Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations explained the State agency and local E&T providers with whom they work already have structures in place for communicating with voluntary E&T
participants, and did not believe that State and Federal administrative resources should be spent on sending an unnecessary and confusing notice. The commenter urged the Department to, at a minimum, consider different parameters for the notice e.g., in a voluntary state, the NETPC language would need to inform the participant that E&T has no bearing on SNAP
eligibility and not doing E&T would not harm their SNAP benefits. A State agency that runs both a voluntary and mandatory E&T program explained that the Act already requires all E&T
programs to provide case management services to E&T participants, and believed it is more appropriate that the provider determination be addressed during regular on-going case management. The commenter suggested the case manager could re-assess the individuals physical and mental fitness to participate in the assigned E&T
component or refer the individual to a more appropriate E&T component or workforce partnership. Another State agency, running both a voluntary and a mandatory program, explained the illsuited notification for participants should be left to the discretion of State agencies. The commenter explained that, in their State, all E&T participants have an Employment and Career Development plan, which is updated by the participant and their case worker when circumstances change. The State agency believed this form would provide sufficient notification of the participants changing requirements. A
professional organization suggested the Department should consider providing only basic guidance that notices be given in some State-established form, acknowledging that State agencies are in the best position to identify how and when notice should be given. The commenter stated this approach would in part alleviate the burden on State agencies to establish a new written notice and procedure, but still allow State agencies to ensure that participants are communicating with their providers and case managers regarding critical decisions in the services they are receiving. This could help to reduce confusion on the part of the SNAP participant by ensuring the necessary conversations are had with staff who already have a relationship with and knowledge of the participant.
On the other hand, some commenters supported the formal noticing requirement and asked that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:02 Jan 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

Department include more information in the notice. A not-for-profit agency explained notice issues have been a core element of confusion for individuals subject to a work requirement, and noted that life circumstances can change quickly for this population, potentially changing their exemption status. This commenter noted that clear communications outlining steps that can be taken to maintain benefits, including pursuing an exemption or good cause, are important to ensuring participants have continued access to the SNAP benefits they need. This notfor-profit agency recommended:
Requiring State agencies to not only mail the NETPC, but also to send it via other channels like email; requiring the State agency to mail the notice to the individual subject to the work rules to ensure the message is targeted to the individual of interest; including language about exemptions and good cause in the notice; informing the E&T
participant about next steps and explaining that the E&T participant is not at risk of sanction for failure to comply with E&T during that time;
explaining the State agency will followup by taking one of the four steps; and informing participants they will get a follow-up notice if a negative action is being taken on their SNAP case. A
different not-for-profit agency explained the NETPC should clearly articulate the reason for the ill-suited determination, the next steps that the State agency will take to match the jobseeker to another opportunity, the time frame in which those next steps will occur, and how the jobseeker can appeal the decision. Another not-forprofit agency recommended that the Department work with State agencies to establish automatic notification procedures to ensure that E&T providers alert State agencies of a provider determination as soon as it is made.
This commenter also explained State agencies should be directed to establish procedures that then communicate this notification in multiple formats such as mail, email, and text or phone to participants immediately upon its receipt from the provider. In addition, another not-for-profit agency urged the Department to amend 7 CFR
273.718ii to provide notice that an ABAWDs countable months may still accrue unless the individual meets or is otherwise not subject to the ABAWD
work requirement.
The Departments intent in requiring the NETPC in the proposed rule was to ensure that the individual with a provider determination understood that they had received such a determination
PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

375

and that they should no longer attend their E&T program, to provide the participant with some background about what would happen next and, in the case of an ABAWD, inform the ABAWD
about the accrual of countable months if the ABAWD is subject to the time limit and not meeting the work requirement in accordance with 7 CFR 273.24. The Department agrees with commenters that there may be other ways, beyond a formal notice, to share this information with participants. Therefore, with this final rule, the Department is not requiring the State agency to send a NETPC, but is requiring that the State agency develop and implement procedures to notify individuals about the provider determination, steps the State agency will take to identify another opportunity, and necessary information to contact the State agency.
The Department acknowledges that entities outside the State agency, such as E&T providers or other case management staff, may have a relationship with the E&T participant who received the provider determination, but the Department believes that it is the State agencys responsibility, not providers, to notify the individual of the provider determination. This is because, as noted previously, the State agency is responsible for taking one of the four actions in 7 CFR 273.7c18iB and, as discussed below, if the individual with the provider determination is an ABAWD, the State agency is responsible for informing the ABAWD that they will accrue countable months unless the ABAWD fulfills the work requirement in accordance with 7 CFR 273.24, has good cause, lives in a waived area, or is otherwise exempt. The Department is providing State agencies with discretion to determine how the State agency will notify the individual with the provider determinationfor instance, in writing or verbally. The State agency must, at a minimum, document this notification in the case file. The Department is not requiring that the State agency notify the participant of the reason for the provider determination, although the State agency may do so. In any case, as previously stated, State agencies can move forward with processing a provider determination before obtaining the information from the provider as to the reason for the provider determination. In the case of either a mandatory or voluntary E&T
participant, the State agency must also notify the participant that they are not being sanctioned as a result of the provider determination. The Department has added these
E:FRFM05JAR2.SGM

05JAR2