Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Reforming Categorical Eligibility

Issuing agencies

Abstract

Under section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, households in which each member receives benefits under a State program funded by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) are categorically eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Current SNAP regulations consider TANF benefits to include both cash assistance and non-cash or in-kind benefits or services from TANF-funded programs. This proposal would limit categorical eligibility to only households that receive TANF assistance, as defined at 45 CFR 260.31. These revisions would ensure that SNAP benefits are targeted to needy households that have qualified for TANF assistance while still aligning categorical eligibility's statutory purpose of simplifying program administration. A 100-word summary of this rule has been posted to www.regulations.gov and can be found here.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 216 (Tuesday, November 10, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 10, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72454-72465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-22936]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Administration

7 CFR Part 273

[FNA-2026-0661]
RIN 0584-AF10


Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Reforming Categorical 
Eligibility

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Administration (FNA), USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 
households in which each member receives benefits under a State program 
funded by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) are 
categorically eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP). Current SNAP regulations consider TANF benefits to 
include both cash assistance and non-cash or in-kind benefits or 
services from TANF-funded programs. This proposal would limit 
categorical eligibility to only households that receive TANF 
assistance, as defined at 45 CFR 260.31. These revisions would ensure 
that SNAP benefits are targeted to needy households that have qualified 
for TANF assistance while still aligning categorical eligibility's 
statutory purpose of simplifying program administration.
    A 100-word summary of this rule has been posted to 
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> and can be found here.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 10, 2026 
to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition Administration, USDA, invites 
interested persons to submit written comments on this proposed rule. 
Comments may be submitted in writing by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Send comments to SNAP Program Development Division, 
Food and Nutrition Administration, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD 
20705.
    <bullet> Website: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Email: Send comments to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7506185b131b5b061b1405051117070019100635000611145b121a03"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c7f61226a62227f626d7c7c686e7e7960697f4c797f686d226b637a">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. 
Include Docket ID Number [FNA-2026-0661], ``Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program: Reforming Categorical Eligibility'' in the subject 
line of the message.

[[Page 72455]]

    <bullet> All written comments submitted in response to this 
proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available 
to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and 
the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments 
will be subject to public disclosure. FNA will make the written 
comments publicly available on the internet via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. The Department believes that this proposal to 
limit categorical eligibility to only households that receive TANF 
assistance, as defined at 45 CFR 260.31, aligns with SNAP's statutory 
eligibility requirements. However, the Department invites comments on 
whether there are alternative approaches to limit categorical 
eligibility with TANF that achieve the same policy goals.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SNAP Program Development Division, 
Food and Nutrition Administration, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD 
20705, Phone: (703) 305-2022.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Prior Rulemaking

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or the Department) 
previously proposed changes to categorical eligibility on July 24, 
2019. The proposed rule, titled ``Revision of Categorical Eligibility 
in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),'' would have 
limited the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits 
that may be used to confer categorical eligibility for SNAP to those 
that were ongoing and substantial (84 FR 35570). Categorical 
eligibility allows households that have been determined eligible for 
TANF or certain other means-tested programs to also be eligible for 
SNAP. The Biden Administration withdrew the proposed rule on June 10, 
2021 (86 FR 30795). The Department is now proposing revised changes to 
categorical eligibility rules to limit categorical eligibility only to 
households that receive TANF assistance, as defined at 45 CFR 260.31. 
As explained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying this rule, 
the Department acknowledges these revisions may result in some level of 
increased administrative burden on States, a reduction in SNAP benefit 
spending, and associated effects on school meals eligibility.

Background

    SNAP provides nutrition assistance to eligible, low-income 
households who apply for participation and meet nationwide income and 
resource standards created by Congress.\1\ The Food Stamp Act of 1977 
(Pub. L. 93-86) established eligibility for SNAP, then known as food 
stamps, based on household income and resources. The Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-759) revised those income 
eligibility standards to create the Federal standards SNAP uses today. 
Currently, the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) 
(the Act) requires that households without elderly or disabled members 
have a monthly gross income equal to or lower than 130 percent of the 
Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG) and a net income equal to or lower 
than 100 percent of the FPG to be SNAP eligible. Households with an 
elderly or disabled member need only meet the net income limit. The Act 
also specifies resource limits for SNAP households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The terminology used in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
(the Act) differs somewhat from that used in SNAP regulations. While 
the Act uses both the terms ``resources'' and ``assets,'' SNAP 
regulations typically use the term ``resources.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To simplify the eligibility determination process for households 
that qualify for a variety of benefit programs in addition to SNAP, the 
Food Security Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-198) amended Section 5(a) of the 
Act to create a categorical eligibility pilot project which eliminated 
the need for State workers to repeat an eligibility determination for 
SNAP if a household had already been determined eligible for another 
means-tested assistance program with financial criteria equal to or 
more restrictive than SNAP. The Food Security Act of 1985 temporarily 
established SNAP categorical eligibility for households in which all 
members received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits or cash 
benefits from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) 
program.
    The Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-435) made 
categorical eligibility permanent. In describing the purpose of 
categorical eligibility, the Senate report on the Hunger Prevention Act 
of 1988 noted that ``relying on eligibility determinations made under 
other programs can greatly reduce the paperwork burden on both 
applicants and eligibility workers while assuring that food stamps go 
only to very needy individuals.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Senate report 100-397; June 23, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SNAP certification starts with an eligibility determination, 
followed by a benefit calculation. Categorical eligibility impacts the 
eligibility determination by allowing State SNAP agencies to ``deem,'' 
or accept, specified eligibility factors from another means-tested 
program's eligibility determination for the purpose of determining SNAP 
eligibility. These factors are limited to resources, gross and net 
income limits, residency, social security number, and sponsored alien 
information, as described in 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2)(v). Individuals who are 
not eligible for SNAP based on certain nonfinancial factors, including 
alien ineligibility, student ineligibility, and failure to comply with 
work requirements, cannot become eligible via categorical eligibility. 
Current SNAP regulations do not require State agencies to verify 
categorically eligible households' incomes to determine their 
eligibility, but they must verify all households' incomes to determine 
their benefit calculation.
    At the time Congress created categorical eligibility, AFDC and SNAP 
had similar eligibility requirements and served a similar population. 
AFDC provided cash assistance to needy families with children. While 
States had flexibility under AFDC to define need, set benefit levels, 
and establish resource limits, the income and resource limits had to 
fall within Federal limitations, which in most cases aligned with or 
were more stringent than those of SNAP.\3\ Almost all AFDC families 
were income-eligible for SNAP, and about 85 percent of AFDC families 
also received SNAP.\4\ Therefore, Congress authorized categorical 
eligibility permanently based on similarities between the programs at 
the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Federal law specified that families with more than $1,000 in 
countable resources were ineligible for AFDC. See 42 U.S.C. 
602(a)(7)(B). In addition, while no Federal income limit was 
established under AFDC, the income of eligible AFDC families could 
not exceed 185 percent of the State-defined standard of need. See 42 
U.S.C. 602(a)(18) (1981) The provision was implemented through 
federal regulation at 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(xiii)(C) (1984), which 
required states to deny AFDC assistance to families whose gross 
income exceeded 185 percent of the state's need standard.
    \4\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CPRT-105WPRT37945/pdf/GPO-CPRT-105WPRT37945-2-7.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CPRT-105WPRT37945/pdf/GPO-CPRT-105WPRT37945-2-7.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The close alignment between the programs began to shift with the 
passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). PRWORA replaced AFDC with the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program. 
This represented a fundamental change in the program, transitioning 
from primarily cash assistance to cash assistance and other non-cash 
services.\5\ States gained

