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

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, ETORule@

USDA.gov. 

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 ablebodied 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 evidencebased 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 


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


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

1Conf. Rept. 115–1072, p. 617, https://

www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt1072/CRPT115hrpt1072.pdf. 

requirements necessary to fulfill the 

ABAWD work requirement under 

§ 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. 

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 nongovernmental 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 notfor-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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 361 

2Conf. Rept. 115–1072, p. 617, https://

www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt1072/CRPT115hrpt1072.pdf. 

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 inperson, phone, web-based and textbased 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 selfsufficient. 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 checkins to review progress, was an effective 

model of supervised job search. A notfor-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. 

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, signin 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 


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

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 noncompliance, 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 


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


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

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 § 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 § 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 


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


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

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 workbased 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 


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


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

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 


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


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

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 notfor-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 highquality 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 illsuited 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 illsuited 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 illsuited determination receive a Notice of 

E&T Participation Change (NETPC) from 

the State agency soon after their illsuited 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 ‘‘illsuited,’’ 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 


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

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 nondiscrimination 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 upfront 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 reassignment 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 notfor-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 


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


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

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 Stateapproved 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 selfreferrals 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 


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

should be left to the discretion of State 

agencies. The commenter explained 

that, in their State, all E&T participants 

have an Employment and Career 

Development plan, which is updated by 

the participant and their case worker 

when circumstances change. The State 

agency believed this form would 

provide sufficient notification of the 

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 notfor-profit agency recommended: 

Requiring State agencies to not only 

mail the NETPC, but also to send it via 

other channels like email; requiring the 

State agency to mail the notice to the 

individual subject to the work rules to 

ensure the message is targeted to the 

individual of interest; including 

language about exemptions and good 

cause in the notice; informing the E&T 

participant about next steps and 

explaining that the E&T participant is 

not at risk of sanction for failure to 

comply with E&T during that time; 

explaining the State agency will followup (by taking one of the four steps); and 

informing participants they will get a 

follow-up notice if a negative action is 

being taken on their SNAP case. A 

different not-for-profit agency explained 

the NETPC should clearly articulate the 

reason for the ‘‘ill-suited’’ 

determination, the next steps that the 

State agency will take to match the 

jobseeker to another opportunity, the 

time frame in which those next steps 

will occur, and how the jobseeker can 

appeal the decision. Another not-forprofit agency recommended that the 

Department work with State agencies to 

establish automatic notification 

procedures to ensure that E&T providers 

alert State agencies of a provider 

determination as soon as it is made. 

This commenter also explained State 

agencies should be directed to establish 

procedures that then communicate this 

notification in multiple formats (such as 

mail, email, and text or phone) to 

participants immediately upon its 

receipt from the provider. In addition, 

another not-for-profit agency urged the 

Department to amend 7 CFR 

273.7(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 


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

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 


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

determination for an exemption from 

the general work requirement before 

taking one of the other three actions; 

however, the Department concluded 

that this requirement would be 

administratively burdensome for the 

State agency because not all individuals 

with a provider determination will need 

a re-assessment for an exemption. The 

Department decided that providing reassessment as one of the four options 

would allow State agencies to perform 

the re-assessment if they had reason to 

believe a re-assessment was necessary 

(i.e., received information from the 

provider, a case manager, or a 

participant suggesting an individual 

may be exempt). The Department would 

strongly encourage the State agency to 

re-asses the individual for an exemption 

if the E&T provider suggested the reason 

for the provider determination was 

related to an exemption. In addition, the 

Department does not believe it is 

necessary to require State agencies to 

always re-assess an ABAWD with a 

provider determination for exemptions 

from the ABAWD work requirement; 

however, the State agency may do so at 

any time. 

The Department would also like to 

clarify a misunderstanding of the 

proposed regulatory text at 7 CFR 

273.7(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 rereferred to an E&T component might not 

actually be placed into the component 

due to a lack of provider slots, the 

participant not meeting eligibility 

criteria, or the participant or provider 

not following through with the referral. 

The commenter further explained that 

many SNAP agencies are not configured 

to provide case management outside of 

their E&T providers, and many E&T 

providers would not be willing to 

provide case management if they did 

not have available component slots or 

the participant did not meet eligibility 

criteria. The commenter concluded that 

case management should only be 

required if the SNAP participant is 

successfully placed in a component. 

The Department identifies several 

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 


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

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 Stateconfirmed 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-forprofit 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 


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

§ 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 


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

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 381 

3https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/ 

files/resource-files/ABAWD-Time-Limit-Policy-andProgram-Access-Memo-Nov2015.pdf. 

4https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/ 

files/resource-files/Policy%

20Clarifications%20for%20Mandatory%20E%26T508.pdf. 

