`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 102342-102395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29072]



[[Page 102341]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 242

December 17, 2024

Part IV





Department of Agriculture





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





Food and Nutrition Service





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





7 CFR Part 271 and 273





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

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

[[Page 102342]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Part 271 and 273

[FNS 2023-0058]
RIN 0584-AF01


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catrina Kamau, Certification Policy 
Branch, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, 1320 
Braddock Place, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Email: 
[email protected]. Phone: (703) 305-2022.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms or Abbreviations

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

I. Background

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

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

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

[[Page 102343]]

II. Summary of Comments and Discussion of Rule Provisions

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

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

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

7 CFR 271.1: Program Purpose

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

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

Age-Based Exception

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

New Exceptions

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

Individuals Experiencing Homelessness

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

[[Page 102344]]

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

[[Page 102345]]

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

Veterans

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

[[Page 102346]]

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

Individuals Who Were in Foster Care

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

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

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

7 CFR 273.24(l): Verification of Exception Status

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

[[Page 102347]]

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

[[Page 102348]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of Screening

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

[[Page 102349]]

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

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

Screening at Initial and Recertification Application

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

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

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

Screening and Applying Exceptions During the Certification Period

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

[[Page 102350]]

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

Assigning Countable Months

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

[[Page 102351]]

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

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

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

[[Page 102352]]

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

Acting on Changes During the Certification Period

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

Self-Attestation and Questionable Information

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

[[Page 102353]]

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

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

Annual Allotment of Exemptions

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

[[Page 102354]]

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

Carryover of Unused Exemptions

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

Procedural Matters

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

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

Regulatory Impact Analysis Summary

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

[[Page 102355]]

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

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Congressional Review Act

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Executive Order 12372

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

Federalism Summary Impact Statement

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

[[Page 102356]]

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

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

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

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

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

Executive Order 13175

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

[[Page 102357]]

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

Start-Up Burden

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

Ongoing Burden

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

[[Page 102358]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.000


[[Page 102359]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.001


[[Page 102360]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.002


[[Page 102361]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.003

BILLING CODE 3410-30-C

[[Page 102362]]

E-Government Act Compliance

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

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 271

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

7 CFR Part 273

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

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

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

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

PART 271--GENERAL INFORMATION AND DEFINITIONS

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


Sec.  271.1  General purpose and scope.

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

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


Sec.  271.2  Definitions

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

PART 273--CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

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


Sec.  273.7  Work provisions.

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

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


 Sec.  273.24  Time Limit for able-bodied adults.

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

[[Page 102363]]

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

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


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

Appendix A--Regulatory Impact Analysis

I. Statement of Need

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

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

II. Summary of Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 102364]]

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

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

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

[[Page 102365]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.004


[[Page 102366]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.005


[[Page 102367]]


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

[[Page 102368]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.006

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

[[Page 102369]]

Federal Government, and State agencies administering SNAP.

III. Proposed Rule and Comments Received

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

    \21\ Posted public comments may be found at regulations.gov 
(https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0001/comment and 
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FNS-2023-0058-0003/comment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

A. Baseline Used for Aanalysis

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

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

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

B. Considering Secondary Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 102370]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Background

A. Work Requirements in SNAP

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

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

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

[[Page 102371]]

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

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

B. Characteristics of Individuals Subject to the ABAWD Time Limit

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

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

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

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

D. FRA Legislative Updates

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

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

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

E. Baselines and Time Horizon of Analysis

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

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

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

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


[[Page 102372]]



F. Methodology

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

SNAP Quality Control Data

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

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

    Estimates derived from the QC data include:

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

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

New Exception for Homelessness

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

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

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

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

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

Estimation of New SNAP Participation Based on the New FRA Exceptions

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 102373]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \49\ All FNS-approved ABAWD Waivers are publicly-available at 
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ABAWD/waivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

State-Reported Data on Discretionary Exemption Usage

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

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

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

[[Page 102374]]

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

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

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

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

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

B. Requirement To Update Exceptions From the ABAWD Time Limit

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

Changes to Age-Based Exceptions

    Discussion: This provision gradually raised the upper age limit 
defining who is subject to SNAP's time limit from age 49 to age 54, 
thereby expanding the group of SNAP participants who are subject. 
Specifically, the upper age limit changed from age 49 to age 50 on 
September 1, 2023; from age 50 to age 52 on October 1, 2023; and 
from age 52 to age 54 on October 1, 2024. The time limit will apply 
to adults aged 18 through 54 until the sunset of this provision on 
October 1, 2030. This provision will sunset immediately on October 
1, 2030, and is not subject to a phase-out period in FY 2031.
    Only individuals aged 50 to 54 who do not qualify for an 
exception from the time limit (such as a physical or mental 
condition that limits ability to work, a certain student status, 
need to care for a dependent household member, or meeting an 
exemption from the general work requirement) are newly considered 
subject to the time limit.
    Effect on SNAP Participants: The Department expects the changes 
to the age-based exception to decrease participation among SNAP 
participants ages 50 to 54 who are newly subject to the time limit 
from implementation in FY 2023 until sunset of the provision. If 
these individuals are not able to meet the time limit requirement, 
the time limit takes effect and they lose program eligibility after 
3 months of SNAP participation per 36-month period unless that 
individual qualifies for an exception, receives a discretionary 
exemption, or lives in an area with a waiver of the time limit.
    In FY 2026, when this provision is fully implemented, the 
Department (using FY 2022 SNAP QC data) estimates 1.6 percent of all 
SNAP participants, approximately 635,000 individuals (379,000 
individuals ages 50 to 52, and 257,000 individuals ages 53 to 54) 
may be impacted by the age adjustments and be newly subject to the 
time limit because they meet the new definition of an ABAWD and are 
not working 20 or more hours per week.
    The Department estimates that a small share (about 3.3 percent) 
of these individuals will be able to gain or increase their 
employment to at least 20 hours per month to retain SNAP 
eligibility. The Department based this estimate on the share of 
these individuals that are estimated to work at least 15 hours but 
less than 20 hours per week, using reported monthly earnings data in 
the FY 22 QC data. As a result of the increased work hours, SNAP 
benefits for these individuals will decrease by an average of $98 
per month in FY 2026. This small share of new individuals (about 
21,000 people in FY 2026) subject to the time limit will not lose 
SNAP eligibility because of the time limit.
    The Department estimates that 30 percent of the remaining 
individuals will not be subject to the time limit for reasons other 
than the three new exceptions temporarily established by the FRA 
because they are exempt from the SNAP general work requirement for a 
reason other than disability (e.g., an exemption due to student 
status).
    Finally, the Department estimates that approximately 30 percent 
of the remaining individuals ages 50 to 54 will live in areas 
covered by a waiver of the time limit and, therefore, will not be 
subject to the time limit.