[[Page 72456]]

significant control over TANF eligibility criteria, and the Federal 
parameters for income and resource limits under AFDC were eliminated. 
While States continued to offer cash assistance, many States began to 
use TANF funds on non-cash benefits, such as programs and benefits 
without the income and resource limits that had defined AFDC. TANF 
allows States to fund a wide range of services, including childcare, 
work, education and training activities, pre-K and Head Start, 
nonrecurrent short-term benefits, child welfare services, and a variety 
of other family support services.\6\ Resource limits are set by States, 
and not Federally required, for TANF-funded benefits, and States' 
income criteria for non-cash assistance vary greatly and can sometimes 
far exceed SNAP limits. The proliferation of programs with eligibility 
criteria significantly different from SNAP standards has created a 
challenge for the Department in preserving categorical eligibility as 
originally intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ States must use TANF funding to provide income support and 
services designed to accomplish the program's four broad purposes. 
The four purposes of TANF are to: (1) Provide assistance to needy 
families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in 
the homes of relatives; (2) End the dependence of needy parents on 
government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and 
marriage; (3) Prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock 
pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and 
reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) Encourage the 
formation and maintenance of two-parent families. 42 U.S.C. 601(a); 
45 CFR 260.20.
    \6\ HHS, ``TANF and MOE Spending and Transfers by Activity, FY 
2023 Charts''. September 2024. <a href="https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/fy2023_tanf_moe_national_data_pie_chart.pdf">https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/fy2023_tanf_moe_national_data_pie_chart.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the wake of PRWORA, the Department acknowledged the complexity 
introduced by the change from AFDC to TANF but reaffirmed categorical 
eligibility's original purpose of supporting program administration. A 
July 14, 1999, policy memo noted that the intent of categorical 
eligibility was ``to deem eligibility for food stamp families already 
subjected to an income and resource test'' under TANF.\7\ Therefore, 
the memo affirmed, States have discretion over whether to confer 
categorical eligibility to recipients of TANF-funded benefits that are 
not limited to needy families.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Food and Nutrition Service, ``Letter to Regions on 
Categorical Eligibility,'' July 14, 1999, <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/letter-regions-categorical-eligibility">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/letter-regions-categorical-eligibility</a>.
    \8\ TANF-funded benefits that further the first or second 
statutory TANF purposes one or two, as well as any benefit funded 
with State maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds, are limited to needy 
families, and State TANF agencies define ``needy.'' TANF-funded 
benefits that further TANF purposes three or four are not limited to 
needy families and are not required to have income eligibility 
criteria. See footnote 5 for a discussion of the four TANF purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Less than two years later, with the publication of a final rule 
codifying PRWORA changes to SNAP,\9\ the Department acknowledged the 
degree of State discretion allowed by the 1999 memo had ``allowed State 
agencies to use categorical eligibility beyond the scope of what was 
originally intended.'' The rule attempted to place bounds, that were 
still beyond the scope of what was originally intended, on categorical 
eligibility by establishing a 200 percent FPG gross income limit for 
TANF- or state maintenance of effort (MOE)-funded programs not designed 
to target ``needy families.'' In doing so, the rule acknowledged that 
the changes made by PRWORA allowed States to fund in-kind and non-cash 
TANF benefits, including some benefits (under TANF purposes three and 
four) without income eligibility criteria. However, the rule reiterated 
the Department's understanding that the purpose of categorical 
eligibility was to eliminate superfluous eligibility tests, not to 
increase income eligibility criteria, or eliminate eligibility criteria 
entirely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Food Stamp Program: Noncitizen Eligibility, and 
Certification Provisions of Public Law 104-193, as Amended by Public 
Laws 104-208, 105-33 and 105-185,'' 65 FR 70134, November 21, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the guardrails the rule attempted to establish, the 
practice of using non-cash TANF-funded programs to confer categorical 
eligibility continued and, in fact, expanded. Initially, these non-cash 
programs included benefits, such as work supports, kinship care 
resources, and transitional benefits. Beginning in 2009, States began 
implementing particularly expansive categorical eligibility policies, 
known as ``broad-based categorical eligibility'' or BBCE.\10\ At the 
time, data indicated many eligible low-income households were not 
accessing SNAP benefits. SNAP participation had dropped after the 
passage of PRWORA \11\ and BBCE was seen as a way to increase 
participation among eligible households. From FY 2008 to FY 2011 the 
number of States implementing BBCE policies grew from 18 to 43. This 
widescale adoption of the policy was not organic but was encouraged 
formally by USDA under the Obama administration explicitly ``to 
increase SNAP participation''.\12\ There was a corresponding rise in 
the number of SNAP participants overall reaching a record of nearly 45 
million participants,\13\ and also an increase in households that 
exceeded SNAP's Federal income and resource limits for SNAP, reflecting 
their eligibility only due to BBCE. In recent years, the share of 
participants in households with income and/or resources exceeding the 
Federal limits for SNAP has increased to 17.6 percent (as shown in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Improving Access to SNAP through Broad-Based Categorical 
Eligibility,'' September 30, 2009, <a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/guidance-documents/fns.snap-improvingAccessBBCE.pdf">https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/guidance-documents/fns.snap-improvingAccessBBCE.pdf</a>; 
``Categorical Eligibility Questions and Answers,'' November 20, 
2009, December 15, 2009, and January 26, 2010, <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility/BBCE-questions-answers">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility/BBCE-questions-answers</a>.
    \11\ Food and Nutrition Service, Report Series--Estimates of 
State SNAP Participation Rates (Reaching Those in Need), January 
1994-FY 2008, <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/snap/state-participation-rates">https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/snap/state-participation-rates</a>.
    \12\ ``Improving Access to SNAP through Broad-Based Categorical 
Eligibility,'' September 30, 2009, <a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/guidance-documents/fns.snap-improvingAccessBBCE.pdf">https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/guidance-documents/fns.snap-improvingAccessBBCE.pdf</a>;.
    \13\ USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and 
Analysis, ``Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011,'' <a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/2011Characteristics.pdf">https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/2011Characteristics.pdf</a>.
    \14\ The estimates here and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
use data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program 
Participation (SIPP) for December 2019 in an algorithm used to 
estimate SNAP households' resource levels. The prior years used data 
from the SIPP for August 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States were encouraged specifically by USDA to use benefits of 
nominal value, such as ``an informational pamphlet or an 800-number to 
call to locate TANF-funded services,'' as the ``benefit'' to confer 
categorical eligibility.\15\ BBCE has enabled States to use non-cash 
TANF program eligibility criteria to create a de facto and significant 
increase in the SNAP gross income and significant increases and even 
total elimination of resource statutory limits. Such an expansion has 
compromised the statutory underpinnings of categorical eligibility, as 
it goes beyond flexibility to reduce administrative burdens and 
increases eligibility for households who would not otherwise qualify 
based on the income and resource limits established in law. The 
Department believes the proposed changes would ensure States implement 
categorical eligibility in accordance with its original intent and 
would address concerns that States used BBCE to expand SNAP eligibility 
beyond congressionally approved limits intended to preserve benefits 
for the truly needy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Improving Access to SNAP through Broad-Based Categorical 
Eligibility,'' September 30, 2009, <a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/guidance-documents/fns.snap-improvingAccessBBCE.pdf">https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/guidance-documents/fns.snap-improvingAccessBBCE.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over time, BBCE has created a varied ``patchwork'' of eligibility 
criteria across States. Many States now use income and resource limits 
for their non-cash TANF benefits that are higher than the statutory 
standards for SNAP

