Summary

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection. This information collection is associated with state agencies' notification and data collection activities associated with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program review of major changes in program design at the state level.

Request for Comments

Written comments must be received on or before March 9, 2026.

Comments may be sent to: Sasha Gersten-Paal, Director, Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, 5th Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314. Comments may also be submitted via email to sasha.gersten-paal@usda.gov. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

Abstract

Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) (7 USC 2020), as amended, requires the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to develop standards for identifying major changes in the operations of state agencies that administer SNAP. Regulations at 7 CFR 272.15 require state agencies to notify the FNS when planning to implement a major change in operations and to collect any information required by FNS to identify and correct any adverse effects on program integrity or access. 7 CFR 272.15(a)(2) outlines the categories of major changes to include: the closure of a local office, substantial increased reliance on automated systems, changes in operations that potentially increase difficulty for household reporting, the reduction or change of functions or responsibilities assigned to merit system personnel, a decrease in the number of merit system personnel involved in the SNAP certification process, or other major changes identified by FNS.

FNS is requesting to increase the burden estimates to account for increased reliance on automated systems, such as robotic process automation (RPA) or bots as a result of FNS' Jan. 10, 2024, guidance on the use of advanced automation in SNAP. FNS is also requesting to increase burden estimates to account for state agencies implementing major changes in non-merit personnel, in response to FNS' March 20, 2024, clarification of guidance on the use of non-merit personnel in the administration of SNAP. Compared to prior collections, there is a noticeable rise in reports of major changes involving the use of non-merit personnel and automated systems, such as robotic process automation (RPA) or bots in SNAP administration. Recent patterns show an increase in the number of state agencies implementing major changes and an increase in the frequency of submissions per state agency. The frequency and timing of major changes to program operations remain with individual state agencies. State agencies make such changes in operations based upon a variety of interrelated factors.

Prior to any major change to state operations, regulations at 7 CFR 272.15(a)(3) require state agencies to provide FNS with descriptive information regarding the major change and an analysis of its projected impact on program operations. In an effort to reduce the burden of this collection, FNS provides a template for state agencies to submit notification of major changes in SNAP design electronically through the Waiver Information Management System (WIMS).

FNS reviews state notifications to determine if the described changes in program operations meet the criteria at 272.15(b). Some state notifications do not meet the major change criteria outlined in regulation. However, if FNS determines the notification meets the major change criteria, regulations at 7 CFR 272.15(b)(1)-(6) require state agencies to collect and report monthly state-level data on application processing metrics, listed at 7 CFR 272.15(b)(1)(i)-(xvii). Although the data is generally state level, it may be more targeted. 7 CFR 272.15(b)(4) in part, specifies, “while the data elements outlined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section will generally be required to be reported on a statewide basis and at a sub-state level, major changes that are limited to localized areas, such as a county or project area, may only require reporting”.

State submissions of the reports are required beginning with the quarter prior to pilot/implementation of the major change continuing for one year after full implementation. 7 CFR 272.15(b)(2) in part, necessitates “data must be reported separately for households with elderly and/or disabled members”. All required data reporting related to the implementation of the major change in program design must be disaggregated to show separate results for households that include an elderly and/or disabled member. This separation ensures that FNS can assess the impact of the program change on vulnerable households.

When a state agency implements a major change that allows households to report changes or apply or reapply for SNAP through the use of a call center, 7 CFR 272.15(b)(4)(iv) requires the collection of specific information related to customer service impacts. This information must be submitted to FNS on a quarterly basis. FNS may require pilot data and statewide impact data for one year following full implementation. State agencies meet this requirement by submitting the information electronically via WIMS. In an effort to reduce the reporting burden, FNS provides standardized templates to facilitate the collection and submission of the required information.

Regulations at 272.15(b)(4) give FNS the authority to request additional data beyond the mandatory data reporting elements outlined at 272.15(b)(1)-(3). Depending on the nature of the major change, State agencies may be required to report more specific or timely information concerning impacts on payment accuracy, which may include additional caseload data focused on households with particular characteristics. FNS will collaborate with State agencies to determine what additional information is practicable and will require only the data that is necessary to evaluate the impact of the major change. FNS uses the data reported under these provisions to provide technical assistance, as needed, monitor the impact of State agency changes, and identify compliance or performance issues early.

