57910 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1See 42 U.S.C. 1382 and 20 CFR 416.202 for a 

list of the eligibility requirements. See also 20 CFR 

416.420 for general information on how we 

compute the amount of the monthly payment by 

reducing the benefit rate by the amount of 

countable income as calculated under the rules in 

subpart K of 20 part 416. 

2See 20 CFR 416.1101. 

3See 20 CFR 416.405 through 416.415. Some 

States supplement the FBR amount. 

4 87 FR 64296, 64298 (2022) A table of the 

monthly maximum Federal SSI payment amounts 

for an eligible individual, and for an eligible 

individual with an eligible spouse, is available at 

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSIamts.html. When 

the FBR is adjusted for the cost of living, the 

amount of the potential ISM reduction adjusts 

accordingly. 

5See 20 CFR 416.1100. 

6See 20 CFR 416.1102. 

7See 42 U.S.C. 1382a; and 20 CFR 416.1102– 

1124. 

8See 20 CFR 416.1104. 

9See 20 CFR 416.1102. 

10See 20 CFR 416.1130(a). 

11See 20 CFR 416.1130(b). We recently published 

a proposed rule to remove food from the calculation 

of ISM. See 88 FR 9779 Omitting Food From InKind Support and Maintenance Calculations, 

published February 15, 2023. 

12See 20 CFR 416.1130(b). 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

email: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued on August 17, 2023. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18119 Filed 8–23–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Part 416 

[Docket No. SSA–2023–0010] 

RIN 0960–AI82 

Expansion of the Rental Subsidy 

Policy for Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI) Applicants and 

Recipients 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: We propose to revise our 

regulations by applying nationwide the 

In-Kind Support and Maintenance (ISM) 

rental subsidy exception that is 

currently in place for SSI applicants and 

recipients residing in seven States. The 

exception recognizes that a ‘‘business 

arrangement’’ exists when the amount of 

required monthly rent for a property 

equals or exceeds the presumed 

maximum value. This proposed rule 

would improve nationwide program 

uniformity, and, we expect, improve 

equality in the application of the rental 

subsidy policy. 

DATES: To ensure that your comments 

are considered, we must receive them 

no later than October 23, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of three methods—internet, 

fax, or mail. Do not submit the same 

comments multiple times or by more 

than one method. Regardless of which 

method you choose, please state that 

your comments refer to Docket No. 

SSA–2023–0010 so that we may 

associate your comments with the 

correct regulation. 

Caution: You should be careful to 

include in your comments only 

information that you wish to make 

publicly available. We strongly urge you 

not to include in your comments any 

personal information, such as Social 

Security numbers or medical 

information. 

1. Internet: We strongly recommend 

that you submit your comments via the 

internet. Please visit the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. Use the ‘‘search’’ 

function to find docket number SSA– 

2023–0010. The system will issue a 

tracking number to confirm your 

submission. You will not be able to 

view your comment immediately 

because we must post each comment 

manually. It may take up to one week 

for your comment to be viewable. 

2. Fax: Fax comments to 1–833–410– 

1631. 

3. Mail: Mail your comments to the 

Office of Legislation and Congressional 

Affairs, Regulations and Reports 

Clearance Staff, Mail Stop 3253 

Altmeyer, 6401 Security Blvd., 

Baltimore, MD 21235. 

Comments are available for public 

viewing on the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at https://www.regulations.gov or 

in person, during regular business 

hours, by arranging with the contact 

person identified below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tamara Levingston, Office of Income 

Security Programs, 6401 Security Blvd., 

Robert M. Ball Building, Suite 2512B, 

Woodlawn, MD 21235, 410–966–7384. 

For information on eligibility or filing 

for benefits, call our national toll-free 

number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1– 

800–325–0778, or visit our internet site, 

Social Security Online, at https://

www.ssa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

We administer the SSI program, 

which provides monthly payments to: 

(1) adults and children with a disability 

or blindness; and (2) adults aged 65 or 

older. Eligible individuals must meet all 

the requirements in the Social Security 

Act (Act), including having resources 

and income below specified amounts.1

Since SSI is a needs-based program for 

persons with limited income and 

resources, we must consider the amount 

of income an applicant or recipient has 

when determining whether that person 

is eligible to receive SSI payments. If the 

individual is eligible, their income is 

also a factor in calculating the amount 

of their monthly SSI payments. 

