[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 358-411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28610]



[[Page 357]]

Vol. 86

Tuesday,

No. 2

January 5, 2021

Part II





Department of Agriculture





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Food and Nutrition Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





7 CFR Parts 271 and 273





Employment and Training Opportunities in the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 358]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Parts 271 and 273

[FNS-2019-0008]
RIN 0584-AE68


Employment and Training Opportunities in the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The final rule implements the changes made by section 4005 of 
the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the Act) to the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) pertaining to the Employment and 
Training (E&T) program and aspects of the work requirement for able-
bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). In general, these changes 
are related to strengthening the SNAP E&T program, adding workforce 
partnerships as a way for SNAP participants to meet their work 
requirements, and modifying the work requirement for ABAWDs.

DATES: This rule is effective March 8, 2021. The provisions in 7 CFR 
237.7(c)(1) pertaining to the consolidated written notice and oral 
explanation of work requirements, and the provisions in 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(11)(iii) and (iv) and 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18) are applicable 
beginning October 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Moira Johnston, Food and Nutrition 
Service, Office of Employment and Training, 1320 Braddock Place, 
Alexandria, VA 22314, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final rule implements the changes made 
by section 4005 of The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 
115-334) (the Act) to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP). The Department published the proposed rule on March 17, 2020, 
and received 75 comments, 72 of which were substantive.
    The final rule requires State agencies to consult with their State 
workforce development boards on the design of their E&T programs and to 
document in their E&T State plans the extent to which their E&T 
programs will be carried out in coordination with activities under 
title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). The 
final rule also makes changes to E&T components including: Replacing 
job search with supervised job search as a component; eliminating job 
finding clubs; replacing job skills assessments with employability 
assessments; adding apprenticeships and subsidized employment as 
allowable activities; requiring a 30-day minimum for provision of job 
retention services; and allowing those activities from the E&T pilots 
authorized under the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79) that 
have had the most demonstrable impact on the ability of participants to 
find and retain employment that leads to increased income and reduced 
reliance on public assistance to become allowable E&T activities.
    The final rule also requires that, in addition to providing one or 
more E&T components, all E&T programs provide case management services 
to E&T participants. The rule revises the definition of good cause for 
failure to comply with the requirement to participate in E&T to include 
instances in which an appropriate component or opening in an E&T 
program is not available. It also modifies the required reporting 
elements in the final quarterly E&T Program Activity Report provided by 
State agencies to include the number of SNAP applicants and 
participants who are required to participate in E&T, of those, the 
number who begin participation in the E&T program and an E&T component, 
and the number of mandatory E&T participants who are determined 
ineligible for failure to comply. The rule adds workforce partnerships 
as a way for SNAP participants to meet their work requirements. It also 
establishes a funding formula for reallocated E&T funds and increases 
the minimum allocation of 100 percent funds for each State agency to 
$100,000, as prescribed by the Act. The rule requires State agencies to 
re-direct individuals who are determined ill-suited for an E&T program 
component to other more suitable activities.
    The final rule also codifies some changes to policy pertaining to 
able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). These changes include 
updating the regulations to reflect the reduction in the number of 
ABAWD work exemptions from 15 percent to 12 percent (this change was 
implemented at the start of Fiscal Year 2020) and referring to such 
exemptions as ``discretionary exemptions,'' as well as adding workforce 
partnerships and employment and training programs for veterans operated 
by the Department of Labor or the Department of Veteran's Affairs to 
the list of work programs for ABAWDs. The rule replaces ``job search'' 
with ``supervised job search'' as a type of activity that cannot count 
as a work program for the purposes of an ABAWD fulfilling their work 
requirement, unless it comprises less than half the work requirement.
    The final rule adds the requirement that all State agencies advise 
certain zero-income households subject to the general work requirement 
at recertification of employment and training opportunities. The rule 
also requires State agencies to provide to all households subject to 
work requirements a consolidated written notice and comprehensive oral 
explanation of the work requirements for individuals within the 
household.
    Overall, the Department believes the statutory changes made by 
section 4005 of the Act will strengthen E&T programs, and improve SNAP 
participants' ability to gain and retain employment, thus reducing 
participant reliance on the social safety net. Through this 
legislation, Congress has tasked the Department and State agencies with 
reviewing and bolstering the quality and accountability of E&T programs 
for SNAP participants. The final rule allows for more evidence-based 
components and requires more accountability on the part of both State 
agencies and E&T participants while also retaining State flexibility. 
Notably, the addition of case management to the definition of an E&T 
program fundamentally changes SNAP E&T and the expectation for how 
State agencies must engage with E&T participants. As a result, the 
Department made several changes to the way E&T programs are described. 
In the final rule, an E&T program is defined as a program providing 
both case management and one or more E&T components. E&T components may 
be comprised of a number of activities which are designed to achieve 
the purpose of the component.
    The Department discusses each of the final regulatory changes in 
more detail below.

Consultation With Workforce Development Boards and Coordination With 
the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(5) require that E&T 
components must be delivered through the State's statewide workforce 
development system, unless the component is not available locally 
through such a system. The Act added the requirement in section 
6(d)(4)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act (FNA) that State agencies must 
design their SNAP E&T programs in consultation with their State 
workforce development board or, if the

[[Page 359]]

State agency demonstrates that consultation with private employers or 
employer organizations would be more effective or efficient, in 
consultation with private employers or employer organizations. The Act 
also added a new requirement that State agencies include in their E&T 
State plans the extent to which the State agency will coordinate with 
the activities carried out under title I of the Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act (WIOA). The Department proposed to modify the 
regulation at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(5) to add the requirement that State 
agencies design their E&T programs in consultation with their State 
workforce development board or with employers or employer 
organizations, if the State agency demonstrates such consultation would 
be more effective or efficient. The Department also proposed to modify 
the regulation at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(xii), as re-designated, to require 
State agencies to describe in their E&T State plans how they met this 
requirement to consult, to include a description of any outcomes from 
this consultation, and to document the extent to which their E&T 
programs are coordinated with activities carried out under title I of 
WIOA.
    The Department received 13 comments on this provision, all of which 
were supportive of the proposed changes, although some commenters 
provided suggestions for improvement. Commenters supported the required 
consultation with workforce development boards to ensure SNAP E&T 
programs benefit from the expertise of these boards and to streamline 
the delivery of services. Commenters also noted that better alignment 
across SNAP E&T and title I of WIOA can help reduce service 
duplication, generate cost savings, and increase access to resources 
for jobseekers. One workforce training agency; however, cautioned 
against folding SNAP E&T into WIOA services. This agency noted that 
SNAP E&T funding offers certain flexibilities and support services that 
make it especially well-suited for working with job seekers with lower 
basic skills and greater barriers to employment, a group that is 
sometimes excluded from WIOA services. The Department agrees that SNAP 
E&T is well-positioned to serve individuals with greater need for 
support. The Department would like to clarify that this provision does 
not require State agencies to fold E&T into WIOA services and cautions 
against interpreting the provision this way. The Department encourages 
State agencies to be part of the conversations regarding States' 
workforce development strategies, to take full advantage of the 
knowledge and expertise that currently exists within the statewide 
workforce development system, and to identify and leverage resources 
where appropriate and practicable. However, the SNAP E&T program 
remains the responsibility of the State agency and should be designed 
around the unique characteristics of the SNAP population. In addition, 
as discussed in the proposed rule, the new requirements for 
consultation with State workforce development boards and for 
documenting in E&T State plans the extent to which State agencies have 
coordinated with activities carried out under title I of WIOA, do not 
mean that State agencies need approval from their State workforce 
development board to implement their E&T program. The State SNAP agency 
will remain responsible for implementing and operating the State's E&T 
program.
    A not-for profit agency suggested that, if a State agency chooses 
to consult with private employers or employer organizations instead of 
workforce development boards, the State agency should also demonstrate 
that they have consulted with labor representatives such as unions or 
worker centers. The Department agrees that these organizations may 
offer an important perspective on workforce development opportunities 
and would not discourage any State agency from reaching out to union or 
workforce centers, as applicable. However, the statutory requirement is 
only for States to consult with State workforce development boards, or 
private employers or employer organizations, if the State agency 
demonstrates such consultation would be more effective or efficient, 
and the Department believes it would impose an unnecessary additional 
burden on State agencies to expand the number of groups State agencies 
are required to consult with in the design of their E&T programs. A 
local government agency and three not-for-profit agencies recommended 
that the Department also encourage State agencies to engage with local 
employers or industry representatives to become SNAP E&T providers. The 
Department does encourage State agencies to collaborate and engage with 
a wide array of entities to develop training opportunities for SNAP E&T 
but declines to mandate such collaboration and engagement beyond the 
requirements of Section 4005 of the Act. State agencies can capitalize 
on the relationships and labor market expertise of State workforce 
development boards to facilitate connections to local employers and 
industry representatives. As a result, the Department concludes that no 
addition to the proposed regulatory text is necessary.
    To further collaboration with WIOA services, a State agency 
requested the Department commit to coordinated guidance from the United 
States Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labor on SNAP 
E&T and WIOA services. The coordinated guidance would ``enhance local 
workforce boards' understanding of the opportunity that SNAP E&T 
recipients provide and help ensure their due consideration in the 
distribution of finite local workforce board resources.'' The 
Department regularly interacts with the Department of Labor, and will 
continue to explore opportunities to ensure awareness and understanding 
of SNAP E&T by State and local workforce development system 
stakeholders, including local workforce boards.
    In conclusion, the Department finalizes the regulatory text as 
proposed without any changes.

Supervised Job Search

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(1)(i) establish job search as 
an allowable E&T component. In addition, current regulations at 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(1) specify that ``job search or job search training, when 
offered as components of an E&T program, are not qualifying activities 
relating to the participation requirements necessary to maintain SNAP 
eligibility for ABAWDs.'' However, with respect to the ABAWD work 
requirement, the current provision goes on to state that ``job search 
or job search training activities, when offered as part of other E&T 
program components, are acceptable as long as those activities comprise 
less than half the total required time spent in the components.'' The 
Act replaced the E&T job search component with supervised job search in 
section 6(d)(4)(B)(i)(I) of the FNA, and defined supervised job search 
as an E&T component that occurs at State-approved locations at which 
the activities of participants shall be directly supervised, and the 
timing and activities of participants tracked in accordance with 
guidelines issued by the State agency. The Department proposed to 
codify the new supervised job search component at current 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(1)(i), re-designated as 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2)(i). In addition, the 
Department proposed to make edits to current 7 CFR 273.7(e)(1), at re-
designated 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2), to specify that job search, including 
supervised job search, when offered as components of an E&T program, 
are not in and of themselves ``qualifying activities relating to the 
participation

[[Page 360]]

requirements necessary to fulfill the ABAWD work requirement under 
Sec.  273.24.'' However, job search, including supervised job search, 
is an acceptable activity when offered as part of other E&T program 
components and it comprises less than half of the total required time 
spent in the components. The Department recognizes that job search, 
supervised or otherwise, can be an important activity for E&T 
participants seeking employment or looking for a new job where they can 
apply the skills gained through E&T. The Joint Explanatory Statement of 
the Committee of Conference, issued with the Act, reinforced that view 
by stating that ``unsupervised job search'' may be a ``subsidiary 
component'' for the purposes of meeting a work requirement, so long as 
it is less than half of the requirement.\1\ The Department proposed to 
add in paragraph 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(i) a requirement that State agencies 
report in their E&T State plans a summary of the State guidelines used 
to implement supervised job search. The Department also proposed 
changes related to supervised job search in the section on ABAWD work 
programs at 7 CFR 273.24(a)(1)(iii), which are discussed in the section 
titled Work Programs for Fulfilling the ABAWD Work Requirement later in 
this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Conf. Rept. 115-1072, p. 617, https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt1072/CRPT-115hrpt1072.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposed rule, the Department proposed various factors to 
consider in interpreting ``State-approved location,'' ``directly 
supervise participants,'' and ``tracking timing and activities of 
participants.'' The Department sought comments regarding these phrases. 
The Department also sought comments describing current job search 
programs operated as part of E&T programs or other workforce 
development programs that are directly supervised and where the timing 
and activities of participants are tracked by the State agency or 
providers.
    The Department received 49 comments on this provision. Twenty-six 
of the commenters supported defining supervised job search to allow 
maximum flexibility for State agencies to design programs that meet the 
needs of local participants. However, one commenter opposed the change 
explaining supervised job search ``would place patronizing, 
infantilizing, and absurd restrictions on those seeking new 
employment.'' The Department notes that the Act replaced job search 
with supervised job search and requires direct supervision and tracking 
of timing and activities, therefore the Department must implement the 
regulatory change.
    In responding to the Department's request for feedback, commenters 
explained that the nationwide COVID-19 public health emergency 
demonstrated the importance of providing flexibility within supervised 
job search as the pandemic had limited face-to-face service options and 
necessitated that State agencies pivot to online or virtual platforms. 
A workforce training agency explained that, even before the current 
pandemic, searching and applying for jobs shifted greatly to online 
methods due to the increased use of technology. As such, the commenter 
believed that requiring job seekers to complete job search while being 
in the same physical location as SNAP E&T program staff is not 
necessary and should not be required. Two State agencies believed that 
allowing virtual locations would enable State agencies to integrate 
delivery of their supervised job search activities with the same online 
job search portals used by their WIOA and unemployment insurance 
systems, thus furthering the goal of greater integration with WIOA 
processes. Commenters also explained that geographic variation in where 
people live and varied access to public transportation may limit the 
types of physical locations available to them. For instance, in rural 
areas it may be prohibitive for participants to travel long-distances 
to attend in-person job search, so online or mobile application options 
may better suit these individuals. Commenters also noted it may be 
burdensome to State agencies and E&T providers to provide enough 
physical locations to accommodate all supervised job search 
participants, or to provide enough participant reimbursements to cover 
the transportation or other costs associated with travel. However, 
several commenters also cautioned that some participants will not have 
the ability or the technology to perform job search through a computer 
or mobile phone and, in these cases, State agencies should maintain 
easily-accessible locations for in-person job search in the community, 
or allow participants to access online or smartphone-based job search 
tools through community organizations like the public library. A 
workforce training agency and a legal services agency also commented 
about the importance of job seekers having personal technology now that 
so many job search resources and job application portals are online. 
The commenters urged the Department to allow E&T supportive services 
funding to include technology costs as a permissible expenditure for 
SNAP E&T providers. A workforce training agency noted that State-
administered job boards and workforce exchanges may not always contain 
up-to-date or relevant job postings, so State agencies should be 
allowed to direct participants to non-governmental social media and job 
posting sites. On the other hand, two State agencies lauded their 
workforce agency's online tools for job search and participant activity 
tracking. One not-for-profit agency recommended that State agencies 
give participants the option to participate online or in-person based 
on the preferences of the participant.
    The Department appreciates the number of well-thought-out comments 
received. The Department concludes the definition of ``State approved 
locations'' will include any location deemed suitable by the State 
agency where the participant has access to the tools they need to 
perform supervised job search. At these locations, participants may use 
any tools, such as virtual tools which include but are not limited to 
websites, portals, or applications to access supervised job search 
services. For instance, a State agency may choose to allow supervised 
job search to occur at any physical location where the participant can 
adequately access an internet connection with appropriate materials 
(e.g., a computer, tablet, smart phone) to access virtual tools. If the 
individual does not have access to the appropriate material to use a 
virtual tool, the State agency must provide the individual with the 
materials they need to participate in supervised job search, such as a 
computer, a tablet, Wi-Fi etc. Alternatively, the State may 
additionally decide to designate specific locations for a supervised 
job search. In this instance, the State agency must give the 
participant a list of locations where they can access the necessary 
tools and materials, such as a library, American Job Center, etc. In 
this case, the State agency would have to provide participant 
reimbursements in accordance with 7 CFR 273.7(d)(4) enabling the 
individual to access the location. To the extent practicable, the 
Department encourages State agencies to allow participants to choose 
their preferred location (e.g., at home, a library, a third party 
provider) to best meet the needs of the participants and better ensure 
a successful job search. The Department has updated the definition of 
supervised job search at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2)(i) accordingly. The 
Department also reminds State agencies

[[Page 361]]

that 7 CFR 273.7(d)(4) requires State agencies to provide or reimburse 
the participant for expenses that are reasonably necessary and directly 
related to participation in the E&T program, including materials to 
access online programs (e.g., a laptop, tablet, or internet) or 
transportation assistance to physical locations. State agencies must 
also provide reasonable accommodations to all E&T participants with a 
disability in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (Pub. 
L. 101-336).
    Commenters similarly explained that supervision can be effectively 
delivered through a variety of means including in-person, phone, web-
based and text-based methods, and the approach should align with the 
capabilities of the E&T provider and what will most effectively serve 
the client. A workforce training agency supported supervision of job 
search activities as it allows E&T staff to coach participants, build 
their labor market skills, identify potential barriers to employment, 
and determine plans for how to address those barriers through 
supportive services during the job search process. This commenter also 
explained that participant supervision requirements should be defined 
based on what supportive components exist as part of the supervision, 
rather than for pure oversight and compliance reasons. For instance, 
the commenter believed that time spent sharing and confirming job 
applications, logging hours committed to independent job search, and 
receiving assistance from a job coach should all count towards a 
participant's supervision requirement. Several State agencies noted 
that supervision of job search services can be completed remotely 
through web-based services that support active monitoring of 
participant progress with activities, as well as efficient 
communication with participants. The State agencies highly recommended 
that the Department consider technology and remote supervision when 
defining the supervised job search component for the purposes of E&T. 
For instance, one State agency explained how participants can utilize 
the State's workforce agency's online portal to complete career 
exploration assessments and skill assessments, in addition to seeking 
employment. The State agency partners with other community agencies 
offering job coaching to ensure participants have the skills necessary 
to become self-sufficient. Through other partnerships, the State agency 
also offers virtual workshops on resume development and ``How-To'' 
workshops covering a variety of topics. Another State agency commented 
that State agencies could use weekly or semi-weekly case management 
telephonic meetings with participants to discuss digital job search 
logs and to direct and refine participants' job search moving forward. 
And a third State agency explained that their current process of 
developing a job search plan with the participant, combined with at 
least monthly check-ins to review progress, was an effective model of 
supervised job search. A not-for-profit agency recommended that State 
agencies also be allowed to conduct supervised job search programs in 
an asynchronous format, where program participants engage in job search 
activities on their own schedule. The Department agrees that both 
remote and in-person supervision can be effective. As a result, the 
Department concludes that State agencies will have flexibility to 
provide supervision through a number of modes (e.g., remote, in-person, 
or a blend), and encourages State agencies to ensure the mode of 
supervision aligns with the needs of the participant (e.g., if a 
participant performs job search online because of the inability to 
travel long distances, the State agency should consider conducting the 
supervision remotely as well). Significantly, the Department also 
concludes, based on language from The Joint Explanatory Statement of 
the Committee of Conference, issued with the Act,\2\ that the intent of 
the statutory change from job search to supervised job search was to 
make State agencies more accountable to E&T participants by providing 
direct supervision and guidance to participant job search activities. 
The Department appreciates that some State agencies are able to provide 
a significant number of resources to E&T participants through online 
portals and websites, and believes these resources provide an effective 
means of providing some types of job search assistance to participants; 
however, online resources are not by themselves sufficient to fulfill 
the statutory obligation to provide direct supervision. To ensure 
participants engaged in supervised job search are provided the support 
they need to be successful, the Department concludes that supervision 
must be provided by skilled staff who can provide meaningful guidance 
and support to help participants find suitable employment through at 
least monthly check-ins with participants. These check-ins could cover 
a number of topics, including reviews of participant job search logs, 
feedback on job applications, barrier reduction, progress monitoring, 
and job search coaching, and must be conducted with the aim of helping 
the participant find suitable employment. This supervision can also be 
provided asynchronously (i.e., the supervision need not occur at the 
same time a participant is searching for or applying for a job), but 
the Department will require at least monthly communication with the 
participant--either in-person or remotely--with a skilled staff person. 
Supervision that only occurs through automatic or autonomous computer 
programs, without at least monthly communication between the 
participant and skilled staff, would not fulfill the requirement to 
provide meaningful guidance and support, and would not meet the 
requirements for direct supervision. The Department has modified the 
regulation at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2)(i), as re-designated, accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Conf. Rept. 115-1072, p. 617, https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt1072/CRPT-115hrpt1072.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also noted that a number of methods exist to track the 
timing and activities of participants, including counters and timers in 
web-based programs to track hours logged in, sign-in sheets, job logs, 
and a deemed number of hours per job application. Several commenters 
encouraged the Department to allow State agency flexibility to use 
technology or other means to log and track job search efforts. The 
Department concludes State agencies should have discretion to devise 
the most appropriate means for tracking job search activities given the 
capabilities of the local programs and the needs of participants, and 
has modified the regulation accordingly at 7 CFR 277.7(e)(2)(i), as re-
designated. The Department also notes that State agencies will continue 
to have flexibility to determine the most suitable method to track job 
search hours (e.g., by the number of applications submitted, or the 
number of hours logged onto a portal). Lastly, the Department would 
like to clarify that hours spent receiving job search supervision, in 
addition to hours spent looking for a job, count toward hours spent in 
the component.
    Overall, commenters noted State agencies and their E&T providers 
should work with E&T participants to ensure participants are directed 
to supervised job search programs that are accessible and well-matched 
to the participant's needs. Commenters also believed that the 
introduction of the requirement for supervision would make job search 
programs more accountable and responsive to participants to increase

[[Page 362]]

their ability to gain regular employment. Several commenters also 
suggested additional changes or clarifications as detailed below.
    Two commenters recommended allowing supervised job search to be 
coordinated with case management and the assessment process, as having 
only one entity conduct the activities would save resources and better 
allow case managers to coordinate services. The Department agrees and 
encourages State agencies, as a best practice, to coordinate the 
provision of supervised job search, case management, participant 
assessments, and any other E&T activities within the same provider. No 
revision to the regulatory text is necessary.
    A not-for-profit agency urged the Department to require State 
agencies to explain in their E&T State plans how their approach to 
supervised job search: (1) Is based on evidence that individuals are 
likely to successfully comply; (2) targets individuals likely and able 
to find employment through job search; and (3) provides adequate 
information to each individual about the program design, anticipated 
outcomes, sanctions for noncompliance, how to obtain assistance 
overcoming obstacles to compliance (such as the lack of child care or 
transportation), reasonable accommodations for persons with 
disabilities, and where to obtain additional information. The 
Department agrees all E&T components operated by the State agency, not 
just supervised job search, should employ successful strategies to help 
participants move toward self-sufficiency, be appropriately targeted to 
individuals based on their training needs, and provide adequate 
information to the participant. For these reasons, the Department 
emphasized in the proposed rule the importance of State agency 
accountability for E&T programs and introduced new processes to ensure 
individuals are directed to the most appropriate component, or exempted 
from mandatory E&T, if appropriate. These efforts include the 
requirements that all E&T participants receive case management and that 
case managers share information about possible exemptions or good cause 
circumstances with the State agency, as well as the introduction of a 
new form of good cause if there is not an appropriate or available 
opening in E&T. The Department also agrees that State agencies must 
provide E&T participants with information about the E&T program, 
consequences for non-compliance, participant reimbursements, and any 
other information that would help mandatory E&T participants with 
compliance. For this reason, the Department proposed that all 
households with individuals subject to the work requirements receive a 
consolidated written notice and oral explanation of those work 
requirements. In addition, several commenters recommended the 
Department require a direct link between job search activities and 
employment opportunities in order for the component to be approved. The 
commenters believed this language would help ensure that training be 
relevant and targeted to individuals who are able and likely to benefit 
from it. The Department agrees that the intent of replacing job search 
with supervised job search was to better support individuals to find 
suitable employment, not just fill work hours, and has added to the 
definition of supervised job search at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2)(i), as 
redesignated, that job search activities must increase the employment 
opportunities of the participant.
    Several State agencies and workforce training agencies requested 
that the Department change how State agencies must summarize the State 
guidance for the supervised job search component in their E&T State 
plans. The commenters explained that, instead of requiring specific 
sites for supervised job search to be documented in the plan, the State 
agencies should be allowed to include the specific criteria used by the 
State agency to approve supervised job search location. The Department 
agrees that, given the broad definition of supervised job search, it 
would likely be far too burdensome to have to identify in the E&T State 
plan all the approved locations. As a result, the Department has 
modified the regulation at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(i) to require that State 
agencies instead provide the criteria used to approve locations and an 
explanation of why those criteria were chosen.
    The Department received several requests to clarify how job search 
and job search training can be integrated as subsidiary activities of 
another component. As stated in the proposed rule, with the replacement 
of job search with supervised job search, unsupervised job search may 
no longer be a standalone E&T component. However, also as stated in the 
proposed rule, job search that does not meet the definition of 
supervised job search is allowed as a subsidiary activity of another 
E&T component, so long as the job search activity comprises less than 
half of the total required time spent in the component. One State 
agency, in particular, asked the Department to clarify whether job 
search may only be a subsidiary activity of another component when 
offered to a mandatory E&T participant or ABAWD, or whether this 
construction also applies to E&T volunteers. The Department appreciates 
how the statement in the proposed regulatory text of ``required time 
spent in the component'' could be understood as only referring to 
mandatory participants. Therefore, the Department is clarifying that, 
in this context, allowable E&T components are the same whether offered 
to mandatory or voluntary E&T participants for this purpose, and has 
consequently modified the regulatory text at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2)(i) to 
remove ``required.'' The State agency also questioned how to measure if 
job search makes up less than half the time in the component. The State 
agency provided the example of an E&T provider who employs a 
comprehensive curriculum with vocational education classes the first 
several months, followed by full-time job search. The State agency 
wondered if such a program could track all hours under the educational 
component, provided the hours spent in job search make up less than 
half of the total hours over the duration of the entire component. For 
purposes of fulfilling the ABAWD work requirement, the Department has 
always provided discretion to State agencies on how they measure the 
length of time participants spend in job search when job search is 
integrated into another component, to ensure job search makes up less 
than half the total required time spent in the component. The 
Department will allow similar discretion to State agencies when 
determining if time spent in unsupervised job search makes up less than 
half the time spent in the broader E&T component.
    The Department also received a question about supervised job search 
and the ABAWD work requirement. This commenter asked if the Department 
has the flexibility to allow supervised job search activities to count 
for the ABAWD work requirement if the activities are offered through 
WIOA. The answer is, if an individual is enrolled in a program under 
title 1 of WIOA, supervised job search can count toward the ABAWD work 
requirement. However, supervised job search offered through any other 
WIOA program cannot count toward the ABAWD work requirement, unless it 
makes up less than half the requirement.
    A not-for-profit agency expressed a number of concerns about the 
existing regulations that allow State agencies, at their option, to 
require SNAP applicants to participate in E&T, and expressed specific 
concerns related to requiring applicants to participate in job search. 
The commenter asked the Department to

[[Page 363]]

require the following assurances in E&T State plans: That State 
agencies must adhere to the requirement at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(2) to screen 
each work registrant to determine whether it is appropriate to refer 
the individual to an E&T program component; that State agencies must 
reimburse applicants for all reasonable and necessary costs to 
participate in any E&T activity, including supervised job search, as 
required by 7 CFR 273.7(d)(4); that supervised applicant job search 
must not impose a new condition of eligibility in accordance with 7 CFR 
273.2(a); and that applicant job search cannot delay determining SNAP 
eligibility. The Department agrees that all State agencies must adhere 
to the above policies for all E&T participants, whether they have 
chosen to serve applicants or not. Treating applicants differently than 
other E&T participants would not further the purposes of E&T and the 
changes required by the Act designed to enhance the effectiveness and 
accountability of SNAP E&T programs. Therefore, the Department has 
clarified the regulation at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2), as re-designated, to 
indicate that, if a State agency requires an applicant to participate 
in E&T, the State agency must screen the applicant to determine if it 
is appropriate for that individual to participate in E&T in accordance 
with paragraph 7 CFR 273.7(c)(2) of this section, provide the applicant 
with participant reimbursements in accordance with 7 CFR 273.7(d)(4), 
and inform the applicant of E&T participation requirements, including 
how to access the component and consequences for failing to 
participate. The Department has also added a reference in the 
supervised job search paragraph at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2)(i) citing the 
criteria necessary to serve applicants in 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2).
    The Department also received several comments on the job search 
training component requesting the Department add the phrase 
``employment opportunities'' to the sentence in paragraph 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(2)(ii), as re-designated, thereby stating, ``a direct link 
between the job search training activities and job-readiness and 
employment opportunities must be established for a component to be 
approved.'' The commenters believed the addition of ``employment 
opportunities'' would allow providers to include activities such as job 
placement services, which may increase employment opportunities, but 
not affect their job-readiness. While the Department believes that job 
placement activities can be part of a job search training, the purpose 
of the job search training component is to improve a participant's 
skills to search for and acquire a job. These skills can be valuable in 
the future when the participant engages in new job searches. For this 
reason, the Department is not adding ``employment opportunities'' to 
the description of job search training.
    The Department also received a comment requesting that job 
readiness training not be included as part of supervised job search, 
but instead be included as part of the education component. The 
Department received a similar comment requesting the Department to 
clarify that soft skills and job readiness training can be considered 
an education component. The Department understands that the commenters 
are confused about where to properly categorize job readiness training. 
The Department already recognizes work readiness training (i.e., job 
readiness training) as part of the E&T education component, but notes 
that work readiness training is not formally listed within the 
education component at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2)(iv), as re-designated. The 
Department has updated the regulatory text at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2)(iv) to 
include work readiness training to reduce confusion and facilitate 
proper categorization of work readiness activities in the education 
component in the future.
    In conclusion, the Department adopts the proposed regulatory 
language with the above noted changes to the definition of supervised 
job search, the modification of what State agencies must report on 
their E&T State plan, the addition of clarifying language about 
requiring applicants to participate in E&T, and the explicit addition 
of work readiness as an allowable activity to the education component.

Employability Assessments

    Current regulations at 273.7(e)(1)(ii) permit the use of job skills 
assessments as part of a job search training component in a State's E&T 
program. The Act replaced job skills assessments in section 
6(d)(4)(B)(i)(II) of the FNA with ``employability assessments.'' The 
Department proposed to incorporate this change into the regulations by 
modifying paragraph 7 CFR 273.7(e)(1)(ii), re-designated as 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(2)(ii), to remove the reference to job skills assessments and 
replace it with employability assessments.
    The Department received six comments on this provision, with all 
commenters supporting the change. One commenter explained the shift to 
employability assessments in the Act recognized that a more holistic 
focus on ``employability'' explicitly acknowledges the role that non-
skill barriers (such as a suspended driver's license, a criminal 
record, or unreliable childcare) can play in impacting how a person 
fares in the job market. However, one not-for-profit agency and one 
local government agency asked the Department to clarify that 
employability assessments can be part of both case management and the 
job search training component. The Department agrees that employability 
assessments can be helpful in a number of contexts and thus they are 
allowable under either category. However, State agencies and their 
providers should coordinate assessments so a participant does not 
undergo an employability assessment twice in a short period of time. 
One commenter asked for further clarification on the statement from the 
proposed rule that ``the information collected through employability 
assessments should be used, together with ongoing case management, to 
improve and individualize services to E&T participants.'' The commenter 
wondered if providers must continue to offer case management as a 
follow-up to an employability assessment. As discussed later in this 
preamble, State agencies and their providers are encouraged to continue 
to offer case management to all E&T participants so long as they are 
engaged with E&T and the participant shows interest in continuing case 
management. The Department encourages State agencies to work with their 
E&T providers to determine appropriate follow-up steps after an 
employability assessment, bearing in mind the needs of the participant, 
the structure of the E&T program, and provider capacity.
    Additionally, a not-for-profit agency urged the Department to 
proceed carefully and mindfully in the design and delivery of 
employability assessments. In this commenter's experience employability 
assessments can be used to screen out an individual from job placement, 
even when the individual is very motivated to work. The commenter also 
explained that employability assessments are subject to racial bias in 
that people of color--and Black people in particular--are 
disproportionately over-represented with regards to homelessness, 
involvement in the criminal legal system, and chronic unemployment. The 
commenter recommended the Department take a ``zero exclusion'' approach 
to employability assessments--as well as services offered--that assumes 
employability

[[Page 364]]

and worker motivation, and makes every effort to accept and accommodate 
all jobseekers receiving SNAP E&T services. The commenter also 
recommended that State agencies collect information on the 
characteristics of jobseekers determined ``not ready'' for employment 
based on employability assessments. The Department appreciates the 
experience and perspective of the commenter and agrees that, in 
general, State agencies should strive to serve all individuals who are 
motivated to work or train for employment. State agencies are 
prohibited from discriminating against SNAP participants, in accordance 
with 7 CFR 272.6, and must have agreements in place with their 
providers to ensure discrimination is prohibited. The Department notes; 
however, that employability assessments may uncover circumstances that 
would make an individual exempt from a work requirement or provide good 
cause for non-compliance. If the E&T case manager is made aware of 
these circumstances, the Department requires at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(1), as 
re-designated, that the case manager inform the appropriate State 
agency staff. If the exemption or good cause is granted, the individual 
would no longer be required to participate in E&T. The Department also 
notes that State agencies are encouraged to collect information on E&T 
program performance, and may track the number of jobseekers determined 
``not ready.''
    In conclusion, the Department codifies the regulatory language as 
proposed without any changes.