[[Page 102375]]

    After these adjustments discussed above, in FY 2026 the 
Department estimates 301,000 individuals will lose SNAP eligibility 
and an average of $251 per month in SNAP benefits due to the change 
in the upper age limit. Individuals who lose eligibility due to the 
time limit may rejoin SNAP after the expiration of the 36-month 
period or sooner by meeting the time limit requirement, though a 
2021 USDA study on the time limit suggests employment outcomes are 
unlikely to improve among those who lose eligibility due to the time 
limit. The primary results in the study found that the time limit 
has a small, statistically significant negative impact on employment 
outcomes.\50\ A sensitivity analysis among a smaller group of time-
limited participants in this study showed no statistically 
significant impact of the time limit on employment in two States and 
a small positive impact on employment in a third State. Therefore, 
the Department estimates that very few individuals who lose SNAP 
eligibility will be able to increase their work hours to regain SNAP 
eligibility within the 36-month period, particularly in light of the 
barriers adults over the age of 50 can face in re-entering the job 
market such as age discrimination by employers, increased likelihood 
of health challenges, and lack of training opportunities, among 
other reasons.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Wheaton, Laura et al. (2021) The Impact of SNAP Able-Bodied 
Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) Time Limit Reinstatement in Nine 
States. Prepared by the Urban Institute for the USDA Food and 
Nutrition Service, 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/impact-snap-able-bodied-adults-without-dependents-abawd-time-limit-reinstatement-nine.
    \51\ Thomassen K, Sundstrup E, Skovlund SV, Andersen LL, 
Barriers and Willingness to Accept Re-Employment among Unemployed 
Senior Workers: The SeniorWorkingLife Study, Int J Environ Res 
Public Health, 2020 Jul 25;17(15):5358, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155358, 
PMID: 32722360; PMCID: PMC7439115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At full implementation in FY 2026, the Department estimates that 
benefit losses among 50-to-54-year-olds newly subject to the time 
limit will represent a 0.88 percent reduction in total annual SNAP 
benefit spending (transfers), or about $855.4 million. The 
Department estimates federal transfers to decrease over the nine-
year analysis period of FY 2023 to FY 2031 by a total of $5.2 
billion because of this provision.
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P

[[Page 102376]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.008


[[Page 102377]]


BILLING CODE 3410-30-C

New Exceptions

    In addition to expanding the group of individuals subject to the 
time limit, the FRA provides new exceptions from the time limit for 
individuals experiencing homelessness, who are veterans, or 
individuals through age 24 who were participating in foster care on 
their 18th birthday (or higher age if the State offers extended 
foster care to a higher age). Below each of these new exceptions is 
analyzed individually. The impact of the new exceptions on federal 
transfers and on SNAP participants will be itemized within 
discussion of each exception, while the aggregate impacts on 
transfers, federal burden, State agency burden, and SNAP participant 
burden will be summarized after the discussion of each new 
exception.

Individuals Experiencing Homelessness

    Discussion: Prior to the FRA, individuals who were experiencing 
homelessness and not meeting the time limit could only continue to 
participate in SNAP after accruing three countable months if the 
State agency chose to use the State's allotment of discretionary 
exemptions to provide the individual with an exception from the time 
limit on a month-by-month basis (until the State has depleted its 
allotment of discretionary exemptions). A State agency may also 
consider an individual experiencing homeless to be ``unfit for 
work,'' and thereby exempt from the general work requirement and 
thus the time limit.
    The FRA provides exceptions from the time limit for individuals 
experiencing homeless. To consistently implement this provision 
nationwide, the Department is finalizing changes to the definition 
of a ``homeless individual'' at 7 CFR 271.2 as proposed. The revised 
definition reads as follows:

Homeless Individual Means

    (1) An individual who lacks a fixed and regular nighttime 
residence, including, but not limited to, an individual who will 
imminently lose their primary nighttime residence; or
    (2) An individual whose primary nighttime residence is:
    (i) A supervised shelter designed to provide temporary 
accommodations (such as a welfare hotel or congregate shelter);
    (ii) A halfway house or similar institution that provides 
temporary residence for individuals intended to be 
institutionalized;
    (iii) A temporary accommodation for not more than 90 days in the 
residence of another individual; or
    (iv) A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily 
used, as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (a 
hallway, a bus station, a lobby, or similar places).''
    Prior to the FRA, State SNAP agencies were already required to 
screen for households experiencing homelessness to identify 
households eligible for the homeless shelter deduction. Using SNAP 
QC data, the Department estimates that approximately 3.5 percent of 
all SNAP participants experience homelessness. However, SNAP 
participants who are subject to the time limit are also more likely 
to experience homelessness. In the most recent data available to the 
Department, 17.6 percent of time-limited participants experience 
homelessness.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ This estimate includes 50-to-54-year-olds newly subject to 
the time limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FY 2026 when this provision is fully implemented, the 
Department (using SNAP QC data) estimates 1.8 percent of all SNAP 
participants, approximately 722,000 individuals (626,000 individuals 
ages 18 to 49, and 96,000 individuals ages 50 to 54) experiencing 
homelessness may be affected by the new exception from the time 
limit because they meet the definition of a time-limited participant 
and are not working 20 or more hours per week.
    The Department estimates that a small share (about 1 percent) of 
these individuals will be able to gain or increase their employment 
to at least 20 hours per week to retain SNAP eligibility.
    Compared to the general population of time-limited participants 
in SNAP, fewer participants who are experiencing homelessness are 
meeting the work requirement in the QC data, compared to all time-
limited participants. Additionally, individuals experiencing 
homelessness can face substantial barriers to gaining or retaining 
employment, including poor access to transportation, poor access to 
health care, and employer stigma against individuals experiencing 
homelessness. Therefore, the Department believes the share of time-
limited individuals who are experiencing homelessness that will be 
able to increase their work hours is likely smaller than the 3.4 
percent observed amongst all time-limited participants in the SNAP 
QC data.
    The Department estimates that 28 percent of the remaining 
individuals will not be subject to the time limit for reasons other 
than the three new exceptions temporarily established by the FRA 
because they are exempt from the general work requirement for a 
reason other than disability (e.g., an exemption due to student 
status). Finally, the Department estimates that approximately 40 
percent of the remaining individuals will live in areas covered by a 
waiver of the time limit and, therefore, will not be subject to the 
time limit in absence of this provision.
    After these adjustments discussed above, in FY 2026 the 
Department estimates 309,000 individuals experiencing homelessness 
between the ages of 18 and 54 will retain SNAP eligibility beyond 3 
months in a 36-month period (averaging to 11 months of benefits 
gained per individual per year) and continue receiving an average of 
$297 per month, per person, in SNAP benefits because of the new 
exception for individuals experiencing homelessness. At full 
implementation in FY 2026, this represents a 1.04 percent increase 
in total annual SNAP benefit spending (transfers), or about $1.0 
billion. The Department estimates federal transfers to increase over 
the nine-year period of FY 2023 to FY 2031 by a total of $6.9 
billion because of this new exception for individuals experiencing 
homelessness.
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P

[[Page 102378]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.009


[[Page 102379]]