Specifically, once an individual is 

determined eligible for SSI, their 

monthly payment amount is determined 

by subtracting their countable monthly 

income from the Federal benefit rate 

(FBR),2 which is the monthly maximum 

Federal SSI payment.3 The FBR for 2023 

is $914 for an individual and $1,371 for 

an eligible individual with an eligible 

spouse.4 Generally, the more income an 

individual has, the less their SSI 

payment will be.5 For the purposes of 

SSI, ‘‘income’’ is defined as anything 

that an individual receives in cash or in 

kind that the individual can use to meet 

their needs for food and shelter.6 The 

Act and our regulations 7 define income 

as ‘‘earned,’’ such as wages from work, 

and ‘‘unearned,’’ such as gifted cash.8

Our proposed regulatory change 

pertains to rental subsidy, which is a 

type of ISM under the broader umbrella 

of unearned income. 

ISM 

As noted above, income that affects an 

individual’s monthly SSI payment can 

also be provided in kind.9 Generally, we 

value in-kind items at their current 

market value and apply the various 

exclusions for both earned and 

unearned income; however, we have 

special rules for valuing food or shelter 

that is received as unearned income 

(ISM).10 Under our current regulations, 

ISM means any food or shelter that is 

given to an individual or that the 

individual receives because someone 

else pays for it.11 Shelter includes room, 

rent, mortgage payments, real property 

taxes, heating fuel, gas, electricity, 

water, sewerage, and garbage collection 

services.12 For example, if an SSI 

recipient’s brother lets the recipient live 

rent-free in his home throughout a 

calendar month, we would consider the 

shelter the brother provides as ISM to 

the recipient. We have two rules for 

valuing the ISM that we must count: (1) 

currently, the one-third reduction rule 

(VTR) applies if the individual is living 

in the household of a person, 

throughout a month, who provides the 

individual with both food and shelter, 

and (2) the presumed maximum value 

rule (PMV) applies in all other 

situations in which the individual is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57911 

13 20 CFR 416.1130(c). 14Social Security Act § 1612(a)(2)(A). 15 20 CFR 416.1130(b). 16 Id. See also 20 CFR 416.1101. 17 In this instance, we would apply ISM’s PMV 

rule, as the individual is receiving some level of 

support from the landlord by paying less than the 

CMRV of the shelter. 18See Program Operations Manual System 

(POMS) SI 00835.380E. 

19See 20 CFR 416.1140(a). 

20See 20 CFR 416.1140(a)(2). 

21The method for calculating the rental subsidy 

is described in POMS SI 00835.380(E)(1) Procedure 

for valuing the actual value (AV) of the rental 

subsidy. This methodology reflects our ISM 

regulatory policy’s approach of examining rental 

subsidy from the perspective of the household (see 

e.g., 20 CFR 416.1130). 

22See 20 CFR 416.1140(a). 

23See 20 CFR 416.1130(b); Jackson v. Schweiker, 

683 F.2d 1076 (7th Cir. 1982). 

24See Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 90–2(2): Ruppert 

v. Bowen, 871 F.2d 1172 (2d Cir. 1989)—Evaluation 

of a Rental Subsidy as In-Kind Income for 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Benefit 

Calculation Purposes—Title XVI of the Social 

Security Act. If we finalize this proposed rule, we 

will rescind AR 90–2(2) as obsolete, in accordance 

with 20 CFR 416.1485(e)(4). 

25See Diaz v. Chater, No. 3:95–cv–01817–X (N.D. 

Tex. Apr. 17, 1996); POMS SIDAL 00835.380. 

receiving countable ISM.13 For example, 

a recipient lives with a sibling. The 

recipient receives SNAP to pay for their 

own food, but does not pay shelter 

expenses. The sibling pays all the 

shelter expenses. Based on the recipient 

paying for their own food, SSI is 

calculated under the PMV rule. The 

VTR cannot apply, because the recipient 

is not receiving both food and shelter 

from the household. 

The VTR rule is governed by 

legislation and requires SSA to reduce 

the applicable federal benefit rate by 

one-third when the recipient receives 

both food and shelter, throughout a 

month, from the household in which 

they reside.14 The PMV rule, which is 

one-third the federal benefit rate plus 

$20, only applies if the recipient 

receives food or shelter from within the 

household. In addition, the PMV rule 

allows recipients to rebut the maximum 

amount of ISM being charged, by 

providing the actual value of the ISM 

being received. Rebuttal is not an option 

under the VTR rule. 