Removal of Job Finding Clubs

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(1)(ii) include job finding 
clubs as an allowable activity under the job search training component. 
The Act modified the job search training component in section 
6(d)(4)(B)(i)(II) of the FNA to remove job finding clubs from the list 
of activities that can be included in a job search training program. As 
a result, the Department proposed to modify the regulation at 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(1)(ii), now re-designated as 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2)(ii), to remove 
job finding clubs as an activity under the job search training 
component.
    The Department received one comment on this provision from a 
workforce training agency, who claimed it was contradictory to remove 
job finding clubs and require that job search be supervised, as the 
commenter viewed these activities as similar. As already discussed, the 
Department views supervised job search as encompassing a robust set of 
supervisory activities and does not believe the removal of job finding 
clubs from job search training activities will inhibit the 
implementation of supervised job search. In addition, while job finding 
clubs are specifically eliminated as an allowable activity, other 
activities that increase the employability of participants are still 
permitted, such as State or agency facilitated peer-to-peer learning 
opportunities or offering job search trainings in a group format.
    In conclusion, the Department codifies the regulation as proposed 
without any changes.

Job Retention

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(1)(viii) allow job retention 
services as an allowable E&T component. These regulations explain that 
State agencies offering this component must provide no more than 90 
days of job retention services. The Act modified the job retention E&T 
component in section 6(d)(4)(B)(i)(VII) of the FNA to require that 
State agencies choosing to provide job retention services must offer a 
minimum of 30 days of services, but did not modify the existing 90 day 
statutory maximum for the receipt of job retention services. As a 
result, the Department proposed to modify the current regulations at 7 
CFR 273.7(e)(2)(viii), as re-designated, to add a 30-day minimum for 
the receipt of job retention services. Consistent with the statute, the 
proposed regulation stated that job retention services would need to be 
provided for a minimum of 30 days and no more than 90 days.
    The Department received nine comments on this provision, all of 
which were supportive of the addition of the 30-day minimum. Commenters 
did, however, request clarification on some aspects of the rule as 
described below. A local government agency and a workforce training 
agency supported the minimum of 30 days, but requested that State 
agencies be allowed to offer up to 365 days of job retention services. 
The commenters explained the extended period of job retention services 
would better support the transition to employment and to a more 
independent lifestyle because, in the commenters' experience, the 
challenges that participants juggle as they begin to work can last 
throughout the first full year of employment. The Department agrees 
that some E&T participants may benefit from extended job retention 
services, but the Department does not have discretion through 
rulemaking to extend job retention services beyond the 90-day limit in 
the FNA.
    A not-for-profit agency encouraged the Department to offer 
additional guidance to specify that job retention services must include 
support for child care and transportation costs associated with 
retaining employment. The commenter explained many job retention 
participants may benefit from these services, but do not receive them, 
and as a result may not successfully transition to employment. The 
Department agrees that child care and transportation assistance may be 
helpful supports for the newly employed. However, as with all 
components, State agencies have flexibility to determine what services 
to offer under its job retention component. Job retention services may 
include providing or reimbursing participants for costs associated with 
transportation and childcare so that an individual can go to work. It 
is true that per Sec.  273.7(d)(4), State agencies are required to 
provide participant reimbursements that are reasonable and necessary, 
and directly related to participating in an E&T component, including 
the job retention component. However, employment, in and of itself, is 
not a job retention service and, therefore, the State agency is not 
required to provide participant reimbursements so that an individual 
can go to work. Rather, if a State agency offers a service outside of 
work, such as a class on workplace etiquette, that requires individuals 
to travel to get there, a State agency is required to provide or 
reimburse individuals for their transportation costs in accordance with 
Sec.  273.7.d(4). The Department encourages State agencies to consider 
offering job retention services, and work with their E&T providers to 
identify available and appropriate services that will support 
successful employment, but the Department cannot require a State agency 
to provide job retention services, nor require that the State agency 
provide child care and transportation services as part of the job 
retention component, outside of the required participant reimbursements 
that are reasonable and necessary for participating in a job retention 
activity outside of work.
    Three commenters were concerned with preamble language that offered 
examples of how the State agency could demonstrate a good faith effort 
to provide at least 30 days of job retention services. The commenters 
explained that the example of creating a case management program for 
job retention participants that extended at least 30 days would deter 
some providers and participants from participating in the job retention 
component, because many providers of job retention do not create a case 
management plan for each

[[Page 365]]

participant, but rather offer services based on the most salient needs 
of the participant at the time of contact. One commenter explained it 
would also be confusing to have a broader E&T case management plan and 
a more specific one for job retention. Instead the commenters proposed 
that service providers describe a general approach to job retention 
case management in their agreements with the State agency. A not-for-
profit agency believed that a good faith effort to provide job 
retention services should also include a reasonable number of 
documented outreach attempts to the participant. The Department 
appreciates the comments that developing a separate case management 
plan for job retention may not always be feasible or helpful. The 
Department only intended to include a case management plan as an 
example of how a provider is making a good faith effort to provide at 
least 30 days of job retention. The Department requires that the 
provider must demonstrate in some way that a good faith effort has been 
made to provide 30 days of services. This could include, among other 
ideas, making a reasonable number of attempts to contact a participant, 
discussing the 30 day minimum requirement with the participant at the 
outset, or outlining specific steps the provider or the participant 
will take over the next 30 days to maintain a job.
    In conclusion, the Department codifies the regulation as proposed 
without any changes.

E&T Pilot Activities

    The Act provided the Secretary with discretion to allow programs 
and activities from the E&T pilots authorized under the Agricultural 
Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79) (2014 Farm Bill) as regular E&T components 
in section 6(d)(4)(B)(i)(VIII). The Act specified that this 
determination must be based on the results from the independent 
evaluation of the 2014 Farm Bill E&T pilots, showing which programs and 
activities have the most demonstrable impact on the ability of 
participants to find and retain employment that leads to increased 
household income and reduced reliance on public assistance. As a 
result, the Department proposed adding similar language to the 
regulations in a new paragraph at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2)(ix) to create a new 
E&T component category. The Department would note that the independent 
evaluation of the 2014 Farm Bill E&T pilots will not be completed until 
late 2021; as a result, the Department is not yet able to specifically 
identify new E&T components from the 2014 Farm Bill E&T pilots.
    The Department received 13 comments on this provision. As the 
evaluation is not yet complete, commenters generally expressed support 
in engaging with pilot activities once the Department has completed 
their assessment. However, one commenter recommended that States that 
participated in the pilots be allowed to continue those activities 
until the evaluation is complete and the Department has identified 
which activities have been found effective. The commenter explained 
Congressional interest in continuing these pilots is reflected in the 
Congressional prioritization of reallocated 100 percent E&T Federal 
funds. The Department appreciates the commenter's interest in the 2014 
Farm Bill E&T pilots. As discussed later in this preamble, 50 percent 
of reallocated 100 percent funds shall be reallocated to State agencies 
requesting such funds to conduct employment and training programs and 
activities for which such State agencies had previously received pilot 
funding that the Secretary determines have the most demonstrable impact 
on the ability of participants to find and retain employment that leads 
to increased household income and reduced reliance on public 
assistance. However, until the final assessment, the Act allows the 
Department some discretion in determining activities with the most 
demonstrable impact, including using interim pilot reports or other 
information relating to performance of programs and activities.
    In conclusion, the Department codifies the regulatory text as 
proposed without any changes.

Subsidized Employment and Apprenticeships

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(1)(iv) describe a work 
experience program as a program designed to improve the employability 
of household members through actual work experience or training, or 
both, and to enable individuals employed or trained under such programs 
to move promptly into regular public or private employment. The Act 
added subsidized employment and apprenticeship in section 
6(d)(4)(B)(i)(IV) of the FNA as examples of allowable activities under 
a program designed to improve the employability of individuals through 
actual work experience or training (i.e., a work experience program). 
The Department proposed to modify the regulation at 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(1)(iv), now re-designated as 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2)(iv), to better 
align the definition of a work experience program and activities with 
other Federal workforce development programs, by delineating work 
experience programs into two sets of activities: Work activities and 
work-based learning. Subsidized employment and apprenticeships were 
added as work-based learning activities. The Department strongly 
encouraged State agencies interested in incorporating work-based 
learning activities into their E&T programs to work with their State 
Departments of Labor, American Job Centers, Perkins Career and 
Technical Education (CTE) providers, and other stakeholders, such as 
community colleges and community-based organizations, to capitalize on 
existing work-based learning infrastructure and services. The 
Department also proposed amending 7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(ii)(A) to allow E&T 
funds to be used to subsidize the wages of E&T participants.
    The Department received 41 comments on this provision. Commenters 
were very supportive of the changes to the definition of work 
experience and the alignment of the definitions of work experience, 
work activity, and work-based learning with definitions in other 
programs, as well as the inclusion of apprenticeships and subsidized 
employment as allowable activities. Several commenters mentioned they 
would like to implement subsidized employment as soon as possible, 
particularly in light of the spike in unemployment resulting from the 
COVID-19 public health emergency. However, some commenters were 
concerned that wages earned through subsidized employment would count 
as income for the SNAP eligibility determination, potentially making 
E&T participants ineligible for SNAP and, consequently, ineligible for 
E&T and the subsidized wage. FNS is not aware of any existing laws that 
would allow income from subsidized employment to be excluded when 
determining eligibility for SNAP. The Department advises, as a best 
practice, that the State agency advise participants of whether earnings 
from a work-based learning activity under an E&T program could 
potentially decrease the amount of SNAP benefits they receive or make 
their household ineligible for SNAP, and by extension, E&T, depending 
on their circumstances.
    A not-for-profit agency explained they appreciated the Department's 
recognition in the proposed rule that the work experience component 
must be consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), must not 
displace existing workers, and must provide participants with the same 
benefits and opportunities as anyone else doing a

[[Page 366]]

substantially similar job. The commenter encouraged the Department to 
partner with Department of Labor (DOL) to issue guidance helping states 
avoid FLSA violations when using work-based learning models. The 
Department agrees that, with the introduction of subsidized employment, 
State agencies may be partnering with employers unfamiliar with E&T, 
and appreciates that guidance on avoiding FLSA violations, as well as 
other technical assistance on implementing a subsidized employment 
program, may be helpful. The Department will work with DOL to determine 
the most appropriate next steps to assist States agencies building 
their work-based learning programs in E&T.
    A State agency asked for clarification on the application of the 
FLSA hour limitation rules to the ABAWD work requirement and the work 
experience component. The commenter explained that they understood the 
hours worked by an ABAWD in a work experience component would be 
countable towards the ABAWD work requirement; however, with the FLSA 
limitation of hours, the commenter believed an ABAWD could be in a 
situation where they participate in a work activity, as defined at 7 
CFR 273.7(e)(2)(iv), for the number of hours equal to their benefit 
divided by the minimum wage, but this number of hours may not be 
sufficient to meet the ABAWD work requirement. The commenter explained 
TANF participants are ``deemed up'' for participation in the TANF work 
requirement when they complete the maximum hours allowable under FLSA 
rules. The State agency recommended for the work experience component 
that ABAWD hours be treated the same as they are in the TANF program 
and with SNAP workfare. The Department understands the commenters 
concerns; however, the FNA is specific in this area and the Department 
does not have discretion to allow work experience hours to be ``deemed 
up'' as they are in TANF. An ABAWD who participates in a work 
experience component is prohibited from being required to work more 
than their benefit divided by the higher of the applicable Federal or 
State minimum wage, in accordance with the FLSA. However, if those 
hours are not sufficient to meet the ABAWD work requirement, the ABAWD 
would then need to participate in another activity to meet the balance 
of hours necessary to meet the ABAWD work requirement. The Department 
encourages State agencies to provide additional opportunities through 
the E&T program that would allow the ABAWD to meet the ABAWD work 
requirement.
    The Department would also like to make a clarification to the 
language in 7 CFR 273.7(e)(5)(iii) regarding voluntary E&T participants 
being permitted to work in an E&T program or workfare for more hours in 
a month than the value of their household allotment divided by the 
higher of the applicable Federal or State minimum wage. The Department 
recognized that the language at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(5)(iii), as proposed, 
could have been interpreted in some circumstances to allow voluntary 
E&T participants to choose to work additional hours for less than 
minimum wage in violation of Federal and State minimum wage laws. The 
clarified final regulation will now only permit those additional hours 
if the voluntary E&T participant earns a wage at least equal to minimum 
wage for the additional hours. For instance, if an E&T participant 
volunteers to participate in a subsidized employment activity, the 
participant may volunteer to participate for more hours in a month than 
their household allotment divided by the higher of the applicable 
Federal or State minimum wage, so long as the subsidized employment 
activity provides the participant with a wage at least equal to the 
higher of the applicable Federal or State minimum wage for those 
additional hours. The Department would also like to note that voluntary 
E&T participants in a work activity will not be allowed to volunteer 
for additional hours beyond the number of hours in a month that is 
equal to the value of their household allotment divided by the 
applicable Federal or State minimum wage, as allowing such excess would 
translate to receiving less than the minimum wage in the form of SNAP 
benefits. The Department has made this clarification at 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(5)(iii), as re-designated.
    A workforce training agency cautioned that, while subsidized wages 
can provide an incentive to employers to hire people with greater 
barriers to work, there must be oversight to ensure that employers do 
not just use the subsidy as a discount on labor, replacing the worker 
as soon as the subsidy ends with another subsidized worker. The 
commenter explained there needs to be systems of accountability to 
ensure employers retain and advance workers. The Department agrees that 
the objective of work-based learning, including subsidized employment, 
is to create a learning environment with the employer that includes 
specific training objectives and leads to regular employment. The 
objective of work-based learning, including subsidized employment, is 
not to provide employers with low-cost workers until the subsidy ``runs 
out.'' Work-based learning is also part of the broader work experience 
component. The Department explains in the regulatory text that a work 
experience program is designed to improve the employability of 
household members through actual work experience or training, or both, 
and to enable individuals employed or trained under such programs to 
move promptly into regular public or private employment. The Department 
expects State agencies implementing subsidized employment programs to 
have agreements in place with employers to provide actual training to 
SNAP participants and a plan to move participants into unsubsidized 
employment as a result of the subsidized employment experience, either 
with the same employer or with another employer. As part of outcome 
reporting for E&T, as required in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(17), State agencies 
will be expected to report on participant outcomes for participants 
engaged in the work experience component.
    The Department also received comments from a State agency and a 
workforce training agency that urged the Department to clarify whether 
wages or stipends provided by the employers participating in subsidized 
employment can be considered the non-Federal amount for which they may 
receive 50 percent reimbursement (e.g., the employer pays a total 
training wage or stipend of $15 per hour, with $7.50 reimbursed through 
E&T). The commenters recommended allowing wages or stipends provided by 
employers to be eligible for 50 percent reimbursement in order to 
increase the potential number of subsidized employment opportunities 
that may be offered. The Department is hereby clarifying that the 
Department will reimburse the State agency 50 percent of non-Federal 
funds expended on allowable E&T activities and services, including 
allowable costs associated with wages though a subsidized employment 
program, in accordance with applicable SNAP laws and regulations, as 
well as the Federal cost principles in title 2 of the CFR. The 
Department would also like to make a clarification to the regulatory 
text at 7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(ii) to explain that while the E&T grants may 
be used to subsidize wages as part of the subsidized employment 
activity within the work experience component, that the E&T grant will 
not otherwise be permitted to subsidize wages for E&T participants.
    These commenters also asked the Department to clarify if wages 
earned

[[Page 367]]

for both classroom training and work are eligible for reimbursement 
under SNAP E&T. A State agency explained one of their E&T providers 
employs a model where participants earn wages for time spent in the 
classroom instruction phase of the curriculum, as well as the following 
phase, when individuals begin applying their knowledge through actual 
work. The Department is hereby clarifying that if an individual is in a 
job (e.g., subsidized employment, apprenticeship etc.), and that job 
requires classroom training in addition to the regular work, then State 
agency expenditures on wages earned for the classroom training are 
eligible for 50 percent reimbursement.
    A local government agency agreed with the addition of 
apprenticeships and subsidized employment as allowable work experience 
activities, but suggested that pre-apprenticeship training should also 
be included, as pre-apprenticeship programs can function as an on-ramp 
to success in an actual apprenticeship program. The Department agrees 
and, for this reason, included pre-apprenticeships as a type of work-
based learning program in the regulatory text at 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(2)(iv)(A)(2).
    A local government agency explained the most recent reauthorization 
of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act included 
simulated environments in the definition of work-based learning. The 
commenter recommended ensuring this option is included in allowable 
activities in E&T. The commenter explained instruction in a classroom 
setting is not always feasible for participants, particularly those 
with family or dependent care responsibilities, so online instruction 
fosters familiarity with technology, and is better aligned with the 
future of work. The commenter cautioned, however, that given the 
``digital divide'' faced by many economically disadvantaged households, 
online learning should only be one in a range of options, with the 
provision of necessary supports. The Department agrees that simulated 
environments can be one way to deliver work-based learning, and 
included simulated environments in the definition of work-based 
learning in the proposed rule, and will keep simulated environments as 
part of the final rule at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(2)(iv)(A)(2).
    A workforce training agency noted that in the Department's revised 
definition of work experience, work activity, and work-based learning, 
there no longer appears to be a place for ``non-workfare activities'' 
that build a participant's general skills, knowledge, and work habits, 
and provide a history of work experience, but are not aligned with a 
career path in a specific field. The commenter explained the definition 
of work activity appears similar to workfare activities, to provide 
participants with the ``general skills, knowledge, and work habits 
necessary to obtain employment,'' while work-based learning is intended 
to build skills and experience in a given career field. The commenter 
believed some populations require work-based learning experiences that 
are more general in nature to allow them to build a work history that 
will lead to other employment. For example, an E&T provider may provide 
work experiences for E&T participants on parole or probation. These 
experiences are extremely important in helping the participant 
demonstrate the ability to obtain and retain future employment; 
however, they are not always connected to a specific career path. The 
commenter urged that the final language should allow for these types of 
work experiences within the definition of work-based learning or should 
broaden the definition of work activity. The Department recognizes that 
some E&T providers provide services that prepare individuals for the 
``first rung'' of a career ladder. Mastery of soft skills and other 
work readiness activities--including general skills building, 
developing good work habits, and building a work history--are important 
foundational elements of any career pathway. Thus, these experiences 
can be included under work experience as part of a career pathway 
program. The Department also notes that, in some cases, basic skills 
training may be a better fit under another activity like work readiness 
in the education component.
    The Department also received a comment from a not-for-profit agency 
opposing any work requirement in exchange for any form of basic 
assistance, including SNAP. As a result, the commenter rejected the 
premise in the proposed definition of a work activity, stating that 
work activities are ``performed in exchange for SNAP benefits.'' The 
commenter expressed that people experiencing hunger should not have to 
``perform activities'' in exchange for food. The Department appreciates 
the commenter's point of view, but the Department believes it is 
important, to the extent practicable, to align the definition of work 
activity in SNAP with the definition from TANF. Household members 
participating in a work activity or workfare are being compensated for 
their work through the SNAP allotment. The FNA in section 6(d)(4)(F) 
and regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(4)(ii), as re-designated, prohibit 
members of a household from being required to work in an E&T program or 
participating in workfare for more hours than value of the household 
allotment for the month divided by the higher of the applicable State 
or Federal minimum wage. The Department stands by the proposed 
definition of work activity as one of several different types of work 
experience that can be offered by a State agency to develop the skills 
and experience of E&T participants, and move them toward self-
sufficiency.
    In conclusion, the Department codifies the regulatory language as 
proposed, with a modification to the language at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(5)(iii) 
pertaining to voluntary E&T participant work hours.

WIOA Programs

    In the proposed rule, the Department proposed to modify 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(2)(v), as re-designated, pertaining to allowing ``WIA or State 
or local program'' to serve as E&T components. The Department proposed 
to strike ``or a WIA or State or local program'' from the regulatory 
language because with the Act's inclusion of subsidized employment and 
apprenticeships as allowable activities in E&T, all activities operated 
under WIOA (formerly referred to as the Workforce Improvement Act or 
WIA) are now allowable within other E&T components. Similarly, any 
services offered by the State agency or through State or local programs 
can be included in one of the other E&T components. By making this 
change, the Department is not intending to convey that programs 
operated under WIOA would be unallowable as E&T activities; in fact, 
all would be allowable and coordination would be encouraged. The 
Department received no comments on this change and hereby codifies the 
regulatory language as proposed.

Case Management

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(4) establish the requirement 
that each State agency must design and operate an E&T program that must 
consist of one or more E&T components as described in 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(1). The Act modified the definition of an E&T program in 
section 6(d)(4)(B)(i) of the FNA to require that each State E&T program 
must also provide case management services, such as comprehensive 
intake assessments, individualized service plans, progress monitoring, 
or coordination with service providers, in addition to at least one E&T 
component. The Department

[[Page 368]]

proposed to modify the regulation at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(4) to add that 
State agencies must offer case management services to all E&T 
participants. The Department also proposed to modify the regulations at 
7 CFR 273.7(e) to add a new paragraph (e)(1), stating that case 
management services are a required part of all State E&T programs, and 
to provide examples from the Act of case management services. The 
Department proposed in new paragraph 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(ii), requiring 
that State agencies include information in their E&T State plans about 
case management operations, including a description of their case 
management services and models, the cost for providing the services, 
how participants will be referred to case management, how the 
participant's case will be managed, who will provide services, and how 
the service providers will coordinate with E&T providers, the State 
agency, and other community resources, as appropriate. In addition, the 
Department proposed various changes to the definitions in 7 CFR 271.2, 
the screening and referral process for E&T at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(2), and 
other E&T provisions to reflect the inclusion of case management 
services in the E&T program.
    The Department received 35 comments on the case management 
provision, most of which believed case management was a beneficial 
addition that would help individuals successfully participate in E&T. 
Commenters supported the flexibility within the proposed regulation 
allowing case management services to be tailored to the needs of the 
participants and the capacity of the service provider. Many State 
agencies and workforce training agencies mentioned that case management 
is already a regular part of their E&T programs. Commenters also 
supported the requirement that case managers inform the appropriate 
State agency staff about possible participant exemptions or good cause 
circumstances, although some commenters were concerned that the State 
agency may not take the appropriate action with that information. In 
addition, while all commenters felt that case management would be 
helpful to E&T participants, some commenters were concerned that 
mandatory participants could be sanctioned for failing to participate 
in case management. Commenter concerns are discussed at greater length 
below.
    The Department received several requests to clarify what services 
may constitute case management, to clearly state that State agencies 
have discretion to develop their own case management programs, and to 
clarify if hours spent in case management count toward the ABAWD or E&T 
work requirements. As stated in the proposed rule, State agencies would 
have flexibility in the types of case management services offered, but 
the provision of case management services should generally be 
consistent with the examples provided in the Act, and driven by the 
needs of the participant. In the proposed rule, the Department stated 
that, to be allowable, the State agency would need to be able to 
demonstrate how a case management service is supporting an individual 
to successfully participate in E&T. Several not-for-profit agencies 
explained that E&T participants can face a number of barriers to 
employment, including housing instability, domestic violence, and unmet 
physical and behavioral health care needs. The commenters recommended 
that case management providers have broad flexibility in the types of 
services and supports they can provide participants to address these 
barriers. The Department understands that many different kinds of 
services can be offered under the umbrella of case management and that 
E&T participants can face a large number of barriers to successful 
participation in E&T. However, the Department wants to clarify that, 
while case managers may assist participants with barrier removal (e.g., 
perform an assessment of participant barriers, identify resources in 
the community to address those barriers, make referrals), SNAP E&T 
funds can only be used for allowable E&T activities and support. E&T 
funds must be used for the administrative costs of planning, 
implementing and operating SNAP E&T. This includes allowable components 
and activities, and supports that are reasonably necessary and directly 
related to participating in E&T, such as transportation, dependent care 
or other work, training or education related expenses. For instance, 
case managers might identify substance use disorder as a significant 
barrier to training or employment and in such a case would be allowed 
to make a referral to a substance use disorder treatment center. 
However, the State agency would not be allowed to support treatment 
costs at a substance use disorder treatment center with E&T funds, as 
this is not an allowable E&T component nor an allowable participant 
reimbursement. Similarly, a case manager might learn that an individual 
needs transportation assistance to get to the E&T site or help 
purchasing training supplies that are required in order to successfully 
participate in an E&T component. In such instances, the case manager 
could provide the individual with participant reimbursements to fund 
those costs.
    Another State agency asked for clarification that hours a 
participant spends reducing barriers identified in their individual 
employment plan and assigned through case management may count towards 
the work requirement. Case management is part of the E&T program. Thus, 
time spent participating in case management counts towards the time a 
participant spends in E&T. In addition, E&T is a way for ABAWDs to 
fulfill the ABAWD work requirement, with certain restrictions as 
detailed in 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2). As such, hours an E&T participant spends 
with a case manager must count towards the participant's mandatory E&T 
requirement and ABAWD work requirement. However, hours spent by the 
individual actually participating in the barrier removal activities do 
not count, unless the activity is an allowable E&T activity. For 
instance, hours a participant spends with a case worker identifying a 
temporary housing solution must count toward their work requirement, 
but not hours spent actually moving into temporary housing, as moving 
is not an E&T component or activity. On the other hand, a case manager 
may identify limited English proficiency as a barrier to successful 
participation in an E&T activity and refer the individual to an 
education component to build basic reading skills. Time spent in the 
education component would count toward work hours just as would time 
spent in any other E&T component. The Department has modified the 
regulation at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(1) to state that case management can 
include a number of activities and supports, but the services must 
directly support an individual's participation in an E&T program to 
count towards the individual's work requirement. Case management may 
include referrals to activities and supports outside of the E&T 
program, but State agencies can only use E&T funds for allowable 
components, activities, and participant reimbursements.
    The Department also notes that 7 CFR 273.7(e)(1), as re-designated, 
requires a case manager to report to the appropriate State agency staff 
any likely exemptions or potential good cause circumstances applicable 
to an E&T participant. In some cases, an individual facing significant 
barriers may be better served with a referral to another program, and 
can return to E&T when they are able to seek work or train for a job. 
In these circumstances, a case manager would be allowed to assist the 
individual with any State agency

[[Page 369]]

follow-up on the request for an exemption or good cause, and the 
Department would encourage case managers to make a warm hand-off to 
other appropriate non-E&T services, if and when the exemption or good 
cause is granted. More discussion of the case manager's 
responsibilities to inform the appropriate State agency staff about 
exemptions and good cause is found later in the preamble, in the 
section on State agency accountability for participation and good 
cause.
    Several commenters wrote of their support for the statement at 7 
CFR 273.7(e)(1) that ``the provision of case management services must 
not be an impediment to the participant's successful participation in 
E&T,'' but urged the Department to strengthen this provision by 
specifying that, if a participant is otherwise participating in SNAP 
E&T activities, the participant may not be sanctioned for noncompliance 
solely because of non-compliance with case management activities. One 
not-for-profit agency recommended that the case management provider be 
required to gather input from the SNAP E&T participant about their 
desired level of participation. If the participant is still engaged in 
other SNAP E&T activities, but no longer interested in case management 
services, the participant would not be sanctioned for noncompliance 
solely for not participating in case management. Another not-for-profit 
agency suggested that case management should be provided to each 
individual at least once and be offered on an ongoing basis, but not be 
required beyond the initial interaction, if not desired or needed by 
the participant. A legal service agency recommended that the rule 
should explicitly state that case management activities not add 
additional case maintenance, paperwork burdens, or eligibility steps 
that could result in delays, reductions, or terminations of SNAP 
benefits due to non-compliance with case management activities. A 
workforce training agency cautioned that the Department should also not 
require the provision of case management services with a particular 
frequency (e.g., once a month). The Department acknowledges that a 
mandatory E&T participant can be sanctioned for failure to comply with 
case management, as case management is part of the E&T program, but the 
Department also believes that State agencies have sufficient 
flexibility in the design of their case management services to ensure 
that case management supports individuals participating in E&T and does 
not become a barrier for low-income individuals who need access to E&T 
or food assistance. The Department also recognizes the wide variability 
in how E&T programs are structured across States, and that case 
management will be provided in a number of ways depending on the 
structure of the program and the needs of the participants. For 
instance, some participants may receive case management services 
embedded in a component, whereas other participants may receive stand-
alone case management services separate from a component. Some 
participants may desire regularly occurring case management meetings, 
whereas other participants may only desire receiving case management 
when requested. The Department believes it is important to maintain 
this flexibility, and expects State agencies and their providers to 
work with participants to determine the best and most efficient 
delivery of case management services. The Department also reminds State 
agencies that the purpose of case management is to support 
participation in the E&T program. While all E&T participants must 
receive some case management, there is not an expectation that 
participants receive ongoing case management or multiple sessions of 
case management, if that is not desired by the participant, and the 
participant is otherwise successfully participating in an E&T 
component. The Department strongly urges State agencies and their 
providers to communicate upfront with participants about the 
participant's need for and interest in case management, and plan for 
case management services that meet those interests and needs. If the 
State agency or a provider finds that an individual has received some 
case management services, but is not currently engaged with case 
management, and is otherwise successfully participating in an E&T 
component, the Department would strongly encourage the State agency or 
the provider to communicate with the participant about their interest 
in case management, and adjust the provision of case management 
services accordingly.
    The Department strongly believes that E&T programs should not 
unduly burden participants with administrative hurdles, meaningless 
tasks, and inefficient processes. Several commenters agreed that overly 
intensive or complex services, such as exhaustive skills assessments, 
numerous in-person meetings, or multiple hand-offs between providers 
can deter individuals, even in voluntary E&T programs, from completing 
the case management process, especially for those that already face 
transportation or accessibility barriers. One not-for-profit agency 
urged the Department to require State agencies to include in their 
State E&T plans a description of how the case management services will 
support the goals of guiding participants to appropriate services, 
support individuals throughout the E&T activity, and provide additional 
services. The Department agrees that case management services must be 
tailored to the need of participants. State agencies and their 
providers should only provide services when there is a clear connection 
between those services and supporting the participant to succeed in the 
training or improving the employability of the participant. State 
agencies must also design their case management processes in a way that 
reduces hand-offs and unnecessary steps. The Department recognizes that 
State agencies will provide case management services in a number of 
ways--through State agency staff, E&T provider staff, or through other 
professionals--so it may not be possible to describe all case 
management services and the way they are provided in the E&T State 
plan. The Department notes that the regulatory text at 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(1), as re-designated, states that the purpose of case 
management services shall be to guide the participant towards 
appropriate E&T components and services based on the participant's 
needs and interests, support the participant in the E&T program, and 
provide activities and resources that help the participant achieve 
program goals. However, the Department has modified the regulation at 7 
CFR 273.7(c)(6)(ii) to require State agencies to include in their E&T 
State plan a general description of how the State agency will ensure 
E&T participants are provided with targeted case management services 
through an efficient administrative process. The Department will also 
continue to work with State agencies to develop case management 
processes that are efficient and adaptable to make best use of E&T 
resources and reduce participation barriers.
    The Department also received a comment from a not-for-profit agency 
suggesting that the proposed rule incorrectly implemented the case 
management statutory provision by requiring case management be provided 
to all E&T participants. The commenter stated that the changes to 
section 6(d)(4)(B)(i) of the FNA only required case management to be a 
part of every State E&T program, not that every E&T

[[Page 370]]

participant must receive case management. The commenter explained a 
State E&T program can contain case management and one component, or 
case management and multiple components. In the latter instance, all 
E&T participants are not required to participate in all components. The 
Department does not concur. The Department believes reading the statute 
in a manner that only offers case management to some E&T participants 
instead of all E&T participants does not make sense or further the 
purpose of the Act's changes. This change means all States agencies 
must now offer both case management and at least one component to each 
participant, and each individual must receive both case management and 
at least one component.
    The Department received general support for including a description 
of the case management services offered by the State in the State E&T 
plan. However, several commenters did not support requiring cost 
information associated with the case management services in the E&T 
State plan. A not-for-profit agency that works with service providers 
and several workforce training agencies explained that providers 
integrate case management into other individually tailored services 
within E&T components, such as career counseling and job readiness 
training, and it would be burdensome and difficult for providers to 
account for each activity separately. They asked the Department to 
allow the cost of case management services to be embedded within 
component costs when participants receive case management services as 
part of that component. In addition, two workforce training agencies, 
who already provide case management to E&T participants, asked that the 
Department not impose onerous tracking, reporting, and other 
requirements for case management on E&T providers. The Department 
agrees that regulations pertaining to case management should not impose 
unnecessary burdens on E&T providers or participants. The flexibility 
provided within the regulations allows E&T providers, in conjunction 
with the State agency, to develop and provide case management services 
that are tailored to the needs of participants, the capacity of the E&T 
provider, and the structure of the E&T program in the State. The 
Department also understands that, in many circumstances, embedding case 
management in the E&T component will best serve the needs of the E&T 
participant, and that separately tracking the cost of those case 
management services could indeed be onerous. As a result, the 
Department has modified the regulation at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(ii) to 
remove the requirement that State agencies include the estimated cost 
of case management services in the E&T State plan. However, the 
Department notes that State agencies must still track the receipt of 
case management services for the E&T quarterly reports to ensure every 
E&T participant receives case management. The Department provides State 
agencies with discretion regarding how they collect data from their 
providers. As such, State agencies should work with their respective 
E&T providers to develop reporting systems that efficiently and 
accurately gather the appropriate information required for E&T 
quarterly and annual reports.
    The Department also received a comment from a workforce training 
agency urging the Department to set aside a portion of E&T 100 percent 
funds to only be used for case management, and a separate comment from 
a not-for-profit agency to provide additional 100 percent funds for 
case management. Both commenters explained that the provision of high 
quality case management services is expensive, and may be cost 
prohibitive for some agencies if they do not receive dedicated or 
additional funds. In addition, both commenters explained that setting 
aside dedicated case management funds would encourage agencies to work 
more with individuals facing high barriers. The Department understands 
that the provision of high-quality case management services is resource 
intensive. Each State agency receives 100 percent funds that can be 
used to offset the costs of case management services, and State 
agencies have discretion in how these funds are distributed to their 
E&T providers. In addition, FNS reimburses State agencies 50 percent 
for allowable costs paid for with non-Federal funds above that amount, 
which would include costs associated with case management. The 
Department encourages State agencies to work with their E&T providers 
to ensure these resources are used to provide robust E&T case 
management services while maximizing the impact of E&T.
    Lastly, the Department also received a comment regarding the 
frequency of case management meetings. The commenter had read in the 
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) that the Department estimated 
approximately monthly case management meetings. The commenter was 
concerned about what they viewed as the Department's decision to 
regulate the number and frequency of meetings. The Department is 
clarifying that the values provided in the RIA are only used to 
estimate the impact of the regulation on the affected public, and that 
the Department understands, as discussed above, that the number and 
frequency of case management meetings will vary by individual, 
depending on their circumstances, the structure of the E&T program, and 
the capacity of the E&T providers.
    In conclusion, the Department codifies the proposed regulations 
with changes made to the description of case management at 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(2) and the information required in the E&T State plan at 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(6)(ii).