BILLING CODE 3410-30-C

Veterans

    Discussion: The FRA additionally provides a new exception from 
the ABAWD time limit for time-limited participants who are veterans. 
No previous unique work requirement exceptions have been applied to 
veterans in SNAP. To implement this change, the Department 
identified the need to standardize a definition of who is considered 
a veteran. The Department defines veteran at 7 CFR 273.24(c)(8) as 
an individual who, regardless of the conditions of their discharge 
or release from, served in the United States Armed Forces (such as 
the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, 
and National Guard), including an individual who served in a reserve 
component of the Armed Forces, or served as a commissioned officer 
of the Public Health Service, Environmental Scientific Services 
Administration, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration.
    Effect on SNAP Participants: The Department does not collect 
information on SNAP applicants' and participants' military service 
history, so it is unable to precisely estimate how many SNAP 
participants may benefit from the veteran exception. Based on data 
from the 2022 ACS, the Department estimates 2.5 percent of SNAP 
participants are veterans, but a much smaller share (0.22 percent) 
may be veterans who are subject to the time limit.
    In FY 2026, when the FRA's provisions are fully implemented, the 
Department estimates approximately 88,000 individuals (60,000 
individuals between the ages of 18 and 49 and 28,000 individuals 
ages 50 to 54) are veterans that may be affected by the new 
exception to the time limit because they meet the definition of a 
time-limited participant and are likely not working 20 or more hours 
per week.
    The Department estimates that 32 percent of these individuals 
will not be subject to the time limit for reasons other than the 
three new exceptions temporarily established by the FRA because they 
are exempt from the SNAP general work requirement for a reason other 
than disability (e.g., an exemption due to student status).
    Finally, the Department estimates that approximately 40 percent 
of remaining individuals ages 18 to 49 and 30 percent of the 
remaining individuals ages 50 to 54 will live in areas covered by a 
geographic waiver of the time limit and, therefore, will not be 
subject to the time limit.
    After these adjustments discussed above, in FY 2026 the 
Department estimates 38,000 individuals who are veterans between the 
ages of 18 and 54 will retain SNAP eligibility beyond 3 months in a 
36-month period (averaging to 11 months of benefits gained per 
individual per year) and continue receiving an average of $254 per 
month, per person, in SNAP benefits because of the new exception 
from the time limit for veterans. At full implementation in FY 2026, 
this represents a 0.11 percent increase in total annual SNAP benefit 
spending (transfers), or about $105.5 million. The Department 
estimates federal transfers to increase over the nine-year period of 
FY 2023 to FY 2031 by a total of $710.6 million as a result of this 
new exception.
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P

[[Page 102380]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.010


[[Page 102381]]


BILLING CODE 3410-30-C

Individuals Who Were in Foster Care

    Discussion: The third new exception from the time limit 
prescribed by the FRA is for SNAP participants aged 24 and under who 
were in foster care on their 18th birthday, including those who 
remain in extended foster care in States that have elected to extend 
foster care under Sec. 475(8)(B)(iii) of the Social Security Act. 
The Department notes that this definition does not require that an 
individual was in foster care in the State in which they are 
applying for or receiving SNAP benefits.
    The Department is clarifying that ``foster care under the 
responsibility of a State'' includes foster care programs run by any 
State, District, Territory, Indian Tribal Organization, or 
Unaccompanied Refugee Minors Program. The Department also clarified 
that the exception applies to individuals who turned 18 while in a 
foster care program even if they leave extended foster care before 
the maximum age.
    Effect on SNAP Participants: The Department does not collect 
data on SNAP applicants' and participants' history in foster care, 
so it is unable to precisely estimate how many individuals will 
benefit from the new exception for former foster youth. Based on 
information from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting 
System (AFCARS) \53\ about how many youths age out of foster care 
each year, the Department estimates that there are approximately 
99,000 individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 who were in foster 
care at their 18th birthday but have since emancipated. Of those 
99,000 individuals, the Department estimates that about 35,000 may 
be SNAP participants (0.09 percent of all SNAP participants in FY 
2026) who are subject to the time limit and are not otherwise 
qualified for an exception. The remaining 64,000 individuals in this 
group are assumed to be not eligible for SNAP, already meeting the 
time limit requirement, or not subject to the time limit (for 
reasons that can include being a student, having a child in their 
household, or having a disability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Per ACF guidance to States, States must include in AFCARS 
all children in foster care under the responsibility for placement 
or care of the State title IV-B/IV-E agency, which includes 
Unaccompanied Refugee Minors. More detail can be found at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/policy-guidance/clarification-unaccompanied-refugee-minor-urm-eligibility-chafee-independent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FY 2026, among these 35,000 individuals estimated to be 
current SNAP participants, the Department estimates that 
approximately 40 percent will live in areas that are covered by a 
geographic waiver of the time limit, and therefore will not be 
subject to the time limit. Therefore, the Department estimates about 
21,000 individuals who are former foster youth will retain SNAP 
eligibility beyond 3 months in a 36-month period (averaging to 11 
months of benefits gained per individual per year) and continue 
receiving an average of $254 per month in FY 2026 because of this 
new exception. In FY 2026, this represents a 0.06 percent increase 
in total annual SNAP benefit spending (transfers), or about $58.2 
million. The Department estimates federal transfers to increase over 
the nine-year period of FY 2023 to FY 2031 by a total of $419.6 
million as a result of this new exception.
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P

[[Page 102382]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.011


[[Page 102383]]



Combined Impacts for All Changes to Exceptions--Federal Transfers

    As a result of this final rule, the estimated net impact of the 
change in the age-based exceptions and the three new exceptions is 
an average net increase in SNAP participation of about 95,000 
individuals per year when fully implemented in FY 2026. In FY 2026, 
this includes 301,000 participants losing eligibility, 367,000 
participants retaining eligibility, and about 29,000 new 
participants.\54\ The Department estimates that a small number of 
new participants (ages 18-49) will begin receiving SNAP benefits due 
to the new exceptions allowing individuals who are experiencing 
homelessness, are veterans, or were formerly in the foster care 
system to participate in SNAP who otherwise may have thought they 
would be ineligible due to the time limit. The Department estimates 
federal transfers to increase over the nine-year period of FY 2023 
to FY 2031 by a total of $3.5 billion as a result of the change in 
the age-based exceptions and the new exceptions in the FRA. On an 
annual basis, federal transfers are estimated to increase by an 
average of $393.1 million. These estimates are based on a without-
statute comparison. There are no transfer effects under a with-
statute comparison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ This estimate of about 29,000 new participants assumes an 
increase of roughly 1 percent in the baseline number of time-limited 
adults ages 18 to 49. This is the Department's best estimate in the 
absence of better data.

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

[[Page 102384]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.012


[[Page 102385]]


BILLING CODE 3410-30-C

Combined Impacts for All Changes to Exceptions--Household Burden Costs

    The Department expects there to be an increased time burden for 
50-to-54-year-old SNAP participants who are newly considered to be 
subject to the time limit. These individuals will be required to 
report work hours and review and respond to notices informing them 
of the additional work requirement and time limit. Based on 
estimates provided in the burden table prepared for the final rule, 
an estimated 517,171 individuals will experience an annual 15.5-
minute burden related to these activities for total time of 133,602 
hours annually and an annual cost of $3.2 million in FY 2026. In 
addition, 282,056 individuals within this group will also need to 
review and respond to Notices of Adverse Action (NOAAs) when they 
lose SNAP eligibility due to not meeting the time limit, estimated 
to be an additional 4-minute burden per person for a time of 18,804 
hours annually and a total annual cost of $448,846 in FY 2026.
    Upon sunset of this provision on October 1, 2030, the upper 
limit of ages subject to the time limit will reverse to age 49 and 
the three new exceptions will be removed, pending any future 
legislative updates. Any 50-to-54-year-old participants who were 
subject to the time limit will stop accruing any countable months 
immediately on October 1, 2030. The Department expects 50-to-54-
year-old participants who lost eligibility due to the time limit to 
return to the program gradually beginning in FY 2031. However, the 
Department is unable to estimate whether some eligible individuals 
will not return to the program due to being unaware of changes in 
the work requirement rules, stigma, or any other reason. As 
individuals who had not been subject to the time limit during the 
duration of this rule due to the three new exceptions within the 
rule become subject to the time limit and lose SNAP eligibility at 
their next recertification or screening during FY 2031, the 
Department estimates a one-time burden on 327,404 participants of 
19.5 minutes related to work reporting administrative activities and 
to review and respond to NOAAs for a total of $2.8 million in FY 
2031. These estimates are based on a without-statute comparison. 
Since this provision is required by statute, there are no household 
burden costs compared to a with-statute baseline.