[[Page 72457]]

eligibility.\16\ As of December 2025, forty-six States are currently 
using BBCE to expand eligibility to households that receive non-cash 
TANF benefits of nominal value.\17\ Of those, thirty-seven States have 
gross income limits higher than the SNAP gross income limit and forty-
one States have no resource limit at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The most recent chart indicating States that have taken the 
BBCE option can be found here: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/broad-based-categorical-eligibility">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/broad-based-categorical-eligibility</a>. The chart lists the TANF/MOE program 
benefit that confers categorical eligibility in each State and the 
gross income and resource limits for these programs. This chart is 
based on State-reported information.
    \17\ USDA. ``Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE). Updated 
December 2025. Accessed Dec. 10, 2025. <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/broad-based-categorical-eligibility">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/broad-based-categorical-eligibility</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The expansion of SNAP eligibility under BBCE policies may threaten 
the integrity of the program by eroding public trust that SNAP benefits 
are available only to those who meet the eligibility limits set in law. 
For example, in States with no resource limit, a household with a 
million dollars or more in available resources but no regular income 
could apply for and be eligible to receive SNAP benefits. ``Resources'' 
in SNAP include liquid or near liquid assets, with many exclusions 
including a home and retirement and pensions. The Department is aware 
of instances where millionaires have received SNAP benefits.\18\ It is 
irresponsible to Congress and the taxpayer to support regulations that 
permit this practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/waite-park-millionaire-food-stamps-loophole-minnesota-legislature/">https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/waite-park-millionaire-food-stamps-loophole-minnesota-legislature/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal audits have also raised concerns about BBCE's implications 
for the integrity of the SNAP eligibility determination process. A 2012 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report exposed weaknesses of 
categorical eligibility policies, describing them as having ``a 
potentially negative effect on SNAP program integrity'' and suggested 
that BBCE may contribute to more payment errors.\19\ In particular, 
there were payment errors for 17.2 percent of SNAP households eligible 
under BBCE that had incomes over the Federal limits in Fiscal Year (FY) 
2010, compared to just 6.7 percent of other SNAP households. Findings 
from a 2015 USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit identified 
similar vulnerabilities with BBCE. The audit took issue with the way 
BBCE essentially deferred SNAP eligibility determinations to TANF and 
seemed to solidify the perception of those outside of SNAP that BBCE 
lacks rigor.\20\ Together, these findings demonstrate a policy out of 
sync with the directive of Congress to ensure that SNAP benefits are 
reserved for the most vulnerable households.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Government Accountability Office. ``Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program: Improved Oversight of State Eligibility 
Expansions Needed,'' July 2012, Available at: <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-670">https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-670</a>. Note that the GAO estimates measures the 
percentage of SNAP households with errors. This estimate differs 
from the SNAP payment error rate, which is the percentage of SNAP 
benefits paid in error, including both underpayments and 
overpayments.
    \20\ Office of the Inspector General. September 2015, ``FNS 
Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate.'' <a href="https://www.oversight.gov/reports/audit/fns-quality-control-process-snap-error-rate">https://www.oversight.gov/reports/audit/fns-quality-control-process-snap-error-rate</a>.
    \21\ Senate report 100-397; June 23, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department is also strongly committed to responsible 
stewardship of taxpayer dollars and ensuring SNAP benefits are targeted 
to needy households. In contrast, many State BBCE policies expand SNAP 
to households that would otherwise not qualify under the SNAP income 
and resource limits established in law, adding unnecessary program 
costs. In FY 2010, only about four percent of SNAP participants were in 
households with income and/or resources exceeding the Federal 
limits,\22\ indicating that they were only eligible due to BBCE. The 
share doubled to eight percent by FY 2013 and remained relatively 
constant reaching a peak of 10 percent in FY 2018.<SUP>23 24</SUP> More 
recent 2019 U.S. Census Bureau data suggests that the proportion of 
participating households exceeding the resource limit has grown 
substantially since that time. The Department estimates that 11.5 
percent of participating SNAP households in FY2024 (2.5 million 
households containing 5.4 million individuals) had resources above the 
SNAP limit and 5.4 percent of households (1.2 million households 
containing 2.0 million individuals) had incomes above the Federal SNAP 
gross or net income limits.<SUP>25 26</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Food and Nutrition Service. ``Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2010,'' p. 43: 
<a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/Trends2010.pdf">https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/Trends2010.pdf</a>.
    \23\ Food and Nutrition Service. ``Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2013,'' p. 77: 
<a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/ops/Trends2010-2013.pdf">https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/ops/Trends2010-2013.pdf</a>.
    \24\ Food and Nutrition Service. ``Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2013,'' p. 54: 
<a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/Trends2016-2018.pdf">https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/Trends2016-2018.pdf</a>.
    \25\ To avoid double-counting, households and individuals who 
fail both the income and resource tests are only included in the 
total for those failing the income test.
    \26\ Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.2 (j)(2)(i)(C) and (ii)(B) 
permit categorical eligibility to be conferred from certain TANF/
State MOE-funded programs that have a maximum gross monthly income 
at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BBCE households, like other SNAP households, with three members or 
more must have net incomes low enough to receive a SNAP benefit. The 
SNAP benefit is calculated after eligibility is established, so some 
households determined eligible for SNAP through BBCE may receive zero 
SNAP benefits. However, all SNAP-eligible households with one or two 
members get at least the minimum SNAP benefit regardless of their 
income or deductions.\27\ The Department estimates in the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (RIA) that more than 840,000 one- and two-person 
households received the minimum SNAP benefit in 2024 only because they 
were determined to be categorically eligible for SNAP through BBCE. 
Most of these households (94 percent) would have been ineligible for 
SNAP under the SNAP income and resource limits and thus receive no SNAP 
benefit in the absence of BBCE. This represents nearly $214 million to 
households whose incomes or resources exceeded SNAP's statutory limits 
in 2024, but still received a minimum benefit. This spending does not 
align with Congress' intent or the Secretary's guiding principle to 
support policy options that protect both truly needy recipients and the 
American taxpayer.\28\ A rule change is necessary to avoid the 
continuation of SNAP regulations that allow a categorical eligibility 
policy that expands SNAP to households without demonstrated needs and 
reaches far beyond the congressional intent to simplify eligibility 
determinations for needy households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In accordance with Sec. 8(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act 
and regulations at 7 CFR 273.10(e)(2)(ii)(C), all one- or two-person 
SNAP households receive at least a minimum benefit, which is 8 
percent of the maximum allotment for a household of one, rounded to 
the nearest whole dollar. In FY 2025, the minimum SNAP benefit is 
$23.
    \28\ Secretary Brook L. Rollins, ``Secretary Rollins' Vision for 
the Department's 16 Nutrition Programs,'' February 13, 2025, <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/rollins-statement-nutrition-programs">https://www.fns.usda.gov/rollins-statement-nutrition-programs</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Department proposes aligning categorical eligibility 
more closely to the policy originally implemented in 1985 based on 
Federal law, under which categorical eligibility was conferred only to 
those households receiving cash assistance payments, rather than those 
receiving non-assistance benefits, such as childcare, training, or 
other services. Specifically, the proposed rule would revise 
regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2) to align with the definition of TANF 
assistance

