Appendix D: Final Rule: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Online Ordering and Trans

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

70250

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Administration
7 CFR Part 246
[FNA–2026–0595]
RIN 0584–AE85

Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC): Online Ordering and
Transactions and Food Delivery
Revisions To Meet the Needs of a
Modern, Data-Driven Program
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition

Administration (FNA), Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
ACTION: Final rule with request for
comment.
SUMMARY: This final rule considers

public comments submitted in response
to the proposed rule to remove barriers
to online ordering and internet-based
transactions in the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
published on February 23, 2023. USDA
FNA is issuing this regulatory action to
support State innovation and develop
and implement modernized systems,
while underscoring program integrity. It
allows for the use of new technologies
to improve the WIC shopping
experience while increasing access to
healthy foods for WIC participants. This
final rule also complements the
Program’s complete transition to
electronic benefit transfer (EBT) by
streamlining and modernizing certain
WIC food delivery regulations to
support current technology and future
innovation, and introduces measures to
support a modern, data-driven program
that uses new technologies for food
delivery.

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

DATES:

Effective Date: This rule is effective
December 7, 2026. Online comments
submitted through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal must be received on
or before January 5, 2027 to be assured
of consideration.
Implementation Dates: See section VI
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Compliance Dates: This rulemaking
consists of multiple provisions.
Compliance for each provision is
referenced in section VI of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this final rule and detailed in the
section-by-section analysis.
• Severability. If any provision of
such section promulgated through this
final rule, ‘‘Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC): Online Ordering

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

and Transactions and Food Delivery
Revisions to Meet the Needs of a
Modern, Data-Driven Program’’ (FNA–
2026–0595; RIN 0854–AE85) is held to
be invalid or unenforceable by its terms,
or as applied to any person or
circumstances, it shall be severable and
not affect the remainder thereof.
ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition
Administration, USDA, invites
interested persons to submit written
comments on this final rule. USDA
seeks comment on the impacts to
stakeholders, specifically State agencies
and their Management Information
Systems (MIS), Electronic Benefit
Transfer (EBT), and vendor system
partners. Comments may be submitted
to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. All comments submitted in
response to this final 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
comments publicly available on the
internet via http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Allison Post, Supplemental Nutrition
and Safety Programs, Food and
Nutrition Administration, USDA, 201
14th Street SW, Washington, DC 20227,
703–457–7708 or sm.fn.WICPolicy@
usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
This rule sets forth regulatory
flexibilities, encourages innovation, and
modernizes WIC food delivery
regulations. The rule ensures WIC
participants have the same shopping
options as non-WIC shoppers to transact
their WIC benefits as the retail
marketplace innovates and evolves. This
rule also clarifies requirements so that
State agencies can effectively carry out
a modern, data-driven program that uses
current technologies for food delivery.
This final rule considers public
comments on the proposed rule
‘‘Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC): Online Ordering and
Transactions and Food Delivery
Revisions to Meet the Needs of a
Modern, Data-Driven Program’’ (88 FR
11516) published on February 23, 2023,
referred to as ‘‘the proposed rule.’’ The
changes finalized in this rule better
serve families across the country by
improving the WIC shopping experience
and ensuring that WIC participants have

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

access to healthy foods, while
maintaining security and oversight
measures at the federal and State agency
levels. This rule:
(1) Removes barriers to online
shopping and internet-based
transactions in WIC, including a current
prohibition of the authorization of
internet-based vendors. This provides
State agencies the flexibility to
determine how to offer online shopping
to participants in a way that maintains
program integrity. The revisions support
oversight measures and policies
appropriate for current technologies,
and adaptable for future ones (e.g.,
Europay, Mastercard, and Visa (‘‘EMV’’)
chip cards, mobile apps), as well as
security requirements to support
program integrity as the retail
marketplace innovates.
(2) Streamlines and modernizes WIC
food delivery requirements to reflect the
Program’s complete transition to
electronic benefit transfer (EBT),
supports current technology and future
innovation, and expands opportunities
for WIC participants to utilize
innovations in the retail grocery
industry. The revisions allow State
agencies to use new types of food
instruments (e.g., mobile payments) and
provide State agencies with more
flexibility in the issuance of WIC
benefits.
(3) Updates reporting requirements to
reflect a modern, data-driven program.
II. Background
This part provides an overview of the
WIC Program and key terms used
throughout this preamble.
A. Overview of the WIC Program
The WIC Program is administered by
88 WIC State agencies, including the 50
States, 32 Indian Tribal Organizations,
the District of Columbia, and 5 U.S.
Territories (American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands).1 WIC is an evidencebased public health program, with a
long history of improving health
outcomes for nutritionally at risk and
income-eligible pregnant, breastfeeding,
and non-breastfeeding postpartum
women, and infants and children up to
age five. In fiscal year (FY) 2025, WIC
served an average of 6.9 million
participants per month.2 As of the most
recent published estimates (2023), WIC
1 The number of WIC State agencies operating as
of September 2026.
2 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and
Nutrition Administration, ‘‘WIC Data Tables,’’ 2026.
https://www.fna.usda.gov/pd/wic-program.

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

participants included around 40 percent
of all infants in the United States.3
The USDA provides grants to WIC
State agencies to provide supplemental
foods, referrals to health care and other
social services, and nutrition education,
including breastfeeding promotion and
support, to WIC participants. WIC
participation is associated with
purchasing healthier foods and
improved diets for pregnant women and
children and has been shown to reduce
prevalence of childhood obesity.4 5
According to their participant category
and nutritional needs, WIC participants
receive supplemental foods on a
monthly basis from one of seven
evidence-based food packages. The
amounts and categories of foods
provided in each package are intended
to supplement participants’ diets and
provide specific nutrients known to be
lacking in the diets of WIC’s target
population.
WIC participants typically access
supplemental foods through a retail
food delivery system. In such systems,
a WIC shopper goes to a WIC-authorized
vendor (i.e., a retail grocery store
authorized by the State agency), selects
foods available in their benefit balance,
and uses an electronic benefit transfer
(EBT) card to purchase the items. In FY
2023, there were approximately 37,368
WIC-authorized vendors nationwide
and, as of August 2024, all WIC State
agencies completed the transition from
paper vouchers to EBT. This rule does
not fully remove references to paper
food instruments because when the
proposed rule was published in early
2023, there were still State agencies in
the midst of implementing EBT. The
Department intends to use a future
rulemaking to update WIC regulations to
reflect that EBT is now the sole benefit
delivery method in the retail food
delivery system.
3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service, ‘‘National- and State-Level
Estimates of WIC Eligibility and WIC Program
Reach in 2023: Final Report, Volume I,’’ pp. 65, by
Courtenay Kessler et al. Project Officer Grant
Lovellette, Alexandria, VA: December 2025. https://
www.fna.usda.gov/research/wic/eer-2023.
4 Caulfield LE, Bennett WL, Gross SM, Hurley
KM, Ogunwole SM, Venkataramani M, Lerman JL,
Zhang A, Sharma R, Bass EB. Maternal and Child
Outcomes Associated With the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC). Comparative
Effectiveness Review No. 253. (Prepared by the
Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice
Center under Contract No. 75Q80120D00003.)
AHRQ Publication No. 22–EHC019. Rockville, MD:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; April
2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23970/
AHRQEPCCER253.
5 Kenney EL, Lee MM, Barrett JL, Ward ZJ, Long
MW, Cradock AL, Williams DR, Gortmaker SL.
Cost-effectiveness of Improved WIC Food Package
for Preventing Childhood Obesity. Pediatrics. 2024
Jan; 153. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2023-063182.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

WIC State agencies are responsible for
making sure the distribution of WICauthorized vendors in their geographic
area provides sufficient access to WIC
foods for participants, and vendors
stock an adequate amount and variety of
WIC foods. The regulatory changes in
this final rule aim to reduce some of the
burden associated with shopping for
WIC foods, and support State agency
vendor management operations in
maintaining strong program integrity
efforts. The Department recognizes that
the development and expansion of
online shopping is a novel and
developing component in WIC. In order
to protect both participants and
taxpayer funds, the Department is
committed to ensuring all available
resources are deployed toward
increased oversight and prevention of
potential vendor fraud and abuse.
B. Introduction of Key Terms
The following are key terms used
throughout this final rule preamble:
• ‘‘WIC shopper’’ means a person
shopping using WIC benefits (i.e., a WIC
participant, proxy, or a parent or
caretaker of an infant or child
participant).
• ‘‘Online shopping’’ means the
general use of an online, internet-based
ordering system, platform, or site. It can
encompass online ordering with or
without internet-based transactions (i.e.,
the transaction can occur via the
internet, in store, curbside, or at the
point of delivery).
• ‘‘Online ordering’’ means the
process a customer (including a WIC
shopper) uses to select food items for
purchase via an internet-based ordering
system, platform, or site.
• ‘‘Transaction’’ means the process by
which a WIC shopper exchanges their
WIC benefits for supplemental foods.
• ‘‘Internet-based transaction’’ means
a transaction where the WIC payment is
completed through the payment section
of the online ordering system, platform,
or site. This terminology is being used
in lieu of ‘‘online transaction’’ to avoid
confusion with transactions that occur
using online EBT technology.
• ‘‘Redemption’’ means the process in
which a vendor submits records of
electronic benefit transactions for
redemption and the State agency (or its
financial agent) makes payment to the
vendor.
III. Approach To Rulemaking and
Status of WIC Online Shopping
This rulemaking finalizes regulatory
changes in consideration of public
comments received on the proposed
rule published February 23, 2023. In
developing the proposed rule, the

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70251

Department considered technical
materials developed by a wide variety of
WIC stakeholders, lessons learned from
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) online shopping
projects that began in 2019, as well as
feedback from WIC State agencies,
Indian Tribal Organizations, and
participants. The following technical
resources informed the Department’s
identification of regulatory barriers to
online shopping and provisions in this
rulemaking:
• Blueprint for WIC Online Ordering:
Through a cooperative agreement with
FNA, The Center for Nutrition and
Health Impact (CNHI), an independent
non-profit research institute, developed
a comprehensive plan for implementing
online shopping in WIC. This Blueprint,
which initially identified waivers to
federal regulations necessary to begin
online shopping projects and provided
guidance to begin implementing, has
since been revised and republished in
May 2026, with up-to-date information
to support WIC State agencies as they
develop their WIC online shopping
projects.6
• The Task Force on Supplemental
Foods Delivery: This task force
convened WIC providers, retailers,
manufacturers, EBT processors,
advocacy organizations, and WIC
participants to develop an online
shopping Recommendation Report for
the Department.7
The Department initially supported
WIC State agencies in pursuing online
shopping projects by issuing waivers
under the American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA, Pub. L. 117–2) authority, which
allowed FNA to waive regulatory
barriers to support outreach, innovation
and modernization in WIC and the WIC
Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program
(FMNP). Online shopping waivers were
issued through September 2024 and
remain in effect to support ongoing
projects. With these waivers, the
Department provided State agencies
with the necessary regulatory flexibility
and technical assistance to pursue
online shopping projects, regardless of
whether or not they received a subgrant
from CNHI. The Department recognizes
and appreciates the WIC State agencies
and authorized retailers that have
developed different ways to provide
online ordering to WIC participants.
Through the cooperative agreement with
CNHI, 22 WIC State agencies have
received subgrants to pursue online
shopping including the necessary
6 https://www.wicshopplus.org/the-blueprint.
7 https://www.fna.usda.gov/wic/food-deliverytask-force-recommendations-report.

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

70252

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

development of internet-based
transactions.
This final rulemaking permanently
removes regulatory barriers to allow
State agencies to implement online
shopping in WIC and eliminates the
need for waiver flexibility; therefore, the
online shopping waivers will be
superseded by regulation once this
rulemaking is effective. Additional
waivers supporting mobile pay and
remote issuance will also be superseded
by this rulemaking once effective.
IV. Proposed Rule Comment Summary
The proposed rule published in the
Federal Register on February 23, 2023,
with a 90-day comment period closing
on May 24, 2023. During this time,
USDA received 1,664 comments. Five
form letter campaigns comprised 881
submissions. There were 752 unique
comments of which 216 were
substantive, providing specific input on
the topics included in this final rule. A
total of 31 comments were either
duplicates or out of the scope of this
rule, as they did not provide feedback
related to topics in this final rule. The
comments came from a variety of
sources, including WIC State and local
agencies, state representatives,
professional organizations and
associations, advocacy groups, health
care professionals, universities, the food
industry, WIC participants, and private
citizens. USDA worked in collaboration
with a data analysis company to code
and analyze the public comments using
a commercial web-based software
product. This analysis provided data
showing support for or opposition to
each proposed change. Over 1,070
commenters provided broad support for
revisions to the regulations while
approximately 10 commenters provided
general comments in opposition to the
proposed rule. The Final Summary of
Public Comments is available online at
www.regulations.gov in docket FNS2022-0015. The Final Summary of
Public Comments includes the specific
number of comments in support or
opposition to each provision in the
proposed rule, with a detailed narrative
describing the key points made by
commenters. USDA used the Final
Summary of Public Comments and a
supplementary review of individual
comments to finalize provisions within
this final rule. USDA refers to the Final
Summary of Public Comments for
numbers of comments received on each
provision, with general summaries of
comments provided in the preamble of
this final rule.
As required under the Administrative
Procedure Act, FNA considered all
relevant, timely-submitted comments

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

received on the proposed rule. Some
comments addressed topics out of scope
for the revisions and therefore are not
addressed in this final rule.
V. Discussion of Final Rule
The following is a discussion of the
provisions set forth in the proposed
rule, a summary of the comments
received that addressed these
provisions, and the Department’s
rationale for either retaining or
modifying the proposed provisions in
the final rule. Provisions not discussed
in this preamble did not receive
significant or substantial public
comments and are retained in this final
rule as proposed.
This preamble communicates the
rationale for modifications to the
proposed rule codified in this final
rulemaking. The Department reexamined the goals of this rulemaking
while reviewing the comments to
determine the continued applicability of
each proposed change. Unless otherwise
stated in the preamble of this final rule,
the rationales included in the preamble
of the proposed rule are regarded as a
basis for the final regulations. Therefore,
an understanding of the rationales for
the final regulations may require
reference to the preamble of the
proposed rule.
USDA appreciates the many
comments expressing support for the
proposed revisions and urging USDA to
implement the changes included in the
proposed rule. USDA agrees the changes
improve access to healthy foods and the
efficiency of the WIC shopping
experience while ensuring State
agencies have the flexibility to oversee
new types of vendors and to maintain
program integrity and security. Before
addressing each provision specifically,
the following is a summary of
overarching themes related to online
shopping that the Department is
acknowledging broadly.
(i) Technical assistance to support
online shopping: the Department
received numerous comments
requesting guidance and technical
assistance to support the
implementation of online shopping in
WIC.
The Department is committed to
providing ongoing technical assistance
and guidance to State agencies to ensure
they have the support and resources
necessary to implement online shopping
and can do so while preserving program
integrity. The Department is developing
best practices, lessons learned, and
technical resources to support State
agencies in the implementation of
online shopping using the many
recommendations and ideas

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

stakeholders provided during the public
comment period for the proposed rule.
(ii) Internet vendor authorization:
Many commenters expressed concern
the State agency-by-State agency
approach to internet vendor
authorization would be lengthy and
cumbersome, and instead recommended
the Department adopt a national
authorization process for online
shopping, including national
monitoring and management, similar to
that of SNAP.
The Department notes there is a
significant difference in how SNAP and
WIC are authorized in legislation. The
Child Nutrition Act expressly delegates
responsibility for vendor authorization,
monitoring, and oversight to WIC State
agencies. Therefore, the Department did
not propose a national process related to
the authorization of WIC internet
vendors.
(iii) Costs of technology innovations
and online shopping: Many comments
discussed concerns around the cost of
adopting new technologies and stated
the need for more federal funding to
implement the various changes
included in this rulemaking.
The Department notes the majority of
the changes in this rulemaking either,
(1) increase options and flexibilities for
State agencies in vendor management
activities without increased costs, or (2)
provide the opportunity for State
agencies to pursue new technologies at
their discretion. The Department
recognizes funding is a consideration for
State agencies and therefore is not
requiring implementation of any new
technologies at this time. This
rulemaking allows State agencies the
opportunity to determine an appropriate
and feasible timeline to implement new
technologies. The Department
recognizes the costs associated with
authorizing internet vendors, largely
due to the EBT and MIS changes
necessary to allow new types of
transactions and is therefore prioritizing
flexibility and has recently supported
State agencies through various funding
opportunities, including subgrant
opportunities from CNHI.
(iv) Modernizing offline EBT systems:
Some commenters questioned how State
agencies with offline EBT systems (i.e.,
chipped EBT cards in which benefits
cannot be used or issued online) would
be able to implement some of the
provisions in this rule, such as those
related to online shopping or issuing
benefits remotely. Commenters asked
for technical assistance and funding to
help transition to online EBT systems.
The Department recognizes that
offline EBT systems will not be able to
operate WIC online shopping or issue

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

benefits remotely. The Department is
actively working with all offline State
agencies to transition to online EBT
systems so that they can also take part
in these opportunities. The Department
also highlights that neither online
shopping nor remote benefit issuance
are requirements for State agencies
under this rulemaking. This rule creates
the necessary flexibilities for the State
agencies that are interested and able to
develop online shopping and
encourages the flexible issuance of
benefits where possible.
(v) Impact to small vendors and
accessibility: Some commenters
expressed concerns that implementing

online shopping would be especially
challenging for small vendors.
To support small vendors, CNHI
conducted a survey and hosted listening
sessions to hear directly from small,
Tribal, and rural vendors, and farmers
and farmers’ markets, to understand the
perceptions, experiences, and potential
barriers vendors face in implementing
online shopping.8 The Department
recognizes different types of support
and guidance may be needed to initiate
WIC online shopping. USDA is
committed to gathering feedback and
learning from implementation projects
to develop technical resources and
assistance.
Commenters also noted that access to
online shopping through the inclusion
Summary of proposed revision

1. Remove Barriers to Allow for Online Ordering and Internet Based
Transactions.

Clarify which vendor agreement provisions apply
only to paper food instruments and modernize the
purchase price provision to be inclusive of EBT
transactions. (section 1.a.i).
Remove the requirement that WIC shoppers must
sign printed food instruments in the presence of a
cashier. (section 1.a.ii).
Remove the requirement to use a personal identification number (PIN) in lieu of a signature. (section 1.a.iii).
Create new provisions to allow WIC State agencies
to explore and identify options to authenticate
EBT transactions and require vendors, farmers,
and farmers’ markets to authenticate EBT transactions in accordance with State agency policy.
(section 1.a.iv).
Create a new definition for ‘‘brick-and-mortar vendor.’’ (section 1.b.i).
Create a new definition for ‘‘internet vendor.’’ (section 1.b.ii).
Create a new definition for ‘‘mobile vendor.’’ (section 1.b.iii).
Update the definition of ‘‘above-50-percent vendor’’
to be applicable to all vendor types. (section
1.b.iv).
Modernize the current definition of ‘‘vendor’’ by removing the requirement that vendors must have a
single, fixed location, simplifying the definition of
vendor, and clarifying that all vendors must be
authorized separately. (section 1.c.i).
Remove a clause in the definition of ‘‘vendor’’ requiring a special needs justification for mobile
vendors and remove associated language from
the State Plan requirements. (section 1.c.ii).
Clarify that cash refunds are still prohibited and update the exchange policy to accommodate recalls,
ensuring that WIC shoppers are treated the same
as other customers in the event of a recall. (section 1.d.i).
Allow for the return of electronic benefits to a participant’s balance when items in an online order
are not fulfilled and for the use of returned electronic benefits. (section 1.d.ii).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

Finalize as proposed.

Finalize as proposed.
Finalize as proposed.
Modify to remove reference to Department standards that are not yet published and require FNA
approval to use an authentication method other
than PIN.
Finalize as proposed.
Modify to clarify the transactions at each internet
vendor must be assigned to that internet vendor.
Modify to clarify the transactions at mobile vendors
must be assigned to that specific vendor.
Finalize as proposed.
Modify to remove the reference to SNAP and clarify
each entity must be separately authorized.

Finalize as proposed.

Modify the refunds provision to clarify the different
types of cash refunds that are prohibited and
modify the exchange provision to reflect changes
from the Implementation of the Access to Baby
Formula Act of 2022 and Related Provisions Final
Rule 9 by clearly defining a supplemental food recall in 7 CFR § 246.2.
Modify to allow returns for purchases that took
place at any vendor type, not just online orders.

Nutrition Service. December 2024. https://
www.wicshopplus.org/resource-library/wic-onlineshopping-strfm-brief-report.
9 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC):

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of alternative languages to English, as
well as alternative online formats for
persons with disabilities are key to
ensuring all participants can access
online shopping opportunities. The
Department will explore opportunities
to provide ongoing technical assistance
to ensure that State agencies are
encouraging vendors to equip their
online platforms to meet the needs of
their participants.
Following this summary of
overarching themes, the Department
presents a summary comparison of the
proposed and final provisions of this
rule with detailed discussion on each
following.

Summary of final revisions based on public comment

Section

8 Akers, L, Anderson-Steeves ET, Crespo-Bellido
M, Ángel-López M, Vest D, Nitto AM, Hill JL. WIC
Online Shopping Brief Report: Small, Tribal, and
Rural Vendors and Farmers and Farmers Market
(STRFM) Study. Prepared for: USDA Food and

70253

Implementation of the Access to Baby Formula Act
of 2022 and Related Provisions (88 FR 86545).
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-26641.