Referral of Individuals

    Section 4005 of the Act added a new requirement for State agencies 
regarding any E&T participant, not otherwise exempted from the general 
work requirement, who is determined by the operator of an E&T component 
to be ill-suited to participate in that E&T program component. For work 
registrants determined to be ill-suited, the Act required the State 
agency to do the following: (1) Refer the individual to an appropriate 
E&T component; (2) refer the individual to an appropriate workforce 
partnership, if available; (3) re-assess the individual's physical and 
mental fitness; or (4) to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate 
with other Federal, State, or local workforce or assistance programs to 
identify work opportunities or assistance for the individual. During 
this time, also per the Act, the State agency shall ensure that an 
individual undergoing and complying with the process above shall not be 
found to have refused without good cause to participate in an E&T 
program. This new requirement was added at new section 6(d)(4)(O) of 
the FNA. The Department proposed to codify this new requirement in a 
new paragraph at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18). The Department believes this new 
provision was intended by Congress to increase the accountability of 
State agencies, particularly for mandatory E&T participants. While 
State agencies are already required to develop State criteria to 
determine who should be required to participate in E&T, State agencies 
often do not apply sufficient due diligence to ensure the SNAP 
participants who are referred to the E&T program have the capacity to 
benefit from the particular training or that the particular component 
to which they are referred matches the SNAP participant's needs and 
skill level. Unfortunately, in these situations, SNAP participants 
could fail to benefit from the program and, ultimately, could be 
disqualified

[[Page 371]]

for failure to participate. This new provision strives to strengthen 
State accountability for their E&T programs by requiring State agencies 
take additional steps to ensure SNAP participants who are determined 
ill-suited for an E&T component receive the targeted help they need to 
move toward self-sufficiency. The Department proposed several new 
processes to implement the provision, including a requirement that 
individuals with an ill-suited determination receive a Notice of E&T 
Participation Change (NETPC) from the State agency soon after their 
ill-suited determination.
    The Department received 44 comments on this provision. Commenters 
were generally supportive and believed the provision would ensure more 
participants are directed to activities most likely to help them move 
toward self-sufficiency. However, many commenters had questions and 
concerns on segments of the provision as proposed, most notably the 
term ``ill-suited,'' the applicability of the provision to self-
referrals and voluntary households, the NETPC requirements, and the 
inability to stop the ABAWD time clock after an ill-suited 
determination.
    Several commenters explained that the term ``ill-suited'' was 
insensitive and stigmatizing, and did not take a strengths-based 
approach to working with participants. A not-for-profit agency 
explained that people are not ``ill-suited'' for programs, but programs 
can be ill-suited for people. Another commenter explained there may be 
multiple reasons a referral from a State agency may not be successful, 
including a lack of an available slot or a lack of follow-up from the 
participant or provider, and believed these other reasons should also 
be communicated back to the State agency under a mandatory E&T program. 
Alternative terms like ``incomplete referral,'' ``revised referral,'' 
or ``reassigned referral'' were suggested. The Department agrees that a 
switch to different terminology for this situation could be less 
stigmatizing, but also notes ``ill-suited'' is the language used in the 
statute. For the purposes of the regulations, the Department will use 
the phrase ``provider determination'' in place of ``ill-suited 
determination.'' The Department also recognizes there are many reasons 
why a participant may not successfully complete a component, but for 
the purposes of this regulation the Department is finalizing language 
pertaining to individuals who are determined by the provider to not be 
a good fit for the component.
    Commenters also asked the Department to recognize a new referral is 
a significant burden on the time and hopefulness of a jobseeker, and 
can be a demoralizing process. Commenters spoke of the need for State 
agencies to have as much information as possible about E&T providers so 
that State agencies can make the best possible referrals, thus heading 
off instances when an individual and an E&T program are not well-
aligned. One workforce training agency explained it frequently receives 
referrals from the State agency for individuals who do not meet 
criteria for enrollment; this commenter believed a handbook for State 
agency staff which offered more information about available providers 
would be helpful. A not-for-profit agency that works with many E&T 
providers suggested a more upstream solution to invest additional 
resources into data systems, as well as the development of robust and 
holistic intake and referral processes. The commenter encouraged the 
Department to support the development of these systems. The commenter 
further explained these data systems could support making a better 
match and facilitating the back and forth with a client when a provider 
determination is made. The Department agrees that E&T participants must 
always be treated with care and respect, which is why State agencies 
should implement screening and referral processes that are both 
effective and efficient. The Department encourages State agencies to 
work with their providers to develop appropriate screening criteria so 
they only refer individuals who meet the providers' criteria for 
enrollment. The Department also agrees that State agencies should 
consider developing data systems and other processes to improve their 
ability to screen and refer individuals to appropriate providers. The 
Department will continue to offer technical assistance to support State 
agencies in these efforts.
    The proposed rule stated that the E&T provider has the authority to 
determine if an individual referred to or participating in an E&T 
component should receive a provider determination for that E&T 
component. Two commenters urged the Department to make an addition to 
paragraph 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i) to require the State agency to ensure 
E&T providers are informed, not only of their authority, but also their 
responsibility to make a provider determination for a particular E&T 
component. The commenters believed this addition would place an 
expectation on the provider to inform the State agency whenever an 
individual was not a good fit for the program component. The Department 
agrees that, not only do E&T providers have the authority to make a 
provider determination, the E&T providers must also have the 
responsibility to make this determination. The addition of 
``responsibility'' more clearly lays out the Department's expectation 
that E&T providers will identify individuals who are not a good fit and 
notify the State agency of the provider determination in accordance 
with 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i).
    Commenters also shared that E&T providers should have more guidance 
on what constitutes a provider determination, to ensure consistency 
among providers and to avoid discriminatory practices. Commenters also 
felt that E&T providers should be given guidance on how to approach the 
decision to make a provider determination with compassion and a spirit 
of assistance, acknowledging that some E&T participants, particularly 
ABAWDs, may face barriers that would make it hard for them to meet E&T 
program expectations. For instance, providers should consider how to 
enable an individual to participate rather than immediately making an 
E&T provider determination. Another commenter explained that, while the 
end goal of the provider determination may be to match a jobseeker with 
more appropriate programming, in practice the determination screens a 
jobseeker out of an available E&T component with the hope that the 
State agency will have another, better option available for the 
individual down the line. The commenter recommended that the Department 
take steps to make transparent the criteria that inform an E&T provider 
determination and to offer opportunities for feedback and revision of 
these criteria. In addition, the commenter was concerned that deferring 
sole authority to E&T providers to make these determinations could 
result in a patchwork of unaligned and confusing approaches that are 
subject to staff discretion and, therefore, also subject to staff's 
implicit or explicit racial biases. The Department agrees that E&T 
providers should not indiscriminately refer E&T participants back to 
the State agency. The Department has long discouraged providers from 
``creaming''--serving only participants that show potential for good 
outcomes. The Department encourages providers to make every reasonable 
effort to assist individuals' participation in the training to which 
they have been referred, only making a provider determination if 
absolutely

[[Page 372]]

necessary. In accordance with 7 CFR 272.6(a), State agencies are 
prohibited from discriminating against any applicant or participant in 
any aspect of SNAP administration for reasons of age, race, color, sex, 
disability, religious creed, national origin, or political beliefs. 
Non-discrimination language must also be in all contracts or agreements 
between State agencies and their E&T providers, and the USDA non-
discrimination statement must be on all forms. In addition, the 
Department at 7 CFR 272.6 has procedures in place to monitor for 
discrimination and manage complaints. At the same time, the Department 
acknowledges there is great deal of flexibility in the types of E&T 
programs offered among and within States, and believes it is not 
feasible to develop a finite list of criteria for use in making 
provider determinations for all E&T providers to abide by. In fact, a 
finite list of criteria could actually be harmful by reducing the 
flexibility State agencies and E&T providers have to target programs to 
individuals with a wide range of needs. The Department encourages State 
agencies to work up-front with their providers to identify the criteria 
for referring individuals to that provider and ensure staff are 
properly screening prior to referring individuals. This would go a long 
way in reducing the need for provider determinations. In addition, the 
Department agrees that State agencies have a responsibility to monitor 
their E&T providers to ensure provider determinations are fair and non-
discriminatory. The Department will provide oversight of State agency 
implementation of this provision through ongoing management 
evaluations.
    A not-for-profit agency encouraged the Department to consider 
allowing E&T participants to request re-assignment if the participant 
believes the provider is ``ill-suited'' to the participant's needs and 
interests. As stated above, the Department will allow E&T providers the 
flexibility, with State agency oversight, to develop the criteria for 
use in making a provider determination. However, the Department 
encourages State agencies and providers to take into consideration 
participants' needs and interests when determining whether it is 
appropriate to refer and enroll them in certain activities. The 
Department would encourage the use of provider determinations when a 
participant does not feel they are a good fit for the E&T component.
    The Department received two comments from not-for-profit agencies 
recommending that anyone who has received a provider determination 
should have the right to appeal that decision through the fair hearing 
process. The Department understands that individuals may disagree with 
the decision made by a provider that they are not a good fit for a 
particular component. However, the Department does not believe that 
requesting an appeal through the fair hearing process at 7 CFR 
273.7(f)(6) is the appropriate approach, as a provider determination 
does not, in and of itself, result in a sanction or disqualification 
from SNAP benefits. The Department would encourage any participant who 
disagrees with the provider determination to discuss their concern with 
the State agency. The State agency may be able to help the participant 
resolve any issues that may have led to the provider determination and 
to then allow a re-referral. In addition, as discussed above, if an 
individual believes they have been discriminated against, the 
Department has procedures in place at 7 CFR 272.6 to file a complaint, 
and all State agencies must make these procedures available to all SNAP 
participants.
    The Department received one comment on the timing for notifying the 
State agency when a provider determination has been made. One commenter 
recommended that the E&T provider be required to notify the State 
agency expediently, with a timeframe of no longer than 14 days. The 
Department agrees that timely notification of the provider 
determination is an important step and, the sooner the State agency 
knows of the determination, the sooner the State agency can inform the 
participant and begin to take one of the four actions in 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(18)(i)(B). The Department notes that E&T providers are 
required at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(4) to notify the State agency within 10 days 
if a participant fails to comply with E&T requirements. The Department 
is choosing to adopt the same 10-day timeframe for E&T providers to 
notify the State agency of the provider determination and has updated 
the regulatory text.
    Commenters had differing opinions about the types of information 
that should be shared between the State agency and the E&T provider 
regarding E&T participants. Several commenters had concerns over 
provider-participant confidentiality when E&T providers share data with 
the State agency on the ill-suited determination, actions that may 
result in a breach of trust with the participant. Two commenters 
recommended the Department define specific fields that minimize 
confidentiality concerns, such as ``participant does not meet specific 
provider eligibility criteria,'' and recommended that all E&T 
participants sign a release of confidential information at intake with 
the provider. One commenter suggested that the provider include a 
recommended next step, such as ``suggest reassessment for exemption for 
mental/physical fitness,'' when they notify the State agency of the 
provider determination. However, a not-for-profit agency did not 
believe it was necessary for the State agency to even receive the 
reason for the provider determination. The commenter strongly supported 
the proposal to require the State agency to act on the provider 
determination, even if the E&T provider does not inform the State 
agency of the reason for the determination, as the State agency can 
make its own decision about the next step. On the other hand, a local 
government agency believed the State agency could not appropriately 
monitor for potential discriminatory actions if there is not a 
requirement that the provider share information on provider 
determinations with them. A not-for-profit agency urged the Department 
to hold State agencies accountable for collecting, analyzing, and 
reporting on the characteristics of jobseekers with a provider 
determination, focusing on the characteristics of race, ethnicity, 
gender, and age. To enhance State agencies' ability to provide 
oversight, the commenter also recommended that the Department build out 
``accountability mechanisms'' for situations in which the E&T provider 
makes a provider determination but fails to provide the reason for that 
determination. The Department understands that E&T providers may 
develop relationships with E&T participants and may learn personal or 
sensitive information. At the same time, the Department recognizes that 
the sharing of particular information could assist in State oversight, 
prevent discrimination, and ensure the appropriateness of subsequent 
referrals. Thus, the Department concludes that E&T providers should 
provide the reason for a provider determination to the State agency, so 
that the State agency can make the best possible decision about next 
steps; however, if the provider does not provide the reason, the State 
agency must continue to process the provider determination without the 
reason. In addition, the Department is encouraging, but not requiring, 
the E&T provider to share a recommended next step when they notify the 
State agency of the provider determination so that the State agency has 
as much information as possible to make their decision about

[[Page 373]]

the next step. The Department Encourages State agencies to include 
appropriate protocols for the secure handling of personal or sensitive 
information in their agreements with providers, including any such 
protocols based on Federal or State law and guidance. E&T providers 
should follow their internal protocols, as well as any protocols 
outlined in their agreements with the State agency, consistent with 
applicable laws regarding secure handling of such information.
    Several State agencies expressed concern with the section of the 
proposed rule that would require the State agency to be the entity that 
makes the choice among the four available actions. These State agencies 
agreed that rescreening the individual for mandatory participation in 
the E&T program is the responsibility of eligibility workers, but they 
did not think eligibility workers would be the most appropriate group 
to refer the individual to another E&T component, workforce 
partnership, or another assistance program. One State agency suggested 
that case managers would be the most appropriate entity to make the re-
referral and, in their State, case managers are embedded with E&T 
providers. As a result, requiring the individual with a provider 
determination to go back to the State agency, rather than to their 
provider case manager, would be problematic because: The participant 
has an established relationship with their case manager (not with an 
eligibility worker); individuals will lose trust they have built with 
their case manager; individuals will be forced to ``start over'' 
potentially causing them to disengage from the program; eligibility 
workers are not well-versed in the specific E&T components offered in 
the State; and case managers know more about the participant's 
circumstances and are better able to recommend other appropriate next 
steps, including possible exemptions. The State agency recommended that 
the Department provide flexibility to allow individuals with a provider 
determination to go back to their case managers for next steps, while 
still allowing eligibility functions to remain with the eligibility 
workers. Several commenters stated that allowing case managers or staff 
associated with the E&T providers to re-refer the participant to 
another component would also reduce the number of times an individual 
bounces around to different offices, thereby reducing confusion and 
inconvenience. Another State agency operating both a mandatory and 
voluntary E&T program explained that E&T providers are very capable of 
assigning the participant to a new component, referring the participant 
to another partner organization, reassessing the individual, and 
obtaining other assistance for the participant. Similarly, a second 
State agency operating a voluntary program explained that the proposed 
provision assumes that State agencies are not already implementing a 
``no wrong door'' approach to service delivery. The State agency 
explained their existing process already allows for a ``no wrong door'' 
approach, which provides for re-referrals within the provider network 
and for participants to be screened for suitability before receiving 
services across multiple programs. The Department does not disagree 
that E&T providers may, in some cases, have the necessary skills and 
capacity to reassess individuals and determine a more appropriate 
component. However, the Department believes, particularly with regard 
to mandatory programs, but also with voluntary programs, that the State 
agency, not other entities, must determine if a participant with a 
provider determination should actually continue to participate in E&T. 
Congress included, as one of the four options after an individual 
receives a provider determination, that the State agency reassess the 
individual's mental and physical fitness. The Department interprets 
this to mean that Congress intended for the State agency to only re-
refer an individual to E&T or, at the participant's discretion, refer 
to a workforce partnership (the two methods of meeting a mandatory E&T 
requirement), if the individual remained eligible for E&T. Only the 
State agency can determine if an individual is eligible to participate 
in E&T, and if it would be appropriate for the individual to do so.
    A professional organization noted the proposed rule goes beyond 
what is specified in the Act to dictate that the decision regarding 
appropriate next steps after a provider determination is a function of 
eligibility staff. The commenter urged the Department not to assign 
this as a function of eligibility staff, and allow State agencies to 
identify which parties within the E&T program are the most appropriate 
to be involved in the decision-making and communication with the 
clients. A State agency also asked the Department to clarify the 
difference between an eligibility function and the functions of State 
staff that are more directly engaged in E&T. When the Department refers 
to an eligibility function or eligibility staff, the Department is 
referring to the workers who make eligibility determination for SNAP 
benefits (including determining exemptions from the work requirements 
and referring individuals to E&T) as specified in section 11(e)(6) of 
the FNA. State E&T staff are those who evaluate participants' 
suitability for certain E&T activities and otherwise coordinate 
activities within the E&T program. The Department believes that the 
decision about which of the four actions to take at 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(18)(i)(B) for an individual with a provider determination must 
be performed by an eligibility worker because only an eligibility 
worker can determine if it is appropriate, as a condition of 
eligibility, to refer someone to E&T in accordance with State agency 
criteria. Similarly, only an eligibility worker can re-screen an 
individual for exemptions from work registration as that determination 
is closely related to eligibility. While other State agency staff 
beyond eligibility workers could refer an individual to a workforce 
partnership or coordinate with other Federal, State, or local workforce 
or assistance programs, the Department does not think it is 
logistically or administratively feasible to split the decision-making 
authority at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B) between eligibility and non-
eligibility staff. That being said, the Department does believe that 
State E&T staff, case workers, and E&T providers likely have important 
information to share that may inform which of the four actions would be 
the most appropriate for an individual with a provider determination. 
The Department would encourage these staff to share this information 
with the eligibility worker to inform the eligibility worker's 
decision. In addition, the Department believes State agencies must take 
greater accountability for individuals they refer to E&T programs--both 
in voluntary and mandatory programs. If an individual has already 
received a provider determination after an initial referral to an E&T 
program, the State agency must seriously consider if E&T is the most 
appropriate placement for the individual, or if another program, as 
described in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(4), would be a better use of a 
participant's time. As described earlier, E&T provider staff are 
encouraged to provide the reason for the provider determination and 
make a recommendation regarding the best next action to the State 
agency, but ultimately the decision about the next action rests with 
eligibility staff in the State agency. In light of these explanations, 
no modification to the regulatory language is made.

[[Page 374]]

    A State agency operating a voluntary program noted that its State 
E&T program had contracted with several E&T providers who operate 
multiple components, and found that such providers are able to re-
assign individuals from one component to a more appropriate component 
without re-involving the State agency. The commenter explained how the 
E&T provider enters the component change in the E&T data system and 
thus the State agency is informed. The State agency requested that the 
Department modify language to allow an E&T provider offering multiple 
components approved by the State agency to move participants to a more 
appropriate component without referring the individual back to the 
State agency. The commenter believed granting E&T providers this 
discretion would ensure an individual could move into a more suitable 
activity as soon as reasonably possible while maintaining continuity of 
case management services. The Department notes that section 6(d)(4)(O) 
of the FNA refers to an individual being ``ill-suited'' for a 
``component'' and not for an ``E&T program.'' However, the Department 
agrees with the commenter that, if an E&T provider makes a provider 
determination for one component and believes an individual would be a 
good fit for another State-approved component offered by the same 
provider, a reasonable next step would be for the E&T provider to 
enroll the individual in the second component. The Department believes 
that the intent of the statutory language was to give E&T providers a 
tool to refer individuals back to the State agency when an E&T provider 
makes a determination that it is unable to serve the participant well. 
As a result, if an E&T provider determines an individual is ill-suited 
for a component and there is a more suitable component available, the 
State agency will have the option to either require the E&T provider to 
refer the individual back to the State agency with a provider 
determination, if the individual is ill-suited for one component, or 
allow the E&T provider to switch the individual to another component 
without referral back to the State agency. In the latter case, the E&T 
provider must inform the State agency of the new component. If an E&T 
provider does not have a more suitable component, the E&T provider must 
refer the individual back to the State agency with a provider 
determination. The Department has added this language to allow State 
agency discretion at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i).
    Several commenters, including State agencies operating voluntary 
E&T programs, explained that implementing the ill-suited process, as 
described in the proposed rule, would be onerous and confusing for a 
voluntary E&T program to operate, and would likely create unnecessary 
burdens for both participants and State agency staff. One commenter 
recommended that, for voluntary programs, the State agency require E&T 
providers to refer participants with a provider determination to other 
providers, but only if appropriate and desired by the participant. 
Commenters explained that, since voluntary participants cannot be 
sanctioned for failure to comply with E&T, it is not necessary to 
include voluntary households in the actions described at 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(18). The Department agrees that voluntary participants cannot 
be sanctioned for failure to comply with E&T, but also notes that the 
Act does not differentiate between voluntary and mandatory E&T 
participants with regard to the ill-suited process. In addition, the 
Department believes there is value in requiring voluntary participants 
with a provider determination to be reassessed by the State agency to 
determine the next most appropriate action. As stated above, the State 
agency must be accountable to E&T participants and the efficient use of 
E&T resources even in voluntary programs. The State agency has a 
responsibility to properly screen individuals for participation in E&T 
and match participants to the most appropriate E&T component. The State 
agency must also ensure all participants, both mandatory and voluntary, 
are being adequately served by the State's E&T providers.
    The Department also received comments on the interaction between 
reverse referrals and provider determinations. A State agency explained 
that voluntary E&T participants may be referred to a specific program 
by the State agency or they may self-refer to an E&T provider. This 
State agency explained their E&T program is structured so that all E&T 
providers provide case management and case managers work with the 
participant to place them into the most compatible component. Using the 
proposed model, the State agency believed few individuals would be 
placed in a component where they are ``ill-suited.'' However, the State 
agency wondered what would happen if an E&T participant self-referred 
to an E&T provider and the individual received a provider determination 
for that component. The State agency explained they would prefer that 
the E&T provider, using their case management services, refer the 
participant to a more appropriate E&T provider, rather than back to the 
State agency, adding unnecessary complexity. The Department does not 
believe that the process described in the rule is inconsistent with 
self-referrals as described by this State agency, and the Department 
notes that self-referrals can occur in both voluntary and mandatory 
programs. Self-referrals (also known as reverse referrals) happen when 
a SNAP participant identifies an E&T provider without being directly 
referred to that provider and independently asks to enroll in the 
program. The E&T provider must determine, by contacting the State 
agency, that the individual is a SNAP participant and request the 
individual be formally referred by the State agency to the E&T 
component offered by the provider. If then referred by the State 
agency, the E&T provider may then enroll the participant in the 
component. The Department would expect, as a best practice that, if a 
potential E&T participant self-refers to an E&T provider, the E&T 
provider would assess the individual for compatibility with the E&T 
components offered prior to sending a request to the State agency for a 
formal referral to their E&T component. The Department reminds State 
agencies that E&T providers cannot enroll SNAP participants as E&T 
participants unless the State agency has first screened individuals to 
determine if it is appropriate to refer them to E&T and then refers 
them to the E&T program in accordance with 7 CFR 273.7(c)(2). If an E&T 
provider is asking the State agency to enroll walk-ins without first 
making sure the individual is a good fit for their program and is, in 
fact, a SNAP participant, and if the State agency is not scrutinizing 
self-referral requests from providers to ensure it is appropriate to 
refer individuals to the E&T program, then both the E&T provider and 
the State agency are failing in their responsibility to ensure 
participants are matched to programs where they are likely to be 
successful. The State agency has an accountability role to play in 
ensuring that self-referrals should be officially referred to E&T and, 
if not, to assist the individual in finding a more appropriate program.
    Several commenters expressed concerns with the Notice of E&T 
Participation Change (NETPC). Some commenters strongly recommended the 
Department make the NETPC optional for voluntary E&T participants or do 
away with the notice requirement entirely. A not-for-profit agency

[[Page 375]]

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 individual's 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 
ill-suited 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 participant's 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 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 not-for-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 follow-up (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-for-profit 
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 273.7(18)(ii) to provide notice that an ABAWD's countable 
months may still accrue unless the individual meets or is otherwise not 
subject to the ABAWD work requirement.
    The Department's 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 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 agency's 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 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B) 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 determination--for 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

[[Page 376]]

requirements to 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i)(A).
    With regard to an ABAWD who receives a provider determination, the 
State agency must notify the ABAWD, at the same time the State agency 
informs the ABAWD of the information above, that he or she will accrue 
countable months toward the three-month participation time limit the 
next full benefit month after the month during which the State agency 
notifies the ABAWD of the provider determination, unless the ABAWD 
fulfills the work requirements in accordance with 7 CFR 273.24, or the 
ABAWD has good cause, lives in a waived area, or is otherwise exempt. 
The Department has modified the language regarding the accrual of 
countable months in the final rule to state the ABAWD will accrue 
countable months ``the next full benefit month after the month during 
which the State agency notifies the ABAWD of the provider 
determination.'' The Department recognizes that ABAWDs could 
potentially receive a provider determination during a partial benefit 
month, which is not to be considered a countable month under 7 CFR 
273.24(b)(1). Additionally, for ABAWDs that are notified of a provider 
determination during the middle of a full benefit month, this provision 
will not penalize ABAWDs for lost opportunities to meet the ABAWD work 
requirement that month. The Department does not believe it is 
appropriate to penalize ABAWDs for being referred to an E&T component 
for which an ABAWD is determined to be ill-suited, likely due to no 
fault of their own, nor for the time during which such an ABAWD may not 
have definitive communication of the provider determination. This 
change will mean that ABAWDs can only be assigned countable months when 
the ABAWD has a full month (and a full opportunity) to fulfill the work 
requirement after being notified of a provider determination. As a 
result, ABAWDs would not accrue a countable month for the month in 
which they receive notification of a provider determination. The ABAWD 
would be expected to fulfill the ABAWD work requirement by working 
(paid or unpaid) or participating in a work program or workfare program 
during the next full benefit month, unless the ABAWD has good cause, 
lives in a waived area, or is otherwise exempt. The regulations at 7 
CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i)(A) and 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(ii) have been modified to 
reflect this change, and a corresponding change has been made to the 
definition of countable months at 7 CFR 273.24(b)(1). The State agency 
might find it appropriate on these occasions to consider whether the 
individual should be considered for an exemption or good cause 
determination and inform the ABAWD of exemption and good cause 
determination processes.
    The Department notes that notifying individuals of the provider 
determination, in accordance with 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i)(A), is 
necessary even for voluntary E&T participants, as the individual may 
not understand their participation in that component has ended, and 
wonder what their next step to receive training and assistance should 
be. In addition, in some cases, ABAWDs may be voluntary participants 
and, as discussed above, it is particularly important that ABAWDs 
receive information about the accrual of countable months in the next 
full benefit month after the month during which the State agency 
notifies the ABAWD of the provider determination.
    The Department is also making a change to the timing of when the 
State agency must notify E&T participants of a provider determination. 
Given how crucial it is for ABAWDs to receive that notification, so 
that they may begin to identify other opportunities to fulfill the 
ABAWD work requirement, and for other E&T participants to be notified 
of the provider determination, so that they are not left wondering what 
their next step ought to be, the Department is adding a requirement to 
7 CFR 273,7(c)(18)(i)(A) that the State agency must notify E&T 
participants with a provider determination of that determination within 
10 days of receiving the notification from the E&T provider.
    The Department also received comments regarding when the State 
agency should be required to take one of the actions in 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(18)(i)(B). One not-for-profit agency recommended that the 
State agency be required to take one of the four actions at the next 
recertification because the State agency is already required to contact 
the participant at that time and will have the opportunity to ask 
questions related to the provider determination. The same commenter 
also suggested the participant should be given the opportunity to 
contact the State agency sooner for help in identifying E&T 
opportunities. Another commenter believed the final rule should specify 
steps the State agency can take to ensure that an individual with a 
provider determination is moved into a more suitable activity as soon 
as reasonably possible. Some of these steps might include having State 
agency staff speak with the participant about their employment goals 
and interests, requiring the State agency to maintain an up-to-date 
database of existing workforce development programming, specifically 
targeted to jobseekers who face more significant barriers to 
employment, or having the State agency employ system navigators who can 
better coordinate options on behalf of a participant. Given the 
flexibility State agencies have to structure their E&T programs based 
on agency priorities and the needs of local providers, the Department 
is providing State agencies flexibility with regard to when they take 
one of the actions in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B), so long as the action 
is taken no later than the individual's recertification. The Department 
also believes it is important for the State agency to be responsive to 
individuals with a provider determination who would like to move on to 
one of the next steps as soon as possible. As a result, if an 
individual with a provider determinations tells the State agency they 
would like the State agency to make a decision among the four options 
and refer, the State agency should do so as soon as possible. The 
Department believes that the vast majority of E&T participants will be 
properly screened and initially assigned to components for which they 
are a good match and thus expects this provision to only apply to a 
small subset of the overall E&T population. The regulation at 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(18)(i)(B) has been updated accordingly.
    The Department received a comment from a not-for-profit agency 
suggesting that, rather than making a re-assessment of general work 
requirement exemptions, including a re-assessment of mental and 
physical fitness, one of the four options at 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(3), all participants should be reassessed for 
exemptions at the point that an E&T provider makes a provider 
determination. The commenter explained that, in their State, many 
mandatory E&T participants and ABAWDs could end up qualifying for an 
exemption from mandatory E&T or the ABAWD work requirement after a 
short period of time. The commenter believed re-assessing exemptions 
should be the starting point before seeking to refer participants to 
additional programs or identifying other work opportunities. Further, 
the commenter believed the regulation at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(3) 
should also include an evaluation of exemptions for all the work 
requirements the participant is subject to, not just the general work 
requirement. The Department agrees that individuals who should be 
exempt

[[Page 377]]

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 re-assess 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 
re-assessment 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 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(1). 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 273.7(c)(2). A not-for-profit agency explained 
many individuals re-referred 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 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 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B). 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 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B) 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 
273.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(2), if available and of interest to the participant, 
or coordinate with another program in accordance with 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(4). 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 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(1) 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 273.7(c)(2) 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 paragraph 7 CFR 273.7(c)(2) apply to individuals who 
are referred to E&T as a result of actions in 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(1); therefore, no additional regulatory changes are 
necessary.
    The Department received one comment requesting the Department 
clearly state in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(4), 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 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(4) to more clearly 
state this understanding. In addition, the Department notes that if a 
State agency chooses the option at 7 CFR 2737.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(3) 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 
273.7(c)(18)(ii) 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 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B), 
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 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B) 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

[[Page 378]]

in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(ii) be revised to state, ``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 (i)(B) of this 
section that leads to State-confirmed enrollment in an appropriate SNAP 
E&T component or workforce partnership that meets mandatory E&T 
requirements, or else leads to an exemption, the individual shall not 
be found to have refused without good cause to participate in mandatory 
E&T.'' The Department understands that, at the time a State agency 
takes one of the four actions in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i), there may still 
be actions the participant must take to follow through, for example, 
beginning the E&T program or workforce partnership; however, the 
Department believes it would be too administratively burdensome to 
track the end of the period when an individual cannot be found to have 
failed to comply with mandatory E&T to multiple disparate end points 
(i.e, when someone starts E&T, when someone receives good cause etc.). 
In addition, while the language in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(ii) specifies for 
a period after a provider determination during which an individual 
cannot be found to failed to comply with E&T, at the end of this 
period, State agencies still have a responsibility to determine 
exemptions and good cause related to the mandatory E&T requirement, as 
appropriate, as they would in any other case. As a result, the 
Department does not believe the additional language proposed by the 
commenter is necessary, and does not modify the text at 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(18)(ii).
    The Department received several comments urging the Department to 
not allow ABAWDs to accrue countable months after they received a 
provider determination. A professional organization suggested ABAWDs 
would be unduly penalized for a decision that is ultimately outside of 
their control, and the work that ABAWDs did complete within those 
months would go unacknowledged. The commenter believed that pausing the 
accrual of countable months while awaiting the State agency to take 
action on one of the four options in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B) would 
also allow State agencies adequate time to react, re-assess, and 
reassign ABAWDs. A not-for-profit agency explained that, at present in 
their State, when organizations attempt to refer individuals back to 
the State agency for reasons of suitability, administrative delays 
often prevent a timely response. The commenter noted this leaves the 
ABAWD in limbo at no fault of their own. The commenter argued the time 
spent waiting for State agencies to respond should not count towards 
the three-month time limit. Another not-for-profit agency explained the 
Department is essentially saying that it is acceptable to disconnect an 
ABAWD from the E&T service that was allowing that individual to fulfill 
the ABAWD work requirement, at the same time expecting that individual 
to fulfill the work requirement on their own, while the State agency 
has unlimited time to take one of the four required action steps to 
match that ABAWD to an appropriate service. Moreover, the commenter 
explained, the ABAWD is not at fault if their E&T provider makes a 
provider determination for the services offered by the provider. Given 
the unequal expectations in this situation, the commenter strongly 
encouraged the Department to reconsider its requirement that ABAWDs may 
accrue countable months toward their three-month participation time 
limit after having received a provider determination, while at the same 
time acknowledging that doing so may be outside of the scope of this 
particular rulemaking. Another not-for-profit agency was concerned that 
E&T providers may actually be hesitant to make a provider determination 
for an ABAWD if they know that an ABAWD may begin to accrue countable 
months, resulting in an ABAWD continuing in a component where they are 
not able to benefit and may ultimately not complete. This not-for-
profit agency also urged the Department to add regulatory language that 
would direct State agencies to re-assess ABAWDs for good cause if the 
ABAWD received a provider determination. The commenter explained that 
not all individuals who receive a provider determination for a 
particular component would have good cause, but some might, and ABAWDs 
should be re-assessed after a provider informs the State agency of a 
poor match to determine if it might suggest they should have good cause 
for not fulfilling the ABAWD work requirement.
    The Department understands the concern that an ABAWD may accrue 
countable months after receiving a provider determination and, in many 
cases, the ABAWD may receive the determination through no fault of 
their own (e.g., the ABAWD was mis-assigned by the State agency). 
However, the mandatory protection from sanction in section 6(d)(4)(O) 
of the FNA only applies to the requirement to participate in E&T. 
ABAWDs have many ways to meet the ABAWD work requirement outside 
participation in E&T. The Department also notes that ABAWDs will accrue 
countable months even if they are participating in E&T, but not 
fulfilling the ABAWD work requirement in accordance with 7 CFR 
273.24(a)(1). The Department does believe it is important that the 
ABAWD be notified of the provider determination as soon as possible, so 
that the ABAWD can seek out other work or training opportunities. For 
this reason, the Department has directed State agencies in 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(18)(i)(A) to notify ABAWDs within 10 days of receiving 
notification of the provider determination from the E&T provider, that 
the ABAWD will accrue countable months toward their three month 
participation time limit the next full benefit month after the month 
during which the State agency notifies the ABAWD of the provider 
determination, unless the ABAWD fulfills the ABAWD work requirement in 
accordance with 7 CFR 273.24, or the ABAWD has good cause, resides in a 
waived area, or is otherwise exempt. As discussed earlier, as a best 
practice, providers are encouraged to provide the reason for the 
provider determination to the State agency and suggest a recommended 
next step for the individual. If the provider was providing case 
management, the case manager is required in accordance with 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(1), as re-designated, to share information about a possible 
exemption or good cause with the State agency.
    In conclusion, the Department is making several changes to the 
proposed regulatory text at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18): Replacing the phrase 
``ill-suited determination'' with ``provider determination;'' stating 
that the E&T provider has the authority and the responsibility to make 
a provider determination; requiring the E&T provider to notify the 
State agency of the provider determination within 10 days; replacing 
the requirement to send the NETPC with a requirement to notify the 
participant about the provider determination and the accrual of 
countable months for an ABAWD; stating that ABAWDs will accrue 
countable months toward their three month participation time limit the 
next full benefit month after the month during which the State agency 
notifies the ABAWD of the provider determination, unless the ABAWD 
fulfills the ABAWD work requirement in accordance with 7 CFR 273.24, or 
the ABAWD has good cause, resides in a waived area, or is otherwise 
exempt; requiring the State agency to notify the E&T participants of 
the provider

[[Page 379]]

notification within 10 days; requiring that the State agency notify the 
individual that they are not being sanctioned as a result of the 
provider determination; allowing the State agency to take one of the 
four actions in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B) by no later than the next 
recertification; allowing, at State agency option, an E&T provider to 
enroll a participant in another component offered by the provider if 
the initial component was not a good fit; and requiring that, if the 
State chooses option 7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i)(B)(4), the participant must 
not be required to participate in E&T.