[[Page 72458]]

in 45 CFR 260.31(a). Under 45 CFR 260.31(a), TANF ``assistance'' 
includes cash, payments, vouchers, and other forms of benefits designed 
to meet a family's ongoing basic needs, which includes certain non-cash 
supportive services, such as child care and transportation assistance 
for parents who are unemployed.\29\ The U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS) uses the term ``non-assistance'' to refer to the 
variety of other TANF-funded services, as described at 45 CFR 
260.31(b), which includes the types of benefits used in BBCE policies. 
Current SNAP regulations do not distinguish between TANF ``assistance'' 
and ``non-assistance,'' but rather between ``cash'' and ``non-cash or 
in-kind benefits or services.'' In this rule, ``TANF assistance'' 
refers to the cash and non-cash supportive services referred to in 45 
CFR 260.31(a), while ``non-cash or in-kind benefits or services'' means 
the TANF ``non-assistance'' described in 45 CFR 260.31(b).\30\ This 
proposed change would limit categorical eligibility conferred through 
TANF to those households receiving TANF assistance, rather than the 
non-cash or in-kind services from TANF-funded programs that also 
currently confer categorical eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 45 CFR 260.31(a)(3).
    \30\ GAO makes a similar distinction in its December 2012 
report, ``Temporary Assistance for Need Families: More 
Accountability Needed to Reflect Breadth of Block Grant Services,'' 
GAO-13-33, pg. 1, pg. 5, <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-33.pdf">https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-33.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like AFDC before it, TANF assistance as defined at 45 CFR 260.31(a) 
is largely a cash payment benefit designed to meet the basic needs of 
families with incomes and resources below the SNAP statutory 
requirements. The definition of TANF assistance includes cash, 
payments, vouchers, and other forms of benefits designed to meet a 
family's ongoing basic needs. Additionally, TANF assistance programs 
have a robust eligibility determination that thoroughly reviews 
household income and resources. Income standards used to determine TANF 
assistance eligibility vary by State but are typically lower than SNAP 
standards.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Welfare Rules Databook: State and Territory TANF 
Policies as of July 2023, available at <a href="https://acf.gov/opre/report/welfare-rules-databook-state-and-territory-tanf-policies-july-2023">https://acf.gov/opre/report/welfare-rules-databook-state-and-territory-tanf-policies-july-2023</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Proposed Approach

    The proposed rule would change SNAP categorical eligibility 
regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2) by limiting the TANF benefits that a 
State agency can use to confer categorical eligibility to only TANF 
assistance, defined at 45 CFR 260.31(a). To conform with this change, 
the proposed rule would also eliminate the use of ``non-cash or in-kind 
benefits or services'' to confer categorical eligibility for SNAP. 
Finally, the Department proposes several conforming amendments.

Categorical Eligibility From TANF Assistance

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2)(i)(A) require States to 
confer categorical eligibility to households in which all members 
receive or are authorized to receive ``cash'' through a TANF program. 
The Department proposes to amend 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2)(i)(A) to replace 
``cash'' with ``assistance as defined at 45 CFR 260.31(a).'' The vast 
majority of TANF assistance is cash or cash equivalents, intended to 
meet families' basic needs.\32\ Aligning the terminology in SNAP 
regulations with that used in TANF regulations promotes consistency 
between the programs. Additionally, such a change would close the 
loophole that has allowed for 17.6 percent of the SNAP participant 
caseload to be eligible solely due to receiving TANF non-assistance, 
i.e., non-cash benefits with eligibility criteria that far exceed 
Federal SNAP limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ TANF assistance also includes some non-cash supportive 
services, such as transportation and childcare for unemployed 
families, but USDA understands from HHS that these supportive 
services largely go to families who are also receiving cash TANF and 
include similar eligibility requirements. For all practical 
purposes, those receiving TANF assistance are receiving cash, while 
those receiving TANF ``non-assistance'' are receiving other non-cash 
services of the kind used to confer BBCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eliminating Categorical Eligibility From Non-Cash or In-Kind Benefits 
or Services

    Current SNAP regulations provide two ways in which non-cash or in-
kind benefits or services from a TANF-funded program may confer 
categorical eligibility: a mandatory requirement, described at 7 CFR 
273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and (C), and a State option, described at 7 CFR 
273.2(j)(2)(ii). These various provisions are based on the proportion 
of the program funded by TANF or State MOE funding, the TANF purposes 
that the program furthers, and the gross income limit of the program.
    The proposed rule would remove 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B), (2)(i)(C), 
and (2)(ii), meaning States would no longer be permitted to confer 
categorical eligibility for SNAP to households that receive non-cash or 
in-kind TANF- or State MOE-funded benefits or services, other than TANF 
assistance. This would eliminate the practice of States using nominal 
TANF benefits from programs with a variety of weaker gross income and 
resource limits to confer categorical eligibility. The proposed change 
would help ensure closer alignment with congressional intent.

Authorized To Receive

    Current regulations throughout 7 CFR 273.2(j) apply categorical 
eligibility for SNAP to households in which all members receive or are 
``authorized to receive'' specified TANF, Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI), or general assistance (GA) benefits. The ``authorized to 
receive'' language does not align with Congress's intent for 
categorical eligibility and creates a loophole that could make 
households categorically eligible for SNAP based on their eligibility 
for a TANF benefit, even if they do not actually receive it.\33\ The 
Department wants to strike the right balance between administrative 
streamlining and ensuring that households actually receive the benefit 
that confers categorical eligibility. Therefore, the Department is 
removing the ``authorized to receive'' language throughout 7 CFR 273.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Government Accountability Office. ``Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program: Improved Oversight of State Eligibility 
Expansions Needed,'' July 2012, pg. 34-36. Available at: <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-670">https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-670</a>; Office of the Inspector General. 
September 2015, ``FNS Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate,'' 
pg. 36-37. Available at: <a href="https://www.oversight.gov/reports/audit/fns-quality-control-process-snap-error-rate">https://www.oversight.gov/reports/audit/fns-quality-control-process-snap-error-rate</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conforming Amendments

    The Department proposes to amend the regulations at 7 CFR 
273.2(j)(2)(iv), 273.2(j)(4)(vi), and 273.8(e)(17) to update or remove 
the citations to conform with the regulations redesignated or removed 
by this rule.

