64756 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

7 CFR Parts 271 and 275 

[FNS–2020–0016] 

RIN 0584–AE79 

Provisions To Improve the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program’s Quality Control System 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS), USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (the Department) is issuing 

this notice of proposed rulemaking to 

improve the Food and Nutrition 

Service’s (FNS) Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP) quality 

control (QC) system as required in the 

Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 

(2018 Farm Bill). The proposed changes 

are intended to strengthen and improve 

the integrity and accuracy of the SNAP 

QC system and to better align SNAP 

with requirements in the Payment 

Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA). 

These changes include a significant 

adjustment to the SNAP QC system that 

involves changes to Federal and State 

agency sampling processes, as well as 

changes to the active case review 

process. Quality Control case sampling 

and review processes are key aspects of 

the system used to annually assess 

SNAP payment error rates. The 

Department requests comment on this 

rule’s proposed provisions. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 20, 

2023 to ensure their consideration. 

ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition 

Service, USDA, invites interested 

persons to submit written comments on 

this proposed rule. Comments may be 

submitted in writing by one of the 

following methods: 

—Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

—Mail: Send comments to John M., 

Branch Chief, Quality Control Branch, 

Program Accountability and 

Administration Division; Food and 

Nutrition Service; 1320 Braddock 

Place, 5th Floor; Alexandria, Virginia 

22314. 

—Email: Send comments to 

SNAPQCReform@usda.gov. Include 

Docket ID Number FNS–2020–0016, 

‘‘Provisions to Improve the SNAP QC 

System’’ in the subject line of the 

message. 

—All written comments submitted in 

response to this proposed rule will be 

included in the record and will be 

made available to the public. Please 

be advised that the substance of the 

comments and the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting the 

comments will be subject to public 

disclosure. FNS will make the written 

comments publicly available on the 

internet via 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

M., 703–457–7747, Food and Nutrition 

Service, 1320 Braddock Place, 5th Floor, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314, 

SNAPQCReform@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Contents 

a. Acronyms or Abbreviations 

b. Severability Clause 

II. Background/History 

a. SNAP QC—In General 

b. Farm Bill Provisions 

c. Improper Payment Determinations 

d. Historical Information Supporting 

Congress’ Request for Improvement and 

QC Reform 

i. State QC Integrity Reviews (QCIRs) 

ii. FNS Response 

e. SNAP QC—Current Processes 

f. New Proposed QC Approach 

III. General (This section begins discussion of 

the proposed provisions) 

a. Terminology Clean Up 

b. Subpart A—Administration 

i. Staffing Standards 

ii. FNS Access to State Systems 

iii. Federal Monitoring—Federal 

Subsampling 

iv. Sampling—Federal Sub Sample 

v. Federal Monitoring—Arbitration 

c. Subpart C—Quality Control (QC) 

Reviews 

i. Sampling—General 

ii. Sampling Plan—Content 

iii. Sampling Plan—Design 

iv. Sample Size—Active and Negative 

Cases 

v. Sample Size—Alternative Designs 

vi. Sample Selection—Corrections 

vii. Sample Frame—Active Cases 

viii. Sample Universe—Active Cases 

ix. Active Sample Allocation and 

Weighting 

x. Review of Active Cases—General 

xi. Review of Active Cases—Household 

Case Record Review 

xii. Review of Active Cases—Field 

Investigation 

xiii. Review of Active Cases—Personal 

Interviews 

xiv. Review of Active Cases—Collateral 

Contacts 

xv. Review of Active Cases—Variance 

Identification 

xvi. Review of Active Cases—Variances 

Excluded From the Error Analysis 

xvii. Review of Active Cases—Other 

Findings 

xviii. Review of Active Cases—Reporting of 

Review Findings 

xix. Review of Active Cases—Disposition 

of Case Reviews 

d. Subpart E—Corrective Action 

i. Corrective Action Planning—Negative 

Cases 

ii. Corrective Action Planning—Incomplete 

Cases 

e. Subpart F—Responsibilities for 

Reporting on Program Performance 

i. Quality Control Review Reports— 

Mandating the Use of SNAP QC System 

f. Subpart G—Program Performance 

i. Determination of State Agency Program 

Performance—Determination of Payment 

Error Rates 

ii. State Agency Error Rates—Completion 

Rate Penalty 

iii. High Performance Bonuses 

iv. Performance Measures—Program 

Access Index 

g. Proposed Timeframe for Implementation 

of QC Sampling and Active Review 

Changes 

IV. Procedural Matters 

V. Amendatory Text 

Acronyms or Abbreviations 

Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. 

L. 115–334), the 2018 Farm Bill 

Case and Procedural Error Rate, CAPER 

Code of Federal Regulations, CFR 

Corrective Action Plan, CAP 

Department of Justice, DOJ 

Federal Quality Control Reviewer, FQCR 

Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, FNA 

Food and Nutrition Service, FNS 

Office of Management and Budget, OMB 

Payment Error Rate, PER 

Quality Control, QC 

Quality Control Reviewer, QCR 

Regional Office, RO 

Request for Information, RFI 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 

SNAP 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program’s 

Automated Quality Control System, 

SNAP–QCS 

State Quality Control Reviewer, SQCR 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, the 

Department or USDA 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of 

Inspector General, USDA OIG 

Severability: The Department 

proposes that certain individual 

components of this proposed rule are 

severable and seeks comment on that 

proposal. Specifically, the Department 

considers changes proposed in the 

following sections to be severable: 

Staffing Standards; FNS Access to State 

Systems; Federal Monitoring— 

Arbitration; Review of Active Cases— 

Other Findings; Review of Active 

Cases—Disposition of Case Reviews 

(with the exception of changes proposed 

to 7 CFR 275.12(g)(2)); Corrective Action 

Planning—Negative Cases; Corrective 

Action Planning—Incomplete Cases; 

State Agency Error Rates—Completion 

Rate Penalty; and Performance 

Measures. If a court were to find 

unlawful any or some combination of 

this rule as finalized, the Department 

still would intend any individual or 

combination of the above sections of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64757 

1https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutritionassistance/food-assistance-data-collaborativeresearch-programs/snap-and-wic-administrativedata/. 

2 In fiscal year 2012, the procedures for reviewing 

cases in the negative frame changed to include the 

State’s procedural processes in determining a 

negative case’s validity. FNS has referred to the 

negative error rate since then as the case and 

procedural error rate, or CAPER, to reflect this 

change. 

3https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023- 

04-18/pdf/2023-08122.pdf. 

4https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021- 

09-02/pdf/2021-18743.pdf. 

5https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023- 

04-18/pdf/2023-08005.pdf. 

6S.375—116th Congress (2019–2020): Payment 

Integrity Information Act of 2019 | Congress.gov 

|Library of Congress: https://www.congress.gov/bill/ 

116th-congress/senate-bill/375. 

this proposed rule to stand. The 

Department seeks comment regarding 

considerations about whether 

stakeholders consider those and any 

other provisions in this proposed rule 

severable or not. 

Background 

SNAP QC—In General 

The Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP) is the 

nation’s largest domestic food assistance 

program for Americans, reaching about 

40 million people (approximately 12 

percent of the nation’s population) per 

month during fiscal year 2020.1

Although the Federal government 

funds SNAP benefits, under 7 U.S.C. 

2020(a)(1), State agencies are 

responsible for general program 

administration of SNAP within their 

States, including determining the 

eligibility of individuals and 

households to receive SNAP benefits 

and issuing monthly allotments of 

benefits. 

However, given the large volume of 

SNAP cases, complexities of eligibility 

policies, and availability of State 

options, State agencies may issue 

overpayments or underpayments of 

SNAP allotments to participant 

households. 

Pursuant to Section 16 of the Food 

and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended 

(FNA), each State agency is responsible 

for monitoring and improving its 

administration of SNAP. A Quality 

Control (QC) system is necessary to help 

ensure State agencies measure improper 

payments and improve their 

administration of SNAP. SNAP QC 

reviews have four goals, identified at 7 

CFR 275.10(b), which are to provide: (1) 

a systematic method of measuring the 

validity of the SNAP eligibility 

caseload; (2) a basis for determining all 

SNAP error rates; (3) a timely, 

continuous flow of information on 

which to base corrective action at all 

levels of administration; and (4) a basis 

for establishing State agency liability for 

payment errors that exceed the National 

performance measure pursuant to 

Section 16(c)(1)(C) of the FNA. 

To comply with Section 16 of the 

FNA, State agencies conduct monthly 

reviews of a statistically representative 

sample of both participating SNAP 

households (active cases) and 

households for whom participation was 

denied, terminated, or suspended 

(negative cases). These reviews measure 

the accuracy of SNAP eligibility and 

ongoing allotment determinations and 

ultimately serve as the basis for the 

SNAP payment error rate (PER) and case 

and procedural error rate (CAPER).2 The 

results of these reviews provide 

feedback on State-by-State and national 

administration of the Program, 

including how State agencies’ chosen 

policy options, waivers, and business 

processes affect the accuracy of their 

eligibility determinations. In short, the 

QC system allows FNS and the States to 

assess the integrity of SNAP by 

determining the extent to which the 

program is operating as required by 

statute and regulations. The system 

directly measures the accuracy of State 

actions to certify households as eligible 

for SNAP allotments and to determine 

the amount of those allotments, which 

are the actions that States should 

prioritize to ensure effective 

stewardship of taxpayer dollars and 

effective service to households in need. 

Farm Bill Provisions 

On December 20, 2018, the President 

signed Public Law 115–334, the 

Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 

(2018 Farm Bill). Section 4013(b) of the 

2018 Farm Bill required the Department 

to issue an interim final rule to: (1) 

ensure the SNAP QC system produces 

valid statistical results; (2) provide for 

the oversight of contracts entered into 

by a State agency to improve payment 

accuracy; (3) ensure the accuracy of data 

collected in the QC system; and (4) 

provide for the evaluation of the 

integrity of the QC system for a 

minimum of two State agencies per 

fiscal year. Section 4013(e) of the 2018 

Farm Bill also required that cost sharing 

for State computerization costs be, in 

part, contingent on State agencies 

granting FNS access to all State 

computer systems containing 

documentation and evidence related to 

SNAP eligibility. The Department 

determined that the most effective way 

to meet the statutory requirements was 

to issue two rules: (1) an IFR for the 

non-discretionary provisions, which 

FNS believed were necessary to comply 

with the 2018 Farm Bill and would be 

effective immediately, and (2) a 

proposed rule for the additional, 

discretionary provisions to improve the 

integrity and data quality of SNAP QC. 

By doing so, the Department ensures 

that major discretionary changes to 

SNAP QC go through the full notice and 

comment process, which allows 

stakeholders an opportunity to be part 

of the rulemaking process. 

The Department codified all the nondiscretionary requirements in Section 

4013(b) in SNAP regulations by 

publishing the interim final rule (IFR) 

titled, ‘‘Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program: Non-Discretionary 

Quality Control Provisions of the 

Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018’’ 

on August 13, 2021 (86 FR 44575.3) A 

correction to that interim final rule was 

published on September 2, 2021 (86 FR 

49229 4) and the final rule was 

published on April 18, 2023 (88 FR 

23559 5). 

Improper Payment Determinations 

The SNAP QC review process 

precedes Federal improper payment 

laws, including the Payment Integrity 

Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) (Pub. L. 

116–117.6) These PIIA requirements 

include: identifying any case that a 

reviewer is unable to determine the 

accuracy of (known as an incomplete 

case) as an improper payment (31 U.S.C. 

3352(c)(2)); and measuring technically 

improper payments, or payments in 

which a recipient was entitled to a 

payment but the payment failed to 

follow statutory or regulatory 

requirements (31 U.S.C. 3351(4)). With 

Congress’ requirement to improve the 

SNAP QC system, the Department is 

including proposed changes in this rule 

that will better align SNAP with 

requirements in PIIA. In addition, the 

proposed shift in review focus for active 

cases (discussed later) will align the 

SNAP QC review process for 

determining SNAP payment errors more 

closely with the processes used to 

determine improper payments in other 

Federal programs that provide benefits 

to similar populations (e.g., Medicaid 

and the Earned Income Tax Credit). 

Historical Information Supporting 

Congress’ Request for Improvement and 

QC Reform 

The section that follow discusses 

challenges FNS faced and overcame that 

impacted the integrity of the QC system 

in the recent past; specifically, the 

challenges that occurred when State 

agencies introduced bias into the QC 

system’s data. While FNS addressed the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64758 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

7https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27601-0002- 

41.pdf. 

8https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/enhancingcompletion-rates-supplemental-nutritionassistance-program-snap-quality-control-reviews. 

9https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/ 

files/snap/FNS_310_Handbook.pdf. 

10https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/ 

files/snap/QCPolicyMemo05-01.pdf. 

11https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/integrity-snapquality-control-system. 

12https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fns-handbook310 https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fns-handbook310. 

issues and has since regained 

confidence in the integrity of the data 

collected by State agencies, additional 

improvements and changes to the QC 

system will help ensure SNAP’s QC 

system will be less susceptible to bias. 

The historical information below offers 

context and support for Congress’ 

request for improvement and the reform 

proposals in this rule. 

In 2015, an audit of SNAP QC’s error 

rate determination process by the 

Department’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG)),7 and FNS’s study on 

Enhancing Completion Rates for SNAP 

QC Reviews,8 both identified issues 

with the reliability of State-reported QC 

data. The OIG recommendations 

included that FNS amend and enforce 

its policies to ensure payment error 

rates are accurate and in compliance 

with regulations, and that FNS 

eliminate the two-comparison allotment 

test process, which is used to determine 

payment errors. FNS’s Completion Rate 

study identified QC system issues 

including: the performance bonus 

system’s creation of financial incentives 

for State agencies to underreport 

payment errors (which was 

subsequently eliminated by the 2018 

Farm Bill), and State agencies’ improper 

coding of QC cases as incomplete in 

order to reduce their payment errors. 

State QC Integrity Reviews (QCIRs) 

To identify the full extent of the QC 

data reliability issues, FNS began QCIRs 

in April 2015 and completed reviews of 

all 53 State agencies by September 2016. 

The purpose of the QCIRs was to 

validate that State agency QC systems 

did not include bias, as bias impacts the 

integrity of the data. During these 

reviews, FNS was able to validate only 

11 State agencies’ QC systems for FY 

2015 and found data integrity issues in 

the remaining 42 States. As a result, 

FNS was unable to use the States’ QC 

data to establish State or national SNAP 

payment error rates for FY 2015 and FY 

2016. 

The findings from the reviews fell 

into four categories related to integrity 

in the QC system and aligned with ways 

to mitigate errors. The first category 

centered on inadequate documentation. 

FNS found more than half of the State 

agencies were not properly 

documenting information in the QC case 

file, as required in the SNAP QC Review 

Handbook (the FNS–310).9 Inadequate 

documentation prevents FNS from 

having the information needed to do a 

thorough and independent validation of 

the cases completed by State agencies. 

The second category concerned 

improper use of error review 

committees. State agencies may use 

error review committees after State 

quality control reviewers (SQCRs) 

transmit completed QC cases to FNS, to 

identify corrective actions that may be 

needed to improve the accuracy of 

eligibility and allotment determinations. 

However, State agencies are strictly 

prohibited from using error review 

committees prior to the SQCR 

transmission of completed QC cases to 

FNS. On August 1, 2005, after 

identifying concerns regarding the 

improper use of error review 

committees, FNS issued a policy 

memorandum 10 on the proper use of an 

error review committee to develop 

corrective action to prevent future 

errors. The memo reiterated that FNS 

prohibited the use of such committees 

to mitigate errors in cases actively under 

review. Despite this longstanding 

guidance, in the FY 2015 QCIRs, FNS 

discovered more than half of the State 

agencies continued to use error review 

committees inappropriately to discuss 

and mitigate the errors found in cases 

actively under review before submitting 

review results to FNS. 

The third category of findings from 

the QCIRs related to the failure of more 

than half the State agencies to disclose 

complete case information to FNS, as 

required by 7 CFR 275.23(b). This 

finding included some State agencies 

refusing to give FNS access to their 

systems for auditing purposes, as 

required by Section 16(c)(4) of the FNA. 

Section 4013(a)(2) of the 2018 Farm Bill 

addressed this and required State 

agencies to give FNS access to their 

State systems for QC and oversight 

purposes. Section 4013(e)(2) of the 2018 

Farm Bill required cost-sharing for 

computerization to be conditioned on 

State agencies being able to provide FNS 

access to their systems for audit and 

inspection purposes. The 2018 IFR 

codified the requirement to give FNS 

access, and this proposed rule includes 

the cost-sharing condition from Section 

4013(e)(2) of the 2018 Farm Bill for 

State agencies to give FNS access. 

The fourth category of findings from 

the QCIRs found that more than half of 

the State agencies were incorrectly 

interpreting and applying certification 

policy, sometimes intentionally, to 

mitigate QC errors. For example, during 

QC reviews, some State agencies were 

using an inappropriate number of weeks 

or months to determine a household’s 

earned income. This approach led to the 

QC reviewer artificially increasing or 

decreasing the earned income amount of 

the household, with the goal of 

obtaining a result that more closely 

matched the amount used at the 

eligibility and allotment determination, 

thus mitigating the likelihood and 

potential impact of a payment error. 

As a result of FNS’s initial integrity 

findings in 2015, the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) began investigating State 

agencies for violations of Federal law in 

connection with the underreporting of 

SNAP QC payment errors. Between 

2017 and 2021, DOJ settled with eight 

States for False Claims Act allegations of 

introducing bias into their QC 

processes. In addition, DOJ settled with 

a contracting company that provided QC 

support to all eight State agencies. 

FNS Response 

In January 2016, in response to early 

findings from the QCIRs, FNS issued a 

policy memorandum 11 to address 

concerns with the integrity of State 

agency QC systems. The memorandum 

reiterated and clarified FNS policies 

that are necessary to prevent bias from 

entering the QC system. 

In September 2016, after completing 

all QCIRs, FNS issued revisions to its 

primary QC case review policy manual, 

the FNS Handbook 310,12 to help 

address FNS’ and OIG’s concerns 

regarding the integrity of the QC system. 

These revisions reinforced the January 

2016 policy memorandum and 

addressed other issues affecting QC 

system integrity, including 

documentation and verification in QC 

reviews. By November 2016, FNS had 

trained all Federal quality control 

reviewers (FQCR) and SQCRs on the 

new manual and integrity-related 

provisions. 

During the QCIRs, and while working 

with State agencies to address findings 

and resolve corrective action plans, FNS 

found the complex structure of QC 

reviews contributed to not only 

unintentional mistakes, but also to an 

environment that allowed for both the 

manipulation and mitigation of SNAP 

QC payment error findings. For 

instance, the QC review begins with an 

examination of the sample month 

circumstances for a household, which 

could be any month of the household’s 

certification period. However, because 

of the complexity of Federal SNAP 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64759 

13As determined by guidelines promulgated 

pursuant to 7 CFR 273.2(f)(2). 

14https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2018/06/01/2018-11849/request-for-informationsupplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snapquality-control-integrity-and. 

15 Discussed throughout 7 CFR 275. 

16FNS temporarily provided State agencies the 

flexibility to conduct QC interviews by telephone 

to assist State agencies in case completion during 

the COVID–19 public health emergency. The 

flexibilities have been extended through September 

2024. 17Under Section 16(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the FNA, the 

tolerance level for excluding small errors is $37 for 

fiscal year 2014, adjusted by the percentage 

adjustment of thrifty food plan for each subsequent 

fiscal year. The most recently announced threshold, 

for FY 2023, is $54. 18As previously noted, the OIG’s 2015 report 

recommended that this two-comparison allotment 

test be eliminated. 

certification policy, as well as State 

SNAP policy options and waivers, 

reviews regularly involve a reviewer 

assessing household circumstances 

across multiple months. FNS 

determined this complexity creates an 

opportunity for both purposeful errors 

and unintentional review mistakes and, 

in some cases, can blur the connection 

between payment errors found during 

the QC review process and the relevant 

certification actions, which is where 

errors are occurring. 

Often it is not possible for SQCRs to 

complete cases due to difficulties 

associated with obtaining verifications 

for past months and securing household 

cooperation. For instance, to simplify 

administrative procedures, some State 

agencies have chosen to implement a 

policy that allows them to forego 

verification of shelter expenses at 

certification if the expenses are not 

questionable. In the QC system, there 

are no comparable options, and these 

expenses must always be verified. While 

certification rules allow for a waiver of 

the requirement to verify expenses that 

are not questionable,13 these rules do 

not waive the requirement that correct 

expenses be used to determine program 

eligibility and allotments. SNAP 

households may then be skeptical of the 

SQCR’s request for verifications of their 

shelter costs since it was not required 

for the certification worker to determine 

an allotment amount, increasing the 

odds that the household will not 

comply with the QC review. 

Additionally, the household may not be 

able to supply verification because they 

do not have a copy of the required 

record or did not retain it, not having 

needed it previously. In this 

circumstance, the SQCR would 

determine the case incomplete since the 

required verifications were unavailable. 

The conclusion that the complexity of 

SNAP eligibility policy and the QC 

system’s complexity played a major role 

in many of the integrity issues led FNS 

to explore ways to simplify and improve 

the QC review process. On June 1, 2018, 

the Department published a Request for 

Information (RFI) in the Federal 

Register (83 FR 25425 14) to solicit input 

on how best to simplify and improve the 

QC system. FNS received 26 unique 

comments in response to the 

publication. This preamble references 

substantive comments from the 2018 

RFI in the relevant sections that follow. 

FNS also conducted focus groups 

with stakeholders who work in State 

SNAP QC and certification policy, 

social science research partners with 

government programs, and hunger 

advocates on conceptual ideas for the 

proposed provisions in this rule. These 

focus groups assisted FNS in identifying 

areas of concern, particularly with 

changing the review focus to a narrower 

eligibility scope. 

Additionally, during national and 

regional conferences, State and Federal 

staff verbally expressed to FNS an 

interest in narrowing the QC review to 

focus solely on the eligibility action to 

simplify the QC review and increase 

compliance with QC review 

requirements while still maintaining a 

focus on measuring the validity of 

critical State agency decisions. This 

narrowed focus is consistent with how 

other social safety net programs (e.g., 

Medicaid, earned income tax credit) 

measure improper payments. These 

other programs do not measure ongoing 

administration of benefits, as is done in 

SNAP’s current QC review process. 

Creating such an alignment would allow 

Congress and others to compare 

improper payments more effectively 

across social safety net programs. 

