Ask the Scholar

Page 141 of 212
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 141

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"
}