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

70254

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
Summary of proposed revision

Summary of final revisions based on public comment

Require State agencies to provide participants with
no less than seven (7) days to transact returned
electronic benefits, which could go beyond the
last date of use (LDTU). (section 1.d.iii).

Modify to clarify that State agencies must allow participants to use returned electronic benefits
through the end of the benefit issuance month.
Make the use of returned electronic benefits after
the last date of use (LDTU) a State agency option
and set a maximum of seven (7) days for benefit
use beyond the LDTU.
The Department is requesting comment on the impacts this would have on stakeholders and their
systems if this flexibility were to be a requirement.
Finalize as proposed.

Section

Update the definitions of ‘‘routine monitoring’’ and
‘‘compliance buy’’ to remove the on-site requirement. (section 1.e.i).
Introduce virtual visits as an allowable type of
preauthorization visit. (section 1.e.ii).
Prohibit vendors, farmers or farmers’ markets from
charging State agencies fees associated with
WIC purchases and permit WIC shoppers to pay
such fees. (section 1.f.i).

2. Streamline and Modernize WIC
Food Delivery.

3. Meet the Needs of a Modern,
Data Driven Program.

Clarify costs associated with home food delivery
and direct distribution to ensure State agencies
still pay for the cost of transporting food under
these two food delivery systems. (section 1.f.ii).
Allow the remote issuance of electronic benefits by
separating the benefit issuance provisions for
paper food instruments and cash-value vouchers
from electronic benefit issuance and updating signature requirements. (section 2.a.i).
Create new definitions of ‘‘electronic benefits,’’
‘‘cash-value benefit,’’ and ‘‘cash-value voucher’’ to
reflect a modern WIC Program. (section 2.a.ii).
Expand the definition of ‘‘food instrument.’’ (section
2.b).
Allow State agencies to develop and test new WIC
food instrument types. Clarify uniform food delivery systems and system combinations. (section
2.c.i).
Remove the requirement for State agencies to collect shelf price data, as EBT data are a sufficient
replacement. (section 2.d).
Allow State agencies using a non-retail, home food
delivery system to ship supplemental foods to a
location designated by participants and approved
by the State agency. (section 2.e).
Extend vendor application and agreement periods
from three to five years.
Update the reporting requirements for WIC food delivery systems, including the timing of reporting
and information required. (section 3.a).
Increase the staffing standards for the position of
the WIC Food Delivery Coordinator.
Add staffing standards to create a WIC Quality Improvement Coordinator.

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

4. Request for Public Comment on
Key Topic Areas.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

The Department requested comment on whether
there is a need to authorize vendors that sell a
specific subset of supplemental foods (e.g.,
dairies, bakeries, produce sellers) but would not
meet the minimum variety and quantity of supplemental foods, as required by WIC regulations.
(section 4.a).

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Finalize as proposed.
Modify to apply the prohibition to all fees associated
with a WIC purchase (e.g., delivery, service, convenience, bag fees) for any vendor type, not just
online shopping fees, to ensure consistent treatment of all vendor types.
Modify to further clarify that food funds can be used
to pay for the cost of transporting foods in home
food delivery and direct distribution but cannot be
used in retail food delivery systems.
Modify to ensure State agencies have procedures
for recipient proof of receipt to ensure program integrity measures, and to clarify that signatures
are required only when benefits are received in
person.
Finalize as proposed.
Finalize as proposed.
Modify to clarify that State agencies can have more
than one food instrument type within a food delivery system at a time.
Modify to clarify that State agencies can use existing EBT data for vendors applying for re-authorization.
Modify to allow State agencies to confirm delivery
location of supplemental foods as an additional
measure of program integrity.
FNA will not finalize as proposed; no change to current provision.
Modify to remove the proposed requirement for
quarterly submissions, maintaining the current annual minimum.
FNA will not finalize as proposed; no change to current provision. State agencies may optionally implement more stringent standards at the State
level.
FNA will not finalize as proposed; no change to current provision. State agencies may optionally implement more stringent standards at the State
level.
Due to feedback received discussing concerns related to cost containment, program integrity, and
the impact on small vendors, the Department will
not allow exceptions to minimum stocking requirements for authorizing specialty vendors in this
rulemaking.

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
1. Remove Barriers To Allow for Online
Ordering and Internet-Based
Transactions
This final rule allows vendors and
WIC shoppers to complete internetbased transactions, creates new
definitions for internet and mobile
vendors, modernizes the definition of
brick-and-mortar and above-50-percent
vendors, allows vendors to return
benefits to a participant’s benefit
balance, allows State agencies to
develop virtual methods of oversight,
permits WIC shoppers to pay fees
associated with WIC purchases, and
clarifies that State agencies may use
non-WIC funds to pay fees associated
with WIC purchases.
a. Allow vendors and WIC shoppers
to complete internet-based transactions
[§§ 246.12(h)(3)(v), (vi), and (xxxii),
246.12(v)(1)(iv), and 246.12(bb)(2)]. The
changes to provisions in this section
that clarify which vendor agreement
provisions apply only to paper food
instruments and modernize the
purchase price provision,
§ 246.12(h)(3)(v) and (vi), are finalized
as proposed. The provisions that allow
vendors, farmers and farmers’ markets,
and WIC shoppers to complete internetbased transactions by removing
requirements that WIC shoppers must
sign food instruments, or enter a
personal identification number (PIN), in
the presence of a cashier,
§ 246.12(h)(3)(v) and (vi), and
§ 246.12(v)(1)(iv), are also finalized as
proposed. The provisions requiring
vendors, farmers and farmers’ markets
to authenticate transactions in
accordance with State agency policies,
§ 246.12(h)(3)(xxxii) and
§ 246.12(v)(1)(iv), are finalized as
proposed, and the provision requiring
State agencies to develop policies on
transaction authentication methods,
§ 246.12(bb)(2), is finalized with
modifications.
i. Clarify which vendor agreement
provisions apply only to paper food
instruments and modernize the
purchase price provision to be inclusive
of EBT transactions. (§ 246.12(h)(3)(v)
and (vi))
This final rule codifies the change
from ‘‘printed’’ to ‘‘paper’’ at
§ 246.12(h)(3)(vi) as proposed to clarify
which vendor agreement provisions
apply only to paper food instruments.
This final rule also codifies proposed
revisions to the purchase price
provision at § 246.12(h)(3)(v) to ensure
the requirement that WIC shoppers are
made aware of the total purchase price
before transactions are completed
continues to be applicable to EBT
transactions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

Commenters expressed general
support for the changes that clarify
which provisions apply to paper food
instruments versus EBT transactions,
especially the requirement that
participants be made aware of the
purchase price before the transaction is
completed, affirming these requirements
enable WIC participants to make
informed choices and ensure program
integrity. No comments were opposed.
Some commenters requested
flexibility on how State agencies meet
the requirement that participants be
made aware of the total purchase price,
and recommended the Department
require vendors ensure the price of
produce for online purchases does not
increase during fulfillment so that the
amount of cash-value benefits
transacted is not higher than what the
participant agreed to during the
shopping process.
The Department does not define in
regulation how vendors must ensure
participants are made aware of the total
purchase price. Vendors should make
WIC participants aware of prices in the
same ways they show all other
customers prior to the completion of the
transaction, while still meeting the WIC
receipt requirements outlined in the
WIC EBT Operating Rules.10 The
Department will incorporate feedback
on best practices on handling produce
during the fulfillment process into
future policy guidance.
ii. Remove the requirement that WIC
shoppers must sign in the presence of a
cashier. (§ 246.12(h)(3)(vi))
This final rule codifies revisions as
proposed at § 246.12(h)(3)(vi) to remove
the requirement that WIC shoppers must
sign printed food instruments in the
presence of a cashier.
This change received overwhelming
support, with commenters stating this
change will enhance convenience for
participants and reduce burdens
associated with the current WIC
shopping experience. The Department
agrees this change supports
modernization of the WIC Program and
the changing retail landscape, and
makes WIC shopping less burdensome,
which also supports greater benefit
utilization. No comments were opposed.
iii. Remove the requirement to use a
personal identification number (PIN) in
lieu of a signature. (§ 246.12(h)(3)(vi))
This final rule codifies revisions as
proposed at § 246.12(h)(3)(vi) to remove
the requirement to use a PIN in lieu of
a signature.
Many comments supported removing
the requirement to use a PIN in lieu of
10 https://www.fna.usda.gov/wic/ebt/technicalimplementation-guide-operating-rules.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70255

a signature, stating it would allow State
agencies to modernize alongside the
grocery industry as PIN authentication
is just one of many authentication
models employed in the commercial
marketplace. The Department agrees
that allowing for new types of
authentication methods facilitates
security innovation in the WIC Program.
An opposed commenter expressed
concern that eliminating the PIN
requirement could lead to fraud. The
Department clarifies this change does
not remove the State agency’s
responsibility to ensure a secure
transaction, nor the requirement for
transaction authentication, but instead
eliminates regulatory barriers,
supporting State agency innovation, and
allows State agencies to use new types
of transaction authentication methods to
better reflect industry modernization.
The Department expects State
agencies that do not choose to use new
transaction authentication methods will
continue to use the PIN as the required
transaction authentication methodology
for their jurisdiction. Modifications to
the provision at § 246.12(bb)(2) establish
this expectation by requiring State
agencies to receive written approval to
adopt an authentication method other
than the PIN. The Department will
provide further detail on expectations
for transaction authentication in
forthcoming guidance, discussed in
section 1.a.iv below.
Some commenters stated the
differences in WIC and SNAP PIN
requirements could lead to confusion
among participants using both
programs, as all SNAP online purchase
transactions still require the PIN.
Commenters encouraged the
Department to implement uniform
authentication standards and payment
models across all programs that use
EBT.
The Department agrees there is value
in consistency across SNAP and WIC
and works to achieve this where
possible while allowing for new types of
authentication methods when feasible
and appropriate. With the
implementation of new technologies in
WIC, the Department encourages State
agencies to continue educating
participants on the use of any modern
food instruments and how to transact
their WIC benefits.
iv. Create new provisions to allow
WIC State agencies to explore and
identify options to authenticate EBT
transactions and require vendors,
farmers, and farmers’ markets to
authenticate EBT transactions in
accordance with State agency policy.
(§§ 246.12(bb)(2), 246.12(h)(3)(xxxii)
and 246.12(v)(1)(iv))

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

70256

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

This final rule codifies a new
provision at § 246.12(bb)(2) requiring
that State agencies have appropriate
transaction authentication policies for
the specific technologies they choose to
allow in their jurisdiction, with
modifications to remove reference to
FNA standards that have not yet been
developed. The Department has also
modified this provision to establish PIN
authentication as the default
authentication method. As discussed
above, the expectation that State
agencies utilize a PIN until more
modern technology meets or exceeds the
security of a PIN is reinforced by
codifying specific reference to the PIN
in the amendatory text.
This final rule also codifies a new
provision as proposed requiring vendors
to authenticate transactions in
accordance with State agency policies at
§ 246.12(h)(3)(xxxii), and that
transactions at farmers and farmers’
markets also occur in accordance with
the procedures established by the State
agency at § 246.12(v)(1)(iv).
Multiple commenters expressed
support for these changes, agreeing they
will allow State agencies flexibility to
create a plan that works for their
participants and a variety of modern
vendors, while ensuring program
integrity. No comments were opposed.
The Department appreciates the
extensive feedback that commenters
provided regarding the transaction
authentication standards referenced in
the proposed rule, including the
recommendations on the content of the
standards and on where the standards
will be posted. Because the standards
are not yet published, the Department is
removing the reference to them in this
final rule. The Department will,
however, still develop guidance on
transaction authentication for State
agencies that incorporates this feedback.
Commenters recommended that
transaction authentication standards be
developed via the Technical Standards
Workgroup (TSW) to ensure they can
continue to be updated on an ongoing
basis with stakeholder feedback as
technology evolves. The Department
agrees that input from the WIC
community is important for the
development of standards in the
evolving retail marketplace. Therefore,
transaction authentication standards
will be developed and finalized via the
TSW to allow for maximum engagement
with affected parties and partners.
Commenters requested that the
implementation of the provisions
related to new transaction
authentication methods not be required
until the Department’s transaction
authentication standards are published.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

The Department recognizes the
development of transaction
authentication standards will take time
and does not want to prevent State
agencies from exploring modernization
initiatives. Because FNA has not yet
published such standards, the
Department has removed the regulatory
reference to the FNA standards as noted
above. While the provisions in this
section will be effective upon
publication of the final rule to allow
State agencies to take advantage of the
flexibilities created in this rulemaking,
State agencies will not be expected to
wait for publication of final transaction
authentication standards to continue
their online shopping projects.
Following this rulemaking, the
Department will provide interim
guidance on transaction authentication.
The Department encourages State
agencies to explore new payment
technologies and expects that State
agencies will continue to use PIN
authentication until more modern
technology meets or exceeds the
security of a PIN.
Some commenters questioned how
these changes would impact industry
partners, such as vendors and EBT
processors. They expressed concerns
that competing transaction standards
across WIC State agencies could result
in challenges for multi-state retailers,
and that current EBT contractual
provisions may not allow new
transaction authentication methods.
As discussed above, the Department
will develop transaction authentication
standards for State agencies, with
interim guidance provided following
this rulemaking, to support
implementation of new technologies
and encourage uniformity across State
agencies. The Department recommends
vendors continue to work closely with
the State agencies in which they are
authorized to ensure they are following
all respective State agency specific
policies. The Department also
recognizes each State agency has
different procurement policies and
procedures and recommends that State
agencies continue to work closely and
maintain open communication with
their procurement offices and EBT
contractors as they pursue any new
technologies.
Some commenters stated that
participants should be able to use their
EBT cards with farmers or farmers’
markets and purchase farm fresh
produce online. WIC regulations
currently allow State agencies to
authorize farmers and farmers’ markets
to accept cash-value benefits (CVB). The
Department encourages all State
agencies to allow participants to

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

transact their CVB with farmers and at
farmers’ markets to support the
purchase of local produce. With the
changes from this rulemaking,
authorized farmers and farmers’ markets
will be allowed to sell their produce
online.
b. Create new types of vendors
[§ 246.2]. The provisions to define
‘‘Brick-and-mortar vendor’’ and ‘‘Above50-percent vendor’’ are finalized as
proposed. The provisions to define
‘‘Internet vendor’’ and ‘‘Mobile vendor’’
are finalized with modifications to
ensure all vendors are authorized
separately and transactions that take
place at each vendor are assigned
specifically to that vendor.
There was a significant discussion
from commenters regarding the new
vendor types, and while many
commenters supported the proposed
definitions, other commenters shared
concerns and requests for clarification
from the Department. The following
discussion is related to overarching
concerns regarding the new vendor
types. A discussion on the specific
definitions for each vendor type follows.
Commenters requested guidance from
USDA on how the creation of new
vendor types will impact various State
agency vendor management activities
such as selection criteria, peer groups,
preauthorization, above-50-vendor
assessment, cost containment,
monitoring, training, and sanctions.
Many commenters also provided
recommendations for how vendor
management activities should take place
for the new vendor types. Some
commenters requested clarification on
whether the authorization of internet
and mobile vendors is a State agency
option. The Department recognizes
adding new vendor types warrants
revised approaches to vendor
management. The Department
appreciates the feedback and
recommendations on how to adequately
manage the new vendor types and will
incorporate this feedback into the
development of guidance and technical
assistance, expanding on current efforts
to develop guidance and technical
assistance based on lessons learned
from online shopping projects. While
the Department confirms the
authorization of internet and mobile
vendors is a State agency option, the
Department also encourages State
agencies to consider authorizing these
new vendor types to better serve
families across the country, including in
rural areas.
Many commenters strongly agreed
with the Department’s proposal that all
vendors, regardless of type, must adhere
to all regulations pertaining to vendors

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
and discussed the importance of
applying consistent and fair program
requirements regardless of vendor type.
However, some commenters disagreed
and recommended different
requirements by vendor type, such as
different federal selection criteria or
minimum stock for internet and mobile
vendors than brick-and-mortar vendors.
The Department recognizes that
different vendor types will inherently
have different training, monitoring, and
investigative needs, and the specific
ways in which vendor management
activities take place may be different.
However, the State agency must hold all
vendors to the same federal
accountability measures and minimum
requirements to ensure effective
management and oversight. Therefore,
the Department maintains that all
authorized vendors, no matter the type,
are subject to federal regulations
governing authorized WIC vendors, but
that State agencies may tailor their
vendor management approach
depending on vendor type. For example,
State agency training for internet
vendors may include new content for
web designers, such as online shopping
navigation and pricing, and may focus
less on transaction details which may
not be applicable for an internet vendor
using automated product compliance
controls. Further, as discussed in
section 1.e, the Department is
introducing virtual methods of oversight
to provide State agencies with the
appropriate tools for monitoring all
vendor types. While different vendor
types do not have distinct requirements,
vendors of different types may be able
to show compliance with requirements
in distinct manners. For example, an
authorized internet vendor sourcing
orders from multiple fulfillment
locations would not need to
demonstrate that each fulfillment
location meets stocking standards so
long as the vendor can prove to the State
agency that their online ordering
operations as a whole meet those
standards. Similarly, internet vendors
may have different mechanisms for
demonstrating compliance with
inventory audits, which are just one
State agency option for investigating
their vendor population.
Some commenters stated that the
word ‘‘store’’ as used throughout the
current regulations appears to refer to a
single, fixed location, and therefore
would only apply to brick-and-mortar
stores. Commenters requested
clarification of the Department’s
application of the word ‘‘store’’
considering the new vendor types that
do not have single, fixed store locations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

The Department clarifies that the
word ‘‘store’’ as used throughout the
regulation is synonymous with the term
‘‘vendor’’ and applies to brick-andmortar, internet, and mobile vendors.
Many commenters requested the
inclusion of a ‘‘hybrid vendor’’ defined
by the Task Force Report as a ‘‘physical
store location that also operates a virtual
platform,’’ 11 so internet vendors do not
have to be separately authorized if they
fulfill orders from a brick-and-mortar
vendor. Commenters requested a similar
inclusion for mobile vendors.
The Department appreciates the input
from commenters and thoroughly
considered the Task Force report as well
as the public comments recommending
the inclusion of ‘‘hybrid vendor’’ as
another vendor type. While the
Department recognizes the fulfillment of
many online orders may come from
brick-and-mortar vendors, the
Department determined ‘‘hybrid
vendors’’ are not feasible due to
challenges they would pose for cost
containment and program integrity.
State agencies must be able to apply cost
containment methods to brick-andmortar vendor operations independently
from any affiliated internet operations
as prices for food purchased online are
often higher than prices for food
purchased in-store.12 To ensure vendors
are charging State agencies appropriate
and reasonable prices for WIC foods and
are remaining cost competitive relative
to peer vendors, State agencies must
authorize internet, mobile, and brickand-mortar vendors separately,
regardless of any association. Further,
State agencies must maintain the ability
to take administrative action against
individual vendors at fault for violations
when they occur. If the State agency
found a violation associated with the
internet operations of a ‘‘hybrid vendor’’
while the brick-and-mortar operations
remained in compliance, the State
agency would be required to take action
against both entities together if they
were under one authorization. Such
action could limit participant access if
the brick-and-mortar operations were no
longer authorized. By separating the
authorizations by brick-and-mortar
operations from internet operations, the
State agency is better equipped to
manage program integrity. Finally, it is
an important component of vendor
11 Task Force on Supplemental Foods Delivery in
the WIC Program—Recommendations Report, page
16 (September 2021). https://www.fna.usda.gov/
wic/food-delivery-task-force-recommendationsreport.
12 Roerink, A.M. (June 2021). Grocery ECommerce—Opportunity Remains. Produce
Business, 37(6), p.12. https://producebusiness.com/
issue/produce-business-june-2021/.

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70257

management and cross program
integrity efforts that WIC and SNAP can
take reciprocal administrative action
against vendors when a vendor commits
a violation. For these reasons, the
Department decided the use of a
‘‘hybrid vendor’’ is not feasible for the
WIC Program and maintains that brickand-mortar, internet, and mobile
vendors are the only three vendor types
and must be separately authorized, with
their own distinct vendor identification
numbers (vendor IDs).
i. Create a new definition for ‘‘brickand-mortar vendor.’’ (§ 246.2)
This final rule codifies the new
definition of ‘‘brick-and-mortar vendor’’
as proposed, requiring this type of
vendor to be defined separately and
distinctly from internet or mobile
vendors.
Multiple commenters supported the
proposed definition and reasoned that
permitting new types of WIC vendors
enhances program modernization, and
expanding vendor definitions supports
small businesses and participant access.
No comments were opposed.
Some commenters requested
clarification if brick-and-mortar vendors
can offer online ordering, that is, when
a WIC participant places an order
through the internet and then comes to
the store to swipe their EBT card and
pick up their order. Online ordering
with curbside payment and pick-up
remains allowable with the new vendor
types. In this scenario, the transaction is
occurring at the brick-and-mortar store,
so this transaction would be assigned to
the brick-and-mortar vendor.
ii. Create a new definition for
‘‘internet vendor.’’ (§ 246.2)
This final rule codifies the new
definition of ‘‘internet vendor’’ with
modifications to clarify transactions that
take place at the internet vendor must
be assigned to the internet vendor, and
each internet vendor must be separately
authorized.
Many commenters supported the
creation of a new definition for internet
vendor, stating it will enhance access to
healthy foods for participants and could
facilitate the use of more modern retail
solutions. No comments were opposed.
Some commenters requested the
language used in the brick-and-mortar
vendor definition indicating
‘‘transactions that take place at a brickand-mortar vendor must be assigned to
that vendor’’ should be applicable to
internet vendors as well. Further,
multiple commenters requested
clarification on the meaning of
‘‘location’’ for each vendor type, as the
brick-and-mortar vendor explicitly
specifies the meaning of a ‘‘single,
separate location’’ for the vendor.