Rental Subsidy 

Our current regulation further 

clarifies that an individual is not 

receiving ISM in the form of room or 

rent if they are paying the required 

monthly rent charged under a ‘‘business 

arrangement.’’ 15 Under the current 

general definition, a ‘‘business 

arrangement’’ exists when the amount of 

monthly rent required to be paid equals 

the current monthly rental value 

(CMRV)—that is, the price of the rent on 

the open market in the individual’s 

locality.16 For example, if the owner of 

an apartment would rent that property 

to any potential tenant for $800 per 

month, then the CMRV is $800. 

Consequently, in this example, if an SSI 

recipient agrees to pay the landlord rent 

in the amount of $800 per month, a 

‘‘business arrangement’’ would exist 

and the SSI recipient would not be 

receiving ISM in the form of room or 

rent. Conversely, under our current 

general definition of a ‘‘business 

arrangement,’’ if the SSI recipient rented 

the same property but paid only $400 

per month, a ‘‘business arrangement’’ 

would not exist because $400 is less 

than the CMRV.17

When we develop possible rental 

subsidy, we first determine whether the 

required monthly rent is equal to the 

CMRV. In practice, our technicians must 

contact the landlord for information on 

the required monthly rent or reach out 

to an appropriate source for information 

about the CMRV for that property and 

locality. This source can be the landlord 

or another knowledgeable source (e.g., a 

real estate firm or rental management 

agency). With this information in hand, 

we then compare the rent the individual 

is paying to the CMRV and document 

the reason for any reduced monthly 

rent. If the required monthly rent is less 

than the CMRV, we count the difference 

between the required monthly rent and 

the CMRV as ISM to the SSI applicant 

or recipient.18 We use the presumed 

maximum value (PMV) rule to value 

this type of ISM. In valuing shelter 

under the PMV rule, instead of 

determining the actual dollar value of 

the shelter, we presume that the shelter 

is worth one-third of the FBR plus the 

amount of the $20 general income 

exclusion.19 SSI applicants and 

recipients may rebut this presumption 

by showing that the value of the ISM 

they are receiving is less than the 

PMV.20 Thus, under this current general 

policy, the amount of ISM counted is 

capped at the PMV. Conversely, if the 

rent equals or exceeds the CMRV, we 

determine that there is no rental 

subsidy. 

Take the example of an SSI recipient 

living with their ineligible spouse and 

child who is renting a single-family 

home owned by the recipient’s mother. 

The mother-landlord alleges the 

property has a CMRV of $1,500 per 

month, but she is requiring the SSI 

household to pay only $350 in rent per 

month. To calculate the rental subsidy 

under the current general policy, we 

would subtract the required monthly 

rent from the CMRV ($1,500 ¥ $350 = 

$1,150), in which case the rental 

subsidy would be $1,150. We would 

divide the total rental subsidy by the 

number of people in the household 

($1,150/3 = $383.33).21 Per regulation, 

the maximum amount of ISM that can 

be charged is $324.66 a month for 2023. 

Therefore, the recipient’s SSI payment 

is $589.34 ($914 (FBR 2023)—$324.66 

(PMV for 2023)). This is with the 

understanding that the recipient has no 

other income.22

The following chart illustrates the 

above example: 

EXAMPLE 1— CURRENT GENERAL RENTAL SUBSIDY POLICY

Equation Application of the example 

CMRV¥Required Monthly Rent = Household ISM ................................. $1,500 ¥ $350 = $1,150. 

Household ISM/Number of people in household = ISM/Rental Subsidy 

to the SSI Recipient.

$1,150/3 people in household = $383.33. 

ISM is capped at the PMV ....................................................................... $383.33 > $324.66. 

SSI payment = FBR¥PMV ...................................................................... SSI payment = $914 ¥ $324.66 = $589.34. 

Exception 

Following court cases that challenged 

how we applied ISM rules for rental 

subsidy, we provided an exception for 

residents living in jurisdictions covered 

by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh 

Circuit (in our regulations),23 residents 

in the Second Circuit (in an 

Acquiescence Ruling),24 and residents 

of Texas (in the Program Operations 

Manual System).25 For residents of these 

seven excepted States (Connecticut, 

New York, Vermont, Illinois, Indiana, 

Wisconsin, and Texas), a ‘‘business 

arrangement’’ exists when the required 

monthly rent the SSI recipient is 

required to pay equals or exceeds the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
57912 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

26See POMS SI 00835.380.B.7. 