SNAP QC—Current Processes 

To assist the reader in understanding 

the review process changes being 

proposed, this section discusses how 

the QC review process is currently 

structured. The SNAP QC system15

consists of two tiers, a State tier and a 

Federal tier. At the State agency level, 

a statistician develops a sampling plan 

consistent with Federal regulations at 7 

CFR 275.11 that the State agency then 

submits to FNS for approval. Each 

month, according to that sampling plan, 

State agencies select a sample of active 

cases (7 CFR 275.12) and negative cases 

(7 CFR 275.13) from the universe of 

their SNAP caseload and conduct 

reviews of the cases to determine the 

accuracy of the determination and 

allotment amount. Active cases are 

comprised of those households who are 

participating in SNAP and negative 

cases are comprised of cases in which 

the State agency acted to deny, 

terminate, or suspend a household or 

applicant (7 CFR 275.10(a)). 

SQCRs must schedule and conduct 

face-to-face interviews with households 

selected for review in the active sample 

frame (7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)).16 There are 

few exceptions to a face-to-face 

interview for QC. For instance, State 

agencies may conduct telephonic 

interviews for hard-to-reach Alaskan 

households (7 CFR 275.12(c)) or in 

situations of a declared disaster using 

the SNAP waiver process (7 CFR 

272.3(c)). SQCRs use the information 

gathered during interviews along with 

information in the case files, various 

databases, and documentation from 

collateral contacts, such as neighbors, 

banks, and employers, during the 

review (7 CFR 275.12(c)(2)). 

The review itself consists of an 

examination of a random month during 

a case’s certification period, called the 

sample month (7 CFR 275.12(a). SQCRs 

verify all factors of eligibility and 

allotment issuance for that sample 

month and calculate an allotment 

amount based off that information, 

which is referred to as the household 

budget calculation (7 CFR 275.12(e)). 

They then compare that calculated 

amount to the amount that was issued 

to the household for that month This is 

called Comparison I. If Comparison I 

results in the household budget 

calculation producing an allotment 

amount for the sample month that is 

either over or under the household’s 

authorized issuance amount for that 

month, in an amount that exceeds the 

current fiscal year’s threshold for 

excluding small errors,17 the SQCR will 

conduct a second comparison, called 

Comparison II. With Comparison II, the 

SQCR would then examine the month in 

which the most recent certification 

action occurred. The SQCR would 

correct any mistakes made at the time of 

this certification action, compute 

another budget, calculate an allotment 

amount based on those findings, and 

compare the SQCR budget for the 

certification action to the amount that 

was authorized at the certification 

action. If there is also a difference in the 

SQCR’s budget and the authorized 

budget for Comparison II, the SQCR 

uses the lesser of the two determined 

error amounts as the case’s payment 

error.18 After States transmit cases to 

FNS, any QC finding of an overissuance 

must be reported to the State office 

responsible for claims, and 

underissuance cases must be reported to 

the State offices responsible for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64760 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

19QC cases in the active frame are comprised of 

households certified prior to or during the sample 

month and issued a SNAP allotment for the sample 

month. QC review years follow the Federal fiscal 

year from October through September the following 

year. 20 ‘‘Not Subject to Review’’ is a term that refers 

to cases that are not subject to quality control 

review. This means they do not meet the 

requirements to be reviewed by a QC reviewer. 

Examples include cases under active investigation 

by the State’s fraud unit and cases where the 

household did not receive an allotment for the 

sample month under review. 

21The FQCR review may result in agreement or 

disagreement with the State’s findings. When there 

is a disagreement, the State can dispute the Federal 

finding. If the State office and RO cannot agree on 

the outcome of a case, the State may appeal to the 

national arbitrator, a neutral third party whose 

decisions are final. 

22https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018- 

06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf. 

23https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/ 

1984/2/17/6278-6313.pdf#page=33. 

supplements, to evaluate and address 

whether an action must be taken on the 

reviewed cases (7 CFR 275.12(f)). This 

requirement is not impacted by this 

rule. 

For all active frame cases,19 SQCRs 

enter their data into either a paper or 

automated version of the form FNS–380, 

Worksheet for QC Reviews (OMB 

Control Number: 0584–0074; Expiration 

Date: 07/31/2025), to document the 

information needed to make a 

determination about the accuracy of the 

case (7 CFR 275.21(b)). State agencies 

also code the results of the reviews for 

all active cases onto the FNS–380–1, the 

QC Review Schedule (OMB Control 

Number: 0584–0299; Expiration Date: 

07/31/2023; currently under review 

with OMB) (7 CFR 275.21(b)). State 

agencies then submit the completed 

forms through SNAP’s Federally funded 

automated computer system, SNAP 

Quality Control System (SNAP–QCS), 

for transmission to FNS (7 CFR 

275.21(b)(1)). For negative frame cases, 

State agencies complete form FNS–245, 

Negative Case Review Schedule (OMB 

Control Number: 0584–0034; Expiration 

Date: 1212/31/2024) (7 CFR 275.21(b)). 

and submit completed forms through 

SNAP–QCS (7 CFR 275.21(b)(1)). 

FNS then works to validate the State 

agency findings. FQCRs, who are in FNS 

regional offices, review a subsample of 

the active cases reviewed by State 

agencies (7 CFR 275.3(d)(1)(i)). The 

subsample is comprised not only of 

cases State agencies complete, but also 

of all active cases the State agencies 

selected but were unable to complete, 

and all cases that were determined by 

the State agency to be ‘‘not subject to 

review.’’ 20 After FQCRs identify the 

cases for the subsample, they then 

request the relevant QC case file 

documents from the State agencies and 

conduct a comprehensive, independent 

review of each case (7 CFR 

275.3(d)(1)(ii)).21 After case reviews are 

complete and final determinations 

made, FNS calculates two error rates: (1) 

the payment error rate (PER) for the 

active sampling frame (7 CFR 

275.3(d)(1)); and (2) the case and 

procedural error rate (CAPER) for the 

negative sampling frame (7 CFR 

275.3(d)(3)). FNS also calculates an 

annual application timeliness rate for 

State agencies with data from the active 

sampling frame. 

The PER is based on the difference 

between the amount of allotments 

issued to households and the amount 

those households should have received 

had their cases been processed correctly 

(7 CFR 275.23(b)). The overall PER is 

the sum of two breakdowns: 

underpayment and overpayment error 

rates. For CAPER, the review of negative 

actions considers procedural aspects of 

case processing in addition to whether 

the action to deny, suspend, or 

terminate a household was accurate. 

Procedural components of this review 

include timeliness of the action and 

accuracy of the household notification, 

among other things. The negative review 

results in a determination of whether 

the negative actions were valid or 

invalid (7 CFR 275.13(c)(1)). The CAPER 

is based on what percentage of the 

negative actions reviewed were invalid 

compared to the total number of 

negative actions processed by the State 

agency. 

New Proposed QC Approach 

The rest of this preamble will share 

the Department’s proposals for this 

rulemaking. The Department proposes 

to improve the SNAP QC active review 

process using lessons learned from the 

QCIRs, the OIG audit, the completion 

rate study on QC, the 2018 RFI 22 on QC, 

and other activities, such as technical 

assistance, that FNS has completed 

since FY 2015. As such, the Department 

is proposing a different active case 

review that: (1) would be less 

complicated, thus making it easier for 

State agencies and households to 

comply with, FNS to oversee, and less 

susceptible to bias; and (2) would still 

be capable of collecting detailed 

program information regarding State 

agency administration and the over and 

under issuance of SNAP allotments. In 

addition, the proposed active review 

would resolve an ongoing concern from 

OIG about how SNAP QC’s use of 

Comparison I and Comparison II 

resulted in a measurement from two 

different points in time. 

SNAP regulations require all SNAP 

State agencies to operate a QC system (7 

CFR 275.10(a)). Although the 2018 IFR 

increased various reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for State 

agencies to comply with the 2018 Farm 

Bill, the active review process for the 

SNAP QC system has remained 

relatively unchanged since February 

1984 (49 FR 6292) 23 and can be 

improved upon. Since SNAP’s QC 

system existed at least 25 years prior to 

the first Federal improper payment 

laws, such as the Improper Payments 

Information Act of 2002 (IPIA). SNAP’s 

active QC review methodology and 

processes require adjustment to come 

into alignment with other Federal 

programs where the improper payment 

determination procedures were created 

after the first Federal improper payment 

laws and associated regulations and 

guidance came into existence. 

The proposed process would change 

the active case review to focus on 

eligibility actions instead of a random, 

point-in-time review for each case. This 

proposed change would eliminate the 

two-comparison allotment tests 

(Comparison I and Comparison II) from 

the QC review and instead focus on 

eligibility determinations, consider 

cases that a State agency cannot validate 

as total dollar errors, and alter the 

sampling and sampling plan 

requirements to correspond to the 

changed review focus. 

To help the reader understand the 

flow of the proposed provisions that 

follow, the provisions are organized in 

the same order as existing regulations 

found in the Code of Federal 

Regulations at 7 CFR part 275. It is 

important to note, this is a proposed 

rule that requires public comment 

before a final rule may implement any 

changes to SNAP’s QC system. The 

Department proposes the following 

provisions for comment. 

General 

Prior to discussing the provisions, the 

Department would like to convey that 

this rule is very technical in nature. The 

provisions discussed include specific 

detail about QC review processes and 

detailed statistical formulas necessary to 

carry out the QC process. The 

Department will continue to explain 

technical information throughout this 

proposed rule when able; however, in 

areas where precision and specific 

vocabulary are necessary to accurately 

convey the proposal, such as with 

statistical formulae, an explanation in 

more colloquial terms could result in an 

inaccurate portrayal of the proposed 

concepts. Thus, the technical language 

will remain. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64761 

24 In fiscal year 2012, the procedures for 

reviewing cases in the negative frame, changed to 

include the State’s procedural processes in 

determining a negative case’s validity. FNS has 

referred to the negative error rate since then as the 

case and procedural error rate, or CAPER, to reflect 

this change. 

25For a definition of collateral contact, see 7 CFR 

273.2(f)(4)(ii)—https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/ 

subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-273#p273.2(f)(4)(ii). 

26State systems contain information on 

participants in a multitude of different programs, 

each of which can have (as some currently do) 

statutory and regulatory language prohibiting the 

disclosure of such information outside of said 

program. As such, the State systems must be able 

to limit user access to SNAP information only 

before sharing the system with FNS for SNAP QC 

purposes to ensure compliance with Federal law. 

Terminology Updates 

In 7 CFR parts 271 and 275, the 

Department proposes to update or 

remove outdated and duplicative 

terminology and update currently 

applicable terminology to reflect the 

proposed review process. The following 

terms are no longer current: ‘‘negative 

case error rate’’ (or ‘‘negative error rate’’) 

and ‘‘Immigration and Naturalization 

Services (INS).’’ Therefore, the 

Department proposes to change these to 

‘‘case and procedural error rate 

(CAPER)’’ 24 and ‘‘United States 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS),’’ respectively. The Department 

proposes to update the definition of 

‘‘overissuance’’ to remove reference to 

paper food stamp coupons. The 

Department proposes to revise the 

definitions for ‘‘active case,’’ ‘‘error,’’ 

‘‘review date,’’ and ‘‘sample month’’ in 

7 CFR 271.2 to reflect changes made by 

this proposed rule. Additionally, the 

term ‘‘active case error rate’’ is currently 

used interchangeably with the term 

‘‘payment error rate’’ throughout 7 CFR 

275. To avoid confusion, the 

Department proposes to use ‘‘payment 

error rate’’ consistently throughout 7 

CFR 275. 

Subpart A—Administration 

7 CFR 275.2(b)—Staffing Standards 

The Department proposes to add a 

provision in the Staffing Standards 

section under 7 CFR 275.2(b) to specify 

the expectation that State agencies 

ensure the independence and objectivity 

of the merit staff performing QC case 

reviews. The QC integrity reviews found 

instances where State agency managers 

were putting undue influence on SQCRs 

to find that the eligibility worker’s 

initial determination was correct, as 

opposed to independently focusing on 

the accuracy of the case, which is the 

purpose of the QC review. A separate 

audit completed by USDA OIG further 

supported these findings, as well as 

action by DOJ to settle allegations of 

violations of Federal law with eight 

State agencies. These findings provide 

substantial evidence that SQCRs 

reporting in the organizational structure 

to the same individuals responsible for 

overseeing eligibility determinations has 

an adverse effect on their ability to 

objectively review cases and determine 

errors. To address these issues and 

ensure the accuracy of the PER and 

CAPER estimates, the Department 

proposes to require a new provision in 

7 CFR 275.2(b) that State agencies take 

proactive measures to ensure SQCRs 

work independently and are free from 

undue influence by ensuring the staff 

used to conduct QC reviews operate 

independently from those responsible 

for overseeing the eligibility 

determination process to ensure 

objective and accurate assessments of 

the Performance Reporting System. For 

example, QC staff would not have the 

same immediate supervisor or director 

as the eligibility staff. 

In addition, the Department proposes 

to clarify the components that constitute 

prior knowledge for purposes of staff 

disqualification under 7 CFR 275.2(b). 

The focus on integrity and bias in 

SNAP’s QC system generated concerns 

in State agencies about SQCRs 

unintentionally biasing the QC process. 

FNS has heard from State agencies, 

anecdotally, that QC workers were 

concerned that a staff person might 

know information about a household 

one of their colleagues was reviewing 

but felt that disclosing that information 

would be considered a prohibited 

practice. The Department proposes to 

address this issue by removing the 

current language at 7 CFR 275.2(b) and 

adding a modified provision to QC’s 

Staffing Standards at 7 CFR 275.2(b)(2) 

clarifying that even though State agency 

staff must disqualify themselves from 

directly working on a QC review if they 

have prior knowledge of a household, 

they are allowed to participate in a QC 

review as a collateral contact 25 of the 

household. In such situations, the staff 

must follow the governing rules 

regarding collateral contacts at 7 CFR 

273.2(f)(4)(ii). 

7 CFR 275.2(d)—FNS Access to State 

Systems 

Section 4013(e)(2) of the 2018 Farm 

Bill—which amends Section 16(g)(1)(A) 

of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 

(codified as 7 U.S.C. 2025(g)(1)(A))— 

specifies that cost sharing for 

computerization for systems is an 

allowable SNAP administrative expense 

only when, among other criteria, the 

Secretary determines the systems to be 

accessible to the Department for review 

and audit purposes. Therefore, to 

implement this statutory provision, in 

the paragraph at 7 CFR 275.2(d), the 

Department is requiring cost sharing for 

State agency system costs to be 

conditioned on, in part, FNS having 

access to all State agency records and 

systems in which those records are 

contained.26 The Department believes 

this will incentivize State agencies to 

make the necessary changes to come 

into compliance with the requirement of 

allowing remote access to State agency 

computer systems so that Federal QC 

staff have access to the full case record 

for all QC sampled cases to ensure the 

accuracy of the collected data. FNS will 

continue to work with State agencies 

collaboratively to establish data sharing 

and system integrity agreements to 

facilitate the required systems access. 

This new sentence in 7 CFR 275.2(d) 

will reference existing regulations and 

procedures for the suspension or 

disallowance of administrative funds 

found at 7 CFR 277.16 if State agencies 

do not comply with the requirement. 

7 CFR 275.3(d)—Sampling—Federal 

Sub Sample 

To be consistent with the changes 

proposed for State agency sampling in 7 

CFR 275.11, discussed later in this rule, 

the Department proposes at 7 CFR 

275.3(d)(1)(i)(A) to only have one 

minimum Federal subsampling 

calculation table to determine the 

Federal subsampling pull for the rereview of active cases. In addition to the 

change in Federal subsample size, the 

Department also proposes the Federal 

subsample be allocated across five strata 

in order to capture cases from each of 

the points in time where the State 

agency makes a determination to 

authorize or re-authorize benefits and to 

be consistent with the weighting that is 

proposed to determine the State 

agency’s sampling frame. The five strata 

reflect all the possible action types and 

reporting periods. Since the reporting 

system and certification period length 

assigned at certification impact the 

number of reports that will end up in 

the sampling universe under the 

proposed sampling procedures, the five 

strata as well as weighting are used to 

ensure that all types of households are 

included in the sampling universe and 

to even out selection probabilities so 

that all cases have a chance to be 

selected for sampling in determining the 

SNAP PER. The five strata are based on 

the combination of action types (i.e., 

certification, recertification, and when a 

required monthly, quarterly, or periodic 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64762 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

report is due and an allotment is issued 

in the following month) and reporting 

period (i.e., less than six months, 

exactly six months, and more than six 

months). FNS chose certifications, 

recertifications, and required reports 

with allotments in the following month 

because they are points in which the 

State agency must make an eligibility 

determination or terminate the 

household from the Program. FNS based 

the proposed strata on an analysis of the 

FY 2017 SNAP QC data (see table). 

Strata Action type Reporting period Frequency Percentage 

A ...... Certification/recertification .......................................... Less than 6 months ................................................... 365 4.9 

B ...... Redetermination ......................................................... Less than 6 months ................................................... 94 1.3 

C ..... Certification/recertification .......................................... Exactly 6 months ....................................................... 3,873 52.2 

D ..... Redetermination ......................................................... Exactly 6 months ....................................................... 1,628 21.9 

E ...... Any * ........................................................................... More than 6 months .................................................. 1,457 19.6 

* Includes the three actions: certification, recertification, and redetermination. 

The proposed changes to determine 

the Federal subsample would be 

necessary to determine State agency 

PERs based on the new proposed 

methodology. Under the proposed 

changes, the Federal subsample size 

would be determined using the 

following table: 

Average monthly reviewable caseload 

(N) 

Federal subsample target 

(n’) 

60,000 and over ....................................................................................... n′ = 400. 

10,001 to 59,999 ...................................................................................... n′ = .005 N + 100. 

10,000 and under ..................................................................................... n′ = 150. 

Once the Federal subsample size n’ is 

determined using Table 1 above, the 

Federal subsample must be allocated 

across the five strata proportionally to 

the State final weights to ensure the 

Federal subsample is self-weighting and 

there is no loss of precision due to 

differential sampling probabilities. The 

Federal subsample size for each stratum 

shall be determined as follows: 

In the table formulas above: N is the 

sampling universe/monthly caseload; F 

is the sampling frame; n is the state 

sampling size; n’ is the Federal 

subsample size; W is the state sampling 

weights; and W’ is the Federal sampling 

weights. For stratum i, the Federal 

subsample size n’i shall be proportional 

to the sum of the final state weights for 

that stratum, ni×Wi = Ni, in other words 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19SE23.097</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64763 

27https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

1997/06/02/97-13946/food-stamp-program-qualitycontrol-provisions-of-the-mickey-leland-childhoodhunger-relief-act. 

This means that the final weight for the 

cases selected for the Federal subsample 

from stratum i, W’i, is given by: 

for every i, which is a constant across 

the strata. 

7 CFR 275.3(d)(4)(i)(A)—Federal 

Monitoring—Arbitration 

Currently, when there is a dispute 

between a State agency and FNS 

regarding a finding (whether a case was 

correct, overissued, underissued, or was 

ineligible as of the review date) or 

disposition (whether a case was 

complete, not subject to review, 

incomplete, or the case was deselected) 

of a QC case, the State agency may 

request arbitration from the FNS 

Arbitrator. FNS’s Arbitrator is the SNAP 

Administrative and Judicial Review 

Branch. This Branch includes 

administrative review officers who serve 

as a neutral third party, as they do not 

directly work with SNAP certification 

policy or quality control. The disputes 

subject to arbitration are limited to 

disagreements over finding or 

disposition only and the arbitrator’s 

decision on a case is considered final 

and not subject to subsequent appeal. 

Any other disagreements should be 

handled through an informal resolution 

process, which is separate from the 

arbitration process. 

FNS issued a policy memorandum 

dated November 7, 2003, that provided 

procedures for arbitrating application 

processing timeliness (APT) 

disagreements when the APT measure 

was first introduced. FNS intended the 

memorandum to be temporary, covering 

FY 2003 only, but did not identify an 

expiration date. The preamble in the 

final rule, Quality Control Provisions of 

the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger 

Relief Act (62 FR 29652 27), published 

June 2, 1997, detailed the reasoning for 

why arbitrations were only to be used 

for finding and disposition 

disagreements. The Department noted 

that arbitrating ‘‘agree cases,’’ which 

encompasses disagreements solely on 

APT, would adversely impact the 

accuracy and timeliness of the 

arbitration process. FNS discovered in 

2017 that some FNS regional offices 

were still allowing their State agencies 

to arbitrate APT-only disagreements. 

The FNS national office provided 

clarification through policy guidance, 

but to clarify the Department’s original 

intent in the 1997 Rule, the Department 

proposes to update language in 7 CFR 

275.3(d)(4)(i)(A) to clarify that, other 

than those circumstances specified in 

regulations, other disagreements would 

not be provided arbitration rights. 

In addition, current regulations 

instruct State agencies to send 

arbitration requests to their FNS 

regional office, addressed to the 

attention of the FNS Arbitrator. Over 

time, FNS found that by providing the 

Arbitrator’s contact information for 

State agencies to make direct arbitration 

requests, FNS was not only able to 

provide better customer service, but also 

have a more efficient request process. 

Therefore, the Department proposes to 

update its regulations at 7 CFR 

275.3(d)(4)(iv) to require that a State 

agency send its request for arbitration 

directly to the FNS Arbitrator and copy 

the appropriate FNS regional office. 

Subpart C—Quality Control (QC) 

Reviews 

7 CFR 275.11—Sampling—General 

Currently, the universe (all cases with 

the possibility of being selected for the 

QC sample) for SNAP’s active frame 

includes all households receiving SNAP 

allotments in any given sample month. 

Under this proposed rule, the active 

frame sample universe would no longer 

include all households receiving SNAP 

allotments in any given sample month. 

Instead, only those households that 

experienced an eligibility action—i.e., 

certification for SNAP, recertification 

for SNAP, or requirement to submit a 

required monthly, quarterly, or periodic 

report in the sample month and an 

allotment is issued in the following 

month—would constitute the universe 

for the active frame. The following 

paragraphs in this preamble explain the 

proposed new sampling plan in 7 CFR 

275.11, which would then be reviewed 

according to the proposed sampling 

review procedures in 7 CFR 275.12. 