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

70258

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

For internet vendors, the location of
the transaction is online, which could
include the online ordering system,
platform, or site used by an internet
vendor to transact benefits. To ensure
consistency in the authorization of
vendor types, the Department added
language to the definition to indicate
that all transactions taking place via an
online ordering system, platform, or site
must be assigned to the authorized
internet vendor. This is to ensure all
vendor types are held to the same
requirements and that transactions are
properly assigned. A similar change was
made to the definition of ‘‘mobile
vendor.’’ The Department recognizes
that internet vendors may use different
eCommerce platform providers,
eCommerce Marketplaces, or delivery
partners to transact WIC benefits. These
third-party platforms may not be
authorized as vendors themselves, and
all transactions that take place on these
platforms must be assigned to the
internet vendor authorized to transact
WIC benefits.
Some commenters requested
clarification on whether an internet
vendor can have any affiliation with a
brick-and-mortar vendor, while others
requested a new definition of ‘‘internet
only vendor’’ for vendors that have no
affiliation with a brick-and-mortar
storefront.
The Department reiterates that
internet vendors provide authorized
supplemental foods to participants
through internet-based transactions,
regardless of their affiliation with any
physical store. This includes, but is not
limited to:
• Vendors operating only online with
no physical storefront,
• Vendors operating online and
fulfilling from a brick-and-mortar
vendor, and
• Vendors operating online and
fulfilling from a warehouse and a
separately authorized brick-and-mortar
vendor.
Regardless of where the order is
fulfilled from or if the order is delivered
to the participant or picked up in a
physical store, the vendor type depends
on the location of the transaction.
Therefore, if the transaction happened
online then it must be assigned to the
internet vendor. This is consistent with
SNAP’s authorization and management
of internet retailers.
iii. Create a new definition for
‘‘mobile vendor.’’ (§ 246.2)
This final rule codifies the new
definition of ‘‘mobile vendor’’ with
modifications to clarify transactions that
take place at the mobile vendor must be
assigned to the mobile vendor, and each

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

mobile vendor must be authorized
separately.
Multiple commenters supported the
proposed definition, stating that
allowing mobile vendors will enhance
participant access to healthy foods. No
comments were opposed.
Some commenters requested the
language used in the ‘‘brick-and-mortar
vendor’’ definition indicating
‘‘transactions that take place at a brickand-mortar vendor must be assigned to
that vendor’’ should be applicable to
mobile vendors as well. Further,
multiple commenters requested
clarification on the meaning of
‘‘location’’ for each vendor type, as the
definition of a brick-and-mortar vendor
explicitly specifies there is a ‘‘single,
separate location’’ for the vendor.
For a mobile vendor, the location of
the transaction is the truck, bus,
pushcart, or other mobile vehicle at
which the transaction takes place. To
ensure consistency in the authorization
of vendor types, the Department added
language to the definition to indicate
that all transactions that take place at a
mobile vendor must be assigned to that
authorized mobile vendor. This is to
ensure all vendor types are held to the
same requirements and transactions are
properly assigned.
Multiple commenters expressed
concern about the feasibility for mobile
vendors to operate the WIC Program,
including their ability to meet minimum
stocking requirements, manage updating
the authorized product list (APL), and
use EBT systems. Commenters also
recommended prices for mobile vendors
be restricted to the same prices as brickand-mortar vendors.
The Department clarifies authorizing
mobile vendors is an option, not a
requirement, for State agencies. If a
State agency chooses to authorize this
type of vendor, all vendor requirements
must be met. The Department highlights
that State agencies have flexibility in
managing their vendor populations and
can set different minimum stocking
requirements by peer group, as long as
they meet the federal minimum stocking
requirements defined at § 246.12(g)(3)(i).
State agencies that choose to authorize
mobile vendors as a new vendor type
must meet all vendor regulations,
including cost containment.
iv. Update the definition of ‘‘above50-percent vendors’’ to be applicable to
all vendor types. (§ 246.2)
This final rule codifies the revised
definition of ‘‘above-50-percent vendor’’
as proposed to ensure any type of
authorized vendor could also be
classified as an above-50-percent vendor
if it meets the conditions of the
definition.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Commenters expressed general
support for the new definition.
An opposed comment requested the
‘‘above-50-percent vendor’’
classification not apply to internet
vendors for fear it would inhibit small
vendors starting their internet presence
with WIC. Other commenters stated that
assessing for above-50-percent status
would not be relevant for internet
vendors as their statewide sales
operations would be so large that they
would never derive more than half of
their sales from WIC.
Assessing for and monitoring above50-percent vendors is an important part
of the WIC Program’s efforts to ensure
State agencies can continue containing
costs and avoiding fraudulent activity.
The Department believes it remains
important to evaluate all vendors,
including internet and mobile vendors,
for above-50-percent vendor status to
ensure vendors that derive more than 50
percent of their annual sales revenue
from WIC are appropriately monitored
to prevent fraud. While it may be the
case for some internet vendors, the
Department cannot say with full
certainty that all internet vendors will
operate statewide and process enough in
online sales to not meet the above-50percent threshold. Therefore, it will
remain a requirement for all vendor
types to be assessed for ‘‘above-50percent vendor’’ status.
The Department received a comment
requesting clarification on whether an
above-50-percent vendor is considered a
vendor type, similar to how brick-andmortar, internet, and mobile vendors are
all types of vendors, or if instead it is
a classification of vendor.
The Department clarifies an above-50percent vendor is not a vendor type, but
a classification of vendor. Any vendor
that meets the definition of above-50percent vendor, regardless of type, must
be classified as an above-50-percent
vendor.
Finally, a commenter recommended
that USDA include a definition of
‘‘regular vendor’’ to account for vendors
not classified as above-50-percent
vendors.
The Department considered this
request but concluded it was
unnecessary and may cause additional
confusion. The regulations at § 246.12
refer to ‘‘regular vendors’’ only when
making comparisons to above-50-vendor
vendors. As a ‘‘regular vendor’’ is any
type of vendor that is not classified as
an above-50-vendor, it is the assumed
normal classification and does not need
further defining.
c. Modernize the definition of
‘‘vendor’’ to be inclusive of new vendor
types. [§§ 246.2 & 246.4(a)(14)(xv)]. The

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
provision revising the definition of
vendor at § 246.2 is finalized with
modifications to streamline the
definition and remove the SNAP
reference while maintaining that all
vendors, regardless of type, must be
separately authorized. The provision
requiring State agencies to justify the
need for mobile stores in their State
Plans at § 246.4(a)(14)(xv) is removed as
proposed.
i. Remove the requirement that
vendors must have a single, fixed
location, simplify the definition of
vendor, and clarify that all vendors
must be authorized separately. (§ 246.2)
This final rule codifies the revised
definition of vendor at § 246.2 allowing
State agencies to authorize the vendor
types included in this final rule by
removing the requirement that vendors
must have a single, fixed location and
that State agencies must delineate the
different business structures of vendor
applicants. The Department modified
the provision to streamline the
definition and removed the reference to
SNAP.
Comments were overwhelmingly
supportive of removing the requirement
that State agencies may only authorize
vendors with a single, fixed location.
Commenters also supported simplifying
the definition of vendor by replacing
current regulatory language delineating
different business structures that a
vendor may have (i.e., a sole
proprietorship, partnership, cooperative
association, corporation, or other
business entity) with the term ‘‘business
entity.’’ Commenters asserted this
would benefit State agencies and
vendors by decreasing the burden of
determining the business structure
during the vendor application process.
No comments were opposed.
Commenters generally supported the
requirement that all vendors be
authorized separately to support vendor
management activities.
Some commenters stated the new
vendor definition complicated whether
each vendor, regardless of type, must be
separately authorized, and
recommended the definition be more
concise. Some expressed concern about
how to interpret the entity to be
authorized as an internet or mobile
vendor, as the proposed definition only
discussed separate ‘‘store’’ locations.
Some commenters expressed concern
about the general reference to SNAP
authorization in the definition, with
some stating the reference should be
either further clarified or removed.
The Department added ‘‘each store,
internet retailer, and mobile vehicle
constitutes a unique vendor and must be
authorized separately’’ to the revised

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

definition of vendor to clarify the
unique entity that must be separately
authorized as a vendor, regardless of
affiliation with other vendors. This will
require internet and mobile vendors to
be separately authorized from brick-andmortar vendors, which will support
State agency vendor management
activities such as authorizing,
monitoring, and sanctioning individual
vendors without impacting other
authorized vendors that may be under
the same responsible entity.
The Department agrees with
streamlining the definition by removing
the reference to SNAP authorization. At
the time of the proposed rule, the
Department believed that tying one
SNAP authorization to one WIC
authorization per State agency would be
the most efficient way to ensure that
cross-program integrity efforts could
continue without interruption following
the introduction of internet vendors.
However, the WIC online shopping
projects have since demonstrated that
doing so may limit State agency options
and flexibility for effectively managing
their internet vendor population.
Requiring State agencies to authorize
internet vendors separately from brickand-mortar vendors (as discussed above
in section V.1.b.ii) is sufficient to allow
for ongoing coordination of vendor/
retailer activities between WIC and
SNAP (e.g., reciprocal disqualifications,
etc.) and enables WIC vendor integrity
efforts to move forward consistently.
Removing the reference to SNAP
authorization in the vendor definition
provides WIC State agencies the
flexibility to authorize internet vendors
using a method that best meets their
vendor management needs. The separate
authorization of each unique vendor is
consistent with how the WIC Program
currently authorizes vendors, and the
separate authorization of internet
vendors from brick-and-mortar vendors
aligns with SNAP’s authorization
practices.
The Department would like to
highlight that § 246.12(g)(9), which
requires the State agency to collect a
vendor applicant’s SNAP authorization
number if the vendor applicant is
authorized in SNAP, is maintained in
this final rule, which will continue to
support State agency ability to ensure
cross-program integrity efforts.
Commenters requested clarification
on whether § 246.12(h)(1)(i) remains
applicable, which permits State
agencies to use a single agreement to
cover multiple vendors operated by the
same responsible entity (e.g., chain
stores).
The Department confirms
§ 246.12(h)(1)(i) remains applicable, and

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70259

a vendor representative may obligate
more than one vendor (e.g., a single
agreement to cover multiple vendors), as
long as each vendor itself is authorized
separately, and the agreement specifies
all vendors covered by the agreement.
Any administrative action the State
agency applies must only be applied to
the specific vendor with which the
violation was found. This allows the
State agency to, for example, disqualify
a single store of a large chain without
impacting other stores that are in
compliance. This will continue to
support State agencies in ensuring
adequate participant access to vendors
throughout their jurisdictions. As
§ 246.12(h)(1) is maintained in this final
rule, State agencies can continue to
sanction multiple vendors for a vendor
violation committed by owners, officers,
or managers of the responsible entity if
the State agency determines that the
vendor violation involves multiple
vendors. Requirements related to
changes in ownership of the vendor, per
§ 246.12(h)(3)(xviii), will apply to all
vendors under the responsible entity as
is currently required.
Some commenters expressed concern
that the separate authorization of
internet vendors would substantially
increase the number of authorized
vendors and associated vendor
management activities.
The Department reiterates that an
internet vendor completing internetbased WIC transactions through an
online ordering system, platform, or site
must be authorized as a unique vendor.
However, the Department clarifies that a
State agency may choose to authorize an
internet vendor that fulfills its orders
from any number of brick-and-mortar
stores, fulfillment centers, or
warehouses to serve throughout a State
agency’s entire jurisdiction as a single
authorized vendor. The Department
believes this will mitigate a State
agency’s vendor count increasing
exponentially and allow retailers
sourcing orders from multiple
fulfillment locations the flexibility to
participate in WIC in a minimally
burdensome manner. The Department
further notes an authorized internet
vendor sourcing orders from multiple
fulfillment locations would not need to
show that each fulfillment location
meets federal and State agency selection
criteria, such as the minimum variety
and quantity of supplemental foods, so
long as the vendor can prove that their
online ordering operations as a whole
meet those criteria. State agencies retain
the option to authorize each fulfillment
location that meets the definition of a
vendor and all federal and State agency
selection criteria as a unique internet

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

70260

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

vendor, if that approach allows them to
best manage and oversee their internet
vendor population.
ii. Remove a clause in the definition
of ‘‘vendor’’ requiring a special needs
justification for mobile vendors and
remove associated language from the
State Plan requirements. (§§ 246.2 and
246.4(a)(14)(xv))
This final rule codifies the removal of
the requirement in the definition of
vendor at § 246.2 for State agencies to
justify mobile vendors in the State Plan
at § 246.4(a)(14)(xv).
This change received overwhelming
support, with commenters stating this
will allow State agencies to authorize
mobile vendors more efficiently and
will remove the burden of justifying
authorization. Commenters suggested
this change will better serve WIC
participants with barriers to accessing
brick-and-mortar vendors. No comments
were opposed.
d. Allow vendors to return electronic
benefits to a participant’s benefit
balance [§§ 246.12(h)(3)(ii) No
substitutions, cash, credit, cash refunds,
or exchanges, (ii)(A) and (C),
§ 246.12(x)(2)(iii), and § 246.12(x)(4)
Return of benefits, (4)(i), (4)(ii), and
(4)(iii)]. The provisions clarifying cash
refunds are still prohibited,
§ 246.12(h)(3)(ii) No substitutions, cash,
credit, cash refunds, or exchanges, and
(ii)(A), are finalized with modifications
to clarify further what types of cash
refunds are prohibited. The provision to
update the exchange policy to
accommodate recalls,
§ 246.12(h)(3)(ii)(C), is finalized with
modifications to reflect changes from
the Implementation of the Access to
Baby Formula Act of 2022 and Related
Provisions Final Rule by clearly
defining a supplemental food recall in 7
CFR 246.2. The provision to allow
vendors to return electronic benefits to
a participant’s balance, § 246.12(x)(4)
Return of benefits, is finalized with
modifications to allow returns with any
vendor type, not just internet vendors,
and to include timeframes in which
benefits must be returned in
§ 246.12(x)(4)(i) and (ii), and to clarify
State agencies must provide at least
until the end of the original benefit
issuance period for participants to use
returned electronic benefits, and that it
is a State agency option to allow
participants to transact returned benefits
after the last date of use (LDTU) for up
to seven (7) days after the LDTU,
§ 246.12(x)(4)(iii). The provision
describing the last date of use,
§ 246.12(x)(2)(iii), is finalized with
modifications to reflect this new
flexibility of using returned benefits
after the last date of use.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

i. Clarify that cash refunds are still
prohibited and update the exchange
policy to accommodate recalls, ensuring
that WIC shoppers are treated the same
as other customers in the event of a
recall. (§ 246.12(h)(3)(ii) No
substitutions, cash, credit, cash refunds,
or exchanges, (ii)(A), and (ii)(C))
This final rule codifies the revised
provision regarding prohibition of cash
refunds, § 246.12(h)(3)(ii) No
substitutions, cash, credit, cash refunds,
or exchanges, and (ii)(A), with
modification to specify the types of
refunds for supplemental foods that are
not allowable. This final rule also
codifies the provision
§ 246.12(h)(3)(ii)(C) explaining the
requirement for exchanging
supplemental foods to ensure all
customers, including WIC shoppers, are
treated the same in the event of a
supplemental food recall, as defined at
§ 246.2.
Multiple commenters supported the
clear prohibition of cash refunds, and
no comments were opposed. One
commenter noted there are other types
of refunds commonly used beyond cash
that should also be prohibited, such as
store credit and gift cards.
The Department agrees that refunds
other than cash should not be provided
in exchange for supplemental foods and
modified § 246.12(h)(3)(ii)(A)
accordingly to include a prohibition on
cash-like refunds, including but not
limited to store credit and gift cards.
Many commenters supported the new
provision at § 246.12(h)(3)(ii)(C)
requiring vendors to treat all customers,
including WIC shoppers, the same in
the event of a supplemental food recall.
Commenters referenced the infant
formula recall of 2022 and how the
changes would help ensure that WIC
participants can be treated like all other
customers.
One commenter understood this new
provision to conflict with the updated
prohibition on cash refunds at
§ 246.12(h)(3)(ii)(A), and other
commenters requested clarification on
what is considered a ‘‘substitute
product.’’ Others expressed concern that
customers would be charged for new
items in the replacement process.
The Department clarifies that under
ordinary circumstances, cash refunds
are not allowed in WIC. Vendors are
only allowed to provide cash refunds
when supplemental foods are recalled,
as described in § 246.12(h)(3)(ii)(C), and
only if (1) doing so aligns with store
policies and (2) cash refunds are also
provided to non-WIC customers
impacted by the recall. Similarly, if the
vendor provides replacement products
or store credit during a recall, this

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

provision requires WIC participants to
be allowed those same courtesies.
Following publication of the
Implementation of the Access to Baby
Formula Act of 2022 and Related
Provisions Final Rule, which codified
the definition of recall at § 246.2 as it
pertains to supplemental foods, the
Department modified the provision at
§ 246.12(h)(3)(ii)(C) to clarify this
provision only applies during a
supplemental food recall, rather than
any type of supply chain disruption.
The Department will not strictly define
‘‘substitute product’’ or require the
vendor or State agency to approve
substitute products for supplemental
foods in the event of a recall. The
Department believes doing so would
negate the intent of this provision, that
vendors treat WIC participants the same
as non-WIC shoppers in the event a
supplemental food is recalled. Vendors
treating WIC participants the same as
any non-WIC shopper in the instance of
a supplemental food recall includes not
charging participants for replacement
items.
ii. Allow for the return and use of
returned electronic benefits.
(§ 246.12(x)(4) Return of benefits, (4)(i),
and (4)(ii))
This final rule codifies provisions for
the return of electronic benefits to a
participant’s benefit balance at
§ 246.12(x)(4) Return of benefits, with
modifications to allow for the return
and use of electronic benefits for all
WIC shoppers regardless of vendor type
and clarifies the timeframes in which
benefits must be returned in
§ 246.12(x)(4)(i) and (ii). Many
commenters supported these provisions
with no comments opposed.
The Department originally proposed
that benefits only be returned in
instances when an online order is not
fulfilled. Multiple commenters
discussed concerns related to this
provision as proposed, stating that WIC
participants shopping in-store do not
have the option to make returns and
suggesting the return of benefits should
not only apply to those shopping online.
Commenters also discussed the
technical infeasibility of only allowing
returns for online orders, and that if
implemented as proposed, the burden of
confirming the original transaction took
place online would fall on each
individual cashier.
The Department recognizes and agrees
with the concerns raised by
commenters. With the proposed
provision, the Department intended to
ensure WIC participants shopping
online have recourse in the event an
item is missing or incorrectly fulfilled
and that the State agency is only

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
charged for foods received by the
participant. The Department modified
this provision to allow for the return of
electronic benefits for all vendor types.
This is intended to promote an
improved WIC shopping experience for
participants, to ensure vendors are
treated consistently regardless of vendor
type, and to accommodate the technical
capabilities of vendor systems. If the
State agency authorizes internet
vendors, they must also allow for the
return of electronic benefits for all other
vendor types, to include transactions
that take place at a brick-and-mortar or
mobile vendor. If a State agency does
not authorize internet vendors, they
have the option—but are not required—
to allow for the return of electronic
benefits for other authorized vendor
types.
Some commenters expressed concern
with the lack of required timeframe for
an internet vendor to initiate the return
of electronic benefits. The Department
agrees that a required timeframe for the
return of electronic benefits will help
ensure participants can use returned
electronic benefits within a reasonable
timeframe. Therefore, the Department
modified the provision to include
language requiring the timeframes in
which the vendor must process the
return of electronic benefits. If the
participant returns an item in-person,
regardless of where the item was
purchased, the vendor must process the
return of electronic benefits
immediately so that the participant has
the option to use their benefits while at
the store. For post-delivery returns, such
as those returned via mail or for an
order that was incorrectly fulfilled or
not fulfilled at all, the vendor must
process the return of electronic benefits
within two (2) company business days
after receipt of the returned item or
indication of an incorrectly fulfilled or
unfulfilled item. This aligns with SNAP
policies for returning items ordered
online.
One commenter noted current
regulations require State agencies to
issue a three-year sanction to vendors
that charge for food not received,
without exceptions for returned
electronic benefits.
The commenter is correct that per
§ 246.12(l)(1)(iii)(E), the State agency
must disqualify a vendor for three years
for a pattern of charging for
supplemental foods not received by the
participant. The Department highlights
that each State agency develops their
own definition of a pattern for each
violation, with discretion over what
constitutes a pattern including
frequency of violation, time periods,
and dollar amounts. As discussed

