jobs
to provide employment for individuals, as defined at 7 CFR
273.24(f). Individuals residing in areas with a waiver of the time
limit may continue receiving benefits even if they are not meeting
the additional time-limit work requirement for more than 3 months in
a 36-month period. Lastly, the Act establishes an annual allotment
of discretionary exemptions that State agencies may use to extend
eligibility for a time-limited participant who is not meeting the
time limit. Each discretionary exemption can extend eligibility for
one participant for one month and a single participant can receive
multiple one-month discretionary exemptions. As defined by law, each
State agency's allotment of discretionary exemptions is calculated
annually by the Department, based on the total number of time-
limited participants in the State who have exceeded three countable
months due to the time limit in the preceding fiscal year, known as
``covered'' individuals. Prior to the FRA, State agencies' annual
allotments of discretionary exemptions were based on 12 percent of
the total number of covered individuals in the State. If a State
agency did not use the exemptions, they could be carried over
indefinitely.

D. FRA Legislative Updates

The FRA \38\ amended the Act, revising the definition of who is
subject to the time limit, exceptions from the time limit,
procedures for the calculation and carryover of discretionary
exemptions, as well as the program purpose. Based on these changes,
the Department is amending the regulations to reflect the
requirements of the FRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Full text of the law can be found at: <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746/text">https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746/text</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FRA also required the Department to publicize all available
State requests for waivers authorized by Sec. 6(o)(4)(A), including
supporting data, and all Department approvals of waivers within 30
days of enactment. The Department complied with this requirement and
is not conducting rulemaking related to this provision.

E. Baselines and Time Horizon of Analysis

Our baseline for measuring the costs, benefits, and transfers
associated with this final rule is the Department's SNAP
participation and benefit estimates for FYs 2023--2031, from the MSR
of the FY 2025 President's Budget. These participation and benefits
estimates are adjusted to exclude the effects of FRA provisions,
shown in Table 3 below to facilitate a without-statute comparison.
This baseline represents the Department's best estimate of SNAP
participation and benefits spending (in nominal dollars) in the
absence of the provisions included in this final rule.\39\ This will
be referred to as the without-statute baseline throughout the RIA
and most estimates in this RIA are the result of evaluating the
final rule against the without-statute baseline. To clarify which
costs or benefits in the final rule are attributable to non-
statutory elements of the final rule (i.e., provisions not required
to implement statute), we have also included estimates that use a
with-statute baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ Although the Department has adjusted SNAP estimates for the
MSR of the FY2025 President's Budget to include the effects of the
FRA, the baseline used for this analysis excludes those FRA-related
adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All costs related to administrative burden for State agencies,
the Federal Government and households are measured against currently
approved burden estimates in OMB Control No. 0584-0479.
This RIA uses FY 2023-FY 2031 as the timeframe for analysis
because this range fully incorporates the implementation and
sunsetting periods of FRA provisions. A 9-year analysis period
(rather than a more typical 5-year or 10-year period) is used to
align with the implementation period established by the FRA, which
began in September 2023. While some of the provisions included in
the FRA and in the final rule are ongoing, others are expected to
sunset at the start of FY 2031. As a portion of SNAP participants
will not be affected by the sunset immediately upon the start of FY
2031, but rather at their screening that will take place during FY
2031, the Department expects there will be some continuing transfer
impacts in FY 2031, as well as administrative costs associated with
the sunsetting of certain provisions in FYs 2030 and 2031. Thus, the
Department determined that the period FY 2023-FY 2031 is the
appropriate period to assess the rule's economic effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Each year as part of the process of developing the
President's Budget, the Department produces estimates of expected
SNAP participation and benefit spending over a ten-year period.
Estimates in this Regulatory Impact Analysis are based on Department
Estimates for the Mid-Session Review of the FY 2025 President's
Budget, excluding FRA-related adjustments to the baseline estimates;
benefit values for FY 2023 reflect benefit amounts (excluding
emergency allotments authorized during the COVID-19 Public Health
Emergency, which expired in March 2023).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.007

