This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

5791

Vol. 65, No. 25

Monday, February 7, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Part 245

RIN 0584–AC25

National School Lunch Program and

School Breakfast Program:

Alternatives to Standard Application

and Meal Counting Procedures

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

amend the regulations governing the

procedures for determining eligibility

for free and reduced price meals in the

National School Lunch Program and the

School Breakfast Program. Existing

regulations provide school food

authorities with two alternatives to the

standard requirements for the annual

determinations of eligibility for free and

reduced price school meals and daily

meal counts by type, commonly termed

‘‘Provision 1’’ and ‘‘Provision 2’’. This

proposed rule would allow for an

extension of Provision 2 procedures and

provide for a new alternative,

‘‘Provision 3’’. For schools choosing to

participate in one of the alternate

application and meal counting

procedures, this proposed rule would

also codify the alternate counting and

claiming provisions of Public Law 103–

448 which have been implemented, and

codify revisions to the counting and

claiming provisions authorized by

Public Laws 104–193 and 105–336. This

proposed rule would streamline

program operations for program

administrators and participants. State

agency and school food authority

recordkeeping burdens are expected to

decrease because the determinations of

eligibility for free and reduced price

meals would not be made as frequently.

In addition, for those schools electing to

participate, this proposed rule may

increase participation in nutritious

school meal programs, thereby helping

students develop lifelong healthy eating

habits. A primary reason for the increase

in participation is that local schools

would be offering meals at no charge to

all enrolled students.

DATES: To be assured of consideration,

comments must be postmarked on or

before April 7, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to:

Robert M. Eadie, Chief, Policy and

Program Development Branch, Child

Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition

Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive,

Alexandria, VA 22302 or via E:Mail at

CNDPROPOSAL@fns.usda.gov. All

written submissions, as well as the

Regulatory Impact Analysis, will be

available for public inspection in Room

1007, 3101 Park Center Drive,

Alexandria, Virginia during regular

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.)

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Jane Whitney or Todd Barrett at

the above address, by telephone at 703–

305–2620. Copies of the Regulatory

Impact Analysis are available upon

request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Generally, schools must collect

applications on an annual basis from the

households of enrolled children and

make annual determinations of their

eligibility for free or reduced price

school meals. They must also count the

number of free, reduced price, and paid

meals at the point of service on a daily

basis in order to claim Federal

reimbursement. However, school food

authorities may participate in

alternatives to annual eligibility

determinations and daily meal counts

by type (free, reduced price and paid)

which are intended to reduce some of

this administrative burden. These

alternatives are commonly referred to as

Provision 1, Provision 2 and Provision

3. This proposed rule would make no

changes to Provision 1, codify changes

to Provision 2 and codify the

implementation of Provision 3. A brief

description of each Provision as

authorized by the National School

Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a) follows:

Provision 1

Provision 1 reduces application

burdens by allowing free eligibility to be

certified for a 2 year period in schools

where at least 80 percent of the children

enrolled are eligible for free or reduced

price meals.

Notification of program availability

and certification of children already

certified eligible for free meals may be

reduced to once every 2 consecutive

school years. All other households must

be notified of program availability,

provided a meal application, and

allowed to apply for meal benefits each

school year.

All other program rules are

unchanged. Provision 1 schools are not

required to serve meals at no charge to

all students. Schools must continue to

record daily meal counts of meals

served to children by type as the basis

for calculating reimbursement claims.

Provision 2

Provision 2 reduces application

burdens and simplifies meal counting

and claiming procedures by allowing a

school to establish claiming percentages

that apply for a 4-year period provided

the school serves meals to participating

children at no charge.

During the first, or base, year the

school takes applications, makes

eligibility determinations, and records

meal counts by type, just as it would

under normal program rules, with the

exception that all reimbursable meals

are provided at no charge to the

students. During the next 3 years, the

school counts only the total number of

reimbursable meals served each day.

Reimbursement during these years is

determined by applying the percentages

of free, reduced price and paid meals

during the corresponding month of the

base year to the total meal count for the

claiming month. After the base year, the

school makes no new eligibility

determinations (for as long as they

remain operating under the Provision).

The base year is included as part of the

4 years. At the end of each 4-year

period, the State agency may approve an

extension for 4 years if the income level,

as adjusted for inflation, of the school’s

population has remained stable.

Schools electing this alternative must

pay the difference between Federal

reimbursement and the cost of

providing all meals at no charge. The

statute requires that money to pay for

this difference must be from sources

other than Federal funds.

Provision 3

Provision 3 reduces application

burdens and meal counting and

5792 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

claiming procedures by allowing a

school to simply receive a comparable

level of Federal cash and commodity

assistance each year as it received in the

base year, provided the school serves all

meals at no charge. Provision 3 schools

serve reimbursable meals to all

participating children at no charge for a

period of up to 4 years, or longer if an

extension is granted.

Provision 3 schools receive the level

of Federal cash and commodity support

paid to them for the last year in which

they made eligibility determinations

and meal counts by type under regular

program rules; this is the base year. For

each successive year that the school

remains in Provision 3, the level of

Federal cash and commodity support is

adjusted to reflect changes in

enrollment and inflation. After the base

year, the school makes no new

eligibility determinations for as long as

it remains in the Provision. The base

year is not included as part of the 4

years. At the end of each 4 year period,

the State agency may approve 4-year

extensions if the income level, as

adjusted for inflation, of the school’s

population has remained stable.

Schools electing this alternative must

pay the difference between Federal

reimbursement and the cost of

providing all meals at no charge. The

statute requires that money to pay for

this difference must be from sources

other than Federal funds. In order to

make this procedure available promptly,

Provision 3 was implemented via

memorandum in 1995.

History of the Provisions and Changes

Being Implemented

No changes are being made to

Provision 1. The changes being made to

Provisions 2 and 3 are in response to

statutory changes and the experience

gained from operating the Provisions via

policy memorandum.

Under current regulations for

Provision 2, schools that elect: (a) To

serve reimbursable meals at no charge to

all children for 3 successive school

years regardless of the household’s

ability to pay, and (b) to pay the

difference between the meal service

costs and the Federal reimbursement,

from sources other than Federal funds,

may conduct public notification and

make eligibility determinations once

every 3 school years. During the first

year of the 3-year cycle (the base year),

free and reduced price eligibility

determinations are made and daily meal

counts are taken according to the

eligibility status of the child served,

even though all meals are served at no

charge. In the second and third year of

the cycle, schools are not required to

count meals by type. Instead, they

submit claims based on the total number

of meals served each month. The

school’s reimbursement amount is

determined by applying the percentages

of free, reduced price and paid meals

served during the corresponding month

of the first year to the total meal count

for the claim month.

Section 111 of Public Law 103–448,

the Healthy Meals for Healthy

Americans Act of 1994, enacted on

November 2, 1994, amended section

11(a)(1)(C) of the NSLA to allow an

extension to the initial 3-year Provision

2 cycle by an additional 2 years if the

school food authority established,

through available and approved

socioeconomic data, that the income

level of the population of the school

remained stable since free and reduced

price applications were taken. These

extensions were limited to those schools

participating under Provision 2 on

November 2, 1994. Subsequently,

section 704(a) of Public Law 104–193,

the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,

enacted August 22, 1996, removed the

November, 1994 limitation so that any

Provision 2 school could extend the

initial 3-year cycle an additional 2 years

with subsequent 5-year cycles provided

the available and approved

socioeconomic data established that the

income level of the school’s population

has remained stable. At the end of the

3 year/2year cycle, and each subsequent

5-year cycle, the State agency could

approve an extension of Provision 2

procedures if the school food authority

established that the income level of the

school’s population remained stable

when compared with the income level

of the school’s population during the

base year.

Section 103 of Public Law 105–336,

the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition

Reauthorization Act of 1998, enacted on

October 31, 1998, amended section

11(a)(1)(C) and (D) of the NSLA to make

the period of operation for Provision 2

consistent with that of Provision 3. The

statute eliminated Provision 2’s initial

3-year cycle, 2-year extension and

subsequent 5-year extensions. As a

result of Public Law 105–336, the initial

cycle for operating Provision 2 is now

4 years. In addition, State agencies may

grant extensions to operate Provision 2

for an additional 4 years in those

schools where the available and

approved socioeconomic data identifies

that the income level of the school’s

population has remained stable. Schools

currently operating Provision 2 must

finish their cycle under previous

requirements and the new 4-year

timeframe will be effective upon

application for, and approval of, an

extension.