7 CFR 275.11(a)(1)–(2)—Sampling 

Plan—Content and Criteria 

Currently, at 7 CFR 275.11(a), State 

agencies have two options for designing 

their minimum QC sampling size: a 

standard or a reduced sample size. The 

Department proposes to remove the 

language about alternative sampling 

designs at 7 CFR 275.11(a)(2) since, 

unlike the current methodology, the 

proposed methodology would not be 

conducive to State agencies utilizing a 

reduced sample size due to issues with 

reliability of the estimates that would 

result from the sample size reduction. 

This would include the removal of 

alternative sampling related rules in 

subsections 7 CFR 275.11(a)(2)(iii) and 7 

CFR 275.11(a)(2)(iv). In addition, the 

Department proposes to add language in 

section 7 CFR 275.11(a)(2)(ii) about the 

sample size selection to help State 

agencies ensure they follow the 

procedures set forth in subsections (b), 

(c), (d), (e), and (f). 

7 CFR 275.11(a)(3)—Sampling Plan— 

Design 

Computer programs and systems that 

assist in selecting probability samples 

have progressed considerably since the 

publication of the current QC 

regulations in 1977. Now, systematic 

sampling is but one of the many 

possible ways to select a probability or 

random sample, and there are new 

statistical software tools available that 

can easily draw a random sample 

without using systematic sampling. The 

Department proposes to amend the 

recommendation at 7 CFR 275.11(a)(3) 

that State agencies should primarily 

utilize systematic sampling to also 

recommend that State agencies be open 

to considering other sampling software 

tools. 

In addition, the Department proposes 

to revise the language at 7 CFR 

275.11(a)(3), describing the proposed 

active sampling design. This revised 

language provides specific details about 

how State agencies would need to 

design their new sampling procedures 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19SE23.098</GPH> EP19SE23.099</GPH>
64764 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

28https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010- 

06-11/pdf/2010-13446.pdf. 

29Not all adverse actions are against an entire 

household. Sometimes an adverse action will occur 

against a specific participant in a household. 

to align with the new review process, 

including how to construct the new 

sampling frame and which variables to 

use to create the proposed strata 

(discussed further below). The revision 

would also clarify that each month, 

State agencies must select a sample size 

equal to one twelfth of the annual 

sample size specified in 7 CFR 275.11(b) 

(rounded to the next whole number) to 

ensure the sample accurately reflects the 

entire year of SNAP cases. 

7 CFR 275.11(b)(1)–(2)—Sample Size— 

Active Cases and Negative Cases 

The Department proposes to simplify 

and standardize the active case review 

process by (1) eliminating the current 

allowance for choosing between two 

different possible sample sizes and (2) 

increasing the current sample size for 

active cases specified in 7 CFR 

275.11(b)(1)(iii) by 30 percent. 

Increasing the overall sample size 

ensures that the new sampling design 

would deliver the same level of 

precision as the current sampling design 

by providing for sufficient sample sizes 

within each stratum. Without this 

increase in overall sample size and 

proper allocation among the strata, the 

new design would over-represent cases 

with shorter reporting periods and 

under-represent those with longer 

reporting periods. Having a larger 

overall sample size is necessary to 

ensure statistical validity of the sample, 

which results in a more precise PER 

estimate. The Department proposes to 

remove the choice of the other sample 

size option, currently described at 7 

CFR 275.11(b)(1)(ii), because in order 

for the new sampling methodology to 

provide a basis for calculating a national 

PER, all States must follow the same 

sampling design; therefore, a second 

option is no longer appropriate. Given 

the proposed deletion of 7 CFR 

275.11(b)(1)(ii), the Department 

proposes to re-designate the remaining 

paragraphs of 7 CFR 275.11(b)(1) that 

follow paragraph 7 CFR 275.11(b)(1)(i). 

In the final rule published on June 11, 

2010, titled, ‘‘Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program: Quality Control 

Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 

107–171’’ (75 FR 33422)28, the 

regulations pertaining to SNAP negative 

case reviews (the review of cases that 

were denied, terminated, or suspended) 

were changed to emphasize customer 

service. This rule required State 

agencies to determine whether the 

action on the negative case under 

review was correct and whether the 

State agency correctly notified the 

household or participant 29 in clearly 

understandable language of the adverse 

action on their case. 

The Department implemented this 

change in FY 2012, and later began 

informally referring to the associated 

error rate as the case and procedural 

error rate, as opposed to the negative 

error rate, to reflect the change in focus. 

This practice of referring to the error 

rate for negative case reviews as CAPER 

continues today and is the 

commonplace term State agencies and 

FNS use. As such, the Department 

proposes to amend 7 CFR 275.11(b)(2)(i) 

to include the explanation that negative 

case reviews result in determining the 

‘‘case and procedural error rate.’’ 

The Department found State agencies 

typically utilize the minimum annual 

sampling size for their negative case 

samples. Just as with the proposed 

removal of the alternative active case 

sampling design discussed earlier, the 

Department proposes to amend 7 CFR 

275.11(b)(2)(i) to remove the alternative 

design option for the negative sample 

size so that sample sizes are standard, 

provide more precision for error rate 

estimates, and align with the language 

used for the selection of active cases in 

7 CFR 275.11(b)(1)(i). 

7 CFR 275.11(b)(4)—Sample Size— 

Alternative Designs 

Consistent with the proposed removal 

of alternative design options for both the 

active and negative sampling frames, the 

Department also proposes to remove the 

regulatory provisions at 7 CFR 

275.11(b)(4) through 7 CFR 

275.11(b)(4)(iii) since those paragraphs 

discuss the options for State agencies 

concerning alternative QC sampling 

sizes. 

7 CFR 275.11(c)(2)—Sample Selection— 

Corrections 

To ensure they select enough cases to 

review annually, State agencies often 

pull supplemental samples when they 

find they do not have enough cases to 

meet FNS requirements. FNS refers to 

this act of pulling a supplemental 

sample in current regulations at 7 CFR 

275.11(c)(2) as a ‘correction.’ 

Corrections can be necessary for many 

reasons but most often occur because 

some cases in the sample were later 

determined to be not subject to QC 

review or because an increase in the 

average monthly reviewable caseload 

necessitated an increase in monthly 

sample size. The Department proposes 

to amend the provisions regarding 

corrections at 7 CFR 275.11(c)(2) to 

clarify that the new procedures for 

sample size, sample selection, sample 

frame, and sample allocation in 

proposed paragraphs 7 CFR 275.11(b), 

(c), (e), and (g) are also applicable to 

corrections, or in other words, when 

State agencies pull additional cases to 

compensate for under sampling. 

7 CFR 275.11(e)—Sample Frame 

Current regulations at 7 CFR 275.11(e) 

allow State agencies a ‘choice’ in what 

their sampling frame must include. The 

Department proposes to remove 

language concerning the ‘choice’ of the 

sampling frame since the Department’s 

proposed methodology requires State 

agencies to use a specific frame for 

sampling. 

7 CFR 275.11(e)—Sample Frame— 

Active Cases 

The Department proposes to change 

its active case sampling frame 

description at 7 CFR 275.11(e)(1) to 

include only households that either 

experienced an initial certification 

action, a recertification action, or were 

required to submit a required monthly, 

quarterly, or periodic report in the 

sampling month and an allotment is 

issued in the following month. As noted 

earlier, this simplified QC process 

would shift the review focus to when an 

eligibility action occurred rather than a 

review of a random month within a 

household’s certification period. 

The simplification of only reviewing 

the eligibility action would ease 

compliance with QC requirements for 

both recipients and SQCRs by 

eliminating the complex aspects of the 

current review process and by making 

the SNAP review consistent with other 

benefit programs’ improper payment 

review procedures. The complexities of 

the current process can contribute to 

State agencies having low QC case 

review completion rates and to, the 

integrity issues discussed throughout 

this proposed rule. 

7 CFR 275.11(f)—Sample Universe— 

Active Cases 

Regulations at 7 CFR 275.11(f)(1) 

inform State agencies which cases they 

must exclude from their sampling 

frames. Consistent with proposed 

changes in this rule to the sampling 

frame, the Department is also proposing 

corresponding changes for those cases 

the State agency must exclude. The 

Department proposes to amend one 

condition and remove one condition 

from the current list of excludable 

households for review at 7 CFR 

275.11(f)(1). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64765 

The Department proposes to amend 

the provision at 7 CFR 275.11(f)(1)(iv) 

that addresses the exclusion of a 

household appealing an adverse action 

when the review date falls within the 

time period covered by continuing 

participation pending a fair hearing, or 

in other words, the time the household 

continues to receive benefits while they 

await their fair hearing. Instead of the 

condition being ‘‘when the review date 

falls within the time period covered by 

continuing participation pending the 

hearing,’’ the Department proposes to 

exclude all cases under review where 

the household is appealing an adverse 

action for any of the sampled actions, 

since the benefit determination is 

subject to change based on the result of 

the appeal. 

The Department also proposes to 

remove the condition for exclusion at 7 

CFR 275.11(f)(1)(v) that indicates a 

household can be excluded when the 

household is receiving restored benefits 

but is not participating based upon an 

approved application. This condition no 

longer applies to the new proposed 

sampling method because only 

approved applications will be included 

in the sample. As such, only the 

instruction that, ‘‘Other households 

excluded from the active case universe 

during the review process are identified 

in 7 CFR 275.12(g)’’ would remain in 

this paragraph. 

7 CFR 275.11(g)–(h)—Active Sample 

Allocation and Weighting 

In order for the new sampling method 

to be reflective of the SNAP caseload, 

the Department proposes to add two 

new paragraphs at 7 CFR 275.11(g), 

entitled ‘‘Active sample allocation’’ and 

7 CFR 275.11(h), entitled ‘‘Weighting,’’ 

which will describe how State agencies 

would allocate the sample across the 

strata defined in the new sampling 

design and compute the weights needed 

to make the sample representative of the 

sample universe/target population. 

As described earlier, the Department 

proposes to add requirements at 7 CFR 

275.11(g) for the active sample 

allocation so that active cases are 

allocated to five pre-defined strata. 

These five strata are based on the 

combination of action type (i.e., 

certification, recertification, and when a 

required monthly, quarterly, or periodic 

report is due and an allotment is issued 

in the following month) and reporting 

period (i.e., less than six months, six 

months, and more than six months). 

This proposed change would ensure the 

resulting allocation will contain 

sufficient sample sizes within each 

stratum and cases from each stratum are 

represented in the sample. 

In addition, the Department proposes 

to add a section, 7 CFR 275.11(h) 

‘‘Weighting’’ to illustrate how to 

compute the weights needed to make 

the sample representative of the 

universe/target population. The new 

sampling design samples cases with 

unequal probabilities across the strata 

and, therefore, some cases have higher 

selection probabilities than others. State 

agencies must provide FNS the data 

necessary to compute the weights. To 

compensate for the unequal 

probabilities of selection across the 

strata, the Department is proposing the 

following formula for the weights Wi: 

Wi = (Ni/Fi) × (Fi/ni) = Ni/ni for i = 

a,b,c,d,e, 

Where: 

—Wi is the weight for cases sampled from 

stratum i (the new proposed sampling 

design has five strata); 

—Ni is the size of stratum i in the sampling 

universe/target population; 

—Fi is the size of stratum i in the sampling 

frame; 

—ni is the number of cases sampled from 

stratum i. 

—Fi/ni is in the inverse of the sampling 

probability for cases sampled from 

stratum i (also called sampling weight), 

while Ni/Fi represents the poststratification weights and corrects for the 

biases in the sampling frame. This 

ensures the sample represents the 

sampling universe, i.e., the SNAP 

caseload. 

State agencies would be responsible 

for providing to FNS the counts Ni, Fi, 

and ni (for i = a,b,c,d,e). 

7 CFR 275.12—Review of Active Cases— 

General 

By focusing only on eligibility 

actions, the Department anticipates the 

information obtained through the 

modified QC review process will be 

more useful for program improvement 

purposes, as it will be focused on the 

main touchpoints of a SNAP case and 

will be collected closer in time to those 

touchpoints. Currently, SNAP’s error 

rates are a combination of errors 

measured at random points of time 

within a household’s certification 

period and at points of eligibility. By 

narrowing the review, FNS would issue 

an error rate derived from the time of 

most recent eligibility action for all 

cases reviewed. This would allow FNS 

to more accurately identify where errors 

are occurring and allow State agencies 

to correct more effectively the causes of 

error at certification or the point of most 

recent eligibility action. FNS would also 

be collecting information at a point in 

time that is closer to when many actions 

and their corresponding errors are 

occurring, making the monitoring of 

State agency performance timelier than 

is possible under the current QC system. 

Under the new proposed 

methodology, the PER would be 

representative of points in time when 

households have an obligation to report 

or confirm their circumstances and 

attest the information is accurate. In 

addition, at those points in time, the 

State agency also has an obligation to 

verify those household circumstances 

and accurately determine the 

household’s eligibility and benefit level. 

With this new approach, payment errors 

would specifically reflect errors made 

directly as a result of the benefit 

determination process, a connection 

that has proven challenging with the 

current review system due to the 

distance in time between the selected 

review month and the action causing 

the errors. By identifying errors in a 

timelier manner, FNS could raise 

deficiencies in program operations more 

quickly and effectively, and State 

agencies and FNS would be able to 

address the root causes of errors more 

quickly than under the current QC 

system. 

Another significant impact of moving 

from a random ‘‘point in time’’ review 

of the present QC system to this 

modified ‘‘eligibility action-only’’ 

review is that FNS would no longer 

require SQCRs to re-create all of a 

household’s sample month 

circumstances for a random month 

within a certification period. Currently, 

to review the sample month (which can 

be at any point in time during a 

household’s certification period), 

SQCRs must collect and validate the 

household’s circumstances for that new 

month, which most of the time does not 

exist in the case record, to determine 

whether the allotment they received that 

month is accurate for what they should 

have received based on those 

circumstances. In order to determine 

whether the sample month’s allotment 

determination by the SQCR is accurate, 

the SQCR must often request 

information about household 

circumstances for the past months in 

between the sample month and the most 

recent certification month, if they are 

not one in the same, making the review 

process very complex and prone to 

inaccurately applying QC policy since it 

relies on the ability to collect 

information from SNAP households for, 

in some instances, a year or more in the 

past. The reason these are so 

challenging to obtain is that SNAP 

households do not always have stable 

incomes, bank accounts, and contracts 

with cellular phone carriers or other 

utility companies, for example, that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64766 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

30Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion 

Rates Final Report, January 2016, https://fnsprod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/ops/

SNAPQCCompletion.pdf. 31See Section 5.08 of the Government Auditing 

Standards, GAO 21–368G, April 2021, Government 

Auditing Standards: 2018 Revision Technical 

Update April 2021 (Supersedes GAO–18–568G) | 

U.S. GAO. 

32See Section 3.19 of the Government Auditing 

Standards, GAO 21–368G, April 2021, Government 

Auditing Standards: 2018 Revision Technical 

Update April 2021 (Supersedes GAO–18–568G) | 

U.S. GAO. 

33See Section 16(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the FNA or 7 CFR 

275.12(f)(2). 

34OIG Audit Report 27601–0002–41. 

would make verifications easy to recall 

months later.30

In the new approach, SQCRs would 

still be required to verify the 

household’s circumstances for the 

sample month; however, the sample 

month would be the month the action 

took place, eliminating the need to look 

at previous months. As a result, the 

process would require fewer months to 

review, and much of the information a 

SQCR needs to verify the household’s 

circumstances and determine the 

allotment’s accuracy should already be 

available in the case record. In addition, 

if verifications do not already exist in 

the case record and SQCRs must either 

obtain this information from the SNAP 

household or collateral contacts, it 

would be less challenging for them to 

produce verification from the previous 

month or two than it would be for them 

to produce verification issued at some 

point in the previous four to twelve 

months, as is necessitated under the 

current system. Since this change would 

make obtaining verifications less 

challenging, compliance from 

households and collateral contacts will 

likely increase and SQCRs would be 

able to complete more of their QC case 

reviews, resulting in a more accurate 

PER. 

Given the proposed change in review 

focus, FNS considered whether an ex 

parte review, in which the SQCR relies 

solely on the case record and does not 

contact the household, would be 

appropriate. FNS determined that 

relying solely on an ex parte review for 

QC reviews would not be appropriate 

for several reasons. First, the purpose of 

the QC review is to determine the 

accuracy of the allotment authorized by 

the State, and to accomplish that 

purpose, SQCRs must verify all 

household circumstances in the sample 

month. However, using allowable 

administrative flexibilities, many States 

choose to ease verification requirements 

at certification to reduce the 

administrative burden on applicants. As 

a result, verifications of all household 

circumstances may not be included in 

the case record and available for QC 

reviewers. Generally accepted 

government auditing standards 

(GAGAS) require reviewers to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for 

addressing review objectives and 

supporting their findings and 

conclusions.31 If SQCRs rely solely on 

the information in the case record, they 

may not have sufficient evidence from 

which to assess the accuracy of 

eligibility and benefit determinations. In 

addition, GAGAS require reviewers to 

have a certain level of independence 

when conducting quality control 

evaluations and audits, and to avoid 

situations that could lead reasonable 

and informed third parties to conclude 

they are not independent and thus are 

not capable of exercising impartial 

judgment.32 If SQCRs were to rely solely 

on the information in the case record, 

they may not be able to independently 

review all elements of eligibility and 

benefit determinations. 

This proposed review would still 

require a complete and independent 

review of the household’s circumstances 

to assess whether the State agency 

accurately determined the household’s 

eligibility and SNAP benefit amount. By 

focusing on the eligibility action and not 

on a random sample month, FNS hopes 

to place greater emphasis for corrective 

action on making more accurate benefit 

determinations through better 

documentation, verification, and 

accountability. 

The change in review procedure 

would also eliminate the current SNAP 

QC Comparison I and Comparison II 

process when determining a QC case’s 

reportable error (an error that is above 

the current fiscal year threshold for 

excluding small errors).33 As described 

earlier, SQCRs and FQCRs conduct up 

to two assessments, Comparison I and 

Comparison II, to determine the final 

error amount in a case. In Comparison 

I, the reviewer determines the accuracy 

of the benefit received by the household 

based on the household’s sample month 

circumstances. If the reviewer finds an 

error above the national error tolerance 

threshold (presently $54) in Comparison 

I, the reviewer completes Comparison II 

by examining the accuracy of the 

certification action that authorized the 

sample month’s benefits. The final error 

amount is the lesser error amount of the 

two comparisons. In OIG’s audit report 

titled, ‘‘FNS Quality Control Process for 

SNAP Error Rate,’’ 34 OIG asserted that 

these comparisons measure two 

different points in time and suggested 

FNS should take action to increase 

consistency in the PER measure. FNS 

has determined the improvements to the 

quality and consistency of QC data 

inherent with the proposed approach 

would address OIG’s concerns regarding 

the Comparison I and II processes. 

Along with these changes, the 

Department also proposes to eliminate 

the concept of ‘‘as of the review date’’ 

throughout 7 CFR 275.12, since 

eligibility actions would now be the 

critical focus of the QC review and this 

phrase would no longer be meaningful. 

7 CFR 275.12(b)—Review of Active 

Cases—Household Case Record Review 

The process of reviewing a case in QC 

has several distinct components, 

including the household case record 

review, where the reviewer gathers 

information and evidence from the case 

record to determine what occurred in 

the case and to plan for the next factfinding phase. 

The Department proposes to amend 

the regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(b) to 

update the case record review 

provisions to reflect the new proposed 

review process. The proposed change 

specifies that the case record must 

include the initial certification or 

recertification application or, the 

monthly, quarterly, or periodic report, 

and QC worksheets applicable to the 

sample month determination. 

Documentation contained in the 

eligibility case record is allowable as 

verification, but only if the evidence 

used in the eligibility determination 

meets or exceeds QC verification 

standards found in the FNS Handbook 

310. The Department also proposes to 

eliminate the requirement at 275.12(b) 

that reviewers examine the household 

issuance record for pertinent 

information if they cannot find the 

household’s case record, as the case 

record review would be an essential 

component of the active review process. 

Under the proposed rule, situations 

where the case record could not be 

located would result in an incomplete 

case and, therefore, the total dollar 

amount issued would be reported as an 

error. Further discussion on 

incompletes becoming total dollar errors 

is in this preamble under the heading, 

Review of active cases—Disposition of 

case reviews. 

The purpose of this proposed change 

is two-fold. First, including dropped/ 

incomplete cases in the error amount 

would strengthen integrity by acting as 

a deterrent against the types of droppedcase manipulation that previously led to 

unreliable State PER data reporting, 

discussed in the history part of this 

preamble. Second, by including 

dropped/incomplete cases now 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64767 

35 GAO 16–708–T, https://www.gao.gov/products/ 

GAO-16-708T. 

36https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018- 

06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf. 

37https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018- 

06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf. 

excluded from the improper payment 

rate calculation, the proposed change 

would align SNAP with PIIA and other 

Federal programs, as noted in an audit 

released on July 6, 2016, by the General 

Accounting Office.35

7 CFR 275.12(c)—Review of Active 

Cases—Field Investigation 

The field investigation is another factfinding phase of the QC review and 

includes interviewing the household 

and collateral contacts. Collateral 

contacts can include, for example, 

individuals, organizations, 

governmental agencies, and businesses 

that hold relevant information on the 

household’s circumstances. 

While conducting QCIRs, FNS staff 

found that State agencies do not widely 

use technology to collect documentary 

evidence during the field investigation 

phase. For example, while some SQCRs 

have access to digital scanners or 

cellular phone cameras to make 

electronic copies of verifications, many 

SQCRs have no access to these 

technologies during the field 

investigation or were not aware the use 

of electronic devices was a permissible 

way of obtaining documentary evidence 

that could not be brought back to the 

office. 

Additionally, in the 2018 RFI,36 FNS 

asked for recommendations to 

encourage greater use of technology that 

could enhance the accuracy of case 

reviews. A prevalent response was that 

more funding and grants from the 

Federal Government would assist in 

State agencies using additional 

technology. The Department emphasizes 

here that, under current regulations at 7 

CFR 277.3, expenditures for technology 

to aid in program administration, 

including in association with QC 

reviews, qualifies for reimbursement up 

to 50 percent. 

FNS hopes that promoting the use of 

technology in regulations to collect 

documentary evidence from both 

households and collateral contacts 

would encourage State agencies to offer 

households better customer service by 

limiting the need to send in a physical 

copy of documentary evidence, a step 

that can prove challenging for many. 

Therefore, the Department proposes to 

amend paragraph 7 CFR 275.12(c) to 

provide that the use of technology is not 

only permitted, but encouraged, to 

obtain verification, including copies of 

documentary evidence from households 

and collateral contacts, so long as the 

privacy of the household and the 

information gathered are protected 

pursuant to applicable Federal and State 

privacy laws. 

