Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

Omitting Food From In-Kind Support and Maintenance Calculations rule (2024)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Omitting Food From In-Kind Support and Maintenance Calculations is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA), effective September 30, 2024., that updates Supplemental Security Income (SSI) regulations to remove food from calculations of In-Kind Support and Maintenance; adds the definition of income; clarifies meaning of position that "income may be received constructively."[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Omitting Food From In-Kind Support and Maintenance Calculations
  • Action: Final rule
  • Type of significant rule: Other significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program is a federal assistance program designed to provide financial support to low-income individuals who are elderly, blind, or disabled. The rule was implemented to address concerns regarding the treatment of food assistance benefits received by SSI recipients, particularly from programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Its purpose is to prevent double-counting of food assistance benefits as income for SSI eligibility and benefit calculation purposes, ensuring that individuals do not face reductions in their SSI benefits due to receiving essential food assistance.[1]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “

    We are updating our Supplemental Security Income (SSI) regulations to remove food from the calculations of In-Kind Support and Maintenance (ISM). We are also adding conforming language to our definition of income. These changes simplify our rules by making them less cumbersome to administer and easier for the public to understand and follow, and they improve the equitable treatment of food assistance within the SSI program. This final rule also includes other minor revisions to our regulations related to income, including clarifying our longstanding position that income may be received 'constructively.'[2]

    		”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    This final rule exempts the value of food assistance received from being counted as income for determining SSI eligibility and benefit amounts. This provision aims to ensure that individuals receiving food assistance through programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) do not face reductions in their SSI benefits due to overlapping assistance. By excluding food assistance from income calculations, the rule helps prevent undue hardship for low-income individuals and families who rely on both SSI and food assistance programs.

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

    Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. Executive Order 14094, issued by President Joe Biden (D) on April 6, 2023, made changes to Executive Order 12866, including referring to economically significant rules as section 3(f)(1) significant rules and raising the monetary threshold for economic significance to $200 million or more.[1]


    The text of the Omitting Food From In-Kind Support and Maintenance Calculations rule states that OMB deemed this rule significant, but not economically significant:

    “

    We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and OMB has determined that this final rule meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 and amended by E.O. 14094, and is subject to OMB review.[2]

    		”

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Federal Register, “Omitting Food From In-Kind Support and Maintenance Calculations,” March 27, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Omitting_Food_From_In-Kind_Support_and_Maintenance_Calculations_rule_(2024)&oldid=10691885"