State Agency Accountability for Participation in an E&T Program and 
Good Cause

    The Act introduced several new provisions that emphasize State 
agencies' responsibilities to build E&T programs that are well-targeted 
to E&T participants' needs and support E&T participants as they engage 
with those programs. In addition to addressing these provisions in the 
proposed rule, the Department also proposed additional ways to enhance 
State agency responsibility and capacity to build E&T programs that 
provide robust work and training opportunities to participants. In this 
section, the Department will discuss three of these additional 
provisions: A new form of good cause provided to E&T participants when 
there is not an appropriate or available opening in the E&T program; 
clarification of the application of good cause for failure or refusal 
to participate in an E&T program for ABAWDs; and a clarification that 
State agencies must first determine if non-compliance with a work 
requirement was without good cause before sending a notice of adverse 
action. Later sections of the preamble discuss other accountability 
provisions, like new State agency reporting requirements regarding 
mandatory E&T participants on the quarterly reports, and a new 
requirement to provide a consolidated written notice and oral 
explanation of all applicable work requirements to households.
    The Department believes that, if a State agency requires 
participation in E&T as a condition of eligibility, it has a 
responsibility to build an E&T program that can accommodate all 
mandatory E&T participants. In situations where there is not an 
appropriate and available opening for a mandatory E&T participant in 
the E&T program, the Department does not believe that the mandatory E&T 
participant should be disqualified for failing to comply with the E&T 
requirement, as the lack of an appropriate and available opening in an 
E&T program is beyond the E&T participant's control. As a result, the 
Department proposed to add new Sec.  273.7(i)(4) to define good cause 
to include circumstances where the State agency determines that there 
is no appropriate and available opening in the E&T program to 
accommodate a mandatory E&T participant. The Department proposed that 
the period of good cause would extend until the State agency identifies 
an appropriate and available opening in the E&T program, and the State 
agency informs the SNAP participant of such an opening. The Department 
proposed in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(2) that, if there is not an appropriate and 
available opening in an E&T program for a mandatory participant, the 
State agency must determine the participant has good cause for failure 
to comply with the mandatory E&T requirement in accordance with 
paragraph 7 CFR 273.7(i)(4). The Department also proposed in paragraph 
7 CFR 273.7(e)(1), as re-designated, that case managers must inform the 
appropriate State agency staff about the lack of an appropriate and 
available E&T component for a mandatory E&T participant. Lastly, the 
Department noted in the proposed rule preamble that, ideally, if there 
is not an appropriate and available opening in the E&T program, the 
State agency should consider exempting the individual from mandatory 
E&T under the discretion provided to State agencies in 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(2), re-designated as 7 CFR 273.7(e)(3). The Department also 
noted that this proposed new form of good cause would only apply to 
mandatory E&T participants and would not provide all ABAWDs with good 
cause for failure to fulfill the ABAWD work requirement in 7 CFR 
273.24. In other words, an ABAWD who is also a mandatory E&T 
participant, but for whom there is not an appropriate and available 
opening in an E&T program, would receive good cause for failure to 
participate in E&T, but would not receive good cause for failure to 
comply with the ABAWD work requirement.
    The Department received 28 comments on this provision, most of 
which were very supportive, although two commenters, while supportive, 
were concerned the provision would be applied too liberally and 
provided suggestions to mitigate this possibility. In addition, four 
supporters felt that the good cause for mandatory E&T should also apply 
to the ABAWD work requirement. The Department did not receive any 
comments opposing the addition of the new form of good cause for 
mandatory E&T.
    Commenters believed that the addition of the new form of good cause 
for mandatory E&T provides an important safeguard for mandatory E&T 
participants who are not able to participate in E&T, through no fault 
of their own, because the State agency has not provided an appropriate 
or available slot in an E&T program. However, one not-for-profit agency 
felt that the Department's introduction of this new form of good cause 
overestimated the demand for such ``exemptions,'' while underestimating 
the flexibility of the work requirement, as most E&T programs struggle 
to recruit participants into E&T. The commenter believed that good 
cause for this purpose should only ever be granted when a participant 
attempts to access a slot and is denied entry for lack of an opening. 
Further, the commenter believed the Department could mitigate concerns 
about over-use of this good cause provision if participants, upon 
receiving good cause for non-compliance, were expected to find work 
experience and volunteer opportunities outside a State agency's formal 
E&T program, pushing the participant to re-engage with their community 
and build work experience. The Department agrees with the commenter 
that the focus of State agencies should be on building robust E&T 
programs that provide participants opportunities in training and work 
experience programs that lead to improved employment outcomes, and not 
on excusing participants from the requirement to participate because 
there is not an appropriate or available opening. The Department has 
invested considerable resources to support State agencies in growing 
their capacity and developing E&T programs that are responsive to the 
needs of individuals and the employers. However, the Department feels 
strongly that, if a State agency is going to require individuals to 
participate in E&T as a condition of eligibility, it should hold up its 
end of the bargain by creating enough appropriate and available E&T 
opportunities so the individuals may meet this requirement. The 
Department would like to clarify that State agencies have the 
flexibility to determine who they serve in E&T, and the responsibility 
to screen and refer individuals to E&T only if appropriate. States have 
the discretion to exempt an individual or categories of individuals 
from participating in E&T. The Department notes that well-managed 
programs should have very few circumstances where there is a need to

[[Page 380]]

provide this new form of good cause. State agencies should be 
continuously monitoring the capacity of their E&T providers, properly 
screening individuals to determine if it is appropriate to refer them 
to E&T program, and only referring individuals to providers that have 
appropriate and available openings. If a State agency is unable to 
provide an appropriate slot for an individual required to participate 
in E&T, the State agency should use its flexibility to exempt them from 
participation--otherwise, the State agency must provide good cause 
until a slot is available.
    The Department also believes it would be unnecessarily restrictive 
to limit this new form of good cause to circumstances where a 
participant attempts to access a slot and is denied entry for lack of 
an opening. For instance, with the introduction of the requirement that 
all E&T participants receive case management, the Department would 
expect case managers to play a role in sharing information with the 
appropriate staff in the State agency about client participation. If a 
case manager is made aware that there is not an appropriate and 
available opening for a particular E&T participant, the case manager, 
as proposed in 7 CFR 273.7(e)(1), must share this information with the 
appropriate State agency staff, so that the State agency can determine 
if it is appropriate to provide good cause. The Department believes it 
would be unreasonable to require a participant to attempt to access a 
program, when the participant, through the case manager, already knows 
an opening does not exist.
    The Department also appreciates the comment from the same not-for-
profit agency that a mandatory E&T participant who is found to have 
good cause for non-compliance with E&T, because of a lack of an 
appropriate or available opening should be expected to find other work 
or volunteer experience. The Department agrees that E&T is not the only 
avenue available to SNAP participants to advance their skills and 
training, and would encourage State agencies to assist SNAP 
participants with referrals to other agencies or organizations. 
However, State agencies cannot require SNAP participants to engage in 
other work or training opportunities in place of E&T. In accordance 
with section 6(d)(4)(E) of the FNA, State agencies can only require 
work registrants to participate in a SNAP E&T program as defined in 
section 6(d)(4)(B)(i) of the FNA. The Department does note; however, 
that the Act requires State agencies to advise all work registrants 
living in households without earned income and without an elderly or 
disabled member about employment and training opportunities in the 
community, and the Department has added this requirement at 7 CFR 
273.14(b)(5). Moreover, the Department encourages State agencies, as a 
best practice, to provide this information to additional households, 
including mandatory E&T participants for whom the State does not have 
an appropriate or available opening in E&T, to guide these participants 
toward other opportunities. Lastly, as already noted, ABAWDs who 
receive good cause for failure to participate in E&T because of a lack 
of an appropriate or available opening are still subject to the ABAWD 
work requirement, and must work or participate in a work program or 
workfare program to receive benefits beyond the three-month time limit. 
The Department encourages the State agency, as a best practice, to 
share the employment and training information discussed above with 
these ABAWDs or any SNAP participant that is likely to benefit from 
this information.
    Four commenters expressed their concern regarding the Department's 
proposal that good cause for lack of appropriate or available opening 
in mandatory E&T would not apply to the ABAWD work requirement. A State 
agency stated that the Department's justification that there are many 
ways to fulfill the ABAWD work requirement, other than through SNAP 
E&T, is not consistent with the recent Families First Coronavirus 
Response Act (FFCRA) (Pub. L. 116-127), which temporarily suspended the 
time limit for those ABAWDs not offered a slot in a work program or 
workfare program. Given this precedent, the State agency felt USDA 
should stipulate at 7 CFR 273.7(i)(4) that good cause should be granted 
for failure to fulfill the ABAWD work requirement during periods when 
the Secretary determines, or Congress appoints by law, that the options 
available to meet the work requirement are limited. An act of Congress 
to suspend the ABAWD time limit, such as with FFCRA, does not need to 
be incorporated into the regulation because such act specifically 
suspended the ABAWD time limit statute and regulations. In addition, 
section 6(o)(4) of the FNA and 7 CFR 273.24(f) already allow the 
Secretary to waive the ABAWD time limit upon request from a State 
agency, if certain conditions are met, therefore such provision does 
not need to be adopted by this final rule. More broadly, the Department 
does not believe it is good policy, or consistent with FFCRA, to 
provide good cause for the ABAWD work requirement when an appropriate 
E&T slot is unavailable. As noted by the commenting State agency, 
Congress only temporarily suspended the ABAWD time limit for those not 
offered slots in work program beyond SNAP E&T. As stated in the 
proposed rule, there are many ways to fulfill the ABAWD work 
requirement other than through SNAP E&T. The lack of appropriate or 
available opening in a SNAP E&T program would not prevent an ABAWD from 
fulfilling the ABAWD work requirement in another way.
    Another State agency commented that this new form of good cause for 
a lack of appropriate or available opening, does not have any 
applicability in a voluntary E&T State and, in a voluntary State, 
ABAWDs who were unable to find an appropriate and available E&T opening 
would still lose eligibility if they exceeded their three-month time 
limit. The Department agrees that, in voluntary States, ABAWDs who 
exceed their three countable months because they are unable to find an 
opening in an E&T program, another work program or workfare, or work 
enough hours to meet the work requirement would lose eligibility 
regardless of the good cause provision. This same State agency 
misinterpreted the Department's explanation in the proposed rule 
preamble suggesting that State agencies should, as appropriate, exempt 
individuals from mandatory E&T if there is not an appropriate and 
available opening. The State agency thought the Department was saying 
State agencies should use ABAWD discretionary exemptions under section 
6(o)(6) of the FNA and 7 CFR 273.24(g) to exempt individuals from E&T. 
The Department is clarifying that the reference in the proposed rule 
preamble to exempting individuals from mandatory E&T referred to 
exemptions under 7 CFR 273.7(c)(2).
    An anonymous commenter explained that, if an ABAWD received good 
cause for non-compliance with E&T because there was not an appropriate 
or available opening, the Department should not assume that the ABAWD 
will be able to find other opportunities to meet the ABAWD work 
requirement. This commenter noted that ABAWDs face many barriers to 
employment and E&T services may be necessary to prepare the ABAWD for 
work. However, as the Department has previously noted, there are many 
ways to fulfill the ABAWD work requirement, including other work 
programs that can prepare ABAWDs for work. The lack of an appropriate 
or available opening in a SNAP E&T program would not prevent

[[Page 381]]

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 273.7(c)(1).
    The Department also proposed two changes to good cause regulations 
pertaining to the ABAWD work requirement in paragraph 7 CFR 
273.24(b)(2). First, if an individual is determined to have good cause 
for failure or refusal to comply with mandatory E&T under 7 CFR 
273.7(i), 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 
273.7(i)(4) 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 long-
standing practice (see Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--ABAWD 
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 under 7 CFR 
273.7(i) for failure to comply with mandatory E&T (7 CFR 273.7(a)(ii)) 
or State-assigned workfare (7 CFR 273.7(a)(iii)) also provides good 
cause under 7 CFR 273.24(b)(2) 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 State-
assigned 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-files/ABAWD-Time-Limit-Policy-and-Program-Access-Memo-Nov2015.pdf.
    \4\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-files/Policy%20Clarifications%20for%20Mandatory%20E%26T-508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 273.24(b)(2) 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 COVID-19 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 ABAWD's 
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 COVID-19 public health absence is an example of 
such situation. As a result, the Department has modified the language 
at 7 CFR 273.24(b)(2) 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 a notice of adverse 
action between current paragraphs 7 CFR 273.7(c)(3) and 7 CFR 
273.7(f)(1)(i). The Department proposed revising the language in 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(3) to clarify that, before a State agency issues a notice of 
adverse action to an individual or a household, as appropriate, for 
non-compliance 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 273.24(b)(2) 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 273.24(b)(2). 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 273.7(e)(1), as re-designated, that the E&T case 
manager

[[Page 382]]

must inform appropriate State agency staff of a possible exemption and 
if there is not an appropriate or available E&T opening for the 
participant. If the State agency determines the participant does in 
fact meet an exemption or have good cause, the State agency must then 
exempt or provide good cause to the individual, if appropriate.
    The Department received several comments on the requirement that 
case managers share possible exemption and good cause information with 
the State agency. The commenters were supportive and felt the 
requirement will better target E&T programs to those most likely to 
benefit; however, commenters felt the proposed requirement did not 
protect the participant if the State agency fails to act upon the 
information. Some commenters also recommended the Department clarify 
that the case manager should assist the participant in reporting all 
potential good cause for non-compliance, not just good cause when there 
is a lack of an appropriate or available opening in E&T. The Department 
agrees that case managers may assist participants in following-up with 
State agency staff on the status of an exemption or good cause 
determination, but ultimately only State agency eligibility staff, 
having the authority to determine an exemption or good cause, can make 
that determination. The Department also agrees that case managers must 
provide to the State agency information on all potential good cause 
circumstances for non-compliance with a work requirement, beyond just 
circumstances relating to a lack of an appropriate or available opening 
in E&T, and has added this to the final regulatory text.
    As a result, the Department codifies the final regulation as 
proposed with the modification that case managers must share with the 
State agency all potential instances of good cause.

Improving Accountability in State Agency Quarterly Reports

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(9), 7 CFR 273.7(c)(10), and 7 
CFR 273.7(c)(11) require State agencies to submit quarterly E&T Program 
Activity Reports. 7 CFR 273.7(c)(11) specifies that the fourth quarter 
report provide a list of all the E&T components offered during the 
fiscal year, as well as the number of ABAWDs and non-ABAWDs who began 
participation in each component. The report must also provide the 
number of ABAWDs and non-ABAWDs who participated in the E&T program 
during the fiscal year. The Department is committed to ensuring that 
State agencies are providing mandatory E&T participants with real 
opportunities to gain skills and appropriate services that help them be 
successful. Therefore, the Department proposed adding additional 
reporting elements to this fourth quarter report focused on mandatory 
E&T participants: The unduplicated number of SNAP applicants and 
participants required to participate in an E&T program during the 
fiscal year and, of those, the number who actually begin to participate 
in an E&T program. An E&T participant begins to participate in an E&T 
program when the participant commences at least one part of an E&T 
program, including an orientation, assessment, case management, or a 
component. The Department proposed to codify this new requirement by 
inserting a new paragraph at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(11)(iii).
    The Department received 21 comments on this provision. Commenters 
were very supportive, explaining their belief that the new data 
elements will generate useful information on the take-up rate of E&T 
and the number of individuals who actually begin participation. 
Commenters expressed their concern that high non-participation rates in 
E&T likely indicate increased hardship among those terminated from SNAP 
and poorly designed or implemented programs that do not engage 
mandatory E&T participants.
    While all commenters supported including the first proposed data 
element, the ``number of SNAP participants required to participate in 
E&T by the State agency,'' the Department received several comments 
suggesting the Department replace the second proposed data element, 
``of those, the number who begin participation in an E&T program'', 
with ``of those, the number who are successfully placed into a 
qualifying component.'' These commenters stated that activities such as 
orientation and assessment are considered participation and may take 
place at the State agency prior to component placement, yet generally 
do not allow participants to meet the minimum hours of mandatory 
programs. Moreover, commenters explained the language of placement 
rather than participation narrowly focuses the accountability for 
placement into a qualifying component on the State agency, whether or 
not the participant actually appears at the placement site. Other 
commenters also provided a different variation to the modification 
described above, requesting to replace ``and of those the number who 
begin participation in an E&T program'' with ``of those the number who 
were actually enrolled in an E&T component or case management.'' These 
commenters, like those above, felt it was important to capture if 
participants were engaging with the main elements of an E&T program, 
rather than just attending an assessment or orientation, but did not 
have the same concerns with the verbs participate versus placed, and 
considered case management and component participation equally 
important to capture.
    Two commenters recommended State agencies report both the number of 
individuals who, as proposed, begin to participate in an E&T program, 
as well as the number who begin participating in an E&T component. 
These commenters believed adding the third data element specific to 
participation in an E&T component would capture issues related to the 
``hand off''--from the State agency to a specific training activity 
(i.e., the E&T component). The commenters stated this has been a 
challenge for many E&T programs, and obtaining useful information about 
participation in a component could provide important insights for State 
agencies and policymakers interested in improving SNAP E&T. Further, 
these commenters suggested the addition of this third data element 
would not be a burden to E&T providers or the State agency, as current 
regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(11) already require the reporting of 
participation in individual components as well as in an E&T program.
    One commenter suggested a much longer list of data elements to be 
added to the fourth quarter report, including the number of SNAP 
participants who are mandated to report for an E&T assessment, the 
number of mandatory participants who receive an E&T assessment, the 
number of mandatory participants who participate in an E&T activity, 
the number who are sanctioned for non-compliance, and the number of 
those mandated to participate who are later found to be exempt. The 
commenter also suggested the Department require State agencies to 
report on the employment rates in the second quarter and the fourth 
quarter after SNAP recipients are required to participate in E&T. 
Lastly, a not-for-profit agency suggested the Department also collect 
both the sanction rate and the employment rate for the full universe of 
those assigned to mandatory E&T in order to present a complete account 
of the impact of mandatory programs on SNAP participants.
    The Department agrees that the proposed requirement to collect data 
on the number of participants required to participate in E&T and the 
number who begin to participate in the E&T program

[[Page 383]]

would not allow for analysis of how many mandatory E&T participants 
actually begin to participate in a component. For instance, a mandatory 
E&T participant may attend an orientation the same day they visit the 
SNAP office for their certification interview but, because of State 
agency mis-communication, not understand when or where to begin their 
E&T component, and eventually be sanctioned for failure to comply with 
the requirement to participate in E&T. With the proposed regulatory 
language, these individuals would be counted as having begun to 
participate in the E&T program, but would actually receive very little 
benefit from E&T. As a result, the Department has added a third data 
element at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(11)(iii) to also collect the number of 
individuals who begin participation in an E&T component. The Department 
believes it is important to gather information on the number who 
``participate'' in a component, rather than just the number ``placed'' 
in a component, because the Department believes that the ``hand-off'' 
between the State agency and the E&T provider of the component is a 
challenging transition, and many E&T participants should be better 
supported by the State agency to cross the bridge and show up for the 
component. Individuals can be placed in an E&T component but, due to no 
fault of their own, never make it to the component to begin training. 
For example, a State agency may not inform an individual that they may 
receive transportation assistance to their appointment, and as a 
result, the individual does not show up to their appointment due to 
lack of transportation. Further, while the Department believes that 
case management is an important service, the Department would like to 
capture the number of individuals who begin participation in a 
component as a standalone measure. The Department believes the 
components are where the training and skill development occurs. The 
Department counts an E&T participant as beginning to participate in an 
E&T component when the participant commences the first activity in the 
E&T component. The Department also appreciates the comment that State 
agencies should be required to provide data on the number of mandatory 
E&T participants who are determined ineligible for failure to comply 
with the requirement to participate in E&T. The Department believes 
this is an important complementary piece of information to the number 
of individuals who begin to participate in E&T and the number who begin 
to participate in a component. The Department, as stated above, 
believes it is important that State agencies support all mandatory E&T 
participants to fulfill their requirement. Data on the number of 
participants determined ineligible will provide both State agencies and 
the Department with important information to improve E&T programs. The 
Department believes that the addition of these new data elements 
adequately addresses the need to support improved oversight of State 
mandatory E&T programs, but will continue to monitor data received from 
State reports and make revisions as necessary.
    In conclusion, the Department has added a third and fourth data 
element to 7 CFR 273.7(c)(11)(iii) to capture the number of mandatory 
E&T participants who begin to participate in an E&T component and the 
number of E&T participants who are determined ineligible for failure to 
participate in E&T.

Workforce Partnerships

    The Act established workforce partnerships. Workforce partnerships 
are not an E&T component, but they are partnerships between the State 
agency and other entities that create a new way for SNAP participants 
to gain high-quality, work-related skills, training, work, or 
experience that will increase the ability of the participants to obtain 
regular employment. The Act added workforce partnerships to the list of 
work programs through which an ABAWD may fulfill the ABAWD work 
requirement, and workforce partnerships may be a way for mandatory E&T 
participants to meet their E&T requirement. The Act added workforce 
partnerships to several sections of the FNA, including sections 
6(d)(4)(B)(ii), 6(d)(4)(E), 6(d)(4)(H), and new paragraph 6(d)(4)(N). 
The Department proposed adding the description and requirements for 
workforce partnerships to new paragraph 7 CFR 273.7(n). In addition, 
the Department proposed including two additional State agency 
responsibilities associated with workforce partnerships. First, the 
Department proposed to require State agencies to re-screen any 
individual for the requirement to participate in mandatory E&T when the 
State agency learns the individual is no longer participating in a 
workforce partnership. Second, the Department proposed to require State 
agencies to provide sufficient information to household members subject 
to the general work requirements of 7 CFR 273.7 and ABAWD work 
requirements of 7 CFR 273.24 about workforce partnerships, so that 
individuals could make an informed decision about participation.
    The Department received 12 comments on this provision. While no 
comments opposed the addition of workforce partnerships as a way for 
SNAP participants to meet their work requirement and gain new skills, 
some commenters appear to have misunderstood the general structure and 
purpose of workforce partnerships. Commenters also shared some concerns 
about the Department's requirement to inform SNAP participants about 
the availability of workforce partnerships.
    The Department received several questions about how workforce 
partnerships would be structured and the interaction between workforce 
partnerships and E&T programs. Each of these questions is answered in 
more detail below, but the Department would like to emphasize that key 
to understanding workforce partnerships is that they are a new concept 
introduced by the Act in 2018. Workforce partnerships, as described in 
7 CFR 273.7(n), as amended by this final rule, are not industry or 
sector partnerships as defined under WIOA. Workforce partnerships are 
also not part of the E&T program. Workforce partnerships, as described 
in 7 CFR 273.7(n), are a particular opportunity available to State 
agencies to provide SNAP recipients one additional way to meet their 
work requirement (i.e., mandatory E&T or the ABAWD work requirement) 
while gaining skills. The Act provided specific instructions regarding 
what may constitute a workforce partnership, and how they are to be 
managed by the State agency. While State agencies are encouraged to 
pursue workforce partnerships with interested employers or eligible 
WIOA training services providers, there is no requirement that they do 
so. In addition, if a State agency chooses not to pursue workforce 
partnerships, as described in 7 CFR 273.7(n), the State agency is still 
encouraged to partner with employers and training providers to identify 
and build new opportunities for skills training for SNAP participants 
through the E&T program.
    A State agency expressed concerns that E&T funding cannot be used 
for workforce partnerships. The commenter suggested this may make it 
difficult to motivate organizations to participate in creating 
workforce partnerships that provide 80 hours per month of work and 
training. The Department understands the commenter's concern, but the 
Act explicitly prohibits any FNA funding from being used for workforce 
partnerships. See section 6(d)(4)(B)(ii)(I)(bb)(CC) of the FNA.

[[Page 384]]

    Another State agency explained that many E&T providers already 
create internships and work experiences with private employers. The 
commenter asked if the requirement to provide work registrants with 
information about workforce partnerships also requires State agencies 
to furnish an exhaustive list of all possibilities, including 
opportunities through E&T, to the participant. The State agency was 
concerned that such a list could prove unwieldy and create a burden, 
having to constantly update the evolving available work sites and 
participating employers. As discussed above, the Department emphasizes 
that workforce partnerships described in 7 CFR 273.7(n) are completely 
separate concept from the E&T work experience component at 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(2)(iv). In addition, if a State agency is offering an E&T work 
experience component, the activities provided under the component would 
be prohibited from inclusion in a workforce partnership, as workforce 
partnerships may not use funds authorized by the FNA and all E&T 
components are supported by FNA funding. If a State agency has 
certified one or more workforce partnerships, only the activities 
associated with those workforce partnerships must be provided to 
individuals targeted for participation in a workforce partnership, in 
accordance with 7 CFR 273.7(n)(10).
    The State agency also asked if State agencies would be able to use 
private employers for workfare, if workforce partnerships could include 
work experience, and if so, if the work experience could more closely 
mirror TANF work experience. The State agency recommended that the 
relationship with workforce partners mirror the relationship with 
partners engaged in TANF work experience to create a more flexible 
system. As discussed above, workforce partnerships at 7 CFR 273.7(n) 
are a separate concept from E&T components at 7 CFR 273.7(e)(2), 
workfare at 7 CFR 273.7(m), or any other activity described in current 
regulations which provide work experience or training for SNAP 
participants. The introduction of workforce partnerships does not 
change how workfare or any of the E&T components are regulated or 
operated. As stated in 7 CFR 273.7(n)(4)(i), workforce partnerships 
must ``assist SNAP households in gaining high-quality, work-relevant 
skills, training, work, or experience that will increase the ability of 
the participants to obtain regular employment.'' Thus, within the 
bounds of the workforce partnership requirements at 7 CFR 273.7(n), 
State agencies will have flexibility in identifying work, training, or 
experience that increases the employability of SNAP participants.
    The same State agency asked what the requirements will be for 
certification of workforce partnerships, and if the requirements would 
be flexible and designable by the State. The Act established specific 
requirements for certification of a workforce partnerships and the 
Department included these requirements at 7 CFR 273.7(n)(4). The 
Department encourages any State agency interested in certifying a 
workforce partnership to reach out to the Department for technical 
assistance on specific questions regarding the certification 
requirements.
    Two commenters asked if participation with workforce partnerships 
is ``all or nothing'' for participants looking to fulfill the ABAWD 
work requirement. That is, because ABAWDs can fulfill their work 
requirement through a combination of work, volunteer hours, and 
training, can workforce partnerships be offered for fewer than 20 hours 
per week so that ABAWDs can meet the balance of their work requirement 
in another way? The commenters felt the proposed requirement to certify 
that workforce partnerships offer at least 20 hours per week of 
training, work, or experience may limit the number of workforce 
partnerships available to participants. The Department understands that 
ABAWDs may look to fulfill their work requirement through several types 
of activities, but the Act requires that, to be certified, workforce 
partnerships must provide not less than 20 hours a week of training, 
work, or experience. See sections 6(d)(4)(N)(i)(I) and 
6(d)(4)(B)(ii)(I)(bb)(BB) of the FNA. This requirement is reflected at 
7 CFR 273.7(n)(4). The Department would also like to emphasize that 
participation in a workforce partnership must be voluntary; ABAWDs 
cannot be required to participate in a workforce partnership.
    Another State agency explained how they interpreted the proposed 
workforce partnership regulation to mean State agencies would need to 
create ``Workforce Partnerships'' similar to those in WIOA. The State 
agency asked how the proposed workforce partnerships would be 
distinguished from the current WIOA partnerships. The State agency also 
explained their interest in examples of partnerships that operate 
outside of the WIOA regulations. As discussed above, workforce 
partnerships described at 7 CFR 273.7(n) are a new concept created by 
the Act in 2018 and are separate from industry or sector partnerships 
defined by WIOA, from the E&T program, workfare, and other activities 
currently described in regulations. Workforce partnerships, as 
described at 7 CFR 273.7(n), must meet very specific criteria, 
including a set of certification requirements, and are one additional 
way for SNAP participants to meet their SNAP work requirements and gain 
skills. The Department is not aware of any existing workforce 
partnerships that meet the criteria in 7 CFR 273.7(n).
    The Department also received two comments regarding the burden of 
providing a list of workforce partnerships to all SNAP work registrants 
at certification and recertification, as required in proposed 7 CFR 
273.7(n)(10). A local government agency felt this requirement, as 
proposed, was onerous, unnecessary, and potentially confusing to work 
registrant households who may not be a good match for a slot in a 
workforce partnership, but who would be required to receive information 
about them anyway. The local government agency explained they would be 
in a better place to determine if a work registrant was a good match 
for a workforce partnership and, therefore, State agencies should be 
given the flexibility to target information about workforce 
partnerships to those most likely to benefit. A State agency and a 
professional association did not oppose providing the list, but felt it 
would take at least a year to develop and make the system changes to 
distribute it, particularly given the backlog of system changes 
resulting from the COVID-19 public health emergency. The Department's 
intent in requiring the State agency to provide the list of workforce 
partnerships at certification and recertification was to ensure that 
SNAP households were made aware of their existence. Since SNAP 
households cannot be required to participate in a workforce 
partnership, but a workforce partnership can be a way for a SNAP 
participant to meet their work requirements, the Department wanted to 
make sure work registrants who could benefit from participation, 
received the appropriate information. In response to comments, the 
Department has concluded that State agencies need not provide a list of 
workforce partnerships at certification and recertification to all work 
registrants, as this would be overly burdensome and potentially 
confusing to some SNAP participants. However, the State agency must 
inform any SNAP participant determined as likely to benefit from 
participation in a

[[Page 385]]

workforce partnership of the availability of the workforce partnership, 
and provide the participant with all available pertinent information 
regarding the workforce partnership to enable the participant to make 
an informed choice about participation. State agencies are also 
encouraged to include workforce partnerships in the list of employment 
and training opportunities provided to households with no reported 
earned income at 7 CFR 273.14(b)(5).
    In conclusion, the Department codifies the regulations pertaining 
to workforce partnerships as proposed, with one modification at 7 CFR 
273.7(n)(10) to require the State agency to target information about 
workforce partnerships to SNAP participants most likely to benefit from 
participation in workforce partnerships.