7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)—Review of Active 

Cases—Personal Interviews 

QC regulations currently require 

SQCRs to conduct a face-to-face 

personal interview for all households. 

Under current regulations at 7 CFR 

275.12(c)(1), only specific 

circumstances allow telephone 

interviews to be used in lieu of face-toface interviews for the QC field 

investigation. Seventy percent of State 

agency responses to the RFI 37 question 

about the interview process included 

requests that telephone interviews be an 

acceptable interview method instead of 

face-to-face, citing reports of QC staff 

regularly traveling long distances only 

to find households failing to meet for 

the scheduled interview times, resulting 

in lost time and wasted administrative 

funds. During FNS’s QCIRs, SQCRs 

raised concerns about staff safety while 

conducting the required face-to-face 

interviews outside of the local office. 

Finally, comments on the RFI from nonprofit organizations presented that faceto-face interviews may be more 

challenging for SNAP’s working 

households to comply with. 

In considering the various comments 

provided by different stakeholders, the 

Department determined that switching 

to telephone interviews as the primary 

interview method will continue to meet 

the needs of the proposed QC review 

changes in this rule. As a result, the 

Department proposes to revise the QC 

personal interview regulation at 7 CFR 

275.12(c)(1) to require that telephone 

interviews be the default interview 

format, and require that State agencies 

inform households that a face-to-face 

interview is an option available to them 

by request. This change will not only 

address the concerns brought forth by 

commenters but may also have a 

positive impact on State agency 

completion rates since the increased 

flexibility that telephone interviewing 

allows will provide more households 

the opportunity to comply with the QC 

review process. The reason the 

Department proposes standardizing the 

telephonic interview as the default 

interview mode as opposed to making it 

another interview option is to ensure 

fair treatment for all sampled 

households during the QC review 

process. In addition, because of this 

change, the Department proposes to 

eliminate the exception at 7 CFR 

275.12(c)(1) available to remote, isolated 

households in Alaska because this 

proposed change will cause the 

exception to be unnecessary. 

Regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)(iii) 

require that, during the personal 

interview, reviewers must review with 

the household all documentary 

evidence in the household’s possession 

and secure information about collateral 

sources of verification. The Department 

proposes to amend the provisions at 7 

CFR 275.12(c)(1)(iii) to codify that 

during the personal interview, reviewers 

would also be required to review with 

the household all documentary 

evidence that is already in the case file 

and request new documentary evidence 

from the household, as needed. This is 

a best practice of State agencies and, by 

codifying this requirement, FNS seeks to 

ensure greater consistency in the 

interview process as well as 

accountability for the quality and scope 

of interviews, a vital component in the 

QC review process. 

7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)–(2)—Review of 

Active Cases—Collateral Contacts 

During, prior to, or after the personal 

interview, the SQCR may need to 

contact a collateral contact of the 

household who can be used as a source 

to verify household circumstances. 

Because State law might require an 

SQCR to obtain consent from the head 

of household to contact collateral 

contacts FNS codified the provision at 

7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)(iv), which currently 

reads, ‘‘If required by the State, the 

reviewer shall obtain consent from the 

head of the household to secure 

collateral information.’’ However, FNS 

has since discovered the language of 7 

CFR 275.12(c)(1)(iv) is being interpreted 

differently by States. For example, some 

States without such laws are still 

mandating consent be obtained, which 

has created roadblocks for SQCRs and 

resulted in preventing the SQCR from 

being able to complete cases. It is 

imperative that SQCRs accurately 

complete as many QC cases as possible 

without any unnecessary burdens. 

Therefore, the Department proposes to 

amend the language at 7 CFR 

275.12(c)(1)(iv) to clarify its intent by 

linking obtaining consent to the 

presence of a State law. 

Currently, regulations at 7 CFR 

275.12(c)(2) require SQCRs to obtain 

verification from collateral contacts in 

all instances when adequate 

documentation is not available from the 

household. The current regulatory 

provision does not address situations 

when there is inadequate 

documentation in the case file. 

Therefore, the Department proposes to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64768 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

38 31 U.S.C. 3351. 

39https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2018/06/M-18-20.pdf; Page 8. 

amend 7 CFR 275.12(c)(2) to require the 

reviewer to obtain verification from 

collateral contacts in all instances when 

adequate documentation is not 

available. 

7 CFR 275.12(d)—Review of Active 

Cases—Variance Identification 

According to Section 2(b) of the 

PIIA,38 an improper payment includes 

‘‘any payment that should not have been 

made or that was made in an incorrect 

amount, under a statutory, contractual, 

administrative, or other legally 

applicable requirement.’’ Per Section 

2(c), when an agency cannot discern 

whether a payment was proper because 

of lacking or insufficient 

documentation, the payment shall be 

treated as an improper payment. The 

Department proposes to amend and 

reorganize 7 CFR 275.12(d), as 

discussed in the three sections that 

follow, to reflect the new review focus 

and align it with requirements in PIIA. 

In addition, consistent with what was 

noted earlier, all references under 7 CFR 

275.12(d) regarding the ‘‘sample month’’ 

would either be changed to ‘‘action 

under review’’ or eliminated, where 

applicable. 

7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)—Review of Active 

Cases—Variances Excluded From Error 

Analysis 

Regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(d) define 

a ‘variance’ as a review finding that 

policy was applied incorrectly or that 

information verified as of the review 

date differs from the information used at 

the most recent certification action. The 

Department is also proposing to allow 

fewer opportunities for variance 

exclusion from the error analysis. There 

are two reasons for this proposal: (1) a 

more restrictive review focus in 

accordance with PIIA specifications on 

which errors are and are not considered 

payment errors; and (2) the change in 

review focus to reviewing only the 

household’s eligibility determination 

versus a point in time analysis. As such, 

the Department proposes to eliminate 

regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(i), (iii), 

and (ix). These provisions are related to 

variances associated with countable 

income unable to be verified at the time 

of certification, changes in household 

circumstances that were not yet 

required to be reported as of the review 

date, and changes to child support 

orders that occurred after the most 

recent certification action, respectively, 

and no longer align with the new review 

focus. Provisions (ii) and (viii) regarding 

variances resulting from postponed 

verification for expedited service 

households and from incorrect written 

Federal policy, respectively, would be 

revised, as further discussed below, and 

references to Immigration and 

Naturalization Services (INS) would be 

updated. 

FNS found in its QCIRs that 

inadequate documentation in household 

eligibility case records presents 

challenges for reviewers to complete 

cases, particularly in expedited service 

cases where verification of certain 

elements of eligibility is postponed. In 

these cases, the QC reviewer must rely 

solely on the eligibility case record to 

determine what verification was 

postponed and if any variances in 

benefits resulting from the postponed 

verification qualify to be excluded from 

the error rate calculation, called a 

variance exclusion. In these cases, a lack 

of required documentation should result 

in forfeiture of the variance exclusion 

since the reviewer cannot validate if 

regulatory requirements regarding 

verification were followed accurately. 

Current regulations are not clear that a 

lack of documentation means the 

exclusion does not apply, and some 

State agencies have used this ambiguity 

to apply the variance exclusion 

inappropriately. Therefore, the 

Department proposes to amend the 

language at 7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(ii) to 

clarify that, for this exclusion to apply, 

the case record must include clear 

documentation indicating which 

elements of verification were 

postponed. Otherwise, if an eligibility 

worker does not sufficiently document 

an element to indicate they properly 

postponed it, the exclusion would not 

apply and any variances arising from 

errors related to the element would then 

be included in the error determination 

process. 

The Department proposes to amend 

the current regulatory language at 7 CFR 

275.12(d)(2)(viii) [re-designated as 7 

CFR 275.12(d)(2)(vii)] regarding policy 

memoranda for clarity. Instead of 

specifying categories of policy 

memoranda, as exists now, the 

Department proposes to generalize the 

concept to be all-inclusive of SNAP 

policy memoranda issued. 

7 CFR 275.12(d)(3)—Review of Active 

Cases—Other Findings 

The regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(d) 

define a variance as a review finding 

that policy was applied incorrectly or 

that information verified as of the 

review date differs from the information 

used at the most recent certification 

action while the regulations at 7 CFR 

275.12(d)(1) and (2) further describe 

which variances are included in and 

excluded from the error analysis. 

Regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(d)(3) 

describe findings other than variances; 

however, there is currently no 

requirement to report these findings to 

a local office. When a SQCR does report 

a finding other than a variance, they do 

so through a notification comment that 

is sent along with the case’s official QC 

results. The lack of a requirement to 

report these findings can lead SQCRs to 

bypass those issues, thereby reducing 

the local eligibility office’s ability to 

determine whether a change in the case 

record is warranted following the QC 

review. This is important to address, 

because currently it is possible for a 

SQCR to learn information about a 

household’s current circumstances that 

do not affect the sample month under 

review but could affect the household’s 

ongoing SNAP allotment after the 

sample month. For example, a SQCR 

conducts an interview with a household 

in May for a case selected for the March 

sample month. During the interview, the 

SQCR finds that a household member 

recently started a new job that increased 

the household’s earned income over the 

income limit for its household size but 

failed to report this information to the 

State agency within the required time 

frames. The new earnings are 

excludable from the review because 

they occurred after the sample month, 

but the household is required to report 

this change and it may impact the 

household’s ongoing SNAP allotment in 

future months. 

As a result, the Department is 

proposing to amend 7 CFR 275.12(d)(3) 

by adding that the State QC office would 

be required to notify the local office of 

these other findings in all cases, 

regardless of the error impact those 

deficiencies may have on the case. The 

Department believes this notification is 

essential to good management of the 

Program, because it provides 

information about inaccuracies in the 

case file to eligibility staff, enabling 

them to correct the issue, prevent future 

errors from occurring, and potentially 

provide improved customer service to 

households. The Department also 

proposes to remove the following 

examples from the same paragraph since 

the household would not have been 

eligible for benefits according to SNAP 

rules at 7 CFR 273, and therefore, any 

benefits issued to such households are 

considered improper payments under 

PIIA: 39 an overdue subsequent 

certification and no current application 

on file. Additionally, the Department 

proposes to remove the following 

examples from the same paragraph since 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64769 

the change in review focus would no 

longer exclude them from variances 

cited in the QC review: insufficient 

documentation and incorrect 

application of the verification 

requirements specified in part 273. 

Currently, at 7 CFR 275.12(d)(3), State 

agencies have the discretion to act on 

findings other than error variances 

discovered during the review, which are 

pertinent to the SNAP household or the 

case record. Such findings may include, 

for example, the incorrect age of a 

household member that is unrelated to 

an element of eligibility and 

deficiencies in work registration 

procedural requirements, among others. 

The Department proposes to maintain 

this State agency discretion to act or not 

act on additional information 

discovered during the QC review. 

7 CFR 275.12(f)—Review of Active 

Cases—Reporting of Review Findings 

Consistent with the changes made at 

7 CFR 275.12(d)(3), where SQCRs would 

be required to document all variances 

discovered in the review and not just 

those causing a reportable error, the 

Department proposes to revise 

regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(f)(1) and 

(f)(2) to require reviewers include all 

variances in their individual review 

findings reports for both eligibility and 

basis of issuance variances, respectively. 

Changes in both sections would also 

remove the reference to ‘sample month’, 

as this would be consistent with the 

shift in review focus from a point in 

time to the eligibility action under 

review. 

7 CFR 275.12(g)—Review of Active 

Cases—Disposition of Case Reviews 

As noted, proposed updates to the 

active review would be more reflective 

of improper payment requirements for 

PIIA, which requires a more thorough 

reporting of errors. Currently, FNS 

‘‘charges’’ State agencies a penalty for 

having a low QC completion rate. This 

penalty is part of the calculation that 

determines the State agency’s PER. This 

method is unique to SNAP. Other 

programs that report for PIIA, follow a 

different process, whereby any case they 

are unable to complete for QC results in 

a total dollar error. In SNAP, reviewers 

drop cases for which they cannot verify 

an element of eligibility or basis for the 

benefit amount. For instance, if a case 

indicates the household received earned 

income, and the household is unable to 

provide verification or a collateral 

contact that can validate the 

information, the reviewer drops the case 

as incomplete. 

To be consistent with PIIA, the 

Department proposes to amend 7 CFR 

275.12(g)(1) so that, as with other 

Federal programs, all cases that cannot 

be completed, regardless of the reason, 

would result in the reporting of an error 

for the total allotment issued for the 

action under review. The Department 

requests public comment for 

considerations of circumstances it 

should consider in implementing this 

policy. 

The Department is also seeking 

feedback on whether there should be a 

threshold applied to completion rates in 

the proposed error rate calculation 

methodology, similar to the current 

percent completion threshold which 

requires a penalty be applied to a State 

agency’s error rate if it fails to complete 

at least 98 percent of its minimum QC 

case load. 

Current regulations at 7 CFR 

275.12(g)(1)(ii) list instances in which 

the household’s unwillingness to 

cooperate in completing a QC review 

has the effect of a refusal to cooperate. 

Those instances include when the 

household fails to respond to mail sent 

Certified Mail-Return Receipt 

Requested; when the household fails to 

attend an agreed upon interview; and 

when the household does not return a 

signed release of information after 

agreeing to do so or after receiving one 

through Certified Mail-Return Receipt 

Requested. FNS received input from 

State agencies through various meetings 

with the American Public Human 

Services Association (APHSA) that the 

use of certified mail is prohibitively 

expensive and that delivery and service 

issues with the United States Postal 

Service (USPS) have presented 

challenges even when using Certified 

Mail-Return Receipt Requested. 

APHSA members requested reviewers 

be provided an opportunity to use a 

process similar to the Request for 

Contact (RFC) process used for unclear 

information, as found in 7 CFR 

273.12(c)(3)(i)(A). FNS determined the 

use of a modified RFC process; whereby 

households that fail to respond to the 

request are suspended from SNAP for 

one month, with opportunity to verify 

their circumstances during that time, 

prior to having their SNAP participation 

terminated; is appropriate for QC 

purposes. This new process would be 

referred to as a request for quality 

control contact or RFQCC. Allowing a 

RFQCC will help State agencies 

complete cases and reduce the number 

of incomplete cases that, under the new 

process, would count as total dollar 

errors. The availability of this process 

will ensure integrity in the Program by 

encouraging households to cooperate 

with the QC process. It will also protect 

access to the Program for those 

households that do cooperate as 

required, as current regulations do not 

provide an additional month for the 

household to cooperate before the State 

must pursue termination of their 

participation. In addition, commonly 

known issues with mail delivery 

necessitate other allowable processes for 

States to utilize in gaining household 

cooperation. For that reason, the 

Department proposes to revise 7 CFR 

275.12(g)(1)(ii) by reordering the 

examples and adding the previously 

mentioned RFQCC process as an 

alternative way to respond to 

households that either refuse or fail to 

ever respond to communication from 

State QC to cooperate with the QC 

review. Similar to the RFC process 

outlined in 7 CFR 273.12(c)(3)(i)(B)(2), if 

the household fails to respond to the 

RFQCC, the reviewer will inform the 

State and the State will send a notice of 

adverse action that suspends the 

household for one month to allow the 

household an opportunity to cooperate 

with QC prior to termination. If the 

household does not cooperate with QC 

by the deadline provided in the notice 

of adverse action, the reviewer must 

notify the State agency of the 

household’s refusal and the State must 

follow through with terminating the 

household as stated at 7 CFR 

275.12(g)(1)(ii). 

The proposed review process would 

also require an update to regulations at 

7 CFR 275.12(g)(2) regarding active 

cases that are not subject to review. The 

Department proposes to eliminate the 

current provisions at 7 CFR 

275.12(g)(2)(iv) and 7 CFR 

275.12(g)(2)(ix) pertaining to 

households receiving restored benefits 

and households not receiving benefits in 

the sampled month, because the 

provisions would no longer be relevant 

to the way cases would be sampled. In 

addition, 7 CFR 275.12(g)(2)(x) would 

be removed because all cases in which 

the household is unable to be reached 

for the QC review would result in a total 

dollar error amount for the eligibility 

action under review, as mentioned 

above, and, therefore, no longer be 

considered a case not subject to review. 

As a result of the proposed changes, the 

Department would also reorganize the 

section to accommodate the removals 

and additions. 

Subpart E—Corrective Action 

7 CFR 275.16(b)(2)—Corrective Action 

Planning—Negative Cases 

In 2012, the Department changed the 

negative case review process in the final 

rule titled, Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program: Quality Control 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64770 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

40https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010- 

06-11/pdf/2010-13446.pdf. 

41https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018- 

06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf. 

42https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018- 

06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf. 

43FNS 380—OMB Form 0584–0074; FNS 245– 

OMB Form 0584–0034; FNS 380–1—OMB Form 

0584–0299. 

44https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018- 

06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf. 

Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107– 

171 (75 FR 33421),40 from a review of 

the accuracy of a denial, termination, or 

suspension to a process that 

incorporated a customer service review 

of those actions, including whether the 

State agency accurately informed the 

household of the reason for the action 

and whether the State agency’s 

procedures were correct. Since that 

change, the requirement at 7 CFR 

275.16(b)(2) for State agencies to 

implement a corrective action plan 

(CAP) whenever its CAPER rose above 

one percent has become impractical, as 

exceeding the one percent threshold 

became routine because of the new 

review procedures. State agencies have 

informed FNS of their concerns in 

various ways, including through 

conferences and advisory group 

meetings, since the first CAPER release 

in calendar year 2013. In the 2018 RFI,41

FNS requested feedback from 

commenters regarding the factors FNS 

should consider in revising the current 

CAP requirement for negative cases. 

FNS received ten comments about 

changes to CAP requirements and three 

suggested a threshold change for CAPs 

required on CAPERs. However, those 

three commenters overwhelmingly 

agreed the threshold should be 

increased. FNS based the current 

threshold on the previous negative case 

review process and now agrees that the 

threshold should be adjusted to better 

accommodate the process implemented 

in FY 2012. 

Consequently, the Department is 

proposing that a State agency would be 

required to implement a CAP when its 

CAPER is higher than the national 

CAPER for a given fiscal year. To do so, 

the Department proposes to amend 7 

CFR 275.16(b)(2) by removing the 

phrase ‘‘of 1 percent or more in negative 

cases’’ and adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘above the national average 

CAPER.’’ However, because FNS has 

received only limited and mainly 

anecdotal feedback from State agencies 

since the changes, the Department is 

seeking additional comments through 

this rulemaking regarding when State 

agencies would be required to 

implement a CAP to improve their 

CAPER. 

7 CFR 275.16(b)(4)—Corrective Action 

Planning—Incomplete Cases 

The CAP requirement at 7 CFR 

275.16(b)(4) for incomplete cases is 

another area that State agencies have 

questioned. A CAP is currently required 

whenever a State agency is unable to 

complete more than 5 percent of its 

annual QC caseload. The Department 

received comments to the 2018 RFI 42 on 

factors to consider in revising the 

current CAP requirement in this area. 

Ten commenters provided comments on 

factors to consider if revising the current 

CAP requirements. The commenters, 

which included eight State agencies, 

provided the following to consider: 

adjust the completion rate because a 95 

percent completion rate is unreasonable 

and unattainable for many State 

agencies; utilize the Federal regression 

rate penalty only if State agencies are 

not completing cases in accordance with 

Federal rules and regulations; adjust 

acceptable levels of performance before 

corrective action occurs based on trends 

and current data; and initiate CAPs only 

when FQCRs demonstrates that 

incomplete cases were completed by 

FQCRs and SQCRs had the ability to 

complete the case in the same manner. 

The Department considered these 

comments but determined that, due to 

the proposed new handling of 

incomplete cases as complete dollar 

amount errors, the most appropriate 

revision to this threshold would be to 

eliminate the CAP requirement 

altogether for active cases. 

Since this rule proposes to count the 

full allotment for incomplete cases as an 

error, the Department has concluded 

that the development of a separate CAP 

for active cases would be duplicative 

and unnecessary. This is due, in part, to 

the fact that an excess number of 

dropped cases would result in higher 

PERs and the Department has 

procedures, namely the liability and 

sanction process, to respond to high 

PERs. 

For negative cases, current rules 

related to dispositioning a case as 

incomplete in the negative sample frame 

stipulate that State agencies may list as 

incomplete only those cases where the 

whole case file cannot be located. This 

largely stems from long-standing 

requirements that eligibility workers 

fully document their case files in 

sufficient detail to permit a reviewer to 

determine the reasonableness and 

accuracy of the determination. As a 

practical matter, the incidence of 

incomplete negative cases by State 

agencies is extremely low. For example, 

for FY 2019, there were no dropped 

cases in the negative sample frame. 

For these reasons, the Department is 

proposing to remove the provision at 7 

CFR 275.16(b)(4). As a result, current 

regulations at 7 CFR 275.16(b)(5) will be 

redesignated as 7 CFR 275.16(b)(4). 

Subpart F—Responsibilities for 

Reporting on Program Performance 

7 CFR 275.21(b)(1)—Quality Control 

Review Reports—Mandating the Use of 

SNAP QC System 

In 2013, FNS successfully 

implemented a web-based electronic QC 

review system (SNAP–QCS) for State 

agencies to input their QC case review 

data, including the documentary 

evidence to support case reviews. 

Therefore, the Department is proposing 

to require State agencies to use the 

Federally funded SNAP–QCS. 

The primary purpose of SNAP–QCS is 

to provide a central location to house 

QC review cases which can be accessed 

at both the State and Federal levels. 

SNAP–QCS provides complete audit 

and status tracking for each case. All 

changes, beyond drafts, are available 

(where authorized) for comparison to 

prior iterations. SNAP–QCS contains 

edit check rules that prevent the 

submission by any user of information 

that violates business logic or other 

policy/regulatory guidance. In all cases, 

SNAP–QCS informs users of the nature 

of the rule violation in a manner that 

allows for correction of any such 

violation. 

Since its inception, SNAP–QCS has 

replaced numerous State agency legacy 

systems. The system provides the 

following functionality: the creation of 

worksheets and review schedules (FNS 

380, FNS–245 and FNS–380–1) 43 by the 

States, workflow management for State 

review worksheets and schedules; the 

Federal subsampling of QC review 

cases, the creation of review notes and 

findings by FQCRs, detailed workflow 

management for the Federal review 

process; tracking of case-related 

information, reporting tools for 

workflow and case characteristics, and 

analysis tools for advanced QC finding 

reports. 