Public Law 103–448 added a new

alternative, Provision 3, to section

11(a)(1)(E) of the NSLA. Under

Provision 3, schools elect to serve

reimbursable meals at no charge to all

children for a period of 4 successive

school years. Provision 3 schools

receive the level of Federal cash and

commodity assistance paid to them for

the last year in which they made

eligibility determinations, known as the

base year, adjusted annually to reflect

changes in enrollment and inflation.

The implementation of Provision 3 does

not affect a school food authority’s

receipt of bonus commodities. At the

end of the 4-year cycle (not including

the base year) and each subsequent 4-

year cycle, the State agency may

approve an extension of Provision 3

procedures if the school food authority

can establish that the income level of

the school’s population remained

consistent with the income level of the

population of the school during the base

year. The school food authority of a

school implementing Provision 3 must

use available and approved

socioeconomic data and submit the data

to their State agency for approval.

(Approved data sources are discussed

later in this preamble.)

An analysis of this proposed rule

identified that it would offer significant

benefits for school food authorities and

households. During non-base years,

school food authorities of schools

operating under Provisions 2 and 3

would experience a significant

reduction of administrative burdens

associated with making eligibility

determinations, counting meals by type

(free, reduced price and paid), operating

a payment system for children eligible

for reduced price and paid meals and

conducting verification. Similarly,

households with children enrolled in

schools under Provision 2 or Provision

3 would not be required to submit

paperwork documenting their

eligibility.

The analysis also finds that State

agencies would experience some

additional burden through this rule due

to the responsibility of making

extension determinations and reporting

information on usage of Provision 2 and

Provision 3 and possibly having to

report information on extension

determinations. The analysis asserts that

once State agencies and school food

authorities are accustomed with

Provisions 2 and 3, the extension

determination burden on State agencies

would be minimal and the reporting

burdens would be noticeable, but not

significant. However, the significant

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5793

reduction in burdens by eliminating

eligibility determinations, meal counts

by type, verification and a payment

system for reduced price and full price

meals offsets the insignificant increase

in burdens associated with extension

determinations.

The remainder of this preamble

discusses the proposed changes to the

regulations to reflect the extensions for

Provision 2 schools and to codify the

implementation of Provision 3.

Definitions

Section 245.2(f-2), Operating day,

would be added to the definitions to

define an operating day as a day that

reimbursable meals are offered to

eligible students under the National

School Lunch Program or School

Breakfast Program.

Section 245.2(j), Special assistance

certification and reimbursement

alternatives, would be amended to

remove the reference to ‘‘two’’ optional

alternatives and replace it with ‘‘three’’

optional alternatives.

Provision 2

Section 245.9(b), Provision 2, of this

proposed rule would restate the existing

regulatory language although a number

of editorial changes would be made to

parallel the new Provision 3, including

the addition of a definition of

‘‘Provision 2 base year’’. The proposal

would define the Provision 2 base year

to mean the last year for which

eligibility determinations were made

and meal counts by type were taken or

the year in which a school conducted a

streamlined base year as outlined under

§ 245.9(c)(2)(iii). Under a Provision 2

base year, schools would offer

reimbursable meals to all students at no

charge. The Provision 2 base year would

be included in the 4-year cycle. The

Department would take this opportunity

to provide Provision 2 schools with

additional areas of flexibility as

discussed below.

Section 245.9(b)(1), Free meals, would

clarify that schools participating under

Provision 2 must serve reimbursable

meals, as determined by a point of

service observation, to all participating

children at no charge.

Section 245.9(b)(2), Cost differential,

would restate the existing requirement

that the school food authority of a

school participating in Provision 2 must

pay, with funds from non-Federal

sources, the difference between the cost

of serving meals at no charge to all

participating children and Federal

reimbursement.

Section 245.9(b)(3), Meal counts,

would set forth the meal counting

methodology for Provision 2. Paragraph

(b)(3)(i), Monthly percentages, would

restate the existing meal count provision

which converts the monthly meal

counts, by type, in the first year into

percentages which are then applied to

the total counts for the corresponding

months in the second, third and fourth

consecutive years and in years for

which extensions of Provision 2 have

been granted. Paragraph (b)(3)(ii),

Annual percentages, would add a new

method of meal claiming based on

annual percentages.

Under the annual percentages option,

the actual number of all meals served,

by type, during the base year would be

converted to an annual percentage for

each type of meal. Schools that begin

Provision 2 at a point in time other than

the beginning of a school year would be

required to complete the equivalent of a

full school year to develop annual

percentages. For example, a school

implementing Provision 2 in January

and continuing through June of one

school year, would be required to take

applications and obtain meal counts by

type for September through December of

the following school year in order to

develop annual percentages for each

meal type. These three percentages

would then be multiplied by the total

number of all meals served (free,

reduced price and paid) in each month

of the second, third and fourth

consecutive school years, and in years

for which extensions of Provision 2

have been granted, in order to calculate

reimbursement claims for free, reduced

price and paid meals each month.

Extension of Provision 2

Under § 245.9(c), Extension of

Provision 2, of this proposed rule, State

agencies may authorize a school food

authority to continue under Provision 2

without taking new free and reduced

price applications and daily meal

counts by type. Schools approved for

Provision 2 would continue to use the

claiming percentages calculated during

the most recent base year.

State agencies would be allowed to

grant such an extension of Provision 2

if the school food authority could

establish through available and

approved socioeconomic data that the

income level of the school population,

as adjusted for inflation, remained

stable, declined or had only negligible

improvement since free and reduced

price applications and meal counts by

type were taken in the most recent base

year. (The terms ‘‘negligible

improvement’’ and ‘‘approved data

sources’’ are discussed later in this

preamble.) State agencies would be

responsible for reviewing all available

and approved socioeconomic data

submitted by school food authorities

requesting an extension. Prior to

granting or denying an extension, State

agencies would be required to evaluate

the data to determine whether it is

reflective of the school’s population,

provides equivalent data for both the

base year and the last year of the current

cycle, and demonstrates that the income

level of the school’s population, as

adjusted for inflation, remained stable,

declined or had only negligible

improvement.

State agencies would not be allowed

to approve an extension for those

schools for which the available and

approved socioeconomic data did not

reflect the school’s population, was not

equivalent data for the base year and

last year of the current cycle or

indicated more than a negligible

improvement in the income level of the

school’s population after adjusting for

inflation. (The term ‘‘negligible

improvement’’ is discussed later in this

preamble.) Such schools would be

required to: (1) Return to standard meal

counting and claiming procedures; (2)

establish a new Provision 2 base year by

taking new free and reduced price

applications, making new free and

reduced price determinations and

counting meals as described in

§ 245.9(b); (3) establish a new Provision

2 base year by using the streamlined

process as described in § 245.9(c)(2)(iii);

or, (4) establish a new Provision 3 base

year or streamlined base year as

described in § 245.9(d) and (e)(2)(iii).

Under the option presented in

paragraph (c)(2)(ii), Establish a new base

year, schools electing to continue to

operate Provision 2 would be allowed to

establish a new Provision 2 base year by

taking new free and reduced price

applications, making new eligibility

determinations and taking meal counts,

by type, for the first year of the new

Provision 2 cycle. These meal counts

would be converted into claiming

percentages pursuant to § 245.9(b)(3).

These percentages would then be used

for the purpose of claiming

reimbursement in the remaining years of

the 4 year cycle and any extensions.

Alternately, paragraph (c)(2)(iii),

Establish a streamlined base year,

would permit a streamlined application

process for schools with changed

socioeconomic data that choose to

continue to operate Provision 2 or begin

operating Provision 3. In lieu of taking

new free and reduced price applications

for the enrolled population, such

schools could, in accordance with

guidance established by FNS, determine

program eligibility on the basis of

household size and income for a

statistically valid portion of the school’s

5794 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

enrollment as of October 31, or other

date approved by the State agency, of

the first year of the new cycle. Using the

data obtained from the sample,

enrollment based claiming percentages

would be developed and applied to total

daily meal counts of reimbursable meals

at the point of service. These

percentages represent the proportion of

the school’s population that are eligible

for free, reduced price and paid meals.

These enrollment based claiming

percentages would then be used for each

year of the new cycle and any

extensions.