27 Jackson, 683 F.2d at 1082–87; In Jackson, the 

Seventh Circuit addressed a situation where ‘‘a very 

large percentage’’ of an individual’s income was 

already committed to shelter costs before the agency 

considered any unearned income from a rental 

subsidy. Under those circumstances, the additional 

value of the rental subsidy did not increase the 

individual’s ability to pay for their other basic 

needs. See also Supplemental Security Income for 

the Aged, Blind, and Disabled; Subpart K—Income, 

51 FR 13487, 13488 (Apr. 21, 1986). 28 Jackson, 683 F.2d at 1084. 29Ruppert, 871 F.2d at 1179–81; Social Security 

Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 90–2(2), 55 FR 28947, 

28949 (July 16, 1990). 30AR 90–2(2), 55 FR at 28949. 31See Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 29 

(2003); Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 461, n.2 

(1983). 

32Social Security Administration, Agency 

Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, page 9, 

Strategic Goal 1: Optimize the Experience of SSA 

Customers and Strategic Objective 1.1—Identify and 

Address Barriers to Accessing Services. available at: 

https://www.ssa.gov/agency/asp/. 

33 Id. 

PMV.26 In these States, if the required 

amount of rent is less than the PMV, 

then the value of the rental subsidy is 

the difference between the required 

monthly rent and the PMV or the 

CMRV, whichever is less. This means 

there may be a lower threshold for what 

qualifies as a ‘‘business arrangement’’ 

for applicants and recipients in these 

excepted States because, in many cases, 

the PMV is lower than the CMRV. 

Application of this exception tends to 

reduce the amount of ISM counted 

towards an individual’s SSI payment, 

which generally results in a higher SSI 

payment amount. For example, an SSI 

recipient whose living arrangement is 

identical to that discussed in the prior 

example, but who resides in one of the 

seven States in which the exception 

applies, would not be charged ISM 

because the required monthly rent 

exceeds the PMV ($350 > $324.66). 

Consequently, the SSI recipient would 

continue to receive the FBR (provided 

they did not receive any other income 

countable for SSI purposes). 

EXAMPLE 2—RENTAL SUBSIDY EXCEPTION POLICY PROPOSED TO BE EXTENDED

PMV < CMRV ........................................................................................... $324.66 < $1,500. 

Required Monthly Rent > PMV ................................................................ $350 > $324.66. 

Therefore, no ISM to the SSI Recipient ................................................... = SSI Payment = $914. 

As illustrated by these examples, our 

current application of the ISM rules is 

not uniform nationwide, and the 

exception is an advantage only for those 

SSI applicants and recipients living in 

the seven excepted States. 

Rationale for Regulatory Action 

We propose to change the rental 

subsidy policy in our regulations by 

applying nationally the definition of 

‘‘business arrangement’’ that currently 

applies in only seven States because of 

the court decisions noted above. The 

rationale of the courts that resulted in 

the situation currently in place in seven 

states, in particular in the Seventh 

Circuit decision in Jackson and the 

Second Circuit decision in Ruppert, also 

supports extending this policy to the 

other states, as outlined in our proposed 

rule. In Jackson, the Seventh Circuit 

reasoned that it is not enough for a 

claimant to be provided shelter at a rate 

below market value for that difference to 

be counted as ‘‘income’’ for SSI 

purposes; rather, to be counted as 

‘‘income,’’ the difference between the 

market value and the actual rental 

payment must result in increased 

purchasing power to meet the claimant’s 

basic needs.27 The Seventh Circuit 

explained that ‘‘purchasing power 

grows if in-kind contributions of shelter 

either make cash available to purchase 

necessities of life other than shelter or 

if, and to the extent, the quality of 

shelter itself is enhanced to meet basic 

needs.’’ 28 Similarly, in Ruppert, the 

Second Circuit found that the difference 

between the CMRV and the required 

monthly rent does not always constitute 

an actual economic benefit which 

should be counted as ‘‘income’’ for SSI 

purposes.29 To implement Ruppert, for 

residents of the Second Circuit, we 

announced that an applicant or 

recipient does not receive an ‘‘actual 

economic benefit’’ from a rental subsidy 

when the amount of required monthly 

rent equals or exceeds the PMV.30

Applying nationally the definition of 

‘‘business arrangement’’ based on the 

PMV rather than the CMRV, and thus 

focusing on the SSI recipient’s 

purchasing power or the actual 

economic benefit they receive, would 

also ensure that all SSI applicants and 

recipients, regardless of where they 

reside, would have the same policy 

applied to them regarding the definition 

of a business arrangement. This uniform 

definition of business arrangement 

means that no recipient’s SSI payment 

amount would be lower simply because 

they reside in a State where the 

exception policy described above does 

not currently apply. This proposed 

policy change therefore supports our 

goal of enhancing equality in the 

programs we administer for all 

applicants and recipients. 