FNS requested comments in the 2018 

RFI 44 as to whether the Department 

should mandate SNAP–QCS for all QC 

Worksheets. Ten State agency 

respondents commented on such a 

mandate. Four State agencies expressed 

support for mandated use of SNAP–QCS 

because they currently use it and 

asserted that it would allow for 

improved consistency in the submittal 

of required information to FNS across 

States. One State agency indicated it 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64771 

had no concerns about the mandate 

because State agencies would retain the 

option to maintain their own internal 

automated QC system and upload the 

results into SNAP–QCS. However, four 

State agencies objected to the mandated 

use of SNAP–QCS. One State agency 

noted SNAP–QCS does not account for 

special budgeting rules, such as waivers, 

and other commenters expressed 

concerns related to State system 

variability resulting in system 

modifications, increased work, and 

inefficient use of State agency staff time 

(e.g., double data entry). 

The Department appreciates all 

comments submitted. Most State agency 

commenters who opposed the 

requirement to use SNAP–QCS did not 

have experience using the automated 

version of the system. The Department 

understands there is a learning curve 

when a new reviewer begins using 

SNAP–QCS. FNS anticipates that 

mandating the use of SNAP–QCS will 

improve data integrity and expects that 

the edit checks would assist in accurate 

data collection. Therefore, the 

Department proposes to mandate the 

use of SNAP–QCS at 7 CFR 275.21(b)(1). 

This includes using the Auto-FNS Form 

380, FNS Form 380–1, and FNS Form 

245, and upload all documentation 

necessary to understand the disposition 

and findings for each sampled case. 

Subpart G—Program Performance 

7 CFR 275.23(b)(2)—Determination of 

State Agency Program Performance— 

Determination of Payment Error Rates 

To accurately apply the new sampling 

method to determine State agency 

program performance, the Department 

proposes to amend the language at 7 

CFR 275.23(b)(2)(i)(A) to clarify what 

the quantities y1, b1, x1, and X1 in the 

PER determination formula are and that 

X1 should be weighted (using Wi) to 

account for the differential selection 

probabilities of the new sampling 

design. The Department also proposes to 

amend the language at 7 CFR 

275.23(b)(2)(i)(B) to clarify what the 

quantities y2, b2, x2, and X2 in the 

formula are and that X2 should be 

weighted (using Wi) to account for the 

differential selection probabilities of the 

new sampling design. The Department 

also proposes to remove language about 

stratified sample designs covered by 

both provisions because it would no 

longer apply when using the proposed 

sampling method. 

To avoid confusion with the notation 

introduced in the new paragraph 7 CFR 

275.11(g), Active sample allocation, the 

Department proposes to change the 

notation of ‘‘u’’ to ‘‘Z’’ in paragraph 7 

CFR 275.23(b)(2)(i)(C). In addition, the 

Department proposes to remove and 

rephrase language about the quantity 

‘‘Z’’ to make its definition clearer. 

The assignment of error rates by FNS, 

whether for active or negative cases, has 

occurred only infrequently in the past. 

Typically, FNS made assignments 

because of extraneous circumstances 

beyond a State agency’s control, such as 

when a large disaster impedes its ability 

to complete cases. However, situations 

do arise in which FNS must assign rates 

to State agencies due to other reasons. 

FNS assigned multiple State agency 

error rates in FY 2017 due to data 

integrity issues and found that greater 

clarity in regulations at 7 CFR 

275.23(b)(2)(ii) is necessary. First, the 

Department proposes to amend the 

regulation to reflect the name change of 

the error rates for negative cases and 

clarify that assigned rates could be used 

in the determination of liability status, 

subject to 7 CFR 275.23(d). Second, the 

Department proposes to amend the 

paragraph by adding a statement at the 

end of the section to indicate that under 

no circumstance, would an assigned rate 

be eligible for appeal unless the rate 

resulted in a liability amount, per 7 CFR 

275.23(d). While these clarifications are 

consistent with current practice and 

law, the Department maintains that the 

additional language adds emphasis. 

7 CFR 275.23(b)(2)(iii)—State Agency 

Error Rates—Completion Rate Penalty 

The Department proposes to change 

the current penalties applied to State 

agencies that fail to complete 98 percent 

of their active QC caseload as described 

in 7 CFR 275.23(b)(2)(iii) by changing 

the application of the penalty to apply 

to any State agency that fails to sample 

the required minimum annual sample 

size, while also increasing the impact of 

the penalty. Since State agencies would 

report all active cases with a disposition 

of incomplete as a total dollar error for 

the sampled action under review, the 

Department believes there is a sufficient 

deterrent to past State agency practices 

of dispositioning cases as incomplete to 

avoid errors. Still, situations exist where 

a State agency may not sample the 

minimum sample size. For FY 2022, a 

total of seven States did not sample 

enough cases to meet the minimum 

regulatory requirement for active and 

negative sample frames. This could 

happen in situations beyond the control 

of the State agency, such as when a 

natural disaster impedes the State 

agency’s ability to sample and complete 

its required QC reviews. This could also 

occur in situations that are within the 

State agency’s control to prevent, such 

as when a State agency fails to 

sufficiently staff the QC unit and is 

subsequently unable to complete the 

required minimum sample size. 

Specifically, the Department seeks 

input on the proposal to apply an 

adjustment penalty to a State agency’s 

error rate when the State agency fails to 

sample enough cases to complete the 

minimum sample size in any given 

sample month, including the following: 

(1) if the changes proposed to the 

current penalty formula are sufficient 

and (2) whether FNS should distinguish 

in how it applies the penalty based on 

whether a State agency cannot sample 

its minimum sample size due to 

situations beyond its control. 

7 CFR 275.24—High Performance 

Bonuses 

Section 4013(d) of the 2018 Farm Bill 

removed the requirement for the 

Secretary to award performance bonus 

payments to State agencies and 

prohibited the Secretary from awarding 

performance bonuses in calendar year 

2019 for FY 2018 performance. The 

2018 Farm Bill also required the 

Department to establish performance 

criteria relating to actions taken to 

correct errors, reduce rates of error, 

improve eligibility determinations and 

any other indicators of effective 

administration determined by the 

Secretary. 

To ensure SNAP performance bonuses 

are removed from regulations 

throughout 7 CFR 275.24, the 

Department proposes to amend current 

regulations at 7 CFR 275.24 with this 

rulemaking and replace that language 

with performance criteria, as directed by 

Congress pursuant to Section 4013(d)(3) 

of the 2018 Farm Bill. The performance 

criteria mirror current language at 7 CFR 

275.24 but removes all references to 

bonuses and adjusts the language, 

grammar, and structure of the provision 

accordingly. The Department proposes 

these performance criteria because they 

mirror prior performance bonus criteria, 

which the Department believes, based 

on prior experience with performance 

bonuses, are informative measures of 

performance. 

7 CFR 275.24(a)(3)—Performance 

Measures—Program Access Index 

As one of the technical changes, the 

Department proposes to remove the 

fourth sentence in subparagraph 7 CFR 

275.24(a)(3)(i) as it is no longer 

necessary to allow an exception to 

calculating the program access index 

rate for the State of California as the 

State converted its cash out program to 

allow households to receive SNAP. 

Therefore, the Department can use 

actual SNAP participant numbers for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64772 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

their calculation and the sentence is 

unnecessary. 

Proposed Timeframe for 

Implementation of QC Sampling and 

Active Review Changes 

The Department recognizes the 

significant sampling and active review 

changes will require lead time and 

technical assistance for State agencies to 

come into compliance for 

implementation. The Department is 

considering establishing an 

implementation date of two full fiscal 

years after publication of the final rule. 

For example, if a final rule were 

published in March of 2027, the 

Department would establish an 

implementation date of October of 2029. 

The Department seeks input on this 

implementation timeline. 

To summarize, the simplification of 

the QC review is expected to benefit 

several stakeholders. Households would 

benefit from no longer having to provide 

verifications for multiple months in the 

certification period if their case is 

selected for QC review, SQCRs and 

FQCRs would have an equally robust 

but less complicated active case review 

to conduct, and the Department and 

Congress would benefit from both an 

improvement in the quality of 

information that comes out of the 

reviews and by being able to compare 

improper payments more effectively 

across government social safety net 

programs. 

In addition, simplifying the QC 

review in the proposed manner would 

also allow State agencies to implement 

more timely corrective actions. Timely 

corrective actions should reduce the 

compounding impact of improper 

payments as State agencies would be 

able to correct systemic errors and 

implement policies or processes more 

immediately, thus improving customer 

service to recipients, State agencies, and 

the American taxpayer. 

The Department acknowledges some 

of the most impactful changes for State 

agencies administering SNAP and 

households sampled for review include 

(1) the shift in review of the action that 

authorized the allotment; (2) the 

handling of cases that cannot be 

validated, and (3) the introduction of 

the RFQCC process. The Department 

asks for and welcomes comment on all 

provisions in this proposed rulemaking, 

and we also request comments on 

potential impacts, direct and indirect, of 

these changes on State agencies and 

SNAP households. The Department 

reiterates this is a proposed rule, and we 

will consider all comments provided 

before a final rule implements any 

changes to SNAP’s QC system. 

Procedural Matters 

Executive Order 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). Under Executive Order 12866, 

as amended, OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) determines whether a regulatory 

action is significant and, therefore, 

subject to OMB review. This proposed 

rule has been determined to likely be 

significant under E.O. 12866, as 

amended, and is being reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) in conformance with Executive 

Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes 

the importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. The analysis below outlines 

the impacts that the Department 

anticipates may result from this 

proposed rule, if finalized, and was 

prepared pursuant to the abovementioned executive orders. 

Summary of Total Cost Impacts 

A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 

must be prepared for rules which are 

determined to be significant under 

Section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as 

amended ($200 million or more in 

economic effects in any one year). 

USDA does not anticipate this proposed 

rule is likely to have an economic 

impact of $200 million or more in any 

one year, and therefore, does not meet 

the definition of significant under 

Section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 as 

amended. This proposed rule will not 

impact SNAP participants’ benefit 

levels. Overall household burden will 

increase due to the increase in case 

samples required by the new process, 

not by adding additional burden to 

individual households. 

The Department expects several of the 

proposed rule provisions to impact State 

Administrative Expenses (SAE) or FNS 

administrative costs. The rule includes 

the following changes expected to have 

measurable impacts: 

—Section 275.11(b)(1)(iii) modifies the 

active case sample size formulas for 

State reviewers and Federal rereviewers, increasing the sample size 

by 30 percent, to maintain the current 

level of precision. 

—Section 275.11(3)(1) changes the 

active case sampling frame from all 

households to those with an action, 

including initial certification, 

recertification, and the submission of 

monthly, quarterly, or periodic 

reports. 

—Section 275.12(b) clarifies that 

reviewers will only be required to 

examine households’ circumstances 

for the month that the action took 

place, eliminating the need for 

comparing households’ circumstances 

at the month of action versus the 

month of the review. As a result of the 

changes to the active case reviews, the 

shift to only reviewing eligibility 

actions will result in collecting less 

information about the household 

since only the point of eligibility will 

be reviewed, rather than a random 

point in time during a household’s 

certification, which requires the 

collection of a new month’s 

circumstances, not one that’s already 

in the case record. 

—Section 275.11(g) specifies that the 

active sample is divided into five 

strata, allowing the sample to be 

representative of the SNAP caseload. 

—Section 275.12(d)(3) requires SQCRs 

to notify local offices of all non-error 

causing variances found in the 

review. 

—Section 275.21(b)(1) mandates that 

SQCRs use the SNAP–QC system for 

QC reporting, rather than using their 

State systems. 

Below in Table E.1 is a summary of 

the combined impacts of these 

provisions on both State Agencies and 

the Federal Government. The Annual 

Baseline column shows the current 

annual costs for each row. The columns 

with FY headers are the difference 

between the annual baseline and new 

procedures resulting from this rule 

change in that specific fiscal year, with 

FY 2024 being the first implementation 

year and the first year in which the 

discount rate is applied. The Total 

column shows the sum of the five FY 

columns: the costs over the first five 

years of implementation. As noted 

previously, there are no anticipated 

impacts on SNAP allotments, but there 

are some expected costs for SNAP 

households as a result of the increased 

number of sampled households. Cost 

savings are anticipated after the 

implementation year, in FY 2026, due to 

expected reductions in the time needed 

for a caseworker to perform a QC review 

in under the new rule from 8.98 to 6.33 

hours. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64773 

TABLE E.1—SUMMARY OF TOTAL COST IMPACTS ** 

Impacts on state administrative expense 

(cost in nominal FY 2024 $000s) 

Baseline: Annualized cost differences from pre-rule baseline 

FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 Total 

New Sampling Procedures ................................................................................... $11,370.3 $3,393.4 ¥$950.9 ¥$950.9 ¥$950.9 ¥$950.9 ¥$410.2 

Training ................................................................................................................. 0.0 974.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 974.2 

Reporting all variances ......................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 411.5 411.5 411.5 411.5 1,646.0 

Record keeping ..................................................................................................... 59.8 0.0 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 71.6 

Help Desk ** .......................................................................................................... 70.0 0.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 840.0 

Require all States use QCS ** .............................................................................. 175.0 0.0 525.0 525.0 525.0 525.0 22,100.0 

Total ............................................................................................................... 11,675.1 4,367.6 213.5 213.5 213.5 213.5 55,221.6 

Discounted Cost Impact 

7 percent ............................................................................................................... 11,675.1 4,081.9 186.5 174.3 162.9 152.2 4,757.7 

3 percent ............................................................................................................... 11,675.1 4,240.4 201.2 195.4 189.7 184.2 5,010.9 

Impacts on Household Burden (cost in nominal 000s) 

Increase in Household Burden for Newly Sampled Cases .................................. 0.0 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 247.5 

Discounted Cost Impact 

7 percent ............................................................................................................... 0.0 46.3 43.2 40.4 37.8 35.3 203.0 

3 percent ............................................................................................................... 0.0 48.1 46.7 45.3 44.0 42.7 226.7 

* Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

** These costs are incurred only by the Federal Government. 

The net present value of costs to State 

and Federal governments over five years 

is $4,76 million at a seven percent 

discount rate and $5,01 million at a 

three percent discount rate. The net 

present value of costs to SNAP 

participants over five years is $203.0 

thousand at a seven percent discount 

rate and $226.7 thousand at a three 

percent discount rate. Annualized in 

perpetuity, the government costs are 

$333.04 ($150.33) thousand per year at 

a seven (three) percent discount rate, 

and participant costs are $14.21 ($6.80) 

thousand per year at a seven (three) 

percent discount rate. 

This rule change will result in 

substantive benefits for QC reviewers. 

By changing the active case review to 

focus on eligibility determinations 

(certifications, recertifications, and 

submission of required reports), the rule 

will result in the SNAP QC process 

being better aligned with how other 

Federal programs measure payment 

accuracy and with PIIA. The proposed 

changes are also expected to simplify 

QC reviews, which in turn will improve 

the quality of the reviews and of the 

information collected. The time spent 

by each caseworker in QC review is 

anticipated to drop from 8.98 to 6.33 

hours per case, which will result in 

¥$950.9 thousands in savings per year, 

even accounting for the expected 

increase in 13,649 QC reviews per year 

(see Table E.3). Simplifying the process 

and focusing on eligibility actions will 

also allow for more timely corrective 

actions. 

Implementation Costs (State and 

Federal Administrative Expense) 

Developing New Sampling Plans. 

Statisticians from each of the 53 State 

Agencies will need to develop new 

sampling plans for active cases. It will 

take an estimated 40 hours for each 

State Agency to develop a plan. Given 

an hourly rate of $47.81 (the median 

hourly wage for a statistician, according 

to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)), 

the total one-time cost is $101,400 

(Table E.2). Because these are State 

Administrative Expenses for which the 

Federal Government reimburses States, 

$50,700 will be borne by the Federal 

Government and $50,700 will be borne 

by State Agencies. 

Training SQCRs on new review 

procedures. SQCRs will need to be 

trained in the changes to the active case 

QC review process. There are 

approximately 634 SQCRs. Training will 

take an estimated 40 hours. At an hourly 

rate of $27.83 (the median hourly rate 

for a social worker, according to the BLS 

at time of analysis), the total cost for 

training will be $705,800. Because these 

are State Administrative Expenses for 

which the Federal Government 

reimburses States, $352,900 will be 

borne by the Federal Government and 

$352,900 will be borne by State 

Agencies. 

Training SQCRs on entering data into 

the SNAP QC system. All SQCRs will be 

required to enter QC review data into 

the SNAP QC system. Currently, 263 

SQCRs of an estimated 634 SQCRs 

nationwide are entering QC data into 

the SNAP QC system. Therefore, based 

on this estimate, an additional 371 

SQCRs will need to be trained on how 

to enter data into SNAP–QCS by making 

the system mandatory. This training 

will take an estimated 26 hours. At an 

average social worker rate of $27.83, the 

cost for this training will be $268,400. 

Because these are State Administrative 

Expenses for which the Federal 

Government reimburses States, 

$134,200 will be borne by the Federal 

Government and $134,200 will be borne 

by State Agencies. 

Longer time initially processing cases. 

During the first year, reviewers are 

expected to take an estimated 2 hours 

longer to review each case as they 

become accustomed to the changes in 

QC. With an estimated 59,149 cases, at 

$27.83 an hour, the one-year cost is 

$3,292,100. Because these are State 

Administrative Expenses for which the 

Federal Government reimburses States, 

$1,646,100 will be borne by the Federal 

Government and $1,646,100 will be 

borne by State Agencies. 

These one-time implementation costs 

will total an estimated $4,367,700, of 

which $2,183,900 will be borne by the 

Federal Government and $2,183,900 

borne by State Agencies. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64774 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

45The changes in sampling procedures only affect 

active cases, not negative cases. 

TABLE E.2—IMPLEMENTATION COSTS (STATE AND FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE) * 

Develop 

sampling 

plan 

Train SQCRs on 

new review 

procedures 

Train QC 

revisers to 

use QC system 

Additional time 

for SQCRs to 

process active 

cases 

Total 

implementation 

cost 

Number Impacted .................................................... 53.0 634.0 371.0 59,146.1 ............................

Time (hours) ............................................................. 40.0 40.0 26.0 2.0 ............................

Hourly rate ............................................................... $47.8 $27.8 $27.8 $27.8 ............................

Total Cost ($000) ..................................................... $101.4 $705.8 $268.4 $3,292.1 $4,367.7 

Federal Share ($000) ............................................... $50.7 $352.9 $134.2 $1,646.1 $2,183.9 

State Share ($000) .................................................. $50.7 $352.9 $134.2 $1,646.1 $2,183.9 

* Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

Annual Operational Costs and Cost 

Savings (State Administrative Expense) 

Impact of changes in sample size and 

review procedures. Currently, SQCRs 

review 45,497 active cases per year.45 It 

takes an average of 8.908908 hours per 

review. The median hourly rate for a 

social worker is $27.83. Thus, the cost 

of performing QC reviews is currently 

an estimated $11,370,300. (Table E.3)) 

Under the proposal, SQCRs will review 

about 59,146 cases per year, an increase 

of 30 percent. However, after the first 

year, the average time per review is 

expected to drop from 8.908908 hours to 

6.33 hours. This is because reviewers 

will only be required to examine 

households’ circumstances for the 

month that the action took place, 

eliminating the need for comparing 

households’ circumstances at the month 

of action versus the month of the 

review. The cost of performing QC 

reviews is estimated to be $10,419,400, 

a savings of $950,900. Because these are 

State Administrative Expenses the 

savings will be equally split between the 

Federal Government and State Agencies, 

with each saving $475,450. 

New requirement to report non-error 

causing variances. Currently, States are 

not required to report non-error causing 

variances back to local SNAP offices. 

Section 275.12(d)(3) will require SQCRs 

to notify the local office of deficiencies 

in all cases, regardless of the error 

impact on the case. Little is known 

about how many variances of these 

kinds are currently reported, how many 

non-error causing variances will be 

reported under the requirement, or how 

long it takes to report such variances. 

Some cases will have no non-error 

causing variances, whereas others may 

have multiples of these variances. FNS 

is assuming that the additional time will 

average 15 minutes per case. This 

average is not meant to assume that all 

cases will have variances to report; 

rather, it is an average to balance cases 

with many variances to report against 

cases that have no additional variances 

to report. Using the hourly rate of 

$27.83 for a social worker times 59,146 

cases (this is equal to 30 percent more 

than the FY 2017 actives QC case load, 

as required by the proposed sampling 

methodology) times 15 minutes per case 

yields a cost estimate of about $411,500, 

of which nearly $205,750 will be borne 

by the Federal Government and 

$205,750 will be borne by State 

Agencies. 

Record keeping for more cases. States 

are required to keep records of all State 

QC reviews. It is estimated that the 

record keeping takes about 3 minutes 

per case, and that will be unchanged 

under the proposed system. However, 

because the number of cases is 

increasing by 13,649, using the average 

hourly rate of $27.83 for a social worker, 

the cost will increase by an estimated 

$17,900. This cost will be split between 

the Federal Government ($8,950) and 

State Agencies ($8,950). 

New requirement to attest the validity 

of the sampling plan. State Agencies 

will now be required to provide an 

annual statement attesting to the 

validity of the sampling plan. The time 

to provide the statement is estimated to 

be 12 minutes. Each of the 53 State 

Agencies will have a SNAP manager 

provide this statement. According to the 

Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the 

median rate for a general manager is 

$55.41 at time of analysis. Thus, the cost 

is $600 per year, $300 borne by the 

Federal Government and $300 borne by 

State Agencies. 

Increased QC help desk support. FNS 

will be required to provide increased 

help desk support. Currently, FNS 

contracts for one staff member to 

provide this support, at an annual cost 

of $70,000. FNS anticipates needing to 

contract for three additional people, for 

an additional cost of $210,000. This cost 

will be entirely borne by the Federal 

Government. 

Additional QC data storage. FNS 

currently stores the SNAP QC data on 

six servers, at an annual cost of 

$27,333.33 per server, or $164,000 total. 

In addition, the storage costs are 

currently $11,000 per year. With all 

States using the SNAP QC data system 

and the increased sample size, FNS 

anticipates that these costs will 

quadruple, to $656,000 for the servers 

and $44,000 for storage, for a total of 

$700,000. The additional cost will total 

$492,000 for the servers and $33,000 for 

storage, for a total of $525,000. This cost 

will be entirely borne by the Federal 

Government. 