Alternate Approach for Consideration

    The Department also considered an alternative approach, which is 
the ``ongoing and substantial'' framework proposed in the 2019 proposed 
rule (described below). The Department believes the current proposal to 
align SNAP categorical eligibility with receipt of TANF assistance is 
the best solution because it eliminates discrepancies between SNAP and 
TANF regulations and is easier to operationalize than the two 
alternatives; however, the Department is seeking public comment on how 
this alternate approach would compare to the proposed approach.

Alternative Approach

    The Department considered returning to the categorical eligibility 
framework originally proposed in the July 24, 2019, proposed rule, 
``Revision of Categorical

[[Page 72459]]

Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP)''.\24\ Under the ``ongoing and substantial'' framework of the 
2019 proposed rule, both cash and non-cash TANF benefits could confer 
categorical eligibility but only if those benefits were ``ongoing and 
substantial''. To be considered ``ongoing,'' the benefits would be 
those a household receives for a period of at least six months. To be 
considered ``substantial,'' the benefits would be valued at a minimum 
of $50 per month or, should HHS develop a minimum threshold amount for 
TANF cash benefits, the higher of the two standards.
    In addition, non-cash categorical eligibility would be limited to 
specific types of TANF benefits--subsidized employment, work supports, 
and/or childcare--that support family self-sufficiency and involve 
meaningful eligibility determinations. The Alternative approach would 
remove mention of TANF purposes from 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2), since the 
Department understands from HHS that these distinctions are not 
necessarily meaningful in conferring non-cash categorical eligibility 
because different States may consider similar benefits to be furthering 
different TANF purposes. Instead, the Alternative approach would link 
categorical eligibility to specific types of TANF benefits rather than 
to TANF block grant purposes.
    Finally, the Alternative approach would also simplify the 
terminology used at 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2) from ``non-cash or in-kind 
benefits or services'' to ``non-cash benefits.'' For oversight 
purposes, the proposal would also require State agencies to inform FNA 
of all non-cash TANF benefits conferring categorical eligibility.
    With the introduction in the Alternative of the ``ongoing'' and 
``substantial'' requirements, the Department would seek to eliminate 
the practice of conferring categorical eligibility based on receipt of 
nominal, one-time benefits. Categorical eligibility based on the 
receipt of benefits that are nominal in value encourages cursory or 
nonexistent eligibility determinations because the value of those TANF 
benefits do not warrant the cost of staff time and resources to conduct 
robust eligibility determinations. Requiring the benefits to be 
substantial limits categorical eligibility to only those TANF benefits 
for which a State is more likely to establish a meaningful eligibility 
determination.
    In addition, the types of benefits conferring categorical 
eligibility under the Alternative approach would be limited to those 
that provide opportunities for households to obtain employment and 
financial stability. The emphasis on TANF benefits that directly 
encourage self-sufficiency aligns with the amendments to the Act made 
by Sec. 313 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA, Pub. L. 118-
5). In June 2023, the FRA expanded SNAP's purpose to include assisting 
low-income adults in obtaining employment and increasing their 
earnings. The Department believes this reaffirms efforts to reduce 
dependency on public assistance programs and increase self-sufficiency. 
The framework of the Alternative approach would align categorical 
eligibility with the new statutory purpose of the program, which is 
explicitly tailored to support work.
    In withdrawing the 2019 proposed rule, the Department determined 
the proposed revisions did not sufficiently justify the impact on SNAP 
households or the costs to State agencies to implement the change. 
However, the Department believes that the Alternative approach merits 
reconsideration at this time. Unlike the proposal in this NPRM, it 
acknowledges that some TANF non-assistance, non-cash benefits may 
comport with SNAP's standards for eligibility requirements and SNAP's 
mission to support participants' self-sufficiency through employment. 
Ultimately, the Department chose the proposal in this NPRM because 
implementation of categorical eligibility based on alignment with TANF 
assistance would be less administratively burdensome for State agencies 
than the ``ongoing and substantial'' standard.

Additional Request for Comment

    Current regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2)(i)(A) limit categorical 
eligibility from TANF cash programs to those program ``funded in full 
or in part'' by Federal TANF money or State MOE funds. Regulations at 7 
CFR 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B) and (C) are more specific, creating a requirement 
for categorical eligibility for specified programs ``more than 50 
percent funded'' by Federal TANF or State MOE money. Similarly, 7 CFR 
273.2(j)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) create a State option for categorical 
eligibility for specified programs ``less than 50 percent funded'' with 
Federal TANF or State MOE money. Although this proposed rule would 
remove the regulations at 7 CFR 273.2(j)(2)(i)(B), (i)(C), (ii)(A) and 
(ii)(B), the Department seeks public comment on the impact of adding 
specific funding percentage requirements to TANF assistance programs at 
7 CFR 273.2(j)(2)(i)(A), particularly if it were to advance an 
alternative option.

Procedural Matters

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be economically 
significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and was 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance 
with Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    A Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) was developed for this proposed 
rule, consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 12866. It 
follows this rule as an Appendix. The following summarizes the 
conclusions of the regulatory impact analysis:
    The Department estimates the total reduction in Federal SNAP 
transfers (SNAP benefit spending) associated with the provisions of 
this proposed rule to be approximately $44.649 billion over the five-
year period FY 2027-FY 2031. Effects on Federal reimbursement of State 
administrative costs are estimated to be approximately $309.5 million 
over the five-year period FY 2027-FY 2031. The Department also 
estimates a net reduction in State spending on SNAP (per Section 10105 
of Pub. L. 119-21) to be approximately $5.243 billion over the five 
year period, including an estimated reduction in State transfers of 
approximately $6.172 billion and an increase in State SNAP 
administrative costs of approximately $928.5 million. Effects on 
household burden are estimated to be approximately $71.7 million over 
the five-year period FY 2027-FY 2031.
    The Department estimates that approximately 16.9 percent of 
participating SNAP households (17.6 percent of SNAP participants) would 
no longer receive SNAP benefits because their income or resources 
exceed the Federal statutory limits for SNAP. This represents 3.2 
million households containing 6.3 million individuals in FY 2029, the 
first year the proposed rule is expected to reach its full effects.