Finally, paragraph (c)(2)(iv), Establish

a Provision 3 base year, would permit

schools with changed socioeconomic

conditions to convert to Provision 3.

Schools electing to convert to Provision

3 would be allowed to establish a

Provision 3 base year by taking new free

and reduced price applications, making

new eligibility determinations and

taking meal counts, by type, for the first

year of the new Provision 3 cycle by

using the procedures outlined in

§ 245.9(d) or by using the streamlined

base year procedures set forth in

§ 245.9(e)(2)(iii).

Provision 3

Under § 245.9(d), Provision 3, of this

proposed rule, schools implementing

Provision 3 would be required to serve

reimbursable meals at no charge to all

participating children in the school for

up to 4 successive school years. Schools

would be required to continue serving

complete meals that meet the

requirements for reimbursement during

the successive years. Provision 3

schools would receive Federal cash and

commodity assistance at the same level

as the school received in the base year,

as adjusted annually for enrollment,

inflation and, if applicable, operating

days when the difference in operating

days affects the number of meals. This

proposed rule would define the term

base year to mean the last year for

which eligibility determinations were

made and meal counts by type were

taken or the year in which a school

conducted a streamlined base year as

outlined in § 245.9(e)(2)(iii). The

Provision 3 base year immediately

precedes, and is not included in, the 4-

year cycle. Reimbursable meals may be

offered to all students at no charge or

students eligible for reduced price and

paid meals may be charged for meals

during the Provision 3 base year. School

food authorities are encouraged to

consider offering all meals at no charge

during the base year in order to

optimize participation and develop a

level of cash and commodity assistance

that may be more reflective of

participation during successive years.

This proposed rule would also require

upward and downward adjustments to

be made in those school years when the

number of operating days in the current

year differs from the number of

operating days in the base year and the

difference affects the number of meals.

These adjustments are further discussed

under § 245.9(d)(4).

To participate as a Provision 3 school,

several conditions would apply.

Paragraph (d) sets forth these operating

conditions. Commenters are asked to

pay particular attention to these

operating conditions and address their

feasibility in written comments to this

rulemaking.

Paragraph (d)(1), Free meals, would

require participating schools to serve

reimbursable meals, as determined by a

point of service observations, to all

participating children at no charge

during non-base years of operation.

Paragraph (d)(2), Cost differential,

would require the school food authority

of a participating school to pay, with

funds from non-Federal sources, the

difference between the cost of serving

meals at no charge to all participating

children and the establishment of

Federal reimbursement.

Paragraph (d)(3), Meal counts, would

require schools to take daily meal

counts of reimbursable meals at the

point of service during the non-base

years of operation. Commenters should

note that this provision would require

total meal counts at the point of service,

not meal counts by eligibility category.

Unlike the standard meal counting

system and Provision 2, these meal

counts would not provide the basis for

financial assistance under Provision 3.

However, the Department believes that

total meal counts at the point of service

remain a good management tool.

Obtaining meal counts would provide a

system to evaluate whether there has

been a decline in participation,

compared to the base year, even though

a school food authority would continue

to receive the same level of

reimbursement and commodities as

their base year (adjusted for inflation,

enrollment and operating days if the

difference in operating days affects the

number of meals). Such a decline in

participation may be indicative of

decreased meal quality and would

require the State agency to consider

providing technical assistance. For this

reason, this proposed rule would

require meal counts to be retained at the

local level per § 245.9(g).

Records of such counts would be

required to be maintained for the period

of time specified under paragraph (g).

The submission of the total daily meal

counts on the school food authority’s

Claim for Reimbursement or through

other means could be required by the

State agency if the State agency believed

that submission of such data would

enhance program integrity. In addition,

school food authorities must establish a

system of oversight using the daily meal

counts to ensure that participation has

not declined significantly from base

year. If participation declines

significantly, the school food authority

shall provide the school with technical

assistance, adjust the level of financial

assistance received through the State

agency or return the school to standard

application and meal counting

procedures, as appropriate.

The Department also recognizes that

there may be situations in residential

child care institutions (RCCIs) where

meal counts would not be necessary for

a system operating under Provision 3.

For example, an RCCI may have a fixed

number of children enrolled and be a

closed campus with a pre-plate meal

service. In such a case, the RCCI may

not experience a change in enrollment

or participation from year-to-year and

would not need to obtain total daily

meal counts. Therefore, the Department

would provide State agencies the

discretion to approve such sites for

Provision 3 without the requirement to

obtain a total daily meal count during

‘‘non-base’’ years of operation.

Paragraph (d)(4), Annual adjustments,

would require the State agency or

school food authority to make annual

adjustments for enrollment and inflation

to the total Federal cash and commodity

assistance received by a Provision 3

school in the base year. The annual

adjustments for enrollment would be

effected by comparing the school’s

current year enrollment as of October

31, to the school’s base year enrollment

as of October 31. The adjustments

would reflect the changes in the number

of children with access to the

program(s). State agencies would be

responsible for checking actual

enrollment annually on October 31 of

each year against the October 31

enrollment for the base year in order to

determine any changes that must be

made in reimbursement and the value of

commodities for the school year. The

State agency would be allowed to

approve the use of data from an

alternate date if it is determined to be

a more accurate reflection of the

school’s enrollment or if it

accommodates the reporting system in

effect for that State agency. In addition,

State agencies could, at their discretion,

make additional adjustments to a

participating school’s enrollment more

frequently than once per school year. If

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5795

more frequent enrollment adjustments

were calculated, it would be required to

be applied for both upward and

downward adjustments. The

adjustments to enrollment would begin

with the month the enrollment data is

collected and applied to any

outstanding Claims for Reimbursement.

The Department adjusts the rates of

reimbursement for meals served in

schools annually to reflect changes in

inflation. Therefore, the adjustment for

inflation for the Provision 3 school

meals would automatically occur when

the school food authority’s adjusted

meal counts would be processed

through the State agency’s claim

payment system using updated

reimbursement rates. The formula for

calculating commodity assistance would

remain unchanged.

Paragraph (d)(4) also would require an

adjustment for the number of operating

days to the extent that the number of

operating days in the current school

year differs from the number of

operating days in the base year and the

difference affects the number of meals.

Under this paragraph (d)(4), State

agencies would be required to make an

upward adjustment to the level of cash

and commodity assistance for any ‘‘nonbase’’ school year in which the number

of operating days is more than the

number of operating days in the base

year and the difference in operating

days affects the number of meals.

Similarly, paragraph (d)(4) would

require State agencies to make a

downward adjustment to the level of

cash and commodity assistance for any

‘‘non-base’’ school year in which the

number of operating days is less than

the number of operating days in the base

year and the difference affects the

number of meals. No operating day

adjustment would be required if the

number of operating days in a non-base

year is the same as the number of

operating days in the base year. Under

this proposed rule, operating days

means those days that meals are offered

to eligible children under the National

School Lunch Program or School

Breakfast Program.

Paragraph (d)(4) would allow two

methods for making adjustments to the

base year level of assistance as a result

of differences in the number of

operating days between the base year

and subsequent years when the

difference in operating days affects the

number of meals. In cases where the

school food authority would be paid

based on meal counts (i.e., base year

meal counts adjusted by enrollment),

State agency or local officials would

multiply the average daily meals

claimed, by type, for the current school

year by the difference in the number of

serving days between the base year and

the current school year. The resulting

adjustments would be reflected in the

final Claim for Reimbursement

submitted by the school food authority

for the school year or on the respective

monthly Claim for Reimbursement.

When making monthly adjustments,

each month’s Claim for Reimbursement

would be adjusted for changes in the

number of operating days between the

month being reported in the current

year and the corresponding month of

the base year. In cases where the school

food authority would be paid the value

of base year assistance, State agency or

local officials would multiply the dollar

amount otherwise payable (i.e., the base

year level of assistance as adjusted by

enrollment and inflation) by the ratio of

the number of operating days in the

current year to the number of operating

days in the base year. Such adjustments

could also be made on a monthly basis.

Paragraph (d)(5), Reporting

requirements, would require the State

agency to submit to the Department on

the monthly FNS–10, the Report of

School Program Operations, the number

of meals, by type, as an adjustment to

base year meal counts (adjusted for

enrollment and, if applicable, operating

days) or the number of meals, by type,

constructed to reflect the adjusted level

of cash assistance.

This proposed rule outlines two

methods to effect payment of

reimbursement for Provision 3 schools.