[[Page 102372]]

F. Methodology

Multiple data sources were used to estimate how the provisions
in the final rule will affect SNAP participants, State agencies, and
the Federal Government. Methodology and estimates are discussed in
this section, according to the data source used. To estimate the
effects of the final rule's provisions, the proportion of SNAP
participants likely to be affected by each provision was derived
from the following data sources. Those ratios were then applied to
the appropriate baseline estimates for SNAP spending and
participation to produce estimates of changes in participation and
benefit spending (in nominal dollars) for future years. All data
sources were the most recent versions available at the time this
analysis was prepared.

SNAP Quality Control Data

The estimates provided in this RIA are primarily based on SNAP
Quality Control (QC) data from FY 2022, and the baseline included in
Table 3. At the time of analysis, this is the most recent period for
which the Department has a weighted QC dataset for analytic purposes
that includes all 53 State agencies. SNAP QC data are collected
annually as part of the ongoing effort to determine the accuracy of
SNAP certification actions.\41\ Data are collected for a sample of
SNAP households that is statistically representative at both the
national and state levels. The FY 2022 QC dataset includes data from
41,391 households, including information on household earnings,
household composition, and participant characteristics that permit
inference of ABAWD status (e.g., age, disability status, presence of
children in the SNAP household, and whether the individual is exempt
from the SNAP general work requirement). The data also include
information that can be used to infer employment status (e.g.,
amount of monthly earned income). The sample of households included
in the FY 2022 dataset are weighted to be representative of the SNAP
caseload during that fiscal year nationally and in each State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Detailed information on the QC review process, including
sampling requirements and procedures for conducting QC reviews, can
be found on the FNS website at: <a href="http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/quality-control">http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/quality-control</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimates derived from the QC data include:

50-54-Year-Olds Newly Subject to the Time Limit

<bullet> Share of SNAP participants that are likely to be newly
subject to the time limit due to the FRA's change to include 50-to-
54-year-olds (1.9 percent of total SNAP participants). Among this
group, we estimated:
[cir] The share that are likely meeting the time limit
requirement, based on information about employment status and
earnings (10.6 percent).
[cir] The share that are likely to increase their work hours in
order to begin meeting the time limit requirement, based on earnings
information (3.26 percent). Specifically, this estimate is based on
the share of individuals who were estimated to work 15-19 hours per
week, based on the assumption that they may be able to increase
their work hours to average 20 hours per week.
[cir] The share that are likely to not be subject to the time
limit for reasons other than the three new exceptions temporarily
established by the FRA because they are exempt from the general work
requirement for a reason other than disability (e.g., an exemption
due to student status) (30 percent).
[cir] The average monthly per person benefit received by
individuals in this group (24.9 percent of the Thrifty Food Plan
(TFP)).

New Exception for Homelessness

<bullet> Share of time-limited participants (between the ages of
18-54) who are also experiencing homelessness or will imminently
experience homelessness \42\ (17.6 percent). Among this group, we
estimated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ Our estimate is derived from the share of SNAP participants
who meet the definition of those subject to the time limit and
experiencing homeless in the FY 22 SNAP QC data. States may
currently use ``imminently homeless'' as a criterion for defining
homelessness. Therefore, no adjustments were made to existing data
about time-limited participants who are experiencing homelessness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cir] The share that are likely meeting the time limit
requirement, based on information about employment status and
earnings (2.7 percent).
[cir] The share that are likely to increase their work hours in
order to begin meeting the time limit requirement (1 percent).\43\
Because these individuals would begin meeting the requirement, they
are removed from the pool of individuals we estimate would receive
an exception from the time limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ Note: We use 1 percent for this group, rather than 3.26
percent, based on the assumption that individuals experiencing
homelessness will face greater challenges in increasing their work
hours due to unstable housing, transportation barriers, inconsistent
access to hygiene materials or professional clothing, and other
challenges related to homelessness, as described by sources such as
the Urban Institute (<a href="https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/why-it-so-hard-people-experiencing-homelessness-just-go-get-job">https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/why-it-so-hard-people-experiencing-homelessness-just-go-get-job</a>,),the National
Alliance to End Homelessness (<a href="https://endhomelessness.org/resource/overcoming-employment-barriers/">https://endhomelessness.org/resource/overcoming-employment-barriers/</a>), and the University of Michigan
School of Public Health (<a href="https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2020posts/homelessness-and-job-security-challenges-and-interventions.html">https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2020posts/homelessness-and-job-security-challenges-and-interventions.html</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cir] The share that are likely to not be subject to the time
limit for reasons other than the three new exceptions temporarily
established by the FRA because they are exempt from the general work
requirement for a reason other than disability (e.g., an exemption
due to student status) (28 percent).
[cir] The average monthly per person benefit received by
individuals in this group (29.4 percent of the TFP).