This proposal will also foster 

efficiency in our administration of the 

SSI program, because we no longer 

would have to apply different policies 

on the definition of a business 

arrangement depending on the SSI 

applicant or recipient’s State of 

residence. In any program as large as 

ours, ‘‘the need for efficiency is selfevident.’’ 31 As well, we expect that the 

proposal would improve customer 

service by reducing the amount of time 

we need to calculate SSI payment 

amounts in States in which the current 

exception does not apply. Because the 

exception is currently in place in some 

States, we already have a wellestablished procedure for applying the 

exception, and we are confident that 

such a change can be applied 

nationwide with minimal operational or 

systems impact. 

We are also proposing this rule in 

response to specific requests from the 

public. Recently, we adopted the Social 

Security Administration’s Agency 

Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2022– 

2026 (Strategic Plan),32 which defines 

our long-term goals and objectives over 

the next four years to further our overall 

mission. Among the stated goals, we 

resolve to optimize the experience of 

our customers by adopting policies 

aimed at serving individuals and 

communities. Our Strategic Plan further 

commits to engage the public and 

external stakeholders to better inform 

our regulatory activities.33

In support of these goals, we have 

been in communication since October 

2022 with advocate groups representing 

a wide variety of claimants and 

beneficiaries from diverse backgrounds. 

In response, we received numerous 

suggestions for ways to improve access 

to our programs, particularly to our SSI 

program. Among the recommendations 

we received were suggestions to update 

and streamline the SSI program’s rules 

on ISM. 

As discussed above, the current lack 

of uniformity in our business 

arrangement definition can 

disadvantage affected SSI applicants 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57913 

34See Balkus, Richard; Sears, James; Wilschke, 

Susan; and Wixon, Bernard. Simplifying the 

Supplemental Security Income Program: Options 

for Eliminating the Counting of In-kind Support and 

Maintenance. Social Security Bulletin, vol. 68, no. 

4, 2008, www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n4/ 

v68n4p15.html. 35Claimants may provide certain types of 

evidence (e.g., a rental agreement or lease) to 

support their allegation of rent amount, and in these 

circumstances an SSA technician does not need to 

reach out to the landlord to further develop the 

allegation. However, SSA finds that in many 

circumstances claimants do not provide SSA with 

the necessary evidence. In these cases, SSA will 

attempt to contact the landlord by phone to orally 

confirm the rent amount. If the landlord is not 

successfully reached, SSA may still be required to 

send the form SSA–L5061. SSA seeks comment on 

additional procedural considerations and/or 

acceptable forms of evidence (e.g., proof of 

electronic transfer of funds in the alleged amount 

to the named landlord) that a claimant might 

provide that would be minimally burdensome 

while satisfactorily demonstrating proof of rent 

amount. 

and recipients who do not live in States 

where the rental subsidy exception 

applies. The differing application of the 

business arrangement definition was 

noted by the external parties, who 

recommended that we apply the current 

rental subsidy exception nationwide as 

one way to streamline the SSI program 

and make it more equitable. We agree 

with this recommendation. The 

proposed rules, if finalized, would 

benefit SSI applicants and recipients, no 

matter the State they live in, and make 

the SSI program easier to administer. 

The proposed change would also make 

the SSI program more equitable by 

applying the rental subsidy policy 

uniformly to all affected SSI applicants 

and recipients, regardless of where they 

live. 

Moreover, as explained in the study 

Simplifying the Supplemental Security 

Income Program: Options for 

Eliminating the Counting of In-kind 

Support and Maintenance, ‘‘[a]lthough 

SSI eligibility was intended to be 

determined on the basis of objective 

information on income and resources, 

development of ISM is often based on 

estimates of food and shelter expenses 

provided by the applicant or recipient 

and verified by other household 

members.’’ 34 By applying the rental 

subsidy exception nationwide, the rent 

paid by the SSI applicant or recipient 

will be compared to a standard dollar 

amount—the PMV. Our technicians 

anticipate sending out fewer living 

arrangement development forms (form 

SSA–L5061, OMB 0960–0454) by 

instead confirming the limited 

necessary information with the landlord 

orally, namely: that the required rent 

amount is equal to or greater than the 

PMV.35 The more detailed estimates 

currently provided by the landlord or 

other household members under our 

existing regulations are therefore less 

likely to be needed or used in 

administering the SSI program. This 

reduced need to contact landlords or 

other third parties for information 

regarding the CMRV also increases the 

efficiency of the SSI program by 

reducing the number of instances in 

which we have to seek out that 

information (We note that we would 

need to contact someone other than the 

landlord only if we cannot verify 

information with the landlord directly.). 