Combined Impacts for All Changes to Exceptions--State Agency 
Administrative Costs

    Implementation: State agencies began incurring administrative 
costs to implement the FRA's changes to exceptions from the time 
limit in FY 2023 through various administrative activities, such as 
updating State eligibility systems; preparing for and executing 
worker training; updating relevant applications, notices, and forms; 
updating State SNAP regulations; and spending additional time with 
program participants to discuss program changes in relation to the 
individual's case.
    The State administrative burden for initial implementation 
activities for all provisions of the final rule was estimated to be 
approximately 469,177 hours nationwide, costing State agencies $10.3 
million for start-up activities in FYs 2023 and 2024, after 50 
percent federal cost reimbursement.
    Ongoing: On an ongoing basis, State agencies will need to 
discuss the time limit requirement, verify hours worked, and provide 
appropriate noticing to individuals who are newly subject to the 
time limit (estimated at 517,171 participants). This is estimated to 
take 15.5 minutes per individual and cost an estimated $2.3 million 
in FY 2026, after 50 percent federal cost reimbursement. The State 
agency will incur an additional 4-minute burden for each of the 
estimated 282,056 participants who will need to be issued Notices of 
Adverse Action (NOAAs) due to not meeting the time limit for a total 
annual cost of $327,479 in FY 2026, after 50 percent federal cost 
reimbursement.
    Sunsetting: For the sunsetting of this provision on October 1, 
2030, the Department estimates that State agencies will again need 
to complete eligibility system updates; train eligibility workers; 
update relevant applications, notices, and forms; update State SNAP 
regulations; and spend time with program participants who will be 
impacted by this change. The sunsetting administrative costs are 
estimated to be a total one-time burden of 575,583 hours nationwide, 
costing State agencies about $14.3 million in FYs 2030 and 2031, 
after 50 percent federal cost reimbursement. These sunsetting costs 
are required to implement the statutory requirements and are 
estimated against the without-statute baseline.

Combined Impacts for All Changes to Exceptions--Federal Administrative 
Costs

    Implementation: In addition to the federal transfer effects 
previously discussed, the Department estimated it took the Federal 
Government approximately 90 hours to make all administrative updates 
pertaining to implementation of this final rule, resulting in an 
estimated one-time total expense of $6,902 incurred in FY 2024. Of 
these 90 hours, the Department has identified that approximately 
1.25 hours were spent by the Federal Government to implement the 
non-statutory screening provision (discussed further in part ``D. 
Screening,'' below); the Department estimates the remaining 88.75 
hours to apply to the statutory provisions, including for all 
changes to exceptions. Additionally, the federal share of State 
agencies' administrative expenses to implement all provisions of the 
final rule was estimated to be a total one-time cost of $10.3 
million for start-up activities incurred in FYs 2023 and 2024; all 
State agency start-up costs are based in statutory provisions.
    Ongoing: To provide administrative support throughout the 
duration of the FRA's changes to exceptions from the time limit, the 
Department estimates ongoing administrative costs to the Federal 
Government to be on average $36.8 million annually during years of 
full implementation (FY 2026-FY 2030) for the federal share of State 
agencies' ongoing administrative expenses.
    Sunsetting: The Department estimates a one-time cost of $14.3 
million in FYs 2030 and 2031 for the Federal share of State 
agencies' administrative sunsetting expenses. Additionally, the 
Department estimates it will take the Federal Government 63 hours to 
sunset all applicable provisions of this rule on October 1, 2030, 
with a total one-time federal administrative burden of $5,949 in FY 
2030, compared to a without-statute baseline. Of these 63 hours, 
2.25 of them are related to the non-statutory screening provisions 
(detailed in part ``D. Screening,'' below); the remaining 60.75 
hours are related to the statutory provisions within this rule.

C. Requirement To Adjust the Number of Discretionary Exemptions 
Available to State Agencies Each Year

    Discussion: The FRA reduces the allotment of discretionary 
exemptions State agencies will accrue in each fiscal year. Prior to 
the FRA, each fiscal year each State agency accrued an allotment of 
one-month exemptions equal to 12 percent of its at-risk time-limited 
participants; this FRA provision lowers that rate to 8 percent, 
beginning with the allotment State agencies had available for use in 
FY 2024. The provision also restricts each State's ability to 
carryover unused discretionary exemptions between fiscal years from 
all unused discretionary exemptions to only those allotted during 
the prior fiscal year. Starting in FY 2026, State agencies will only 
carryover unused discretionary exemptions earned for the previous 
fiscal year, not including historical balances, and are instructed 
to apply discretionary exemptions in the order of accrual on a 
``first-in, first-out'' basis. The impacts discussed in this section 
are estimated using a without-statute baseline for comparison. This 
provision has no effect when measured against a with-statute 
baseline.
    Effect on SNAP Participants: It is difficult to predict the 
precise impacts of these two changes within each State, as well as 
across States. If a State agency was consistently using a high 
proportion of discretionary exemptions under the prior allotment of 
12 percent, a small number of SNAP participants in that State may no 
longer receive a discretionary exemption and therefore lose SNAP 
eligibility as a result of the time limit. If a State agency was not 
using a high proportion of their discretionary exemptions prior to 
the FRA change, this change may have no effect on SNAP participants 
in that State. The most recent data available to Department indicate 
that State agencies typically use less than an 8 percent allotment 
of discretionary exemptions.
    Between FY 2016 and FY 2019, only five instances were identified 
in which a State did not exceed their annual allotment, but used 
more exemptions than they would have earned for the fiscal year, 
assuming an allotment based on 8 percent of covered individuals.\55\ 
As a result, this analysis scores

[[Page 102386]]

the provision to lower allotments to 8 percent of covered 
individuals as having, at most, a nominal effect on SNAP benefit 
spending (transfers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Based on State agency-reported data on discretionary 
exemption usage. FY 2016-FY 2019 is used as the most recent period 
of data available as these are the most recent years in which State 
agencies used discretionary exemptions and during which the time 
limit was not waived nationwide by FFCRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, those State agencies that have exceeded an 8 percent 
allotment have tended to use many more exemptions than they had 
accrued for the relevant fiscal year. In other words, those States 
drew upon their banks of carried over exemptions. In the FY 2016-FY 
2019 period, there were 33 instances of State agencies using carried 
over exemptions. Over those 33 instances, a total of 832,048 
``banked'' exemptions were used. Given that one exemption permits 
one time-limited participant to participate in SNAP for one 
additional month, this equates to approximately 69,337 individuals 
gaining a full year of SNAP participation (832,048 divided by 12 
months) over the four-year period, or 17,334 individuals annually, 
on average. The Department does not have information on why States 
opted to use carried over exemptions in each of these cases. 
However, State agencies are known to use discretionary exemptions to 
exempt individuals from the time limit in areas that have been 
affected by a natural disaster or to mitigate the effects of an area 
losing coverage by a waiver of the time limit.
    Beyond FY 2025, State agencies will no longer carryover unused 
exemptions indefinitely, which will reduce some State agencies' 
banks of available exemptions. As a result, State agencies may have 
reduced ability to use discretionary exemptions to extend time-
limited individuals' SNAP participation in similar scenarios. 
However, the Department is unable to predict how many such scenarios 
could occur in future years and how a State agency would choose to 
use discretionary exemptions, nor how many individuals subject to 
the time limit may be affected.
    When preparing the proposed rule, the Department theorized that 
State agency application of discretionary exemptions could change in 
FY 2024 and FY 2025, as State agencies could attempt to ``spend 
down'' discretionary exemptions that would otherwise expire. The 
``use-or-lose'' scenario could have incentivized some State agencies 
to use more discretionary exemptions in FYs 2024 and 2025, which 
would have resulted in fewer individuals losing SNAP eligibility due 
to the time limit in these two fiscal years. However, data available 
from the first three quarters of FY 2024 indicate that discretionary 
exemption usage in FY 2024 is within the range of exemption usage 
rates that occurred between FY 2016-FY 2019. With the FY 2024 data 
indicating no changes to discretionary exemption application rates 
and given that State agencies typically under-use the discretionary 
exemptions available to them, the Department has not estimated any 
measurable changes to SNAP participation or transfers to occur in 
this final rule.
    Effect on State Agencies: The implementation of this provision 
may require some State agencies to reconsider the State's approach 
to using discretionary exemptions, which could add burden hours for 
these State agencies. We are unable to estimate how many State 
agencies may be affected but estimate the administrative burden to 
be nominal.
    Effect on Federal Spending: The Department estimates nominal 
changes in federal transfers because of reductions in discretionary 
exemption allotments, from 12 percent to 8 percent, and restrictions 
on carryover of unused exemptions beyond one fiscal year. While a 
decrease in available discretionary exemptions would mean a federal 
transfer savings if States consistently used all discretionary 
exemptions available to them each year prior to the reduction, State 
agencies' past patterns of discretionary exemption usages and data 
available from the first three quarters of FY 2024 suggest they will 
not fully apply all discretionary exemptions available to them.
    As previously discussed in the analysis of changes to 
exceptions, the Department expects it took the Federal Government 
approximately 90 hours to make all administrative updates pertaining 
to implementation of this rule, resulting in an estimated one-time 
total expense of $6,902 incurred in FY 2024. The Department 
estimates that 1.25 of these hours are related to the non-statutory 
screening provision, detailed in the following section, with the 
other 88.75 hours related to all statutory provisions. Additionally, 
as previously discussed, the federal share of State agencies' 
administrative expenses to implement all provisions of the final 
rule was estimated to be a total one-time cost of $10.3 million 
incurred in FYs 2023 and 2024. This provision is not expected to 
generate any ongoing administrative costs to the Federal Government. 
Finally, there are no sunsetting administrative costs pertaining to 
this provision, as it is enacted on a permanent basis.