Estimation of New SNAP Participation Based on the New FRA Exceptions

<bullet> To estimate the likely increase in SNAP participation
as a result of the new exceptions in place, the Department estimated
a 1 percent increase in the number of childless adults without
disabilities between the ages of 18 and 49 in the baseline. This
modest estimate is based on the fact that the FRA provisions went
into effect at a time when many areas had waivers of the time limit
due to high unemployment rates that occurred during the COVID-19
pandemic. Hence, many of these individuals made eligible by the new
exceptions may have already been participating in SNAP.

Changes in the Share of the Time-Limited SNAP Participants Between FY
2022 and FY 2024

<bullet> Given that unemployment rates had been low for an
extended period of time and waiver coverage had similarly decreased,
the Department believes pre-pandemic FY 2020 SNAP QC data represent
a period during which time-limited participants ages 18-49 comprised
a relatively small portion of the total SNAP caseload (7.3 percent
of total SNAP participants). We assume that time-limited
participants ages 18-49 will make up 7.3 percent of the caseload in
future years, after an extended period of time with low
unemployment. This represents our ``steady-state'' estimate of
participation by individuals subject to the time limit, in years not
affected by elevated unemployment or nationwide suspension of the
time limit.
<bullet> Given that time-limited participants largely did not
accrue countable months between April 2020 and June 2023 due to the
temporary suspension of the ABAWD time limit for the duration of the
COVID-19 Public Health Emergency authorized by the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), the Department believes FY 2022
SNAP QC data represent a period during which time-limited
participants comprised a relatively large portion of the total SNAP
caseload (9.1 percent of total SNAP participants), reflecting
increased participation by this group as a result of the nationwide
suspension of the time limit and extensive use of waivers of the
time limit by State agencies.
<bullet> Correspondingly, the Department assumed that time-
limited participants ages 18-49 make up a larger share of
participants (9.1 percent) at the start of FY 2024, before declining
back to 7.3 percent of participants in FY 2025 and subsequent years
as was seen in pre-pandemic FY 2020 when unemployment rates were
lower. This adjustment was not made to time-limited participants
ages 50-54 because their share of total participants was similar in
the FY 2022 and pre-pandemic FY 2020 QC data, which represent both
states of high and low waiver coverage, respectively.

Veterans' Participation in SNAP and ABAWD Status From American
Community Survey (ACS) Data

Given that the SNAP QC data do not include information about
veteran status, the Department relied on 2022 American Community
Survey (ACS) data to estimate how many individuals participating in
SNAP may be subject to the ABAWD time limit and are veterans. The
ACS data were tabulated to determine how many individuals in the
U.S. have prior military service, are between the ages of 18-54,
participate in SNAP, do not have a disability,\44\ and do not have a
child in their household.\45\ Compared to the total