7 CFR 272.15(a)(3) Initial analysis of major changes: Based upon FNS's experience over the last three years of the 53 state agencies affected by this data collection, an estimated 20 state agencies will notify FNS of two major changes annually and provide analysis of the projected impact. Assuming an average of two major changes per state agency per year, this results in approximately 40 initial annual analysis responses. At an estimated 60 hours per initial response, the total annual burden for this activity is 2,400 burden hours.

7 CFR 272.15(b)(1)-(3) Reports required without additional data collection: If FNS determines the state's notification qualifies as a major change, state agencies must submit quarterly reports to FNS that include the mandatory reporting elements outlined in 7 CFR 272.15(b)(1)-(3) and may be subject to additional requirements depending on the nature of the change. FNS projects that 33 of the 40 major change notifications expected each year would qualify as major changes in program design, thereby triggering mandatory quarterly reporting. All 33 of these major changes will require state agencies to collect and report data to FNS as specified in 7 CFR 272.15(b)(1)-(3). FNS estimates 20 (non-duplicated respondents) state agencies will submit reports for each of the 33 major changes on a quarterly basis, resulting in 132 annual responses. Some reprogramming of the State's SNAP eligibility system is expected to facilitate the production of the quarterly reports. Each report is estimated to require 70 hours of effort. The total annual burden for this activity is 9,240 hours.

7 CFR 272.15(b)(4)(iv) Impact of certain major changes on customer service: States that notify FNS of major changes related to SNAP call center operations must also collect and submit additional customer service-related data. FNS projects that 8 of the 33 major changes would require the state agency to provide customer service-related data. Therefore, FNS estimates 8 state agencies will submit this report quarterly for a total of 4 responses/reports annually, totaling 32 annual responses. At an estimated 50 hours per report, the total annual burden for this activity is 1,600 hours.

7 CFR 272.15(b)(4) Reports required with additional data collection: FNS estimates that one state agency will be required to report additional data on a quarterly basis for a total of 4 annual responses/reports. At an estimated 70 hours per report, the total annual burden for this activity is 280 hours. FNS estimates that 20 state agencies will report a total of 40 major changes. Thirty-three of the 40 will qualify as major changes in SNAP design. Based on the required quarterly reporting, FNS estimates 132 responses for major changes, an additional 32 customer service-related responses for states with call center operations, and 4 responses for states required to submit additional data, state agencies will submit a total of 208 total annual responses. Considering 2,400 hours for states to notify FNS of major changes in SNAP design, the 9,240 hours for reports required without additional data, 1,600 hours for reports that contain call center operations, and 280 hours for reports required with additional data are added, the total for the 20 State agencies is 13,520 total annual burden hours.

Under the leadership of Secretary Brooke Rollins, the U.S. Department of Agricultureʼs (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is committed to strengthening strategies to encourage healthy choices, healthy outcomes, and healthy families, along with clarifying program requirements for our state agency partners. In support of these goals, this memorandum provides guidance to CSFP state agencies, including Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs), on complying with the updated requirements for public posting of CSFP local agency information at 7 CFR 247.5(b)(16).

Each state agency must post a list of all CSFP local agencies on a publicly available webpage. CSFP local agencies are public or private nonprofit agencies, including ITOs, that enter into an agreement with the state agency to administer CSFP at the local level (7 CFR 247.1). This requirement excludes agencies operating under an agreement with a local agency. At a minimum, this list must include the name, address, and telephone number for each local agency. State agencies must update this list annually but are encouraged to update it more frequently, as needed.

State agencies may choose to exceed the above minimum posting requirements to support public awareness. While state agencies are not required to post information about agencies that have agreements with local agencies, states have the option to publish this information online as well. State agencies may also choose to include additional information about local agencies or other agencies on the webpage, such as operating hours, areas served by the local agency, links to local agency websites, and distribution site addresses. In addition, state agencies may develop tools to aid eligible individuals in accessing the program, for example, by establishing a searchable tool to identify aid based on zip code.

State agencies should contact their respective FNS regional office with any questions.

LaTisha Savoy
Acting Associate Administrator
Supplemental Nutrition and Safety Programs

Guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, unless expressly authorized by statute or incorporated into a contract. USDA may not cite, use, or rely on any guidance that is not available through their guidance portal, except to establish historical facts.

This study provides an overview of the risk assessment (RA) tools currently used by the state agencies that administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to categorize those program applications more likely to incur payment errors and allocate resources to improve the accuracy of benefit payments to families participating in SNAP. This study assesses the effectiveness of a subset of those tools and identifies best practices in RA tool development, implementation, and evaluation. Forty-three state agencies and one local agency provided information and data for the study, which provides detailed assessments of six state agency uses of RA tools, their effectiveness, and potential opportunities for improvement.

