As a rule that requires a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2017, which is no later than the 3rd year after the year in which this rule is being adopted.

The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) received two comments from various organizations relative to the regulatory amendments. These comments have been reviewed and duly considered in this Assessment of Public Comments.

Two comments requested amendment of the regulatory text to require a finding of “willful misconduct” on the part of the program participant before imposing a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and Training (E&T) sanction. OTDA disagrees with these comments, insofar as the SNAP E&T Program is not a pilot program. The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) provides that the “willful misconduct” standard applies only to “Fiscal Year 2015 Pilot Projects to Reduce Dependency and Increase Work Requirements and Work Effort Under the [SNAP]” (USDA FNS Request for Applications CDFA # 10.596 [released Aug. 25, 2014] at p. 19, available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SNAP-ET-Pilot-RFA-pdf) (“[f]or proposed pilot projects that include mandatory subsidized or unsubsidized employment as an E&T activity, applicants must agree to adhere to the standards of willful misconduct for failure to work”).

Two comments requested OTDA to change the SNAP E&T Program from a mandatory SNAP E&T program to a voluntary SNAP E&T program, or, alternatively, for OTDA to adopt a regulation affording social services districts (SSDs) the option to do so. This comment is beyond the scope of this Assessment of Public Comments insofar as it does not specifically pertain to the regulatory amendments. It is not the purpose of the regulatory amendments to reconsider or otherwise amend the provisions surrounding SNAP E&T policy in New York State; rather, their purpose is to update prior policies associated with SNAP E&T sanctions by including the federally-required option for individuals to avoid a SNAP E&T sanction by demonstrating program compliance. Consequently, comments proposing policy changes which fall outside of the scope of the regulatory amendments are not appropriately addressed in this Assessment of Public Comments.

A related comment also purports that the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) is deficient under State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) § 202-a(3)(g) because it does not address “alternative approaches” to the regulatory amendments, including a discussion of such alternatives and the reasons why they were not incorporated into the rule. OTDA disagrees with this comment. As stated in the RIS, the intended purpose of the regulatory amendments is to conform OTDA’s regulations with federal regulations and policies, including, but not limited to, a waiver approved by the USDA’s FNS to modify certain requirements of 7 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 273.7(f)(1)(ii). With these regulatory amendments, OTDA is not considering alternative approaches available to the states. The regulatory amendments focus only upon the requirements set forth in the USDA waiver; consequently, the RIS satisfies the requirements of the SAPA.

One comment requested that the regulatory language be amended to exempt additional groups from mandatory participation in the SNAP E&T Program, including homeless individuals, households with more than three children, women in their third trimesters of pregnancy, part-time employees whose schedules conflict with Program work requirements, migrant workers, individuals who are temporarily laid off but have “connections to the work force,” and, at the discretion of SSDs, SNAP recipients who are required to travel long distances to assigned job sites. This comment is beyond the scope of this Assessment of Public Comments insofar as it does not specifically pertain to the regulatory amendments, and therefore, is not appropriately addressed in this Assessment of Public Comments. OTDA’s regulations continue to require that those who are not capable of work are exempt from work requirements and that instances of noncompliance result in sanctions only if the noncompliance is without good cause.

One comment requested amendment of the regulatory language to include domestic violence as a “specific, explicit” basis for exemption of an individual from the SNAP E&T Program work rules. OTDA asserts that this comment is beyond the scope of this Assessment of Public Comments insofar as it does not specifically pertain to the regulatory amendments, and therefore, is not appropriately addressed in this Assessment of Public Comments. However, even if this comment was properly within the scope of this Assessment of Public Comments, OTDA notes that under existing regulations, such a scenario could constitute good cause for noncompliance with the SNAP E&T work requirements.

One comment requested OTDA to amend the regulatory language to adopt the minimum sanction periods for non-compliance with SNAP E&T work requirements as prescribed under federal SNAP regulations. This comment is beyond the scope of this Assessment of Public Comments. The new language set forth in 18 NYCRR § 385.12(e)(2) is merely a restatement of the existing sanction structure which is currently set forth in 18 NYCRR § 385.12(e)(1), also clarifying that it is applicable only to recipients. As previously stated, the intended purpose of the regulatory amendments is to conform OTDA’s regulations with federal regulations and policies, including, but not limited to, a waiver approved by the USDA’s FNS; insofar as this waiver does not address the duration of sanctions imposed for noncompliance with the SNAP E&T work requirements, nor do the regulatory amendments.