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

above, the Department added language
requiring vendors to initiate the return
of electronic benefits within two (2)
days of indication that an order was
unfulfilled. So, for example, if the State
agency determines there is a pattern of
unfulfilled orders from a given vendor
and the electronic benefits are not being
appropriately returned to the
participant’s balance, the State agency
may use its definition of pattern to
identify this as a violation and take
appropriate follow up action per
§ 246.12(l)(1)(iii)(E).
Some commenters stated that as EBT,
MIS, and vendor systems exist now, it
is not possible to return electronic
benefits to the participant’s balance. The
Department understands that currently,
systems do not allow for the return of
electronic benefits because of the
previous regulatory prohibition. With
this final rulemaking, the Department
encourages system updates to
accommodate the return of electronic
benefits, a requirement for State
agencies authorizing internet vendors
and an option for all others.
Many commenters highlighted the
need for guidance on managing
substitutions when an order is
submitted but the specific item
requested is not available when the
order is fulfilled.
The Department agrees and intends to
work with State agencies to develop
guidance and provide best practices for
managing substitutions separate from
this rulemaking.
iii. At State agency option, allow
participants the flexibility to transact
returned electronic benefits up to seven
(7) days beyond the last date of use
(LDTU). (§§ 246.12(x)(2)(iii) and
246.12(x)(4)(iii))
This final rule codifies a State agency
option to allow participants to use
returned electronic benefits up to seven
(7) days beyond the LDTU at
§ 246.12(x)(4)(iii) and makes related
modifications to the last date of use
provision at § 246.12(x)(2)(iii). This is a
modification from the proposed rule
which required State agencies to
provide this flexibility. This final rule
requests comment specifically on the
impacts of requiring the return of
benefits after the LDTU to better
understand the costs and burdens that
these required flexibilities could have
on stakeholders and their systems.
Multiple commenters expressed
support for this provision noting it
allows participants time to use
electronic benefits returned to their
benefit balance.
The Department originally proposed
that State agencies must allow returned
benefits to be available for participant

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70261

use for a minimum of seven (7) days
after the return, which could extend
into the next benefit period. Many
commenters expressed concerns related
to the technical challenges of allowing
for the use of electronic benefits after
the LDTU, explaining this would
require significant changes to MIS and
EBT systems, and could impact vendor
systems. Many commenters strongly
recommended that returned electronic
benefits only be allowed for use within
the current benefit period to implement
this change more easily and costeffectively. Multiple commenters also
said the instances in which participants
would need to use returned benefits
after the LDTU would be rare and that
these situations were better mitigated
with continued participant education
that encourages participants to use their
electronic benefits well before the
benefit LDTU.
The Department recognizes the
technical challenges of allowing the use
of returned electronic benefits after the
LDTU and does not want these to be a
barrier to innovating the WIC shopping
experience, including implementing
online shopping. Due to the concerns
raised and the desire to support State
agencies implementing online shopping,
the Department modified the minimum
amount of time State agencies must
provide participants to use returned
electronic benefits from ‘‘no less than 7
calendar days’’ to ‘‘the remainder of the
benefit issuance month.’’ Electronic
benefits that are returned to a
participant’s balance must be available
for use within the original benefit
issuance month, but the State agency is
not required to allow use of returned
electronic benefits beyond the LDTU.
This minimum amount of time better
aligns with program operations and
benefit issuance systems. To support
those State agencies with providing
greater flexibility to their participants,
the Department is making the use of
returned electronic benefits after the
LDTU allowable as a State agency
option. The Department recognizes that
for State agencies that do not take this
option, there may be some participants
who will have a reduced amount of time
to transact their returned benefits if they
are returned in the last few days of the
benefit issuance month. However, the
Department agrees with public comment
that the instances in which participants
would need to use returned benefits
beyond the LDTU would be rare and are
better mitigated with continued
participant education. In these
situations, where State agencies do not
opt to allow the use of returned benefits
beyond the LDTU, the Department notes

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

70262

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

that all participants maintain the ability
to exchange identical authorized
supplemental foods per
§ 246.12(h)(3)(ii)(A).
To support State agencies in
implementing this flexibility in the long
term, the Department is requesting
comment regarding the impact on
stakeholders if State agencies were
required to allow the use of returned
electronic benefits beyond the LDTU.
The Department requests input that
includes a discussion of:
• The technical changes that would
be necessary to allow this functionality,
• The cost of changing the MIS and
EBT systems to allow this functionality,
• The cost of this type of change for
vendor systems,
• The specific impact on reporting
and infant formula rebates and
contracts, and
• Any other comments or concerns
related to this type of functionality.
The Department appreciates specific,
detailed comments on the use of
returned electronic benefits beyond the
LDTU and will use feedback received to
inform future rulemaking.
Commenters also requested
clarification on whether there was a
maximum number of days beyond the
LDTU in which a participant may use
returned electronic benefits, expressing
concern that as proposed, returned
electronic benefits would be available in
the benefit balance indefinitely.
It is a core tenet of the WIC Program
that benefits are intended to be used
within the month they are issued, and
it would be inconsistent with that tenet
for benefits to be available indefinitely.
The Department has modified the
provision to establish a maximum of
seven (7) days that returned electronic
benefits can be used after the LDTU for
State agencies that allow this flexibility.
This provides uniform direction for
State agencies regarding how long
returned electronic benefits may be
available for participants to transact,
should State agencies pursue this
option.
Commenters discussed issues of
fairness with the provision as proposed,
stating that participants facing
transaction challenges in-store do not
have an opportunity to use their
electronic benefits beyond the LDTU in
the event of issues such as vendor
system problems, card errors, or family
crises. As a solution to this issue, many
commenters requested a full rollover of
all unredeemed electronic benefits to
the next month.
The Department clarifies that because
the return of electronic benefits is
allowed for all vendors and not just
internet vendors, the option for using

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

returned benefits beyond the LDTU
applies to all participants, not just those
using online shopping. Additionally, it
is important to note this provision is
addressing a specific situation that
applies to those electronic benefits that
have been transacted but subsequently
returned to the participant’s benefit
balance. This provision is not
permitting the ‘‘rollover’’ of electronic
benefits that were never transacted.
Other scenarios that impact benefit
transaction, such as issues related to
vendor system problems and card
errors, are out of the scope of this
rulemaking.
Some commenters expressed concern
about the over-issuance of electronic
benefits if participants are allowed to
transact electronic benefits from one
issuance month during the following
issuance month. The Department
clarifies that this is not over-issuance as
the State agency is not issuing benefits
in excess of the participant’s maximum
quantities of supplemental foods but is
instead extending the dates of use for
validly issued electronic benefits.
e. Allow State agencies to develop
virtual methods of oversight [§§ 246.2
and 246.12(g)(5) and (j)(6)(ii)(B)].
Provisions in this section allowing
virtual methods of routine monitoring,
compliance buys, and preauthorization
visits are finalized as proposed.
i. Update the definitions of ‘‘routine
monitoring’’ and ‘‘compliance buy’’ to
remove the on-site requirement.
(§ 246.2)
This final rule codifies revisions to
the definitions at § 246.2 of ‘‘routine
monitoring’’ and ‘‘compliance buy’’ as
proposed to remove the requirement
that routine monitoring visits and
compliance buys must occur on-site.
Multiple commenters expressed
general support for allowing State
agencies to develop virtual methods of
oversight, stating that it will be
necessary to support the authorization
of internet vendors. Commenters also
stated it would support consistent
monitoring in the face of environmental
challenges and referenced the success of
virtual monitoring during the COVID–19
pandemic. No comments were opposed.
Commenters requested clarification
on whether on-site monitoring is still an
option, or if all oversight must take
place virtually.
The new definitions do not require
State agencies to use virtual methods of
oversight, they instead provide State
agencies the opportunity to develop
virtual methods of oversight to ensure
that monitoring and investigative
methods are appropriate for the types of
vendors authorized (e.g., internet
vendors) and environmental conditions.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

With this change, State agencies can
pursue new types of monitoring and
investigative methodologies, yet still
retain discretion over how these
activities are implemented.
Commenters requested clarification
on if the new vendor types change the
requirements regarding monitoring and
compliance, specifically the number of
monitoring and compliance activities
the State agency must complete each
fiscal year.
The only changes to routine
monitoring and compliance buys in this
rulemaking are to remove the on-site
requirement. The number of monitoring
and compliance investigation activities
that the State agency must complete
remains the same.
ii. Introduce virtual visits as an
allowable type of preauthorization visit.
(§ 246.12(g)(5))
This final rule codifies revisions as
proposed to introduce virtual visits as
an allowable type of preauthorization
visit at § 246.12(g)(5). Commenters
supported this provision, stating the
proposed change is effective and will
reduce costs, and the flexibility proved
helpful in supporting State agencies in
continued authorization of vendors
during the COVID–19 pandemic. No
comments were opposed.
Some comments sought clarification
on whether virtual preauthorization
visits were a requirement and asked the
Department to define a virtual visit.
As with virtual options for routine
monitoring and compliance buys made
possible through this rulemaking,
virtual preauthorization visits are not a
requirement, but an option for the State
agency to use to authorize new vendor
types efficiently and to respond to
environmental conditions appropriately.
The Department clarifies virtual
preauthorization visits can be used for
any vendor type and are not just for
internet vendors. The Department does
not define a virtual visit in regulation
but clarifies the purpose of the
preauthorization visit is to verify the
information provided on the vendor
application, and to ensure the vendor
applicant meets the selection criteria
used by the State agency to select
vendors for program authorization. This
applies to internet and mobile vendors
the same as it applies to brick-andmortar vendors.
f. Prohibit vendors, farmers or
farmers’ markets from charging State
agencies fees associated with WIC
purchases and permit WIC shoppers to
pay such fees [§§ 246.12(h)(3)(xxxiii)
and (v)(1)(ix) and 246.14(b)(1)(i)]. The
finalized provisions prohibiting vendors
at § 246.12(h)(3)(xxxiii) and farmers or
farmers’ markets at § 246.12(v)(1)(ix)

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
from charging State agencies fees
associated with online shopping are
modified to include the prohibition of
charging fees associated with any WIC
purchase, not just online shopping
purchases. The provisions clarifying
that State agencies can still pay costs
associated with home food delivery and
direct distribution at § 246.14(b)(1)(i)
and (c)(4) are modified to clarify that
State agencies can continue using food
funds to pay for the cost of transporting
food under these two food delivery
systems, as opposed to the retail food
delivery system in which State agencies
cannot use food funds to pay for the cost
of transporting food.
i. Prohibit vendors, farmers, and
farmers’ markets from charging State
agencies fees associated with WIC
purchases and permit WIC shoppers to
pay such fees. (§§ 246.12(h)(3)(xxxiii)
and 246.12(v)(1)(ix))
This final rule codifies the provision
at § 246.12(h)(3)(xxxiii) prohibiting
vendors from charging State agencies
fees associated with online ordering and
with modifications to clarify this
prohibition applies to all vendors and
fees associated with WIC purchases to
ensure consistency for vendors and
shoppers. The provision at
§ 246.12(v)(1)(ix) regarding farmers and
farmers’ markets is finalized with
similar modifications to reflect the
prohibition on all fees, rather than just
online shopping fees. This final rule
also codifies in both provisions that
participants must be allowed to pay
such fees using a different form of
tender.
Many commenters supported these
provisions, expressing that State
agencies should not pay online
shopping fees as online shopping is a
customer preference. Commenters also
supported the requirement that
participants be allowed to pay these fees
using another tender type, if the same
fees are charged to non-WIC shoppers,
to ensure WIC customers are treated the
same as non-WIC customers.
As the proposed provision only
prohibited vendors from charging fees
associated with online ordering, some
commenters recommended modification
to include fees charged by other WIC
vendor types, such as bag fees or
convenience fees. Commenters stated
that to ensure vendor types are treated
equally, any fees vendors charge
shoppers as part of or in addition to
their purchase should not be charged to
State agencies.
The Department agrees the
prohibition of vendors charging State
agencies fees associated with WIC
purchases should not be dependent on
the type of vendor. To ensure State

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

agencies hold all vendor types to the
same federal regulatory requirements,
the Department modified the regulatory
language to reflect that vendors must
not charge State agencies for any fees
associated with a WIC purchase,
including but not limited to delivery,
service, convenience, or bag fees. If
there is a fee associated with the
purchase, the participant must have the
opportunity to pay that fee using
another tender type. To ensure the same
policy applies to farmers and farmers’
markets, related changes were made to
§ 246.12(v)(1)(ix). These provisions are
not applicable to EBT costs, including
operational costs, interchange fees, and
third-party processing fees. The
regulations related to EBT fees are
governed by § 246.12(h)(3)(xxviii),
(xxix), (xxx), § 246.12(aa)(3) and (4) and
remain unchanged by this rulemaking.
The Department requested specific
feedback on whether State agencies
should have the option to pay for fees
associated with online shopping in a
retail food delivery system with either
(1) non-federal funding at State agency
discretion and/or (2) federal funding in
situations where it is deemed necessary
to meet special needs. The Department
appreciates the robust discussion
provided by commenters and addresses
this below.
Many commenters requested State
agencies retain discretion on the use of
non-federal funds to pay for such fees.
Commenters shared that the use of
federal funds under special
circumstances would be particularly
helpful for rural, remote, isolated,
under-resourced, and participants with
disabilities, and those impacted by
disasters and public health emergencies,
if targeted appropriately. Some
commenters, however, stated that
expanding the food package and serving
all eligible participants should be the
focus of discretionary federal WIC
funds, and expressed concern about
adequately containing the costs and
ensuring program integrity if paying
such fees using federal funds was
deemed necessary.
The Department appreciates concerns
regarding access to WIC benefits and
efficient use of taxpayer funds. The
Department also acknowledges State
agencies are best suited to understand
the unique needs of their participant
population and believes State agencies
should have flexibility to use non-WIC
funds when available. Therefore, the
Department confirms that non-WIC
funds can be used at State agency
discretion. This includes but is not
limited to funds provided to the State
agency by state, tribal or territorial
governments, funds provided from non-

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70263

profit organizations, or non-WIC federal
funds available to the State agency, if it
is an allowable use of those funds.
The Department thoroughly
considered the comments regarding the
special circumstances under which it
would benefit participants to use federal
WIC funds to pay these fees, especially
to support access for participants in
rural and remote locations or
participants with disabilities. However,
the Department also recognizes the
concerns related to the limited federal
funding available and the many
questions related to how costs would be
adequately contained, and ensuring
program integrity if federal funds were
to be used to pay such fees. Therefore,
to maintain the integrity of the WIC
Program and ensure that federal WIC
dollars continue to be used for only food
costs and the administration of WIC, the
Department finalizes that federal WIC
funds may not be used to pay these fees.
Some commenters requested the
Department amend the equal treatment
provision at § 246.12(h)(3)(iii) to allow
for preferential treatment of WIC
shoppers so that vendors can waive
delivery fees for WIC customers. Some
commenters likened delivery fees to
sales taxes, and requested the
Department create a similar regulation
to § 246.12(h)(3)(vii) which prohibits the
collection of sales tax on WIC foods.
The equal treatment provision at
§ 246.12(h)(3)(iii) has implications for
program integrity and vendor
management, both of which support
cost containment in the WIC Program.
Any revision to the equal treatment
provision is out of the scope of this
rulemaking. The Department
acknowledges the collection on sales tax
on WIC foods is prohibited, pursuant to
the Child Nutrition Act at 42 U.S.C.
1786(c)(4). However, sales tax generates
revenue for government services and is
inherently different from the costs
associated with shopping, such as
delivery fees, which are fees charged by
the vendor to provide a service. If the
Department were to prohibit vendors
from charging these fees altogether, it
could force vendors to cover a cost that
they do not cover for non-WIC shoppers
and discourage vendors from providing
online shopping options for WIC.
ii. Clarify costs associated with home
food delivery and direct distribution to
ensure State agencies still pay for the
cost of transporting food under these
two food delivery systems.
(§ 246.14(b)(1)(i))
This final rule codifies the provision
§ 247.14(b)(1)(i) with modifications
clarifying that WIC State agencies
operating home food delivery or direct
distribution food delivery systems may

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

70264

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

continue using the food grant to pay for
the cost of transporting food under these
delivery systems. Commenters
expressed general support for the
clarifications, and no comments were
opposed.
One comment recommended revising
the provision on the grounds that it was
difficult to understand.
The revisions to § 246.14(b)(1)(i) are
intended to differentiate the costs that
the State agency can charge to the food
grant by food delivery system. To
summarize, food funds can be used to
pay for:
• Supplemental foods purchased by
participants using WIC electronic
benefits in a retail food delivery system,
and/or
• The acquisition of supplemental
foods provided to State agencies, local
agencies, or participants, whichever
receives the supplemental foods first, in
a home food delivery system or a direct
distribution delivery system.
The edits clarify that in a retail food
delivery system, participants, not State
agencies, purchase supplemental foods
from retail vendors and that food funds
cannot be used to pay for the delivery
of those foods. In home food delivery
and direct distribution systems, food
funds can continue to be used to pay for
shipping supplemental foods to State or
local agencies, or participants,
whichever receives the supplemental
foods first.
2. Streamline and Modernize WIC Food
Delivery
This final rule permits the remote
issuance of electronic benefits to a
participant’s benefit balance, expands
the definition of food instrument,
updates the uniform food delivery
systems provision to support State
agency innovation, streamlines food
delivery operations by recognizing that
EBT data are a sufficient replacement
for routine shelf price collection, and
allows State agencies using a non-retail,
home food delivery system to ship
supplemental foods to a location
designated by participants.
a. Permit the remote issuance of
electronic benefits to a participant’s
benefit balance [§§ 246.4(a)(23),
246.7(f)(2)(iv), and 246.12(r)(2), (4), and
(5)]. The provisions clarifying that paper
food instruments must be picked up in
person when in-person nutrition
education or certification appointments
are scheduled, § 246.12(r)(4), is finalized
as proposed. The provision updating
processing timeframes to support the
remote issuance of benefits,
§ 246.7(f)(2)(iv), and the State Plan
provision discussing remote benefit
issuance policies, § 246.4(a)(23), are

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

finalized as proposed. The provision
allowing for the remote issuance of
benefits and mailing of EBT cards at
§ 246.12(r)(5) is finalized with
modifications that ensure the State
agency has adequate program integrity
measures in place for proof of
participant receipt when EBT cards are
issued remotely, and the provision at
§ 246.12(r)(2) describing signature
requirements for benefit issuance is
finalized with modifications that clarify
a signature is only required when
benefits are received in person.
i. Allow for the remote issuance of
electronic benefits by separating the
benefit issuance provisions for paper
food instruments and cash-value
vouchers from electronic benefit
issuance, and update signature
requirements. (§§ 246.12(r)(2), (4) and
(5), and 246.7(f)(2)(iv))
This final rule codifies revisions
separating paper food instrument and
cash-value voucher issuance
requirements from EBT card and
electronic benefit issuance
requirements. Changes to § 246.12(r)(4)
describing the paper food instrument
and cash-value voucher pick up are
finalized as proposed. The EBT card and
electronic benefit issuance provision,
§ 246.12(r)(5), is finalized with
modifications requiring the State agency
to have program integrity procedures in
place for EBT cards that are issued
remotely. This final rule codifies
signature requirements for benefit
issuance at § 246.12(r)(2), modifying the
language to more explicitly state that a
signature is required only when benefits
are received in person. Updates to the
processing timeframe requirements to
support remote benefit issuance at
§ 246.7(f)(2)(iv) are finalized as
proposed.
Many commenters offered significant
support for changes supporting remote
benefit issuance, stating it would allow
for benefit administration in the event of
a disaster or other public health
emergencies and would provide
maximum flexibility for WIC
participants and staff. No comments
were opposed.
Commenters requested clarification as
to when participants could receive EBT
cards and electronic benefits remotely,
stating the language was unclear.
The Department clarifies that State
agencies may mail EBT cards and issue
electronic benefits remotely under any
circumstances, including when the
participant is scheduled for in-person
appointments, as long as participants
are still offered nutrition education in
accordance with § 246.11(a)(2), the EBT
cards and electronic benefits are issued
within the processing timeframe

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

requirements at § 246.7(f)(2)(iv), and the
integrity of the program is not
jeopardized.
Some commenters requested
clarification of when participants must
sign for the receipt of food instruments,
cash-value vouchers, or authorized
supplemental foods. The comments
noted that language in the proposed rule
did not explicitly state when signatures
are required. Other comments expressed
concern regarding how State agencies
can ensure program integrity when EBT
cards are mailed and benefits are issued
remotely, as the participant is not
receiving the EBT card in-person.
To clarify when a signature is
required, the Department modified
language at § 246.12(r)(2) to specify a
participant must sign for the receipt of
their food instruments/benefits only
when receiving them in person. When
food instruments are mailed and/or
benefits are issued remotely, a signature
is not required.
The Department agrees it is important
to maintain integrity while allowing for
remote benefit issuance. While
signatures are not required when EBT
cards are mailed and benefits are
remotely issued, the Department added
language in § 246.12(r)(5) to clarify State
agencies must have procedures in place
to ensure receipt of the EBT card by the
intended recipient. WIC State agencies
have discretion in developing
procedures, and the Department expects
State agencies to utilize best practices
and lessons learned from remote
issuance previously available through
time-limited waiver authority. The
Department intends to assist State
agencies by sharing such best practices
and providing additional technical
assistance, as needed, to ensure the
security of mailed EBT cards.
ii. Create new definitions of
‘‘electronic benefits’’ and ‘‘cash-value
benefits’’ and update the definition of
‘‘cash-value voucher.’’ (§ 246.2)
This final rule codifies as proposed
the new definitions at § 246.2 of
‘‘electronic benefits’’ and ‘‘cash-value
benefits’’ to clearly define the benefits
available to participants in the modern
WIC Program. The rule codifies as
proposed the revised definition of
‘‘cash-value voucher’’ to differentiate
this type of paper food instrument from
the newly defined ‘‘cash-value
benefits,’’ which are a type of electronic
benefit.
Commenters largely supported these
changes, stating the new and updated
definitions provide important
flexibility.
Commenters recommended that all
instances of ‘‘cash-value voucher’’
throughout the regulations be updated

