Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations from any work requirement receive those exemptions, and that it is the responsibility of the State agency to screen for and provide those exemptions. The Department considered requiring the State agency to first reassess individuals with a provider determination for an exemption from the general work requirement before taking one of the other three actions;
however, the Department concluded that this requirement would be administratively burdensome for the State agency because not all individuals with a provider determination will need a re-assessment for an exemption. The Department decided that providing reassessment as one of the four options would allow State agencies to perform the re-assessment if they had reason to believe a re-assessment was necessary i.e., received information from the provider, a case manager, or a participant suggesting an individual may be exempt. The Department would strongly encourage the State agency to re-asses the individual for an exemption if the E&T provider suggested the reason for the provider determination was related to an exemption. In addition, the Department does not believe it is necessary to require State agencies to always re-assess an ABAWD with a provider determination for exemptions from the ABAWD work requirement;
however, the State agency may do so at any time.
The Department would also like to clarify a misunderstanding of the proposed regulatory text at 7 CFR
273.7c18iB1. In the proposed rule, the Department explained that, if the State agency chose to re-refer an individual with a provider determination to another E&T
component, the individual must also receive case management in accordance with 7 CFR 273.7c2. A not-for-profit agency explained many individuals rereferred to an E&T component might not actually be placed into the component due to a lack of provider slots, the participant not meeting eligibility criteria, or the participant or provider not following through with the referral.
The commenter further explained that many SNAP agencies are not configured to provide case management outside of their E&T providers, and many E&T
providers would not be willing to provide case management if they did not have available component slots or the participant did not meet eligibility criteria. The commenter concluded that case management should only be required if the SNAP participant is successfully placed in a component.
The Department identifies several
VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:02 Jan 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

misunderstandings in this statement, and would like to clarify both the overall role of case management in E&T, the general purpose of the provider determination, and the application of next steps in 7 CFR 273.7c18iB.
First, all E&T programs must provide case management to all E&T
participants. If a State agency chooses to re-refer a participant to an E&T
component after the individual received a provider determination, the State agency must provide that participant with case management, whether through the E&T provider or through some other means. This case management could be a continuation of the case management the participant was receiving before the provider determination, or a new set of case management services. As discussed previously in the case management section of the preamble, the State agency should tailor case management services to the needs of the participant.
Second, the Department does not understand why a State agency would refer an individual to an E&T
component after the individual received a provider determination if the component does not have a place for the participant, if the participant does not meet eligibility criteria, or there is a likelihood that the provider will not follow through on the referral. State agencies should not refer individuals to E&T components that do not have available slots or are inappropriate for the individual. The State agency has a choice among the four actions in 7 CFR
273.7c18iB and can choose the most helpful path for an individual in moving toward self-sufficiency. If there is not an appropriate E&T component available, the State agency should refer the participant to a workforce partnership in accordance with 7 CFR
273.7c18iB2, if available and of interest to the participant, or coordinate with another program in accordance with 7 CFR 273.7c18iB4. No changes to the regulatory text are necessary with this clarification.
The Department received one comment recommending the Department require the State agency to inform individuals who are referred to an E&T component, in accordance with 7 CFR 273.7c18iB1 that the participant may be disqualified for failure to report or begin the new E&T
component. The Department believes that modifications to paragraph 7 CFR
273.7c2 in this rulemaking regarding screening and referral to E&T
sufficiently outline the necessary steps the State agency must take to inform E&T participants regarding compliance with E&T. The requirements in
PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

377

paragraph 7 CFR 273.7c2 apply to individuals who are referred to E&T as a result of actions in 7 CFR
273.7c18iB1; therefore, no additional regulatory changes are necessary.
The Department received one comment requesting the Department clearly state in 7 CFR
273.7c18iB4, if the State agency finds that the best option is to coordinate with Federal, State, or local workforce or assistance programs, rather than refer the individual to E&T or a workforce partnership, then that individual must be exempted from mandatory E&T. The Department discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule that if a State agency determines that other work opportunities or assistance would be most appropriate for the individual, then the State agency cannot subject the individual to mandatory E&T
requirements because the other work opportunities or assistance would not fulfill a mandatory E&T requirement. In other words, it would be not be fair to subject an individual to a mandatory E&T requirement if the State agency has determined that other Federal, State, or local workforce or assistance programs would be more beneficial. The Department agrees that an individual should not be required to participate in E&T if the State chooses this option and has modified the regulation at 7 CFR
273.7c18iB4 to more clearly state this understanding. In addition, the Department notes that if a State agency chooses the option at 7 CFR
2737.7c18iB3 to reassess the mental and physical fitness of the participant, and the State agency determines that an individual does not meet an exemption from the general work requirement, but the State agency also determines the individual should be exempted from mandatory E&T, the State agency must exempt the individual.
The Department also received comments on the requirement in 7 CFR
273.7c18ii that, from the time an E&T provider determines an individual is ill-suited for an E&T component until after the State agency takes one of the actions in paragraph 7 CFR
273.7c18iB, the individual shall not be found to have refused without good cause to participate in mandatory E&T. A not-for-profit agency explained that taking one or all of the actions in 7 CFR 273.7c18iB does not guarantee State agency follow-up on referrals or successful identification of an appropriate and available placement by the State agency. The commenter, therefore, suggested that the statement
E:FRFM05JAR2.SGM

05JAR2