In summary, then, this new policy will 

result in greater efficiency and time 

savings for our employees, and a 

reduction in the reporting burden for 

the public (see Paperwork Reduction 

Act section of the preamble). 

Proposed Change 

As discussed above, we propose to 

apply nationwide the rental subsidy 

exception currently in place in seven 

States. Accordingly, our nationwide 

policy would be that a ‘‘business 

arrangement’’ exists when the amount of 

monthly rent required to be paid equals 

or exceeds the PMV. If the required 

amount of rent is less than the PMV, we 

would impute as ISM the difference 

between the required amount of rent 

and either the PMV or the CMRV, 

whichever is less. For example, if the 

required household rent is $300, and the 

CMRV amount is greater than the PMV, 

then the amount of household ISM 

would be $24.66 divided by the number 

of household members. However, this 

charge may be offset by other 

exclusions. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the close of 

business on the comment closing date 

indicated above. The comments will be 

available for examination in the 

rulemaking docket for these rules at the 

above address. We will file comments 

received after the comment closing date 

in the docket and may consider those 

comments to the extent practicable. 

However, we will not respond 

specifically to untimely comments. We 

may publish a final rule at any time 

after close of the comment period. 

Clarity of This Rule 

Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563 and Executive Order 14094, 

requires each agency to write all rules 

in plain language. In addition to your 

substantive comments on this proposed 

rule, we invite your comments on how 

to make the rule easier to understand. 

For example: 

• Would more, but shorter, sections 

be better? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit your needs? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that is not clear? 

• Would a different format make the 

rule easier to understand, e.g., grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing? 

When will we start to use this rule? 

We will not use this rule until we 

evaluate public comments and publish 

a final rule in the Federal Register. All 

final rules include an effective date. We 

will continue to use our current rules 

until that date. If we publish a final rule, 

we will include a summary of those 

relevant comments we received along 

with responses and an explanation of 

how we will apply the new rule. 

Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, as 

Supplemented by Executive Order 

13563 and Executive Order 14094 

We consulted with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

determined that this rule meets the 

criteria for a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563 and Executive Order 14094. 

Therefore, OMB reviewed it. 

Anticipated Transfers to Our Program 

Our Office of the Chief Actuary 

estimates that implementation of this 

proposed rule would result in a total 

increase in Federal SSI payments of 

$971 million over fiscal years 2024 

through 2033, assuming implementation 

of this rule on April 29, 2024. These 

transfers reflect an estimation that 

approximately 41,000 individuals who 

would be eligible under our current 

rules will have their Federal SSI 

payment increased by an average of 

$128 per month attributable to 

implementation of this rule. There 

would also be an additional 14,000 

individuals who are not eligible under 

current rules who would be newly 

eligible and would apply for benefits 

under the proposed rule. 

Anticipated Net Administrative Cost 

Savings to the Social Security 

Administration 

The Office of Budget, Finance, and 

Management estimates that this 

proposal will result in net 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
57914 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

administrative savings of $10 million for 

the 10-year period from FY 2024 to FY 

2033. The net administrative savings is 

mainly a result of unit time savings as 

field office employees will not have to 

spend time developing CMRV for all 

rental subsidy calculations during 

initial claims, pre-effectuations reviews, 

redeterminations, and post-eligibility 

actions. The savings are offset by costs 

to update our systems, costs to send 

notices to inform current recipients of 

the policy changes, costs to address 

inquiries from the notices, and costs 

because of more individuals’ being 

eligible for SSI benefits, which increases 

claims, reconsiderations, appeals, 

redeterminations, and post-eligibility 

actions. 

Anticipated Time-Savings and 

Qualitative Benefits to the Public 

We anticipate the following 

qualitative benefits generated from this 

proposed policy: 

• Saving time and effort for claimants 

and third parties who may have 

evidence related to a claimant’s 

application because they would need to 

submit less information. SSA estimates 

at a minimum this will result in more 

than 7,000 hours of time saved in 

annual reduced paperwork burden, 

representing an opportunity cost of 

$1,140,526 (see the Paperwork 

Reduction Act section of the preamble 

below for specifics). 

• Potentially get faster determinations 

or decisions regarding SSI eligibility or 

payment amount, or both, which would 

have both quantitative effects 

financially and, qualitatively, may 

alleviate stress for applicants and 

recipients associated with the length of 

time it may take to obtain SSI. 

• Administratively easier to apply the 

same policy nationwide. 