The total annual administrative cost 

of the changes to the QC review process 

is estimated to be $214,100. Because 

some costs, such as help desk support 

and additional data storage, are not 

shared with State Agencies, the 

estimated cost to the Federal 

Government is $474,600. State Agencies 

are expected to save $260,500 annually 

due to the reduced case processing time. 

Annual Household Administrative 

Burden 

As discussed previously, the changes 

to the case sampling procedures will 

result in an overall increase in the 

number of cases sampled each year, 

from 45,497 annually to 59,146 (an 

increase of 13,649 cases). As described 

in the Paperwork Reduction Act section 

of this proposed rule, the burden to an 

individual household selected for 

review is not expected to change and 

will remain about 30 minutes per 

household. However, since the number 

of cases selected will increase, overall 

household burden will also increase. 

The increase is expected to cost 

$49,477.6 annually (13,649 cases × .5 

hours per case × minimum wage of 

$7.25). 

Uncertainties 

While this proposed rule is expected 

to improve SNAP program integrity, it is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64775 

unclear whether the rule provisions will 

result in additional sanctions or 

liabilities being imposed on State 

Agencies as a result of these proposed 

changes. 

TABLE E.3—ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS AND SAVINGS (CHANGES FROM CURRENT PROCEDURES) * 

Annual variable 

costs 

Current 

units 

Proposed 

units 

Difference Current 

hours 

Proposed 

hours 

Difference 

($) 

Current 

hourly 

rate 

($) 

Proposed 

hourly 

rate 

($) 

Difference 

($) 

Current 

cost 

($000’s) 

Proposed 

cost 

($000’s) 

Difference 

($000’s) 

Processing Active Cases ...... 45,497.00 59,146.10 13,649.10 8.98 6.33 ¥2.65 27.83 27.83 0.00 11,370.30 10,419.40 ¥950.90 

Reporting all 

non-error 

causing 

Variances ....... 0.00 59,146.00 59,146.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 27.83 27.83 0.00 0.00 411.50 411.50 

Record Keeping 45,497.00 59,146.10 13,649.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 27.83 27.83 0.00 59.80 77.70 17.90 

Attest Sample 

Plan ................ 53.00 53.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 55.41 55.41 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 

Annual Fixed 

Costs Current 

unit cost 

($) 

Proposed 

unit cost 

($) 

Help Desk Support ................. 1.00 4.00 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 70,000.00 70,000.00 0.00 70.00 280.00 210.00 

Servers .............. 6.00 24.00 18.00 N/A N/A N/A 27,333.33 27,333.33 0.00 164.00 656.00 492.00 

Storage .............. 1.00 4.00 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 11,000.00 11,000.00 0.00 11.00 44.00 33.00 

Total Annual 

Costs ...... ................ ................ ................ ............ ............ ............ ................ ................ ............ 11,675.10 11,889.20 214.10 

Federal 

Share ...... ................ ................ ................ ............ ............ ............ ................ ................ ............ 5,95960.05 6,434.60 474.55 

State Share ................ ................ ................ ............ ............ ............ ................ ................ ............ 5,75715.05 5,454.60 ¥260.45 

* Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

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. The entities impacted by 

this rule are State SNAP agencies that 

conduct QC reviews, which are not 

considered small entities for purposes of 

this analysis. 

Pursuant to our review, the 

Department certifies that this rule will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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. 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 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 $100 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 

SNAP is listed in the Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance under 

Number 10.551. For the reasons set forth 

in the Final Rule codified in 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V and the related Notice 

(48 FR 29115), this Program is excluded 

from the scope of Executive Order 

12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. 

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 13121. 

The Department has considered the 

impact of this proposed rule, with 

comment, on State and local 

governments and has determined that 

this rule does not have federalism 

implications. Therefore, under Section 

6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism 

summary is not required. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform 

This proposed 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 proposed rule, 

Provisions to Improve the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program’s QC 

System, in accordance with the 

Department Regulation 4300–004, Civil 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64776 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Rights Impact Analysis to identify and 

address any major civil rights impacts 

the proposed rule may have on 

participants on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, sex, and disability. A 

comprehensive Civil Rights Impact 

Analysis (CRIA) was conducted on the 

proposed rule, including an analysis of 

data and provisions contained in the 

proposed rule. The CRIA outlines 

outreach and mitigation strategies to 

lessen any possible civil rights impacts. 

The CRIA concludes the provisions of 

the proposed rule will impact the 

statistical design and active case review 

process, as well as clarify and update 

current regulations. The proposed rule 

would result in more SNAP households 

being selected for QC review in the 

active frame. The demographic profile 

of SNAP participants includes 

minorities, persons with disabilities, 

and the elderly; thus, program 

participants in these groups may be 

selected for QC review in the active 

frame. Additionally, the proposed rule 

will require State agencies to revise 

their review procedures, possibly 

resulting in less onerous reviews for a 

larger number of cases. The Department 

finds that the implementation of 

mitigation strategies and monitoring by 

the FNS Civil Rights Division and FNS 

SNAP may lessen these impacts. If 

necessary, the FNS Civil Rights Division 

will propose further mitigation and 

outreach strategies to alleviate impacts 

that may result from the implementation 

of the proposed rule. 

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. 

This regulation has possible Tribal 

implications, so consultation is 

required. FNS attended a Tribal 

consultation meeting on May 1, 2019, in 

Washington, DC and virtually to a 

Nevada meeting on December 6, 2022, 

where the changes to this rule were 

explained. No questions or concerns 

were brought to FNS’s attention about 

this rule by any members of either 

meeting. If further consultation is 

requested, the Office of Tribal Relations 

will work with FNS to ensure quality 

consultation is provided. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR 1320), 

requires that the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) approve all 

collections of information by a Federal 

agency from the public 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. We are 

seeking a new OMB Control Number for 

these new, existing, and changing 

provisions in this rule and, once OMB 

approves the information collection 

request burden associated with this 

rulemaking, we will submit a request to 

merge the burden hours into their 

respective OMB Control Numbers. Once 

the merge is approved the newly 

assigned OMB control number can be 

discontinued. The current burden 

inventories for this collection are found 

in OMB–0584–0074, Expiration Date: 

07/30/2025; 0584–0299, Expiration 

Date: 07/31/2023, and 0584–0303, 

Expiration Date: 1/31/2024. 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. 

Comments on the information 

collection in this proposed rule must be 

received by November 20, 2023. 

Send comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for FNS, 

Washington, DC 20503. Please also send 

a copy of your comments to John 

McCleskey, Branch Chief, Quality 

Control Branch, Program 

Administration and Nutrition Division, 

1320 Braddock Place, 5th Floor; 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314. For further 

information, or for copies of the 

information collection requirements, 

please contact John McCleskey at the 

address indicated above. Comments are 

invited on: (1) whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

Agency’s functions, including whether 

the information will have practical 

utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency’s 

estimate of the proposed information 

collection burden, including the validity 

of the methodology and assumptions 

used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) ways to minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, including use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

All responses to this request for 

comments will be summarized and 

included in the request for OMB 

approval. All comments will also 

become a matter of public record. 

Title: Provisions to Improve the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program’s Quality Control System. 

OMB Number: 0584–NEW. 

Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined. 

Type of Request: New collection. 

Abstract: Section 16 of the Act 

provides the legislative basis for the 

operation of the QC system. Part 275, 

Subpart C, of SNAP regulations 

implements the legislative mandates 

found in section 16. Regulations at 7 

CFR 275.1, 275.14(d) and 275.21(a) and 

(b)(1) provide the regulatory basis for 

the QC reporting requirements. Section 

11(a) of the Act provides the legislative 

basis for the recordkeeping 

requirements. Existing SNAP 

regulations at 7 CFR 275.4 specifically 

address record retention requirements 

for QC including form FNS–380, FNS– 

380–1, and the sampling plans found in 

7 CFR 275 of the regulations. 

Component (1) Form FNS–380 [OMB 

Control Number: 0584–0074], is a SNAP 

worksheet used to determine eligibility 

and benefits for households selected for 

review in the QC sample of active SNAP 

cases. This form provides a systematic 

means of aiding the State’s Quality 

Control Reviewer in analyzing the case 

record, planning and doing field 

investigation and gathering, comparing, 

analyzing and evaluating data. FNS 

estimates that while this rule will 

require thirty percent more cases 

(households) be reviewed for QC, the 

rule does not change the existing burden 

on households, and will effectively 

decrease the ongoing burden for 53 State 

agencies by 20,151 hours annually. In 

addition, in order to implement the 

changes of the rule in the first year, the 

rule will add 196,915.17 startup burden 

hours for State agencies. These startup 

hours include 40 hours of training for 

263 State QC reviewers on just the new 

review procedures for active cases, 64 

hours to train 371 reviewers on using 

both SNAPQCS’s automated FNS 380 

worksheet and the new review 

procedures for active cases, and FNS is 

including 2.75 hours of additional time 

for State agencies to complete the FNS 

380 worksheet for each case review to 

properly review and document 

according to the new procedures for the 

active case review. The revised total 

ongoing burden associated with this 

rule for this component is 385,844.12 

reporting and recordkeeping burden 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64777 

hours and the first year’s total reporting 

and recordkeeping burden due to 

rulemaking including the startup hours 

is 196,915.17 hours, bringing the total 

burden in the first year of 

implementation of the rule to 

582,759.29 reporting and recordkeeping 

hours for this component. 

Component (2) FNS 380–1 [OMB 

Control Number: 0584–0299], is SNAP’s 

QC Review Schedule which collects QC 

and household characteristics data. The 

information needed to complete this 

form is obtained from the SNAP case 

record and State quality control 

findings. The information is used to 

monitor and reduce errors, develop 

policy strategies, and analyze household 

characteristic data. FNS estimates this 

rule will require 53 State agencies a 

revised total of 63,853.892 ongoing 

reporting and recordkeeping burden 

hours annually for this component of 

this collection. This is an increase of 

14,735.33 burden hours. An estimated 

total of 742 additional startup hours are 

necessary for the first year’s 

implementation of components within 

this collection for this rule. This startup 

includes 2 hours for 371 State QC 

reviewers to be trained on how to use 

SNAPQCS’s automated FNS 380–1 

worksheet. The revised total reporting 

and recordkeeping ongoing burden 

hours for the first year 64,595.89 hours. 

Component (3) In the 275 regulations 

[OMB Control Number: 0584–0303], 

each State agency is required to develop 

a QC sampling plan that demonstrates 

the integrity of its case selection 

procedures. The QC system is designed 

to measure each State agency’s payment 

error rate based on a statistically valid 

sample of SNAP cases. A State agency’s 

payment error rate represents the 

proportion of cases that were reported 

through a QC review as being ineligible, 

overissued and underissued as well as 

the proportion of SNAP allotments that 

were either overissued or underissued 

to SNAP households. The FNS 311 

Handbook is used by State agencies as 

a reference tool for creating their 

sampling plans. The current ongoing 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection is 2,829 hours. FNS 

estimates this rule will require 53 State 

agencies a revised total of 2,829 ongoing 

reporting and recordkeeping hours and 

an additional 2,120 startup reporting 

burden hours for this first year of 

implementation of components within 

this rule. These startup hours include 40 

hours for 53 State agency statisticians to 

update their State’s sampling 

procedures to comply with the new 

sampling requirements of this rule. The 

first year of implementation for this 

component of the rule will require a 

total of 4,949 reporting and 

recordkeeping burden hours. 

In total, FNS estimates this rule will 

decrease the overall ongoing burden 

associated with these three collections 

by 5,416 reporting burden hours. The 

overall total burden for these three 

components associated with the rule 

will require 53 State agencies, a total of 

422,951 ongoing reporting and 

recordkeeping burden hours and 59,146 

households 29,573 ongoing reporting 

burden hours annually. FNS also 

estimates this rule will require State 

agencies an additional 199,777.17 

startup burden hours to implement the 

changes in this rule. Therefore, a grand 

total of 652,302 reporting and 

recordkeeping burden hours are 

estimated for this first year of 

implementation for this rule. This rule 

affects the three components of the QC 

process mentioned above, the use of (1) 

FNS forms 380, (2) FNS 380–1 and (3) 

the creation of the State QC Sampling 

plan attestation. The average burden per 

response and the annual startup and 

ongoing burden hours are explained 

below and summarized in the charts 

that follow. 

Ongoing Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Burden 

FNS 380: A SNAP worksheet used to 

determine eligibility and allotment 

amounts for households selected for 

review in the QC sample of active SNAP 

cases. 

Reporting Respondents for this 

Proposed Rule: 59,199 (59,146 

Individuals/Households and 53 State, 

Local and Tribal Government). 

Estimated reporting responses for this 

Rule: 473,172 responses (59,146 for 

Individuals/Households and 473,172 for 

State, Local and Tribal Government). 

Estimated hours per reporting 

response: 6.58 hours (0.5 hours for 

Individuals/Households and 6.08 hours 

for State, Local and Tribal Government). 

Estimated Responses per Respondent 

to report for this Rule: 7812.81 (7,811.81 

responses per State agency and 1 

response per Household). 

Estimated Reporting hours for this 

Rule: 384,449 hours (354,876 hours for 

State agencies and 29,573 burden hours 

for Households). 

Estimated Records to keep per 

respondent for this Rule: 59,146 records 

for State agencies and there is no 

recordkeeping burden imposed on 

Individuals/Households. 

Estimated hours per recordkeeping 

response: 0.0236 hour. 

Estimated Total Recordkeeping hours 

for this Rule: 1,396 hours. 

Estimated Total Ongoing Annual 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 

for this rule: 385,845 hours. 

Rule impacting ongoing reporting and 

recordkeeping burden: ¥20,151 hours. 

FNS 380–1: SNAP’s QC Review 

Schedule which collects QC and 

household characteristics data. 

Respondents for this Proposed Rule: 

53 State, Local, and Tribal Government. 

Estimated Responses for this 

Proposed Rule: 59,146 responses. 

Estimated Responses per Respondent 

to report for this Proposed Rule: 

1,115.96 responses. 

Estimated hours to report each 

response: 1.056 hours. 

Estimated Total Reporting burden for 

this Rule: 62,458 hours. 

Estimated Records to keep for this 

Proposed Rule: 59,146 responses. 

Estimated Number of Records to keep 

per respondent for this Rule: 1,115.96 

records per respondent to keep. 

Estimated hours per recordkeeping 

response: 0.0236 hour. 

Estimated Total Recordkeeping 

burden for this Rule: 1,395.84 hours. 

Estimated Annual reporting and 

recordkeeping Burden on Respondents 

for this Proposed Rule: 63,853.89 hours. 

Rule impacting ongoing reporting and 

recordkeeping burden: +14,735.33 

hours. 

FNS 275 Rules: Sampling Plan, 3rd 

Party Contractors, Arbitration, Good 

Cause, New Investment 

Estimated Respondents for this 

Proposed Rule: 53 State, Local, and 

Tribal Government. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent to report for this Proposed 

Rule: 129 responses. 

Estimated hours to report for each 

response: 21.91 hours. 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden for 

this rule: 2826 hours. 

Estimated Records to keep for this 

Rule: 246 records. 

Estimated Records to keep per 

respondent for this Rule: 4.64 records 

per respondent. 

Estimated hours to keep records for 

each response: 0.118 hours. 

Estimated Total Recordkeeping 

burden for this Rule: 2.7612 hours. 

Estimated annual reporting and 

recordkeeping Burden on Respondents 

for this Proposed Rule: 545 hours. 

Rule impacting ongoing reporting and 

recordkeeping burden: 0 hours. 

Estimated Grand Total Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Ongoing burden for this 

rule: 2,828.75 hours. 

Estimated Total Rule impacting 

ongoing reporting and recordkeeping 

burden: 0 hours. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64778 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Startup Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Burden 

FNS 380: 

Reporting Respondents for this 

Proposed Rule: 687 State, Local and 

Tribal Government (53 State agencies 

and 634 State QC reviewers). 

Estimated Number of startup 

reporting responses for this Rule: 

237,218 responses. 

Estimated hours per reporting 

response: .83 hours. 

Estimated Number of annual 

Reporting hours for this Rule: 196,915 

hours. 

Estimated Total Recordkeeping 

startup hours for this Rule: 0 hours. 

Estimated Total startup year Burden 

for this Rule: 196,915 hours. 

FNS 380–1: 

Reporting Respondents for this 

Proposed Rule: 371 State QC Reviewers. 

Estimated Number of startup 

reporting responses per respondent for 

this Rule: 1 response. 

Estimated hours per reporting 

response: 2 hours. 

Estimated Number of annual 

Reporting hours for this Rule: 742 hours 

for State reviewers. 

Estimated Total startup year 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 

for this Rule: 742 hours. 

FNS 275: 

Reporting Respondents for this 

Proposed Rule: 53 State, Local and 

Tribal Government. 

Estimated Number of startup 

reporting responses for this Rule: 53 

responses. 

Estimated hours per reporting 

response: 40 hours. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent to report for this Rule: 1 

response. 

Estimated Number of annual 

Reporting hours for this Rule: 2,120 

hours. 

Estimated Total Recordkeeping 

startup hours for this Rule: 0 hours. 

Estimated Total startup Burden for 

this component of this Rule: 2,120 

hours. 

Estimated Grand Total Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Startup burden for this 

rule: 452,524.40 hours. 

Estimated Grand Total Reporting and 

Recordkeeping burden for first year for 

this rule: 652,302 hours. 

TABLE A.1—REVISED I/H REPORTING BURDEN

Reporting burden for individuals/households FNS 380, OMB 0584–0074 

Reg. section Description of activity 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Revised 

total annual 

responses 

Revised 

number of 

burden 

hours per 

response 

Revised 

estimated 

total burden 

hours 

Previous 

submission 

total hours 

Difference 

due to 

program 

changes 

Difference 

due to 

adjustments 

275.12 (c)(1) .. Personal Interviews—Individuals or Households.59,146.00 1 59,146.00 0.5 29,573 22,748 .................... +6,825 

Individuals & Households Grand Total Reporting Burden Hours.59,146.00 .................... 59,146.00 .................... 29,573 .................... .................... +6,825 

TABLE A.2—REVISED STATE AGENCY (SA) REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING BURDEN 0584–0074 

Reg. section Description of activity 

Est 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Revised 

total annual 

responses 

Revised 

number 

of burden 

hours per 

response 

Revised 

estimated 

total burden 

hours 

Previous 

submission 

total hours 

Difference 

due to 

program 

changes 

Difference 

due to 

adjustments 

Reporting Burden for State Agencies FNS 380, OMB 0584–0074 

275.12 (b) ....... Household Case Record Review.53 1,115.96 59,146 2 118,292 136,490.37 ¥18,199 ....................

275.12 (c) ........ Field investigation .................... 53 1,115.96 59,146 2 118,292 159,238.77 ¥40,947 ....................

275.12 (c)(1) ... Personal interviews .................. 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.5 29,573 22,748.40 6,825 ....................

275.12 (d)(1) ... Variance identification .............. 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.5 29,573 40,947.11 ¥11,374 ....................

275.12 (e) ....... Error analysis ........................... 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.5 29,573 22,748.40 6,825 ....................

275.12 (f) ........ Reporting of review findings .... 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.25 14,786 n/a 14,786 ....................

275.12 (d)(3) ... Reporting all variances to 

Local offices.

53 1,115.96 59,146 0.25 14,786 n/a 14,786 ....................

Sub Total Reporting Burden .......................... 53 7,811.72 414,021 6.08 354,875 382,173 ¥27,298 0 

Recordkeeping Burden for State Agencies FNS 380, OMB 0584–0074 

FNS 380 Recordkeeping 

275.4 ............... Record Retention ..................... 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.0236 1,396 1,073.73 322.113568 ....................

Grand Total Reporting & Recordkeeping 

Burden.

53 .................... 473,167 0.75295 356,271 383,247 ¥26,976 0 

TABLE A.3—STATE AGENCY (SA) REPORTING STARTUP BURDEN 0584–0074 

Reg. section Description of 

activity 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Startup 

annual 

responses 

Startup 

number of 

burden 

hours 

per 

response 

Startup 

estimated 

total 

burden 

hours 

Reporting Burden Hours for State Agencies FNS 380, OMB 0584–0074 STARTUP Hours First Year Only 

275.12 (d)(1) .................................................. Variance identification ................................... 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.75 44,359.41 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64779 

TABLE A.3—STATE AGENCY (SA) REPORTING STARTUP BURDEN 0584–0074—Continued 

Reg. section Description of 

activity 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Startup 

annual 

responses 

Startup 

number of 

burden 

hours 

per 

response 

Startup 

estimated 

total 

burden 

hours 

275.12 (e) ...................................................... Error analysis ................................................ 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.75 44,359.41 

275.12 (f) ....................................................... Reporting of review findings ......................... 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.5 29,572.94 

275.12 (d)(3) .................................................. Reporting findings to Local offices ............... 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.75 44,359.41 

275.12 ............................................................ Training State Agency QC reviewers on 

New Actives Process only.

263 1 263 40 10,520.00 

275.12 and 275.21 (b)(1) ............................... Train reviewers on New Actives Process 

AND train new SNAPQCS users (reviewers) how to use SNAPQCS for 380.

371 1 371 64 23,744.00 

Grand Total STARTUP Hours Reporting Burden Only ..................................................... 687 345.294789 237,218 106.75 196,915.17 

TABLE A.4—STATE AGENCY (SA) REPORTING REVISED BURDEN 0584–0299 

Reg. section Description of 

activity 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Revised 

total 

annual 

responses 

Revised 

number of 

burden 

hours per 

response 

Revised 

estimated 

total annual 

burden hours 

Previous 

submission 

total hours 

Difference 

due to 

program 

changes 

Difference 

due to 

adjustments 

FNS 380–1 Reporting for State Agencies OMB Control Number 0584–0299 

275.12(f) ................ Reporting of Review Findings.53 1,115.96 59,146 1.056 62,458.049 48,044.83 14,413.22 ....................

Grand Total Reporting Burden Hours 

Only.

53 1,115.96 59146 1.056 62,458.049 ........................ 14,413.22 ....................

Reg. section Description of 

activity 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Annual 

responses 

Ongoing 

number of 

burden 

hours per 

response 

Number of 

annual burden 

hours per 

response 

Previously 

submission 

total burden 

Differences 

due to 

program 

changes 

Differences 

due to 

adjustments 

FNS 380–1 Recordkeeping Ongoing 

275.4 ..................... Record Retention .. 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.0236 1395.842768 1,073.7292 322.1136 ....................