Minimum Allocation of 100 Percent Funds

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(i)(C) provide that no 
State agency will receive less than $50,000 in Federal E&T grant funds 
and set forth the methodology to ensure an equitable allocation among 
the State agencies. The Act increased this baseline of Federal E&T 
funds for each State to $100,000 in section 16(h)(1)(D) of the FNA. The 
Department proposed to modify 7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(i)(C) to reflect the 
change in the baseline, and received one comment on this provision, 
which was supportive. The Department is therefore finalizing the 
regulatory language as proposed.

Prioritized Reallocation of Employment and Training Federal Grant Funds

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(i)(D) provide the process 
for the Department to reallocate unobligated or unexpended Federal E&T 
funds to other State agencies requesting additional E&T funds. The Act 
introduced priorities for the reallocation of these funds in section 
16(h)(1)(C)(iv) of the FNA. Those priorities are: At least 50 percent 
shall be reallocated to requesting State agencies that were awarded 
grants to operate E&T pilots under the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. 
L. 113-79) (also known as the 2014 Farm Bill), to conduct those E&T 
programs and activities from the pilots that the Secretary determines 
have the most demonstrable impact on the ability of participants to 
find and retain employment that leads to increased household income and 
reduced reliance on public assistance; at least 30 percent must be 
available to State agencies requesting funds for E&T programs and 
activities authorized under section 6(d)(4)(B)(i) of the FNA that are 
targeted to individuals with high barriers to employment and that the 
Secretary determines have the most demonstrable impact on the ability 
of participants to find and retain employment that leads to increased 
household income and reduced reliance on public assistance; and the 
remaining funds to other State agencies requesting additional funds for 
E&T programs and activities that the Secretary determines have the most 
demonstrable impact on the ability of participants to find and retain 
employment that leads to increased household income and reduced 
reliance on public assistance. The Department proposed to add new 
paragraph 7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(iii) to specify these priorities for the 
reallocation of funds. Additionally, the Department proposed to add new 
paragraph 7 CFR 273.7(c)(6)(xix) to specify that State agencies 
requesting additional funds would need to submit those requests when 
their E&T State Plan is submitted for the upcoming Federal fiscal year. 
Lastly, the Department proposed to reallocate any unobligated funds 
remaining after the prioritized reallocation process described above at 
the proposed new 7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(iii)(E) to State agencies requesting 
additional funds for E&T programs and activities that the Secretary 
determines have the most demonstrable impact.
    The Department received five comments on this provision, all of 
which were supportive of the proposed rule; however, commenters did 
provide some additional suggestions as detailed below.
    With regard to the 30 percent reallocation focused on individuals 
with substantial barriers to employment, three commenters suggested 
that, when the State agency requests funds, the State agency estimate 
the percentage of E&T participants that the State agency expects to 
serve for each of the listed categories of highly-barriered 
individuals. Another commenter suggested it may be advantageous for 
reallocated funds to serve a specific target population of jobseekers 
(e.g., individuals experiencing homelessness) who are 
disproportionately under-represented among existing E&T participants in 
the State seeking additional E&T funds. The Department agrees that 
focusing reallocated funds on individuals with high barriers to 
employment is an opportunity to target E&T funds to individuals most 
likely to need extra support, which is the objective of the 30 percent 
reallocation. However, the Department does not believe additional 
qualifying criteria (like the percentage of E&T participants that the 
State agency expects to serve falling into each of the listed 
categories) are necessary to achieve this objective. The Department 
believes creating additional criteria to determine how funds are 
distributed would actually hamper the Department's ability to balance 
all concerns and re-distribute funds in the most efficient and 
impactful manner.
    Two commenters recommended that the Department require State 
agencies include in their request for reallocated funds under 7 CFR 
273.7(d)(1)(iii)(F) whether the State agency plans to initiate or 
maintain new services, enhanced services, or new slots with the 
reallocated E&T funding. The Department does not believe the required 
inclusion of this information in the State agency's request would 
significantly alter how reallocated funds are distributed, as a result 
the Department does not believe a change is necessary.
    In conclusion, the Department codifies the regulatory text as 
proposed without any changes.

Advisement of Employment and Training Opportunities

    The Act added a requirement at section 11(w) of the FNA that, at 
the time of recertification, State agencies advise SNAP household 
members subject to the requirements of section 6(d) of the FNA (the 
general work requirements) of available employment and training 
opportunities, if these individuals are members of households 
containing at least one adult, with no elderly or disabled individuals, 
and with no earned income at their last certification or required 
report. The Department proposed to codify this requirement in proposed 
paragraph at 7 CFR 273.14(b)(5). As a minimum standard for meeting this 
requirement, the Department proposed that State agencies provide the 
household, in either electronic (e.g., on a website or in an email) or 
in printed form, a list of available employment and training services 
for household members subject to the general work requirements. The 
Department clarified that employment and training services are not 
limited to SNAP E&T. Rather, State agencies should also provide 
information about the availability of opportunities through the 
American Job Centers or local community-based organizations. This is 
particularly important in areas that do not operate SNAP E&T programs. 
The Department encouraged State agencies to consult with their 
Departments of Labor when developing information about available 
employment and

[[Page 386]]

training services. In meeting this requirement, State agencies should 
consider how to best target lists of employment and training 
opportunities to increase access of work opportunities for SNAP 
participants, including creating tailored lists for certain regions or 
municipalities, or for SNAP participants with particular career 
interests or barriers to employment.
    The Department received five comments on this provision, all of 
which were generally supportive. The commenters suggested the list of 
employment and training opportunities be provided in paper whenever 
possible because some SNAP participants may not have access to reliable 
internet, and to make sure the list is updated at least annually. The 
Department agrees that some SNAP participants may not have reliable 
access to the internet and believes State agencies are in the best 
position to know how to ensure participants can access the information, 
either electronically or in paper form. The Department also believes 
that the list of training opportunities should be updated as often as 
is necessary to maintain a reasonable level of accuracy in the 
information provided, and believes State agencies are in the best 
position to determine this frequency. The commenters also recommended 
that the list of training providers be paired with labor market 
information to help SNAP participants identify the ``fastest growing or 
largest sectors for entry-level jobs and living wage jobs that can be 
accessed with limited training, and the career pathways associated with 
them.'' While the Department believes this information may be helpful 
to SNAP participants and would encourage interested State agencies to 
provide this additional information, the Department does not believe 
that requiring the inclusion of labor market information is necessary 
to meet the statutory obligation and would constitute an additional 
burden for State agencies that outweighs the benefits. Commenters also 
recommended that the list be made available to underemployed SNAP 
participants and E&T participants. The Department notes that while the 
list of training opportunities must be provided to the specific set of 
households with no earned income described in the previous paragraph, 
State agencies may provide the list to a broader group of SNAP 
households at their discretion.
    In conclusion, the Department finalizes the regulatory text as 
proposed without any changes.

Work Programs for Fulfilling the ABAWD Work Requirement

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.24(a)(3) define the types of work 
programs in which ABAWDs may participate to meet the ABAWD work 
requirement and thereby remain eligible beyond the 3 months in 36-month 
time limit. The Act added the following types of programs to that 
definition in section 6(o)(1) of the FNA: An employment and training 
program for veterans operated by the Department of Labor or the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, as approved by the Secretary; and 
workforce partnerships. The Department proposed to add these programs 
to the existing paragraph at 7 CFR 273.24(a)(3). As noted earlier, the 
Act also changed section 6(o)(1)(C) of the FNA by replacing the term 
``job search program'' with ``supervised job search program.'' For the 
purposes of ABAWD work requirements, the Department proposed to 
implement this terminology change by revising 7 CFR 273.24(a)(3)(iii).
    The Department received four comments on this provision, all of 
which were generally supportive. Commenters supported the Department's 
clarification that job search does not need to be supervised when 
integrated as a subsidiary activity into one or more other components, 
so long as it makes up less than half the time in the component, as 
provided in The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of 
Conference issued with the Act (Conf. Rept. 115-1072, p. 617). 
Commenters also supported the Department's reiteration of current 
policy that job search, whether supervised or not supervised, and job 
search training activities can count toward the ABAWD work requirement, 
so long they are offered as part of other E&T program components and 
comprise less than half the total required time spent in the 
components. However, commenters did ask for further clarification 
regarding how ``total required time spent in the components'' should be 
measured for the purposes of ensuring job search, supervised job 
search, and job search training make up less than half the total 
required time spent in the component (for instance, can the fraction of 
time spent in job search be calculated over the average length of the 
component). The Department recognizes that different E&T components run 
for different lengths of time and comprise different activities at 
different points in time. For this reason, the Department has always 
provided flexibility to State agencies to determine the most effective 
and efficient way to calculate if job search, supervised job search, or 
job search training make up less than half the total required time 
spent in the component for the purpose of compliance with the ABAWD 
work requirement. The Department will continue to provide this 
flexibility to State agencies.
    In conclusion, the Department finalizes the regulatory text as 
proposed without any changes.

Discretionary Exemptions for ABAWDs Subject to the Time Limit

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.24(g) state that each State agency 
shall be allotted exemptions equal to an estimated 15 percent of 
``covered individuals,'' as defined at 7 CFR 273.7(g)(ii). States can 
use the exemptions available to them to extend SNAP eligibility for a 
limited number of ABAWDs subject to the time limit. When one of these 
exemptions is provided to an ABAWD, that one ABAWD is able to receive 
one additional month of SNAP benefits. The Act changed the number of 
exemptions allocated by the Department to State agencies each Federal 
fiscal year from 15 percent to 12 percent of the ``covered 
individuals'' in the State, and this change took effect in Fiscal Year 
2020. The Department proposed replacing the number ``15'' with the 
number ``12'' in paragraphs 7 CFR 273.24(g)(1) and 7 CFR 273.24(g)(3), 
and also proposed changing the name of these exemptions from ``15 
percent exemptions'' to ``discretionary exemptions'' in paragraph 7 CFR 
273.24(g).
    The Department received six comments on this section. Two 
commenters supported the change, three commenters opposed the change, 
and one did not express a clear opinion. A not-for-profit agency who 
supported the change felt that these exemptions hold back able-bodied 
adults who could otherwise rise out of welfare, thus trapping 
prospective workers in dependency and taking benefits away from those 
more in need. The commenter explained that reducing the number of 
exemptions would provide more opportunity for work to more individuals. 
The commenter also felt the name change to ``discretionary exemptions'' 
emphasized that States should use discretion when applying the 
exemptions to unusual circumstances when ABAWDs face unique barriers to 
work or training not already covered by another exemption. The 
commenters who opposed the provision emphasized how important these 
exemptions are for low-income individuals struggling with multiple 
barriers to work, including domestic violence survivors. However, the

[[Page 387]]

commenters also acknowledged that the Department has no discretion in 
implementing the statutory change from 15 to 12 percent. The Department 
agrees that there is no discretion in implementing this change.
    In conclusion, the Department finalizes the regulatory text as 
proposed without any changes.

Informing SNAP Participants About Their Work Requirements

    In the proposed rule, the Department noted that many of the changes 
made by section 4005 of the Act emphasized State agency responsibility 
to assist SNAP participants in finding and retaining employment. The 
Department believes that foundational to this increased accountability 
for both the State agency and SNAP participants is improved 
communication between the State agency and SNAP participants regarding 
the nature of any work requirement that the SNAP household may be 
subject to, consequences for not complying with work requirements, and 
how to find more information. The Department also noted in the proposed 
rule that a single individual may be subject to multiple work 
requirements, which may be confusing for the household to decipher to 
ensure compliance, especially if these requirements are communicated to 
the individual at different times via different mediums. In order to 
streamline and improve communication between the State agency and the 
household, and to improve the household's customer service experience, 
the Department proposed to consolidate the State requirement to inform 
individuals of their applicable work requirements (i.e., the general 
work requirements, including the mandatory E&T requirement, and the 
ABAWD work requirement). This consolidated work information requirement 
would take two forms: A single written notice and a comprehensive oral 
explanation of all the work requirements that would pertain to a 
particular household. The consolidated work information requirement 
would merge two existing requirements to inform the household about 
their work requirements (i.e., the general work requirement and 
mandatory E&T) with a new more clearly delineated requirement to inform 
ABAWDs regarding their ABAWD work requirement and time limit. The 
consolidated work information requirement to inform households of all 
applicable work requirements would be added at new 7 CFR 273.7(c)(1), 7 
CFR 273.7(c)(2) and 7 CFR 273.24(b)(8). The Department proposed that 
the new written notice would need to include all pertinent information 
related to each of the applicable work requirements for individuals in 
the household, including: An explanation of each applicable work 
requirement; exemptions from each applicable work requirement; the 
rights and responsibilities of each applicable work requirement for 
individuals subject to the work requirements; what is required to 
maintain eligibility under each applicable work requirement; pertinent 
dates by which an individual must take any actions to remain in 
compliance with each of the applicable work requirements; the 
consequences for failure to comply with each applicable work 
requirement; and any other information the State agency believes would 
assist the household members with compliance. If the household were to 
contain an individual who is subject to mandatory E&T, the written 
notice would also need to explain the individual's right to receive 
participant reimbursements for allowable expenses related to 
participation in E&T, up to any applicable State cap, and the 
responsibility of the State agency to exempt the individual from the 
requirement to participate in E&T if the individual's allowable 
expenses exceed what the State agency would reimburse, as provided in 
paragraph 7 CFR 273.7(d)(4).
    The Department received 28 comments on this provision. Seventeen 
commenters supported the provision, ten commenters provided conditional 
support with suggestions for improvement, and two commenters opposed 
the provision. Supporters generally felt that the new consolidated 
requirement to provide information about the work requirements to 
households will help individuals understand their responsibilities and 
expectations, allow participants to share concerns or ask questions, 
and increase participant awareness of what they must do to prevent 
unexpected termination of SNAP benefits.
    Several commenters in support of providing the consolidated work 
information to participants proposed adding to the written notice an 
explanation of the process for requesting good cause consideration, 
examples of good cause circumstances, and contact information to 
initiate a good cause request. The Department agrees, and has added an 
explanation of good cause to the list of pertinent information in 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(2)(iii).
    In addition to including good cause information, a legal services 
agency and a not-for-profit agency also recommended that the written 
and oral information include: The full scope of ways that an individual 
can meet the work requirement; the list of exemptions on the notice 
itself (so that the State agency does not direct individuals to a 
website they may not be able to access); how to claim exemptions; and 
the fact that an exemption can be claimed at any time if there is a 
change in circumstances. Conversely, the Department also received a 
comment from a State agency arguing that including the full list of 
exemptions for each work requirement on the written statement would be 
unmanageable and confusing to participants. The Department is 
interested in balancing the need to provide pertinent information to 
participants with the readability of the document. As a result, the 
Department has revised the final regulation at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(2)(iii) 
to require that the written notice include information on how to claim 
an exemption and claim good cause, and provide contact information to 
initiate a request. However, the Department notes that it is the 
responsibility of the State agency to screen for exemptions from the 
general work requirement, mandatory E&T and the ABAWD work requirement, 
and not the responsibility of the participant to ``request'' an 
exemption. Similarly, it is the State agency's responsibility to 
establish good cause for failure to meet the general work requirements 
and not the responsibility of the participant to ``request'' good 
cause. That being said, participant circumstances can change after 
certification and the Department believes it would be helpful to the 
participant to know how to inform the State agency of this change in 
circumstance, if the participant believes they may qualify for an 
exemption or good cause. The Department also understands that providing 
the entire list of exemptions, particularly from mandatory E&T, could 
be quite extensive and confusing to participants. Nonetheless, the 
State agency is required to screen for exemptions during the 
application process, and has an opportunity to explain the exemptions 
to the client at that time. Providing the full list of exemptions is 
also a helpful reference for participants should their circumstances 
change. For these reasons, the Department believes it is important to 
include the full list of exemptions in the written notice. Lastly, with 
regard to the comment to include an explanation of ways the individual 
can meet the work requirement, the Department believes the requirement, 
as proposed, to include in the written notice ``what is required to 
maintain

[[Page 388]]

eligibility under each applicable work requirement,'' already calls for 
a description of the ways the individual may meet their work 
requirement and believes it unnecessary to make an addition to the 
regulatory text. Nevertheless, the Department encourages State agencies 
to include examples of how to meet the mandatory E&T and ABAWD work 
requirements, as applicable, in the written notice and oral explanation 
to aid participant comprehension.
    A legal services agency commented that the proposed regulatory text 
at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(1) and 7 CFR 273.7(c)(2) was unclear regarding to 
whom the oral explanation and written notice should be directed, i.e., 
the head of household or each individual household member with a work 
requirement. The commenter asked the Department to clarify that the 
oral explanation and written notice must be given specifically to the 
individual with the work requirement, not solely to the head of 
household, because the individual's compliance impacts the rest of the 
household. The commenter explained that, because the work rules are 
unique and extremely complex, communicating this important information 
only to the head of household and not also directly to the individual 
subject to the work requirement, means the message could be muddled or 
not communicated at all. The commenter also asked that the State agency 
be required to include in the oral explanation that the individual 
should review the written notice, as well as where the individual can 
go to find resources and learn more information. The Department 
understands the interest in providing the written notice and oral 
explanation to each individual in a household subject to a work 
requirement, to ensure information is shared accurately and 
comprehensively with the individual who needs it. However, the 
Department believes that such a requirement for the oral explanation 
would be impractical given the challenge, in some instances, of 
tracking down in a short period of time several individuals per case, 
and could potentially slow application processing. The proposal is also 
out of sync with other SNAP regulations pertaining to the eligibility 
process, like the SNAP interview, that do not require the participation 
of more than one individual. The Department also notes that, for the 
purposes of work registration, an authorized representative has long 
been allowed to register others in the household because work 
registration must occur prior to certification (see 7 CFR 
273.7(a)(1)(i)). For similar practical reasons, the Department believes 
one written notice should be sent to the household, but language should 
be included in the written notice that clearly states which individuals 
in the household are subject to which work requirement. Information to 
this effect has been added to the final regulatory text. The Department 
has also modified the text in 7 CFR 273.7(c)(1)(ii) through (iii) to 
more clearly indicate that the household is the recipient of the oral 
explanation and written notice.
    A workforce training agency recommended adding a requirement that 
the State agency must follow up by phone and mail to notify ABAWDs and 
mandatory E&T participants in advance of dates by which an individual 
must take action. The commenter explained that mandatory participants 
often do not understand that they must report to a location to 
establish a plan for E&T, and miss important information because they 
did not receive a piece of mail or understand the consequence of 
missing that date. Similarly, the commenter believed ABAWDs should have 
specific follow-up by case managers if they are approaching their third 
month of eligibility and need to prove compliance with the work 
requirement. The Department agrees that ABAWDs and mandatory E&T 
participants may often miss important information detailing the 
necessary steps to maintain eligibility. For this reason, with this 
final rule-making, the Department has added the requirement at 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(1)(ii) and 273.24(b)(8) that, during the application process, 
at recertification, and whenever an individual loses an exemption or 
there is a new household member, the State agency must provide each 
household with a written notice and oral explanation regarding the 
applicable work requirement for individuals in the household. The 
Department also believes the new requirement that each E&T participant 
receive case management services will help participants better navigate 
their work requirements and support participants who are struggling to 
meet important milestones. As a result, the Department does not believe 
that an additional State notification requirement is necessary.
    Two non-profit agencies suggested the written notice must be: 
Provided in a timely manner; written at a widely-accessible reading 
level; translated as needed; and be accessible to people with 
disabilities. One commenter asked the Department to consider providing 
participants with an explanatory video about the information contained 
in the statement. The commenter also stated that the oral explanation 
be provided in the SNAP participant's spoken language of choice, or via 
sign language, as needed. Several commenters urged the Department to 
develop and share with State agencies model notices that have been 
user-tested for both plain language and clear information about the 
steps that participants must take in order to retain their benefits. A 
professional association asked the Department to clarify that the 
written notice can be delivered in electronic form without a waiver, 
consistent with USDA memorandum issued on November 3, 2017, 
``Electronic Notice Waivers and Options.'' \5\ The commenter suggested 
the allowance of electronic notices is beneficial to clients who prefer 
accessing information through electronic devices and may allow for 
greater access to information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/Memo-Electronic-Notice-and-Other-Options-11317.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department agrees that, to be helpful to SNAP participants, the 
oral explanation and written notice must be provided in a timely 
manner, be clearly written or spoken, and be provided in the 
appropriate language. Existing SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 272.4(b) lay 
out procedures to ensure State agencies provide program information in 
languages that reflect those spoken in the surrounding community. State 
agencies, in accordance with existing laws, must also provide 
reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities, and 
regulations at 7 CFR 272.6 lay out procedures for participants to file 
a discrimination complaint. The Department will consider how to 
effectively provide technical assistance to State agencies as they 
develop the written notice and scripts for the oral explanation to help 
ensure they are clear, comprehensible, and in compliance with existing 
regulations. The Department will also consider how to support making 
use of new innovative platforms, like videos, to supplement the 
requirements in the regulation. State agencies may choose to provide 
the written notice as an electronic notice if they do so in accordance 
with the FNS memorandum, ``Electronic Notice Waivers and Options'' 
issued on November 3, 2017, and other applicable policy guidance and 
regulations. In particular, the State agency must notify its Regional 
Office upon adopting e-notices and provide a list of the notices that 
will be offered electronically. The State agency must also include this 
information in its SNAP State Plan. As a result, no changes to the 
regulatory text are required.

[[Page 389]]

    One State government and one local government agency opposed the 
requirement to provide a written notice and oral explanation of the 
work requirements because of the increased administrative burden. In 
addition, one professional organization, while supportive, also 
cautioned about the increased burden to State agencies. The local 
government agency and a professional organization noted that, 
particularly during the COVID-19 public health emergency, any 
additional administrative and fiscal requirements imposed on the State 
agency would be particularly burdensome since they are already 
experiencing increased applications and special operational demands 
imposed by the public health emergency. The professional organization 
requested that the Department consider a reasonable timeline for 
implementation of the new requirement. A State agency explained that 
adding the level of detail the Department is proposing would be more 
confusing to participants and most likely would result in an increased 
administrative burden for State agencies as they help clients 
understand the written statement, leading to further delays in 
individuals beginning to participate in E&T. The State agency further 
explained their existing process is less burdensome and provides 
targeted information to participants at different points in the process 
based on the needs at that time, for instance, at application and 
interview, and again when the participant makes contact with the E&T 
provider. The State agency recommended that this process continue to be 
allowable. The State agency also allowed that participants don't always 
read their notices and miss important information.
    The Department agrees that information about the work requirements 
can be overwhelming to participants, particularly when multiple 
individuals in the household may be subject to different requirements. 
For this reason, the Department believes it is important to have a 
comprehensive and consolidated written notice of this information 
during the application process and at recertification, so that 
participants are clear on the expectations from the start. For 
instance, information on reimbursements for E&T participants should be 
provided during certification, and not withheld until the participant 
makes their first contact with an E&T provider or attends an E&T 
orientation. During certification, the participant should also be 
informed that the State agency must exempt the individual if the costs 
to participate exceed the allowable amount of participant 
reimbursements. Otherwise, without that explanation, a participant 
could be inappropriately sanctioned for missing their first E&T 
appointment because they lacked transportation or child care, not 
realizing they could have received those services as participant 
reimbursements to support their participation in E&T. The Department 
also agrees that developing the new written notice and script for the 
oral explanation will take time and effort, but as explained by a 
different State agency, the additional time to develop the written 
notice and provide the oral explanation is time well-invested by 
reducing the likelihood of a participant misunderstanding or 
disregarding the work requirements, and reducing the possibility of 
participants losing benefits due to noncompliance. Additionally, the 
Department allowed for a longer implementation period for this 
provision (until October 1, 2021). As stated above, the Department is 
considering ways to work with State agencies to ensure the written 
notices and oral scripts are understandable and responsive to the 
information needs of participants. Information provided in a clear and 
comprehendible fashion may be more likely read and understood by 
participants. The Department would also like to point out that, while 
the final regulation is requiring the written notice and oral 
explanation be provided during the application process, 
recertification, and when a previously exempt individual or new 
household member becomes subject to a work requirement, nothing in the 
new regulation would prohibit State agencies or their E&T providers, as 
a best practice, from regularly sharing information with participants 
at important stages in their certification period to reinforce 
information previously provided. As already mentioned for E&T 
participants, case managers can also be an important support and 
information resource. The Department also notes that, as a best 
practice, State agencies are also encouraged to inform ABAWDs about 
their time limit when the area in which the ABAWD lives comes off a 
waiver.
    In conclusion, the Department finalizes the requirement to provide 
a written notice and oral explanation of all applicable work 
requirements as proposed, with clarification of the information to be 
contained in the written notice and that the household is the target of 
the oral and written explanation.

Voluntary E&T Participation Time Limits

    The Department proposed a technical correction to paragraph 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(5)(iii) to align the regulations with the statutory provision 
at section 6(d)(4)(F)(iii) of the FNA, allowing voluntary participants 
to participate in E&T activities for more than the maximum number of 
hours calculated as their benefit divided by the minimum wage and for 
more than 120 hours in a month. The Department received no comments 
directly on this provision, but did make a change to this section based 
on a comment received on the subsidized employment provision discussed 
earlier in this preamble and to clarify that the Department does not 
interpret section 6(d)(4)(F)(iii) to override Federal and State minimum 
wage laws. The Department has modified language at 7 CFR 
273.7(e)(5)(iii), as re-designated, to indicate that for any additional 
hours a volunteer chooses to participate in an E&T work program or 
workfare beyond the number of hours equal to the household allotment 
for that month divided by the higher of the applicable Federal or State 
minimum wage, the participant must earn a wage at least equal to the 
higher of the Federal or State minimum wage. This adjustment has been 
added to ensure no E&T participant works for less than the minimum 
wage.

Procedural Matters

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility.
    This final rule has been determined to be significant and was 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance 
with Executive Order 12866. The table below presents the expected costs 
of the rule changes. Derivation of these costs, and the overall impact 
on Federal and State spending, are summarized in the discussion that 
follows.

[[Page 390]]



                                                               Table 1--Summary of Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 In millions of dollars                       FY 2020         FY 2021         FY 2022         FY 2023         FY 2024          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Impacts on Federal Transfers (nominal dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased 100% E&T grant funding **.....................             $13             $13             $13             $13             $13             $65
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Impacts on Federal (50%) and State (50%) Administrative Costs (nominal dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative costs/burden--case management +..........            39.8            39.8            39.8            39.8            39.8           199.0
Administrative costs/burden--related to sending new                    0             (*)             6.8             6.8             6.8            20.4
 required ABAWD notice and notifying participants of
 Provider Determinations +.............................
Administrative costs/burden--reporting of additional                   0               0             (*)             (*)             (*)             (*)
 measures +............................................
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................            39.8            39.8            46.6            46.6            46.6           219.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Impacts on Burden of Participating Households (costs in nominal dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household Burden--case management.......................             4.6             4.6             4.6             4.6             4.6            23.0
Household Burden--Notification of Provider Determination               0               0             (*)             (*)             (*)             (*)
 ......................................................
Household Burden--List of E&T Services..................             0.8             0.8             0.8             0.8             0.8             4.0
Household Burden--ABAWD Notification ..................               0               0             1.6             1.6             1.6             4.8
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................             5.4             5.4             7.0             7.0             7.0            31.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The 2018 Farm Bill included an additional $13 million per year in 100 percent grant funding for E&T.
+ A portion of these costs are expected to be covered using existing 100 percent grant funding.
 These provisions are effective 10/1/21.

    Regulatory Impact Analysis: A regulatory impact analysis must be 
prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 
million or more in any one year). The Department does not anticipate 
that this final rule will have economic impacts of $100 million or more 
in any one year, and therefore, it does not meet the definition of 
``economically significant'' under Executive Order 12866. An analysis 
assessing the costs and benefits of this rule is presented below.
    As explained above, this rule codifies the 2018 Farm Bill changes 
related to E&T program operations, the ABAWD work requirement, and the 
allocation and reallocation of 100 percent grant funds. Those changes 
and their expected costs and benefits are summarized briefly below:

Changes to SNAP E&T Programs, Components, and Activities

    Pursuant to the 2018 Farm Bill, the final rule makes several 
changes to E&T components and allowable activities, including:
     Replacing job search with supervised job search as an E&T 
component and clarifying that ``supervision'' may be provided through a 
variety of modes including virtual modes to ensure States can continue 
to deliver services during the COVID pandemic;
     eliminating job finding clubs as an allowable activity;
     replacing job skills assessments with employability 
assessments;
     adding apprenticeships and subsidized employment as 
allowable activities;
     requiring a 30-day minimum for receipt of job retention 
services; and
     allowing activities from the 2014 Farm Bill E&T pilots to 
become allowable E&T components, if those activities had a demonstrable 
impact on the ability of participants to find and retain employment 
that leads to increased income and reduced reliance on public 
assistance.
    The rule also implements the 2018 Farm Bill provision that requires 
all E&T programs to provide case management services to E&T 
participants, in addition to one or more E&T components. We expect the 
cost of the case management to be approximately $39.8 million per year. 
While all E&T participants must receive some case management, there is 
no expectation that participants receive ongoing case management if 
that is not desired by the participant and the participant is otherwise 
successfully participating in E&T. Consistent with the estimates used 
for the Paperwork Reduction Act section of the proposed rule, we assume 
approximately 460,000 annual E&T participants participate on average 
for 3.27 months. We further assume the average participant receives 
just over 1 hour total of case management services (30 minutes for the 
initial case management meeting and 15 minutes for subsequent monthly 
meetings). In addition, we expect caseworkers to spend approximately 10 
minutes per case management session preparing for the meeting and 5 
minutes recording case notes and otherwise documenting the case 
management interactions (for a total of 1.87 hours per case). Using a 
fully-loaded hourly rate (including benefits and indirect costs) of 
approximately $46.32 \6\ results in an annual cost of about $39.8 
million, shared equally. The Department believes that initially most 
States will use 100 percent grant funding, including the increased 
funding provided through the 2018 Farm Bill, to pay for the required 
case management services. In some States this may mean States 
reallocate funds from other activities in order to provide sufficient 
case management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Based on May 2019 BLS Occupational and Wage Statistics for 
``Social Workers, All Other,'' available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm, plus approximately 50 percent for fringe and overhead. 
Overhead is included because this is a new activity and will likely 
result in hiring of additional staff or contractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The case management requirement will also increase burden on 
individual

[[Page 391]]

SNAP participants as they will be required to participate in monthly 
discussions with their case manager regarding their E&T participation 
and plans for self-sufficiency. While the Department expects most of 
the conversations will be held by telephone, in some instances E&T 
participants may need to travel to meet their case manager in person. 
Therefore, the average number of burden hours per participant includes 
travel time. Total burden per participant is 1.4 hours, compared to an 
estimate of 1.32 hours for State agencies (excluding the time needed 
for note taking and other documentation).\7\ The additional burden is 
expected to cost SNAP E&T participants approximately $4.6 million 
annually. While these estimates include travel time to permit E&T 
participants to meet their case manager in person, the Department notes 
that the rule provides States with flexibility to deliver case 
management services virtually. It is likely that few participants will 
meet face-to-face with a case manager during the current public health 
emergency; therefore the burden on participants could be lower for the 
duration of the pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For more information on the derivation of these estimates, 
please see the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this proposed 
rule.

 Table 2--Annual Cost of Burden Associated With Case Management Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           State agency      Household
                                              burden          burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&T participants per year...............         460,000         460,000
Burden hours per participant............            1.87             1.4
Hourly wage rate *......................          $46.32           $7.25
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Annual Cost (Federal and State           $39.8            $4.6
     shares millions)...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* State Agency rate is a fully loaded rate. Household rate is equal to
  the federal minimum wage. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Changes to Funding Allocation/Reallocation

    The final rule establishes a funding formula for reallocated E&T 
funds, in accordance with statutory changes. It also codifies the 
increase to $100,000 in the minimum allocation of 100 percent funds to 
State agencies. While these changes may affect the amount of funds 
received by individual States, the Department does not expect these 
changes to affect overall spending on SNAP E&T. Prior to the 2018 Farm 
Bill, three States (Virgin Islands, Wyoming and North Dakota) received 
less than the $100,000 minimum allocation and now receive a larger 
grant. Over the past three years, less than $10 million per year in 100 
percent grant funds have been reallocated, and the amount available for 
reallocation has been declining.