The preferred method would be for

State agencies or school food authorities

to make adjustments to school food

authorities base year meal counts on the

monthly Claim for Reimbursement.

Changes due to enrollment and/or

operating days would be reflected in the

adjusted meal counts and inflation

would be automatically adjusted by the

State agency’s payment system using the

annually updated reimbursement rates.

A second option would be for State

agencies to provide the same level of

cash assistance as the base year,

adjusted for enrollment, operating days

and inflation.

Under paragraph (e), Extension of

Provision 3, of this proposed rule, the

State agency could allow a school to

continue under Provision 3 for

subsequent 4-year periods without

taking new applications and daily meal

counts by type. State agencies would be

able to grant an extension of Provision

3 if the school food authority could

establish, through available and

approved socioeconomic data, that the

income level, as adjusted for inflation,

of the population of the school

remained stable, declined, or had only

negligible improvement since the most

recent base year. The school food

authority of a school implementing

Provision 3 would be required to use

available and approved socioeconomic

data and submit the data to their State

agency for approval. (Approved data

sources are discussed later in this

preamble). These schools would

continue to receive reimbursement and

commodity assistance at the same level

as the school received in the base year,

adjusted for changes in inflation,

enrollment and, if applicable, operating

days.

State agencies would not be allowed

to approve an extension for those

schools in which the available and

approved socioeconomic data does not

reflect the school’s population, was not

equivalent data or the data indicated

more than a negligible improvement in

the income level of the school

population, as adjusted for inflation.

Such schools would be required to: (1)

Return to standard meal counting and

claiming procedures; (2) establish a new

Provision 3 base year as described in

§ 245.9(d); (3) establish a new Provision

3 base year by using the streamlined

process as described in § 245.9(e)(2)(iii);

or, (4) establish a new Provision 2 base

year or streamlined base year as

described in § 245.9(b) and (c)(2)(iii).

Paragraph (e)(2)(iii), Establish a

streamlined base year, would permit a

streamlined application process for

schools with changed socioeconomic

data that choose to continue to operate

under Provision 3. In lieu of taking new

free and reduced price applications for

the enrolled population, such schools

could, in accordance with guidance

established by the Secretary, determine

program eligibility on the basis of family

size and income for a statistically valid

portion of the school’s enrollment as of

October 31, or other date approved by

the State agency. Using the data

obtained from the sample, enrollmentbased claiming percentages would be

developed and applied to total daily

meal counts of reimbursable meals at

the point of service during the new base

year. Schools choosing to implement the

streamlined base year for Provision 3

would be required to offer meals at no

charge to all participating students

during the newly established base year.

In the subsequent 4-year period, the

school would continue to receive

reimbursement and commodity

assistance at the same level as the

school received in the newly established

streamlined base year, adjusted for

changes in inflation, enrollment and, if

applicable, operating days.

Paragraph (e)(2)(iv), Establish a

Provision 2 base year, would allow

5796 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

schools which were not approved for an

extension of Provision 3 to establish a

Provision 2 base year or Provision 2

streamlined base year.

Approved Data Sources

Paragraphs (c)(1) and (e)(1) of § 245.9

of this proposed rule would permit

Provision 2 and Provision 3 school food

authorities to use available and

approved socioeconomic data to

determine whether the income level of

the school population, as adjusted for

inflation, remained consistent with the

income level of the population of the

school in the last school year for which

the school accepted applications (i.e.,

the base year).

Pre-approved sources of

socioeconomic data would include local

data developed or collected by city or

county zoning and economic planning

offices or unemployment data for the

area from which the school draws

attendance which measures the stability

of the income level of the school’s

population. Local food stamp data could

also be used. Because schools may

determine children eligible for free

meals based on information obtained

directly from the agency administering

food stamps that the children are from

households certified to receive food

stamps (hereafter referred to as ‘‘direct

certification’’), a school that had been

using direct certification would be

allowed to produce a current direct

certification roster for the school. The

percentage of enrolled students directly

certified during the base year would be

compared to the percentage of enrolled

students currently eligible because of

their participation in the Food Stamp

Program to assess whether the income

level of the school’s population

remained stable. (Since this method

uses food stamp participation data, and

food stamp eligibility standards account

for inflation, this method would

inherently adjust for inflation).

Additional sources include Food

Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations data, statistical sampling of

the school’s population using the

application or equivalent income

measurement process and the

Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families data (provided that the

eligibility standards were the same or

more restrictive in the base year as the

current year with allowance for

inflation).

If a school food authority of a

participating school would like to

establish the income level of the

school’s population using alternate

sources of socioeconomic data, the use

of such data sources would have to be

approved by FNS. The school food

authority of a participating school

would submit a request to use alternate

sources of socioeconomic data through

their State agency to their FNS Regional

Office for review and approval. School

food authorities would be required to

use socioeconomic data reflective of the

area from which the school draws

attendance or data reflective of the

school’s population. In selecting

alternate sources of socioeconomic data,

school food authorities would also need

to consider: (a) Whether the data

effectively measures the income level of

the school’s population and (b) whether

equivalent data is available for both the

base year and the current year.

Generally, census data would only be

acceptable if it provided information

reflective of both the base year and the

current year.

Under this proposed rule, the local

school food authority of a participating

school would be responsible for

collecting and evaluating the

socioeconomic data to establish that the

income level of the school’s population

remained stable, declined or had only

negligible improvement. State agencies

would be responsible for reviewing and

approving or denying the

socioeconomic data as submitted by

school food authorities. FNS Regional

Offices would be responsible for

approving the use of alternate sources of

socioeconomic data. For both preapproved and alternate sources of

socioeconomic data, relative

measurements (such as the percentage

of families living below the Federal

Poverty Level or median family income)

would be considered a better

measurement of the income

composition of the area than absolute

measures (such as the number of

households living below the Federal

Poverty Level). Under this proposed

rule, the State agency’s approval of an

extension would allow a school to

continue receiving reimbursement

through one of the alternate meal

counting procedures. Therefore, State

agencies are reminded that, under this

proposed rule, any improper payments

resulting from a State agency’s approval

of extension requests would be subject

to the recovery provisions of § 210.19(c).

Paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (e)(1)(ii)

would establish that the income level of

the school population would be

considered to have had negligible

improvement if there is a 5.0% or less

improvement over the base year (after

adjusting for inflation) in the level of the

socioeconomic indicator which is used

to establish the income level of the

school’s population. The Department

believes that ‘‘5.0% or less’’ allows for

minor fluctuations in data and at the

same time ensures that any meaningful

improvement in economic conditions

would preclude a school from receiving

an extension.

For example, 74 percent of the

school’s population is certified to

receive food stamps in the base year.

Five percent of 74 percent is equal to 3.7

percentage points (.05 × .74 = .037).

Therefore, an extension may be granted

if the percentage of the population

currently certified to receive food

stamps is no lower than 70.3% (.74

¥.037 = .703 or 70.3%). Note that

rounding rules do not apply. In this

example, current food stamp eligibility

standards account for inflation so

separate inflationary adjustments would

not need to be made.

The Free and Reduced Price Policy

Statement

Section 245.9(f), Policy statement

requirement, of this proposed rule

would require school food authorities to

amend their Free and Reduced Price

Policy Statement to include a list of all

schools participating in Provision 1,

Provision 2, and Provision 3 and, for

each school, the initial year of

implementing the provision, the years

the cycle is expected to remain in effect,

the year the provision must be

reconsidered, and the available and

approved socioeconomic data that will

be used in the reconsideration.

Additionally, the school food authority

would be required to certify that the

school(s) meet the criteria for

participating in the special assistance

provisions, as specified in § 245.9, as

appropriate.

Record Retention

Section 245.9(g), Recordkeeping, of

this proposed rule would require that

school food authorities of schools

participating under Provision 2 or

Provision 3 retain records for the base

year and succeeding years for specified

time periods. The Department believes

that it is imperative that accurate

records be retained by the school food

authority of a school implementing one

of the provisions. Accordingly,

paragraph (g) stipulates that the failure

to maintain records would result in the

State agency requiring the school to

return to standard meal counting and

claiming procedures because the level of

federal reimbursement could not be

justified. The failure to maintain records

could also result in fiscal action. Be

aware that base year records would need

to be retained during the time Provision

2 or Provision 3 is in force, plus 3 years

for audit or review purposes.