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
to ‘‘cash-value benefit’’ to reflect the
new definition. Other commenters
expressed concerns that without
appropriate edits to existing mandatory
sanction language, inadvertent gaps will
inhibit State agencies’ ability to sanction
vendors and recommended amending
the sanctions provisions to reflect the
new definitions.
The intent of this rule is to remove
barriers to online shopping and take the
first step in modernizing the language to
reflect today’s program. Due to the
nature of this rulemaking, the
Department could not fully update all
regulations to reflect the new
definitions. The Department intends to
fully update and modernize the
language, including updating
regulations from ‘‘cash-value voucher’’
to ‘‘cash-value benefit’’ and the
mandatory sanction language, in future
rulemaking. However, the Department
recognizes the need for consistent
application of the definition of
‘‘electronic benefits’’ to ensure program
integrity with respect to sanctions, and
therefore affirms the remaining
regulatory language enables State
agencies to issue appropriate sanctions
in the instances of vendor violations
related to food instruments, cash-value
vouchers, WIC electronic benefits, and
supplemental foods.
b. Expand the definition of food
instrument [§ 246.2]. This final rule
codifies the proposed definition of
‘‘food instrument’’ in § 246.2 to allow
WIC State agencies to explore and adopt
new food instrument technologies.
Many commenters supported the
updated definition of food instrument,
stating this would enhance program
flexibility and that updates allowed by
this change could draw in younger WIC
participants, mitigate stigma associated
with the checkout process, and decrease
program costs. No comments were
opposed.
Some commenters recommended
removing the word ‘‘food instrument’’
altogether, while others included
recommendations to allow specific
technology types, such as mobile
wallets, near field communication
(NFC) and quick response (QR)
technology. Commenters also urged
alignment with the SNAP mobile
payments pilot.13
The Department decided not to name
types of allowable technologies so as to
not limit future innovation. Maintaining
the term ‘‘food instrument’’ allows the
Department to be inclusive of any future
technologies beyond the EBT card.
Where possible, the Department works
13 SNAP Mobile Payment Pilot. https://
www.fna.usda.gov/snap/mobile-payment-pilot.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

to implement WIC and SNAP
consistently. However, this rulemaking
only governs regulations related to the
WIC Program. With the implementation
of new technologies, the Department
will glean information from pilot
projects in SNAP to inform technology
development in WIC.
c. Update the uniform food delivery
systems provision to support State
agency innovation [§§ 246.2 and
246.12(b)]. The definition of ‘‘electronic
benefit transfer’’ at § 246.2 is finalized
as proposed to clarify that it is a benefit
delivery method and not a food delivery
system, and the food delivery provision
at § 246.12(b) is finalized with
modifications, allowing State agencies
to permanently use more than one food
instrument throughout a food delivery
system.
i. Allow State agencies to develop and
test new WIC food instrument types and
clarify uniform food delivery systems
and system combinations (§ 246.12(b)).
This final rule codifies the proposed
uniform food delivery systems provision
at § 246.12(b) to clarify that there are
three food delivery systems—retail,
home food delivery, and direct
distribution. Modifications to the
provision allow State agencies to make
permanent new food instruments as
long as the food instrument type is
uniform and described and approved in
the State Plan.
Many commenters supported
allowing State agencies to develop and
test new WIC food instrument types
within a single food delivery system
(e.g., retail food delivery system).
Supporters stated that this could
enhance access to nutritious foods and
provide State agencies with the ability
to address the needs of different
participants. No comments were
opposed.
Multiple comments were concerned
the conditions placed on the
development and implementation of
new food instruments would prevent
State agencies from maintaining more
than one food instrument type
permanently. Commenters requested
clarification from the Department about
the intent of this provision and
recommended that more than one food
instrument type be allowed
permanently.
The intent of this provision is to allow
State agencies to explore new food
instrument types to meet the needs of
their diverse vendor and participant
populations and to modernize benefit
delivery as the grocery and payment
industries innovate. For that reason, the
Department has revised the language in
this provision to clarify that State
agencies can have more than one food

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70265

instrument type (e.g., an EBT card and
a mobile wallet) within a single food
delivery system. State agencies may
introduce and make permanent new
food instrument types but must keep the
technology and functionality uniform
within each type of food instrument.
The Department will still require the
use of new food instrument types to be
described in the State Plan and
approved by FNA per § 246.4(a)(14)(i).
Many commenters supported updates
clarifying State agencies may use a
combination of retail, home food
delivery, and direct distribution
systems. Supporters stated that allowing
all three food delivery systems mitigates
barriers to participant access related to
geographic limitations and cited
feedback from WIC participants
expressing support for home food
delivery options. Commenters also
supported updates to the definition of
electronic benefit transfer (EBT)
clarifying it is a benefit delivery
method, not a food delivery system.
Supporters said these changes facilitate
a better understanding of the definition
of the term EBT and would allow for
future modernizations.
Some comments requested
clarification on the meaning of
‘‘procedurally uniform’’ and whether it
relates to food instrument types,
authorization processes, or transaction
procedures.
The Department clarifies the meaning
of ‘‘procedurally uniform’’ extends to
the management of each food delivery
system, as well as the use of food
instruments by participants, to be
consistent throughout the entire
jurisdiction of the State agency. The
intent of this is to ensure that State
agencies are consistently applying
vendor management and food delivery
operations and procedures, and that the
participant’s experience using each food
delivery system remains consistent
throughout the State agency’s
jurisdiction.
d. Remove the requirement for State
agencies to collect shelf price data, as
EBT data are a sufficient replacement
[§ 246.12(g)(4) Vendor selection criteria:
competitive price, (g)(4)(ii)(B), and
(g)(9)]. The removal of shelf price
collection requirements in § 246.12(g)(4)
Vendor selection criteria: competitive
price, and (g)(4)(ii)(B), which allows
State agencies to use EBT redemption
data instead of shelf prices to monitor
vendor compliance, is finalized with
modifications that clarify State agencies
re-authorizing currently authorized WIC
vendors can use existing EBT data for
price analysis. This final rule also
removes the requirement at
§ 246.12(g)(9) that State agencies obtain

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

70266

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

shelf price data at vendor authorization
if they have access to EBT data.
Many commenters provided support
for these changes, stating they could
mitigate burden and save time for State
agencies and vendors. Other supporters
asserted that using EBT data is more
efficient and accurate for pricing trend
analysis. No comments were opposed.
Some commenters highlighted that
currently, State agencies can use an
applicant vendor’s EBT data if they are
re-applying for authorization and
questioned whether this would remain
allowable under the revised regulation.
The Department clarifies that State
agencies may continue using EBT data
for an applicant vendor that is
reapplying for authorization and made
conforming edits to regulatory text.
Multiple commenters sought more
information as to how pricing will
continue to be monitored so that WIC
participants are not charged more for
foods than non-WIC participants.
The Department agrees with
commenters on the importance of
ensuring that vendors are not charging
WIC participants higher prices than
non-WIC shoppers. The Department
clarifies the purpose of shelf price
collection was to ensure cost
competitiveness of a vendor applicant
and that authorized vendors remained
cost competitive when compared to
vendors within their peer groups. With
EBT, State agencies receive current data
about vendors’ prices in real time and
can consistently ensure vendors are
meeting cost competitiveness. While the
regulatory requirement for collecting
shelf prices is removed, the requirement
to ensure cost competitiveness remains.
The Department encourages State
agencies to continue using EBT data in
combination with effective peer groups,
regular routine monitoring, and
compliance investigations to ensure that
participants are not being charged
inappropriate prices for WIC
supplemental foods.
Some commenters pointed out that by
removing the requirement for shelf
prices to be collected every six months,
the Department also removed any
timeframe requirement in which State
agencies must collect price data and
requested clarification if any timeframe
requirements for analyzing price data
remain.
The Department removed the
requirement to collect shelf prices every
six months where State agencies have
EBT data, as updated EBT data is
available to the State agency in real
time. While the Department is not
imposing a requirement for how often
this data must be monitored, the
practice of sound cost containment

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

requires ongoing monitoring of EBT
prices. The Department expects this
monitoring to continue according to the
timeframes defined in § 246.12. State
agencies remain responsible for having
procedures in place to ensure
authorized vendors do not increase
prices to levels that would make them
ineligible for authorization by the
program, per § 246.12(g)(4)(iii).
e. Allow State agencies using a nonretail, home food delivery system to
ship supplemental foods to a location
designated by participants and
approved by the State agency [§§ 246.2
and 246.12(m)]. This final rule codifies
revisions to the definitions of ‘‘home
food delivery contractor’’ and ‘‘home
food delivery system’’ in § 246.2 and
§ 246.12(m) with modifications to allow
participants receiving supplemental
foods under a home food delivery
system to designate the location of food
delivery. As an additional measure of
program integrity, the provisions are
finalized with modifications to allow
State agencies to approve the location of
delivery so that supplemental foods are
delivered to a reasonable location.
Many commenters supported this
change, stating that it promotes access
and convenience for participants in
remote areas, and works to enhance
food access for participants. Other
commenters shared this would promote
flexibility and choice for participants,
especially those in vulnerable
communities.
A few commenters shared concerns
that this change leaves the program
vulnerable to fraud and benefit misuse,
and recommended changes to the
description of where food can be
delivered in home food delivery
systems. These commenters suggested
State agencies should have the
opportunity to confirm supplemental
foods are being delivered to a reasonable
location as an additional measure of
program integrity. Commenters also
asked if participants are required to
designate the location of the delivery.
The Department confirms the intent of
this provision is to accommodate State
agencies whose participants cannot
receive foods at their home and agrees
allowing the State agency to designate
or approve the participant’s preferred
delivery location supports this intent
and provides for continued program
integrity. In response, the Department
made appropriate modifications to the
regulatory language. The Department
also clarifies the participant is not
required to designate the location of the
delivery and that State agencies retain
the option to designate the location of
the delivery.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Many commenters requested
clarification on whether this provision
applies to delivery options for
participants using online shopping. The
Department clarifies this provision is
specifically for home food delivery food
systems and does not apply to
participants using online shopping in a
retail food delivery system.
The Department will not adopt the
proposed revisions to § 246.12(g)(8) and
§ 246.12(h)(1)(i), which proposed to
increase the maximum length of vendor
agreement periods in § 246.12(h)(1)(i),
and the minimum frequency that State
agencies must accept and process
applications in § 246.12(g)(8), from three
to five years. The Department received
extensive feedback, and while many
commenters supported these changes,
asserting the alleviation of
administrative burden on State agencies
would lead to improved program
efficiency, other commenters expressed
concern this could negatively impact
participant access if State agencies with
five-year application periods only
review vendor applications with that
frequency. Other commenters
encouraged USDA to not allow State
agencies to limit application periods to
every five years.
The Department will not finalize
these two proposed revisions in this
rulemaking. Therefore, the minimum
frequency that State agencies must
accept and process applications in
§ 246.12(g)(8), and the maximum length
of vendor agreement periods in
§ 246.12(h)(1)(i) will remain at three
years.
The Department notes that State
agencies may and are encouraged to
continue to reassess compliance with
vendor selection criteria on an ongoing
basis to ensure that vendors are
adequately serving the WIC Program.
State agencies retain the discretion to
accept vendors at any time or establish
application periods, with procedures for
processing vendor applications outside
of their timeframes.
3. Meet the Needs of a Modern, DataDriven Program
The final rule updates reporting
requirements necessary for federal
oversight but will not adopt the
proposed staffing standards for the food
delivery coordinator role or new WIC
State agency staff position.
a. Update reporting requirements for
federal oversight [§ 246.12(j)(5)]. The
provision in this section updating the
reporting requirements for WIC food
delivery systems is finalized with
modifications at § 246.12(j)(5) to better
reflect what WIC State agencies report to
the Food Delivery Portal, and to

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
maintain the current requirement that
State agencies report data annually.
Multiple commenters expressed
general support asserting this will
support the WIC Program’s transition to
an enhanced data collection system.
Multiple opposed commenters stated
that allowing the Department to request
quarterly data submissions would create
a larger administrative burden on State
agencies and their staff.
The Department appreciates the
feedback provided by stakeholders on
the impact this change would have on
State agencies. After further analysis of
the burden estimate associated with this
change, as well as a thorough review of
the public feedback provided on the
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants
and Children (WIC); Food Delivery
Portal (FDP),14 the Department will not
include the ability to request quarterly
data submissions for federal reporting in
regulation at this time. Therefore, the
frequency of federal reporting
requirements will be maintained as
annual, and the Department is confident
that the continued submission of annual
data is sufficient to ensure federal
oversight.
The Department proposed revisions to
§ 246.3(e)(3) to update the WIC Food
Delivery Coordinator standard and to
create a new WIC State agency staff
position, the WIC Customer Service
Coordinator.
The Department received extensive
feedback on the proposed staffing
standards and appreciates input from
various stakeholders on the impact the
standards may have on State agencies
and the program. Some commenters
expressed concern related to the
stringency of the standards and
potential to limit the pool of candidates
from which they can hire. Other
commenters recommended the
Department not regulate the education
and experience of these positions but
instead describe the roles and associated
responsibilities, leaving education and
experience requirements to State agency
discretion. The Department believes it is
vital that State agencies have staff with
the skills necessary to successfully
operate the modern WIC Program. While
the Department is working to provide
increased opportunities for State agency
staff to build the necessary skills,
including providing opportunities for
technical assistance and digital services
capacity building, the Department
14 Agency Information Collection Activities:
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children (WIC); Food Delivery
Portal (FDP) (89 FR 14622). https://
www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-04064.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

acknowledges the concerns raised and
to retain State agency flexibility and
discretion in hiring decisions, the
Department will not finalize the
proposed provisions in this rulemaking.
State agencies may optionally
implement more stringent standards at
the State level. Additionally, the
Department may consider options to
address the above concerns in future
rulemaking.
4. Request for Public Comment on Key
Topic Areas of Proposed Rule
a. Exceptions to minimum stocking
requirements.
The Department received significant
feedback and input from stakeholders
related to the specific request for public
comment on whether there is a need to
authorize vendors that sell a specific
subset of supplemental foods (e.g.,
dairies, bakeries, produce sellers) but
would not meet the minimum variety
and quantity of supplemental foods, as
required by WIC regulations (i.e., two
different fruits, three different
vegetables, and at least one whole grain
cereal per § 246.12(g)(3)(i)).
Given the overwhelming majority of
comments shared concerns about the
implementation of this change,
including the impact it would have on
State agency costs and oversight
capacity, as well as the possible
negative impact on small vendors, the
Department will not introduce any
changes to the minimum stocking
requirements in this rulemaking.
Commenters shared concerns that
specialty stores sell fewer options at
higher prices than non-specialty
counterparts which would likely mean
higher food costs, impacting peer
grouping and cost-containment.
Commenters also shared concerns about
the extra workload for State agencies to
authorize and monitor additional
vendors that will likely have only a
small amount of WIC transactions, and
that retaining minimum stocking
requirements helps make it more
challenging for bad actors to fraud the
program. Some commenters expressed
concern that specialty stores would
create competition with small vendors
who struggle to meet requirements
currently, potentially resulting in small
vendors leaving the program. Due to
these concerns, the Department will not
introduce any changes to the minimum
stocking requirements in this
rulemaking. The Department will use
the feedback provided to inform any
future rulemaking related to exceptions
to minimum stock and specialty
vendors.

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70267

VI. Implementation
As most of the changes in this rule are
optional and increase flexibility for
State agencies, the Department proposed
that the final rule would take effect 30
days after publication, except for the
provisions related to the return of
electronic benefits which State agencies
would have 18 months to implement.
The Department requested comments in
the proposed rule on the administrative
burden associated with the proposed
implementation timeline.
Commenters generally highlighted
time, limited resources, and extensive
system changes needed to successfully
implement some of the provisions in
this final rule, especially those related
to developing new transaction
authentication policies. The Department
reiterates that this rulemaking in large
part introduces optional flexibilities that
State agencies can choose to pursue on
their own timeline and based on their
capacity and interest. However, the
Department acknowledges that several
provisions will require all State agencies
to update vendor agreements, policies,
and procedures, and that many State
agencies are currently using waivers to
offer flexibilities that will be codified in
this rulemaking. The Department is
therefore extending the implementation
deadline for the final rule to 90 days
after publication, or no later than
February 4, 2027, except for the
provisions related to the return of
electronic benefits.
Among the implementation
challenges that commenters discussed
were the EBT and MIS updates
necessary to enable the return of
electronic benefits. To provide WIC
State agencies the time to develop and
refine the technological solutions
needed to allow for the return of
electronic benefits, State agencies have
until 24 months after the publication of
the final rule, or no later than November
6, 2028, to comply with § 246.12(x)(4)
Return of benefits (x)(4)(i), (x)(4)(ii) and
(x)(4)(iii).
The final rule’s effective date remains
30 days after publication, or December
7, 2026, as proposed. State agencies may
choose to implement the rule’s
provisions in advance of the
implementation deadlines listed above,
following the effective date.
VII. Procedural Matters
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14192
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

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

70268

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

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 final
rule has been determined to be
economically significant under
Executive Order 12866 section 3(f)(1)
and was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
Executive Order 14192 directs
agencies to ensure the cost of new
regulations does not place unnecessary
burdens on the public. This final rule is
an enabling regulation and therefore a
deregulatory action under Executive
Order 14192. The rule provides WIC
State agencies with the flexibility to
expand shopping options and explore
new payment technologies, thereby
resulting in potential time savings for
participants and more efficient
operations for State agencies.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
As required for all rules that have
been designated as economically
significant by the Office of Management
and Budget, a Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) was developed for this
rule. The complete RIA follows this rule
as an Appendix. The following
summarizes the conclusions of the
regulatory impact analysis:
Need for Action
To ensure that participants in the
Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and

Children (WIC) have access to the same
shopping options as non-WIC shoppers,
with the expansion of online shopping
in the retail grocery industry and the
development of new payment types, the
Department is removing barriers to
online shopping and modernizing
certain food delivery regulations in the
WIC Program through this rulemaking.
This rule complements the Program’s
complete transition to electronic benefit
transfer (EBT) and aims to meet the
needs of a modern, data-driven program
that uses current technologies for food
delivery. These changes are expected to
improve the WIC shopping experience
while increasing access to healthy foods
for WIC participants.
Costs
The Department estimates that the
provisions under this rule will reduce
costs for some stakeholders and increase
costs and/or transfers for other
stakeholders (Table 1).
The Department estimates that
allowing WIC online shopping will
increase federal WIC food spending, in
the form of transfers, by a total of $315
million over the 5-year estimate period
of FY 2027 to FY 2031. This is driven
by an understanding that shoppers
sometimes pay higher prices for online
groceries and an expectation that online
shopping will moderately increase WIC
benefit redemption by making the WIC
shopping experience more convenient
for some participants.
The Department estimates that the
rule will also result in around $32
million in net WIC State agency savings
from FY 2027 to FY 2031. State agency
savings will be driven by a large

reduction in State agency reporting
burden and recordkeeping burden,
which is estimated to result in a savings
of $50 million over 5 years and is
largely attributable to the removal of
shelf price collection requirements for
EBT State agencies.15 These savings will
be partially offset by an estimated $18
million in total 5-year expenses required
to update State agency systems to enable
online transaction of WIC electronic
benefits in State agencies adopting
online shopping during this time.
In State agencies that allow WIC
online shopping, WIC participants who
choose to redeem at least some of their
food benefits online are expected to save
time by reducing how often they travel
to purchase groceries in-store. Over 5
years from FY 2027 to FY 2031, the
amount of travel time WIC participants
save by replacing one in-store shopping
trip with an online order per month is
expected to be valued at a total of $103
million. This time savings will increase
as more State agencies offer online
shopping and as more participants
choose redeem benefits online.
Similarly, the provision allowing remote
issuance of benefits also generates
notable time savings to WIC participants
by enabling less frequent visits to WIC
clinics to reload their benefits between
regular appointments. This time savings
is estimated to be worth $92 million
over 5 years for WIC participants.
Finally, the removal of shelf price
collection requirements is also expected
to significantly reduce burden on WIC
vendors. The Department estimates that
the reductions in vendor reporting
burden under the rule will save WIC
vendors $18 million over 5 years.

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED IMPACTS ON TRANSFERS AND COSTS, FY 2027–2031
Fiscal year
(millions)
2027
Federal Transfers:
Impact of online shopping on federal WIC food spending ...............
State Agency Costs:
Systems development and maintenance for online shopping .........
Changes to reporting and recordkeeping burden ............................
WIC Vendor Costs:
Changes to administrative burden ....................................................
WIC Participant Costs:
Time savings of online grocery shopping .........................................
Changes to administrative burden ....................................................

2028

2029

2030

2031

Total

$33.5

$41.8

$59.0

$78.8

$101.4

$314.5

2.8
¥9.5

1.9
¥9.8

3.1
¥10.0

4.7
¥10.2

5.2
¥10.4

17.7
¥49.9

¥3.4

¥3.5

¥3.6

¥3.7

¥3.8

¥18.0

¥11.0
¥17.6

¥13.7
¥18.0

¥19.4
¥18.4

¥25.9
¥18.9

¥33.3
¥19.3

¥103.4
¥92.3

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Notes: All monetary figures are adjusted for annual inflation.
15 In a comment, one State agency noted that,
since they have an exemption allowing them to
forego collecting shelf prices, this provision does
not result in administrative savings for them.
Nevertheless, the Department recognizes this
provision as a cost savings to State agencies in this
analysis because this regulatory change makes the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

temporary savings permanent. This is consistent
with how the Department has valued both savings
and costs associated with making temporary
program changes permanent via regulation in the
past; see, for example, the Child Nutrition Program
Integrity final rule (available online at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/23/

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

2023-17992/child-nutrition-program-integrity) or
the Revisions in the WIC Food Package final rule
(available online at https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2024/04/18/2024-07437/specialsupplemental-nutrition-program-for-womeninfants-and-children-wic-revisions-in-the-wic-food).