[[Page 102373]]

number of individuals reporting SNAP participation in the 2022 ACS,
this resulted in an estimate that 0.22 percent of SNAP participants
may be eligible for the new exception from the time limit for
veterans. Without data on how many of these veterans would be exempt
from the time limit requirement for reasons other than the three new
exceptions temporarily established by the FRA (e.g., an exemption
due to student status), we assume the same share as time-limited
participants ages 18 to 54 (32 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ As defined in SNAP rules.
\45\ The ACS variables used to create this tabulation were:
DRATX (``Veteran service connected disability rating''); HUPAC_RC1
(``HH presence and age of children recode''); FS (``Yearly food
stamp/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
recipiency''); MIL_RC1 (``Military service recode''); SSIP_RC1
(``Supplementary Security Income past 12 months recode''); and
AGEP_RC1 (``Age recode'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without data on average monthly per person benefits for time-
limited participants who are also veterans, we assume that they
receive the same average benefit as 18-to-54-year-old time-limited
participants who are not working at least 20 hours per week (25.1
percent of the TFP).

Former Foster Youths' Participation in SNAP From Administration for
Children and Families (ACF)

The SNAP QC data do not include information about participants
that were formerly in the foster care system. The Department was
unable to find a national survey that would permit it to estimate
how many former foster youths between the ages of 18-24 participate
in SNAP, nor to determine the share who may be considered subject to
the time limit. In the absence of reliable data, the Department
generated an estimate based on information available from the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) on how many youths
age out of the foster care system each year, nationally. ACF
indicates that about 20,000 youth emancipate from foster care each
year,\46\ resulting in a total cohort of 18-24-year-old former
foster youth of up to 140,000 individuals. We adjusted the 140,000
cohort size downward to reflect the fact that about 68 percent of
the U.S. population lives in States that have opted to provide
foster care up to age 21,\47\ so there are likely proportionally
fewer 18-to-20-year-olds in the total former foster youth
population. The adjustment resulted in an estimate that 99,000
former foster youth could fall into the 18-24 age group that would
be eligible for the new exception from the time limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ The United States Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families publishes an annual
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)
Report. The report used for this analysis is based on FY 2021 data.
<a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/afcars-report-29.pdf">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/afcars-report-29.pdf</a>.
\47\ This estimate is based on information in ``States with
Approval to Extend Care Provide Independent Living Options for Youth
up to Age 21'' from the Government Accountability Office, <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-411.pdf">https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-411.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, not all 99,000 individuals would participate in SNAP
and be considered subject to the time limit. Using the best-
available data and research on former foster youth outcomes, the
Department assumes that approximately 65 percent of individuals in
this group may be SNAP-ineligible, are already meeting the time
limit, or are not subject to the time limit (for reasons that can
include being a student, having a child in their household, or
having a disability).\48\ In the absence of precise data to inform
the estimate, the Department estimated that the remaining 35 percent
of this group will benefit from the new exception (about 35,000
individuals per year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ Sources informing this estimate include: The Annie E. Casey
Foundation, <a href="https://www.aecf.org/resources/future-savings">https://www.aecf.org/resources/future-savings</a>; Chapin
Hall at the University of Chicago, <a href="https://www.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/Midwest-Eval-Outcomes-at-Age-26.pdf">https://www.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/Midwest-Eval-Outcomes-at-Age-26.pdf</a>; the United
States Department of Agriculture, <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/characteristics-snap-households-fy-2020-and-early-months-covid-19-pandemic-characteristics">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/characteristics-snap-households-fy-2020-and-early-months-covid-19-pandemic-characteristics</a>; and ABAWD Waiver coverage rates, <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ABAWD/waivers">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ABAWD/waivers</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without data on average monthly per person benefits for time-
limited participants who are also former foster youth up to age 24,
we assume that they receive the same average monthly benefit as 18-
to-49-year-old time-limited participants who are not working at
least 20 hours per week (25.2 percent of the TFP).