Commenters should note that while

base year records would be retained for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5797

several years, other records such as free

and reduced price applications and

verification documentation, would not

be generated during non-base years and,

therefore, would provide some offset to

the base year record retention.

Paragraph (g)(1), Base year records,

would require school food authorities of

schools participating under Provision 2

or Provision 3 to retain all records as

listed in § 210.15(b) and § 220.7(e)

which relate to the base year and

support subsequent year earnings. In

addition, enrollment data for the base

year would have to be retained for

schools under Provision 3. Such base

year records would be required to be

retained during the period the provision

is in effect, including all extensions,

plus 3 fiscal years after the submission

of the last Claim for Reimbursement for

the fiscal year which employed base

year data. For example, a school may

have established a Provision 2 base year

in school year 1998–99, received two 4-

year extensions, then returned to

standard procedures school year 2010–

11. If the school food authority of the

Provision 2 school filed the final Claim

for Reimbursement for fiscal year 2010

in November 2010, the Provision 2 base

year records would be required to be

retained until November 2013 (or longer

if there are open audit issues).

School food authorities that conduct a

streamlined base year would be required

to retain all records related to the

statistical methodology and the

determination of new claiming

percentages. Such records would have

to be retained during the period the

provision is in effect, including all

extensions, plus 3 fiscal years after the

submission of the last Claim for

Reimbursement for the fiscal year which

employed streamlined base year data. In

either case, if audit findings had not

been resolved, base year and extension

records would have to be retained

beyond the 3-year period as long as

required for the resolution of the issues

raised by the audit.

Paragraph (g)(2), Non-base year

records, would require school food

authorities of schools participating

under Provision 2 or Provision 3 to

retain records of total daily meal counts

of reimbursable meals, edit checks, onsite review documentation. In addition,

school food authorities of schools

participating under Provision 3 would

be required to retain records of annual

enrollment data which is used to adjust

the level of assistance and the number

of operating days for each Provision 3

school. Such records would have to be

retained for three years after submission

of the final Claim for Reimbursement for

the fiscal year. School food authorities

which receive an extension of a

provision would be required to retain

records of the available and approved

socioeconomic data used to determine

the income level of the school’s

population for the base year and year(s)

in which extension(s) were made. State

agencies would also be required to

retain copies of all records of the

available and approved socioeconomic

data which was used to determine the

income level of a school’s population

for any school granted an extension.

Such records would be required to be

retained during the period the provision

was in effect, including all extensions,

plus 3 fiscal years after the submission

of the last Claim for Reimbursement for

the fiscal year which employed base

year data. If audit findings have not

been resolved, records would have to be

retained beyond the 3-year period as

long as required for the resolution of the

issues raised by the audit.

The provisions of this proposed rule

are intended to affect only those

reporting or recordkeeping provisions

associated with the implementation of

Provision 2 or Provision 3. The

reporting and recordkeeping

requirements associated with the

implementation of 7 CFR parts 210 and

220 which are unrelated to the

implementation of Provisions 2 or 3

would remain unchanged.

Availability of Documentation

Under redesignated § 245.9(h),

Availability of documentation, of this

proposed rule, school food authorities

would be required to make

documentation available for purposes of

monitoring and audit, upon request. In

addition, upon request from FNS,

school food authorities under Provision

2 or Provision 3 or a State agency would

be required to submit to FNS all data

and documentation used in granting

extensions. FNS intends to review such

data to evaluate the procedures for

granting extensions.

Return to Standard Procedures

Under redesignated § 245.9(i), Return

to standard meal counting and

claiming, of this proposed rule, the

words ‘‘in the following year’’ would be

removed and the words ‘‘at any time’’

would be added in their place to permit

schools to return to standard

notification and application procedures

in the current year if standard

procedures better suit the school’s

program needs.

Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands

Redesignated § 245.9(j), Puerto Rico

and Virgin Islands, of this proposed rule

would be amended to include Provision

3 by adding a reference to paragraphs

(c), (d) and (e), as applicable.

Statistical Sampling

Section 245.9(k), Statistical income

measurements, of this proposed rule

would provide the minimum

requirements for statistical validity for

income measurements used under this

section. In order to be considered

statistically valid, such measurements

must meet five standards. First, the

sample frame, or pool of students from

which the sample of students will be

selected, must be limited to enrolled

students who have access to the school

meals program. Second, students must

be randomly selected from the sample

frame. Third, the response rate to the

survey shall be at least 80 percent. This

means that all information necessary to

compute household income as a

percentage of the poverty level shall be

collected from at least 80 percent of the

students in the sample. Fourth, the

number of households that complete the

survey shall be sufficiently large so that

it can be asserted with 95 percent

confidence that the true percentage of

students who are: (1) Enrolled in the

school; (2) have access to the school

meals program; and (3) are eligible for

free meals is within plus or minus 2.5

percentage points of the point estimate

determined from the sample. For

example, if a sample’s point estimate of

the percentage of students who are: (1)

Enrolled in the school; (2) have access

to the school meals program; and (3) are

eligible for free meals is 85 percent and

the 95 percent confidence interval

ranges from 84.2 percent to 86.5

percent, then it can be asserted with 95

percent confidence that the interval 84.2

percent to 86.5 percent contains the true

percentage of students eligible for free

meals. Fifth, to minimize statistical bias,

data from all households that complete

the survey instrument must be used

when calculating enrollment based

claiming percentages. For example, if

92% of randomly selected students

responded to the survey, the school

could not discard a selection of 12% of

the respondents to bring the response

rate to the minimally acceptable rate of

80%.

Action by State Agencies and FNSROs

Section 245.11, Action by State

agencies and FNSROs, paragraph (h) of

this proposed rule would require the

State agency to take action to ensure the

proper implementation of Provisions 1,

2, and 3. State agencies would be

required to remind schools through

written notification, sent on or before

February 15 of the fourth year of a

school’s cycle, that the school must

5798 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

return to standard procedures unless

they exercise the option to request an

extension. The Department is proposing

that the notice be sent by February 15

to allow school food authorities

sufficient time to gather appropriate

data to request an extension or prepare

for returning to standard procedures, a

new provision or a streamlined base

year.

Under this proposed rule, if a State

agency determined at any time that the

school or school food authority did not

maintain records for a participating

school, the State agency would require

the school to return to standard

application and meal counting

procedures.

In addition, a State agency would be

required to take action if it determined

at any time that: (1) The school or

school food authority did not correctly

implement Provision 1, Provision 2 or

Provision 3; (2) meal quality declined

because of the implementation of the

provision; (3) participation in the

program declined over time; (4)

eligibility determinations were

incorrectly made; or (5) meal counts

were incorrectly taken or incorrectly

applied. State agency actions could

include technical assistance,

adjustments to the level of financial

assistance for the current school year, or

requiring that the school return to

standard application and meal counting

procedures, as appropriate.

Paragraph (h)(4), State agency

recordkeeping, would require State

agencies to retain records of the

following information annually for the

month of October and, upon request,

submit to FNS:

1. The number of schools using

Provision 2 and Provision 3 for NSLP;

2. The number of schools using

Provision 2 and Provision 3 for SBP

only;

3. The number of extensions granted

to schools using Provision 2 or

Provision 3 during the previous school

year;

4. The number of extensions granted

during the previous year on the basis of

Food Stamp/FDPIR data;

5. The number of extensions granted

during the previous year on the basis of

Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) data;

6. The number of extensions granted

during the previous year on the basis of

local data collected by the city or county

zoning and economic planning office;

7. The number of extensions granted

during the previous year on the basis of

applications collected from enrolled

students;

8. The number of extensions granted

during the previous year on the basis of

statistically valid surveys of enrolled

students; and

9. The number of extensions granted

during the previous year on the basis of

alternate data as approved by the State

agency’s respective FNS Regional

Office.

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule has been

determined to be significant and was

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under Executive

Order 12866.

Public Law 104–4

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 Food and Nutrition Service

generally prepares a written statement,

including a cost-benefit analysis, for

proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal

mandates’’ that may result in

expenditures to State, local, or tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. When such a statement

is needed for a rule, section 205 of the

UMRA generally requires the Food and

Nutrition Service to identify and

consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives and adopt the

least costly, more cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule.

