Ask the Scholar
Page 141 of 212
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
reschedule a missed interview. However, we are adding a requirement to 7 CFR
273.2(e)(3) that the State agency must send a notice to indicating that it missed the
scheduled interview and informing the household that it may-is responsible for
rescheduling a missed interview. We are also adding a statement to the same section
that reminds the State agency that it may not deny a household's application prior to the
30th day after application if the household fails to appear for the initial interview.
We proposed at 7 CFR 273.2(e)(1) that interviews may be conducted at the
food stamp office or another mutually convenient location of the State agency's
choosing, including a household's residence. One commenter suggested we reword
the statement to provide that the location be "mutually acceptable" as opposed to a
"mutually convenient location of the State agency's choosing." The commenter
argued that a mutually acceptable location is by definition acceptable to the food
stamp office. In addition, this commenter stated that the regulations as writeen
could be read that applicants must be interviewed in their homes. Since home
interviews can be viewed as invasive and demeaning, the household should be
allowed to suggested another location. If the alternative is inconvenient to the food
stamp office, it can always decline. We agree with the commenter that the State
agency and the household should agree on a location. Therefore, we are modifying
the proposed language and finalizing it to provide that interviews may be conducted
at the food stamp office or another mutually acceptable location, including a
household's residence. However, we are also reminding State agencies that if the
Page data
- Page
- 141
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 0e1db6e19790cf8a
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 565365149
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "565365149",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565365149",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "FSP: Non-Citizen Eligibility and Certification Provisions of Public Law 104-193 Binder II [1]",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565365149",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Margy Waller's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 212,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "565365149",
"label": "FSP: Non-Citizen Eligibility and Certification Provisions of Public Law 104-193 Binder II [1]",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565365149"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "565365149",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565365149",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "FSP: Non-Citizen Eligibility and Certification Provisions of Public Law 104-193 Binder II [1]",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565365149",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Margy Waller's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 212,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565365149",
"naId": 565365149,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"otherTitles": [
"7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025"
],
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 141,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025/7367483-20200317S-011-005-2025-141.jpg",
"mediaId": "0e1db6e19790cf8a",
"ocrText": "reschedule a missed interview. However, we are adding a requirement to 7 CFR\n273.2(e)(3) that the State agency must send a notice to indicating that it missed the\nscheduled interview and informing the household that it may-is responsible for\nrescheduling a missed interview. We are also adding a statement to the same section\nthat reminds the State agency that it may not deny a household's application prior to the\n30th day after application if the household fails to appear for the initial interview.\nWe proposed at 7 CFR 273.2(e)(1) that interviews may be conducted at the\nfood stamp office or another mutually convenient location of the State agency's\nchoosing, including a household's residence. One commenter suggested we reword\nthe statement to provide that the location be \"mutually acceptable\" as opposed to a\n\"mutually convenient location of the State agency's choosing.\" The commenter\nargued that a mutually acceptable location is by definition acceptable to the food\nstamp office. In addition, this commenter stated that the regulations as writeen\ncould be read that applicants must be interviewed in their homes. Since home\ninterviews can be viewed as invasive and demeaning, the household should be\nallowed to suggested another location. If the alternative is inconvenient to the food\nstamp office, it can always decline. We agree with the commenter that the State\nagency and the household should agree on a location. Therefore, we are modifying\nthe proposed language and finalizing it to provide that interviews may be conducted\nat the food stamp office or another mutually acceptable location, including a\nhousehold's residence. However, we are also reminding State agencies that if the"
}