• Key Findings
• Why
• How

Key Findings

Most state agencies do not use risk assessment tools.

Of the 43 state agencies and one local agency that responded to the study’s online survey from July to November 2024 (Figure 1):

• Fifteen state agencies currently use an RA tool (34%);
• Three state agencies previously used an RA tool but have since discontinued its use (7%)—one found their tool to be ineffective and the other two had recent case management system changes that required a temporary pause;
• One state agency developed but has not yet implemented an RA tool (2%); and
• Twenty-four state agencies and one local agency have neither developed nor implemented an RA tool (57%).
   

 

Most state agencies that use risk assessment tools do so to address payment errors and allocate resources.

• Among the 15 state agencies that use RA tools, most developed the tools to help address high payment error rates (PER) (10 state agencies), which is the average of absolute differences between the dollar amount of SNAP benefits received in error divided by the total accurate benefit amount, and/or to help them concentrate their available resources on suspected cases at higher risk of payment errors (seven state agencies).
• Six state agencies reported that they developed their tools to create a formal process for identifying at-risk cases, and two reported that they developed their tools to address audit findings.
• Four state agencies reported other motivations for their development of RA tools, which can be categorized as (1) being proactive in maintaining accuracy rates, (2) building in quality at the beginning of the process, and (3) helping staff better identify at-risk cases to improve the case review process (Figure 2).

 

The effectiveness of risk analysis tools was mixed for state agencies that provided additional data.

• Three state agencies provided additional data to statistically examine the risk-identification effectiveness of their RA tools: Kansas, Missouri, and Rhode Island. The risk analysis tools used by Kansas and Missouri were not effective at identifying cases with errors but were effective in helping caseworkers avoid re-reviewing cases that were unlikely to have errors. Conversely, Rhode Island’s tool was effective at identifying cases with errors but was also prone to identifying as high-risk cases that had no errors, which can lead to misallocations of labor.
• The study team used a run chart to examine Minnesota’s quarterly payment error data to determine whether there were any identifiable trend breaks after implementation of the RA tool. Based on the assumption that eight quarters of payment error rates below the state’s quarterly median rate indicate evidence of success in the RA tool, Minnesota did not experience a shift in PERs after it implemented its RA tool, since it saw only three consecutive quarters with a payment error rate below the median (Figure 3).
• A difference-in-differences analysis, a statistical method for comparing observed changes in a treatment group over time against that of a control group over the same period, for Minnesota provides some suggestive, statically significant evidence of a modest reduction in Minnesota’s quarterly payment error rate after implementing its RA tool. However, the model may have lacked appropriate statistical power.

Why FNS Did This Study

Risk assessment tools offer human services organizations, such as SNAP state agencies, potential opportunities to efficiently improve payment accuracy. Thus, is it important that we have information on state agencies’ use of RA tools, how the tools were developed, the effectiveness of the tools, and promising practices for FNS and state agencies to consider in the development and use of RA tools.

How FNS Did This Study

This study involved a four-part data collection approach:

• We conducted a literature review to identify and evaluate RA tool use in human services programs by searching academic databases and publicly available online sources to identify relevant peer-reviewed literature, federal and state reports, publications from business and trade organizations, and vendor-produced materials related to RA tools. These searches yielded 107 documents for review. After deduplication and screening each item for relevance to the study, 23 relevant publications were incorporated into the final review.
• We undertook a web-based survey of all SNAP state agencies, of which 43 state and one local agency responded, to capture information on their use of RA tools. We used Qualtrics as the web-based survey software.
• We conducted and transcribed virtual key informant interviews with staff in six state agencies: five state agencies with current RA tools (Connecticut, Kansas, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin) and one state agency that formerly had an RA tool but stopped using it (Utah). The study team considered a variety of factors in selecting state agencies for case studies and collaborated with each state agency to identify the appropriate staff members or contractors to describe tool development and implementation, use, and effectiveness.
• We analyzed SNAP QC data to evaluate RA tool performance and effectiveness using two approaches. The first measure of effectiveness is whether the tools can accurately distinguish between cases with and without payment errors and efficiently select cases for review. The state agencies’ tools were applied to SNAP QC sample data to identify which cases the tool flagged as high risk and compared these flags against which cases had a payment error. The second measure of tool effectiveness is whether the state agencies that implemented the tools saw a subsequent decrease in their quarterly payment error rate.
  
