Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2

the ABAWD from fulfilling the ABAWD
work requirement in another way.
A not-for-profit agency also suggested that ABAWDs who receive good cause from participating in mandatory E&T, because there is no appropriate and available opening, will be confused when they also do not receive good cause from the ABAWD work requirement and may, as a result, lose eligibility because they do not understand they are still subject to the ABAWD time limit. The commenter suggested that the Department require State agencies to send a notice to ABAWDs in this situation explaining all relevant information about the application of good cause and what they must do to maintain eligibility. The Department agrees this application of good cause could be confusing to ABAWDs and, for this reason, is requiring State agencies to include a clear, thorough description of good cause in the consolidated written notice and oral explanation of all applicable work requirements for individuals in the household during the application process and at recertification, in accordance with 7 CFR 273.7c1.
The Department also proposed two changes to good cause regulations pertaining to the ABAWD work requirement in paragraph 7 CFR
273.24b2. First, if an individual is determined to have good cause for failure or refusal to comply with mandatory E&T under 7 CFR 273.7i, the Department proposed the State agency be required to provide good cause for failure to meet the ABAWD
work requirement, without having to make a separate good cause determination an exception to this proposed policy, as discussed, is that good cause for failure to comply with mandatory E&T under the proposed 7
CFR 273.7i4 for lack of an appropriate or available E&T opening would not provide good cause for failure to comply with the ABAWD
work requirement. The Department proposed this change to codify longstanding practice see Supplemental Nutrition Assistance ProgramABAWD
Time Limit Policy and Program Access published on November 19, 2015 3 and Policy Clarifications for Administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program SNAP Employment and Training E&T Programs published on January 19, 2017 4 that, good cause 3 https fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/
files/resource-files/ABAWD-Time-Limit-Policy-andProgram-Access-Memo-Nov2015.pdf.
4 https fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/
files/resource-files/Policy%
20Clarifications%20for%20Mandatory%20E%26T508.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:02 Jan 04, 2021

Jkt 253001

under 7 CFR 273.7i for failure to comply with mandatory E&T 7 CFR
273.7aii or State-assigned workfare 7 CFR 273.7aiii also provides good cause under 7 CFR 273.24b2 for purposes of the ABAWD work requirement. However, while this longstanding policy provided good cause for ABAWDs who were referred to a mandatory E&T program or Stateassigned workfare to meet their ABAWD
work requirement, it did not provide good cause for ABAWDs participating in other work programs or other types of workfare programs. So, the Department proposed a second change that, if an ABAWD is participating in work, a work program, or workfare, and would have fulfilled the ABAWD work requirement in 7 CFR 273.24, but missed some hours for good cause, the individual would be considered to have fulfilled the ABAWD
work requirement if the absence from work, the work program, or workfare is temporary and the individual retains his or her job, training or workfare slot. The Department proposed this change so that State agencies can apply fair and consistent treatment to ABAWDs who have good cause, regardless of how the ABAWD chooses to meet the ABAWD
work requirement.
The Department received 18
comments on this provision, all of which were supportive. Two commenters did recommend the Department make an additional change to the regulatory text at 7 CFR
273.24b2 to strike the language, and the individual retains his or her job, training or workfare slot, reasoning that some employers and trainers will not be able to retain the SNAP
participant even if he or she has a good cause circumstance. The commenters proposed that good cause be allowed in cases where the absence is temporary, whether or not the individual retains his or her job, training or workfare slot. For example, a worker who has COVID19
might lose his or her job due to an extended absence, but be available for work upon recuperation. The Department agrees that there may be conditions outside of an ABAWDs control that cause both a temporary absence from work, a work program, or workfare, and also cause an ABAWD to lose his or her job, training, or workfare slot. The COVID19 public health absence is an example of such situation.
As a result, the Department has modified the language at 7 CFR
273.24b2 to strike the language and the individual retains his or her job, training or workfare slot.
In the proposed rule, the Department also noted a discrepancy in the process for establishing good cause and issuing
PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

381

a notice of adverse action between current paragraphs 7 CFR 273.7c3
and 7 CFR 273.7f1i. The Department proposed revising the language in 7 CFR 273.7c3 to clarify that, before a State agency issues a notice of adverse action to an individual or a household, as appropriate, for noncompliance with SNAP work requirements, the State agency must determine that the non-compliance was without good cause. The Department received three comments on this provision, all of which were supportive.
Several commenters recommended that the Department also make a change to 7 CFR 273.24b2 to explicitly require the State agency establish whether good cause exists for non-compliance with the ABAWD work requirement before sending a notice of adverse action. The Department agrees that, as a best practice, the State agency should establish whether an ABAWD had good cause before issuing a notice of adverse action in accordance with section 7 CFR
273.24b2. However, the Department is declining to make a regulatory change at this time, but may consider this change in future rule-making.
In the proposed rule, the Department also stated the expectation that the new authority allowing E&T providers to determine if an individual is ill-suited for their E&T component i.e., an E&T
provider determination, and the new requirement that all E&T participants receive case management, do not absolve the State agency from doing a thorough initial screening to ensure it is appropriate to require an individual to participate in an E&T program. Existing statutory and regulatory language clearly indicate that the State agency has primary responsibility for the design and operation of their E&T program, which may include agreements with one or more E&T providers who may provide case management, E&T
components, or other activities as outlined in the E&T State plan. While State agencies may choose the method of delivery that best meets their operational needs, the Department emphasized in the proposed rule that each State agency retains responsibility for its E&T program. This includes properly screening individuals for exemptions from the requirement to participate in E&T, and following up on information from E&T providers and case managers that may affect exemptions or good cause determinations after the State agency makes the determination to require participation. The Department proposed in paragraph 7 CFR 273.7e1, as redesignated, that the E&T case manager
E:FRFM05JAR2.SGM

05JAR2