[[Page 72460]]

    The proposed rule impacts other nutrition assistance programs where 
SNAP participation confers eligibility in lieu of an income assessment. 
The programs measurably impacted are the National School Lunch Program 
and School Breakfast Program (collectively referred to as the School 
Meals programs), Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (SEBT), and the 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
(WIC). The Department estimates about 1.78 million children would no 
longer be categorically eligible for free school meals due to this 
rule, although almost all such children (approximately 97 percent) 
would still retain eligibility for free or reduced price school meals 
based on their household income and could certify for school meals 
through a different process. About 1.66 million of these children would 
still receive free school meals, 93,000 children would move from free 
to reduced price school meals, and 28,000 would pay full price for 
their school meals based on their households' resources. The Department 
estimates that approximately 42,000 children could potentially no 
longer receive SEBT beginning in the summer of 2029, including an 
estimated 13,000 children who would choose not to apply for SEBT, even 
though they remain eligible. The Department also estimates that 16,500 
of 22,000 WIC participants eligible through BBCE would remain income 
eligible for WIC and could certify through a different process. The 
remaining 5,500 women, infants, and children would no longer be 
eligible for WIC based on an accurate, individualized assessment of 
eligibility. There were a total of approximately 6.87 million WIC 
recipients in FY 2025.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies 
to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider 
alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a 
substantial number of small entities. As discussed in the Regulatory 
Impact Assessment, school districts nationwide would face a small 
increase in administrative costs as a result of this rule. In total, 
the Department estimates that school districts would need to process 
197,000 additional applications for the School Meals programs, which 
would take an estimated 30,000 additional hours and add costs of about 
$2.0 million in SY 2028-29 and about $6.3 million over the five-year 
period of FY 2027 to FY 2031. About 30 million children are served 
through the school meals program each year. The Department does not 
have geographic data to estimate what share of this burden would fall 
to small jurisdictions, but the reduction in SNAP benefits overall will 
reduce SNAP redemptions, so some small retailers may experience 
reductions in sales.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost 
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million 
or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, 
Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves 
the objectives of the rule.
    The Regulatory Impact Analysis conducted by the Department in 
connection with this proposed rule includes a cost/benefit analysis. 
Based on this analysis, the Department believes there are no 
alternatives to the proposal that would accomplish the stated 
objectives in a less burdensome manner. However, the Department invites 
comments regarding less burdensome approaches to achieving the stated 
objectives. Per the Food and Nutrition Act, the Federal government 
would pay 25 percent of allowable State administrative costs required 
under this proposed rule, beginning in FY 2027.

Executive Order 12372

    This Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is listed in the 
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.551 and is 
subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental 
consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)

Federalism Summary Impact Statement

    Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the 
impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. 
Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed 
to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations 
describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories 
called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
    The Department has determined that this rule does not have 
Federalism implications. This rule does not impose substantial or 
direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, 
under Section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a Federalism summary impact 
statement is not required.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect 
with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which 
conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full 
and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have 
retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Dates section 
of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of 
the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be 
exhausted.

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

    USDA has reviewed the proposed rule, in accordance with the 
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, ``2018 Farm Bill'', Section 12403, 
Civil Rights Analyses, to identify and address any major civil rights 
impacts the proposed rule might have on specific groups. While we 
expect that a change in the categorical eligibility requirements has 
the potential to impact households where the head of household is 
Asian, Hispanic, or reported multiple races, as well as households with 
children and households with elderly members, the implementation of 
mitigation strategies and monitoring by SNAP and CRD will likely lessen 
these impacts. The mitigation strategies include: working to ensure 
State agencies fully understand the changes in the rule prior to 
implementation; publishing rule guidance on the USDA public website; 
providing technical assistance to State agencies and assisting them in 
developing their plans; and encouraging State agencies to target 
program information activities to potentially impacted households. USDA 
will conduct monitoring through the SNAP Management Evaluation (ME) 
process, the CRD ongoing monitoring of trends in program discrimination 
complaint activity, and oversight of programmatic inquiries concerning 
the proposed rule at the State level. Additionally, CRD will propose 
further outreach and mitigation strategies to alleviate any unforeseen 
impacts, if deemed necessary. All relevant mitigation and outreach 
strategies and monitoring

[[Page 72461]]

activity will be conducted in accordance with applicable Federal laws 
and regulations. Additionally, CRD will propose further outreach and 
mitigation strategies to alleviate any unforeseen impacts, if deemed 
necessary.

Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and 
coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies 
that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative 
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or 
actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian 
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
    This rule may contain policies that require consultation. USDA will 
have a consultation before the issuing of the final rule. FNA will work 
with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful 
consultation is provided.

Executive Order 14192

    Executive Order 14192, titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through 
Deregulation,'' was issued on January 31, 2025, and requires that any 
new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the 
extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs 
associated with at least 10 prior regulations. This proposed rule, if 
finalized as proposed, is expected to be exempt from otherwise-
applicable requirements of E.O. 14192, per footnote 1 of OMB's 
Accounting Methods.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Accounting Methods under Executive Order 14192, <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/pdf/eo14192/Accounting_Methods_under_EO_14192.pdf">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/pdf/eo14192/Accounting_Methods_under_EO_14192.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR 
1320) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all 
collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be 
implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection 
of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.
    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
proposed rule would contain information collections that are subject to 
review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget; therefore, 
FNA is submitting for public comment the changes in the information 
collection burden that would result from adoption of the proposals in 
the rule.
    Comments on this proposed rule must be received by December 10, 
2026. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways 
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who 
are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms 
of information technology.
    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the 
request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of 
public record.
    Title: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Student 
Eligibility, Convicted Felons, Lottery and Gambling, and State 
Verification.
    OMB Number: 0584-0621.
    Expiration Date: 1/31/2029.
    Type of Request: Revision to existing collection.
    Abstract: Section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as 
amended, (the Act), provides that households in which each member 
receives benefits under a State program funded under Part A of Title IV 
of the Social Security Act (SSA) (also known as Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF) block grants) shall be categorically eligible 
for SNAP. Current SNAP regulations consider TANF benefits to include 
both cash assistance and non-cash or in-kind benefits or services from 
TANF-funded programs. This proposal would limit categorical eligibility 
to only households that receive TANF assistance, as defined at 45 CFR 
260.31. These revisions would ensure that SNAP benefits are targeted to 
households that have sufficiently demonstrated need by qualifying for 
TANF assistance while aligning categorical eligibility's statutory 
purpose of streamlining program administration.
    Congress established categorical eligibility to reduce 
administrative burden, not to increase eligibility in the program. 
However, States have used the flexibility of the TANF program to 
implement particularly expansive categorical eligibility policies, 
known as ``broad-based categorical eligibility'' or BBCE. BBCE has 
enabled States to use non-cash TANF program eligibility criteria to 
create a de facto increase in the SNAP gross income and resource 
statutory limits. Under the Act's regular program rules, households 
without an elderly or disabled member must have a gross income of no 
more than 130 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG) to 
qualify for SNAP; under BBCE, States can increase such limits to as 
much as 200 percent FPG. The Act also specifies resource limits for 
SNAP households, but under BBCE policies, States can increase or 
entirely eliminate resource limits. Such an expansion has compromised 
the statutory underpinnings of categorical eligibility, as it goes 
beyond flexibility to reduce administrative burdens and increases 
eligibility for households who would not otherwise qualify.
    The proposed rule would provide more uniform SNAP eligibility 
across the country by limiting categorical eligibility through TANF to 
households that qualify for TANF assistance, rather than the non-cash 
or in-kind services from TANF-funded programs that also currently 
confer categorical eligibility. Section 5(j) of the Act indicates that 
households who are categorically eligible are considered to have met 
the SNAP resource limit and therefore these households do not undergo 
another resource determination. The proposed rule would reduce the 
number of households who would be categorically eligible. Therefore, 
States would have to apply regular SNAP income and resource tests to 
determine SNAP eligibility for more households. The Department 
estimates that 11.5 percent of currently participating SNAP households 
(2.5 million households or 5.4 million individuals) have resources 
above the SNAP limit and 5.4 percent (1.2 million households or 2.0 
million individuals) have incomes above the Federal SNAP gross income 
limit of 130 percent FPG and/or net income limit of 100 percent FPG. 
While States do not verify categorically eligible households' incomes 
to determine their eligibility, they must verify all households' 
incomes to determine their benefit calculation. However, as noted 
earlier, some States have BBCE policies that entirely eliminate 
resource limits. Under this rule, those States would need to add 
resource assessments to their SNAP eligibility determination process 
for an increased number of non-categorically eligible households.
    FNA is requesting to revise OMB Control Number 0584-0621 for the 
requirements in this proposed rule, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program: Reforming Categorical Eligibility. Because State agencies do