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Benefits
The provisions under this rule
modernize the ways that WIC
participants can receive and transact
their electronic benefits. An estimated
14 percent of the U.S. population lives
in low-income census tracts with
limited access to food stores,16 and 21
percent of WIC participants report using
a means of transportation other than
their own personal car to travel to a
vendor to use their WIC benefits.17 By
comparison, 95 percent of higher
income households (above 185 percent
of the federal poverty line) use their
own vehicle to travel to a grocery
store.18 Once at the vendor, participants
also report challenges shopping for WIC
foods. Recent USDA survey data
indicate that finding the right WICapproved products in stores, WICapproved products being out of stock,
and feeling embarrassed shopping for
WIC foods are some of the most cited
challenges among WIC participants who
report difficulties shopping for WIC
supplemental foods.19 Online shopping
may alleviate some of these issues for
WIC participants and has the potential
to provide benefits during supply chain
disruptions.
Enabling online shopping in WIC
under this rule is expected to ensure
that WIC participants have access to
innovations in the retail marketplace
while maintaining program integrity,
16 Rhone, A., Williams, R., & Dicken, C. (June
2022). Low-Income and Low Foodstore-Access
Census Tracts, 2015–19, EIB–236, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Available online at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/
publications/104157.
17 Magness, A., Williams, K. Gordon, E.,
Morrissey, N., Papa, F., Garza, A., Okyere, D., Nisar,
H., Bajowski, F., & Singer, B. (2021). Third National
Survey of WIC Participants: WIC Participant
Satisfaction and Shopping Experience: Brief Report
#6. Prepared by Capital Consulting Corporation and
2M Research Services. Contract No. AG–3198–K–
15–0077. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of
Policy Support, Project Officer: Karen CastellanosBrown. Available online at: https://
www.fna.usda.gov/wic/third-national-survey-wicparticipants.
18 Ver Ploeg, Michele, Lisa Mancino, Jessica E.
Todd, Dawn Marie Clay, and Benjamin Scharadin.
Where Do Americans Usually Shop for Food and
How Do They Travel To Get There? Initial Findings
From the National Household Food Acquisition and
Purchase Survey, EIB–138, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, March
2015. Available online at: https://
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/
?pubid=79791.
19 Gleason, S., Wroblewska, K., Trippe, C., Kline,
N., Meyers Mathieu, K., Breck, A., Marr, J., Bellows,
D. (2022). WIC Food Cost-Containment Practices
Study. Prepared by Insight Policy Research,
Contract No. AG–3198–C–15–0022. Alexandria, VA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service, Office of Policy Support, Project Officer:
Ruth Morgan. Available online at: https://
www.fna.usda.gov/wic/wic-food-cost-containmentpractices-study.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

and to increase participant purchases of
supplemental foods. Online shopping
may also expand WIC participants’
choices when they shop, particularly for
authorized substitutions needed to meet
certain dietary restrictions that may not
be readily available at the closest WICauthorized grocery stores. The rule will
further make WIC more convenient and
accessible by encouraging State agencies
to remotely issue electronic benefits and
mail EBT cards whenever possible,
potentially reducing the number of
clinic visits that WIC participants are
required to make. The rule also includes
provisions that will streamline and
modernize WIC food delivery by
promoting innovation and ensuring that
State agency reporting requirements
reflect a modern, data-driven program.
These provisions provide necessary
measures to ensure that State agencies
can deliver a more efficient and
effective program for WIC participants.
Finally, preliminary evidence
suggests online ordering generally
supports higher diet quality or more
healthful food purchasing decisions
among SNAP participants.20 21 To the
extent that this rule facilitates healthier
food shopping among WIC participants,
this rule is likely to lead to better
nutrition outcomes for WIC participants.
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. Pursuant to that review,
it has been certified that this final rule
does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The provisions of this final rule
primarily affect WIC State agencies and
WIC-authorized vendors. Otherwise, all
other provisions apply to all State
agencies administering the WIC
Program, regardless of size, and largely
can be implemented at State agency
option. The Department does not expect
this final rule to have a significant
impact on small State agencies.
Large retailers may be able to
implement WIC online shopping more
20 Avelino DC, Duffy VB, Puglisi M, Ray S,
Lituma-Solis B, Nosal BM, Madore M, Chun OK.
Can Ordering Groceries Online Support Diet
Quality in Adults Who Live in Low Food Access
and Low-Income Environments? Nutrients. 2023
Feb 8;15(4):862. https://doi/org/10.3390/
nu15040862. PMID: 36839221; PMCID:
PMC9964317.
21 Kuan, I., Liu, Y., Jones, J., Zhou, P. (2025).
‘‘SNAP Online Purchasing and the Healthfulness of
Food Purchases.’’ Applied Economic Perspectives
and Policy 47(3): 914–932. https://doi.org/10.1002/
aepp.13528.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70269

readily than other store types. However,
the Department does not expect the final
rule to have a lasting or significant
negative impact on smaller WIC vendors
as WIC sales represent a relatively small
share of these stores’ revenue. The
Department does not routinely track
data necessary to determine how WIC
benefit redemptions vary by most
vendor characteristics, including
indicators for whether the store is a
small business or independent grocer.
USDA’s ERS estimated, by merging WIC
and SNAP redemption databases, that
76 percent of WIC retail redemptions
occurred in larger stores (super stores,
supermarkets, or large grocery stores) in
FY 2012; however, the study’s
definition of supermarkets and large
grocery stores is inclusive of many
independent grocers.22 The Department
does not have data on the extent to
which small businesses and
independent grocers have implemented
online shopping to date, but is aware of
products on the market being employed
by independent grocers to provide
online ordering currently for WIC
participants (with in-store or curbside
transactions).
If smaller WIC vendors (such as
convenience stores or small and
medium grocery stores) do not adopt
online shopping solutions, then they
may see some of their WIC revenues lost
to larger retailers that provide online
shopping. According to ERS data, in FY
2012, small grocery stores, medium
grocery stores, and convenience stores
accounted for 2.9 percent, 3.5 percent,
and 3.8 percent of WIC retail
redemptions, respectively. For example,
the 3.8 percent of total WIC benefits
transacted at convenience stores in FY
2012 amounts to about $228 million.
U.S. convenience stores reported an
estimated $193 billion in total in-store
sales, not including fuel, in 2012,
suggesting that WIC redemptions
represented only about 0.12 percent of
non-fuel sales for convenience stores
that year.23 As WIC sales make up a
relatively small fraction of the total
revenue of smaller stores, and especially
convenience stores, the Department
expects any lost revenue for smaller
vendors that do not adopt an online
22 Tiehen, L. and Frazão, E. Where Do WIC
Participants Redeem Their Food Benefits? An
Analysis of WIC Food Dollar Redemption Patterns
by Store Type, EIB–152, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April
2016. Available online at: https://
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/44076.
23 Statista. ‘‘Sales of the convenience store
industry in the United States from 2011 to 2020, by
format’’ 27 January 2022. Available online at:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/308767/sales-ofthe-us-convenience-store-industry-by-format/.

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

70270

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

shopping solution to be relatively
minor.
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 (adjusted annually for inflation) 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.
This final rule does not contain
Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local and Tribal governments, or
the private sector of $100 million or
more (adjusted annually for inflation) in
any one year. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Executive Order 12372
The Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC) is listed in the Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance under
Number 10.557 and is subject to
Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials (see 2 CFR
chapter IV). Since WIC is Stateadministered, USDA’s FNA Regional
Offices have formal and informal
discussions with State and local
officials, including representatives of
Indian Tribal Organizations, on an
ongoing basis regarding program
requirements and operations. This
provides USDA with the opportunity to
receive regular input from program
administrators and contributes to the
development of feasible program
requirements.
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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

considerations in terms of the three
categories called for under section
(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
The Department has considered the
impact of this rule on State and local
governments and has determined that
this rule does not have federalism
implications. Therefore, under section
6(b) of the executive order, a federalism
summary is not required.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform
This final 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. Prior
to any judicial challenge to the
provisions of this final rule, all
applicable administrative procedures
must be exhausted.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
FNA has reviewed the final 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 final rule
might have on participants on the basis
of race, sex, national origin, disability,
or age. The requirements outlined in the
final rule aim to remove barriers to
online ordering and internet-based
transactions, streamline and modernize
WIC food delivery, and meet the needs
of a modern, data-driven program that
uses current food delivery technologies.
The changes impact WIC State agencies,
including ITOs, WIC local agencies and
clinics, and WIC vendors in ways that
are expected to increase equity and
access for WIC participants and enhance
the overall shopping experience.
In particular, the final rule allows
State agencies to authorize new types of
vendors and explore modern payment
technologies and authentication
methods. To comply with revised
regulations and implement the changes,
staff at State agencies, local agencies,
and WIC clinics will need to update
operations and communicate these
changes to participants. The rule will
increase the number of WIC-authorized
vendors by allowing different types of
vendors (e.g., internet and mobile
vendors) to participate in WIC, while
also reducing administrative burdens on
vendors through the elimination of
certain collection requirements. As a
result, this rule will benefit participants
by expanding participant shopping

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

options and reducing in-person
requirements.
To mitigate potential impacts on vital
program access for populations with
limited English proficiency and persons
with disabilities, FNA will provide State
agencies with technical assistance
aimed at ensuring that online shopping
platforms and communications about
program changes are available in
appropriate languages and in alternative
formats for persons with disabilities.
FNA will also support State agencies as
they work to engage small vendors in
online shopping in the WIC Program.
After reviewing the potential impacts,
FNA does not believe the final rule will
result in civil rights impacts on specific
groups of WIC participants and
applicants. However, the FNA Civil
Rights Division 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.
On November 30, 2021, FNA provided
opportunity for consultation on the rule
to discuss key issues related to the
proposed rule. Tribal leaders were
generally supportive of online ordering
for WIC, which may increase access to
food benefits for those with limited
access to a physical store. Once the
proposed rule was published in the
Federal Register, FNA encouraged
stakeholders representing ITOs to
provide input on whether the proposed
rule poses any adverse tribal
implications. FNA requested and
received public comment on the
impacts on small and Tribal stores in
response to the proposed rule, which
included the importance of continuing
to support small, Tribal-owned stores
and brick-and-mortar vendors, and their
concern for the barriers that fees related
to online ordering could pose to
participants using WIC online shopping.
FNA is committed to providing targeted
technical assistance to support small,
Tribal-owned stores and brick-andmortar vendors and will continue to
explore additional opportunities for
engagement. The Department

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

considered all comments, including
those received by ITOs. No Tribes
requested additional consultation after
the proposed rule was published. We
are unaware of any current Tribal laws
that could be in conflict with this final
rule. If a Tribe requests consultation in
the future, FNA will work with the
Office of Tribal Relations to ensure
meaningful consultation is provided.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR part 1320)
requires that 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 final rule
revises existing information collection
requirements currently approved under
OMB Control Number 0584–0043,
‘‘Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) Program Regulations—
Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden’’
(expiration date August 31, 2027), and
contains new requirements for the same
information collection. These
information collection requirements are
subject to review and approval by OMB.
The Department published the
proposed rule, ‘‘Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC): Online Ordering
and Transactions and Food Delivery
Revisions to Meet the Needs of a
Modern, Data-Driven Program’’ in the
Federal Register on February 23, 2023
(88 FR 11516). The proposed rule
requested public comment on proposed
changes in the information collection
burden that would result from this rule.
The Department received approximately
20 comments on the proposed
information collection requirements and
associated burdens. Commenters also
provided feedback on the burden
associated with activities not impacted
by this rule, which were incorporated as
adjustments into this burden. Based on
public comment feedback, the
Department revised the burden
estimates for this final rule as follows:
• Travel time for vendor visits: The
Department received feedback that a 20minute round trip travel time for
visiting vendors for various activities
was an underestimate. Therefore, the
Department is adjusting the estimated
travel time for round trip vendor visits
to 30 minutes and incorporated this edit
into the various activities involving
vendor visits.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

• On-site preauthorization visits: To
reflect the feedback received related to
travel time for State agencies visiting
vendors, the Department adjusted the
total burden for this activity from 60
minutes to 70 minutes (1.17 hours).
• Vendor applications and
agreements: The Department proposed
the burden for this activity to be 40
minutes (0.67 hours) per vendor
applicant. However, multiple
commenters stated that this
underestimated the amount of time
necessary to complete a full review and
completion of vendor applications and
agreements. Based on the feedback, the
Department adjusted the estimated
burden to 120 minutes (2 hours) per
vendor applicant for this activity to
account for the increased estimate of
review and processing of applications
and agreements.
• On-site routine vendor monitoring:
To reflect feedback from stakeholders
that routine monitoring takes longer
than the proposed 80 minutes including
travel time, the Department adjusted the
estimated burden to 100 minutes (1.67
hours) per vendor for this activity to
account for both increased estimates in
travel time and the routine monitoring
activities that take place.
• Virtual routine vendor monitoring:
The Department proposed the burden
for this activity to be 60 minutes per
vendor. However multiple commenters
stated that routine monitoring,
including remote monitoring, is likely to
take longer. Based on this feedback, the
Department increased the estimated
burden to 70 minutes (1.17 hours) per
vendor for this activity to account for an
increased estimate.
• On-site compliance investigations:
To reflect feedback from stakeholders
that on-site compliance investigations
take longer than 120 minutes per
vendor, the Department increased the
estimated burden to 300 minutes (5
hours) per vendor for this activity to
account for both increased estimates in
travel time and the activities that take
place.
• Virtual compliance investigations:
The Department proposed the burden
for this activity to be 120 minutes per
vendor. Multiple commenters stated
that compliance buys take a
significantly longer amount of time,
even if done remotely. Based on this
feedback, the Department increased the
estimated burden to 270 minutes (4.5
hours) per vendor for this activity,
removing the 30-minute travel time
accounted for in the on-site compliance
investigations burden.
• System updates to allow online
shopping, including return of benefits:
The Department did not initially

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70271

include the burden associated with
updates to State agency systems (EBT
and MIS) and vendor systems necessary
to implement online shopping.
Commenters discussed the significant
cost and impact related to these
necessary changes and based on
feedback provided by State agencies
currently implementing online
shopping projects, FNA estimates that,
on average, State agencies will need to
spend 50 hours modifying their EBT
and MIS to enable online shopping. The
Department estimates that internet
vendors will also have a 50-hour burden
to update their systems to implement
online shopping and incorporated that
into this burden estimate.
• Development of transaction
authentication policies: The Department
proposed the burden for this activity to
be 25 hours per State agency.
Commenters stated that this was an
underestimate and did not take into
consideration the hours that it will take
a State agency to clear these types of
policies through State level review.
Based on this feedback, and to account
for modifications to this provision that
require State agencies to receive written
approval from FNA to adopt an
authentication method other than the
PIN, the Department increased the
estimated burden to 50 hours for this
activity.
The Department appreciates the
feedback provided and incorporated it
into the estimates for the final burden.
The Department did not change the
estimated burden based on public
comment feedback for the following
provisions:
• Shelf price exemptions: Some State
agencies stated that because they utilize
shelf price exemptions and do not
collect shelf prices, they would not be
realizing the benefits of the new
provision and therefore the burden
estimate was inaccurate. While FNA
recognizes that some State agencies
have already realized the benefits of not
collecting shelf prices through the use of
exemptions, the goal of this burden
assessment is to recognize the decrease
in burden hours from an overall
regulatory perspective. As this
rulemaking permanently removes the
requirement to collect shelf prices, the
burden reflects the impact on all State
agencies, regardless of if they had an
exemption.
• Participant travel time to clinic:
One commenter stated that the
participant travel time to the clinic for
benefit pick-up was underestimated.
The Department recognizes that the
travel time for participants in the
commenter’s State agency may be
different than the Department’s

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

70272

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

estimate. However, the Department’s
estimate was based on a survey data 24
that represents an accurate sample of
participants nation-wide, rather than in
just one State agency. Therefore, the
Department maintains its estimate for
participant benefit pick up travel time.
• Reporting requirements: Some
commenters stated that the estimated
burden impact of quarterly reporting
submissions to Food Delivery Portal
(FDP) were underestimated. The
Department has reviewed this feedback
and will incorporate changes to the
burden related to FDP in a separate
burden revision under OMB Control
Number 0584–0401.
The Department has made several
additional changes to the estimated
burden:
• Baseline numbers: The baseline
number of hours currently approved
under OMB Control Number 0584–0043
have been updated since the proposed
rule was published, due to the regular
revision of the WIC Program
Information Collection Request (ICR).
The impact of this final rule on the
overall WIC Program information
collection burden therefore reflects
estimated changes to the updated
baseline numbers.
• Updated program data: Since the
WIC Program ICR was last approved,
there has been a decrease in the number
of State agencies, an increase in the
number of vendors, and an increase in
the number of participants. The
estimated burden associated with this
final rule is calculated using the most
recent available program data. Changes
to the burden estimates from updated
program data are classified as ‘‘program
adjustments,’’ while changes to the
burden as a result of the final rule are
classified as ‘‘program changes.’’
• Revised estimates of online
shopping uptake: In the proposed rule,
the Department estimated that 80 State
agencies would implement online
shopping and that each State agency
would authorize approximately 5
internet vendors, resulting in 400
internet vendors. These estimates were
based on the number of State agencies
with online EBT systems and SNAP’s
experiences with online shopping. The
Department is revising these numbers to
estimate that approximately half of WIC
State agencies (44) will implement
online shopping in the first five years
24 This estimate is based on the amount of time
WIC participants reported traveling to the WIC
clinic. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service, ‘‘Appendix G. Program
Experiences Survey Tables.’’ Third National Survey
of WIC Participants, Alexandria, VA: 2021, Table
5c.2. Available online at: https://www.fna.usda.gov/
wic/third-national-survey-wic-participants.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

following the rule’s publication and that
each State agency will authorize 2 to 3
internet vendors, resulting in 110
internet vendors. These updated
estimates are based on experiences with
ongoing WIC online shopping projects.
• Correction of error in a previous
submission: The currently approved
burden for State agency recordkeeping
activities related to vendor incentive
items has an inaccurate number of
above-50-vendors. A more accurate,
updated number is used in this revision
and therefore the change in burden
hours associated with vendor incentive
items reflects both program changes
from the final rule and adjustments from
the updated program data.
• Additional implementation burden:
The Department has also added a onetime implementation burden associated
with activities that FNA may ask State
agencies that are changing their food
delivery systems to complete, such as
status reports, additional trainings, and
reviewing guidance materials.
• Adjusted for provisions that were
not finalized: The Department is not
adopting the proposed revisions that
would have increased the maximum
length of vendor agreement periods and
the minimum frequency that State
agencies must accept and process
vendor applications from three to five
years. Therefore, the burden associated
with vendor agreements and
applications have been adjusted to no
longer reflect this decreased frequency.
As summarized above, this final rule
changes the information collection
requirements that were proposed in the
proposed rule. The revisions to the
existing information collection
requirements and the introduction of
new information collection
requirements that will take effect with
the final rule will result in an overall
decrease in burden hours for State and
local agencies, applicants for Program
benefits and businesses responding to
these requirements. These changes are
contingent upon OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
When the information collection
requirements have been approved, the
Department will publish a separate
action in the Federal Register
announcing OMB approval.
1. Revisions to OMB Control Number
0584–0043
Title: Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) Program Regulations—
Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden.
OMB Number: 0584–0043.
Expiration Date: August 31, 2027.
Type of Request: Revision of a
currently approved collection.