D. Screening

    Discussion: These provisions require an evaluation by the 
eligibility worker of an individual for all exemptions from the 
general work requirement, all exceptions from the time limit, and 
whether the individual should be referred for participation in an 
employment and training program.\56\ The Department refers to this 
process as ``screening.'' Currently, screening is required at 
initial and recertification application as the Act provides that 
individuals must not be subject to the time limit if they meet one 
of the exceptions listed in Sec. 6(o)(3) of the Act. However, this 
requirement has not been codified in regulation to date. In the 
final rule, the Department clarifies that State agencies must screen 
individuals for all exemptions and continue screening even once an 
individual meets one exemption. State agencies are prohibited from 
assigning countable months to an individual if the State agency has 
not screened them for all exceptions, including the new exceptions 
established by the FRA. If an individual subject to the time limit 
has a change in circumstances that results in them now meeting an 
exception, the State agency cannot assign a countable month if the 
information is not questionable. This is a longstanding expectation 
of State agencies that the Department is codifying in the final rule 
to ensure countable months are not applied inappropriately. These 
screening provisions now being codified in regulation are existing 
expectations necessary to apply the exemptions and exceptions 
required by statute (including those added by the FRA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Screening for participation in employment and training 
programs is not considered a part of the E&T program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on comments, the final rule also adds a requirement that 
State agencies are required to apply the exception that will last 
the longest when an individual meets more than one exception. This 
new requirement is the only non-statutory provision within the final 
rule, and therefore, the only provision that results in quantifiable 
effects under a with-statute comparison. In the analysis that 
follows, impacts will be discussed compared to without-statute and 
with-statute baselines.
    Effect on SNAP Participants: Screening provisions are intended 
to ensure consistent application of screening standards and 
practices by all State agencies. The Department does not currently 
have information available that would indicate changes in how many 
individuals may retain SNAP eligibility as a result of codifying 
this requirement for State agencies to screen for exceptions from 
the time limit and exemptions from the SNAP work requirements.
    While there are no estimated benefit changes as a result of 
these screening provisions, SNAP participants are expected to bear 
an administrative burden due to increased screening. FNS estimates 
that screening for exceptions from the time limit and screening for 
exemptions from the general work requirement each require 
approximately 4 minutes of a participant's time. Some participants 
will only incur a 4-minute burden because they are only subject to 
the general work requirement. Individuals subject to the time limit 
are also subject to the general work requirement and therefore will 
incur 8 minutes of burden, per screening. In total, screening will 
affect approximately 20.1 million SNAP participants and equal 
approximately 1.9 million additional hours annually in FY 2026. This 
would equate to an estimated annual burden of $44.5 million across 
all individuals in FY 2026. Because this provision of the rule does 
not sunset, it will result in ongoing costs beyond FY 2030, though 
we note that after FY 2030 screening for the time limit will again 
only apply to 18-to-49-year-olds, reducing burden on individuals 
aged 50 to 54.
    We do not estimate any burden on participants that is 
attributable to the non-statutory requirement to apply the longest 
exception, so there are no participant burden costs when compared to 
a with-statute baseline.
    Effect on State Agencies: State agencies are expected to bear 
the administrative cost of updating their internal screening 
policies and practices; train workers on new procedures; and carry 
out any other administrative steps necessary to implement this 
provision. As discussed previously, the State administrative burden 
for initial implementation activities for all provisions of the 
final rule was estimated to be approximately 469,177 hours 
nationwide, costing State agencies $10.3 million for start-

[[Page 102387]]

up activities (including system changes) incurred in FYs 2023 and 
2024, after 50 percent federal cost reimbursement. These 
implementation costs were required to implement the statutory 
requirements and are estimated against the without-statute baseline.
    Due to the additional estimated 4 or 8 minutes of time spent 
with participants during the screening process, explained above, the 
average annual projected administrative burden to State agencies is 
1.5 million hours, or approximately $32.4 million annually in FY 
2026 after 50 percent federal cost reimbursement, when compared to a 
without-statute baseline. Of the State agency staff time spent 
screening participants, approximately 0.5 minutes are estimated to 
be related to the non-statutory requirement to apply the longest 
exception to the client's case. When compared to a with-statute 
baseline, the Department estimates an average annual administrative 
burden to State agencies of 177,142 hours, or approximately $4.1 
million in FY 2026 after 50 percent federal cost reimbursement.
    Because the screening provisions of the rule do not sunset, 
there are no expected administrative costs of sunsetting these 
provisions.
    Effect on Federal Spending: Federal administrative burden 
associated with implementing the final rule in a without-statute 
comparison have been discussed in previous sections of the RIA. In a 
with-statute comparison, the Department estimates 1.25 hours of 
federal administrative burden to implement the non-statutory 
screening provision to apply the longest lasting exception (an 
approximately $97 cost at start-up in FY 2024).
    The ongoing federal share of State agencies' administrative 
expenses to comply with this update is estimated to be approximately 
$32.4 million annually in FY 2026 for 53 State SNAP agencies in a 
without-statute comparison. In a with-statute comparison, the 
estimated federal share of State agencies' administrative expenses 
is estimated to be approximately $4.1 million annually in FY 2026.
    While the screening provisions are enacted on a permanent basis, 
the Department estimates 2.25 hours of federal administrative burden 
in relation to providing guidance to State agencies regarding 
identifying exceptions that last the longest, due to sunset of the 
three new exceptions identified in the FRA, and how to 
operationalize the changes when screening for the longest exception. 
This cost to the Federal Government is estimated to be $187 in FY 
2030.