Grand Total Affected Public ............... 53 2,231.92 118,292 1.08 63,853.892 49,118.56 14,735.33 ....................

TABLE A.5—STATE AGENCY (SA) STARTUP BURDEN 0584–0299 

Reg. section Description 

of activity 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Startup 

annual 

responses 

Startup 

number 

of 

burden 

hours per 

response 

Startup 

number 

of 

annual 

burden 

hours per 

response 

FNS 380–1 Reporting for State Agencies OMB Control Number 0584–0299 STARTUP First Year Only 

275.21 (b)(1) ...................................................... Train new State agency reviewers how to use 

SNAPQCS for 380–1.

371 1 371 2 742 

Grand Total STARTUP Hours Reporting Burden Only ............................................................. 371 1 371 2 742 

TABLE A.6—STATE AGENCY (SA) REVISED BURDEN 0584–0303 

Reg. section Description of 

activity 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Revised 

total 

annual 

responses 

Revised 

number of 

burden 

hours per 

response 

Revised 

estimated 

total 

burden 

hours 

Previous 

submission 

total hours 

Difference 

due to 

program 

changes 

Difference 

due to 

adjustments 

275 Regs Reporting OMB 0584–0303 

275.11(a)(1)–(a)(2) .. Sampling Plan ......... 53 1 53 20 1,060 1,060 0 0 

275.2(c)(1)(i) ............ Use of 3rd Party 

Contractors—Notification of intent to 

hire.

3 1 3 0.25 0.75 0.75 0 0 

275.2(c)(1)(ii) ........... Use of 3rd Party 

Contractors—Submission of signed 

contract and tasks.

3 1 3 0.5 1.5 1.5 0 0 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64780 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE A.6—STATE AGENCY (SA) REVISED BURDEN 0584–0303—Continued 

Reg. section Description of 

activity 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Revised 

total 

annual 

responses 

Revised 

number of 

burden 

hours per 

response 

Revised 

estimated 

total 

burden 

hours 

Previous 

submission 

total hours 

Difference 

due to 

program 

changes 

Difference 

due to 

adjustments 

275.2(c)(1)(iii) .......... Use of 3rd Party 

Contractors—Submission of completed deliverables.

3 1 3 0.5 1.5 1.5 0 0 

275.2(c)(1)(iv) .......... Use of 3rd Party 

Contractors—Notification of training 

sessions.

3 1 3 0.08 0.24 0.24 0 0 

275.2(c)(4) ............... Arbitration Process .. 12 3 36 34 1,224 1,224 0 0 

273.23(f) .................. Good Cause Process.1 1 1 160 160 160 0 0 

275.23(h) ................. New Investment 

Plan Template 

Form FNS 74 A.

9 1 9 32 288 288 0 0 

275.23(h)(4) ............. New Investment 

Progress Report 

Template Form 

FNS 74 B.

9 2 18 5 90 90 0 0 

Sub-Total Reporting Burden .................. 53 2.433962264 129 21.90689922 2,825.99 2,825.99 0 0 

275.4 ........................ Sampling Plan 

Record Retention.

53 1 53 0.0236 1.2508 1.2508 0 

275.4 ........................ Arbitration Process 

Record Retention.

12 3 36 0.0236 0.8496 0.8496 0 

275.4 ........................ Good Cause Process Record Retention.1 1 1 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0 

275.4 ........................ New Investment 

Plan Template 

Form FNS 74 A 

Record Retention.

9 1 9 0.0236 0.2124 0.2124 0 

275.4 ........................ New Investment 

Progress Report 

Template Form 

FNS 74 B Record 

Retention.

9 2 18 0.0236 0.4248 0.4248 0 

Recordkeeping Total .............................. 53 2.20754717 117 0.0236 2.7612 2.7612 0 

TABLE A.7—STATE AGENCY (SA) STARTUP BURDEN 0584–0303 

Reg. section Description of activity 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Estimated 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Revised 

total 

annual 

responses 

Revised 

number 

of burden 

hours per 

response 

Revised 

estimated 

total 

burden 

hours 

275 Regs Reporting STARTUP OMB Control Number 0584–0303 

275.11 ........................................... Implement new sampling plan ...... 53 1 53 40 2,120 

Grand Total Reporting Burden ......................................................... 53 .................... 53 .................... 2,120 

TABLE A.8—SUMMARY OF GRAND TOTAL ANNUAL REPORTING & RECORDKEEPING BURDEN ESTIMATES

Form or citation Description of activity 

(ongoing or start up) 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Annual 

responses 

Number of 

burden hours 

per response 

Estimated 

total burden 

hours 

380 SA .................................................... Ongoing ...................................... 53 473,172 0.75295 353,272.00 

380 I/H .................................................... Ongoing ...................................... 59,146 59,146 0.5 29,573.00 

380–1 ...................................................... Ongoing ...................................... 53 118,292 1.0796 63,854.00 

275 .......................................................... Ongoing ...................................... 53 246 20 2,828 

380 SA .................................................... Startup ........................................ 53 236,584 2.75 162,651 

380 SA Staff train on Review process ... Startup ........................................ 263 263 40 10,520.00 

380 SA Staff train on Review process 

and SNAPQCS.

Startup ........................................ 371 371 64 23,744.00 

380–1 SA Staff for SNAPQCS ............... Startup ........................................ 371 371 2 742 

275 Regulations ..................................... Startup ........................................ 53 53 40 2,120 

Grand Total Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden for Rule ................... 59,886 888,498 98 649,304.00 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64781 

TABLE A.8—SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND RULE ASSOCIATED BURDEN

OMB control number 0074 Rule related 

revised ongoing 

Rule related 

new startup 

Estimated Total No. Respondents ............................................................................. 45,550 13,649 687 

Estimated Average No. Responses per Respondent ............................................... 6.991833 0.97 345.294 

Estimated Total Annual Responses .......................................................................... 318,478.00 154,689.00 237,218 

Estimated Average Hours per Response .................................................................. 0.00 .............................. 0.83 

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours Requested ................................................... 582,759 385,844 196,915.17 

Current OMB Inventory .............................................................................................. 405,997 405,997 ..............................

Difference Due to Rulemaking .................................................................................. 176,762 (¥20,152) 196,915.17 

OMB control number 0299 Rule related 

revised ongoing 

Rule related 

new startup 

Estimated Total No. Respondents ............................................................................. 53.00 53 371 

Estimated Average No. Responses per Respondent ............................................... 2,238.925 2,231.920 1 

Estimated Total Annual Responses .......................................................................... 118,663.000 118,291.760 371 

Estimated Average Hours per Response .................................................................. 0.54654 0.54607 2 

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours Requested ................................................... 64,854.000 64595.89205 742 

Current OMB Inventory .............................................................................................. 49,119 49,119 ..............................

Difference Due to Rulemaking .................................................................................. 15,477 14,735 742

OMB control number 0303 Rule related 

revised ongoing 

Rule related 

new startup 

Estimated Total No. Respondents ............................................................................. 53.00 53 53 

Estimated Average No. Responses per Respondent ............................................... 4.6420 4.642 1 

Estimated Total Annual Responses .......................................................................... 246 426 1 

Estimated Average Hours per Response .................................................................. 11.4989 11.4989 40 

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours Requested ................................................... 4,949 4,949 2,120 

Current OMB Inventory .............................................................................................. 2,829 2,825 0 

Difference Due to Rulemaking .................................................................................. 0 10 2120 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Department is committed to 

complying with the E-Government Act, 

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 

Grant programs—social programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

7 CFR Part 275 

Grant programs—social programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 271 and 275 

are proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 271—GENERAL INFORMATION 

AND DEFINITIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 271 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2036. 

■ 2. In § 271.2: 

■ a. Revise the definition of ‘‘active 

case’’; 

■ b. Remove the definition ‘‘active case 

error rate’’; 

■ c. Add in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘Case and Procedural 

Error Rate (CAPER)’’; 

■ d. Revise the definitions of ‘‘error’’ 

and ‘‘negative case’’; 

■ e. Remove the definition of ‘‘negative 

case error rate’’; 

■ f. Revise the last sentence in the 

definition of ‘‘payment error rate’’; 

■ g. Revise the definitions ‘‘review 

date’’ and ‘‘sample month’’; 

■ h. Remove ‘‘INS’’ and add in its place 

‘‘USCIS’’ in the definition of 

‘‘Systematic Alien Verification for 

Entitlements (SAVE)’’; and 

■ i. Remove the definition 

‘‘Underissuance error rate. (See 

Underpayment error rate.)’’, 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 271.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Active case means a case where 

households experienced an eligibility 

action during the sample month which 

resulted in an issuance of benefits. For 

purposes of this definition, an eligibility 

action refers to initial certification, 

recertification, or submission of a 

required monthly, quarterly, or periodic 

report in the sample month and a 

benefit allotment is issued in the 

following month. 

* * * * * 

Case and Procedural Error Rate 

(CAPER) means an estimate of the 

proportion of denied, suspended, or 

terminated cases where the household 

was incorrectly denied, suspended, or 

terminated or where procedural 

deficiencies exist. This estimate will be 

expressed as a percentage of completed 

negative quality control reviews. 

* * * * * 

Error for active cases results when a 

determination is made by a quality 

control reviewer that a household that 

experienced an eligibility action—as 

described in the definition of ‘‘active 

case’’ in this section—was ineligible, 

received an incorrect allotment, or was 

determined ‘‘incomplete’’ by the QC 

reviewer. Thus, errors in active cases 

involve dollar loss to either the 

participant (underissuance) or the 

government (overissuance). For negative 

cases, an ‘‘error’’ means that the 

reviewer determines that the decision or 

process to deny, suspend, or terminate 

a household was incorrect. 

* * * * * 

Negative case means a case where 

there was an action to deny, suspend, or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64782 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

terminate a household during the 

sample month. 

* * * * * 

Payment error rate * * * Each 

component error rate is the value of 

benefits either overissued or 

underissued expressed as a percentage 

of all allotments issued to completed 

active sample cases. 

* * * * * 

Review date for quality control active 

cases means the date an eligibility 

action was taken to authorize the 

allotment. The ‘‘review date’’ for quality 

control negative cases, depending on the 

characteristics of individual State 

systems, could be the date on which the 

eligibility worker makes the decision to 

suspend, deny, or terminate the case, 

the date on which the decision is 

entered into the eligibility system, or the 

date of the notice to the client. For no 

case is the ‘‘review date’’ the day the 

quality control review is conducted. 

State agencies must consistently apply 

the same definition for review date to all 

sampled cases of the same classification. 

* * * * * 

Sample month means the month of 

the sample frame from which a case is 

selected (e.g., the January sample 

month, for active cases, shall be 

comprised of a selection of cases where 

the household was certified in January, 

recertified in January, or required to 

have submitted a monthly, quarterly, or 

periodic report in January resulting in 

an issuance of benefits in February. The 

January sample month for negative cases 

would be comprised of all cases that 

were denied, terminated, or suspended 

in January). 

* * * * * 

PART 275—PERFORMANCE 

REPORTING SYSTEM 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 275 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2036. 

■ 4. In § 275.2, revise paragraph (b) and 

add a sentence to the end of paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 275.2 State agency responsibilities. 

* * * * * 

(b) Staffing standards. The State 

agency shall employ sufficient staff to 

perform all aspects of the Performance 

Reporting System as required in this 

part. 

(1) The State agency shall ensure that 

the staff used to conduct QC reviews 

operate independently from those 

responsible for overseeing the eligibility 

determination process to ensure 

objective and accurate assessments of 

the Performance Reporting System. 

(2) The staff used to conduct QC 

reviews shall not have prior knowledge 

of either the household or the decision 

under review. Where there is prior 

knowledge, the reviewer must 

disqualify themselves. To ensure no 

prior knowledge on the part of QC or 

ME reviewers, local project area staff 

shall not be used to conduct QC or ME 

reviews; exceptions to this requirement 

concerning local level staff may be 

granted with prior approval from FNS. 

However, local personnel shall not, 

under any circumstances, participate in 

ME reviews of their own project areas. 

Prior knowledge is defined as having: 

(i) Taken any part in the eligibility 

determination that has been made in the 

case; 

(ii) Discussed the case with staff who 

participated in the decision; or 

(iii) Personal knowledge of or 

acquaintance with persons in the case 

itself. 

(3) Nothing in this part shall preclude 

a State-level staff person to be used as 

a collateral contact for purposes of the 

QC review. Such contact must, however, 

be limited to those same rules governing 

all other collateral contacts, including 

privacy-related rules, found in 7 CFR 

273.2(f)(4)(ii). 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * Non-compliance with this 

requirement, as determined by the 

Secretary, may result in the suspension 

or disallowance of Federal 

reimbursements for costs of the 

administration of SNAP for the 

system(s) found to be out of compliance, 

pursuant to 7 CFR 277.16. 

■ 5. In § 275.3: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (d)(1)(i); 

■ b. Revise the paragraph (d)(3) heading’ 

■ c. Remove ‘‘negative case error rate’’ 

and add in its place ‘‘case and 

procedural error rate’’ in paragraph 

(d)(3) introductory text; 

■ d. Add a sentence at the end of 

paragraph (d)(4)(i)(A); 

■ e. Remove the phrase ‘‘appropriate 

FNS regional office addressed to the 

attention of the FNS Arbitrator’’ and add 

in its place the phrase ‘‘FNS Arbitrator 

and copy the appropriate FNS regional 

office’’ in paragraph (d)(4)(iv) 

introductory text; and 

■ f. Remove the word ‘‘may’’ and add in 

its place the word ‘‘must’’ in the second 

sentence of paragraph (d)(4)(iv) 

introductory text. 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 275.3 Federal monitoring. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) FNS will select a subsample of a 

State agency’s active cases, as follows: 

(A) The Federal review sample for 

active cases is determined as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (d)(1)(i)(A) 

Average monthly reviewable caseload 

(N) 

Federal subsample target 

(n′) 

60,000 and over ....................................................................................... n′ = 400. 

10,001 to 59,999 ...................................................................................... n′ = .005 N + 100. 

10,000 and under ..................................................................................... n′ = 150. 

(B) In the above formula, n’ is the 

minimum number of Federal review 

sample cases which must be selected 

when conducting a validation review, 

except that FNS may select a lower 

number of sample cases if: 

(1) The State agency does not report 

a change in sampling procedures 

associated with a revision in its required 

sample size within 10 days of effecting 

the change; or 

(2) The State agency does not 

complete the number of case reviews 

specified in its approved sampling plan. 

(C) The reduction in the number of 

Federal cases selected will be equal to 

the number of cases that would have 

been selected had the Federal sampling 

interval been applied to the State 

agency’s shortfall in its required sample 

size. This number may not be exact due 

to random starts and rounding. 

(D) In the above formula, N is the 

State agency’s minimum active case 

sample size as determined in 

accordance with § 275.11(b)(1). 

(E) Once the minimum Federal 

subsample size n′ is determined, the 

Federal subsample must be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64783 

proportionally allocated across the five 

strata, defined in § 275.11(g), to the 

State final weights to ensure there is no 

loss of precision due to differential 

sampling probabilities. The Federal 

subsample size for each stratum shall be 

determined as follows: 

(1) In the formulas in the table above, 

N is the sampling universe/monthly 

caseload; F is the sampling frame; n is 

the State sampling size; n’ is the Federal 

subsample size; W is the State sampling 

weights; and W’ is the Federal sampling 

weights. 

(2) For stratum i, the Federal 

subsample size n’i shall be proportional 

to the final State weight for that stratum, 

Wi, in other words 

This means that the sampling 

probability for cases in stratum i is Wi/ 

W and the final weight for the cases 

selected for the Federal subsample from 

stratum i, W′i, is given by: 

for every i, which is a constant across 

the strata. This makes the Federal 

subsample self-weighting. 

* * * * * 

(3) Case and procedural error rate. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * No other types of 

disagreement are eligible for arbitration. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 275.11: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (a) introductory 

text, (a)(1) through (3), and (b)(1) and 

(2); 

■ b. Remove paragraph (b)(4); 

■ c. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), (e) 

introductory text, (e)(1), and (f)(1); 

■ d. Redesignate paragraph (g) as 

paragraph (i); and 

■ e. Add new paragraph (g) and 

paragraph (h). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows 

§ 275.11 Sampling. 

(a) Sampling plan. Each State agency 

shall develop a quality control sampling 

plan that is compliant with this section 

and demonstrates the integrity of its 

sampling procedures. 

(1) Content. The sampling plan shall 

include a complete description of the 

frame, the method of sample selection, 

and methods for estimating 

characteristics of the population and 

their sampling errors that the State 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19SE23.100</GPH> EP19SE23.101</GPH> EP19SE23.102</GPH>
64784 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

agency will apply when conducting its 

quality control procedures. The 

description of the sample frames shall 

include: source, availability, accuracy, 

completeness, components, location, 

form, frequency of updates, deletion of 

cases not subject to review, and 

structure. The description of the 

methods of sample selection shall 

include procedures for: estimating 

caseload size, addressing corrections, 

computation of sampling intervals and 

random starts (if any), stratification, 

identifying sample cases, correcting 

over-or under sampling, and monitoring 

sample selection and assignment. The 

State agency shall provide FNS with a 

schedule for completion of each step in 

the sampling procedures contained in 

this section. 

(2) Criteria. All sampling plans shall: 

(i) Conform to principles of 

probability sampling; and (ii) Select an 

overall quality control sample size in 

accordance with paragraphs (b) through 

(f) of this section. 

(3) Design. Each State agency shall, 

over the course of the annual review 

period, implement a sample design each 

month for both active and negative case 

samples. For the active case sample 

selection, the State agency shall define 

the sampling frame as the monthly list 

of active cases as defined in 7 CFR 

271.2. This list reflects a subset of all 

the active SNAP cases in a given month. 

This list will then be stratified for 

sample selection based on action type 

and the length of the certification or 

reporting period. Within each of these 

strata, each month, the State agency may 

select a systematic sample or use 

another method of random selection 

(e.g., sorting the cases in a random order 

and selecting the first ‘m’ number of 

cases required to meet the monthly 

sample target) of cases to equal the 

overall sample size required for the 

year, divided evenly by twelve. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Active cases. (i) All active cases 

shall be selected in accordance with 

procedures specified in this section, and 

the review findings shall be included in 

the calculation of the State agency’s 

payment error rate. A State agency shall 

select a sample that is divided equally 

across 12 months. Sample size is 

specified as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(1)(i) 

Average monthly reviewable caseload 

(N) 

Minimum annual sample size 

(n) 

60,000 and over ....................................................................................... n = 1,326. 

12,942 to 59,999 ...................................................................................... n = 390 + [0.0199(N¥12,941)]. 

Under 12,942 ............................................................................................ n = 390. 

(ii) In the formulas in paragraph 

(b)(1)(i) of this section, n is the required 

active case sample size. This is the 

minimum number of active cases 

subject to review which must be 

selected during the annual review 

period. One-twelfth of this value shall 

be selected each month, rounded to the 

next whole number (e.g., if the yearly 

sample size is 1,326 then 111 would be 

sampled monthly). In the same 

formulas, N is the average monthly 

participating caseload subject to quality 

control review (i.e., cases which are 

included in the active universe defined 

in paragraph (e)(1) of this section) 

during the annual review period. 

(2) Negative cases. (i) All negative 

cases shall be selected in accordance 

with procedures specified in this 

section, and the review findings shall be 

included in the calculation of the State 

agency’s case and procedural error rate. 

(ii) The minimum number of negative 

cases to be selected and reviewed by a 

State agency during each annual review 

period shall be determined as follows: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (B)(2)(II) 

Average monthly reviewable negative caseload (N) Minimum annual sample size (n) 

5,000 and over ......................................................................................... n = 680 

684 to 4,999 ............................................................................................. n = 150 + [ 0.1224(N¥683)] 

Under 684 ................................................................................................. n = 150 

(iii) In the formulas in paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, n is the required 

negative sample size. This is the 

minimum number of negative cases 

subject to review which must be 

selected each review period. 

(iv) In the formulas in paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, N is the average 

monthly number of negative cases 

which are subject to quality control 

review (i.e., cases which are part of the 

negative universe defined in paragraph 

(e)(2) of this section) during the annual 

review period. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Substitutions. Once a case has 

been identified for inclusion in the 

sample by a predesigned sampling 

procedure, substitutions are not 

acceptable. An active case must be 

reviewed each time it is selected for the 

sample. If a case is selected more than 

once for the negative sample as the 

result of separate and distinct instances 

of denial, suspension, or termination, it 

must be reviewed each time. 

(2) Corrections. Under sampling must 

be corrected during the annual review 

period. Oversampling may be corrected 

at the State agency’s option. Cases 

which are dropped to compensate for 

oversampling shall be reported as not 

subject to review. Because corrections 

must not bias the sample results, cases 

which are dropped to compensate for 

oversampling must comprise a random 

subsample of all cases selected 

(including those completed, not 

completed, and not subject to review). 

Cases which are added to the sample to 

compensate for under sampling must be 

randomly selected from the entire frame 

in accordance with the sample size, 

sample selection, sampling frame, and 

sample allocation procedures specified 

in paragraphs (b), (c) (e), and (g) of this 

section. All sample adjustments must be 

fully documented and available for 

review by FNS. 

* * * * * 

(e) Sample frame. The State agency 

shall select cases for quality control 

review from a sample frame. Complete 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64785 

coverage of the sample universes, as 

defined in paragraph (f) of this section, 

must be assured so that every case 

subject to quality control review has an 

equal or known chance of being selected 

in the sample. Since the SNAP quality 

control review process requires an 

active and negative sample, two 

corresponding sample frames are also 

required. 

(1) Active cases. The sample frame 

shall consist of all active cases as 

defined in 7 CFR 271.2. Cases which did 

not experience any of these eligibility 

actions in the sample month shall be 

removed prior to sampling. State 

agencies must use a list of certified and 

recertified cases as well as the 

household’s report due date for the 

following reporting systems: monthly, 

quarterly, and simplified. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) Active cases. The universe for 

active cases shall include all households 

in which any of the following eligibility 

actions occurred in the sample month: 

initial certification, recertification, or a 

required monthly, quarterly, or periodic 

report was due during the sample 

month and a benefit allotment is issued 

in the following month. The following 

shall be excluded from the sampling 

frame: 

(i) A household receiving DisasterSNAP benefits under the authority of 

the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as 

amended, and the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act; 

(ii) A household which is under 

investigation for an intentional Program 

violation, including a household with a 

pending administrative disqualification 

hearing; 

(iii) A household appealing an 

adverse action which was the result of 

an eligibility action taken during the 

sample month; or 

(iv) Other households excluded from 

the active case universe during the 

review process are identified in 7 CFR 

275.12(g). 