   

Suggested Citation

Thorn, B., Baier, K., Beckerman-Hsu, J., Giesen, L., Calvin, K., McCall, J., Esposito, J., Campbell, N., & Chance, S. (2025). Understanding Risk Assessment in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payment accuracy. Westat Insight. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Summary

Section 3 of the Child Nutrition Act (CNA) (PL 89-642, as amended; 42 USC 1772) authorizes the Special Milk Program (SMP) for Children. It provides for appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary of Agriculture, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary may deem in the public interest, to encourage consumption of fluid milk by children in the United States in (1) nonprofit schools of high school grade and under, and (2) nonprofit nursery schools, child care centers, settlement houses, summer camps, and similar nonprofit institutions devoted to the care and training of children, which do not participate in a food service program authorized under the CAN. Section 10 of the CNA (42 USC 1779) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to “prescribe such regulations as the Secretary may deem necessary to carry out this Act” and pursuant to that provision, the Secretary has issued 7 CFR part 215 which contains the policies and procedures for the administration and operation of the SMP. For this revision, FNS estimates that the burden for the collection will decrease due to fewer state agencies, such as School Food Authorities (SFA), and Non-Profit Child Care Institutions (CCI) participating in the program.

Need and Use of the Information

This is a revision of the currently approved information collection. This is an ongoing collection that contains both mandatory and required to obtain or retain benefit requirements. The SMP is administered at the state, SFA, and CCI levels. In accordance with the regulations, state and local operators are required to collect information concerning the operation of the program including the submission of applications and agreements, submission and payment of claims, and the maintenance of records. Without this information FNS would not be able to reimburse schools and institutions in a timely manner to allow them to properly administer the program. In addition, data reporting would be delayed, and the timely monitoring of program funding and program trends would be affected. If the recordkeeping activities were not conducted, FNS would be unable to provide adequate oversight of the SMP operators and State agencies. State and local operators are required to meet federal reporting and accountability requirements.

Request for Comments

Comments regarding this information collection received by Jan. 29, 2026 will be considered.

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on Reginfo.gov. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Summary

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has a number of non-entitlement discretionary grant programs to collect the information from grant applicants needed to evaluate and rank applicants and protect the integrity of the grantee selection process. All FNS discretionary grant programs will be eligible but not required to use the uniform grant application package. The authorities for these grants vary. The term “grant” in this submission refers only to non-entitlement discretionary competitive and non-competitive grants or cooperative agreements. The uniform grant application package will include general information and instructions; requirements for the program narrative statement describing how the grant goals, objectives, and outcomes will be reached, as well as a description of the budget; the Standard Forms SF-424 series, and SF-LLL, which request basic information, budget information, and disclosure of lobbying activities certification, respectively. In addition, grantees must submit SF-906, Grant Program Accounting System and Financial Capability Questionnaire. Grantees will also be required to submit Standard Form SF-425, Federal Financial Report form, and the FNS908, Performance Progress Report form.

If FNS decides to use the uniform grant application package, FNS will note in the grant solicitation that applicants must use the uniform grant application package and that the information collection has already been approved by OMB. If FNS chooses not to use the uniform grant application package or finds it necessary for grant applicants to submit extra information not included in the uniform package, FNS will issue a notice of at least 30 days inviting public comments on its plan to gather different or additional information be making a grant solicitation, unless this has already been addressed in earlier published notices.

Need and Use of the Information

The primary users of the information collected from the applicant are FNS and other federal staff who will serve on a panel to systematically review, evaluate, and approve the competitive and non-competitive grant/cooperative agreement applications and recommend the applicants most likely to meet program objectives and most responsive to the solicitation. The selection criteria will be contained in the Request for Application package. Without this information, FNS will not have adequate data to select appropriate grantees or evaluate which grants should be continued or monitor financial reporting requirements.

Request for Comments

Comments regarding this information collection received by Jan. 29, 2026 will be considered. 

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on RegInfo.gov. Find this particular information collection by selecting "Currently under 30-day Review - Open for Public Comments" or by using the search function. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The primary purpose of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is “to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households” [7 USC § 2011]. SNAP Food Restriction Waivers further that purpose, as part of broader state and federal government efforts to fight the obesity epidemic and Make America Healthy Again. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has approved waivers for an initial two-year period under the authority of Section 17(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which allows SNAP state agencies to test changes designed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the program.