VI. Qualitative Assessment

    There are secondary impacts of the FRA's provisions--that might 
be in addition to the direct impacts discussed in the preceding 
section, or might represent different manifestations of the same 
effects--which are difficult to quantify, like effects on food 
security, poverty, and health. As such, this section will 
qualitatively discuss current research on the secondary effects of 
SNAP participation. The Department notes that while there are 
studies that generally describe the relationships between SNAP, food 
security, poverty, and health care costs, these studies do not 
permit quantitative estimation of costs or benefits specific to the 
time-limited SNAP participants affected by this final rule.
    Several studies have attempted to measure the effect of SNAP 
receipt on food insecurity. One study has estimated receipt of SNAP 
to reduce the likelihood of being food insecure by roughly 30 
percent and to reduce the likelihood of being very food insecure by 
20 percent.\57\ Another study estimates the impact of SNAP 
participation to reduce food insecurity by 7.1 percentage 
points.\58\ A third study concludes that among the group of SNAP 
recipients who reported being most food insecure prior to program 
participation, receipt of SNAP is shown to increase the likelihood 
of having high food security by 20 to 30 percentage points.\59\ 
While the precise estimates on reduction of food insecurity vary 
depending on the study's methodology, SNAP participation is shown to 
increase the food security of participating households. The outcomes 
of these studies lead the Department to expect that individuals who 
retain or gain SNAP eligibility as a result of the provisions of 
this final rule (estimated to be 397,000 individuals in FY 2026) may 
experience improved food security. Correspondingly, individuals who 
lose SNAP eligibility as a result of this rule's provisions 
(estimated to be 301,000 individuals in FY 2026) may experience 
increased likelihood of food insecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Ratcliffe, C., McKernan, S. and Zhang, S. (2011), ``How 
Much Does the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Reduce Food 
Insecurity?'', Amer. J of Ag. Econ., 93: 1082-1098. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar026.
    \58\ Christopher A. Swann, ``Household history, SNAP 
participation, and food insecurity'', Food Policy, Volume 73, 2017, 
Pages 1-9, ISSN 0306-9192, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919217306796.
    \59\ Partha Deb, Christian A. Gregory, ``Who Benefits Most from 
SNAP? A Study of Food Security and Food Spending'', National Bureau 
of Economic Research, Working Paper 22977, December 2016, http://www.nber.org/papers/w22977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, increased food security is shown to positively 
impact broader health outcomes, benefiting the person directly as 
well as reducing societal health care costs. A USDA report titled 
``Food Insecurity, Chronic Disease, and Health Among Working-Age 
Adults'' documents the correlation between low food security status 
and higher rates of chronic health conditions, finding that ``the 
number of chronic conditions for adults in households with low food 
security is, on average, 18 percent higher than for those in high-
food secure households.'' \60\ The range of working-aged adults 
(defined in this report as ages 18 to 64) in households with lower 
food security status have elevated probabilities of chronic disease 
diagnosis for all 10 conditions examined in the report. Additionally 
of note, given the group of individuals losing SNAP eligibility as a 
result of this rule is limited to 50-to-54-year-olds, this research 
also indicates an increased likelihood of chronic illness with age, 
potentially exacerbating the impact of the loss of SNAP for this 
older cohort of childless adults without disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Christian A. Gregory, Alisha Coleman-Jensen, ``Food 
Insecurity, Chronic Disease, and Health Among Working-Age Adults'', 
ERR-235, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 
July 2017, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=84466.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In another study examining the relationship between food 
security and health as measured by cost-related medication underuse, 
it was found that compared to those with high food security, those 
with very low food security had about 4 times higher odds of 
skipping medication to save money.\61\ Aside from the direct health 
benefit to the individual, SNAP participation is also shown to 
reduce health care spending 62 63 64 and improve health 
as measured by the participant's self-assessed health, sick days, 
office-based visits, and outpatient visits.\65\ The Department 
expects, based on this research, that individuals who gain or retain 
SNAP eligibility (397,000 in FY 2026) as a result of this final rule 
could have improved health outcomes and therefore incur lower health 
care expenditures, while the inverse is expected for individuals who 
will lose SNAP eligibility (301,000 in FY 2026) due to this rule's 
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Dena Herman, Patience Afulani, Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Gail 
G. Harrison, ``Food Insecurity and Cost-Related Medication Underuse 
Among Nonelderly Adults in a Nationally Representative Sample'', 
American Journal of Public Health 105, no. 10 (October 1, 2015): pp. 
e48-e59. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302712.
    \62\ Berkowitz SA, Seligman HK, Rigdon J, Meigs JB, Basu S, 
``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participation and 
Health Care Expenditures Among Low-Income Adults'', JAMA Intern Med. 
2017 Nov 1;177(11):1642-1649. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.4841. 
PMID: 28973507; PMCID: PMC5710268.
    \63\ Kollannoor-Samuel, G., Boelcke-Stennes, K.A., Nelson, J., 
Martin, E., Fertig, A.R., & Schiff, J. (2022). ``Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program Participation is Associated with Lower 
Health Care Spending among Working Age Adults without Dependents'', 
Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 33(2), 737-750. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2022.0060.
    \64\ Lisa Dillman, Ph.D., MEd, Joan Eichner, DrPH, MPH, MPA, 
Ashley Humienny, MBA, Suzanne Kinsky, Ph.D., MPH, Qingfeng Liang, 
MS, MA, Elaine Yuen Ling Kwok, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, and Julian Xie, MD, 
MPP, ``The Impact of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP) Enrollment on Health and Cost Outcomes,'' NEJM Catal Innov 
Care Deliv 2023;4(6), May 2023, https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.22.0366.
    \65\ Christian A. Gregory, Partha Deb, ``Does SNAP improve your 
health?'', Food Policy, Volume 50, 2015, Pages 11-19, ISSN 0306-
9192, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.09.010. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919214001419).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SNAP receipt is also estimated to support the economy beyond 
food expenditures. One USDA study finds the gross domestic product 
(GDP) multiplier of SNAP during an economic downturn to be 1.5, 
which means that $1 billion in new SNAP spending during a downturn 
``induces further new spending in the economy that collectively 
increases GDP by $1.54 billion, supports 13,560 jobs, and creates 
$32 million in farm income.'' \66\

[[Page 102388]]

Another study similarly found evidence that SNAP receipt had 
positive sizable impacts on food, housing, and education 
expenditures.\67\ As individuals are gaining or losing SNAP benefits 
as a result of this rule, the Department expects the corresponding 
expenditures on food or other goods and the resulting impact on the 
economy to fluctuate in the same direction as the overall transfer 
impact of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Canning, Patrick and Brian Stacy, ``The Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Economy: New Estimates 
of the SNAP Multiplier,'' ERR-265, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Economic Research Service, July 2019. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/93529/err-265.pdf?v=7831.1.
    \67\ Jiyoon Kim, ``Do SNAP participants expand non-food spending 
when they receive more SNAP Benefits?--Evidence from the 2009 SNAP 
benefits increase,'' Food Policy, Volume 65, 2016, Pages 9-20, ISSN 
0306-9192, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.10.002. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919216304341.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, should the country experience another economic 
downturn similar to the COVID-19 pandemic or for another unforeseen 
reason throughout the 9-year analysis period of this rule, the 
Department would expect to see spending impacts related to the 
estimated 1.5 multiplier.
    In conclusion, the individuals who will retain or gain 
eligibility for SNAP benefits are more likely to experience 
increased food security, improved health outcomes, and lower health 
care expenditures than those without SNAP benefits. Conversely, 
individuals who will lose SNAP benefits as a result of this rule are 
more likely to experience the opposite of these benefits--decreased 
food security, worsened health outcomes, and higher health care 
expenditures.