Anticipated Qualitative Costs 

We do not anticipate more than de 

minimis costs associated with this 

rulemaking. We do not anticipate that 

this proposal would affect labor market 

participation in any significant way, in 

part because of the limited 

understanding of the current policy in 

the beneficiary community. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

We analyzed this proposed rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria established by Executive Order 

13132 and determined that the proposed 

rule will not have sufficient Federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism assessment. We also 

determined that this proposed rule will 

not preempt any State law or State 

regulation or affect the States’ abilities 

to discharge traditional State 

governmental functions. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this proposed rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because it affects individuals only. 

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not anticipate any new 

collections or require revisions to 

existing collections. However, the 

application of the revisions to these 

rules may cause a burden change to our 

currently approved information 

collections under the following 

information collection requests: 0960– 

0174, the SSA–8006, Statement of 

Living Arrangements, In-Kind Support 

and Maintenance; and 0960–0454, the 

SSA–L5061, Letter to Landlord 

Requesting Rental Information. Based 

on our current management information 

data from the seven states currently 

implementing these changes, we 

anticipate these changes will allow for 

verbal responses from landlords in place 

of the current form in some situations, 

thus reducing the overall burden as SSA 

will not require those respondents to 

complete the entirety of Form SSA– 

L51061. In addition, we note that for 

those who use the paper form, we will 

send a revised version with question #5 

removed. We also anticipate a slight 

burden reduction to Form SSA–8006, as 

the respondents may not need to 

provide as much detail pertaining to 

their rental subsidy agreement due to 

the proposed rule. 

The following chart shows the time 

burden information associated with the 

proposed rule: 

OMB No.; form No.; CFR citations Number of 

respondents 

Frequency 

of 

response 

Current 

average 

burden per 

response 

(minutes) 

Current 

estimated 

total burden 

(hours) 

Anticipated 

new 

burden per 

response 

under 

regulation 

(minutes) 

Anticipated 

estimated 

total burden 

under 

regulation 

(hours) 

Estimated 

burden 

savings 

(hours) 

0960–0174 SSA–8006 (Paper Form) ....................................... 12,160 1 7 1,419 6 1,216 203 

0960–0174 SSA–8006 (SSI Claims System) ........................... 109,436 1 7 12,768 6 10,944 1,824 

0960–0454 SSA–L5061 (Paper Form) ..................................... 35,640 1 10 5,940 8 4,752 1,188 

0960–0454 SSA–L5061 (Phone Call) ....................................... 35,640 1 10 5,940 3 1,782 4,158 

Totals ................................................................................. 192,876 .................... .................... 26,067 .................... 18,694 7,373 

The following chart shows the 

theoretical cost burdens associated with 

the proposed rule: 

OMB No.; form No.; CFR citations Number of 

respondents 

Anticipated 

estimated total 

burden under 

regulation from 

chart above 

(hours) 

Average 

theoretical 

hourly cost 

amount 

(dollars) * 

Average 

combined wait 

time in field 

office and/or 

teleservice 

centers 

(minutes) ** 

Total annual 

opportunity 

cost 

(dollars) *** 

0960–0174 SSA–8006 (Paper Form) .................................. 12,160 1,216 * $12.81 ** 19 *** $77,885 

0960–0174 SSA–8006 (SSI Claims System) ...................... 109,436 10,944 * 12.81 ** 24 *** 443,931 

0960–0454 SSA–L5061 (Paper Form) ................................ 35,640 4,752 * 29.76 ** 24 *** 565,678 

0960–0454 SSA–L5061 (Phone Call) ................................. 35,640 1,782 * 29.76 ........................ *** 53,032 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2023 / Proposed Rules 57915 

OMB No.; form No.; CFR citations Number of 

respondents 

Anticipated 

estimated total 

burden under 

regulation from 

chart above 

(hours) 

Average 

theoretical 

hourly cost 

amount 

(dollars) * 

Average 

combined wait 

time in field 

office and/or 

teleservice 

centers 

(minutes) ** 

Total annual 

opportunity 

cost 

(dollars) *** 

Totals ............................................................................ 192,876 19,882 ........................ ........................ *** 1,140,526 

* We based this figure on the average DI payments based on SSA’s current FY 2023 data (https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/2023factsheet.pdf); 

on the average U.S. citizen’s hourly salary, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics data (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm). 

** We based this figure on the average FY 2023 wait times for field offices and hearings office, as well as by averaging both the average FY 

2023 wait times for field offices and teleservice centers, based on SSA’s current management information data. 