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Abstract: This is a revision of existing
information collection requirements
approved under OMB Control Number
0584–0043 that are affected by this
rulemaking. This final rule removes
regulatory barriers to online ordering
and internet-based transactions in the
WIC Program, streamlines and
modernizes WIC food delivery, and
meets the needs of a modern, datadriven program that uses current
technologies for food delivery. This
final rule impacts the burden associated
with reporting requirements for State
agencies, individuals and households,
and vendors, as well as the burden
associated with recordkeeping
requirements for State agencies and
vendors. The burden estimates affected
by the rule have also been updated to
include the most recent available
program data, resulting in changes to
the number of State agencies (a decrease
from 89 to 88), vendors (an increase
from 37,267 to 37,368), and participants
(an increase from 6,243,960 to
6,866,085) since the last submission of
OMB Control Number 0584–0043. The
average burden per respondent and the
annual burden hours are summarized
and explained below.
a. Burden Revisions Related to Internet
Vendor Authorization, Monitoring and
Oversight, and Training
The final rule allows State agencies to
authorize internet vendors, in addition
to brick-and-mortar vendors and mobile
vendors. In FY 2023, the most recent
available year, there were 37,368 WICauthorized vendors. Using the new
definitions, all vendors authorized
under current WIC regulations are
classified as brick-and-mortar vendors
except for one mobile vendor. FNA
estimates that 110 internet vendors in
44 State agencies will be authorized
initially following the rulemaking (this
estimate takes into consideration recent
experiences with online shopping
projects and the fact that, due to
technological constraints, offline EBT
systems would not be able to support
online transactions), increasing the total
number of WIC-authorized vendors from
37,368 to 37,478 vendors. In the
proposed rule, the Department had
estimated that 400 internet vendors
would be authorized by 80 State
agencies. These estimates were based on
SNAP’s experiences and have been
adjusted to better reflect information
from the WIC online shopping grant
projects.
Due to public comment feedback on
the proposed rule, the Department
removed the requirement for State
agencies to justify their use of
alternative food instruments in the State

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
Plan. Instead, State agencies will have to
indicate via a checkmark which food
instrument types they are using as part
of the annual State Plan submission.
This check mark will have a negligible
impact on the estimated burden hours
needed to submit the annual State Plan
and therefore there is no change to the
burden associated with State Plan
submissions due to this final rule. There
is a decrease in the number of burden
hours associated with State Plan
submissions due to the decrease in the
number of WIC State agencies since the
previous ICR submission.
WIC regulations at § 246.12(g)(5)
require that State agencies visit a vendor
prior to their initial authorization in the
Program. As noted above, based on
feedback on the proposed rule, the
Department is estimating that during an
on-site preauthorization visit, State
agency staff spend approximately 40
minutes verifying information provided
by the vendor applicant, and 30 minutes
traveling to and from the vendor, for a
total of 70 minutes. The adjusted travel
time, combined with the decrease in the
number of WIC State agencies, results in
an increase in the currently approved
burden associated with on-site
preauthorization by 237.32 total hours.
The final rule allows initial
preauthorization visits of internet
vendors to take place virtually, therefore
not requiring travel time for State
agency staff. Therefore, the initial
authorization of 110 internet vendors
would add 73.48 reporting burden hours
for both State agencies and vendors.
The proposed rule included a
provision to increase the maximum
length of vendor agreements and the
minimum frequency that State agencies
must accept and process applications
from three to five years. The final rule
does not include this change. Therefore,
the only program change reflected in the
State agency burden associated with
reviewing vendor agreements is the
added burden for internet vendors’
applications and agreements (72.60
burden hours). In response to the
proposed rule, FNA received feedback
that the current estimate for reviewing,
processing, and approving vendor
applications was too low and therefore
the Department adjusted the estimated
burden from 40 minutes to 120 minutes.
This adjustment, combined with the
increase in the number of WIC-approved
vendors since the previous ICR
submission, increases the burden
estimate by 16,447.74 hours. Taking the
program change and the adjustments
into account, the burden associated with
this activity would increase by
16,520.34 hours over the currently

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

approved burden, from 8,215.14 hours
to 24,735.48 hours.
Additionally, the estimated burden
for vendors to submit applications and
agreements and the estimated burden
for State agencies to maintain records of
vendor applications and agreements
would increase by 36.30 hours each due
to the addition of internet vendors. The
increase in the number of WICauthorized vendors since the previous
ICR submission also increases these
burdens by 33.33 hours. Taken together,
the program change and the adjustments
to the number of vendors result in net
increases in the vendor reporting
burden and State agency recordkeeping
burden associated with vendor
applications and agreements by 69.63
hours each, from 12,298.11 to 12,367.74
hours.
Although the final rule does not
change procedures for vendor oversight,
the rulemaking allows routine vendor
monitoring and compliance
investigations to be conducted virtually
so that State agencies may use oversight
methods appropriate for the vendors
they authorize. As with initial vendor
preauthorization visits, the Department
adjusted its estimate for round trip
travel time to a brick-and-mortar or
mobile vendor from 20 minutes to 30
minutes based on feedback on the
proposed rule. The adjustment of the
travel time, along with the increase in
the number of WIC-authorized vendors
since the previous ICR submission,
increases the burden associated with onsite routine monitoring visits by 634.52
hours. The additional virtual routine
monitoring visits of internet vendors
authorized under the final rule adds
6.44 more hours to State agencies’
reporting burden. The State agency
recordkeeping burden for routine
vendor monitoring would also increase
by 5.27 hours, from 931.68 to 936.95
hours. Of this increase, 2.75 hours are
due to the addition of internet vendors
authorized under the final rule, and 2.52
hours are due to the increase in the
number of WIC-authorized vendors
since the previous ICR submission.
State agency staff conduct on-site
compliance investigations of five
percent of vendors each year. As with
on-site vendor preauthorization visits
and on-site routine monitoring visits,
FNA adjusted its estimate for round trip
travel time to a brick-and-mortar or
mobile vendor from 20 minutes to 30
minutes based on feedback on the
proposed rule. To reflect feedback that
the compliance investigations take
longer than the Department estimated,
the Department adjusted the time to 4.5
hours, for a total of 5 hours including
travel time. This adjustment, along with

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70273

the increase in the number of WICauthorized vendors since the previous
ICR submission, increases the burden
hours for on-site compliance
investigations by 4,992.94 hours, from
4,349.06 hours to 9,342 hours.
The Department estimated that it
would take State agencies 2 hours to
conduct virtual compliance
investigations of internet vendors each
year. Public comments on the proposed
rule provided feedback that virtual
investigations will take more time.
Therefore, the Department increased the
burden associated with virtual
compliance investigations to 4.5 hours,
which adds a total of 24.75 hours to the
State agency reporting burden.
Additionally, the authorization of
internet vendors as a result of this
rulemaking would increase the State
agency recordkeeping burden for
compliance investigations by 11 hours,
and the increase in WIC-authorized
vendors since the previous ICR
submission would add another 10.10
hours to this recordkeeping burden.
The addition of 110 internet vendors
under the final rule would increase
State agencies’ reporting burden for
vendor training by 220 hours per year.
The Department estimates that it takes
two hours for vendors to attend annual
training provided by State agencies.
Authorizing 110 internet vendors results
in an additional 220 hours of reporting
burden for those new vendors to receive
the training. The Department estimates
that it takes one hour for each vendor
to subsequently train their staff. Due to
the additional internet vendors, this will
increase the burden for vendor training
of their staff by 110 hours. Each of these
estimated burdens for State agencies
and vendors associated with vendor
training activities would also increase
due to the increase in the number of
WIC-authorized vendors since the
previous ICR submission.
Further, FNA estimates that the
addition of internet vendors will result
in proportionate increases in both the
number of vendors that State agencies
must assess for ‘‘above-50-percent’’
status and the number of vendors that
demonstrate a pattern of violations
during investigations. These changes
would result in associated increases in:
the State agency reporting burden
related to assessing a vendor’s food sales
data to determine if they are an ‘‘above50-percent’’ vendor (8.80 additional
hours); the vendor reporting burden
required to provide such sales data (4.40
additional hours); the reporting burden
for above-50-percent vendors who
request approval from their State agency
to provide incentive items to WIC
shoppers (0.98 additional hours); and

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

70274

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

the State agency recordkeeping burden
to collect information on above-50percent vendors’ incentive items (0.98
additional hours). Since the previous
ICR submission, the number of vendors
that State agencies assess for ‘‘above-50percent’’ status has decreased from 840
to 795, the number of WIC State
agencies has decreased from 89 to 88,
and the number of WIC-authorized
vendors has increased from 37,267 to
37,368. These program adjustments
have additional impacts on each of the
State agency and vendor burdens listed
above.
Per 246.12(l)(3), State agencies are
required to notify a vendor in writing
when an investigation reveals an initial
violation for which a pattern of
violations must be established in order
to impose a sanction before another
violation is documented, unless the
State agency determines notifying the
vendor would compromise an
investigation. Accounting for the
addition of internet vendors due to this
final rule, the associated reporting
burden for this requirement would
increase by 0.26 hours and the
associated recordkeeping burden would
increase by 3.09 hours. These burdens
would also increase by 0.23 hours and
2.79 hours, respectively, due to the
increase in the number of WICauthorized vendors since the previous
ICR submission.
Finally, vendors are required to
maintain inventory records for federal
tax reporting purposes, a recordkeeping
burden that takes vendors
approximately 10 minutes (0.167 hours)
to complete. To account for the new
internet vendors, the Department
estimates an additional 18.37 hours
associated with this requirement. The
increase in the number of WICauthorized vendors since the previous
ICR submission also results in 16.87
additional hours for this requirement.
b. Burden Revisions Related to Program
Modernization
In recognition of the efficiency of
using electronic benefit redemption data
to analyze the prices vendors charge for
supplemental foods, the final rule
removes the requirement that State
agencies with access to EBT data collect
shelf prices from vendors on a biannual
basis or seek an exemption from FNA.
As all State agencies are operating EBT
at the time of this rule publication,
removing the shelf price collection
requirement for State agencies
significantly decreases the reporting
burden for WIC State agencies
(¥149,068 hours for collecting shelf
prices and ¥40 hours for preparing
exemption requests) and WIC-

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

authorized vendors (¥132,318.79
hours).
To operationalize online shopping,
State agencies will have to update their
systems to support new technology in
alignment with the Department’s
standards per § 246.12(bb)(1). The
proposed rule did not account for this
burden and therefore the Department is
adding a burden associated with system
updates to allow online shopping,
including the return of benefits. The
Department estimates that these updates
will take 50 hours, and therefore would
increase the reporting burden by 2,200
total hours for the 44 State agencies
implementing online shopping.
Additionally, to fully account for any
State agency status updates, FNAprovided trainings, or review of FNA
guidance materials that may be required
to update food delivery systems to
incorporate online shopping, the
Department estimates a 5-hour
implementation burden per State
agency, for a total of 220 hours.
Similarly, the development of online
shopping will require 50 burden hours
to update vendor systems to allow
online shopping, including returns.
Therefore, the vendor reporting burden
associated with vendor system updates
to allow online shopping will result in
5,500 additional burden hours for the
110 new internet vendors.
State agencies are required to submit
requests for approval for costs of capital
expenditures per § 246.14(d). The
proposed rule estimated that the
number of State agencies submitting
such requests would increase as a result
of the rule. However, based on project
costs from State agencies currently
implementing online shopping, the MIS
and EBT changes necessary to
implement online shopping projects are
not meeting the cost threshold requiring
that they submit approval. Therefore,
the Department is no longer estimating
that there will be an increase in the
number of State agencies submitting
requests for approval, and there is no
estimated increase in the burden
associated with this activity.
The final rule allows State agencies to
adopt EBT transaction authentication
technologies other than PIN
authentication. Regardless of whether
State agencies adopt new transaction
authentication technologies or maintain
use of the PIN, they must develop
transaction authentication policies for
the technology they use. Additionally,
the Department has modified this
provision from what was proposed to
require that State agencies receive
written approval from FNA if they adopt
an authentication method other than the
PIN. Based on public comment

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

feedback, the Department increased the
burden hours associated with this
activity from 25 to 50 hours, and
adjusted the number of estimated
respondents in recognition that all State
agencies will be creating policies and, in
the future, may request FNA approval to
adopt authentication methods other
than the PIN. This increases the
reporting burden for this activity to
4,400 hours.
The final rule encourages State
agencies to issue electronic benefits
remotely and mail EBT cards to
participants to reduce the number of
clinic visits households make to receive
benefits. This decreases the burden
associated with picking up food
instruments and receiving benefits
outside of a certification clinic visit by
a total of 1,747,698.87 hours. These
estimates assume that: on average, WIC
households consist of two WIC
participants, requiring only one trip to
the clinic to pick up both participants’
benefits; currently, households in State
agencies without an online EBT system
are required to travel to a clinic to
reload offline EBT cards three times a
year outside of another scheduled
appointment; and currently, new
participants in State agencies with
online EBT systems are required to pick
up their EBT card in person. With this
final rulemaking, only participants who
need to reload an offline EBT card
would be required to travel to a clinic
to receive benefits in person. These
estimates also account for a decrease in
the number of offline EBT State agencies
(from 9 to 8) and an increase in the
number of WIC participants (from
6,243,960 to 6,866,085) since the
previous ICR submission.
c. Costs Associated With the Final Rule
and OMB Control Number 0584–0043
In addition to the changes to the
information collection burdens
discussed in this section, implementing
the final rule is expected to create
additional costs for State agencies and
WIC participants. FNA estimates that it
will cost each State agency
approximately $185,000 to update their
EBT and MIS to implement online
shopping in the year that they choose to
do so. Across the estimated 44 State
agencies implementing online shopping,
these one-time implementation costs
would total $8.14 million. After
implementation, the Department
anticipates that maintenance of such
systems will cost approximately $4,500
per month. Therefore, in an average year
following implementation of online
shopping in 44 State agencies, these
ongoing maintenance costs would total
$2.38 million.

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
The final rule adds a provision at
§ 246.12(h)(3)(xxxiii) that allows WIC
participants who choose to shop for
supplemental foods online to pay for
fees associated with such services using
another tender type, as long as those
fees are also assessed to non-WIC
customers using the same services.
Adjusting for annual inflation, the
Department estimates that an average
online grocery order in 2027 will be
assessed $10.66 in delivery and service
fees, increasing to $11.63, adjusting for
inflation, in FY 2031 (see the Regulatory
Impact Analysis that follows this rule as
an Appendix for a full explanation of
these estimates). Additionally, FNA
estimates that once online shopping has
been implemented across 44 State
agencies, 28 percent of WIC participants
in those State agencies, or about 961,252
participants, would make one online
WIC order each month. Further, FNA
estimates that 33 percent of those WIC
online shopping orders (317,213 orders)
would be placed for home delivery. On
average, each WIC household consists of
two WIC participants. Therefore, FNA
estimates that approximately 158,607
households would place an online order
for home delivery each month, costing
WIC participants a total of about $1.84
million per month, or $22.14 million
per year in delivery fees if 44 State
agencies have implemented online
shopping by 2031.
d. Summary of Revisions to OMB
Control Number 0584–0043
The current approved burden for
OMB Control Number 0584–0043 is
17,362,904 hours, 67,867,960 responses,
and 6,283,126 respondents. Changes to
the burden due to the rulemaking
decrease the total burden by 1,589,524
hours and changes due to program
adjustments decrease the burden by
403,908 hours. Together, these changes
and adjustments decrease the burden by
1,993,432 hours, resulting in a total
burden of 15,369,471 hours. The rule

70275

and program adjustments decrease the
total number of responses by 3,634,621,
resulting in a total of 64,233,339
responses. The addition of internet
vendors due to the final rule is
estimated to increase the total number
of respondents for this information
collection by 110, and the program
adjustments (changes in the number of
State agencies, vendors, and
participants since the previous ICR
submission) are estimated to increase
the total number of respondents by
622,335. Taken together, these program
changes and adjustments increase the
number of respondents for this
information collection from 6,283,126 to
6,905,461. One-time costs associated
with the final rule are estimated to total
$8.14 million and annual costs and fees
following implementation of online
shopping are estimated to total $24.52
million. The average burden per
response, the annual burden hours, and
the total fees and costs related to this
final rule are explained below and
summarized in the tables which follow.
The change in burden hours to OMB
Control Number 0584–0043 and costs
associated with the final rule are best
estimates.
Respondents: State agencies,
including Indian Tribal Organizations
and U.S. Territories (note that burden
estimates for local agencies are not
affected by this proposed rule).
Estimated Number of Respondents:
88.

Estimated Number of Responses:
17,524.
Estimated Hours per Recordkeeping
Response: 1.05.
Estimated Total Annual
Recordkeeping Burden Hours for
Respondents: 18,461.
Respondents: Individuals and
households.

Reporting
Estimated Number of Reporting
Responses per Respondent: 651.54.
Estimated Number of Responses:
57,336.
Estimated Hours per Reporting
Response: 2.48.
Estimated Total Annual Reporting
Burden Hours for Respondents: 142,324.

Estimated Number of Recordkeeping
Responses per Respondent: 1.00.
Estimated Number of Responses:
37,478.
Estimated Hours per Recordkeeping
Response: 0.17.
Estimated Total Annual
Recordkeeping Burden Hours for
Respondents: 6,259.
Estimated Capital, Start-up,
Operation, Maintenance and
Implementation Costs and Fees:

Recordkeeping
Estimated Number of Recordkeeping
Responses per Respondent: 199.14.

Reporting
Estimated Number of Respondents:
3,433,043.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 0.24.
Estimated Number of Responses:
819,249.
Estimated Hours per Response: 0.50.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 409,624.
Respondents: WIC-authorized
vendors.
Reporting
Estimated Number of Respondents:
37,478 (37,367 brick-and-mortar
vendors, 110 internet vendors, and 1
mobile vendor).
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 2.41.
Estimated Number of Responses:
90,193.
Estimated Hours per Response: 1.48.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 133,326.
Recordkeeping

SUMMARY OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL RULE
Number of
respondents

One-time costs
(millions)

Annual costs
(millions)

44

$8.14

$2.38

$10.52

Fees associated with online shopping ........................................................

158,607

0.00

22.14

22.14

Total Costs ...........................................................................................

8.14

24.52

32.66

Description of cost

Total costs
(millions)

State Agencies
Systems development and maintenance for online shopping .....................

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Individuals and Households

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

Estimated
total burden
hours

Current
burden hours
in OMB
#0584–0043

651.54

1.00

1.00

11.98
1.00

0.13

425.89
21.23
0.13
21.23

140.54

2.50

9.07
0.00
0.00
17.00

1.00
1.00

57,335.70

20.00

88.00

1,053.88
44.00

5.50

37,478.00
1,868.40
5.50
1,868.40

12,367.74

110.00

798.28
0.00
0.00
1,496.00

88.00
44.00

2.48

160.00

50.00

0.0835
50.00

4.50

2.00
1.67
1.17
5.00

2.00

0.67

4.00
2.00
8.00
1.17

170.62
5.00

142,324.38

3,200.00

4,400.00

88.00
2,200.00

24.75

74,956.00
3,120.23
6.44
9,342.00

24,735.48

73.48

3,193.13
0.00
0.00
1,750.32

15,014.56
220.00

3,433,043

3,120,947.73

312,094.77

0.24

0.00

2.63

819,248.78

0.00

819,248.78

0.50

0.00

0.50

409,624.39

0.00

409,624.39

894,499.89

262,037.60

3,200.00

0.00

87.51
0.00

0.00

74,534.00
2,485.71
0.00
4,349.06

8,215.14

0.00

3,360.00
149,068.00
40.00
1,513.00

15,185.18
0.00

2,157,323.26

1,262,823.37

Affected Public: Individuals and Households: Applicants for Program Benefits

798.28
0.00
1,606.00
12,367.74
37,478.00
354.79
37,478.00
110.00
37,478
3,470,609

Vendor food sales data for A50s .......
Vendor shelf prices ............................
Vendor initial preauthorization visits ..
Vendor applications & agreements ....
Vendor training of staff ......................
Vendor incentive items ......................
Vendor training ...................................
System updates to allow online shopping, including return of benefits.

Subtotal Reporting: Businesses ..................................

Grand Subtotal: Reporting ...........................................

246.12(g)(4)(i) ....
246.12(g)(4)(ii)(B)
246.12(g)(5) ........
246.12(h) ............
246.12(h)(3)(xiii)
246.12(h)(8)(i) ....
246.12(i) .............
246.12(bb)(1) ......

Average
burden hours
per response

0.28

2.41

1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

966,777.29

90,192.81

798.28
0.00
1,606.00
12,367.74
37,478.00
354.79
37,478.00
110.00

0.71

1.48

2.00
0.00
0.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
50.00

685,274.67

133,325.90

1,596.56
0.00
1,072.81
12,367.74
37,478.00
354.79
74,956.00
5,500.00

2,678,809.44

259,448.58

1,680.00
132,318.79
1,010.68
12,298.11
37,267.00
340.00
74,534.00
0.00

Affected Public: Business: Retail Vendors (WIC-Authorized Food Stores) and Nonprofit Businesses

Subtotal Reporting: Applicants ....................................

246.12(r)(4) &
(r)(5).

246.12(r)(4) &
(r)(5).

Offline EBT State agencies: Food instrument and cash-value voucher
pick up (non-certification clinic visits).
Online EBT State agencies: Food instrument and cash-value voucher
pick up (non-certification clinic visits).

88

88.00

88.00
44.00

44.00

88.00
88.00
44.00
88.00

88.00

44.00

88.00
0.00
0.00
88.00

88.00
44.00

Subtotal Reporting: State and Local Agencies ...........

246.14(d) ............

246.12(bb)(2) ......

246.12(l)(3) .........
246.12(bb)(1) ......

246.12(j)(4), (6) ..

246.12(i)(1) .........
246.12(j)(2) .........
246.12(j)(2) .........
246.12(j)(4), (6) ..

246.12(h) ............

246.12(g)(5) ........

246.12(g)(4)(i) ....
246.12(g)(4)(ii)(B)
246.12(g)(4)(ii)(B)
246.12(g)(5) ........

Total annual
responses

REPORTING BURDEN ESTIMATES

Frequency of
responses

Affected Public: State and Local Agencies (including Indian Tribal Organizations and U.S. Territories)

Estimated
number of
respondents

20.00

Description of activities

State Plan ..........................................
Implementation of food delivery system changes.
Vendor food sales data ......................
Vendor shelf prices ............................
Vendor shelf prices exemption ..........
Vendor initial preauthorization visits
(onsite).
Vendor initial preauthorization visits
(virtual).
Review vendor applications & agreements.
Vendor training ...................................
Routine vendor monitoring (onsite) ...
Routine vendor monitoring (virtual) ...
Vendor compliance investigations
(onsite).
Vendor compliance investigations
(virtual).
Notification of vendor violations .........
System updates to allow online shopping, including return of benefits.
Transaction authentication policy development.
ADP proposals ...................................

246.4 ..................
246.12 ................