VII. Distributive Impacts

    Distributive impacts discussed in this section are based on 
analyses using a without-statute baseline for comparison.

A. Differences in State-Level Impacts

    Effects of the FRA's provisions in the final rule vary by State 
due to differences in demographics, as well as differences in how 
States administer SNAP. For example, States that regularly qualify 
for and request waivers of the time limit will have smaller portions 
of their participants affected by changes to the time limit 
requirement. The provision to make 50-to-54-year-olds subject to the 
time limit will have slightly different effects on States' 
participants, depending on the share of their participants that 
falls into the newly expanded ABAWD age range. While 1.9 percent of 
all SNAP participants are estimated to fall into the expanded 50-to-
54-year-old age range of time-limited participants, the share of 
each State's SNAP participants varies from 0.7 percent in Wyoming, 
to 3.3 percent in the District of Columbia. See Appendix Table A for 
estimates for each State.
    Similarly, the distribution of individuals experiencing 
homelessness across the U.S. is not uniform. Information available 
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
indicates that the homeless population in the U.S. is concentrated 
in a handful of States. The January 2023 Point-in-Time estimates 
\68\ of homeless individuals from HUD indicate that over half of all 
individuals experiencing homelessness in the U.S. (56.8 percent) 
lived in just five States: California, New York, Florida, 
Washington, and Texas. California, alone, accounted for 27.8 percent 
of all individuals experiencing homelessness in the Point-in-Time 
Count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Available here: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2023-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The share of each State's SNAP participants who are experiencing 
homelessness, or are time-limited participants and experiencing 
homelessness, also varies. Nationally, about 3.5 percent of SNAP 
participants are experiencing homelessness, according to FY 22 SNAP 
QC data. More specifically, about 1.9 percent of SNAP participants 
are considered subject to the time limit and experiencing 
homelessness. The State with the lowest share of time-limited 
participants experiencing homelessness is Texas (0.2 percent) and 
the State with the highest share is Rhode Island (4.7 percent). See 
Appendix Table B for estimates for each State.
    It should be noted that the accuracy of the estimates in this 
section can be affected by the size of a State's caseload. States 
with smaller caseloads also have smaller SNAP QC data samples, which 
can affect the reliability of State-level estimates for sub-groups 
of the SNAP caseload, like those experiencing homelessness.

B. Differences Among Subgroups

    While the time limit does not apply to individuals who are 
considered disabled or elderly by SNAP rules, the Department 
acknowledges that some SNAP participants who are elderly or disabled 
may nevertheless be affected by the provisions in the final rule. A 
small share of individuals subject to the time limit (7.3 percent) 
are in a SNAP household with an elderly or disabled person. If these 
individuals lose eligibility because of the time limit, their 
household will experience a decrease in total SNAP benefits 
available to the household. The provisions included in this final 
rule will not affect SNAP households with children, as individuals 
subject to the time limit, by definition, do not have children in 
their SNAP household.
    Individuals affected by the provisions in the final rule are 
more likely to be male, when compared to all adults between ages 18 
and 54 in the SNAP caseload (51 percent, compared to 35 percent). 
While participants subject to the time limit between ages 18 and 54 
and those who experience homelessness are more likely to be male (51 
percent and 65 percent, respectively), those who are over age 50 are 
more likely to be female (52 percent). See Table 9, below, for 
estimates of the sex of SNAP participants in several subgroups 
affected by the final rule's provisions. The Department does not 
have data on the sex of SNAP participants who are subject to the 
time limit who are also veterans or former foster youth.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.013

    The distribution of races and Hispanic ethnicity among SNAP 
participants affected by the final rule is generally similar to the 
distribution among all SNAP participants ages 18 to 54. SNAP 
participants subject to the time limit ages 18 to 54 have roughly 
the

[[Page 102389]]

same likelihood of being white or black (38 percent and 29 percent, 
respectively) as all SNAP participants ages 18 to 54 (38 percent and 
27 percent). SNAP participants who are subject to the time limit and 
experiencing homeless have a similar distribution of races and 
Hispanic ethnicity as all SNAP participants and all time-limited 
participants. While the measures are close, individuals experiencing 
homelessness are slightly less likely to be white or Hispanic or 
Latino of any race (35 percent and 11 percent, respectively) than 
SNAP participants ages 18 to 54 (38 percent and 12 percent), and 
more likely to be black (33 percent) compared to all SNAP 
participants ages 18 to 54 (27 percent). It is important to note 
that the Department does not have data on the race or ethnicity of 
17 percent of SNAP participants ages 18 to 54, which could affect 
these estimates. See Table 10, below, for estimates of the race and 
ethnicity of SNAP participants in several subgroups affected by the 
final rule's provisions. The Department does not have SNAP QC data 
on the race or ethnicity of SNAP participants who are subject to the 
time limit who are also veterans or former foster youth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ This table does not comply with OMB's Statistical Policy 
Directive (SPD) No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and 
Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, because the data were 
collected prior to SPD 15's publication on March 28, 2024. More 
information can be found here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/29/2024-06469/revisions-to-ombs-statistical-policy-directive-no-15-standards-for-maintaining-collecting-and.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.014

VIII. Uncertainties

A. Effectiveness of Screening for New Exceptions

    In this analysis, the Department assumes that all individuals 
subject to the time limit are correctly screened for qualifying 
exceptions. For example, we assume that all individuals who are 
experiencing homelessness and subject to the time limit are 
correctly excepted. Human error (which could be contributed to by 
instances of understaffing in State agencies) is likely to result in 
some share of individuals not receiving an exception for which they 
qualify, as well as some individuals receiving an exception for 
which they do not qualify. It is also possible that some 
participants will not disclose information that could lead to an 
exception (for example, a participant may not want to disclose their 
experience with the foster care system). As a result, the count of 
SNAP participants who lose eligibility or retain eligibility due to 
the final rule could be higher or lower in reality. However, given 
that the Department estimates that the share of individuals losing 
eligibility is very similar to the share receiving one of the three 
new exceptions, we do not anticipate that the overall net transfer 
impact of the rule would change significantly.

B. ABAWD Waiver Coverage in Future Years

    The number of SNAP participants who are subject to the time 
limit at any given time is affected by the extent of geographic 
waivers of the ABAWD time limit. In this RIA, we assume the national 
unemployment rate will remain low through FY 2031. As a result, we 
also assume that fewer SNAP participants (about 40 percent) will 
live in an area covered by a waiver of the time limit than is true 
during economic downturns, like the Great Recession or the COVID-19 
public health emergency. If a higher share of individuals live in an 
area where the time limit is waived, then both transfer increases 
and decreases will be reduced. Fewer 50-to-54-year-olds would lose 
eligibility due to the time limit, reducing transfer savings. 
Conversely, if individuals who receive an exception from the time 
limit due to being a veteran, homeless, or a qualifying former 
foster youth live in an area with a waiver of the time limit, there 
would be no transfer increase associated with their retaining 
eligibility because of an exception.
    Alternatively, if a lower share of individuals live in an area 
where the time limit is waived, then both transfer increases and 
decreases would rise. However, given that the Department estimates 
that the share of individuals losing eligibility is very similar to 
the share of individuals retaining eligibility, we do not anticipate 
that the overall net transfer impact of the rule would change 
significantly.