SNAP ABAWD Waiver Coverage and ACS Data on Low-Income Population

Waivers of the ABAWD time limit play a significant role in
determining the number of participants who are subject to the time
limit at any given time. The Department determined it was necessary
to estimate the share of time-limited participants who are likely to
live in a waived area to more accurately determine how many
individuals would lose or retain eligibility annually due to the
FRA. Without this adjustment, estimates would overstate both the
increase in transfers associated with time-limited participants
retaining SNAP eligibility because of the new exceptions, and the
decrease in transfers associated with individuals ages 50-54 newly
becoming subject to the time limit, and subsequently losing
eligibility.
Internal analyses were conducted to estimate the share of
participants subject to the time limit likely to live in a waived
area at two different points in time, based on the assumption that
FY 2023 and FY 2024 had a higher-than-usual level of waiver
coverage, declining to stabilize at a lower rate in FY 2025:
(1) Quarter 4 of FY 2024, to reflect the most recent period of
waiver coverage available to assess for the purposes of preparing
this RIA; and
(2) Quarter 1 of FY 2020, to reflect a ``low'' degree of waiver
coverage that occurred in the pre-pandemic months, after an extended
period of relatively low unemployment rates nationally. This was
used as a proxy estimate for waiver coverage in future years, when
OMB's economic assumptions predict low unemployment rates.
To conduct these analyses, we identified the local areas covered
by FNS-approved waivers \49\ of the time limit in each of the above-
noted time periods. Then, ACS data were used to determine the share
of the low-income population (defined as below 125 percent of the
FPL) in the U.S. that lived in those waived areas; the low-income
population was used as a proxy for SNAP participants. The results of
these analyses indicated that in FY 2024, about 45 percent of SNAP
participants likely live in an area with a waiver of the time limit,
and in periods of ``low'' waiver coverage, about 40 percent of SNAP
participants likely live in an area with a waiver of the time limit.
Additionally, analysis of SNAP QC data on the distribution of
participants aged 50-54 indicates that the share of SNAP
participants who live in an area with a waiver is about 10
percentage points lower, compared to those aged 18-49 years. Thus,
we assume waiver coverage among those aged 50-54 years was 10
percentage points lower than those aged 18-49 years who are subject
to the time limit in each time period. The Department used the
estimate of waiver coverage from FY 2024 to adjust its estimates of
how many individuals were affected by the FRA in that year, and used
the Quarter 1 of FY 2020 waiver coverage estimate for FY 2025,
onward, as waiver coverage rates are expected to stabilize in those
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ All FNS-approved ABAWD Waivers are publicly-available at
<a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ABAWD/waivers">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ABAWD/waivers</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

State-Reported Data on Discretionary Exemption Usage

To assess the effects of the FRA's provisions limiting States
agencies' discretionary exemption allotments to 8 percent of covered
individuals and preventing carryover of unused exemptions beyond one
fiscal year, the Department examined State agency-reported data on
discretionary exemption usage. State agencies are required to
provide this data to the Department on an annual basis. The
Department examined data from FY 2016-FY 2019 to understand how many
exemptions States typically use. Those data indicated that State
agencies typically use less than an 8 percent allotment of
discretionary exemptions. The four-year period FY 2016-FY 2019 was
used to represent a multi-year period during which the time limit
was not lifted nationally.

Estimating the Value of State Agency, Federal, and Participant Burden

Cost estimates in this RIA account for increased burden for
State agencies, the Federal Government, and SNAP participants.
Hourly labor rates used to monetize burden hours in this analysis
align with those presented in the final rule's burden table:
<bullet> State agency program staff: FY 2023 fully-loaded labor
rate is $32.15. This is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
May 2023 estimates of the median hourly wage rate for occupation
code 43-4061, Eligibility Interviewers--Government Programs ($24.17)
multiplied by 1.33 to represent fully-loaded wages.
<bullet> State agency program manager: FY 2023 fully-loaded
labor rate is $53.09. This is based on BLS May 2023 estimates of the
median hourly wage rate for occupation code 11-9151, Social and
Community Service Managers ($39.92) multiplied by 1.33 to represent
fully-loaded wages.
<bullet> State agency computer developers: FY 2023 fully-loaded
labor rate is $52.96. This

