Ask the Scholar
Page 49 of 212
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Most commenters were supportive of our proposals to revise the face-to-face
interview requirements, which were felt to be burdensome on both participants and State
agencies. Because of that support and because the changes stem from amendments to the
Act made by PRWORA, we are adopting the proposals as final in this rule.
In addition to the above noted changes, we also proposed in the NPRM to further
revise 7 CFR 273.2(e) to simplify current provisions and provide more State agency
flexibility in the area of scheduling interviews. However, we received mixed remarks on
these proposed changes from commenters. Several commenters, while supporting the
added flexibility provided to State agencies, thought we did not go far enough in
simplifying current rules. For example, several commenters requested that we remove
the current requirement that the State agency hold applications pending until the 30th day
from the date of application when an applicant misses the scheduled interview or fails to
provide requested information or verification within 10 days of the request. This would
allow States to take immediate action to deny an application after a missed interview or
the expiration of the 10-day period for return of requested information.
Other commenters felt that the proposed regulations did not provide enough
safeguards for food stamp applicants and recipients. These commenters thought that the
rules should more closely reflect the priority the Administration has given to preserving
access to food stamps for low-income families in need, and should be amended to include
additional requirements, such as the following: (1) the food stamp office should routinely
Page data
- Page
- 49
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- ba9e579dc4119284
- 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": 49,
"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-011-005-2025-049.jpg",
"mediaId": "ba9e579dc4119284",
"ocrText": "Most commenters were supportive of our proposals to revise the face-to-face\ninterview requirements, which were felt to be burdensome on both participants and State\nagencies. Because of that support and because the changes stem from amendments to the\nAct made by PRWORA, we are adopting the proposals as final in this rule.\nIn addition to the above noted changes, we also proposed in the NPRM to further\nrevise 7 CFR 273.2(e) to simplify current provisions and provide more State agency\nflexibility in the area of scheduling interviews. However, we received mixed remarks on\nthese proposed changes from commenters. Several commenters, while supporting the\nadded flexibility provided to State agencies, thought we did not go far enough in\nsimplifying current rules. For example, several commenters requested that we remove\nthe current requirement that the State agency hold applications pending until the 30th day\nfrom the date of application when an applicant misses the scheduled interview or fails to\nprovide requested information or verification within 10 days of the request. This would\nallow States to take immediate action to deny an application after a missed interview or\nthe expiration of the 10-day period for return of requested information.\nOther commenters felt that the proposed regulations did not provide enough\nsafeguards for food stamp applicants and recipients. These commenters thought that the\nrules should more closely reflect the priority the Administration has given to preserving\naccess to food stamps for low-income families in need, and should be amended to include\nadditional requirements, such as the following: (1) the food stamp office should routinely"
}