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 longstanding 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 Stateassigned workfare to meet their ABAWD 

work requirement, it did not provide 

good cause for ABAWDs participating in 

other work programs or other types of 

workfare programs. So, the Department 

proposed a second change that, if an 

ABAWD is participating in work, a work 

program, or workfare, and would have 

fulfilled the ABAWD work requirement 

in 7 CFR 273.24, but missed some hours 

for good cause, the individual would be 

considered to have fulfilled the ABAWD 

work requirement if the absence from 

work, the work program, or workfare is 

temporary and the individual retains his 

or her job, training or workfare slot. The 

Department proposed this change so 

that State agencies can apply fair and 

consistent treatment to ABAWDs who 

have good cause, regardless of how the 

ABAWD chooses to meet the ABAWD 

work requirement. 

The Department received 18 

comments on this provision, all of 

which were supportive. Two 

commenters did recommend the 

Department make an additional change 

to the regulatory text at 7 CFR 

273.24(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 noncompliance with SNAP work 

requirements, the State agency must 

determine that the non-compliance was 

without good cause. The Department 

received three comments on this 

provision, all of which were supportive. 

Several commenters recommended that 

the Department also make a change to 

7 CFR 273.24(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 redesignated, that the E&T case manager 


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

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 nonABAWDs 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-forprofit 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 


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


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

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 highquality, 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 


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


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

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 


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


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

5https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/ 

files/snap/Memo-Electronic-Notice-and-OtherOptions-11317.pdf. 

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 widelyaccessible 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. 

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. 


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


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

6Based 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. 

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 required ABAWD notice 

and notifying participants of Provider 

Determinations ∂# ................................. 0 (*) 6.8 6.8 6.8 20.4 

Administrative costs/burden—reporting of 

additional measures ∂# ........................ 0 0 (*) (*) (*) (*) 

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. 

The case management requirement 

will also increase burden on individual 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 391 

7For more information on the derivation of these 

estimates, please see the Paperwork Reduction Act 

section of this proposed rule. 

8Typically 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). 

9A 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. 

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. 

TABLE 2—ANNUAL COST OF BURDEN ASSOCIATED WITH CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

State agency 

burden 

Household 

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 shares millions) ................................................................................... $39.8 $4.6 

* 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

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 


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

10Estimates 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. 

11Based 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. 

12Estimates of occurrences of notifying 

individuals of a provider determination assume 10 

percent of E&T participants are found to be illsuited for their assigned activity. For more 

information on these estimates, please see the 

Paperwork Reduction Act section of this rule. 

13Based 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. 

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, millions) .............................................................................................................. $6.7 

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. 

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, millions) .............................................................................................................. $0.11 

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). 

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

ABAWD 

written 

notice 

List of 

employment 

and training 

services 

Occurrences per year 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 2,700,000 5,496,000 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 393 

14Estimates 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. 

15Based 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. 

16Based 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. 

TABLE 5—HOUSEHOLD COST OF BURDEN RELATED TO NEW INFORMATIONAL ACTIVITIES—Continued 

ABAWD 

written 

notice 

List of 

employment 

and training 

services 

Burden hours per occurrence 14 .............................................................................................................................. .08 0.2 

Hourly wage rate 15 .................................................................................................................................................. $7.25 $7.25 

Total Annual Cost (Federal and State shares, millions) .................................................................................. $1.6 $0.8 

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. 

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 

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 selfsufficiency. 

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 


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

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 


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

that individuals participating in an E&T 

component who receive a provider 

determination (i.e., are determined illsuited) 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 


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

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 397 

Reg. section Affected public Respondent type Description of activity Estimated number of respondents Estimated frequency of response Total annual responses Number of burden hours per response Estimated total burden hours Previous burden hours used Differences due to program changes Difference due to adjustment Hourly wage rate * Fully loaded hourly wage rate (x.33) Estimated cost to respondents 

7 CFR 273.7(c)(1) .................... State Agencies State Agency 

E&T Case Manager *.

Provide Case 

Management Services.

53 28,381 1,504,193 0.493 741,567.15 0 0 0 $29.69 $39.4877 $29,282,781 

7 CFR 273.7(c)(1) .................... ......................... State Agency 

E&T Case Manager *.

Document 

Case Management Services.

53 28,381 1,504,193 0.08 120,335.44 0 0 0 29.69 39.4877 4,751,770 

7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i) ............... ......................... State Eligibility 

worker *.

Notify E&T Participants of 

Provider Determination.

53 868 46,000 0.083 3,818.00 0 0 0 22.65 30.1245 115,015 

7 CFR 273.7(c)(11) .................. ......................... State Agency 

Administrative Staff *.

Reporting FNS 

583 data lements ** (OMB Control Number 0584–0594).

53 4 212 98 20,776.00 21,889 0 1,113 18.41 24.4853 508,707 

7 CFR 273.7(c)(11) .................. ......................... State Agency 

Administrative Staff *.

Reporting additional FNS 

583 data elements.

17 1 17 4 68.00 0 51 0 18.41 24.4853 1,665 

7 CFR 273.7(a)(5) .................... ......................... State Agency 

Administrative Staff *.

Develop 

ABAWD written statement of work requirements.

53 1 53 40 2,120.00 0 0 0 18.41 24.4853 51,909 

7 CFR 273.7(a)(5) .................... ......................... State Eligibility 

worker *.