This proposed rule contains no

Federal mandates (under regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

State, local, and tribal governments or

the private sector of $100 million or

more in any one year. Thus, this

proposed rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

with regard to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601–612). The Under Secretary for

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

has certified that this proposed rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This proposed rule would

reduce school food authority

administrative burdens, streamline

program operations and enhance access

to the programs by needy children. The

Department of Agriculture (the

Department or USDA) does not

anticipate any significant fiscal impact

would result from implementation of

this proposed rulemaking.

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This proposed rule,

when finalized, would 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

implementation. This proposed rule

would not have retroactive effect unless

so specified in the DATES section of the

final rule preamble. Prior to any judicial

challenge to the provisions of this rule

or the application of the provisions, all

applicable administrative procedures

must be exhausted. In the National

School Lunch Program and the School

Breakfast Program, the administrative

procedures are set forth under the

following regulations (1) School food

authority appeals of State agency

findings as a result of an administrative

review must follow State agency hearing

procedures as established pursuant to 7

CFR 210.18(q) and 220.14(e); (2) School

food authority appeals of FNS findings

as a result of an administrative review

must follow FNS hearing procedures as

established pursuant to 7 CFR

210.30(d)(3) and 220.14(g); and (3) State

agency appeals of State Administrative

Expense fund sanctions (7 CFR

235.11(b)) must follow the FNS

administrative review process as

established pursuant to 7 CFR 235.11(f).

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, this notice

invites the general public and other

agencies to comment on proposed

information collection.

Written comments on this proposed

information collection must be received

on or before April 7, 2000.

Comments concerning the

information collection aspects of this

proposed rule should be sent to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for

the Food and Nutrition Service. A copy

of these comments may also be sent to

Mr. Robert Eadie at the address listed in

the ADDRESS section of this preamble.

Commenters are asked to separate their

comments on the information collection

requirements from their comments on

the remainder of the proposed rule.

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the collection of information

contained in this proposed regulation

between 30 to 60 days after the

publication of this document in the

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment

to OMB is best assured of having full

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5799

consideration if OMB receives it within

30 days of publication. This does not

affect the deadline for the public to

comment to the Department on the

proposed regulation.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

collection of information, including the

validity of the methodology and

assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (d)

ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

The title, description, and respondent

description of the information

collections are shown below with an

estimate of the annual reporting and

recordkeeping burdens. Included in the

estimate is the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

The chart below identifies only the

burden hours associated with those

sections of 7 CFR part 245, Determining

Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price

Meals and Free Milk in Schools, that are

proposed to be amended under this rule,

Alternatives to Standard Application

and Meal Counting Procedures. These

burden hours represent proposed

changes to the current reporting and

recordkeeping requirements and

incorporate additional proposed

requirements.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING BURDEN

Section 7 CFR Annual number

of respondents

Annual frequencyAverage burden

per response

Annual burden

hours

SFAs develop notice to parents containing eligibility criteria and maintain documentation. Not required for Provision 2 and 3

Existing ................................................................. 245.5(a)(1) 20,780 1 .25 5,195

Proposed .............................................................. 245.9(b–e) 20,280 1 .25 5,070

SFA recordkeeping requirements for Provision 2 and 3

Existing ................................................................. ............................ 0 0 0 0

Proposed .............................................................. 245.9(h) 500 1 4 2,000

SFAs amend Free and Reduced Price Policy statement

Existing ................................................................. 245.9(c) 121 1 .10 12

Proposed .............................................................. 245.9(f) 500 1 .50 250

SFAs develop and distribute a public release with information similar to letter to parents. Not required for Provision 2 and 3

Existing ................................................................. 245.5(a)(2) 20,780 1 .25 5,195

Proposed .............................................................. 245.9(b–e) 20,280 1 .25 5,070

SFAs develop and distribute supplies of form to be used by households to apply for benefits. Not required for Provision 2 and 3

Existing ................................................................. 245.6(a) 20,780 1 1 20,780

Proposed .............................................................. 245.9(b–e) 20,280 1 1 20,280

SA recordkeeping requirements for Provision 2 and 3

Existing ................................................................. ............................ 0 0 0 0

Proposed .............................................................. 245.9(g) 54 1 12 648

SAs maintain information on schools participating and extensions granted

Existing ................................................................. ............................ 0 0 0 0

Proposed .............................................................. 245.11(h) 54 1 3 162

Schools distribute applications forms to households. Not required for Provision 2 and 3

Existing ................................................................. 245.6 101,000 1 .25 25,250

Proposed .............................................................. 245.9 97,000 1 .25 24,250

Schools review applications and make eligibility determinations. Not required for Provision 2 and 3

Existing ................................................................. 245.6(b) 101,000 41 .052 215,332

Proposed .............................................................. 245.9 97,000 41 .052 206,804

Total Existing Recordkeeping for Part 245 .. ............................ .......................... .......................... .............................. 369,782

Total Proposed ............................................. ............................ .......................... .......................... .............................. 362,552

Difference ...................................................... ............................ .......................... .......................... .............................. ¥7,230

* SA—State agency; SFA—school food authority.

5800 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

Section 7 CFR Annual number

of respondents

Annual frequencyAverage burden

per response

Annual burden

hours

SFAs submit to SAs data and documentation used in granting extensions under Provision 2 and 3

Existing ................................................................... ............................ 0 0 0 0

Proposed ................................................................ 245.9(h) 500 1 .25 125

SAs submit to FNS data and documentation used in granting extensions under Provision 2 and 3

Existing ................................................................... ............................ 0 0 0 0

Proposed ................................................................ 245.11 (h)(4) 54 1 4 216

Total Existing Reporting for Part 245 ............. ............................ .......................... .......................... ............................ 658,367

Total Proposed ............................................... ............................ .......................... .......................... ............................ 658,708

Difference ........................................................ ............................ .......................... .......................... ............................ +341

* SA—State agency; SFA—school food authority.

Title: 7 CFR Part 245, Determining

Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price

Meals and Free Milk in Schools.

OMB Number: 0584–0026.

Expiration Date: 09/30/2001.

Type of Request: Revision of existing

collection

Abstract: This proposed rule would

amend the regulations governing the

procedures for determining eligibility

for free and reduced price meals in the

National School Lunch Program and the

School Breakfast Program. This proposal

would allow for an extension of

Provision 2 procedures for an additional

4 years and provide for a new

alternative, ‘‘Provision 3’’. Under

Provision 3, schools serve reimbursable

meals at no charge to all children for 4

consecutive years. State agencies and

school food authorities would be

required to maintain specific documents

that were used to determine the

eligibility of a school to serve free meals

to all children participating in the

school nutrition programs, and also

would be required to submit such data

to FNS upon request. For schools

choosing to participate in one of the

alternate application and meal counting

procedures, this proposed rule would

also codify the alternate counting and

claiming provisions of Public Law 103–

448 which have been implemented, and

codify revisions to the counting and

claiming provisions authorized by

Public Laws 104–193 and 105–336.

State agencies and school food

authorities recordkeeping burdens

would initially increase but after the

‘‘base year’’ the burden hours are

expected to decrease because the

determinations of eligibility for free and

reduced price meals would not be made

as frequently. Reporting hours would

also increase marginally due to the

requirement to track participation in

these provisions.

Executive Order 12372

The National School Lunch Program

and the School Breakfast Program,

which are listed in the Catalog of

Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos.

10.555 and 10.556, respectively, are

subject to the provisions of Executive

Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V, and final rule related

notice published at 48 FR 29114, June

24, 1983.)

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 245

Food assistance programs, Grant

programs-education, Civil rights, Food

and Nutrition Service, Grant Programshealth, Infants and children, Milk,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, School breakfast and

lunch programs.

Accordingly, 7 CFR Part 245 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 245—DETERMINING

ELIGIBILITY FOR FREE AND

REDUCED PRICE MEALS AND FREE

MILK IN SCHOOLS

1. The authority citation is revised to

read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1752, 1758, 1759a,

1772, 1773, and 1779.

2. In § 245.2:

a. Paragraph (f-2) is added; and

b. Paragraph (j) is amended by

removing the word ‘‘two’’ and adding,

in its place, the word ‘‘three’’.

The addition reads as follows:

§ 245.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

(f-2) Operating day means a day that

reimbursable meals are offered to

eligible students under the National

School Lunch Program or School

Breakfast Program.

* * * * *

3. In § 245.9:

a. A heading is added to paragraph (a)

to read ‘‘Provision 1.’’;

b. Paragraphs (b)–(g) are revised and

paragraphs (h)–(k) are added.

The revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 245.9 Special assistance certification

and reimbursement alternatives.

* * * * *

(b) Provision 2. A school food

authority may certify children for free

and reduced price meals for up to 4

consecutive school years if a school

serves meals at no charge to all enrolled

children in that school; provided that

public notification and eligibility

determinations shall be in accordance

with § 245.5 and § 245.3, respectively,

during the base year. For purposes of

this paragraph (b), the term base year

means the last year for which eligibility

determinations were made and meal

counts by type were taken or the year

in which a school conducted a

streamlined base year as authorized

under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this

section. Schools shall offer reimbursable

meals to all students at no charge during

the Provision 2 base year. The Provision

2 base year is the first year, and is

included in the 4-year cycle. The

following requirements apply:

(1) Free meals. Participating schools

shall serve reimbursable meals, as

determined by a point of service

observation, to all participating children

at no charge.

(2) Cost differential. The school food

authority of a school participating in

Provision 2 shall pay, with funds from

non-Federal sources, the difference

between the cost of serving lunches

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5801

and/or breakfasts at no charge to all

participating children and Federal

reimbursement.

(3) Meal counts. During the base year,

even though meals are served to

participating students at no charge,

schools shall take daily meal counts of

reimbursable meals by type (free,

reduced price, and paid) at the point of

service. During the non-base years,

participating schools shall take total

daily meal counts (not by type) of

reimbursable meals at the point of

service. For the purpose of calculating

reimbursement claims in the non-base

years, school food authorities shall

establish monthly or annual

percentages, as follows:

(i) Monthly percentages. The monthly

meal counts of the actual number of

meals served by type (free, reduced

price, and paid) during the base year

shall be converted to monthly

percentages for each meal type. These

percentages shall be derived by dividing

the monthly total number of meals

served of one meal type (e.g., free meals)

by the total number of meals served in

the same month for all meal types (free,

reduced price and paid meals). The

percentages for the reduced price meal

and paid meal types shall be calculated

exactly as the above example for free

meals. These three percentages

calculated at the end of each month of

the first school year, shall be multiplied

by the corresponding monthly meal

count total of all reimbursable meals

served in the second, third and fourth

consecutive school years, and

applicable extensions, in order to

calculate reimbursement claims for free,

reduced price and paid meals each

month: or,

(ii) Annual percentages. The actual

number of all meals served by type (free,

reduced price, and paid) during the base

year shall be converted to an annual

percentage for each meal type. Annual

percentages shall be based on a full

school year, or equivalent number of

months. Each percentage is derived by

dividing the annual total number of

meals served of one meal type (e.g., free

meals) by the total number of meals

served for all meal types (i.e., free,

reduced price and paid). The

percentages for the reduced price meal

and paid meal types are calculated

using the same method as the above

example for free meals. These three

percentages shall be multiplied by the

monthly meal count total of all

reimbursable meals served in each

month of the second, third and fourth

consecutive school years, and

applicable extensions, in order to

calculate reimbursement claims for free,

reduced price and paid meals each

month.

(c) Extension of Provision 2. At the

end of the initial cycle, and each

subsequent 4-year cycle, the State

agency may allow a school to continue

under Provision 2 for another 4 years

using the claiming percentages

calculated during the most recent base

year if the school food authority can

establish, through available and

approved socioeconomic data, that the

income level of the school’s population,

as adjusted for inflation, has remained

stable, declined or has had only

negligible improvement since the base

year.

(1) Extension criteria. School food

authorities must submit to the State

agency available and approved

socioeconomic data to establish whether

the income level of a school’s

population, as adjusted for inflation,

remained constant with the income

level of the most recent base year.

(i) Available and approved sources of

socioeconomic data. Pre-approved

sources of socioeconomic data which

may be used by school food authorities

to establish the income level of the

school’s population are: Local data

collected by the city or county zoning

and economic planning office;

unemployment data; local Food Stamp

certification data including direct

certification; Food Distribution Program

on Indian Reservations data; statistical

sampling of the school’s population

using the application or equivalent

income measurement process; and,

Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families data (provided that the

eligibility standards were the same or

more restrictive in the base year as the

current year with allowance for

inflation). In order to grant an extension

using pre-approved socioeconomic data

sources, State agencies must review and

evaluate the socioeconomic data

submitted by the school food authority

to ensure that it is reflective of the

school’s population, provides

equivalent data for both the base year

and the last year of the current cycle,

and demonstrates that the income level

of the school’s population, as adjusted

for inflation, has remained stable,

declined or had only negligible

improvement. If the school food

authority wants to establish the income

level of the school’s population using

alternate sources of socioeconomic data,

the use of such data must be approved

by FNS. Data from alternate sources

must be reflective of the school’s

population, be equivalent data for both

the base year and the last year of the

current cycle, and effectively measure

whether the income level of the school’s

population, as adjusted for inflation, has

remained stable, declined or had only

negligible improvement.

(ii) Negligible improvement. The

change in the income level of the

school’s population shall be considered

negligible if there is a 5.0% or less

improvement, after adjusting for

inflation, over the base year in the level

of the socioeconomic indicator which is

used to establish the income level of the

school’s population.

(2) Extension not approved. The State

agency shall not approve an extension

of Provision 2 procedures in those

schools for which the available and

approved socioeconomic data does not

reflect the school’s population, is not

equivalent data for the base year and the

last year of the current cycle, or shows

over 5.0% improvement, after adjusting

for inflation, in the income level of the

school’s population. Such schools shall:

(i) Return to standard meal counting

and claiming. Return to standard meal

counting and claiming procedures;

(ii) Establish a new base year.

Establish a new Provision 2 base year by

taking new free and reduced price

applications, making new free and

reduced price eligibility determinations,

and taking point of service counts of

free, reduced price and paid meals for

the first year of the new cycle. For these

schools, the new Provision 2 cycle will

be 4 years. Schools electing to establish

a Provision 2 base year shall follow

procedures contained in paragraph (b)

of this section;

(iii) Establish a streamlined base year.

In accordance with guidance established

by FNS, establish a new Provision 2

base year by determining program

eligibility on the basis of household size

and income for a statistically valid

portion of the school’s enrollment as of

October 31, or other date approved by

the State agency. The statistically valid

measurement of the school’s enrollment

must be obtained during the first year of

the new cycle. Using the data obtained,

enrollment-based claiming percentages

representing a proportion of the school’s

population eligible for free, reduced

price and paid benefits shall be

developed and applied to total daily

meal counts of reimbursable meals at

the point of service. For schools electing

to participate in Provision 2, these

percentages shall be used for claiming

reimbursement for each year of the new

cycle and any extensions; or

(iv) Establish a Provision 3 base year.

Schools may convert to Provision 3

using the procedures contained in

paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) or (e)(2)(iii) of this

section.

(d) Provision 3. A school food

authority of a school which serves all

5802 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

enrolled children in that school

reimbursable meals at no charge during

any period for up to 4 consecutive

school years may elect to receive

Federal cash reimbursement and

commodity assistance at the same level

as the total Federal cash and commodity

assistance received by the school during

the last year that eligibility

determinations for free and reduced

price meals were made and meals were

counted by type—free, reduced price

and paid—at the point of service. Such

cash reimbursement and commodity

assistance shall be adjusted for each of

the 4 consecutive school years pursuant

to paragraph (d)(4) of this section. For

purposes of this paragraph (d), the term

base year means the last year for which

eligibility determinations were made

and meal counts by type were taken or

the year in which a school conducted a

streamlined base year as authorized

under paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this

section. Reimbursable meals may be

offered to all students at no charge or

students eligible for reduced price and

paid meal benefits may be charged for

meals during the Provision 3 base year.

The Provision 3 base year immediately

precedes, and is not included in, the 4-

year cycle. This alternative shall be

known as Provision 3, and the following

requirements shall apply:

(1) Free meals. Participating schools

shall serve reimbursable meals, as

determined by a point of service

observation, to all participating children

at no charge during non-base years of

operation.

(2) Cost differential. The school food

authority of a participating school shall

pay, with funds from non-Federal

sources, the difference between the cost

of serving meals at no charge to all

participating children and Federal

reimbursement.