Regulatory
citation

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

¥87.84
0.00
¥11.36
33.33
101.00
13.81
202.00
0.00
250.95
¥403,938.32

4.40
¥132,318.79
73.48
36.30
110.00
0.98
220.00
5,500.00
¥126,373.63
¥1,589,596.45

¥426,357.73

0.00

¥1,262,823.37

¥1,321,341.14

¥426,357.73

22,168.46

¥141,881.68

¥58,517.77

0.00

0.00

0.23
0.00

0.00

202.00
634.52
0.00
4,992.94

16,447.74

¥1,993,534.77

¥126,122.68

¥83.44
¥132,318.79
62.12
69.63
211.00
14.79
422.00
5,500.00

¥1,747,698.87

¥1,262,823.37

¥484,875.50

¥119,713.22

0.00

4,400.00

0.49
2,200.00

24.75

422.00
634.52
6.44
4,992.94

16,520.34

73.48

¥166.87
¥149,068.00
¥40.00
237.32

¥175.67
0.00
0.00
237.32
0.00

¥170.62
220.00

Total change
due to
rulemaking and
adjustments

¥170.62
0.00

Estimated
change due to
adjustments

0.00

4,400.00

0.26
2,200.00

24.75

220.00
0.00
6.44
0.00

72.60

73.48

8.80
¥149,068.00
¥40.00
0.00

0.00
220.00

Estimated
change due
to program
changes

70276
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

88

Subtotal Recordkeeping: State and Local Agencies ...

199.14

140.54
88.70
21.29
21.29
11.98
17,524.21

12,367.74
354.79
1,873.90
1,873.90
1,053.88
1.05

1.00
1.00
0.50
2.00
1.00
18,461.16

12,367.74
354.79
936.95
3,747.80
1,053.88
18,393.69

12,298.11
389.20
931.68
3,726.70
1,048.00

Jkt 271001

37,566

Grand Subtotal: Recordkeeping ..................................
3,470,609

37,478

Subtotal Recordkeeping: Businesses ..........................

Grand Total: Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Public
Disclosure.

37,478.00

Vendor Inventory Records .................

0.29

1.46

1.00

1.00

1,021,779.51

55,002.21

37,478

37,478.00

0.69

0.45

0.17

0.17

709,994.66

24,719.99

6,259

6,258.83

2,703,426.72

24,617.28

6,224

6,223.59

Affected Public: Business: Retail Vendors (WIC-Authorized Food Stores) and Nonprofit Businesses

88.00
4.00
88.00
88.00
88.00

246.12(h)(3)(xvi)

RECORDKEEPING BURDEN ESTIMATES
Affected Public: State and Local Agencies (including Indian Tribal Organizations and U.S. Territories)

Vendor applications & Agreements ...
Vendor incentive items ......................
Routine vendor monitoring .................
Vendor compliance Investigations .....
Vendor notice of violations ................

246.12(h)(1)(i) ....
246.12(h)(8)(i) ....
246.12(j)(6) .........
246.12(j)(6)(ii) .....
246.12(l)(3) .........

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

¥1,589,523.96

72.49

18.37

18.37

54.12

36.30
0.98
2.75
11.00
3.09

¥403,908.10

30.22

16.87

16.87

13.35

33.33
¥35.39
2.52
10.10
2.79

¥1,993,432.06

102.71

35.24

35.24

67.47

69.63
¥34.41
5.27
21.10
5.88

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

70277

70278

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

2. Revisions to OMB Control Number
0584–0401

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

Title: Food Delivery Portal (FDP) Data
Collection.
OMB Number: 0584–0401.
Expiration Date: 1/31/2028.
Type of Request: N/A.
Abstract: The Department proposed
revising regulations around data
submission timelines for information
that State agencies must report to FNA
using the Food Delivery Portal (FDP).
All WIC State agencies are required to
submit information on their vendor
monitoring and investigation activities,
in accordance with § 246.12(j)(5). The
revisions in the proposed rule removed
the annual submission deadline of
February 1 of each fiscal year and
proposed to replace it with submission
timelines that ‘‘may be as frequent as
quarterly but not less than annually,
based on system capabilities and
reporting needs’’ along with other
proposed edits.
FNA received comments on the
Department’s proposed rule burden
estimate incorporating the possibility of
quarterly reporting. The comments
largely expressed that the Department’s
estimate that this change would not
increase the burden was inaccurate, and
instead quarterly reporting would
quadruple the workload and burden on
WIC State agencies.
After further analysis of the FDP
system and the current data upload
process, as well as considering the
public comment feedback received on
the proposed rule and the FDP burden,
the Department agrees that an increase
in the frequency of reporting would put
an unnecessary burden on State
agencies.
The Department has removed the
language allowing federal reporting
requests to be as frequently as quarterly.
Instead, the Department is finalizing
this rule maintaining the current annual
federal reporting requirement. Because
of this, there will be no change to the
existing information collection
requirements in the information
collection under OMB Control Number
0584–0401. The Department is
confident that the data submitted on an
annual basis provides the information
necessary to ensure federal oversight
and support the research work that uses
this data.
a. Summary of Revisions to OMB
Control Number 0584–0401

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

E-Government Act Compliance
The Department is committed to
complying with the E-Government Act
of 2002, 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 in 7 CFR Part 246
Administrative practice and
procedure, Civil rights, Food assistance
programs, Foods, Grants administration,
Grant programs—health, Grant
programs—social programs, Indians,
Infants and children, Maternal and child
health, Nutrition, Penalties, Public
health, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Women.
Accordingly, the FNA amends 7 CFR
part 246 as follows:
PART 246—SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL
NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN,
INFANTS AND CHILDREN
■ 1. The authority citation for part 246

continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1786.
■ 2. In § 246.2:
■ a. Remove the definition of ‘‘Above-

50-percent vendors’’;
■ b. Add the definitions of ‘‘Above-50-

percent vendor’’, ‘‘Brick-and-mortar
vendor, and ‘‘Cash-value benefit’’ in
alphabetical order;
■ c. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Cashvalue voucher’’ and ‘‘Compliance buy’’;
■ d. Add the definition of ‘‘Electronic
benefits’’ in alphabetical order;
■ e. Remove the definition of
‘‘Electronic Benefit Transfer’’;
■ f. Add the definition of ‘‘Electronic
benefit transfer’’;
■ g. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Food
instrument’’ and ‘‘Home food delivery
contractor’’;
■ h. Add the definitions of ‘‘internet
vendor’’ and ‘‘Mobile vendor’’ in
alphabetical order; and
■ i. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Routine
monitoring’’ and ‘‘Vendor’’.
■ The additions and revisions read as
follows:
§ 246.2

Definitions.

*

The current approved burden for
OMB Control Number 0584–0401 is
3,576 hours and 541 total responses. As
this final rulemaking does not
implement the proposed changes, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

burden due to the rulemaking will have
no effect on the total number of burden
hours, which would remain 3,576
hours.

*
*
*
*
Above-50-percent vendor means any
type of vendor that derives more than 50
percent of its annual food sales revenue
from WIC food instruments, and new
vendor applicants expected to meet this

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

criterion under guidelines approved by
FNS.
*
*
*
*
*
Brick-and-mortar vendor means a
type of vendor authorized to provide
authorized supplemental foods to
participants through transactions at a
single, physical, fixed location. All
transactions that take place at the brickand-mortar vendor will be assigned to
that vendor.
Cash-value benefit means a type of
electronic benefit that is a fixed-dollar
amount used to obtain authorized fruits
and vegetables.
Cash-value voucher means a fixeddollar amount check, voucher, or other
document which is used to obtain
authorized fruits and vegetables.
*
*
*
*
*
Compliance buy means a covert
investigation in which a representative
of the Program poses as a participant,
parent or caretaker of an infant or child
participant, or proxy, transacts food
instruments, cash-value vouchers, or
electronic benefits, and does not reveal
during the visit their identity as a
program representative.
*
*
*
*
*
Electronic benefits mean the WIC
benefits for supplemental foods
prescribed to a participant and
contained within the participant’s
benefit balance.
Electronic benefit transfer (EBT)
means a benefit delivery method that
permits electronic access to WIC food
benefits using a card or other electronic
benefit access device or technology
approved by the Secretary.
*
*
*
*
*
Food instrument means a paper
voucher, check, coupon, other
document; or an EBT card or other
electronic benefit access device or
technology that is used to obtain
supplemental foods.
*
*
*
*
*
Home food delivery contractor means
a business entity that contracts directly
with a State agency to deliver
authorized supplemental foods to a
location designated by the State agency
or designated by the participant and
approved by the State agency under a
home food delivery system.
*
*
*
*
*
Internet vendor means a type of
vendor authorized to provide authorized
supplemental foods to participants
through internet-based transactions. All
transactions that take place via an
online ordering system, platform, or site
used by an internet vendor will be
assigned to that vendor.
*
*
*
*
*

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations
Mobile vendor means a type of vendor
authorized to provide authorized
supplemental foods to participants
through transactions that take place at a
truck, bus, pushcart, or other mobile
vehicle. All transactions that take place
at the mobile vendor will be assigned to
that vendor.
*
*
*
*
*
Routine monitoring means overt
monitoring during which program
representatives identify themselves to
vendor personnel.
*
*
*
*
*
Vendor means a business entity
authorized by the State agency to
provide authorized supplemental foods
to participants under a retail food
delivery system. Each store, internet
retailer, and mobile vehicle constitutes
a unique vendor and must be authorized
separately.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 246.4:
■ a. Remove and reserve paragraph
(a)(14)(xv); and
■ b. Revise paragraph (a)(23).
The revision reads as follows:
§ 246.4

State Plan.

*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(23) A plan to improve access to the
Program for participants and
prospective applicants, with additional
focus on those who are employed and/
or reside in rural areas. The plan must
identify and address the needs of these
individuals, and must include, at a
minimum, policies and procedures to
minimize the time they must spend
away from work and the distances they
must travel. This plan must include
measures to improve access to the
Program through the remote issuance of
food instruments, cash-value vouchers,
and/or electronic benefits, as applicable,
to participants through means other
than direct participant pick-up,
pursuant to § 246.12(r)(4) and (5). The
State agency must also describe the
State agency’s policy for approving
transportation of participants to and
from WIC clinics per § 246.14(c)(7).
This plan must describe how the State
agency will ensure the integrity of
Program services and fiscal
accountability.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 246.7, revise paragraph
(f)(2)(iv) to read as follows:
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

*

§ 246.7

Certification of participants.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Each local agency using a retail
food delivery system must issue food

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

instruments, cash-value vouchers, or
electronic benefits, as applicable, to the
participant at the same time as
notification of certification. Such food
instruments, cash-value vouchers, and
electronic benefits must be provided for
the current month or the remaining
portion thereof and must be transactable
immediately upon receipt by the
participant. Local agencies may issue
electronic benefits remotely or mail the
food instruments and cash-value
vouchers with the notification of
certification, as provided in
§ 246.12(r)(4) and (5).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 246.12:
■ a. Revise paragraph (b);
■ b. In paragraph (g)(4) introductory
text, revise the third sentence and add
a sentence after the third sentence.
■ c. Revise paragraphs (g)(4)(ii)(B) and
(g)(5);
■ d. In paragraph (g)(9), revise the last
sentence;
■ e. Revise paragraphs (h)(3)(ii), (v), and
(vi);
■ f. Add paragraphs (h)(3)(xxxii) and
(xxxiii);
■ g. Revise paragraphs (j)(5) and
(j)(6)(ii)(B);
■ h. In paragraph (m) introductory text,
revise the first sentence;
■ i. Revise paragraphs (r)(2) and (4);
■ h. Redesignate paragraphs (r)(5) and
(6) as paragraphs (r)(6) and (7),
respectively, and add a new paragraph
(r)(5);
■ i. Remove the period at the end of
newly redesignated paragraph (r)(6) and
add ‘‘; and’’ in its place;
■ j. Revise paragraphs (v)(1)(iv) and (ix);
■ k. Revise paragraph (x)(2)(iii);
■ l. Add paragraph (x)(4);
■ m. Redesignate paragraphs (bb)(2) and
(3) as paragraphs (bb)(3) and (4),
respectively, and add a new paragraph
(bb)(2).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 246.12

Food delivery methods.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Uniform food delivery systems.
The State agency may operate a
combination of up to three types of food
delivery systems under its jurisdiction—
retail, home food delivery, and direct
distribution. These three food delivery
systems must be procedurally uniform
throughout the jurisdiction of the State
agency and the combination of systems
used must ensure adequate participant
access to supplemental foods. When
used, each food instrument type must be
uniform and described and approved in
the State agency’s State Plan per
§ 246.4(a)(14)(i).
*
*
*
*
*

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

70279

(g) * * *
(4) * * * The State agency must
consider a vendor applicant’s prices for
non-WIC customers or the prices it bids
for supplemental foods, which must not
exceed the price charged to non-WIC
customers. The State agency may
consider the vendor applicant’s EBT
data when available. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) * * *
(B) The analysis of vendor prices to
monitor vendor compliance with
paragraphs (g)(4)(i)(C), (g)(4)(ii)(C), and
(g)(4)(iii) of this section and to ensure
State agency policies and procedures
dependent on price data are efficient
and effective. State agencies without
access to electronic benefit redemption
data must collect vendor shelf prices at
least every six months to ensure
compliance with this paragraph
(g)(4)(ii)(B). FNS may grant an
exemption from the requirement to
collect shelf prices if the State agency
demonstrates to FNS’ satisfaction that
an alternative methodology for
monitoring vendor compliance with
paragraphs (g)(4)(i)(C), (g)(4)(ii)(C), and
(g)(4)(iii) of this section is efficient and
effective and other State agency policies
and procedures are not dependent on
frequent collection of shelf price data.
Such exemption would remain in effect
until the State agency no longer meets
the conditions on which the exemption
was based, until FNS revokes the
exemption, or for three years, whichever
occurs first; and
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Preauthorization visit. The State
agency must conduct an on-site or
virtual visit prior to or at the time of a
vendor’s initial authorization.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) * * * In addition, if the State
agency does not have access to
electronic benefit redemption data, the
State agency must collect the vendor
applicant’s current prices for
supplemental foods.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) No substitutions, cash, credit, cash
refunds, or exchanges. The vendor may
provide only the authorized
supplemental foods listed on the paper
food instrument and cash-value voucher
or available in the participant’s benefit
balance.
(A) Except as specified in paragraph
(h)(3)(ii)(C) of this section, the vendor
must not provide unauthorized food
items, non-food items, cash, or credit
(including rain checks) in exchange for
benefits. The vendor must not provide
cash refunds (including but not limited

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

70280

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

to gift cards or store credit) or permit
exchanges for authorized supplemental
foods obtained with benefits, except for
exchanges of an identical authorized
supplemental food item when the
original authorized supplemental food
item is defective, spoiled, or has
exceeded its ‘‘sell by,’’ ‘‘best if used by,’’
or other date limiting the sale or use of
the food item. An identical authorized
supplemental food item means the exact
brand, type, physical form, and size as
the original authorized supplemental
food item obtained and returned by the
participant.
(B) The vendor may provide only the
authorized infant formula which the
vendor has obtained from sources
included on the list described in
paragraph (g)(10) of this section to
participants in exchange for food
instruments specifying infant formula.
(C) During a supplemental food recall,
as defined in § 246.2, the vendor must
treat all customers, including WIC
participants, parents or caretakers of
infant or child participants, and proxies
the same. This should be reflected in
store recall exchange policies, including
policies related to replacements (which
may include, but are not limited to, the
same product, a substitute product,
store credit, or a cash refund).
*
*
*
*
*
(v) Purchase price. The vendor must
ensure that the purchase price is
calculated in accordance with the
procedures described in the vendor
agreement. The purchase price must
include only the amount(s) for the
authorized supplemental food items
actually provided, and the WIC
participant, parent or caretaker of an
infant or child participant, or proxy
must be made aware of the total
purchase price of the transaction before
the transaction is completed.
(vi) Signature on paper food
instruments and cash-value vouchers.
For paper food instruments and cashvalue vouchers, the vendor must ensure
the participant, parent or caretaker of an
infant or child participant, or proxy
signs the paper food instrument or cashvalue voucher after the purchase price
is entered.
*
*
*
*
*
(xxxii) Transaction authentication.
The vendor must authenticate
transactions in accordance with the
policies established by the State agency.
(xxxiii) Fees associated with WIC
purchases. A vendor must not charge
the State agency for fees associated with
WIC purchases (e.g., delivery, service,
convenience, bag fees). If such fees are
assessed to non-WIC customers using
the same services, WIC participants

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

must be allowed to pay them using
another tender type.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(5) Reporting. The State agency must
send FNS certain vendor, direct
distribution contractor, home food
delivery contractor, farmer, and farmers’
market data containing information
stipulated by FNS via reporting
requirements that will be provided to
WIC State agencies with advance
notification. Reporting requirements
will include required data fields and
annual data submission timelines. Plans
for improvement in the coming year
must be included in the State Plan in
accordance with § 246.4(a)(14)(iv).
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) A description of the cashier
involved in each transaction, if
applicable;
*
*
*
*
*
(m) * * * Home food delivery
systems are systems in which
authorized supplemental foods are
delivered to a location designated by the
State agency or designated by the
participant and approved by the State
agency. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(r) * * *
(2) Signature requirement. Ensure that
the participant, parent or caretaker of an
infant or child participant, or proxy
signs for receipt of food instruments,
cash-value vouchers, or authorized
supplemental foods, when receiving
them in person;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Paper food instrument and cashvalue voucher pick up. Require
participants, parents and caretakers of
infant and child participants, and
proxies to pick up paper food
instruments and cash-value vouchers in
person when scheduled for in-person
nutrition education or for an in-person
appointment to determine whether
participants are eligible for a second or
subsequent certification period. In all
other circumstances the State agency
may opt to mail paper food instruments
or cash-value vouchers unless FNS
determines that it would jeopardize the
integrity of program services or program
accountability;
(5) EBT card and electronic benefit
issuance. Ensure participants receive
their EBT cards and electronic benefits
in accordance with §§ 246.7(f)(2)(iv) and
246.11(a)(2), without jeopardizing the
integrity of program services or program
accountability. The State agency is
encouraged to remotely issue electronic
benefits and mail EBT cards, when
possible, unless FNS determines that it

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

would jeopardize the integrity of
program services or program
accountability. When EBT cards are
issued remotely, the State agency must
have procedures in place to ensure
receipt by the intended recipient;
*
*
*
*
*
(v) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Transact and redeem cash-value
vouchers or cash-value benefits in
accordance with procedures established
by the State agency. Such procedures
must include:
(A) A requirement for the farmer or
farmers’ market to allow the participant,
parent or caretaker of an infant or child
participant, or proxy to pay the
difference when the purchase price of
fruits and vegetables exceeds the value
of the cash-value vouchers or cash-value
benefits. This is known as a split tender
transaction; and
(B) Procedures to ensure that the WIC
participant, parent or caretaker of an
infant or child participant, or proxy is
made aware of the total purchase price
of the transaction before the transaction
is completed;
*
*
*
*
*
(ix) Offer WIC participants, parents or
caretakers of infant or child
participants, or proxies the same
courtesies as other customers. The
farmer or farmers’ market must not
charge the State agency for fees
associated with WIC purchases (e.g.,
delivery, service, convenience, bag fees).
If such fees are assessed to non-WIC
customers using the same services, WIC
participants must be allowed to pay
them using another tender type;
*
*
*
*
*
(x) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Last date of use. The last date on
which the electronic benefit may be
used to obtain authorized supplemental
foods. This date must be a minimum of
30 days, or in the month of February 28
or 29 days, from the first date on which
it may be used to obtain authorized
supplemental foods except for the
participant’s first month of issuance
when it may be the end of the month or
cycle for which the electronic benefit is
valid. This may be extended, as
applicable, per paragraph (x)(4)(iii) of
this section; and
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Return of benefits. If a State agency
authorizes internet vendors, the State
agency must allow for the return of
electronic benefits to a participant’s
balance and the return of electronic
benefits for all vendor types. The return
of electronic benefits must comply with
the following requirements:

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2026 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with RULES4

(i) In-person returns. If the participant
returns an item in person, the return of
electronic benefits must be processed
immediately;
(ii) Post-delivery returns. Postdelivery return of benefits, such as those
for items returned via mail or
unfulfilled items from an internet-based
transaction, must be processed within
two (2) business days after receipt of the
returned item or indication of an
unfulfilled item;
(iii) Use of returned electronic
benefits. When electronic benefits are
returned to a participant’s benefit
balance, the State agency must provide
the participant the remainder of the
benefit issuance month to transact the
returned benefits. The State agency may
allow the participant a maximum of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:55 Nov 05, 2026

Jkt 271001

seven (7) calendar days beyond the last
date of use to transact returned benefits.
*
*
*
*
*
(bb) * * *
(2) The State agency must develop
policies to ensure that each transaction
is authenticated (e.g., using a Personal
Identification Number (PIN)). The State
agency must receive written approval
from FNS to adopt an authentication
method other than the PIN.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. In § 246.14, revise paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) and (c)(4) to read as follows:
§ 246.14

Program costs.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Supplemental foods purchased by
participants using WIC benefits in a

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

70281

retail food delivery system and/or
acquiring supplemental foods provided
to State or local agencies or participants,
whichever receives the supplemental
foods first in a home food delivery
system or a direct distribution food
delivery system;
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) The cost of administering the food
delivery system, including the cost of
transporting supplemental foods, except
as prohibited at § 246.12(h)(3)(xxxiii)
and (v)(1)(ix).
*
*
*
*
*
Shiela Corley,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026–22679 Filed 11–5–26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P

E:\FR\FM\06NOR4.SGM

06NOR4