Inform 

ABAWDs of the ABAWD work requirement.

53 50,943 2,700,000 0.083 224,100.00 0 0 0 22.65 30.1245 6,750,900 

7 CFR 273.14(b)(5) .................. ......................... State Agency 

Administrative Staff *.

Develop list of 

Employment and Training Services.

53 1 53 24 1,272.00 0 0 0 18.41 24.4853 31,145 

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 & 

Household.

E&T Participants. Participate in Case Management. 460,000 3.27 1,504,200 0.426 640,789.00 0 0 0 7.25 n/a 4,645,720 

7 CFR 273.7(c)(18)(i) ............... ......................... E&T Participants. Review Infor- mation on 

Provider Determination.

46,000 1 46,000 0.083 3,818.00 0 0 0 7.25 n/a 27,681 

7 CFR 273.7(a)(5) .................... ......................... E&T Participants. Read ABAWD written statement of work 

requirements.

2,700,000 1 2,700,000 0.083 224,100.00 0 0 0 7.25 n/a 1,624,725 

7 CFR 273.14(b)(5) .................. ......................... E&T Participants. Read list of Employment 

and Training Services.

5,496,000 1 5,496,000 0.02 109,920.00 0 0 0 7.25 n/a 796,920 

Sub-Total Individual/ 

Households.

......................... ......................... ......................... 8,702,000 1.119995403 9,746,200 0.1004111 978,627 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 7,095,046 

Grand Total Reporting Burden with both affected 

public and States.

......................... ......................... ......................... 8,702,053 108,576.76 15,500,709 0.1336653 2,071,908 21,889 8,788 1,113 .................... .................... 48,080,231 

* 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. 


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

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: 

■ 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 

■ 2. In § 271.2: 

■ a. Revise the definitions of 

‘‘Employment and training (E&T) 

component’’ and ‘‘Employment and 

training (E&T) mandatory participant’’; 

■ b. Add in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘Employment and 

Training (E&T) participant’’; 

■ c. Revise the definition of 

‘‘Employment and training (E&T) 

program’’; 

■ d. Add in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘Employment and 

Training (E&T) voluntary participant’’; 

and 

■ e. Remove the definition of ‘‘Placed in 

an employment and training (E&T) 

program’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

■ 3. In § 273.7, revise paragraphs (c) 

through (f) and (i) and add paragraph (n) 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


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


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

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 

§ 273.24(b) who are exempt under the 

State agency’s discretionary exemptions 

under § 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 nonABAWDs 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 


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

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 


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

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 § 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. Nonreceipt 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 multigenerational 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 § 273.24(a), to each applicant and 

recipient who is: 

(A) In the last month of the 3-month 

time limit described in § 273.24(b); 

(B) Not eligible for an exception to the 

3-month time limit under § 273.24(c); 

(C) Not a resident of an area of the 

State granted a waiver of the 3-month 

time limit under § 273.24(f); and 

(D) Not included in each State 

agency’s 15 percent ABAWD exemption 

allotment under § 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 


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

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 § 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 


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

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


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

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 § 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 

§ 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 inperson, 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 § 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 § 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 indepth, 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. Workbased learning can include internships, 

pre-apprenticeships, apprenticeships, 

customized training, transitional jobs, 

incumbent worker training, and on-thejob 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 jobreadiness 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 selfemployment 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 § 273.7(f) or 

§ 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 § 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 § 273.13. If the 


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

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


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

§ 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 § 273.24. 

(5) Verification. To the extent that the 

information given by the household is 

questionable, as defined in § 273.2(f)(2), 

State agencies must request verification 

of the household’s statements. The 

primary responsibility for providing 

verification, as provided in § 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 


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

(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. 

■ 4. In § 273.14, add paragraph (b)(5) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 273.7(a); 

(B) Contain at least one adult; 

(C) Contain no elderly or disabled 

individuals; and 

(D) Have no earned income. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In section § 273.24: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(3); 

■ b. Amend paragraph (b)(1)(iii) by 

removing the word ‘‘or’’ at the end of 

the paragraph; 

■ c. Revise paragraph (b)(1)(iv); 

■ d. Add paragraph (b)(1)(v); 

■ e. Revise paragraph (b)(2); 

■ f. Add paragraph (b)(8); 

■ g. Amend the paragraph (g) subject 

heading by removing the words ‘‘15 

percent’’ and adding in its place the 

word ‘‘Discretionary’’; 

■ h. Amend paragraph (g)(1) 

introductory text by removing the words 

‘‘15 percent exemption’’ and adding in 

their place the words ‘‘discretionary 

exemptions’’; and 

■ 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: 

§ 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 § 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 


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

§ 273.7(n) 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Receiving benefits that are 

prorated in accordance with § 273.10; or 

(v) In the month of notification from 

the State agency of a provider 

determination in accordance with 

§ 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 § 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 § 273.7(i)(4), without the 

need for a separate good cause 

determination under this paragraph. 

Good cause granted under § 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 

§ 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2