Changes Affecting Work Requirements

    Pursuant to the 2018 Farm Bill, the rule makes a number of changes 
affecting SNAP work requirements (both the ABAWD requirement and 
mandatory E&T). The final rule:
     Adds workforce partnerships to the list of programs that 
may be used to meet SNAP work requirements;
     adds employment and training programs for veterans 
operated by the Department of Labor or the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to the list of work programs that may be used to meet the ABAWD 
work requirement;
     requires State agencies to provide an oral explanation and 
written notice to ABAWDs of all applicable work requirements during 
certification, recertification, and when a previously exempt individual 
or new household member becomes subject to a work requirement;
     codifies the statutory change that reduces the number of 
ABAWD work exemptions from 15 percent to 12 percent and change their 
name to ``discretionary exemptions;''
     requires State agencies to provide good cause for 
noncompliance with E&T if an appropriate or available opening in the 
E&T program is not available;
     requires State agencies to re-direct individuals who are 
determined by a provider not to be a good fit for the E&T component to 
other more suitable activities and notify the participant of the 
provider's determination; and
     requires that, at recertification, all State agencies 
advise certain types of households subject to the general work 
requirement of employment and training opportunities.
    Most of these provisions are not expected to have cost impacts. 
Most States have not historically and do not currently use all of their 
available discretionary exemptions, so the reduction in the number of 
available exemptions is unlikely to impact individual ABAWDs.\8\ While 
the regulatory impact analysis for the final rule Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirements for Able-Bodied Adults 
Without Dependents assumed that some States would use their carryover 
exemptions and would subsequently use more (although not all) of their 
available discretionary exemptions to exempt individual ABAWDs in 
response to the rule's changes to waiver eligibility, those regulatory 
changes have been set aside by a Federal court. Furthermore, the 
Families First Coronavirus Response Act generally suspended the ABAWD 
work requirement and time limit for the duration of the COVID-19 public 
health emergency, so individual ABAWDs are unlikely to be at risk of 
losing SNAP at this time. Together, these recent changes reduce the 
need for States to use all of their available exemptions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Typically States use far fewer exemptions in a fiscal year 
than they earn (see FY 2020 Discretionary Exemptions with 
Carryover). In 2019, nine States used more exemptions than they 
earned for FY 2019 and thus had to use a portion of their carryover 
exemptions. In three of those States, most carryover exemptions were 
used as an adjustment to account for misreporting of exemptions used 
in earlier years. Of the remaining 44 States, none used more 
exemptions in 2019 than they earned in 2020 (the first year 
exemptions were reduced to 12 percent).
    \9\ A small number of States have continued to offer work 
program slots to ABAWDs, which results in those ABAWDs being subject 
to the ABAWD work requirement and time limit. However, in most cases 
States have not offered ABAWDs slots in work programs during the 
pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Permitting individuals to fulfill the ABAWD work requirement or 
mandatory E&T through workforce partnerships, which are operated by 
private employers or non-profit groups, may result in additional ABAWDs 
meeting the work requirement and retaining SNAP eligibility. However, 
such programs are not currently widespread. Given the lack of available 
data for such programs and the requirements for establishing a 
workforce partnership, the Department does not believe they will become

[[Page 392]]

commonplace and has, therefore, assumed there would be only negligible 
impacts of this change on the SNAP ABAWD population.
    The requirement that State agencies inform ABAWDs both orally and 
in writing of the ABAWD work requirement and time limit is expected to 
result in additional burden for State agencies as this is a new 
requirement. The Department received a comment that informing ABAWDs of 
their work requirement may take longer than proposed; as a result FNS 
has increased the burden in the final rule. However, having this 
information may mean that ABAWDs better understand the work requirement 
and how to meet it, and thus are better able to fulfill those 
requirements and retain SNAP eligibility. States agencies are already 
required to inform work registrants and mandatory E&T participants of 
their respective work requirements in existing regulations at 7 CFR 
273.7(c) (OMB Control Number 0584-0064; Expiration date 12/31/2020, 
currently under review with OMB). This this additional burden is 
expected to cost approximately $6.7 million annually when implemented 
on 10/1/21, with costs divided equally between State agencies and the 
Federal government. The table below shows how these estimates were 
derived. The Department notes that the actual burden associated with 
this provision may be lower if the COVOD-19 public health emergency is 
still in place at implementation.

  Table 3--State Agency Cost of Burden Related To Sending New Required
                              ABAWD Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           ABAWD written
                                                              notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occurrences per year \10\...............................       2,700,000
Burden hours per occurrence.............................           0.083
Hourly wage rate \11\...................................          $30.12
                                                         ---------------
    Total Annual Cost (Federal and State shares,                    $6.7
     millions)..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States will also face burden related to the requirement that they 
notify participants when a provider determination has been made that 
the individual is not a good fit for the E&T component and re-direct 
individuals to other more suitable activities. The Department estimates 
that the burden associated with this activity will be about $0.11 
million annually when implemented on 10/1/21. To the extent that fewer 
individuals participate in E&T due to COVID-19, actual burden 
associated with notifying individuals of the provider determination may 
be lower for the duration of the pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Estimates of occurrences of ABAWD notifications are based 
on the expected number of SNAP ABAWD participants in FY 2021. For 
more information on these estimates, please see the Paperwork 
Reduction Act section of this rule.
    \11\ Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2019 
Occupational and Wage Statistics for ``eligibility interviewers, 
government programs,'' available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.

 Table 4--State Agency Cost of Burden Related To Notifying Participants
                        of Provider Determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Notify
                                                          participant of
                                                             provider
                                                           determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occurrences per year \6\................................          46,000
Burden hours per occurrence \12\........................           0.083
Hourly wage rate \13\...................................          $30.12
                                                         ---------------
    Total Annual Cost (Federal and State shares,                   $0.11
     millions)..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also anticipates a small ($0.06 million) one-time 
burden for State Agencies to develop the new ABAWD written notice and 
the list of employment and training services that will be provided to 
work registrant households at recertification This assumes States spend 
on average 24 hours developing the list of E&T services and 40 hours 
developing the ABAWD notice, and an average wage of $18.41 per hour 
(64*18.41*53 State Agencies = $62,447).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Estimates of occurrences of notifying individuals of a 
provider determination assume 10 percent of E&T participants are 
found to be ill-suited for their assigned activity. For more 
information on these estimates, please see the Paperwork Reduction 
Act section of this rule.
    \13\ Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2019 
Occupational and Wage Statistics for ``eligibility interviewers, 
government programs,'' available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ABAWDs will also face new burden associated with reviewing the 
ABAWD written notice when received. Households with work registrants, 
who will receive a list of E&T services at recertification, will face 
additional burden associated with reading that list. Each activity is 
expected to result in a minimal amount of administrative burden, about 
$2.4 million total over the two activities.

     Table 5--Household Cost of Burden Related to New Informational
                               Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              List of
                                           ABAWD written  employment and
                                              notice         training
                                                             services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occurrences per year \4\................       2,700,000       5,496,000

[[Page 393]]

 
Burden hours per occurrence \14\........             .08             0.2
Hourly wage rate \15\...................           $7.25           $7.25
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Annual Cost (Federal and State            $1.6            $0.8
     shares, millions)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While these changes are estimated to increase burden for State 
agencies and individuals, these changes are expected to provide 
important protections to individuals subject to the ABAWD time limit. 
The notice requirement will help ensure that these individuals are 
adequately informed of their responsibilities with respect to work 
requirements and of what steps they should take in order to comply with 
those requirements or if they believe they should be exempt from those 
requirements. The Department also notes that, in response to the COVID-
19 pandemic, States currently have flexibilities regarding 
certification periods that may reduce the frequency of certification 
actions. In addition, as noted previously, the ABAWD time limit is 
temporarily and partially suspended. Therefore, actual burden on 
households may be lower than these estimates for the duration of the 
public health emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Estimates of occurrences per year are based on the expected 
number of SNAP ABAWD participants and work registrants in FY 2021. 
For more information on these estimates, please see the Paperwork 
Reduction Act section of this rule.
    \15\ Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2019 
Occupational and Wage Statistics for ``eligibility interviewers, 
government programs,'' available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes to Reporting Requirements

    The final rule modifies the required reporting elements in the 
quarterly E&T Program Activity Report provided by State agencies to add 
four additional reporting elements to form FNS-583, which State 
agencies must submit annually with the further quarter report. These 
new reporting elements include (1) the number of SNAP participants who 
are required to participate in E&T (mandatory participants); (2) of 
those in (1), the number who begin participation in an E&T program; (3) 
of those in (1), the number who begin participation in an E&T 
component; and (4) the number of participants who are determined 
ineligible for non-compliance. Reporting on these additional elements 
is expected to increase reporting burden on 17 State agencies that 
currently operate mandatory E&T programs. The Department will add four 
reporting elements to form FNS-583, which State agencies must submit 
annually with the fourth quarter report. This additional burden is 
expected to be of minimal cost to State agencies.

    Table 6--Cost of State Agency Burden, New Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State Agency
                                                              burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State agencies..........................................              17
Reports per year (4 additional elements)................               1
Hours per response......................................              51
Hourly wage rate \16\...................................          $18.41
                                                         ---------------
    Total Annual Cost (Federal and State shares)........             (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Minimal--less than $1 million.

Overall Impact on E&T Spending
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2019 
Occupational and Wage Statistics for ``Office and Administrative 
Support Workers, All other,'' available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the 100 percent grant funding provided by the 
Federal government, most States spend their own funds on SNAP E&T 
services. This additional State E&T spending is matched by the Federal 
government and referred to as 50-50 spending. While the rule provisions 
are expected to result in some additional cost to State agencies 
(primarily related to case management and administrative burden), it is 
the Department's belief that States will use the following strategies 
as they modify their E&T programs in accordance with the statutory and 
regulatory changes:
     In the first five years after implementation, the 
Department expects that most States will use 100 percent grant funding, 
including the increased funding provided through the 2018 Farm Bill, to 
pay for the required case management services.
     The Department anticipates that changes to allowable 
components and activities, which may result in a higher cost per E&T 
participant, will initially be managed by adjusting the number of 
participants served through various components/activities rather than 
through investment of additional 50-50 matching funds by State 
Agencies. State Agencies' budgets are often less flexible (for example, 
prohibitions on running a deficit or budgets that cover multiple years) 
and may not permit immediate increases in State E&T spending. This is 
especially true currently due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 
resulting need for States to redirect resources to public health 
activities.
     Over the five year period covered by these estimates, the 
Department expects that some but not all States will increase their 
investment in 50-50 matching funds to cover both the costs of case 
management services and to permit greater participation in new 
allowable activities and components that may show more success in 
moving individuals toward greater self-sufficiency.
    In total, we estimate that these provisions of the rule will 
increase spending on E&T by $0 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, and by 
$21 million over the five FYs 2020-2024. Costs would be

[[Page 394]]

shared equally between the Federal government and State agencies.
    The estimates were derived as follows:
     Between FY 2016 and FY 2018, the Federal share of 50-50 
spending increased by about $17 million, from $171 million to $188 
million. Therefore, we assume that the Federal share of State 50-50 
spending would have increased by about $8 million per year.
     In response to the changes in allowable components and 
activities as well as the case management requirement, we assume that 
each year beginning in FY 2022 a small number of States increase their 
50-50 spending beyond current projected spending. In FY 2020 and FY 
2021, we assume no States increase their 50-50 spending due to the 
ongoing pandemic. In FY 2022, 4 States spend about 10 percent more, and 
by FY 2024 8 States have increased their spending by about 10 percent 
overall.
     The per-State increase in 50-50 spending is approximately 
$0.5 million per State. The per-State increase is estimated as follows: 
A 10 percent increase in 50-50 spending equals $20.5 million in FY 
2020. There are 53 State agencies (including the District of Columbia, 
Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), 43 of which currently spend 50-50 
funding on E&T services, therefore $20.5 million is divided by 43 to 
calculate the average ($20.5 million/43 = $0.49 million).

                                              Table 7--Expected Increase in State 50-50 Spending Over Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  (Dollars in millions)                       FY 2020         FY 2021         FY 2022         FY 2023         FY 2024          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Farm Bill projected 50-50 spending..................             205             213             221             229             237  ..............
10% increase (amount per State).........................             .49             .49             .49             .49             .49  ..............
Number of States increasing spending....................               0               0               4               6               8  ..............
State agency Cost.......................................               0               0               2               2               5              10
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Federal + State..............................               0               0               4               7              10              21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Benefits of Final Rule

    The Department believes the statutory changes made by Section 4005 
of the 2018 Farm Bill are intended to strengthen E&T programs and 
improve SNAP participants' ability to gain and retain employment, thus 
reducing participant reliance on the social safety net. The changes 
contained in the final rule allow for more evidence-based activities, 
requiring more accountability on the part of both State agencies and 
E&T participants, while also retaining State flexibility. The 
requirement to inform ABAWDs of their work requirement will help ensure 
that these individuals are adequately informed of their 
responsibilities with respect to work requirements and of what steps 
they should take in order to comply with those requirements, or if they 
believe they should be exempt from those requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies 
to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider 
alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a 
substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, the 
Secretary certifies that this rule would not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule would not 
have a measurable impact on small entities because the changes required 
by the regulations are primarily directed toward State agencies 
operating SNAP programs and SNAP E&T programs. Some E&T providers may 
be considered small entities. This rule requires that E&T providers 
inform the State agency within 10 days when they have made a 
determination that an individual who was referred for E&T services is 
not a good fit for the component.

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule 
as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Executive Order 13771

    Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to reduce regulation and 
control regulatory costs and provides that the cost of planned 
regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting 
process. This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. 
We estimate that it will impose $20.30 million in annualized costs at a 
7% discount rate, discounted to a 2016 equivalent, over a perpetual 
time horizon.''

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost 
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million 
or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, 
Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves 
the objectives of the rule.
    This final rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and 
tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 12372

    This Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is listed in the 
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.551 and is 
subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental 
consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.) 
FNS Regional offices are in contact with State agencies, who provide 
feedback on policies and procedures for the E&T program and overall 
SNAP policy.

Federalism Summary Impact Statement

    Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the 
impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. 
Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed 
to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations 
describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories 
called for under Section

[[Page 395]]

(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. The Department has considered 
the impact of this rule on State and local governments and has 
determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. 
Therefore, under section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism 
summary is not required.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect 
with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which 
conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full 
and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have 
retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Dates section 
of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of 
the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be 
exhausted.

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

    FNS has reviewed the final rule, in accordance with Departmental 
Regulation 4300-004, ``Civil Rights Impact Analysis,'' to identify and 
address any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on 
participants on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or 
disability. A comprehensive Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) was 
conducted on the final rule, including an analysis of participant data 
and provisions contained in the final rule. While the CRIA did not find 
any major civil rights implications, the CRIA outlines outreach and 
mitigation strategies that would lessen any possible civil rights 
impacts. This final rule will impact all State agencies in their 
administration of the E&T programs. Additionally, the final rule will 
impact applicants and recipients of SNAP who are E&T participants. 
However, the Department finds that the CRIA and the mitigation and 
outreach strategies outlined within the CRIA provide ample 
consideration to applicants' and participants' ability to participate 
in SNAP. For instance, FNS will provide implementation guidance and 
technical assistance to support State agencies implementation of the 
new regulations consistent with the final rule. FNS, through review and 
approval of E&T State plans, performance of management evaluations, and 
collection and analysis of required data elements, will monitor the 
implementation of the new rule to mitigate potential civil rights 
violations. Among the outreach strategies included in the CRIA, FNS 
National Office will communicate regulatory changes to Regional Offices 
who directly interact and provide technical assistance to State 
agencies. Regional Offices will also communicate with the National 
Office regarding implementation challenges so that FNS can take 
appropriate action.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and 
coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies 
that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative 
comments, or proposed legislation. Additionally, other policy 
statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or 
more Indian Tribes, the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes also require 
consultation.
    The USDA's Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) has assessed the impact 
of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule has tribal 
implications that require consultation under E.O. 13175. FNS discussed 
the proposed rule in Washington, DC on May 1, 2019, at the United 
States Department of Agriculture Farm Bill Tribal Consultation. FNS 
also discussed the final rule in a virtual Tribal SNAP Learning Session 
on October 30, 2020. FNS received no comments.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR 
1320) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all 
collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be 
implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection 
of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.
    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this final 
rule contains information collections that are subject to review and 
approval by the Office of Management and Budget; therefore, FNS is 
submitting for public comment the changes in the information collection 
burden that would result from adoption of the proposals in the rule. 
Once the information collection request is approved by OMB, the agency 
will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register announcing OMB 
approval.
    Title: Employment and Training Opportunities in the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program.
    OMB Number: 0584-NEW.
    Form Number: FNS 583.
    Expiration Date: N/A.
    Type of Request: New request.
    Abstract: This final rule would implement changes made by section 
4005 of the Act to the E&T program to strengthen State and Federal 
accountability to move SNAP participants toward self-sufficiency. FNS 
is requesting a new OMB Control Number for the requirements in this 
final rule. Some of the final changes will modify current regulations 
resulting in an increase in the reporting burden for State agencies. 
Other requirements are new and will result in new mandatory reporting 
burden requirements for State agencies, as well as individuals 
participating in E&T. First, the Act requires that State agencies 
provide individuals participating in E&T with case management services. 
Many State agencies already provide case management activities to SNAP 
E&T participants; however, State agencies are not currently reporting 
this activity to the Department and the Department is not currently 
collecting case management activities from these State agencies. This 
regulatory change to require that State agencies provide these services 
as part of their E&T programs and include them in their E&T State plans 
will help ensure that E&T participants receive the guidance and support 
needed to move toward self-sufficiency. Second, the Act establishes 
that individuals participating in an E&T component who receive a 
provider determination (i.e., are determined ill-suited) by the E&T 
provider for that component, must be engaged by the State agency to 
assess their mental or physical fitness or to identify another type of 
training or assistance. The Department requires at 7 CFR 
273.7(c)(18)(i) that individuals who have received a provider 
determination be notified of this determination, and if the individual 
is an ABAWD, be notified that they will begin to accrue countable 
months. This process to notify individuals with a provider 
determination will constitute a new burden for State agencies and for 
SNAP participants who must exchange the information. Third, to increase 
State accountability for moving SNAP participants toward self-
sufficiency, the Department has added at 7 CFR 273.7(c)(11) four 
additional data elements to the final quarterly E&T Program Activity 
Report (FNS 583 reports) (SNAP Employment and Training Program activity 
Report; OMB Control Number: 0584-0594; Expiration Date: 7/31/2023 
currently under renewal) to collect information on the

[[Page 396]]

number of SNAP applicants and participants who are required by the 
State agency to participate in an E&T program, of those the number who 
begin to participate in an E&T program and an E&T component, and the 
number of mandatory participants who are determined ineligible for 
failure to comply. Fourth, the Department requires in new paragraph 7 
CFR 273.24(a)(5) to add a State agency requirement to inform every 
ABAWD in writing about the ABAWD work requirement and time limit, thus 
creating a new burden to develop and provide this written notice, and 
to participants to read this notice. This requirement to inform ABAWDs 
of their work requirement is added to a consolidated written notice 
that consolidates the requirements to inform ABAWDs, work registrants, 
and mandatory E&T participants of their work requirements, as 
applicable. The requirements to inform work registrants and mandatory 
E&T participants of their work requirements are already covered by an 
existing burden (OMB Control number: 0584-0064; Expiration Date 12/31/
2020, currently under review with OMB). And fifth, the Department 
requires in new paragraph 7 CFR 273.14(b)(5) that, at a minimum, the 
State agency provide households with no earned income and with no 
elderly or disabled members a list of available employment and training 
services for household members subject to the general work requirements 
either electronically (e.g., on a website or in an email) or in printed 
form. This requirement creates a new burden on State agencies to 
develop the list of opportunities and for participants to read the 
list. The Department notes that the final rule create a new requirement 
for State agencies to consult with their workforce development boards, 
and to explain in their E&T State plans the extent to which they 
coordinate with title 1 of WIOA. Based on the existing regulatory 
requirement to work with their State workforce development systems, 
this information is already collected by the Department through the E&T 
State plans and is included in an existing burden (OMB Control Number: 
0584-0083; Expiration Date: 8/31/2023 currently under OMB review), as a 
result the new requirement in the Act is not expected to increase the 
existing burden.
    The existing burden for the FNS-583 is currently covered under the 
information collection for the Food Programs Reporting System, OMB 
Control Number 0584-0594, expiration date 7/31/2023. The recordkeeping 
burden for the FNS 583 is already sufficient as documented in OMB 
Control Number: 0584-0339; Expiration Date: 1/31/2021. The basic 
recordkeeping requirement for household case file documentation is part 
of OMB Control Number: 0584-0064; Expiration Date 10/31/2020. FNS will 
add additional burden to this collection to accommodate the increased 
burden resulting from providing case management to E&T participants. 
FNS intends to merge the new reporting burden 0584-0594 and 0584-0064, 
once the final rulemaking information collection request is approved. 
At that time, FNS will publish a separate notice in the Federal 
Register announcing OMB's approval.
    The Department received some comments directly on the cost and hour 
burden, as well as comments related to the underlying policy. As a 
result, the Department has made changes to the rule's burden. Regarding 
the requirement that all E&T participants receive case management, the 
Department received a comment from a State agency agreeing that the 
State agency will experience increased costs as a result of the 
requirement, but the State agency did not dispute the values provided 
in the burden. The Department did receive one comment that State agency 
staff will need time to prepare for the case management sessions, thus 
the Department added 10 minutes per case management meeting to account 
for this preparation time. Regarding the requirement in the proposed 
rule to send a Notice of E&T Participation Change (NETPC) when an 
individual receives an ill-suited determination, the Department 
received a comment from a State agency that the notice was unnecessary 
and more costly to implement than provided for in the burden. The 
Department, as described in the final rule preamble, has decided not to 
require the NETPC, and instead will only require that State agencies 
notify the participant with State discretion regarding the mode for 
providing the information. The burden has also been updated to account 
for the act of notifying the individual, rather than sending a formal 
notice. Regarding the new data elements for the FNS-583, the Department 
received several comments requesting the Department add a third and 
fourth data element capturing the number of individuals who begin an 
E&T component and the number of mandatory E&T participants who are 
sanctioned for failure to comply. The Department agreed with these 
commenters and has added a third and fourth data element to the FNS-583 
fourth quarter report. The burden for the FNS-583 new data elements has 
been updated to include this third and fourth element and to correct 
errors in estimation during the proposed rule, resulting in a decrease 
in burden hours for this element. Regarding the requirement to inform 
ABAWDs of the ABAWD work requirement, the Department received one 
comment from a State agency that the impact of the proposal would add 
burden to the State agency, but on balance, the State agency believed 
that it may be time well spent if ABAWDs better understand the work 
requirement, thus reducing churn. The Department has modified the 
burden for informing ABAWDs of the work requirement by increasing the 
time to orally inform the ABAWD from two minutes to five minutes to 
account for the additional information commenters believed should be 
communicated during the interaction (e.g., good cause and exemption). 
The Department also increased the amount of time it will take State 
agencies to develop the written notice from 24 to 40 hours to account 
for the greater amount of information required to be in the notice in 
the final rule. Regarding the requirement that State agencies advise 
certain households with zero earned income, the Department received no 
comments regarding the burden and has made no changes to the burden 
from what was proposed.
    Respondents: State Agencies.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 53 State Agencies.
    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 108,575.64.
    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 5,754,509.
    Estimated Time per Response: 0.1899868.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,093,281.
    Respondents: (Individuals) SNAP E&T participants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,702,000.
    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.1199954034.
    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 9,746,200.
    Estimated Time per Response: 0.100411135.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 978,627.
    The total burden for this rulemaking is 2,069,983 burden hours and 
15,500,709 total annual responses.

[[Page 397]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   Number of    Estimated                Differences                               Fully
                                                                       Description of    Estimated      Estimated       Total        burden       total       Previous      due to     Difference  Hourly wage     loaded     Estimated
         Reg. section            Affected public    Respondent type       activity       number of    frequency of      annual     hours per      burden       burden      program       due to       rate *    hourly wage    cost to
                                                                                        respondents     response      responses     response      hours      hours used    changes     adjustment               rate (x.33)  respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR 273.7(c)(1).............  State Agencies...  State Agency E&T   Provide Case               53          28,381    1,504,193        0.493   741,567.15            0            0            0       $29.69     $39.4877  $29,282,781
                                                    Case Manager *.    Management
                                                                       Services.
7 CFR 273.7(c)(1).............  .................  State Agency E&T   Document Case              53          28,381    1,504,193         0.08   120,335.44            0            0            0        29.69      39.4877    4,751,770
                                                    Case Manager *.    Management
                                                                       Services.
7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i).........  .................  State Eligibility  Notify E&T                 53             868       46,000        0.083     3,818.00            0            0            0        22.65      30.1245      115,015
                                                    worker *.          Participants of
                                                                       Provider
                                                                       Determination.
7 CFR 273.7(c)(11)............  .................  State Agency       Reporting FNS              53               4          212           98    20,776.00       21,889            0        1,113        18.41      24.4853      508,707
                                                    Administrative     583 data
                                                    Staff *.           lements ** (OMB
                                                                       Control Number
                                                                       0584-0594).
7 CFR 273.7(c)(11)............  .................  State Agency       Reporting                  17               1           17            4        68.00            0           51            0        18.41      24.4853        1,665
                                                    Administrative     additional FNS
                                                    Staff *.           583 data
                                                                       elements.
7 CFR 273.7(a)(5).............  .................  State Agency       Develop ABAWD              53               1           53           40     2,120.00            0            0            0        18.41      24.4853       51,909
                                                    Administrative     written
                                                    Staff *.           statement of
                                                                       work
                                                                       requirements.
7 CFR 273.7(a)(5).............  .................  State Eligibility  Inform ABAWDs of           53          50,943    2,700,000        0.083   224,100.00            0            0            0        22.65      30.1245    6,750,900
                                                    worker *.          the ABAWD work
                                                                       requirement.
7 CFR 273.14(b)(5)............  .................  State Agency       Develop list of            53               1           53           24     1,272.00            0            0            0        18.41      24.4853       31,145
                                                    Administrative     Employment and
                                                    Staff *.           Training
                                                                       Services.
                                                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sub-Total State Agencies..  .................  .................  ................           53     108,575.642    5,754,509    0.1899868    1,093,281  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........   40,985,186
 
7 CFR 273.7(c)(1).............  Individual &       E&T Participants.  Participate in        460,000            3.27    1,504,200        0.426   640,789.00            0            0            0         7.25          n/a    4,645,720
                                 Household.                            Case Management.
7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i).........  .................  E&T Participants.  Review                 46,000               1       46,000        0.083     3,818.00            0            0            0         7.25          n/a       27,681
                                                                       Information on
                                                                       Provider
                                                                       Determination.
7 CFR 273.7(a)(5).............  .................  E&T Participants.  Read ABAWD          2,700,000               1    2,700,000        0.083   224,100.00            0            0            0         7.25          n/a    1,624,725
                                                                       written
                                                                       statement of
                                                                       work
                                                                       requirements.
7 CFR 273.14(b)(5)............  .................  E&T Participants.  Read list of        5,496,000               1    5,496,000         0.02   109,920.00            0            0            0         7.25          n/a      796,920
                                                                       Employment and
                                                                       Training
                                                                       Services.
                                                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sub-Total Individual/       .................  .................  ................    8,702,000     1.119995403    9,746,200    0.1004111      978,627  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........    7,095,046
     Households.
                                                                                       =================================================================================================================================================
    Grand Total Reporting       .................  .................  ................    8,702,053      108,576.76   15,500,709    0.1336653    2,071,908       21,889        8,788        1,113  ...........  ...........   48,080,231
     Burden with both affected
     public and States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Each State Eligibility worker is counted once as all State Agency employees.
** Note: FNS has not included the burden already approved for the current 583 reporting elements w/additional funds in the grand total. The current FNS 583 reporting elements are undergoing a separate revision with OMB control
  number: 0584-0594; Expiration Date: 7/31/2023; FNS is not seeking approval for these burden estimates in the request. All burden hours associated with the FNS 583 will be merged into 0584-0594 when OMB approves the information
  collection request (ICR) associated with the Final Rule.
*** Numbers may not add due to rounding.


[[Page 398]]

E-Government Act Compliance

    The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 
2002 to promote the use of the internet and other information 
technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to 
Government information and services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 271

    Administrative practice and procedures, Food stamps, Grant 
programs-social programs.

7 CFR Part 273

    Administrative practice and procedures, Food stamps, Grant 
programs-social programs, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping.

    Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 271 and 273 are amended to read as 
follows:

0
1. The authority citation for parts 271 and 273 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.

PART 271--GENERAL INFORMATION AND DEFINITIONS

0
2. In Sec.  271.2:
0
a. Revise the definitions of ``Employment and training (E&T) 
component'' and ``Employment and training (E&T) mandatory 
participant'';
0
b. Add in alphabetical order a definition for ``Employment and Training 
(E&T) participant'';
0
c. Revise the definition of ``Employment and training (E&T) program'';
0
d. Add in alphabetical order a definition for ``Employment and Training 
(E&T) voluntary participant''; and
0
e. Remove the definition of ``Placed in an employment and training 
(E&T) program''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  271.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Employment and Training (E&T) component a work experience, work 
training, supervised job search or other program described in section 
6(d)(4)(B)(i) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
2015(d)(4)(B)(i)) designed to help SNAP participants move promptly into 
unsubsidized employment.
    Employment and Training (E&T) mandatory participant a supplemental 
nutrition assistance program applicant or participant who is required 
to work register under 7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(1) or (2) and who the State 
determines should not be exempted from participation in an employment 
and training program and is required to participate in E&T.
    Employment and Training (E&T) participant means an individual who 
meets the definition of a mandatory or voluntary E&T participant.
    Employment and Training (E&T) program means a program operated by 
each State agency consisting of case management and one or more E&T 
components.
    Employment and Training (E&T) voluntary participant means a 
supplemental nutrition assistance program applicant or participant who 
volunteers to participate in an employment and training (E&T) program.
* * * * *

PART 273--CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

0
3. In Sec.  273.7, revise paragraphs (c) through (f) and (i) and add 
paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  273.7  Work provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) State agency responsibilities. (1)(i) The State agency must 
register for work each household member not exempted by the provisions 
of paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The State agency must permit the 
applicant to complete a record or form for each household member 
required to register for employment in accordance with paragraph 
(a)(1)(i) of this section. Household members are considered to have 
registered when an identifiable work registration form is submitted to 
the State agency or when the registration is otherwise annotated or 
recorded by the State agency.
    (ii) During the certification process, the State agency must 
provide a written notice and oral explanation to the household of all 
applicable work requirements for all members of the household, and 
identify which household member is subject to which work requirement. 
These work requirements include the general work requirement in 
paragraph (a) of this section, mandatory E&T in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 
this section, and the ABAWD work requirement at Sec.  273.24. The 
written notice and oral explanation must be provided in accordance with 
(c)(1)(iii) of this section. This written notice and oral explanation 
must also be provided to the household when a previously exempt 
household member or new household member becomes subject to these work 
requirements, and at recertification.
    (iii) The consolidated written notice must include all pertinent 
information related to each of the applicable work requirements, 
including: An explanation of each applicable work requirement; which 
individuals are subject to which work requirement; exemptions from each 
applicable work requirement; an explanation of the process to request 
an exemption (including contact information to request an exemption); 
the rights and responsibilities of each applicable work requirement; 
what is required to maintain eligibility under each applicable work 
requirement; pertinent dates by which an individual must take any 
actions to remain in compliance with each applicable work requirement; 
the consequences for failure to comply with each applicable work 
requirement; an explanation of the process for requesting good cause 
(including examples of good cause circumstances and contact information 
to initiate a good cause request); and any other information the State 
agency believes would assist the household members with compliance. If 
an individual is subject to mandatory E&T, the written notice must also 
explain the individual's right to receive participant reimbursements 
for allowable expenses related to participation in E&T, up to any 
applicable State cap, and the responsibility of the State agency to 
exempt the individual from the requirement to participate in E&T if the 
individual's allowable expenses exceed what the State agency will 
reimburse, as provided in paragraph (d)(4) of this section. In 
addition, as stated in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and Sec.  
273.24(b)(8), the State agency must provide a comprehensive oral 
explanation to the household of each applicable work requirement 
pertaining to individuals in the household.
    (2) The State agency is responsible for screening each work 
registrant to determine whether or not it is appropriate, based on the 
State agency's criteria, to refer the individual to an E&T program. If 
the State agency determines the individual is required to participate 
in an E&T program, as defined in paragraph (e) of this section and 
Sec.  271.2, the State agency must provide the participant with the 
written notice and the comprehensive oral explanation described in 
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. The State agency must refer 
participants to E&T, this referral may vary from participant to 
participant, but in all cases E&T participants must receive both case 
management services and at least one E&T component while participating 
in

[[Page 399]]