* * * * * 

(g) Active sample allocation. States 

shall stratify both the sample universe 

and the sampling frame specified in 

paragraphs (e)(1) and (f)(1) of this 

section according to the five strata 

described in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through 

(v) of this section. If not all 5 strata exist, 

the State shall allocate the full sample 

across the existing strata according to 

the following guidelines: 

(1) In table 3 to paragraph (g) 

introductory text, strata a through e 

have the following action types and 

reporting periods: 

(i) Stratum a—Action type: initial 

certification or re-certification; 

Reporting period: less than 6 months; 

(ii) Stratum b—Action type: 

redetermination based on a monthly, 

quarterly or periodic report; Reporting 

period: less than 6 months; 

(iii) Stratum c—Action type: initial 

certification or recertification; Reporting 

period: 6 months; 

(iv) Stratum d—Action type: 

redetermination based on a monthly, 

quarterly or periodic report; Reporting 

period: 6 months; 

(v) Stratum e—Action type: all; 

Reporting period: more than 6 months. 

(2) State agencies shall allocate 10 

percent of the sample to stratum a and 

10 percent of the sample to stratum b. 

The remaining 80 percent of the sample 

should be allocated in a manner 

proportionate to the size of the strata in 

the sample universe as described in 

table 3 to paragraph (g) introductory 

text. 

(3) If a State agency does not have 

stratum a or b or both, it shall allocate 

the full sample size proportionately to 

the size of the existing strata in the 

sample universe. 

(4) In the formulas in table 3 to 

paragraph (g) introductory text, N 

represents the sample universe (i.e., the 

total number of eligible SNAP cases) 

and Na (for example) represents the 

number of SNAP cases in the universe 

that belong to stratum a; F represents 

the total number of eligible SNAP cases 

in the sampling frame (i.e., the list of 

eligible SNAP cases having one of the 

three actions in the month of selection) 

and Fa (for example) represents the 

number of SNAP cases in the frame that 

belong to stratum a; n represents the 

total sample size and na (for example) 

represents the number of SNAP cases 

selected from stratum a meeting the 

stratum requirements. 

(5) Within each stratum the State 

agency shall select the designated 

number of cases at random or using a 

systematic method upon a random sort 

of the cases. If in any strata the number 

of cases to be sampled exceeds the 

actual number in the frame, the State 

shall select all of the cases in that 

stratum. For example, if the proposed 

sample size for stratum a is greater than 

Fa then the State agency shall take all Na

SNAP cases for stratum a, hence na = Fa, 

and allocate (n-na-nb) to the last three 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP19SE23.103</GPH>
64786 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

strata proportionately to the size of 

these strata in the sample universe (N). 

(h) Weighting. Given that the active 

stratified sampling design oversamples 

some strata and under-samples others, 

weighting is necessary. The weights for 

the active cases sample are defined as 

follows: 

Wi = (Ni/Fi) × (Fi/ni) = Ni/ni for 

i=a,b,c,d,e 

State agencies are responsible for 

providing to FNS the counts Ni, Fi, and 

ni (for i=a,b,c,d,e) as part of the 

sampling plan described at 7 CFR 

275.11(a)(4). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 275.12: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b); 

■ b. Add a sentence at the end of 

paragraph (c) introductory text; 

■ c. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) 

introductory text and (c)(1)(iii) ; 

■ d. Remove the phrase ‘‘the State’’ and 

add in its place the phrase ‘‘State law’’ 

in the third sentence of paragraph 

(c)(1)(iv); 

■ e. Add the phrase ‘‘or in the case file’’ 

at the end of the first sentence of 

paragraph (c)(2); 

■ f. Remove the phrase ‘‘as of the review 

date’’ and add in its place the phrase 

‘‘by the reviewer’’ and remove the 

phrase ‘‘at the most recent certification 

action)’’ and add in its place the phrase 

‘‘in the eligibility action under review)’’ 

in paragraph (d) introductory text; 

■ g. Remove the phrase ‘‘for the sample 

month’’ in paragraph (d)(2) introductory 

text; 

■ h. Add a sentence after the second 

sentence and remove the last sentence 

of paragraph (d)(2)(ii); 

■ i. Remove paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and 

(ix); 

■ j. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) 

through (viii) as paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) 

through (d)(2)(vii); 

■ k. Remove the phrase ‘‘Immigration 

and Naturalization Service’s (INS)’’ and 

add in its place the phrase ‘‘United 

States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS)’’ in newly 

redesignated paragraph (d)(2)(v) 

introductory text; 

■ l. Remove ‘‘INS’’ and add in its place 

‘‘USCIS’’ in newly redesignated 

paragraphs (d)(2)(v)(A) introductory 

text, (d)(2)(v)(A)(3) (two occurrences), 

(d)(2)(v)(B) introductory text, and 

(d)(2)(v)(B)(2); 

■ m. Remove the phrase ‘‘category three 

and four Policy Memoranda under the 

Policy Interpretation Response System’’ 

and add in its place the phrase, ‘‘FNS 

policy memoranda’’ in newly 

redesignated paragraph (d)(2)(vii); 

■ n. Revise paragraph (d)(3); 

■ o. Remove the phrase ‘‘in the sample 

month’’ and add in its place ‘‘as an 

error’’ in the first sentence of paragraph 

(f)(1) and revise the last sentence of 

paragraph (f)(1); 

■ p. Remove the phrase ‘‘in the sample 

month’’ in the first sentence of 

paragraph (f)(2) and revise the last 

sentence of paragraph (f)(2); 

■ q. Add a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (g)(1) introductory text; 

■ r. Revise paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and 

(g)(2)(i) and (ii); 

■ s. Remove paragraphs (g)(2)(iv), (ix), 

and (x); 

■ t. Redesignate paragraphs(g)(2)(v) 

through (viii) as paragraphs (g)(2)(iv) 

through (vii); and 

■ u. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraphs (g)(2)(vi) and (vii). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 275.12 Review of active cases. 

(a) General. A sample of households 

that experienced an eligibility action— 

i.e., certified for SNAP, recertified for 

SNAP, or required to have submitted a 

monthly, quarterly, or periodic report in 

the sample month which resulted in an 

issuance of benefits in the following 

month, shall be selected for active case 

review. These active cases shall be 

reviewed to determine if the household 

was eligible and, if eligible, whether the 

household received the correct 

allotment. The determination of a 

household’s eligibility shall be based on 

an examination and verification of all 

elements of eligibility (i.e., nonfinancial eligibility requirements, 

resources, income, and deductions). The 

verified circumstances and the resulting 

benefit level determined by the quality 

control review shall be compared to the 

benefits authorized by the State agency. 

The review of active cases shall include: 

a household case record review; a field 

investigation; the identification of any 

variances; an error analysis; and the 

reporting of review findings. 

(b) Household case record review. The 

reviewer shall examine the household 

case record to identify the facts relating 

to the household’s eligibility and basis 

of issuance. The case record review 

shall include all information applicable 

to the eligibility action under review, 

including the application and, as 

applicable, the monthly, quarterly, or 

periodic report and worksheet in effect 

as of the review date. Documentation 

contained in the case record should be 

used as verification if it was verified 

using documentary evidence at the time 

of the certification action. If during the 

case record review the reviewer can 

determine and verify the household’s 

ineligibility, the review can be 

terminated at that point, provided that, 

if the determination is based on 

information not obtained from the 

household, the correctness of that 

information is confirmed as specified in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The 

reviewer shall utilize information 

obtained through the case record review 

to complete column (2) of the Form 

FNS–380, and to tentatively plan the 

content of the field investigation. 

(c) * * * In obtaining documentary 

evidence and collateral contact 

verification, the State agency is 

encouraged to utilize technology to 

assist in the gathering of documentary 

evidence, however the State agency 

shall ensure it preserves the privacy and 

confidentiality of the household 

regardless of what technology it uses. 

(1) Personal interviews. State agencies 

shall conduct interviews in a manner 

that respects the rights, privacy, and 

dignity of the participants. The personal 

interview shall be a telephone interview 

unless the household requests a face-toface interview or indicates they lack 

access to a telephone. Prior to 

conducting the personal interview, the 

reviewer must notify the household that 

it has been selected, as part of an 

ongoing review process, for review by 

quality control, that a personal 

interview will be conducted in the 

future, and that the household may 

request a face-to-face interview in lieu 

of a telephone interview. For face-toface interviews, the interview may take 

place at the participant’s home, at an 

appropriate State agency certification 

office, by secure video call, or at a 

mutually agreed upon alternative 

location. Should a face-to-face interview 

be warranted, the State agency shall 

determine the best location for the faceto-face interview, taking into account 

input from the household, including 

any hardship conditions or disability 

needs of the household. If the 

household meets any of the hardship 

conditions at 7 CFR 273.2(e)(2), the 

quality control reviewer shall either 

conduct the personal interview with the 

participant’s authorized representative, 

if one has been appointed by the 

household, or at a place of the 

participant’s choosing. During the 

personal interview with the participant, 

the reviewer shall: 

* * * * * 

(iii) Request and review with the 

household documentary evidence in the 

case file, as well as documentary 

evidence that may be in the household’s 

possession, and secure information 

about collateral sources of verification; 

and 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64787 

(ii) * * * For this exclusion to apply, 

the case record must include 

documentation specifying the elements 

of eligibility for which verification was 

postponed. 

(3) Other findings. All QC review 

findings must be reported to the local 

office by the State agency. However, 

State agencies may determine if and 

how to act upon findings made during 

the review that are pertinent to the case 

record but do not result in a variance. 

For example, the State may establish its 

own procedures for cases when a 

household member’s age is shown 

incorrectly in the case record, if their 

age is unrelated to an element of 

eligibility. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * In addition, the reviewer 

shall code and report any other 

variances related to eligibility which 

were discovered and verified during the 

course of the review and the State 

agency shall notify the local office of all 

variances in elements of eligibility. 

(2) * * * The reviewer shall code and 

report any other variances in the basis 

of issuance which were discovered and 

verified during the course of the review 

and the State agency shall notify local 

offices of all variances in elements of 

the basis of issuance. 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * The total allotment issued, 

shall be coded and reported as an error 

when the case is reported as not 

complete. 

* * * * * 

(ii) If a household refuses to cooperate 

with the quality control reviewer and 

the State agency has taken other 

administrative steps to obtain that 

cooperation without obtaining it, the 

household shall be notified of the 

penalties for refusing to cooperate with 

respect to termination and reapplication 

and of the possibility that its case will 

be referred for investigation for willful 

misrepresentation. If a household 

refuses to cooperate after such notice, 

the reviewer must attempt to complete 

the case and shall report the 

household’s refusal to the State agency 

for termination of its participation 

without regard for the outcome of that 

attempt. For a determination of refusal 

to be made, the household must be able 

to cooperate but clearly demonstrate 

that it will not take actions that it can 

take and that are required to complete 

the quality control review process. In 

certain circumstances, the household 

may demonstrate that it is unwilling to 

cooperate by not taking actions after 

having been given every reasonable 

opportunity to do so, even though the 

household or its members do not state 

that the household refuses to cooperate. 

Examples of when a household appears 

to be unwilling to cooperate with a QC 

review that have the effect of a refusal 

to cooperate shall include: 

(A) The household does not attend an 

agreed upon interview with the 

reviewer and then does not contact the 

reviewer within 10 calendar days of the 

date of the scheduled interview to 

reschedule the interview. 

(B) The household does not return a 

signed release of information statement 

to the reviewer within 10 calendar days 

of either agreeing to do so or receiving 

a request from the reviewer sent 

Certified Mail-Return Receipt 

Requested. 

(C) The household does not respond 

to any communication sent from the 

reviewer, and either: 

(1) The household has not responded 

to a letter sent to the household’s 

current known address via Certified 

Mail-Return Receipt requesting a 

response within 30 calendar days of the 

date of receipt, or 

(2) The household has not responded 

to a written request for quality control 

contact (RFQCC). The RFQCC, sent by 

the State agency at the reviewer’s 

request, must have advised the 

household of the following: that quality 

control is trying to contact them for a 

review; the requirement of the 

household to cooperate with the quality 

control review; the penalties for not 

responding to the RFQCC and not 

cooperating with the quality control 

review; and the contact information the 

household must use to get in touch with 

the quality control reviewer or office. 

The RFQCC must have afforded the 

household at least 10, but no more than 

15 calendar days to respond from the 

date on the letter. RFQCC requests from 

the reviewer must be fulfilled by the 

State agency. 

(i) If the household does not respond 

to the RFQCC by the deadline provided 

in the request, the reviewer must report 

the household’s failure to respond to the 

State agency and request the State 

agency issue a notice of adverse action 

to suspend the household for one month 

before a termination becomes effective. 

The notice of adverse action must 

include the reason the household’s 

benefits were suspended, an 

explanation that the consequence for 

failing to respond to quality control 

during the suspension period is for their 

benefits to be terminated for refusal to 

cooperate with quality control, and the 

quality control reviewer’s or office’s 

contact information. 

(ii) If the household does not respond 

to the RFQCC, but does respond during 

the period of suspension and cooperates 

with quality control, the reviewer must 

notify the State agency to reinstate the 

household without requiring a new 

application and issue the allotment for 

the month of suspension. 

(D) In these and other situations, if 

there is any question as to whether the 

household has merely failed to 

cooperate, as opposed to refused to 

cooperate, the household shall not be 

reported to the State agency for 

termination. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Death of all members of a 

household if they died after the 

eligibility action but before the review 

could be undertaken or completed; 

(ii) The household moved out of State 

after the eligibility action but before the 

review could be undertaken or 

completed; 

* * * * * 

(vi) A case incorrectly listed in the 

active frame; or 

(vii) A household appealing the 

eligibility action under review. 

§ 275.13 [Amended] 

■ 8. In § 275.13: 

■ a. Amend paragraph (c)(2) 

introductory text by removing the words 

‘‘Immigration and Nationalization 

Services (INS)’’ and adding in their 

place ‘‘USCIS’’ and removing the words 

‘‘Systematic Alien Verification for 

Entitlements (SAVE)’’ and adding in 

their place ‘‘SAVE’’; and 

■ b. Amend paragraph (c)(2)(iii) by 

removing ‘‘INS’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘USCIS’’ in both occurrences. 

§ 275.16 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 275.16: 

■ a. Remove the phrase ‘‘of 1 percent or 

more in negative cases’’ and add in its 

place the phrase ‘‘above the national 

average CAPER’’ in paragraph (b)(2); 

■ b. Remove paragraph (b)(4); and 

■ c. Redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as 

paragraph (b)(4). 

■ 10. In § 275.21, revise paragraph (b)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 275.21 Quality control review reports. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) The State agency shall use SNAP– 

QCS, FNS’s automated, web-based QC 

System for State agency users, to input, 

edit, and upload supporting evidence 

and information necessary to 

understand the disposition and findings 

for all active and negative sampled 

cases. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. In § 275.23: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘active case, 

payment, and negative case error rate’’ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
64788 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

and add in its place the words 

‘‘payment and case and procedural error 

rates’’ in paragraph (b) introductory text; 

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘active case 

error rate, payment error rate, and 

negative case error rate’’ and add in its 

place the words ‘‘payment and case and 

procedural error rates’’ in paragraph 

(b)(1); 

■ c. Revise paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) and 

(B) and (b)(2)(ii) and (iii); 

■ d. Revise the second and third 

sentences in paragraph (c); and 

■ e. Revise the second sentence in 

paragraph (d)(1). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 275.23 Determination of State agency 

program performance. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) Y1′ = y1 + b1 (X1¥x1), where Y1′ 

is the estimated average value of 

allotments overissued to eligible and 

ineligible households in the full Quality 

Control (QC) sample; y1 is the average 

value of allotments overissued to 

eligible and ineligible households in the 

re-review sample according to the 

Federal finding; b1 is the estimated 

regression coefficient through a 

regression of the Federal findings of 

allotments overissued to eligible and 

ineligible households on the 

corresponding State agency findings; x1

is the re-review average value of 

allotments overissued to eligible and 

ineligible households according to State 

agency findings; and X1 is the weighted 

average value of allotments overissued 

to eligible and ineligible households in 

the full QC sample according to State 

agency’s findings. Based on the sample 

design, only X1 is weighted to account 

for the probability of selection in the 

full QC sample. 

(B) Y2′ = y2 + b2(X2¥x2), where Y2′ is 

the estimated average value of 

allotments underissued to households 

included in the active error rate; y2 is 

the average value of allotments 

underissued to participating households 

in the re-review sample according to the 

Federal finding; b2 is the estimated 

regression coefficient obtained through 

a regression of the Federal findings of 

allotments underissued to participating 

households on the corresponding State 

agency findings; x2 is the re-review 

average value of allotments underissued 

to participating households according to 

State agency findings; and X2 is the 

weighted average value of allotments 

underissued to participating households 

in the full QC sample according to the 

State agency’s findings. Based on the 

sample design, only X2 is weighted to 

account for the probability of selection 

in the full QC sample. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) If FNS determines that a State 

agency has sampled incorrectly, 

estimated improperly, or has 

deficiencies in its QC data management 

system, FNS will correct the State 

agency’s payment error rate and case 

and procedural error rate based upon a 

correction to that aspect of the State 

agency’s QC system which is deficient. 

If FNS cannot accurately correct the 

State agency’s deficiency, FNS will 

assign the State agency a payment error 

rate or case and procedural error rate 

based upon the best information 

available. After consultation with the 

State agency, the assigned payment 

error rate can then be used in a liability 

determination, if applicable per the 

rules governing liabilities at 7 CFR 

275.23(d). State agencies shall have the 

right to appeal the assignment of an 

error rate in this situation in accordance 

with the procedures of part 283 of this 

chapter. State agencies assigned error 

rates that do not result in the 

determination of a liability amount, as 

discussed in 7 CFR 275.23(d), are not 

eligible for appeal. 

(iii) Should a State agency fail to 

sample and disposition its required 

minimum annual sample size for the 

fiscal year, FNS shall adjust the State 

agency’s regressed error rate using the 

following equations: 

(A) r1′′ = r1′ + 5(1¥C)S1, where r1′′ is 

the adjusted regressed overpayment 

error rate, r1′ is the regressed 

overpayment error rate computed from 

the formula in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of 

this section, C is the State agency’s rate 

of completion of its required sample 

size expressed as a decimal value, and 

S1 is the standard error of the State 

agency sample overpayment error rate. 

If a State agency completes all of its 

required sample size, then r1′′ = r1′. 

(B) r2′′ = r2′ + 5(1¥C)S2, where r2′′ is 

the adjusted regressed underpayment 

error rate, r2′ is the regressed 

underpayment error rate computed from 

the formula in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of 

this section, C is the State agency’s rate 

of completion of its required sample 

size expressed as a decimal value, and 

S2 is the standard error of the State 

agency sample underpayment error rate. 

If a State agency completes all of its 

required sample size, then r2′′ = r2′. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * FNS shall determine and 

announce the national average payment 

error rate for the fiscal year by June 30 

following the end of the fiscal year and 

shall determine and announce the 

national average case and procedural 

error rate for the fiscal year by 

September 30 following the end of the 

fiscal year. At those times, FNS shall 

notify all State agencies of their 

individual payment and case and 

procedural error rates, respectively, and 

payment error rate liabilities, if any. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * The national performance 

measure is the sum of the products of 

each State agency’s payment error rate 

multiplied by that State agency’s 

proportion of the total value of 

allotments issued for the fiscal year 

using the most recent issuance data 

available at the time the State agency is 

notified of its payment error rate. * * * 

■ 12. Revise § 275.24 to read as follows: 

§ 275.24 Performance measures. 

(a) Performance measures. FNS will 

measure performance for the following 

categories of performance measures: 

(1) Payment accuracy. FNS will assess 

State agencies annually for individual 

and overall payment accuracy, 

including measurements for 

overpayments and underpayments of 

SNAP benefits issued based on the 

results of cases reviewed in the actives 

sampling frame. 

(i) Improvements in payment 

accuracy. FNS will assess the 

percentage point decrease in a State 

agency’s combined payment error rates 

based on the comparison of the State 

agency’s validated payment error rates 

for the performance measurement year 

to those of the previous fiscal year. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) Case and procedural errors. FNS 

will assess State agencies annually to 

produce case and procedural error rates 

based on the results of cases reviewed 

in the negative sampling frame. 

(i) Most improved case and 

procedural error rate. FNS will assess 

the percentage point decrease in a State 

agency’s case and procedural error rates, 

based on the comparison of the State 

agency’s performance measurement 

year’s validated quality control case and 

procedural error rates for the 

performance measurement year with to 

those of the previous fiscal year. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) Program access index (PAI). FNS 

will annually assess the degree to which 

each State agency provides low-income 

people access to SNAP benefits. The 

PAI is the ratio of participants to 

persons with incomes below 125 

percent of poverty, as calculated in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 

this section. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules 64789 

(i) Data. For the number of 

participants (numerator), FNS will use 

the administrative annual counts of 

participants minus the average amount 

of new participants certified under 

special disaster program rules by the 

State agency averaged over the calendar 

year. For the number of people below 

125 percent of poverty (denominator), 

FNS will use the Census Bureau’s 

American Community Survey (ACS) 

count of people below 125 percent of 

poverty for the same calendar year. FNS 

will reduce the count in each State 

where a Food Distribution Program on 

Indian Reservations (FDPIR) program is 

operated by the administrative counts of 

the number of individuals who 

participate in this program averaged 

over the calendar year. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(4) Application processing timeliness. 

FNS will annually assess the timeliness 

of processed applications for each State 

agency. 

(i) Data. FNS will use quality control 

data to determine each State agency’s 

rate of application processing 

timeliness. 

(ii) Timely processed applications. A 

timely processed application is one that 

provides an eligible applicant the 

‘‘opportunity to participate’’ as defined 

in 7 CFR 274.2, within thirty days for 

normal processing or 7 days for 

expedited processing. New applications 

that are processed outside of this 

standard are untimely for this measure, 

except for applications that are properly 

pended in accordance with 7 CFR 

273.2(h)(2) because verification is 

incomplete and the State agency has 

taken all the actions described in 7 CFR 

273.2(h)(1)(i)(C). Such applications will 

not be included in this measure. 

Applications that are denied will not be 

included in this measure. 

(b) [Reserved] 

Cynthia Long, 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20023 Filed 9–18–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3