As of Dec. 30, 2025, FNS has approved 18 state agency requests to implement a SNAP Food Restriction Waiver and is poised to approve more in the future. These state agencies will prohibit purchasing foods such as candy and sugar-sweetened beverages with SNAP benefits. Several state agencies will implement waivers beginning Jan. 1, 2026, with others following in spring and summer 2026. FNS posts each waiver approval on its public website. State agency definitions of restricted items and implementation dates vary, requiring close coordination between state agencies and affected retailers. Implementing state agencies have been engaging directly with retailers to prepare them to comply with their SNAP Food Restriction Waivers, as required by FNS. To implement waivers successfully, SNAP retailers must update Point of Sale (POS) equipment, train employees, and make other preparations.

This memorandum clarifies FNS policies and plans for SNAP-retailer compliance with these SNAP waivers, including guidance on which SNAP retailers must comply, online orders and deliveries, and the consequences for non-compliance.

The success of these projects will hinge on the collaborative efforts of SNAP state agencies, retailers, and FNS. FNS applauds the many state agencies and thousands of retailers that have been engaged in preparing for these bold projects thus far, and we are excited to continue this important work.

Sincerely,

Patrick A. Penn
Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service
Deputy Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Enclosure

Clarifications on SNAP Food Restriction Waivers and Retailer Compliance  

SNAP Retailers Required to Comply

All walk-in SNAP retailer stores physically located within a state implementing a SNAP Food Restriction Waiver must comply with the state’s waiver for all SNAP transactions, consistent with 7 CFR 278.2. This refers to all SNAP retailers with a physical store location for in-person shopping in a waiver implementing state. These stores may also offer online ordering for pick-up or delivery, potentially through a third party.

• Example:
  • Iowa has an approved SNAP Food Restriction Waiver.
  • All walk-in SNAP-authorized retailers located in Iowa must comply with Iowa’s SNAP Food Restriction Waiver.

Certain other retailers are also required to comply when fulfilling online orders from a warehouse (fulfillment center), regardless of their location. When a SNAP participant from an implementing state places an online order using SNAP benefits and the retailer fulfills any part of the order from a warehouse, the retailer must comply with the restrictions of that participant’s state, consistent with 7 CFR 278.2. This applies to all transactions in which the order is fulfilled from a warehouse not open to customers, whether shipped directly to the customer’s address or to a designated pick-up location. Some retailers will therefore be required to comply with multiple states’ waivers. Retailers fulfilling orders from warehouses can use the state-issued SNAP EBT card’s Bank Identification Number (BIN) to determine SNAP participants’ states.

• Example:
  • Iowa, Nebraska, and Colorado each have an approved SNAP Food Restriction Waiver.
  • When fulfilling an online order from a warehouse, a SNAP retailer must comply with:
    • Iowa’s waiver for purchases made with an Iowa EBT card;
    • Nebraska’s waiver for purchases made with a Nebraska EBT card; and
    • Colorado’s waiver for purchases made with a Colorado EBT card.

*Includes online orders that are purchased online and delivered through the store’s own staff or via a third-party.

FNS will continuously review this policy to make certain it adheres to states’ goals of restricting certain items from purchase with SNAP benefits. 
 

FNS Retailer Monitoring and Compliance Policy

The FNS Office of Retailer Operations and Compliance (ROC) is responsible for administering oversight of retailer participation in SNAP. This includes the authorization of stores to accept SNAP benefits, the monitoring of SNAP retailers for compliance, and the sanctioning of stores that violate program laws and regulations.

Federal law explains that the primary purpose of SNAP is “to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households” [7 USC § 2011] and specifically requires that FNS only authorize those retailers that “will effectuate the purposes” of SNAP [7 USC § 2018]. Considering these laws, FNS has determined that SNAP-authorized retailers must comply with SNAP Food Restriction Waivers.

FNS has developed plans for monitoring SNAP retailers’ compliance with these waivers and the consequences for non-compliance. FNS seeks to fulfill its statutory responsibility to ensure that retailers’ participation is consistent with applicable laws while also taking into consideration the significant technical challenges associated with these bold, innovative waivers.
 