[[Page 102374]]

is based on BLS May 2023 estimates of the median hourly wage rate
for occupation code 15-0000, Computer and Mathematical Operations
($39.82) multiplied by 1.33 to represent fully-loaded wages.
<bullet> Federal program analyst: FY 2024 fully-loaded labor
rate is $75.17. This is based on OPM 2024 salary data for the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-WV-PA locality pay region for
a GS-13 Step 1 employee ($56.52) multiplied by 1.33 to represent
fully-loaded wages.
<bullet> Federal supervisory analyst: FY 2024 fully-loaded labor
rate is $88.83. This is based on OPM 2024 salary data for the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-WV-PA locality pay region for
a GS-14 Step 1 employee ($66.79) multiplied by 1.33 to represent
fully-loaded wages.
<bullet> Federal division director: FY 2024 fully-loaded labor
rate is $104.48. This is based on OPM 2024 salary data for the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-WV-PA locality pay region for
a GS-15 Step 1 employee ($78.56) multiplied by 1.33 to represent
fully-loaded wages.
<bullet> SNAP participants: The baseline labor rate is $22.74.
This is based on the most recent 4 quarters of available data from
the Current Population Survey (CPS) median weekly wage for full-time
and salary workers, ages 16 and up ($1,137/week, divided by 40 hours
to produce an hourly rate of $28.43). Because burden on SNAP
participants reflects activities, like completing SNAP forms, that
occur outside of an employment setting, the hourly rate derived from
the weekly wage is discounted by 20 percent to remove the value of
taxes and other work-related costs, resulting in $22.74.
The labor rates presented above are inflated for estimates of
burden costs in future years using CPI-W projections from OMB's FY
2025 MSR President's Budget Economic Assumptions. All administrative
expense estimates presented in this RIA are based on labor rates
that have been inflated based on CPI-W projections.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

The increases and decreases in SNAP benefit transfers,
administrative costs, and burden hours associated with each
provision of the final rule are discussed separately in this section
of the RIA. Throughout the section-by-section analysis, FY 2026 is
used as a reference year to provide an indication of the final
rule's effect after all provisions have been phased-in.

A. Requirement To Add Purpose Language to the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008

Discussion: This provision of the FRA requires the Department to
add the following program purpose to The Act: ``That program
includes as a purpose to assist low-income adults in obtaining
employment and increasing their earnings. Such employment and
earnings, along with program benefits, will permit low-income
households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels
of trade by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible
households who apply for participation.'' The Department adds this
language as an addition to 7 CFR 271.1(a), where the general purpose
and scope of SNAP are defined.
Effect on SNAP Participants: As this provision is
administrative, the Department expects it will not impact program
participants in a quantifiable way.
Effect on State Agencies: The Department expects no State agency
burden to be incurred as a direct result of this provision.
Effect on Federal Spending: The Department expects no changes in
federal administrative costs or transfers to be incurred as a direct
result of this provision.

B. Requirement To Update Exceptions From the ABAWD Time Limit

There are four components that comprise this provision, which
expanded the category of individuals subject to the time limit by
adjusting the upper age limit from 49 to 54 on a phased-in timeline
between September 2023 to October 2024 and created three new
categories of exceptions from the time limit. All components of this
provision will sunset on October 1, 2030, pending any future
legislative changes. Because changes to exceptions from the time
limit are a statutory provision, the impacts discussed in this
section are generally only applicable to a without-statute
comparison. This provision of the final rule has no effects when
compared to a with-statute baseline, with the exception of small
changes in administrative burden. Estimates derived from a with-
statute baseline are discussed where relevant.

Changes to Age-Based Exceptions

Discussion: This provision gradually raised the upper age limit
defining who is subject to SNAP's time limit from age 49 to age 54,
thereby expanding the group of SNAP participants

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 17, 2024.

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.