Opinion ID: 2091825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: heap/liheaa

Text: The Federally funded Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly known as HEAP, had its origins during the beginning of the Reagan administration's effort to allocate funds to the states in the form of block grants so that they could be used efficiently in meeting the differing needs of local communities ( Rodriguez v Cuomo , 953 F.2d 33, 38). Acting in this spirit as part of the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Congress decided to repeal an earlier low-income energy assistance statute (42 USC former §§ 8601-8612 [added by Pub L 96-223]) and replace[] it with a fiscally trimmer version    which removed many of the federal regulations that had controlled the distribution of federal energy assistance funds ( Clifford v Janklow , 733 F.2d 534, 536). Under the resulting legislation, known as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (LIHEAA) (42 USC § 8621 et seq. ), Congress was to make block grants of Federal dollars to qualified States which were then to distribute the funds to assist low-income households    in meeting their immediate home energy needs (42 USC § 8621 [a]). In keeping with the block grant format, Congress authorized States like New York that participate in HEAP to submit their own plans to administer and distribute the Federal funds for approval by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (42 USC § 8624 [a]). In general, each State's plan must agree to provide, in a timely manner, that the highest level of assistance will be furnished to those households which have the lowest incomes and the highest energy costs or needs in relation to income (42 USC § 8624 [b] [5]). A household is eligible to receive HEAP benefits if it receives an AFDC grant, food stamps or other forms of public assistance or its combined income does not exceed 150% of the poverty line or 60% of a State's median income (42 USC § 8624 [b] [2]). In addition, certain individuals  such as those who are in an institution which already receives Social Security benefits  are specifically excluded from receiving HEAP benefits (42 USC § 8624 [i]). Beyond those relatively broad parameters, however, the LIHEAA expressly delegates to the States the responsibility for formulating criteria as to the eligibility requirements to be used    for each type of assistance to be provided (42 USC § 8624 [c] [1] [A]). The significance of such delegation is highlighted by the applicable Department of Health and Human Services regulations which provide that the States are primarily responsible for interpreting the governing statutory provisions.    [T]he Department will defer to a State's interpretation    of the block grant statutes unless the interpretation is clearly erroneous (45 CFR 96.50 [e]). So long as minimal requirements established under the Act are met, the states are free to design their own programs ( Rodriguez v Cuomo , 953 F.2d 33, 34). Acting upon this delegation as well as under provisions of State law ( see , Social Services Law § 97 [2]), New York promulgated regulations establishing eligibility criteria for recipients of HEAP funds (18 NYCRR 393.4). To further assist in the administration of New York's HEAP program, DSS also issued various administrative directives and manuals with specific instructions to be used by local social services districts when responding to HEAP applications ( see , 87 ADM-51, 1990 NY St DSS HEAP Manual). At issue here is the DSS regulation, initially filed as an emergency measure effective February 27, 1989, which provides that in order to be eligible for emergency HEAP benefits, the applicant must document that he/she is the tenant of record with primary responsibility for the payment of his/her heat-related residential energy bill. A tenant of record is a person who has    primary responsibility for payment of the monthly rent or mortgage for their dwelling unit. A homeowner whose mortgage has been satisfied is also considered a tenant of record. Individuals who contribute a portion of the monthly rent/mortgage to a person responsible for payment of the rent/ mortgage for their dwelling unit will not be considered a tenant of record. (18 NYCRR 393.4 [d] [1].) [3] Because plaintiff contributes her monthly rent to John Potter, the person responsible for making mortgage payments, she does not meet this tenant of record requirement and challenges it as a violation of the LIHEAA. Faced with a similar challenge to New York's HEAP regulations, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a DSS directive excluding tenants of government subsidized housing with heat included in their rent from receiving nonemergency HEAP funds (18 NYCRR 393.4 [c] [3] [i]) even though the regulation had the effect of excluding persons who otherwise satisfied the minimal eligibility criteria set forth in the statute ( Rodriguez v Cuomo , 953 F.2d 33 [1992]). Outlining the extensive legislative history surrounding the LIHEAA as well as the relevant statutory provisions, the Second Circuit concluded that Congress did not intend that States must award HEAP benefits to each and every household which meets the minimal eligibility guidelines set forth in the statute. To the contrary, given the finite limits on Federal dollars, a State may target specified households to receive HEAP benefits in order to fulfill the statutory purpose of assisting those who have the highest energy costs or needs in relation to income. Citing Chevron U.S.A. v Natural Resources Defense Council (467 US 837), the Second Circuit reasoned that given the express delegation in the LIHEAA from Congress to the States, the states stand in much the same position as would a federal administrative agency given authority over an analogous federally-controlled program ( id. , at 39). Determining eligibility requirements to select the neediest households `requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules' and thus is a determination that falls within the purview of the states' interpretative authority ( id. , at 40-41). Of course, as this Court has repeatedly stated, an agency's interpretation of the statutes it administers generally should be upheld if not unreasonable or irrational ( Matter of Rodriguez v Perales , 86 N.Y.2d 361, 367). Applying that standard of review, the Second Circuit determined that New York rationally conclude[d] that tenants occupying government subsidized housing with heat included in the rent are less in need of HEAP funds than, for example, tenants who do not live in such housing ( Rodriguez v Cuomo , 953 F2d, at 41). The Second Circuit in Rodriguez v Cuomo thus read great significance into the block grant nature of the HEAP program. So do we. As outlined in the next section of this opinion discussing the validity of the tenant of record requirement under New York law, DSS' rationale for the tenant of record criterion  that it assures that DSS make payments only to those most in need of them and that it allows DSS to do so in a timely and efficient manner  is fully consistent with the LIHEAA's purpose and is not unreasonable, irrational or clearly erroneous. It will therefore not be disturbed by this Court on appeal.