E&T. The State agency must determine the order in which the participant 
will receive the elements of an E&T program (e.g., case management 
followed by a component, case management embedded within a component, 
etc.). The State agency must explain to the participant next steps for 
accessing the E&T program. If there is not an appropriate and available 
opening in an E&T program, the State agency must determine the 
participant has good cause for failure to comply with the mandatory E&T 
requirement in accordance with paragraph (i)(4) of this section. The 
State agency may, with FNS approval, use intake and sanction systems 
that are compatible with its title IV-A work program. Such systems must 
be proposed and explained in the State agency's E&T State Plan.
    (3) After learning of an individual's non-compliance with SNAP work 
requirements, the State agency must issue a notice of adverse action to 
the individual, or to the household if appropriate, within 10 days of 
establishing that the noncompliance was without good cause. The notice 
of adverse action must meet the timeliness and adequacy requirements of 
Sec.  273.13. If the individual complies before the end of the advance 
notice period, the State agency will cancel the adverse action. If the 
State agency offers a conciliation process as part of its E&T program, 
it must issue the notice of adverse action no later than the end of the 
conciliation period. Mandatory E&T participants who have received a 
provider determination in accordance with paragraph (c)(18)(i) of this 
section shall not be subject to disqualification for refusal without 
good cause to participate in a mandatory E&T program until after the 
State has taken one of the four actions in paragraph (c)(18)(i)(B) of 
this section, and the individual subsequently refuses to participate 
without good cause.
    (4) The State agency must design and operate an E&T program that 
consists of case management services in accordance with paragraph 
(e)(1) of this section and at least one or more, or a combination of, 
employment and/or training components as described in paragraph (e)(2) 
of this section. The State agency must ensure that it is notified by 
the agency or agencies operating its E&T components within 10 days if 
an E&T mandatory participant fails to comply with E&T requirements.
    (5) The State agency must design its E&T program in consultation 
with the State workforce development board, or with private employers 
or employer organizations if the State agency determines the latter 
approach is more effective and efficient. Each component of the State 
agency's E&T program must be delivered through its statewide workforce 
development system, unless the component is not available locally 
through such a system.
    (6) In accordance with Sec.  272.2(d) and (e) of this chapter, the 
State agency must prepare and submit an E&T Plan to its appropriate FNS 
Regional Office. The E&T Plan must be available for public inspection 
at the State agency headquarters. In its E&T Plan, the State agency 
will detail the following:
    (i) The nature of the E&T components the State agency plans to 
offer and the reasons for such components, including cost information. 
The methodology for State agency reimbursement for education components 
must be specifically addressed. If a State agency plans to offer 
supervised job search in accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this 
section, the State agency must also include in the E&T plan a summary 
of the State guidelines implementing supervised job search. This 
summary of the State guidelines, at a minimum, must describe: The 
criteria used by the State agency to approve locations for supervised 
job search, an explanation of why those criteria were chosen, and how 
the supervised job search component meets the requirements to directly 
supervise the activities of participants and track the timing and 
activities of participants;
    (ii) A description of the case management services and models, how 
participants will be referred to case management, how the participant's 
case will be managed, who will provide case management services, and 
how the service providers will coordinate with E&T providers, the State 
agency, and other community resources, as appropriate. The State plan 
should also discuss how the State agency will ensure E&T participants 
are provided with targeted case management services through an 
efficient administrative process;
    (iii) An operating budget for the Federal fiscal year with an 
estimate of the cost of operation for one full year. Any State agency 
that requests 50 percent Federal reimbursement for State agency E&T 
administrative costs, other than for participant reimbursements, must 
include in its plan, or amendments to its plan, an itemized list of all 
activities and costs for which those Federal funds will be claimed, 
including the costs for case management and casework to facilitate the 
transition from economic dependency to self-sufficiency through work. 
Costs in excess of the Federal grant will be allowed only with the 
prior approval of FNS and must be adequately documented to assure that 
they are necessary, reasonable and properly allocated;
    (iv) The categories and types of individuals the State agency 
intends to exempt from E&T participation, the estimated percentage of 
work registrants the State agency plans to exempt, and the frequency 
with which the State agency plans to reevaluate the validity of its 
exemptions;
    (v) The characteristics of the population the State agency intends 
to place in E&T
    (vi) The estimated number of volunteers the State agency expects to 
place in E&T
    (vii) The geographic areas covered and not covered by the E&T Plan 
and why, and the type and location of services to be offered;
    (viii) The method the State agency uses to count all work 
registrants as of the first day of the new fiscal year;
    (ix) The method the State agency uses to report work registrant 
information on the quarterly Form FNS-583;
    (x) The method the State agency uses to prevent work registrants 
from being counted twice within a Federal fiscal year. If the State 
agency universally work registers all SNAP applicants, this method must 
specify how the State agency excludes those exempt from work 
registration under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If the State 
agency work registers nonexempt participants whenever a new application 
is submitted, this method must also specify how the State agency 
excludes those participants who may have already been registered within 
the past 12 months as specified under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this 
section;
    (xi) The organizational relationship between the units responsible 
for certification and the units operating the E&T program, including 
units of the statewide workforce development system, if available. FNS 
is specifically concerned that the lines of communication be efficient 
and that noncompliance be reported to the certification unit within 10 
working days after the noncompliance occurs;
    (xii) The relationship between the State agency and other 
organizations it plans to coordinate with for the provision of 
services, including organizations in the statewide workforce 
development system, if available. Copies of contracts must be available 
for inspection. The State agency must document how it consulted with 
the State workforce development board. If the State agency consulted 
with private employers or employer organizations in lieu of the State 
workforce development

[[Page 400]]

board, it must document this consultation and explain the determination 
that doing so was more effective or efficient. The State agency must 
include in its E&T State plan a description of any outcomes from the 
consultation with the State workforce development board or private 
employers or employer organizations. The State agency must also address 
in the E&T State plan the extent to which E&T activities will be 
carried out in coordination with the activities under title I of WIOA;
    (xiii) The availability, if appropriate, of E&T programs for 
Indians living on reservations;
    (xiv) If a conciliation process is planned, the procedures that 
will be used when an individual fails to comply with an E&T program 
requirement. Include the length of the conciliation period;
    (xv) The payment rates for child care established in accordance 
with the Child Care and Development Block Grant provisions of 45 CFR 
98.43, and based on local market rate surveys;
    (xvi) The combined (Federal/State) State agency reimbursement rate 
for transportation costs and other expenses reasonably necessary and 
directly related to participation incurred by E&T participants. If the 
State agency proposes to provide different reimbursement amounts to 
account for varying levels of expenses, for instance for greater or 
lesser costs of transportation in different areas of the State, it must 
include them here;
    (xvii) Information about expenses the State agency proposes to 
reimburse. FNS must be afforded the opportunity to review and comment 
on the proposed reimbursements before they are implemented;
    (xviii) For each component that is expected to include 100 or more 
participants, reporting measures that the State will collect and 
include in the annual report in paragraph (c)(17) of this section. Such 
measures may include:
    (A) The percentage and number of program participants who received 
E&T services and are in unsubsidized employment subsequent to the 
receipt of those services;
    (B) The percentage and number of participants who obtain a 
recognized credential, a registered apprenticeship, or a regular 
secondary school diploma (or its recognized equivalent), while 
participating in, or within 1 year after receiving E&T services;
    (C) The percentage and number of participants who are in an 
education or training program that is intended to lead to a recognized 
credential, a registered apprenticeship an on-the-job training program, 
a regular secondary school diploma (or its recognized equivalent), or 
unsubsidized employment;
    (D) Measures developed to assess the skills acquisition of E&T 
program participants that reflect the goals of the specific components 
including the percentage and number of participants who are meeting 
program requirements or are gaining skills likely to lead to 
employment; and
    (E) Other indicators approved by FNS in the E&T State plan; and
    (xix) Any State agency that will be requesting Federal funds that 
may become available for reallocation in accordance with paragraph 
(d)(1)(iii)(A), (B), or (D) of this section should include this request 
in the E&T State plan for the year the State agency would plan to use 
the reallocated funds. The request must include a separate budget and 
narrative explaining how the State agency intends to use the 
reallocated funds. FNS will review all State agency requests for 
reallocated funds and notify State agencies of the approval of any 
reallocated funds in accordance with regulations at (d)(1)(iii)(E) of 
this section. FNS' approval or denial of requests for reallocated funds 
will occur separately from the approval or denial of the rest of the 
E&T State plan.
    (7) A State agency interested in receiving additional funding for 
serving able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) subject to the 
3-month time limit, in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this 
section, must include in its annual E&T plan:
    (i) Its pledge to offer a qualifying activity to all at-risk ABAWD 
applicants and recipients;
    (ii) Estimated costs of fulfilling its pledge;
    (iii) A description of management controls in place to meet pledge 
requirements;
    (iv) A discussion of its capacity and ability to serve at-risk 
ABAWDs;
    (v) Information about the size and special needs of its ABAWD 
population; and
    (vi) Information about the education, training, and workfare 
components it will offer to meet the ABAWD work requirement.
    (8) The State agency will submit its E&T Plan annually, at least 45 
days before the start of the Federal fiscal year. The State agency must 
submit plan revisions to the appropriate FNS regional office for 
approval if it plans to alter the nature or location of its components 
or the number or characteristics of persons served. The proposed 
changes must be submitted for approval at least 30 days prior to 
planned implementation.
    (9) The State agency will submit an E&T Program Activity Report to 
FNS no later than 45 days after the end of each Federal fiscal quarter. 
The report will contain monthly figures for:
    (i) Participants newly work registered;
    (ii) Number of ABAWD applicants and recipients participating in 
qualifying components;
    (iii) Number of all other applicants and recipients (including 
ABAWDs involved in non-qualifying activities) participating in 
components; and
    (iv) ABAWDs subject to the 3-month time limit imposed in accordance 
with Sec.  273.24(b) who are exempt under the State agency's 
discretionary exemptions under Sec.  273.24(g).
    (10) The State agency will submit annually, on its first quarterly 
report, the number of work registrants in the State on October 1 of the 
new fiscal year.
    (11) The State agency will submit annually, on its final quarterly 
report:
    (i) A list of E&T components it offered during the fiscal year and 
the number of ABAWDs and non-ABAWDs who participated in each;
    (ii) The number of ABAWDs and non-ABAWDs who participated in the 
E&T Program during the fiscal year. Each individual must be counted 
only once;
    (iii) Number of SNAP applicants and participants required to 
participate in E&T by the State agency and of those the number who 
begin participation in an E&T program and the number who begin 
participation in an E&T component. An E&T participant begins to 
participate in an E&T program when the participant commences at least 
one part of an E&T program including an orientation, assessment, case 
management, or a component. An E&T participant begins to participate in 
an E&T component when the participant commences the first activity in 
the E&T component; and
    (iv) Number of mandatory E&T participants who were determined 
ineligible for failure to comply with E&T requirements.
    (12) Additional information may be required of the State agency, on 
an as needed basis, regarding the type of components offered and the 
characteristics of persons served, depending on the contents of its E&T 
Plan.
    (13) The State agency must ensure, to the maximum extent 
practicable, that E&T programs are provided for Indians living on 
reservations.
    (14) If a benefit overissuance is discovered for a month or months 
in which a mandatory E&T participant has already fulfilled a work 
component

[[Page 401]]

requirement, the State agency must follow the procedure specified in 
paragraph (m)(6)(v) of this section for a workfare overissuance.
    (15) If a State agency fails to efficiently and effectively 
administer its E&T program, the provisions of Sec.  276.1(a)(4) of this 
chapter will apply.
    (16) FNS may require a State agency to make modifications to its 
SNAP E&T plan to improve outcomes if FNS determines that the E&T 
outcomes are inadequate.
    (17) The State agency shall submit an annual E&T report by January 
1 each year that contains the following information for the Federal 
fiscal year ending the preceding September 30.
    (i) The number and percentage of E&T participants and former 
participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the second 
quarter after completion of participation in E&T.
    (ii) The number and percentage of E&T participants and former 
participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the fourth 
quarter after completion of participation in E&T.
    (iii) Median average quarterly earnings of the E&T participants and 
former participants who are in unsubsidized employment during the 
second quarter after completion of participation in E&T.
    (iv) The total number and percentage of participants that completed 
an educational, training work experience or an on-the-job training 
component.
    (v) The number and percentage of E&T participants who:
    (A) Are voluntary vs. mandatory participants;
    (B) Have received a high school degree (or GED) prior to being 
provided with E&T services;
    (C) Are ABAWDs;
    (D) Speak English as a second language;
    (E) Are male vs. female; and
    (F) Are within each of the following age ranges: 16-17, 18-35, 36-
49, 50-59, 60 or older.
    (vi) Of the number and percentage of E&T participants reported in 
paragraphs (c)(17)(i) through (iv) of this section, a disaggregation of 
the number and percentage of those participants and former participants 
by the characteristics listed in paragraphs (c)(17)(v)(A), (B), and (C) 
of this section.
    (vii) Reports for the measures identified in a State's E&T plan 
related to components that are designed to serve at least 100 
participants a year; and
    (viii) States that have committed to offering all at-risk ABAWDs 
participation in a qualifying activity and have received an additional 
allocation of funds as specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section 
shall include:
    (A) The monthly average number of individuals in the State who meet 
the conditions in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section;
    (B) The monthly average number of individuals to whom the State 
offers a position in a program described in Sec.  273.24(a)(3) and (4);
    (C) The monthly average number of individuals who participate in 
such programs; and
    (D) A description of the types of employment and training programs 
the State agency offered to at risk ABAWDs and the availability of 
those programs throughout the State.
    (ix) States may be required to submit the annual report in a 
standardized format based upon guidance issued by FNS.
    (x) State agencies certifying workforce partnerships for operation 
in their State in accordance with paragraph (n) of this section may 
report relevant data to demonstrate the number of program participants 
served by the workforce partnership, and of those how many were 
mandatory E&T participants.
    (18)(i) The State agency must ensure E&T providers are informed of 
their authority and responsibility to determine if an individual is 
ill-suited for a particular E&T component. Such determinations shall be 
referred to as provider determinations. For purposes of this paragraph, 
an E&T provider is the provider of an E&T component. The E&T provider 
must notify the State agency of a provider determination within 10 days 
of the date the determination is made and inform the State agency of 
the reason for the provider determination. The E&T provider may also 
provide input on the most appropriate next step, as outlined in 
paragraph (c)(18)(i)(B) of this section, for the individual with a 
provider determination. If the State agency is unable to obtain the 
reason for the provider determination from the E&T provider, the State 
agency must continue to act on the provider determination in accordance 
with this section. If an E&T provider finds an individual is ill-suited 
for one component, but the E&T provider determines the individual may 
be suitable for another component offered by the E&T provider, at State 
agency option, the E&T provider may switch the individual to the other 
component and inform the State agency of the new component without the 
need for the State agency to act further on the provider determination. 
The E&T provider has the authority to determine if an individual is 
ill-suited for the E&T component from the time an individual is 
referred to an E&T component until completion of the component. When a 
State agency receives notification that an individual has received a 
provider determination, and the individual is not exempt from the work 
requirement as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the State 
agency must:
    (A) Notify the mandatory or voluntary E&T participant, within 10 
days of receiving notification from the E&T provider, of the provider 
determination including the following information, as applicable. The 
State agency must explain what a provider determination is, the next 
steps the State agency will take as a result of the provider 
determination, and contact information for the State agency. In the 
case of either a mandatory or voluntary E&T participant with a provider 
determination, the State agency must also notify the individual that 
they are not being sanctioned as a result of the provider 
determination. In the case of an ABAWD who has received a provider 
determination, the State agency must also notify the ABAWD that the 
ABAWD will accrue countable months toward their three-month 
participation time limit the next full benefit month after the month 
during which the State agency notifies the ABAWD of the provider 
determination, unless the ABAWD fulfills the work requirements in 
accordance with Sec.  273.24, or the ABAWD has good cause, lives in a 
waived area, or is otherwise exempt. The State agency may make such 
notification either verbally or in writing, but must, at a minimum, 
document when the notification occurs in the participant's case file; 
and
    (B) Take the most suitable action from among the following options 
no later than the date of the individual's recertification. If an 
individual with a provider determination requests that the State agency 
take one of the following actions sooner than the next recertification, 
the State agency must take the most suitable action as soon as 
possible:
    (1) Refer the individual to an appropriate E&T program component in 
accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section. Before making this 
referral, the State agency must screen the individual for participation 
in the E&T program in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section, 
and determine that it is appropriate to refer the individual to an E&T 
component, considering the suitability of the individual for any 
available E&T components. In accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section, all E&T participants must

[[Page 402]]

receive case management services along with at least one E&T component;
    (2) Refer the individual to an appropriate workforce partnership as 
defined in paragraph (n) of this section, if available. Before making 
this referral, the State agency must provide information about 
workforce partnerships to assist the individual in making an informed 
decision about whether to voluntarily participate in the workforce 
partnership, in accordance with paragraph (n)(10) of this section;
    (3) Reassess the physical and mental fitness of the individual. If 
the individual is not found to be physically or mentally fit, the 
individual is exempt from the work requirement in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. If the individual is found to be 
physically or mentally fit, and the State agency determines the 
individual is not otherwise exempt from the general work requirements 
the State agency must consider if one of the other available actions in 
paragraph (c)(18)(i)(B) of this section would be appropriate for the 
individual. If the State agency determines the individual should not be 
required to participate in E&T, the State agency must exempt the 
individual from mandatory E&T or
    (4) Coordinate, to the maximum extent practicable, with other 
Federal, State, or local workforce or assistance programs to identify 
work opportunities or assistance for the individual. If the State 
agency chooses this option, the State agency must not require the 
individual to participate in E&T.
    (ii) 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 (c)(18)(i)(B) of this section, the individual 
shall not be found to have refused without good cause to participate in 
mandatory E&T. In the case of an ABAWD who has received a provider 
determination, the ABAWD will accrue countable months toward their 
three-month participation time limit the next full benefit month after 
the month during which the State agency notifies the ABAWD of the 
provider determination, unless the ABAWD fulfills the work requirements 
in accordance with Sec.  273.24, or the ABAWD has good cause, lives in 
a waived area, or is otherwise exempt.
    (d) Federal financial participation--(1) Employment and training 
grants--(i) Allocation of grants. Each State agency will receive a 100 
percent Federal grant each fiscal year to operate an E&T program in 
accordance with paragraph (e) of this section. The grant requires no 
State matching.
    (A) In determining each State agency's 100 percent Federal E&T 
grant, FNS will apply the percentage determined in accordance with 
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section to the total amount of 100 
percent Federal funds authorized under section 16(h)(1)(A) of the Act 
for each fiscal year.
    (B) FNS will allocate the funding available each fiscal year for 
E&T grants using a formula designed to ensure that each State agency 
receives its appropriate share.
    (1) Ninety percent of the annual 100 percent Federal E&T grant will 
be allocated based on the number of work registrants in each State as a 
percentage of work registrants nationwide. FNS will use work registrant 
data reported by each State agency on the FNS-583, Employment and 
Training Program Activity Report, from the most recent Federal fiscal 
year.
    (2) Ten percent of the annual 100 percent Federal E&T grant will be 
allocated based on the number of ABAWDs in each State, as determined by 
SNAP QC data for the most recently available completed fiscal year, 
which provide a breakdown of each State's population of adults age 18 
through 49 who are not disabled and who do not live with children.
    (C) No State agency will receive less than $100,000 in Federal E&T 
funds. To ensure this, FNS will, if necessary, reduce the grant of each 
State agency allocated more than $100,000. In order to guarantee an 
equitable reduction, FNS will calculate grants as follows. First, 
disregarding those State agencies scheduled to receive less than 
$100,000, FNS will calculate each remaining State agency's percentage 
share of the fiscal year's E&T grant. Next, FNS will multiply the 
grant--less $100,000 for every State agency under the minimum--by each 
remaining State agency's same percentage share to arrive at the revised 
amount. The difference between the original and the revised amounts 
will represent each State agency's contribution. FNS will distribute 
the funds from the reduction to State agencies initially allocated less 
than $100,000.
    (ii) Use of funds. (A) A State agency must use E&T program grants 
to fund the administrative costs of planning, implementing and 
operating its SNAP E&T program in accordance with its approved State 
E&T plan. E&T grants must not be used for the process of determining 
whether an individual must be work registered, the work registration 
process, or any further screening performed during the certification 
process, nor for sanction activity that takes place after the operator 
of an E&T program reports noncompliance without good cause. For 
purposes of this paragraph (d), the certification process is considered 
ended when an individual is referred to an E&T program for assessment 
or participation. E&T grants may be used to subsidize wages in 
accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(2) of this section, and may not be 
used to reimburse participants under paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
    (B) A State agency's receipt of its 100 percent Federal E&T grant 
is contingent on FNS's approval of the State agency's E&T plan. If an 
adequate plan is not submitted, FNS may reallocate a State agency's 
grant among other State agencies with approved plans. Non-receipt of an 
E&T grant does not release a State agency from its responsibility under 
paragraph (c)(4) of this section to operate an E&T program.
    (C) Federal funds made available to a State agency to operate an 
educational component under paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of this section must 
not be used to supplant nonfederal funds for existing educational 
services and activities that promote the purposes of this component. 
Education expenses are approvable to the extent that E&T component 
costs exceed the normal cost of services provided to persons not 
participating in an E&T program.
    (D) In accordance with section 6(d)(4)(K) of the Food and Nutrition 
Act of 2008, and notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph 
(d), the amount of Federal E&T funds, including participant and 
dependent care reimbursements, a State agency uses to serve 
participants who are receiving cash assistance under a State program 
funded under title IV-A of the Social Security Act must not exceed the 
amount of Federal E&T funds the State agency used in FY 1995 to serve 
participants who were receiving cash assistance under a State program 
funded under title IV-A of the Social Security Act.
    (1) Based on information provided by each State agency, FNS 
established claimed Federal E&T expenditures on this category of 
recipients in fiscal year 1995 for the State agencies of Colorado 
($318,613), Utah ($10,200), Vermont ($1,484,913), and Wisconsin 
($10,999,773). These State agencies may spend up to a like amount each 
fiscal year to serve SNAP recipients who also receive title IV 
assistance.
    (2) All other State agencies are prohibited from expending any 
Federal E&T funds on title IV cash assistance recipients.
    (iii) If a State agency will not obligate or expend all of the 
funds allocated to

[[Page 403]]

it for a fiscal year under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, FNS 
will reallocate the unobligated, unexpended funds to other State 
agencies during the fiscal year or subsequent fiscal year. FNS will 
allocate carryover funding to meet some or all of the State agencies' 
requests, as it considers appropriate and equitable in accordance with 
the following process:
    (A) Not less than 50 percent shall be reallocated to State agencies 
requesting funding to conduct employment and training programs and 
activities for which the State agency had previously received funding 
under the pilots authorized by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 
113-79) that FNS determines have the most demonstrable impact on the 
ability of participants to find and retain employment that leads to 
increased household income and reduced reliance on public assistance.
    (B) Not less than 30 percent shall be reallocated to State agencies 
requesting funding for E&T programs and activities under paragraph 
(e)(1) or (2) of this section that FNS determines have the most 
demonstrable impact on the ability of participants to find and retain 
employment that leads to increased household income and reduced 
reliance on public assistance, including activities targeted to:
    (1) Individuals 50 years of age or older;
    (2) Formerly incarcerated individuals;
    (3) Individuals participating in a substance abuse treatment 
program;
    (4) Homeless individuals;
    (5) People with disabilities seeking to enter the workforce;
    (6) Other individuals with substantial barriers to employment, 
including disabled veterans; or
    (7) Households facing multi-generational poverty, to support 
employment and workforce participation through an integrated and 
family-focused approach in providing supportive services.
    (C) State agencies who receive reallocated funds under paragraph 
(d)(1)(iii)(A) of this section may also be considered to receive 
reallocated funds under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
    (D) Any remaining funds not accounted for with the reallocations 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section shall be 
reallocated to State agencies requesting such funds for E&T programs 
and activities under paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section that FNS 
determines have the most demonstrable impact on the ability of 
participants to find and retain employment that leads to increased 
household income and reduced reliance on public assistance.
    (E) State agencies requesting the reallocated funds specified in 
paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(A), (B), or (D) of this section, shall make their 
request for those funds in their E&T State plans submitted for the 
upcoming fiscal year. FNS will determine the amount of reallocated 
funds each requesting State agency shall receive and provide the 
reallocated funds to those State agencies within a timeframe that 
allows each State agency to which funds are reallocated at least 270 
days to expend the reallocated funds. When making the reallocations, 
FNS will also consider the size of the request relative to the level of 
the State agency's E&T spending in prior years, the specificity of the 
State agency's plan for spending carryover funds, and the quality of 
program and scope of impact for the State's E&T program.
    (F) Unobligated, unexpended funds not reallocated in the process 
specified in paragraph (E) of this section, shall be reallocated to 
State agencies upon request for E&T programs and activities under 
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section that FNS determines have the 
most demonstrable impact on the ability of participants to find and 
retain employment that leads to increased household income and reduced 
reliance on public assistance. In making these reallocations FNS will 
also consider the size of the request relative to the level of the 
State agency's E&T spending in prior years, the specificity of the 
State agency's plan for spending carryover funds, and the quality of 
program and scope of impact for the State's E&T program.
    (2) Additional administrative costs. Fifty percent of all other 
administrative costs incurred by State agencies in operating E&T 
programs, above the costs referenced in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section, will be funded by the Federal Government.
    (3) Additional allocations. In addition to the E&T program grants 
discussed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, FNS will allocate $20 
million in Federal funds each fiscal year to State agencies that ensure 
availability of education, training, or workfare opportunities that 
permit ABAWDs to remain eligible beyond the 3-month time limit.
    (i) To be eligible, a State agency must make and comply with a 
commitment, or ``pledge,'' to use these additional funds to defray the 
cost of offering a position in an education, training, or workfare 
component that fulfills the ABAWD work requirement, as defined in Sec.  
273.24(a), to each applicant and recipient who is:
    (A) In the last month of the 3-month time limit described in Sec.  
273.24(b);
    (B) Not eligible for an exception to the 3-month time limit under 
Sec.  273.24(c);
    (C) Not a resident of an area of the State granted a waiver of the 
3-month time limit under Sec.  273.24(f); and
    (D) Not included in each State agency's 15 percent ABAWD exemption 
allotment under Sec.  273.24(g).
    (ii) While a participating pledge State may use a portion of the 
additional funding to provide E&T services to ABAWDs who do not meet 
the criteria discussed in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, it must 
guarantee that the ABAWDs who do meet the criteria are provided the 
opportunity to remain eligible.
    (iii) State agencies will have one opportunity each fiscal year to 
take the pledge described in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section. An 
interested State agency, in its E&T Plan for the upcoming fiscal year, 
must include the following:
    (A) A request to be considered as a pledge State, along with its 
commitment to comply with the requirements of paragraph (d)(3)(i) of 
this section;
    (B) The estimated costs of complying with its pledge;
    (C) A description of management controls it has established to meet 
the requirements of the pledge;
    (D) A discussion of its capacity and ability to serve vulnerable 
ABAWDs;
    (E) Information about the size and special needs of the State's 
ABAWD population; and
    (F) Information about the education, training, and workfare 
components that it will offer to allow ABAWDs to remain eligible.
    (iv) If the information provided in accordance with paragraph 
(d)(3)(iii) of this section clearly indicates that the State agency 
will be unable to fulfill its commitment, FNS may require the State 
agency to address its deficiencies before it is allowed to participate 
as a pledge State.
    (v) If the State agency does not address its deficiencies by the 
beginning of the new fiscal year on October 1, it will not be allowed 
to participate as a pledge State.
    (vi) No pledges will be accepted after the beginning of the fiscal 
year.
    (vii)(A) Once FNS determines how many State agencies will 
participate as pledge States in the upcoming fiscal year, it will, as 
early in the fiscal year as possible, allocate among them the $20 
million based on the number of ABAWDs in each participating State, as a 
percentage of ABAWDs in all the participating States. FNS will 
determine the number of ABAWDs in each

[[Page 404]]

participating State using SNAP QC data for the most recently available 
completed fiscal year, which provide a breakdown of each State's 
population of adults age 18 through 49 who are not disabled and who do 
not live with children.
    (B) Each participating State agency's share of the $20 million will 
be disbursed in accordance with paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
    (C) Each participating State agency must meet the fiscal 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of paragraph (d)(7) of this 
section.
    (viii) If a participating State agency notifies FNS that it will 
not obligate or expend its entire share of the additional funding 
allocated to it for a fiscal year, FNS will reallocate the unobligated, 
unexpended funds to other participating State agencies during the 
fiscal year, as it considers appropriate and equitable, on a first 
come-first served basis. FNS will notify other pledge States of the 
availability of additional funding. To qualify, a pledge State must 
have already obligated its entire annual 100 percent Federal E&T grant, 
excluding an amount that is proportionate to the number of months 
remaining in the fiscal year, and it must guarantee in writing that it 
intends to obligate its entire grant by the end of the fiscal year. A 
State's annual 100 percent Federal E&T grant is its share of the 
regular 100 percent Federal E&T allocation plus its share of the 
additional $20 million (if applicable). Interested pledge States must 
submit their requests for additional funding to FNS. FNS will review 
the requests and, if they are determined reasonable and necessary, will 
reallocate some or all of the unobligated, unspent ABAWD funds.
    (ix) Unlike the funds allocated in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) 
of this section, the additional pledge funding will not remain 
available until obligated or expended. Unobligated funds from this 
grant must be returned to the U.S. Treasury at the end of each fiscal 
year.
    (x) The cost of serving at-risk ABAWDs is not an acceptable reason 
to fail to live up to the pledge. A slot must be made available and the 
ABAWD must be served even if the State agency exhausts all of its 100 
percent Federal E&T funds and must use State funds to guarantee an 
opportunity for all at-risk ABAWDs to remain eligible beyond the 3-
month time limit. State funds expended in accordance with the approved 
State E&T Plan are eligible for 50 percent Federal match. If a 
participating State agency fails, without good cause, to meet its 
commitment, it may be disqualified from participating in the subsequent 
fiscal year or years.
    (4) Participant reimbursements. The State agency must provide 
payments to participants in its E&T program, including applicants and 
volunteers, for expenses that are reasonably necessary and directly 
related to participation in the E&T program. The Federal Government 
will fund 50 percent of State agency payments for allowable expenses, 
except that Federal matching for dependent care expenses is limited to 
the maximum amount specified in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section. 
These payments may be provided as a reimbursement for expenses incurred 
or in advance as payment for anticipated expenses in the coming month. 
The State agency must inform each E&T participant that allowable 
expenses up to the amounts specified in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) 
of this section will be reimbursed by the State agency upon 
presentation of appropriate documentation. Reimbursable costs may 
include, but are not limited to, dependent care costs, transportation, 
and other work, training or education related expenses such as 
uniforms, personal safety items or other necessary equipment, and books 
or training manuals. These costs must not include the cost of meals 
away from home. If applicable, any allowable costs incurred by a 
noncompliant E&T participant after the expiration of the noncompliant 
participant's minimum mandatory disqualification period, as established 
by the State agency, that are reasonably necessary and directly related 
to reestablishing eligibility, as defined by the State agency, are 
reimbursable under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. The 
State agency may reimburse participants for expenses beyond the amounts 
specified in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section; however, only costs 
that are up to but not in excess of those amounts are subject to 
Federal cost sharing. Reimbursement must not be provided from E&T 
grants allocated under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section. Any expense 
covered by a reimbursement under this section is not deductible under 
Sec.  273.10(d)(1)(i).
    (i) The State agency will reimburse the cost of dependent care it 
determines to be necessary for the participation of a household member 
in the E&T program up to the actual cost of dependent care, or the 
applicable payment rate for child care, whichever is lowest. The 
payment rates for child care are established in accordance with the 
Child Care and Development Block Grant provisions of 45 CFR 98.43, and 
are based on local market rate surveys. The State agency will provide a 
dependent care reimbursement to an E&T participant for all dependents 
requiring care unless otherwise prohibited by this section. The State 
agency will not provide a reimbursement for a dependent age 13 or older 
unless the dependent is physically and/or mentally incapable of caring 
for himself or herself or is under court supervision. The State agency 
must provide a reimbursement for all dependents who are physically and/
or mentally incapable of caring for themselves or who are under court 
supervision, regardless of age, if dependent care is necessary for the 
participation of a household member in the E&T program. The State 
agency will obtain verification of the physical and/or mental 
incapacity for dependents age 13 or older if the physical and/or mental 
incapacity is questionable. Also, the State agency will verify a court-
imposed requirement for the supervision of a dependent age 13 or older 
if the need for dependent care is questionable. If more than one 
household member is required to participate in an E&T program, the 
State agency will reimburse the actual cost of dependent care or the 
applicable payment rate for child care, whichever is lowest, for each 
dependent in the household, regardless of the number of household 
members participating in the E&T program. An individual who is the 
caretaker relative of a dependent in a family receiving cash assistance 
under title IV-A of the Social Security Act in a local area where an 
employment, training, or education program under title IV-A is in 
operation is not eligible for such reimbursement. An E&T participant is 
not entitled to the dependent care reimbursement if a member of the E&T 
participant's SNAP household provides the dependent care services. The 
State agency must verify the participant's need for dependent care and 
the cost of the dependent care prior to the issuance of the 
reimbursement. The verification must include the name and address of 
the dependent care provider, the cost and the hours of service (e.g., 
five hours per day, five days per week for two weeks). A participant 
may not be reimbursed for dependent care services beyond that which is 
required for participation in the E&T program. In lieu of providing 
reimbursements for dependent care expenses, a State agency may arrange 
for dependent care through providers by the use of purchase of service 
contracts, by providing vouchers to the household or by other means. A 
State agency may require that dependent care provided or arranged by 
the State agency meet all applicable standards of State and local