FNS Notifications to SNAP Retailers Required to Comply

In advance of each state agency’s Food Restriction Waiver implementation date, FNS will issue electronic notifications to SNAP authorized retailers required to comply with the waiver. The notifications will explain that compliance with these waiver restrictions is required to effectuate the purpose of SNAP and maintain authorization as a SNAP retailer. The notifications will also explain that retailers found to be non-compliant will be subject to Involuntary Withdrawal for failure to effectuate the purpose of SNAP.

FNS will also add a hard copy letter to its retailer training and informational materials and make them publicly available on its retailer training page. In addition, FNS plans to update the retailer application to make clear that compliance with these waivers is a mandatory condition of SNAP authorization.

These activities will supplement the ongoing project implementation collaboration and planning between implementing state agencies and retailers.
 

FNS Monitoring of SNAP Retailers Required to Comply

ROC authorizes and administers federal oversight of SNAP retailers. Through existing fraud detection practices, ROC initiates and conducts undercover investigations to determine if a retailer is complying with program requirements. Following the implementation of a SNAP Food Restriction Waiver, ROC investigators will incorporate attempts to purchase restricted items according to the state’s SNAP Food Restriction policy, beginning 90 days after the implementation date. In the event ROC obtains evidence of non-compliance with applicable, waiver-based food restrictions, findings will be addressed through administrative actions.

Though not required by FNS, state agencies may also employ resources to monitor SNAP retailer compliance after implementation in close coordination with FNS. State EBT coordinators may provide designated state personnel with SNAP EBT cards for the purpose of performing transactions to determine retailer compliance with its SNAP Food Restriction Waiver. State agencies will be required to send results of compliance monitoring to FNS. In the event evidence of non-compliance with applicable, waiver-based food restrictions is found, FNS will take administrative action.

FNS has sole authority for administrative actions against retailers that commit SNAP violations. State agencies are not permitted to administer penalties to retailers that would adversely impact their ability to participate in SNAP for failing to comply. States agencies interested in pursuing criminal investigations associated with SNAP EBT violations must have a signed State Law Enforcement Bureau (SLEB) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with FNS. Per the SLEB standard operating procedures, each individual investigation requires clearance from FNS ROC prior to commencement. If interested, contact SM.FNS.ROC.SLEB.correspondence@usda.gov.
 

Consequences for Retailers that Fail to Comply

SNAP retailers found to be non-compliant with a SNAP Food Restriction Waiver are subject to the following framework of administrative actions and consequences:

90-Day Grace Period

Following implementation of each state agency’s SNAP Food Restriction Waiver, existing SNAP authorized retailers that are required to comply with that state’s waiver will have a 90-day grace period. Each waiver will have its own 90-day grace period tied to the implementation date. This grace period recognizes the significant challenges associated with implementation of these projects and allows a reasonable period in which retailers can identify and address issues that may arise, prior to being subject to investigation. The grace period will only be in effect for 90 days following implementation and will not be applied to new stores authorized to accept SNAP after that time-period. For example, if a state agency’s implementation of a SNAP Food Restriction Waiver begins on Jan. 1, 2026, the one-time grace period begins on this date and ends April 1, 2026.

First-Offense - Warning Letter

After the 90-day grace period, SNAP authorized retailers will be subject to investigation to determine compliance with the applicable SNAP Food Restriction Waiver(s). If evidence of non-compliance is found, following the first offense, ROC will issue the retailer a Warning Letter, consistent with 7 CFR 278.6(e). This letter will serve as an official warning for the infraction and will advise the retailer to take corrective action to avoid possible future consequences.

Second Offense – Involuntary Withdrawal

Following the issuance of the Warning Letter, after a period of 30 days, the retailer will be subject to future investigations to determine compliance with applicable SNAP Food Restriction Waiver(s). If evidence of non-compliance is found a second time, the retailer will be subject to an Involuntary Withdrawal for failure to effectuate the purpose of SNAP, consistent with 7 CFR 278.1(l)(1)(i).

Following an Involuntary Withdrawal, the retailer may reapply to become authorized to accept SNAP. As a prerequisite to their reinstatement, the owner(s) will be required to sign an attestation acknowledging the expectation of adherence to applicable SNAP Food Restriction Waiver(s).

Administrative Review

Following the notification of an Involuntary Withdrawal action, the retailer may request Administrative Review, consistent with 7 CFR 279.1. FNS has existing procedures in place for Administrative Review processes. An Involuntary Withdrawal action will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of Administrative Review.
 

Guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, unless expressly authorized by statute or incorporated into a contract. USDA may not cite, use, or rely on any guidance that is not available through their guidance portal, except to establish historical facts.