[[Page 102390]]

C. Number of Individuals Who Will Be Eligible for New Exceptions 
for Veterans and Former Foster Youth

    Unlike homelessness, the Department does not gather data on 
whether SNAP applicants or participants are veterans or former 
foster youth. Therefore, we are unable to precisely estimate how 
many individuals who may be subject to the time limit may benefit 
from these two new exceptions. This RIA contains the Department's 
best estimates of how many individuals may be affected. If the 
number of individuals who receive one of these two new exceptions is 
higher than anticipated, there would be a slight increase in 
transfers. If the number is lower than anticipated, there would be a 
slight decrease in transfers. Given that the Department believes 
time-limited individuals who are veterans or former foster youth up 
to age 24 make up a small portion of SNAP participants 
(cumulatively, approximately 0.31 percent of participants), we do 
not expect this uncertainty to result in significant changes to the 
net transfer impact associated with the final rule.

IX. Sensitivity Analysis

    Table 11, below, illustrates how the RIA's estimates might 
change if different assumptions regarding the uncertainties 
discussed above were used. Each scenario is measured against a 
without-statute baseline for comparison. Sensitivity analysis 
estimates were produced using the same general methodology as the 
primary estimates in the RIA. Alternative assumptions used for the 
sensitivity analysis include:
    A. Assume 10 percent of estimated groups receiving a new 
exception are not appropriately identified during screening and do 
not receive the exception.
    B. Assume employment outcomes are worse than anticipated and 
waiver coverage settles at 10 percentage points higher than 
projected.
    C. Assume employment outcomes are better than anticipated and 
waiver coverage settles at 10 percentage points lower than 
projected.
    Table 11 breaks down each scenario's impact on overall federal 
transfers during the first year of full implementation (FY 2026), as 
well as over the nine-year analysis period of this RIA, FY 2023 
through FY 2031.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.015

    The final rule results in a 0.40 percent increase in total SNAP 
benefit spending over the nine-year period of analysis, or $420.1 
million in FY 2026 and $3.5 billion over FY 2023-FY 2031. If 
screening for the three new exceptions in this rule were to be 
conducted with only 90 percent efficacy (thereby reducing the number 
of those excepted by 10 percent) as demonstrated in Scenario A, 
total SNAP benefit spending would increase to a smaller degree, by 
0.30 percent. In FY 2026, Scenario A would decrease the cost of the 
final rule by $127.5 million, compared to the primary estimates in 
this RIA. Over the nine-year period FY 2023-FY 2031, Scenario A 
would decrease the cost of the final rule by approximately $874.7 
million, compared to the primary estimates in this RIA. The smaller 
increase in transfers under Scenario A is due to fewer time-limited 
participants retaining SNAP eligibility as a result of the FRA's 
three new exceptions from the time limit.
    Analyses of Scenarios B and C indicate that a 10-percentage 
point increase or decrease to the share of individuals covered under 
waivers of the time limit would result in a corresponding $75.6 
million increase or decrease in overall SNAP spending in reference 
year FY 2026 ($621.5 million over FY 2023-FY 2031) compared to the 
primary estimates in this RIA. This represents approximately a 0.07 
percentage-point increase or decrease in transfer spending.

X. Alternatives

    With one exception, the policy changes analyzed in this RIA were 
prescribed by the FRA; therefore, assessment of policy alternatives 
is limited.

Alternatives Considered in the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would implement changes to exceptions from the 
time limit in a way that closely adheres to the FRA's statutory 
language. To implement the FRA's changes to the time limit, the 
Department had provided definitions of who qualifies for the FRA's 
new exceptions from the time limit for individuals experiencing 
homelessness, veterans, and former foster youth up to age 24 in the 
proposed rulemaking. However, these definitions do not expand upon 
the categories included in the FRA.
    The Department had determined the clarification of definitions 
of who qualifies for the FRA's new exceptions to have limited effect 
on the welfare effects of the rule. The Department did not consider 
alternative definitions for these groups in the proposed rule 
because it sought to align its definitions with the terms used in 
the FRA and with definitions used by federal agencies who are 
experts in serving those groups, to the extent allowable by the Food 
and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended.
    The Department also proposed to amend the regulations to clarify 
requirements for screening individuals for exceptions from the work 
requirements and time limit. This provision required State agencies 
to screen for exceptions at initial and recertification application 
and prohibits them from assigning countable months to an individual 
if the State agency has not screened the individual for exceptions. 
Further, it also addressed State agency responsibilities when an 
individual experiences a change in circumstances during the 
certification period that results in a change in exception status.
    The Department considered finalizing the proposed rule without 
this screening requirement. Omitting the screening requirement would 
not have had a measurable effect on transfers, but may have reduced 
measurable State administrative expenses and federal administrative 
costs. However, in the absence of regulations clarifying screening 
requirements, questions from State agencies arose during FRA 
implementation of how and when it may identify if an individual 
meets one of the new exceptions from the time limit. Screening is 
implicitly necessary absent any action in this rule. As such, the 
Department determined that standardizing national screening 
practices was necessary to improve consistency in program operations 
and provide quality customer service in line with the December 13, 
2021, Executive Order on Transforming Federal Customer Experience 
and Service Delivery to Rebuild Trust in Government. To effectively 
ensure screening practices are standard across State agencies, the 
Department proposed requiring State

[[Page 102391]]

agencies to first screen for exemptions from the general work 
requirement, as this is an important first step in evaluating which, 
if any, work requirements apply to an individual, since individuals 
are not subject to the time limit if they meet an exemption from the 
general work requirement. The proposed rule therefore clarified 
requirements on both screening for the general work requirement, as 
well as to determine whether an individual is subject to the time 
limit, in order to ensure uniform national practices.

Alternatives Considered in the Final Rule

    Comments received on the proposed rule have been reviewed, 
discussed, and responded to in the preamble to this final rule. This 
section will summarize any policy changes from the proposed rule 
that were considered due to public comment and could have had an 
impact on the estimates in this RIA.
    During the public comment period, the Department received 17 
comments on the definition of ``homeless individual,'' with several 
of these requesting a more explicit definition of ``imminently 
homeless'' and several requesting to add a list of scenarios that 
would meet the criteria of ``imminently homeless.'' The Department 
assessed the possibility of updating the definition provided in line 
with these comments, but decided to finalize the definition as 
proposed in order to maintain flexibility for State agencies to 
review how other assistance programs define homeless individuals and 
better coordinate across programs to identify and reduce 
administrative burden in verifying individuals who meet the 
exception. Had this definition been revised to a more prescriptive 
definition, the Department would have estimated a moderate change to 
State administrative burden and to the burden on individuals 
throughout the screening process.
    The Department additionally received two comments requesting 
clarification that screening of individuals must be performed 
orally. The Department determined that adjusting this requirement in 
all cases can limit flexibility in responding to changing needs of 
SNAP participants and State agencies. As such, the Department 
recommends that State agencies conduct screenings orally as a best 
practice. In consideration of this alterative, the Department also 
notes that imposing the requirement of oral screenings would have 
increased the administrative burden associated with this provision.
    As noted in consideration of alternatives during development of 
the proposed version of this rule, the provisions in this final rule 
are largely driven by the FRA's mandate, leaving limited room for 
consideration of alternatives while finalizing the rule. The 
Department did not consider any further alternatives for inclusion 
in either the proposed or final rule.
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P

Appendix Table A: Estimated Share of the SNAP Participants Who Are 50-
to-54-Year-Old Time-Limited Participants, by State

[[Page 102392]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.016


[[Page 102393]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.017

Appendix Table B: Estimated Share of the SNAP Participants Who Are 
Time-Limited and Experiencing Homelessness, by State

[[Page 102394]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.018


[[Page 102395]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.019

[FR Doc. 2024-29072 Filed 12-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-C`