[[Page 405]]

law, including requirements designed to ensure basic health and safety 
protections (e.g., fire safety). An E&T participant may refuse 
available appropriate dependent care as provided or arranged by the 
State agency, if the participant can arrange other dependent care or 
can show that such refusal will not prevent or interfere with 
participation in the E&T program as required by the State agency.
    (ii) The State agency will reimburse the actual costs of 
transportation and other costs (excluding dependent care costs) it 
determines to be necessary and directly related to participation in the 
E&T program up the maximum level of reimbursement established by the 
State agency. Such costs are the actual costs of participation unless 
the State agency has a method approved in its E&T Plan for providing 
allowances to participants to reflect approximate costs of 
participation. If a State agency has an approved method to provide 
allowances rather than reimbursements, it must provide participants an 
opportunity to claim actual expenses up to the maximum level of 
reimbursements established by the State agency.
    (iii) No participant cost that has been reimbursed under a workfare 
program under paragraph (m)(7)(i) of this section, title IV of the 
Social Security Act or other work program will be reimbursed under this 
section.
    (iv) Any portion of dependent care costs that are reimbursed under 
this section may not be claimed as an expense and used in calculating 
the dependent care deduction under Sec.  273.9(d)(4) for determining 
benefits.
    (v) The State agency must inform all mandatory E&T participants 
that they may be exempted from E&T participation if their monthly 
expenses that are reasonably necessary and directly related to 
participation in the E&T program, including participation in case 
management services and E&T components, exceed the allowable 
reimbursement amount. Persons for whom allowable monthly expenses in an 
E&T component exceed the amounts specified under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) 
and (ii) of this section are not required to participate in that 
component. These individuals will be placed, if possible, in another 
suitable component in which the individual's monthly E&T expenses would 
not exceed the allowable reimbursable amount paid by the State agency. 
If a suitable component is not available, these individuals will be 
exempt from E&T participation until a suitable component is available 
or the individual's circumstances change and his/her monthly expenses 
do not exceed the allowable reimbursable amount paid by the State 
agency. Dependent care expenses incurred that are otherwise allowable 
but not reimbursed because they exceed the reimbursable amount 
specified under paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section will be considered 
in determining a dependent care deduction under Sec.  273.9(d)(4).
    (5) Workfare cost sharing. Enhanced cost-sharing due to placement 
of workfare participants in paid employment is available only for 
workfare programs funded under paragraph (m)(7)(iv) of this section at 
the 50 percent reimbursement level and reported as such.
    (6) Funding mechanism. E&T program funding will be disbursed 
through States' Letters of Credit in accordance with Sec.  277.5 of 
this chapter. The State agency must ensure that records are maintained 
that support the financial claims being made to FNS.
    (7) Fiscal recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Total E&T 
expenditures are reported on the Financial Status Report (SF-425 using 
FNS-778/FNS-778A worksheet) in the column containing ``other'' 
expenses. E&T expenditures are also separately identified in an 
attachment to the SF-425 using FNS-778/FNS-778A worksheet to show, as 
provided in instructions, total State and Federal E&T expenditures; 
expenditures funded with the unmatched Federal grants; State and 
Federal expenditures for participant reimbursements; State and Federal 
expenditures for E&T costs at the 50 percent reimbursement level; and 
State and Federal expenditures for optional workfare program costs, 
operated under section 20 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and 
paragraph (m)(7) of this section. Claims for enhanced funding for 
placements of participants in employment after their initial 
participation in the optional workfare program will be submitted in 
accordance with paragraph (m)(7)(iv) of this section.
    (e) Employment and training programs. Work registrants not 
otherwise exempted by the State agency are subject to the E&T program 
participation requirements imposed by the State agency. Such 
individuals are referred to in this section as E&T mandatory 
participants or mandatory E&T participants. Requirements may vary among 
participants. Failure to comply without good cause with the 
requirements imposed by the State agency will result in 
disqualification as specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 
Mandatory E&T participants who receive an E&T provider determination in 
accordance with paragraph (c)(18)(i) of this section shall not be 
subject to disqualification for refusal without good cause to 
participate in mandatory E&T during the time specified in (c)(18)(ii) 
of this section.
    (1) Case management. The State E&T program must provide case 
management services such as comprehensive intake assessments, 
individualized service plans, progress monitoring, or coordination with 
service providers which are provided to all E&T participants. The 
purpose of case management services shall be to guide the participant 
towards appropriate E&T components and activities based on the 
participant's needs and interests, support the participant in the E&T 
program, and to provide activities and resources that help the 
participant achieve program goals. Case management services and 
activities must directly support an individual's participation in the 
E&T program. Case management may include referrals to activities and 
supports outside of the E&T program, but State agencies can only use 
E&T funds for allowable components, activities, and participant 
reimbursements. The provision of case management services must not be 
an impediment to the participant's successful participation in E&T. In 
addition, if the case manager determines a mandatory E&T participant 
may meet an exemption from the requirement to participate in an E&T 
program, may have good cause for non-compliance with a work 
requirement, or both, the case manager must inform the appropriate 
State agency staff. Also, if the case manager is unable to identify an 
appropriate and available opening in an E&T component for a mandatory 
E&T participant, the case manager must inform the appropriate State 
agency staff.
    (2) Components. To be considered acceptable by FNS, any component 
offered by a State agency must entail a certain level of effort by the 
participants. The level of effort should be comparable to spending 
approximately 12 hours a month for two months making job contacts (less 
in workfare or work experience components if the household's benefit 
divided by the minimum wage is less than this amount). However, FNS may 
approve components that do not meet this guideline if it determines 
that such components will advance program goals. An initial screening 
by an eligibility worker to determine whom to place in an E&T program 
does not constitute a component. The State agency may require SNAP 
applicants to participate in any component it offers in its E&T program 
at the time of

[[Page 406]]

application. The State agency must screen applicants to determine if it 
is appropriate to participate in E&T in accordance with paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section, provide the applicant with participant 
reimbursements in accordance with (d)(4) of this section, and inform 
the applicant of E&T participation requirements including how to access 
the component and consequences for failing to participate. The State 
agency must not impose requirements that would delay the determination 
of an individual's eligibility for benefits or in issuing benefits to 
any household that is otherwise eligible. In accordance with section 
6(o)(1)(C) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and Sec.  273.24, 
supervised job search and job search training, when offered as 
components of an E&T program, are not qualifying activities relating to 
the participation requirements necessary to fulfill the ABAWD work 
requirement under Sec.  273.24. However, job search, including 
supervised job search, or job search training activities, when offered 
as part of other E&T program components, are acceptable as long as 
those activities comprise less than half the total required time spent 
in the components. An E&T program offered by a State agency must 
include one or more of the following components:
    (i) A supervised job search program. Supervised job search programs 
are those that occur at State-approved locations at which the 
activities of participants shall be directly supervised and the timing 
and activities of participants tracked in accordance with guidelines 
issued by the State agency and summarized in their E&T State plan in 
accordance with paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section. State-approved 
locations include any location deemed suitable by the State agency 
where the participant has access to the tools and materials they need 
to perform supervised job search. Tools used in the supervised job 
search program may include virtual tools, including, but not limited 
to, websites, portals, or web applications to access supervised job 
search services. State agencies are encouraged to offer a variety of 
locations and formats to best meet participant needs, and to the extent 
practicable, allow participants to choose their preferred location. 
Supervision can occur asynchronously with respect to the participant's 
job search activities, but must be provided by skilled staff, either 
remotely or in-person, who provide meaningful guidance and support with 
at least monthly check-ins, and must be provided in such a way so as to 
best support the participant. State agencies have discretion to develop 
tracking methods that best meet the needs of the participant. 
Supervised job search activities must have a direct link to increasing 
the employment opportunities of individuals engaged in the activity. 
Job search that does not meet the definition of supervised job search 
is allowed as a subsidiary activity of another E&T component, so long 
as the job search activity comprises less than half of the total time 
spent in the component. The State agency may require an individual to 
participate in supervised job search from the time an application is 
filed for an initial period established by the State agency, so long as 
the criteria for serving applicants in this paragraph (e)(2) are 
satisfied. Following this initial period (which may extend beyond the 
date when eligibility is determined) the State agency may require an 
additional supervised job search period in any period of 12 consecutive 
months. The first such period of 12 consecutive months will begin at 
any time following the close of the initial period. The State agency 
may establish a supervised job search period that, in its estimation, 
will provide participants a reasonable opportunity to find suitable 
employment. The State agency should not, however, establish a 
continuous, year-round supervised job search requirement. If a 
reasonable period of supervised job search does not result in 
employment, placing the individual in a training or education component 
to improve job skills will likely be more productive. In accordance 
with section 6(o)(1)(C) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and Sec.  
273.24, a supervised job search program is not a qualifying E&T 
activity relating to the participation requirements necessary to 
maintain SNAP eligibility for ABAWDs. However, a job search program, 
supervised or otherwise, when operated under title I of the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), under section 236 of the Trade 
Act, or a program of employment and training for veterans operated by 
the Department of Labor or the Department of Veterans Affairs, is 
considered a qualifying activity relating to the participation 
requirements necessary to maintain SNAP eligibility for ABAWDs.
    (ii) A job search training program that includes reasonable job 
search training and support activities. Such a program may consist of 
employability assessments, training in techniques to increase 
employability, job placement services, or other direct training or 
support activities, including educational programs determined by the 
State agency to expand the job search abilities or employability of 
those subject to the program. Job search training activities are 
approvable if they directly enhance the employability of the 
participants. A direct link between the job search training activities 
and job-readiness must be established for a component to be approved. 
In accordance with section 6(o)(1)(C) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 
2008 and Sec.  273.24, a job search training program is not a 
qualifying activity relating to the participation requirements 
necessary to maintain SNAP eligibility for ABAWDs. However, such a 
program, when operated under title I of WIOA, under section 236 of the 
Trade Act, or a program of employment and training for veterans 
operated by the Department of Labor or the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, is considered a qualifying activity relating to the 
participation requirements necessary to maintain SNAP eligibility for 
ABAWDs.
    (iii) A workfare program as described in paragraph (m) of this 
section.
    (A) The participation requirements of section 20(b) of the Food and 
Nutrition Act of 2008 and paragraphs (m)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this 
section for individuals exempt from SNAP work requirements under 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (v) of this section, are not applicable to 
E&T workfare components.
    (B) In accordance with section 20(e) of the Food and Nutrition Act 
of 2008 and paragraph (m)(6)(ii) of this section, the State agency may 
establish a job search period of up to 30 days following certification 
prior to making a workfare assignment. This job search activity is part 
of the workfare assignment, and not a job search ``program.'' 
Participants are considered to be participating in and complying with 
the requirements of workfare, thereby meeting the participation 
requirement for ABAWDs.
    (C) The sharing of workfare savings authorized under section 20(g) 
of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and paragraph (m)(7)(iv) of this 
section are not available for E&T workfare components.
    (iv) A work experience program designed to improve the 
employability of household members through actual work experience or 
training, or both, and to enable individuals employed or trained under 
such programs to move promptly into regular public or private 
employment. Work experience is a planned, structured learning 
experience that takes place in a workplace for a limited period of 
time. Work experience may be paid or unpaid, as appropriate, and 
consistent with other laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act. Work 
experience may be arranged within the

[[Page 407]]

private for-profit sector, the non-profit sector, or the public sector. 
Labor standards apply in any work experience setting where an employee/
employer relationship, as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
exists.
    (A) A work experience program may include:
    (1) A work activity performed in exchange for SNAP benefits that 
provides an individual with an opportunity to acquire the general 
skills, knowledge, and work habits necessary to obtain employment. The 
purpose of work activity is to improve the employability of those who 
cannot find unsubsidized full-time employment.
    (2) A work-based learning program, which, for the purposes of SNAP 
E&T, are sustained interactions with industry or community 
professionals in real world settings to the extent practicable, or 
simulated environments at an educational institution that foster in-
depth, firsthand engagement with the tasks required in a given career 
field, that are aligned to curriculum and instruction. Work-based 
learning emphasizes employer engagement, includes specific training 
objectives, and leads to regular employment. Work-based learning can 
include internships, pre-apprenticeships, apprenticeships, customized 
training, transitional jobs, incumbent worker training, and on-the-job 
training as defined under WIOA. Work-based learning can include both 
subsidized and unsubsidized employment models.
    (B) A work experience program must:
    (1) Not provide any work that has the effect of replacing the 
employment of an individual not participating in the employment or 
training experience program; and
    (2) Provide the same benefits and working conditions that are 
provided at the job site to employees performing comparable work for 
comparable hours.
    (v) A project, program or experiment such as a supported work 
program aimed at accomplishing the purpose of the E&T program.
    (vi) Educational programs or activities to improve basic skills, 
build work readiness, or otherwise improve employability including 
educational programs determined by the State agency to expand the job 
search abilities or employability of those subject to the program.
    (A) Allowable educational programs or activities may include, but 
are not limited to, courses or programs of study that are part of a 
program of career and technical education (as defined in section 3 of 
the Carl D. Perkins Act of 2006), high school or equivalent educational 
programs, remedial education programs to achieve a basic literacy 
level, and instructional programs in English as a second language.
    (B) Only educational components that directly enhance the 
employability of the participants are allowable. A direct link between 
the education and job-readiness must be established for a component to 
be approved.
    (vii) A program designed to improve the self-sufficiency of 
recipients through self-employment. Included are programs that provide 
instruction for self-employment ventures.
    (viii) Job retention services that are designed to help achieve 
satisfactory performance, retain employment and to increase earnings 
over time. The State agency may offer job retention services, such as 
case management, job coaching, dependent care assistance and 
transportation assistance, for up to 90 days to an individual who has 
secured employment. State agencies must make a good faith effort to 
provide job retention services for at least 30 days. The State agency 
may determine the start date for job retention services provided that 
the individual is participating in SNAP in the month of or the month 
prior to beginning job retention services. The State agency may provide 
job retention services to households leaving SNAP up to the 90-day 
limit unless the individual is leaving SNAP due to a disqualification 
in accordance with Sec.  273.7(f) or Sec.  273.16. The participant must 
have secured employment after or while receiving other employment/
training services under the E&T program offered by the State agency. 
There is no limit to the number of times an individual may receive job 
retention services as long as the individual has re-engaged with E&T 
prior to obtaining new employment. An otherwise eligible individual who 
refuses or fails to accept or comply with job retention services 
offered by the State agency may not be disqualified as specified in 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (ix) Programs and activities conducted under the pilots authorized 
by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79) that the Secretary 
determines, based on the results from the independent evaluations 
conducted for those pilots, have the most demonstrable impact on the 
ability of participants to find and retain employment that leads to 
increased household income and reduced reliance on public assistance.
    (3) Exemptions. Each State agency may, at its discretion, exempt 
individual work registrants and categories of work registrants from E&T 
participation. Each State agency must periodically reevaluate its 
individual and categorical exemptions to determine whether they remain 
valid. Each State agency will establish the frequency of its periodic 
evaluation.
    (4) Time spent in an employment and training program. (i) Each 
State agency will determine the length of time a participant spends in 
case management or any E&T component it offers. The State agency may 
also determine the number of successive components in which a 
participant may be placed.
    (ii) The time spent by the members of a household collectively each 
month in an E&T work program (including, but not limited to, those 
carried out under paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section) 
combined with any hours worked that month in a workfare program under 
paragraph (m) of this section must not exceed the number of hours equal 
to the household's allotment for that month divided by the higher of 
the applicable Federal or State minimum wage. The total hours of 
participation in an E&T program for any household member individually 
in any month, together with any hours worked in a workfare program 
under paragraph (m) of this section and any hours worked for 
compensation (in cash or in kind), must not exceed 120.
    (5) Voluntary participation. (i) A State agency may operate an E&T 
program in which individuals elect to participate.
    (ii) A State agency must not disqualify voluntary participants in 
an E&T program for failure to comply with E&T requirements.
    (iii) Voluntary participants are not subject to the restrictions in 
paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section, as long as the voluntary 
participants are paid a wage at least equal to the higher of the 
applicable Federal or State minimum wage for all hours spent in an E&T 
work program or workfare.
    (f) Failure to comply--(1) Ineligibility for failure to comply. A 
nonexempt individual who refuses or fails without good cause, as 
defined in paragraphs (i)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, to comply 
with SNAP work requirements listed under paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section is ineligible to participate in SNAP, and will be considered an 
ineligible household member, pursuant to Sec.  273.1(b)(7).
    (i) As soon as the State agency learns of the individual's 
noncompliance it must determine whether good cause for the 
noncompliance exists, as discussed in paragraph (i) of this section. 
Within 10 days of establishing that the noncompliance was without good 
cause, the State agency must provide the individual with a notice of 
adverse action, as specified in Sec.  273.13. If the

[[Page 408]]

State agency offers a conciliation process as part of its E&T program, 
it must issue the notice of adverse action no later than the end of the 
conciliation period.
    (ii) The notice of adverse action must contain the particular act 
of noncompliance committed and the proposed period of disqualification. 
The notice must also specify that the individual may, if appropriate, 
reapply at the end of the disqualification period. Information must be 
included on or with the notice describing the action that can be taken 
to avoid the disqualification before the disqualification period 
begins. The disqualification period must begin with the first month 
following the expiration of the 10-day adverse notice period, unless a 
fair hearing is requested.
    (iii) An E&T disqualification may be imposed after the end of a 
certification period. Thus, a notice of adverse action must be sent 
whenever the State agency becomes aware of an individual's 
noncompliance with SNAP work requirements, even if the disqualification 
begins after the certification period expires and the household has not 
been recertified.
    (2) Disqualification periods. The following disqualification 
periods will be imposed:
    (i) For the first occurrence of noncompliance, the individual will 
be disqualified until the later of:
    (A) The date the individual complies, as determined by the State 
agency;
    (B) One month; or
    (C) Up to three months, at State agency option.
    (ii) For the second occurrence, until the later of:
    (A) The date the individual complies, as determined by the State 
agency;
    (B) Three months; or
    (C) Up to six months, at State agency option.
    (iii) For the third or subsequent occurrence, until the later of:
    (A) The date the individual complies, as determined by the State 
agency;
    (B) Six months;
    (C) A date determined by the State agency; or
    (D) At the option of the State agency, permanently.
    (3) Record retention. In accordance with Sec.  272.1(f) of this 
chapter, State agencies are required to retain records concerning the 
frequency of noncompliance with FSP work requirements and the resulting 
disqualification actions imposed. These records must be available for 
inspection and audit at any reasonable time to ensure conformance with 
the minimum mandatory disqualification periods instituted.
    (4) Disqualification plan. In accordance with Sec.  
272.2(d)(1)(xiii) of this chapter, each State agency must prepare and 
submit a plan detailing its disqualification policies. The plan must 
include the length of disqualification to be enforced for each 
occurrence of noncompliance, how compliance is determined by the State 
agency, and the State agency's household disqualification policy.
    (5) Household ineligibility. (i) If the individual who becomes 
ineligible to participate under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is the 
head of a household, the State agency, at its option, may disqualify 
the entire household from SNAP participation.
    (ii) The State agency may disqualify the household for a period 
that does not exceed the lesser of:
    (A) The duration of the ineligibility of the noncompliant 
individual under paragraph (f)(2) of this section; or
    (B) 180 days.
    (iii) A household disqualified under this provision may reestablish 
eligibility if:
    (A) The head of the household leaves the household;
    (B) A new and eligible person joins the household as the head of 
the household, as defined in Sec.  273.1(d)(2); or
    (C) The head of the household becomes exempt from work requirements 
during the disqualification period.
    (iv) If the head of the household joins another household as its 
head, that household will be disqualified from participating in SNAP 
for the remaining period of ineligibility.
    (6) Fair hearings. Each individual or household has the right to 
request a fair hearing, in accordance with Sec.  273.15, to appeal a 
denial, reduction, or termination of benefits due to a determination of 
nonexempt status, or a State agency determination of failure to comply 
with SNAP work requirements. Individuals or households may appeal State 
agency actions such as exemption status, the type of requirement 
imposed, or State agency refusal to make a finding of good cause if the 
individual or household believes that a finding of failure to comply 
has resulted from improper decisions on these matters. The State agency 
or its designee operating the relevant component or service of the E&T 
program must receive sufficient advance notice to either permit the 
attendance of a representative or ensure that a representative will be 
available for questioning over the phone during the hearing. A 
representative of the appropriate agency must be available through one 
of these means. A household must be allowed to examine its E&T program 
casefile at a reasonable time before the date of the fair hearing, 
except for confidential information (that may include test results) 
that the agency determines should be protected from release. 
Confidential information not released to a household may not be used by 
either party at the hearing. The results of the fair hearing are 
binding on the State agency.
    (7) Failure to comply with a work requirement under title IV of the 
Social Security Act, or an unemployment compensation work requirement. 
An individual exempt from SNAP work requirements by paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii) or (v) of this section because he or she is subject to work 
requirements under title IV-A or unemployment compensation who fails to 
comply with a title IV-A or unemployment compensation work requirement 
will be treated as though he or she failed to comply with SNAP work 
requirement.
    (i) When a SNAP household reports the loss or denial of title IV-A 
or unemployment compensation benefits, or if the State agency otherwise 
learns of a loss or denial, the State agency must determine whether the 
loss or denial resulted when a household member refused or failed 
without good cause to comply with a title IV-A or unemployment 
compensation work requirement.
    (ii) If the State agency determines that the loss or denial of 
benefits resulted from an individual's refusal or failure without good 
cause to comply with a title IV or unemployment compensation 
requirement, the individual (or household if applicable under paragraph 
(f)(5) of this section) must be disqualified in accordance with the 
applicable provisions of this paragraph (f). However, if the 
noncomplying individual meets one of the work registration exemptions 
provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section (other than the exemptions 
provided in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) or (v) of this section) the 
individual (or household if applicable under paragraph (f)(5) of this 
section) will not be disqualified.
    (iii) If the State agency determination of noncompliance with a 
title IV-A or unemployment compensation work requirement leads to a 
denial or termination of the individual's or household's SNAP benefits, 
the individual or household has a right to appeal the decision in 
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (f)(6) of this section.
    (iv) In cases where the individual is disqualified from the title 
IV-A program for refusal or failure to comply with a

[[Page 409]]

title IV-A work requirement, but the individual meets one of the work 
registration exemptions provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 
other than the exemption in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) of this section, the 
State agency may, at its option, apply the identical title IV-A 
disqualification on the individual under SNAP. The State agency must 
impose such optional disqualifications in accordance with section 6(i) 
of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and with the provisions of Sec.  
273.11(1).
* * * * *
    (i) Good cause. (1) The State agency is responsible for determining 
good cause when a SNAP recipient fails or refuses to comply with SNAP 
work requirements. Since it is not possible for the Department to 
enumerate each individual situation that should or should not be 
considered good cause, the State agency must take into account the 
facts and circumstances, including information submitted by the 
employer and by the household member involved, in determining whether 
or not good cause exists.
    (2) Good cause includes circumstances beyond the member's control, 
such as, but not limited to, illness, illness of another household 
member requiring the presence of the member, a household emergency, the 
unavailability of transportation, or the lack of adequate child care 
for children who have reached age six but are under age 12.
    (3) Good cause for leaving employment includes the good cause 
provisions found in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, and resigning 
from a job that is unsuitable, as specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and 
(2) of this section. Good cause for leaving employment also includes:
    (i) Discrimination by an employer based on age, race, sex, color, 
handicap, religious beliefs, national origin or political beliefs;
    (ii) Work demands or conditions that render continued employment 
unreasonable, such as working without being paid on schedule;
    (iii) Acceptance of employment by the individual, or enrollment by 
the individual in any recognized school, training program or 
institution of higher education on at least a half time basis, that 
requires the individual to leave employment;
    (iv) Acceptance by any other household member of employment or 
enrollment at least half-time in any recognized school, training 
program or institution of higher education in another county or similar 
political subdivision that requires the household to move and thereby 
requires the individual to leave employment;
    (v) Resignations by persons under the age of 60 which are 
recognized by the employer as retirement;
    (vi) Employment that becomes unsuitable, as specified in paragraphs 
(h)(1) and (2) of this section, after the acceptance of such 
employment;
    (vii) Acceptance of a bona fide offer of employment of more than 30 
hours a week or in which the weekly earnings are equivalent to the 
Federal minimum wage multiplied by 30 hours that, because of 
circumstances beyond the individual's control, subsequently either does 
not materialize or results in employment of less than 30 hours a week 
or weekly earnings of less than the Federal minimum wage multiplied by 
30 hours; and
    (viii) Leaving a job in connection with patterns of employment in 
which workers frequently move from one employer to another such as 
migrant farm labor or construction work. There may be some 
circumstances where households will apply for SNAP benefits between 
jobs particularly in cases where work may not yet be available at the 
new job site. Even though employment at the new site has not actually 
begun, the quitting of the previous employment must be considered as 
with good cause if it is part of the pattern of that type of 
employment.
    (4) Good cause includes circumstances where the State agency 
determines that there is not an appropriate and available opening 
within the E&T program to accommodate the mandatory participant. Good 
cause for circumstances where there is not an appropriate or available 
opening within the E&T program shall extend until the State agency 
identifies an appropriate and available E&T opening, and the State 
agency informs the SNAP participant. In addition, good cause for 
circumstances where there is not an appropriate and available opening 
within the E&T program shall only apply to the requirement to 
participate in E&T and shall not provide good cause to ABAWDs who fail 
to fulfill the ABAWD work requirement in accordance with Sec.  273.24.
    (5) Verification. To the extent that the information given by the 
household is questionable, as defined in Sec.  273.2(f)(2), State 
agencies must request verification of the household's statements. The 
primary responsibility for providing verification, as provided in Sec.  
273.2(f)(5), rests with the household.
    (n) Workforce partnerships. Workforce partnerships must meet the 
following requirements.
    (1) Workforce partnerships are programs operated by:
    (i) A private employer, an organization representing private 
employers, or a nonprofit organization providing services relating to 
workforce development; or
    (ii) An entity identified as an eligible provider of training 
services under section 122(d) of WIOA (29 U.S.C. 3152(d)).
    (2) Workforce partnerships may include multi-State programs.
    (3) Workforce partnerships must be in compliance with the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq), as applicable.
    (4) Certification of workforce partnerships. All workforce 
partnerships must be certified by the Secretary or by the State agency 
to the Secretary to indicate all of the following. The workforce 
partnership must:
    (i) Assist SNAP households in gaining high-quality, work-relevant 
skills, training, work, or experience that will increase the ability of 
the participants to obtain regular employment;
    (ii) Provide participants with not less than 20 hours per week, 
averaged monthly of training, work, or experience; for the purposes of 
this provision, 20 hours a week averaged monthly means 80 hours a 
month;
    (iii) Not use any funds authorized to be appropriated under the 
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008;
    (iv) Provide sufficient information to the State agency, on 
request, to determine whether members of SNAP households who are 
subject to the work requirement in 7 CFR 273.7(a), the ABAWD work 
requirements in 7 CFR 273.24, or both are fulfilling the work 
requirement through the workforce partnership;
    (v) Be willing to serve as a reference for participants who are 
members of SNAP households for future employment or work-related 
programs.
    (5) In certifying that a workforce partnership meets the criteria 
in paragraphs (n)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section to be certified as a 
workforce partnership, the Secretary or the State agency shall require 
that the program submit to the Secretary or the State agency sufficient 
information that describes both:
    (i) The services and activities of the program that would provide 
participants with not less than 20 hours per week of training, work, or 
experience; and

[[Page 410]]

    (ii) How the workforce partnership would provide services and 
activities described in paragraph (n)(5)(i) of this section that would 
directly enhance the employability or job readiness of the participant.
    (6) Application to employment and training. (i) Workforce 
partnerships may not use any funds authorized to be appropriated by the 
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
    (ii) If a member of a SNAP household is required to participate in 
an employment and training program in accordance with paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) of this section, the State shall consider an individual 
participating in a workforce partnership certified in accordance with 
paragraph (n)(4) of this section to be in compliance with the 
employment and training requirements. The State agency cannot 
disqualify an individual for no longer participating in a workforce 
partnership. When a State agency learns that an individual is no longer 
participating in a workforce partnership, and the individual had been 
subject to mandatory E&T in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 
this section, the State agency must re-screen the individual to 
determine if the individual qualifies for an exemption from the work 
requirements in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, and re-
screen the individual to determine if the individual meets State 
criteria for referral to an E&T program or component in accordance with 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section. After this re-screening, if it is 
appropriate to require the individual to participate in an E&T program, 
the State agency may refer the individual to an E&T program or 
workforce partnership, as applicable.
    (7) Supplement, Not Supplant. A state agency may use a workforce 
partnership to supplement, not to supplant, the employment and training 
program of the State agency.
    (8) Application to work programs. Workforce partnerships certified 
in accordance with paragraph (n)(4) of this section are included in the 
definition of a work program under 7 CFR 273.24(a)(3) for the purposes 
of fulfilling the ABAWD work requirement.
    (9) The State agency shall not require any member of a household 
participating in SNAP to participate in a workforce partnership.
    (10) List of workforce partnerships. A State agency shall maintain 
a list of workforce partnerships certified in accordance with paragraph 
(n)(4) of this section. A State agency must also inform any SNAP 
participant whom the State agency has determined is likely to benefit 
from participation in a workforce partnership of the availability of 
the workforce partnership, and provide the participant with all 
available pertinent information regarding the workforce partnership to 
enable the participant to make an informed choice about participation. 
The information must include, if available: contact information for the 
workforce partnership; the types of activities the participant would be 
engaged in through the workforce partnership, screening criteria used 
by the workforce partnership to select individuals, the location of the 
workforce partnership, the work schedule or schedules, any special 
skills required to participate, and wage and benefit information, if 
applicable.
    (11) Participation in a workforce partnership shall not replace the 
employment or training of an individual not participating in a 
workforce partnership.
    (12) A workforce partnership may select individuals for 
participation in the workforce partnership who may or may not meet the 
criteria for the general work requirement at 7 CFR 273.7(a), including 
participation in E&T, or the ABAWD work requirement at 7 CFR 
273.24(a)(1).
    (13) Reporting. Workforce partnership reporting requirements to the 
State agency are limited to the following:
    (i) On notification that an individual participating in the 
workforce partnership is receiving SNAP benefits, notifying the State 
agency that the individual is participating in a workforce partnership;
    (ii) Identifying participants who have completed or are no longer 
participating in the workforce partnership;
    (iii) Identifying changes to the workforce partnership that result 
in the workforce partnership no longer meeting the certification 
requirements in accordance with paragraph (n)(4) of this section; and
    (iv) Providing sufficient information, on request by the State 
agency, for the State agency to verify that a participant is fulfilling 
the applicable work requirements in paragraph (a) of this section or 7 
CFR 273.24.

0
4. In Sec.  273.14, add paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  273.14  Recertification.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Advise of available employment and training services. (i) At 
the time of recertification, the State agency shall advise household 
members subject to the work requirements of Sec.  273.7(a) who reside 
in households meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this 
section of available employment and training services. This shall 
include, at a minimum, providing a list of available employment and 
training services electronically or in printed form to the household.
    (ii) The State agency requirement in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this 
section only applies to households that meet all of the following 
criteria, as most recently reported by the household:
    (A) Contain a household member subject to the work requirements of 
Sec.  273.7(a);
    (B) Contain at least one adult;
    (C) Contain no elderly or disabled individuals; and
    (D) Have no earned income.
* * * * *

0
5. In section Sec.  273.24:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a)(3);
0
b. Amend paragraph (b)(1)(iii) by removing the word ``or'' at the end 
of the paragraph;
0
c. Revise paragraph (b)(1)(iv);
0
d. Add paragraph (b)(1)(v);
0
e. Revise paragraph (b)(2);
0
f. Add paragraph (b)(8);
0
g. Amend the paragraph (g) subject heading by removing the words ``15 
percent'' and adding in its place the word ``Discretionary'';
0
h. Amend paragraph (g)(1) introductory text by removing the words ``15 
percent exemption'' and adding in their place the words ``discretionary 
exemptions''; and
0
i. Amend paragraph (g)(3) introductory text by removing the number 
``15'' and adding in its place the number ``12''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  273.24  Time limit for able-bodied adults.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) Work Program means:
    (i) A program under title 1 of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L.113-128);
    (ii) A program under section 236 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
U.S.C. 2296);
    (iii) An employment and training program operated or supervised by 
a State or political subdivision of a State agency that meets standards 
approved by the Chief Executive Office, including a SNAP E&T program 
under Sec.  2 73.7(e) excluding any job search, supervised job search, 
or job search training program. However, a program under this clause 
may contain job search, supervised job search, or job search training 
as subsidiary activities as long as such activity is less than half the 
requirement. Participation in job search, supervised job search, or job 
search training as subsidiary activities that

[[Page 411]]

make up less than half the requirement counts for purposes of 
fulfilling the work requirement under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 
section.
    (iv) A program of employment and training for veterans operated by 
the Department of Labor or the Department of Veterans Affairs. For the 
purpose of this paragraph, any employment and training program of the 
Department of Labor or Veterans Affairs that serves veterans shall be 
an approved work program; or
    (v) A workforce partnership under Sec.  273.7(n)
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Receiving benefits that are prorated in accordance with Sec.  
273.10; or
    (v) In the month of notification from the State agency of a 
provider determination in accordance with Sec.  273.7(c)(18)(i).
    (2) Good cause. As determined by the State agency, if an individual 
would have fulfilled the work requirement as defined in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section, but missed some hours for good cause, the 
individual shall be considered to have fulfilled the work requirement 
if the absence from work, the work program, or the workfare program is 
temporary. Good cause shall include circumstances beyond the 
individual's control, such as, but not limited to, illness, illness of 
another household member requiring the presence of the member, a 
household emergency, or the unavailability of transportation. In 
addition, if the State agency grants an individual good cause under 
Sec.  273.7(i) for failure or refusal to meet the mandatory E&T 
requirement, that good cause determination confers good cause under 
this paragraph, except in the case of Sec.  273.7(i)(4), without the 
need for a separate good cause determination under this paragraph. Good 
cause granted under Sec.  273.7(i)(4) only provides good cause to 
ABAWDs for failure or refusal to participate in a mandatory SNAP E&T 
program, and does not confer good cause for failure to fulfill the work 
requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
    (8) The State agency shall inform all ABAWDs of the ABAWD work 
requirement and time limit both in writing and orally in accordance 
with Sec.  273.7(c)(1)(ii) and (iii).
* * * * *

    Dated: December 21, 2020.
Sonny Perdue,
Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture.

Appendix

    Note: This appendix will not be published in the Code of 
Regulations.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    7 CFR part 271 and 273: Employment and Training Opportunities in 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

[FR Doc. 2020-28610 Filed 1-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P