[[Page 72462]]

not verify resources for applicants that are categorically eligible per 
5(j) of the Act, they would be required to make changes to their 
application process to assess the resources of those households' that 
would no longer be categorically eligible. As of December 2025, 46 out 
of the 53 State agencies have adopted BBCE, and 41 States are not 
currently assessing resource information as part of the SNAP 
eligibility determination process.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The burden hours and cost estimates in this PRA were 
prepared prior to Alaska implementing BBCE on July 1, 2025. Hence 
the estimates are based on 45 States, rather than 46 States, having 
BBCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FNA will reconcile the burden hours associated with the final 
rulemaking for this rule for all States by revising OMB Control Number 
0584-0621.There is no new recordkeeping burden required for this 
information collection request. The recordkeeping burden for State 
agencies is currently covered under the approved information collection 
burden for application processing, OMB Control Number 0584-0064 
(expiration date: 6/30/2027), which already accounts for the case file 
documentation that States must maintain for each SNAP household at 7 
CFR 273.2(f)(6).
    Description of Costs and Assumptions: This proposed rule would 
limit categorical eligibility through TANF only to households that 
receive TANF assistance, as defined at 45 CFR 260.31(a). The proposed 
restriction of categorical eligibility would reduce the number of 
households who would be categorically eligible for SNAP and require 
States to assess more households' resources to determine if they are 
eligible for SNAP. Under the rule, the 45 State agencies that have 
expanded categorical eligibility would now be required to assess 
resource information from more households. For example, States and 
households would need to contact financial institutions, Departments of 
Motor Vehicles, or other entities to obtain documentation of household 
resources. The proposed rule may require the States that do not 
currently assess resources to modify their eligibility systems to both 
collect and verify household resource information as needed. System 
costs include the cost of requirements gathering, design, development, 
testing, implementation, and operations and maintenance.
    Reporting Burden Activities: Currently, all applicant households 
are required to meet the SNAP resource limits at 7 CFR 273.8 (Resource 
eligibility standards); applicants who are categorically eligible are 
considered to have met the SNAP resource limit (Section 5(j) of the 
Act). Under this rulemaking, fewer SNAP households would be 
categorically eligible through their receipt of non-cash TANF benefits. 
As fewer SNAP households would be categorically eligible, more 
households would therefore need to have their resources assessed by 
SNAP eligibility workers to determine whether the households meet the 
SNAP resource limit. Resources are one of several factors used to 
determine SNAP eligibility and are subject to verification if 
questionable (7 CFR 273.2 (f)(2)).

State Agency Burden Assessment Feedback

    FNA used the estimates in OMB Control Number 0584-0621 (expiration 
date: 1/31/2029) to estimate the amount of time that resource 
verification would take for the additional 45 State agencies that have 
expanded categorical eligibility. FNA estimates that 11 States would 
verify resources for households at all times (``Always'' States), 10 
States would verify resources only when deemed questionable (``Self-
Attestation States''), and 24 States would adopt a policy to verify a 
household's resources if close to the resource limit (``High Limit 
States'').
    Using the estimates in OMB Control Number 0584-0621 (expiration 
date: 1/31/2029), FNA estimates that State agency staff in ``Always'' 
States would on average spend 32.5 minutes (.534 hours) per case at 
initial certification and 19.16 minutes (.321 hours) per case at 
recertification. FNA estimates that State agency staff in ``Self-
Attestation'' States would on average spend 12.4 minutes (.201 hours) 
per case at initial certification and 8.8 minutes (0.135 hours) per 
case at recertification. FNA estimates that State agency staff in 
``High Limit'' States would on average spend 33.15 minutes (0.554 
hours) per case at initial certification and 33.2 minutes (0.550 hours) 
per case at recertification to verify resources.
    FNA then needed to estimate the percentage of a State's caseload 
that would be subject to these resource verification requirements to 
calculate the State agency burden. In the estimated 11 ``Always'' 
States, the entire caseload would be subject to verification. In 
``Self-Attestation'' and ``High Limit'' States, only a certain percent 
of SNAP applicants would meet the criteria (e.g., substantial resources 
or questionable information) that would necessitate the caseworker 
undertaking resource verification.
    Using caseload data, FNA estimates that ``High Limit'' States would 
have to verify household resources about 27 percent of the time; FNA 
rounded up to 30 percent to take into account caseworker discretion to 
verify when questionable. FNA estimates that ``Self-Attestation 
States'' States would have to verify household resources 10 percent of 
the time. Accordingly, the estimated number of households whose 
resources would be verified by a caseworker are adjusted to 30 percent 
of the caseload in the estimated 24 ``High Limit'' States and 10 
percent of the caseload in the estimated 10 ``Self-Attestation'' 
States. The estimated number of households for the 11 ``Always'' States 
would be 100 percent of the SNAP applicant households in those States.
    In addition, the Department anticipates one-time costs related to 
changes to application forms, staff training, and modifications to 
State systems. The Department has limited data on the potential costs 
of these changes, particularly the system changes. System costs include 
the cost of requirements gathering, design, development, testing, and 
implementation. For the purpose of calculating the burden for this 
proposed rule, FNA assumes that all 45 State agencies that confer 
expanded categorical eligibility collect, but do not currently verify, 
resource information from households. The Department seeks additional 
comment on whether this assumption is correct, and if not, how long it 
would take States to make changes to their systems to gather, review, 
and verify this information beyond the efforts described above.