*** This figure does not represent actual costs that SSA is imposing on recipients of Social Security payments to complete this application; 

rather, these are theoretical opportunity costs for the additional time respondents will spend to complete the application. There is no actual 

charge to respondents to complete the application. 

SSA submitted a single new 

Information Collection Request which 

encompasses the revisions to both 

information collections (currently under 

OMB Numbers 0960–0174, and 0960– 

0454) to OMB for the approval of the 

changes due to the proposed rule. After 

approval at the final rule stage, we will 

adjust the figures associated with the 

current OMB numbers for these forms to 

reflect the new burden. We are soliciting 

comments on the burden estimate; the 

need for the information; its practical 

utility; ways to enhance its quality, 

utility, and clarity; and ways to 

minimize the burden on respondents, 

including the use of automated 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. In addition, we are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether you have any questions or 

suggestions for edits to the forms 

referenced above in the context of this 

proposed regulatory change. Questions 

to consider might include (but are not 

limited to): 

(1) Are there other SSA information 

collections we have not noted that you 

believe we should modify as a result of 

this proposed policy change? 

(2) Do our new estimated time 

burdens accurately represent the time 

burden associated with these forms? 

The burden estimate should include 

both the time needed to answer the 

form’s questions and activities such as 

the time spent gathering records and 

documentation if necessary, or travel 

time associated with developing and 

submitting the collection. If you believe 

our reported estimate is inaccurate 

(when considering that we anticipate a 

burden reduction associated with the 

rulemaking), please explain why. 

(3) Are there modifications to the 

forms or the information collection 

processes associated with developing 

information about a recipient’s potential 

rental subsidy that the agency should 

consider in developing this final rule 

(keeping in mind that there may be 

policy or operational limitations on our 

ability to implement some types of new 

information collection processes)? 

If you would like to submit 

comments, please send them to the 

following locations: 

Office of Management and Budget, Attn: 

Desk Officer for SSA, Fax Number: 

202–395–6974, Email address: OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov 

Social Security Administration, OLCA, 

Attn: Reports Clearance Director, Mail 

Stop 3253 Altmeyer, 6401 Security 

Blvd., Baltimore MD 21235, Fax: 410– 

966–2830, Email address: 

OR.Reports.Clearance@ssa.gov 

You can submit comments until 

October 23, 2023, which is 60 days after 

the publication of this notice. However, 

your comments will be most useful if 

you send them to SSA by October 23, 

2023, which is 60 days after publication. 

To receive a copy of the OMB clearance 

package, contact the SSA Reports 

Clearance Officer using any of the above 

contact methods. We prefer to receive 

comments by email or fax. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Programs No 96.006 Supplemental Security 

Income) 

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 416 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI). 

The Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security, Kilolo Kijakazi, Ph.D., M.S.W., 

having reviewed and approved this 

document, is delegating the authority to 

electronically sign this document to 

Faye I. Lipsky, who is the primary 

Federal Register Liaison for SSA, for 

purposes of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Faye I. Lipsky, 

Federal Register Liaison, Office of Legislation 

and Congressional Affairs, Social Security 

Administration. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR 

chapter III, part 416, as set forth below: 

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL 

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, 

BLIND, AND DISABLED 

Subpart K—Income 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart K 

of part 416 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1381a, 

1382, 1382a, 1382b, 1382c(f), 1382j, 1383, 

and 1383b; sec. 211, Pub. L. 93–66, 87 Stat. 

154 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note). 

■ 2.In § 416.1130 revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 416.1130 Introduction 

* * * * * 

(b) How we define in-kind support 

and maintenance. In-kind support and 

maintenance means any food or shelter 

that is given to you or that you receive 

because someone else pays for it. 

Shelter includes room, rent, mortgage 

payments, real property taxes, heating 

fuel, gas, electricity, water, sewerage, 

and garbage collection services. You are 

not receiving in-kind support and 

maintenance in the form of room or rent 

if you are paying the amount charged 

under a business arrangement. A 

business arrangement exists when the 

amount of monthly rent required to be 

paid equals or exceeds the presumed 

maximum value described in 

§ 416.1140(a)(1). If the required amount 

of rent is less than the presumed 

maximum value, we will impute as inkind support and maintenance the 

difference between the required amount 

of rent and either the presumed 

maximum value or the current market 

rental value (see § 416.1101), whichever 

is less. In addition, cash payments to 

uniformed service members as 

allowances for on-base housing or 

privatized military housing are in-kind 

support and maintenance. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–18213 Filed 8–23–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1