Household Burden

    Recent data \36\ shows that 21.8 percent of SNAP households are 
categorically eligible through receipt of SSI, cash TANF, or General 
Assistance (GA). Under the proposed rule, these households will still 
be considered categorically eligible. Other categorically eligible 
households, i.e., households eligible through BBCE, make up 73.9 
percent of the SNAP households. Therefore, the household estimates in 
this burden narrative only include the 73.9 percent of households who 
would lose categorical eligibility under this proposed rulemaking and 
would be subject to the additional burden.
    The Department then estimated the burden hours for households to 
provide verification. FNA referenced the currently approved estimated 
number of applicants in OMB Control Number 0584-0064 (expiration date: 
6/30/2027) and updated these numbers to reflect the most recently 
available participation data (Fiscal Year (FY) 2024) for SNAP initial 
applicants and recertification applicant households.\37\

[[Page 72463]]

    The Department finds it reasonable to use the estimates in OMB 
Control Number 0584-0064 (expiration date: 6/30/2027) regarding 
household burden for providing verification and estimates that 
providing verification would take 4 minutes or .0668 hours per 
household at initial certification and 6 minutes or .1002 hours at 
recertification. Using the estimates above for the number of households 
in each State subject to verification requirements (100 percent in 11 
States, 10 percent in 10 States, and 30 percent in 24 States), we then 
calculated the total number of households that would have to 
participate in this annual burden. We have rounded these burden times 
in the chart below.
    The Department is interested in States' comments on the requested 
information burden, as the vast majority of households in most States 
have been certified under BBCE and therefore have not been subject to a 
SNAP resource assessment in recent years. All comments will be reviewed 
and considered in the final rulemaking process.
    The overall estimated burden we are requesting for both the 
Individuals/Households and State agencies is 14,981,300.28 total annual 
burden hours and 26,931,893 total annual responses. The reporting 
burden details are provided below for State Agencies and SNAP applicant 
households. This request associated with rulemaking reflects an 
increase of 13,425,498.31 total annual burden hours and 11,649,207.97 
total annual responses for State agencies and 914,934.84 total annual 
burden hours and 11,606,509.97 total annual responses for Households 
(SNAP Participants).
    Respondents: State Agencies.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 45.
    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 258,871.29.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 11,649,207.97.
    Estimated Time per Response: 1.15248164.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 13,425,498.31.
    Respondents: SNAP households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 11,606,510.
    Estimated Frequency of Response per Year: 1.00.
    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 11,606,509.97.
    Estimated Time per Response: 0.078829453.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 914,934.84.
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO26.085


[[Page 72464]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10NO26.086

BILLING CODE 3410-30-C

E-Government Act Compliance

    The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 
to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies 
to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government 
information and services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 273

    Administrative practice and procedure, Employment, SNAP, Government 
employees, Grant programs-social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Supplemental Security Income, Wages.

    Accordingly, 7 CFR part 273 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 273--CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 273 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.

0
2. In 7 CFR 273.2:
0
a. Amend the introductory paragraph (j) by removing the last four 
sentences;
0
b. Revise paragraph (j)(2)(i)(A);
0
c. Remove paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(B) and (j)(2)(i)(C);
0
d. Revise paragraph (j)(2)(i)(D) and redesignate as (j)(2)(i)(B);
0
e. Revise paragraph (j)(2)(i)(E) and redesignate as (j)(2)(i)(C);
0
f. Remove and reserve paragraph (j)(2)(ii);
0
g. Remove and reserve paragraph (j)(2)(iii);
0
h. Remove and reserve paragraph (j)(2)(iv);
0
i. Remove the first sentence of paragraph (j)(2)(vi);
0
j. Revise paragraph (j)(4)(vi); and
0
k. Amend the introductory paragraph (k) by revising the fourth 
sentence.


Sec.  273.2  Office operations and application processing.

* * * * *
    (j) PA, GA and categorically eligible households. The State agency 
must notify households applying for public assistance (PA) of their 
right to apply for SNAP benefits at the same time and must allow them 
to apply for SNAP benefits at the same time they apply for PA benefits. 
The State agency must also notify such households that time limits or 
other requirements that apply to the receipt of PA benefits do not 
apply to the receipt of SNAP benefits, and that households which cease 
receiving PA benefits because they have reached a time limit, have 
begun working, or for other reasons, may still qualify for SNAP 
benefits. If the State agency attempts to discourage households from 
applying for cash assistance, it shall make clear that the 
disadvantages and requirements of applying for cash assistance do not 
apply to SNAP benefits. In addition, it shall encourage applicants to 
continue with their application for SNAP benefits. The State agency 
shall inform households that receiving SNAP benefits will have no 
bearing on any other program's time limits that may apply to the 
household. The State agency may process the applications of such 
households in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of 
this section, and the State agency must base their eligibility solely 
on SNAP eligibility criteria unless the household is categorically 
eligible, as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section. If a State 
has a single Statewide GA application form, households in which all 
members are included in a State or local GA grant may have their 
application for SNAP benefits included in the GA application form. 
State agencies may use the joint application processing procedures 
described in paragraph (j)(1) of this section for GA recipients in 
accordance with paragraph (j)(3) of this section. The State agency must 
base eligibility of jointly processed GA households solely on SNAP 
eligibility criteria unless the household is categorically eligible as 
provided in paragraph (j)(4) of this section. The State agency must 
base the benefit levels of all households solely on SNAP criteria. The 
State agency must certify jointly processed and categorically eligible 
households in accordance with SNAP procedural, timeliness, and notice 
requirements, including the 7-day expedited service provisions of 
paragraph (i) of this section and normal 30-day application processing 
standards of paragraph (g) of this section. * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Any household (except those listed in paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of 
this section) in which all members receive assistance as defined at 45 
CFR 260.31(a) through a PA program funded with Federal money under 
Title IV-A or with State money counted for maintenance of effort (MOE) 
purposes under Title IV-A;
    (B) Any household in which all members receive SSI benefits, except 
that residents of public institutions who apply jointly for SSI and 
SNAP benefits prior to their release from the institution in accordance 
with Sec.  273.1(e)(2), are not categorically eligible upon a finding 
by SSA of potential SSI eligibility prior to such release. The State 
agency must consider the individuals categorically eligible at such 
time as SSA makes a final SSI eligibility and the institution has 
released the individual.
    (C) Any household in which all members receive PA and/or SSI 
benefits in accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) through 
(j)(2)(i)(B) of this section.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) [Reserved]
    (v) * * *
    (vi) Categorical eligibility shall be assumed at recertification in 
the absence of a timely PA redetermination. If a recertified household 
is subsequently terminated from PA benefits, the procedures in Sec.  
273.12(f)(3), (4), and (5) shall be followed, as appropriate. * * *
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (vi) Combination households. Households consisting entirely of 
recipients of PA, SSI and/or GA from a program that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  273.2(j)(4)(i) shall be categorically eligible in 
accordance with the provisions for paragraph (j)(2)(v) of this section 
for members receiving PA and SSI or provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(iv) 
and (v) of this section for members receiving GA.
* * * * *
    (k) * * * However, households in which all members are either PA or 
SSI recipients (as discussed in Sec.  273.2(j)) shall be SNAP eligible 
based on their PA/SSI status as provided for in Sec.  273.2(j)(1)(iv) 
and (j)(2). * * *

[[Page 72465]]

0
3. In 7 CFR 273.8, revise (e)(17).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  273.8  Resource eligibility standards.

    (e) * * *
    (17) The resources of a household member who receives SSI or PA 
benefits. Individuals entitled to Medicaid benefits only are not 
considered recipients of SSI or PA. * * * * *

Stephen A. Vaden,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-22936 Filed 11-9-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>