(3) Meal counts. Participating schools

shall take daily meal counts of

reimbursable meals served to

participating children at the point of

service during the non-base years. Such

meal counts shall be retained at the

local level in accordance with paragraph

(g) of this section. State agencies may

require the submission of the meal

counts on the school food authority’s

Claim for Reimbursement or through

other means. In addition, school food

authorities must establish a system of

oversight using the daily meal counts to

ensure that participation has not

declined significantly from the base

year. If participation declines

significantly, the school food authority

shall provide the school with technical

assistance, adjust the level of financial

assistance received through the State

agency or return the school to standard

application and meal counting

procedures, as appropriate. In

residential child care institutions

(RCCIs), the State agency may approve

implementation of Provision 3 without

the requirement to obtain daily meal

counts of reimbursable meals at the

point of service if:

(i) the State agency determines that

enrollment, participation and meal

counts do not vary; and

(ii) there is an approved mechanism

in place to ensure that students will

receive reimbursable meals.

(4) Annual adjustments. The State

agency or school food authority shall

make annual adjustments for enrollment

and inflation to the total Federal cash

and commodity assistance received by a

Provision 3 school in the base year. The

adjustments shall be made for increases

and decreases in enrollment of children

with access to the program(s). The

annual adjustment for enrollment shall

be based on the school’s base year

enrollment as of October 31 compared

to the school’s current year enrollment

as of October 31. Another date within

the base year may be used if it is

approved by the State agency, and

provides a more accurate reflection of

the school’s enrollment or

accommodates the reporting system in

effect in that State. If another date is

used for the base year, the current year

date must correspond to the base year

date of comparison. State agencies may,

at their discretion, make additional

adjustments to a participating school’s

enrollment more frequently than once

per school year. If more frequent

enrollment is calculated, it must be

applied for both upward and downward

adjustments. The annual adjustment for

inflation shall be effected through the

application of the current year rates of

reimbursement. To the extent that the

number of operating days in the current

school year differs from the number of

operating days in the base year, and the

difference affects the number of meals,

a prorata adjustment shall also be made

to the base year level of assistance, as

adjusted by enrollment and inflation.

Upward and downward adjustments to

the number of operating days shall be

made. Such adjustment shall be effected

by either:

(i) Multiplying the average daily meal

count by type (free, reduced price and

paid) by the difference in the number of

operating days between the base year

and the current year and subtract that

number of meals from the Claim for

Reimbursement. In developing the

average daily meal count by type for the

current school year, schools shall use

the base year data adjusted by

enrollment; or,

(ii) Multiplying the dollar amount

otherwise payable (i.e., the base year

level of assistance, as adjusted by

enrollment and inflation) by the ratio of

the number of operating days in the

current year to the number of operating

days in the base year.

(5) Reporting requirements. The State

agency shall submit to the Department

on the monthly FNS–10, Report of

School Programs Operations, the

number of meals, by type, as an

adjustment to base year meal counts; or,

the number of meals, by type,

constructed to reflect the adjusted levels

of cash assistance. State agencies may

employ either method to effect payment

of reimbursement for Provision 3

schools.

(e) Extension of Provision 3. The State

agency may allow a school to continue

under Provision 3 for subsequent 4-year

cycles without taking new free and

reduced price applications and meal

counts by type. State agencies may grant

an extension of Provision 3 if the school

food authority can establish through

available and approved socioeconomic

data that the income level of the

school’s population, as adjusted for

inflation, has remained stable, declined,

or has had only negligible improvement

since the most recent base year.

(1) Extension criteria. School food

authorities must submit to the State

agency available and approved

socioeconomic data to establish whether

the income level of the school’s

population, as adjusted for inflation,

remained constant with the income

level of the most recent base year.

(i) Available and approved sources of

socioeconomic data. Pre-approved

sources of socioeconomic data which

may be used by school food authorities

to establish the income level of the

school’s population are: local data

collected by the city or county zoning

and economic planning office;

unemployment data; local Food Stamp

certification data including direct

certification; Food Distribution Program

on Indian Reservations data; statistical

sampling of the school’s population

using the application process; and,

Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families data (provided that the

eligibility standards were the same or

more restrictive in the base year as the

current year with allowance for

inflation). In order to grant an extension

using pre-approved socioeconomic data

sources, State agencies must review and

evaluate the socioeconomic data

submitted by the school food authority

to ensure that it is reflective of the

school’s population, provides

equivalent data for both the base year

and the last year of the current cycle,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5803

and demonstrates that the income level

of the school’s population, as adjusted

for inflation, has remained stable,

declined or had only negligible

improvement. If the school food

authority wants to establish the income

level of the school’s population using

alternate sources of data, the use of such

data must be approved by FNS. Data

from alternate sources must be reflective

of the school’s population, be equivalent

data for both the base year and the last

year of the current cycle, and effectively

measure whether the income level of the

school’s population, as adjusted for

inflation, has remained stable, declined

or had only negligible improvement.

(ii) Negligible improvement. The

change in the income level of the school

population shall be considered

negligible if there is a 5.0% or less

improvement, after adjusting for

inflation, over the base year in the level

of the socioeconomic indicator which is

used to establish the income level of the

school’s population.

(2) Extension not approved. Schools

for which the available and approved

socioeconomic data does not reflect the

school’s population, is not equivalent

data for the base year and the last year

of the current cycle, or shows over 5.0%

improvement after adjusting for

inflation, shall not be approved for an

extension. Such schools shall:

(i) Return to standard meal counting

and claiming. Return to standard meal

counting and claiming procedures;

(ii) Establish a new base year.

Establish a new Provision 3 base year by

taking new free and reduced price

applications, making new free and

reduced price eligibility determinations,

and taking point of service counts of

free, reduced price and paid meals for

the first year of the new cycle. Schools

electing to establish a Provision 3 base

year shall follow procedures contained

in paragraph (d) of this section;

(iii) Establish a streamlined base year.

In accordance with guidance established

by FNS, establish a new Provision 3

base year by providing free meals to all

participating children and determining

program eligibility on the basis of

household size and income for a

statistically valid portion of the school’s

enrollment as of October 31, or other

date approved by the State agency. The

statistically valid measurement of the

schools enrollment shall be obtained

during the base year of the new cycle.

Using the data obtained, enrollment

based claiming percentages,

representing a proportion of the school’s

population eligible for free, reduced

price and paid benefits, shall be

developed and applied to total daily

counts of reimbursable meals at the

point of service during the base year.

For schools electing to participate in

Provision 3, the streamlined base year

level of assistance shall be adjusted for

enrollment, inflation and, if applicable,

operating days for each subsequent year

of the new cycle and any extensions; or

(iv) Establish a Provision 2 base year.

Schools may convert to Provision 2

using the procedures contained in

paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) or (c)(2)(iii) of this

section.

(f) Policy statement requirement. A

school food authority of a Provision 1,

2, or 3 school shall amend its Free and

Reduced Price Policy Statement,

specified in § 245.10, to include a list of

all schools participating in Provision 1,

2, or 3, and for each school, the initial

year of implementing the provision, the

years the cycle is expected to remain in

effect, the year the provision must be

reconsidered, and the available and

approved socioeconomic data that will

be used in the reconsideration. The

school food authority shall also certify

that the school(s) meet the criteria for

participating in the special assistance

provisions, as specified in paragraphs

(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of this section, as

appropriate.

(g) Recordkeeping. School food

authorities of schools implementing

Provision 2 and Provision 3 shall retain

records related to the implementation of

the provision. Failure to maintain

sufficient records shall result in the

State agency requiring the school to

return to standard meal counting and

claiming procedures and/or fiscal

action.

(1) Base year records. A school food

authority shall ensure that records as

specified in § 210.15(b) and § 220.7(e) of

this chapter which support subsequent

year earnings are retained for the base

year for schools under Provision 2 and

Provision 3. In addition, records of

enrollment data for the base year shall

be retained for schools under Provision

3. Such base year records shall be

retained during the period the provision

is in effect, including all extensions,

plus 3 fiscal years after the submission

of the last Claim for Reimbursement

which employed the base year data.

School food authorities that conduct a

streamlined base year shall retain all

records related to the statistical

methodology and the determination of

claiming percentages. Such records

shall be retained during the period the

provision is in effect, including all

extensions, plus 3 fiscal years after the

submission of the last Claim for

Reimbursement which employed the

streamlined base year data. In either

case, if audit findings have not been

resolved, base year records shall be

retained beyond the 3-year period as

long as required for the resolution of the

issues raised by the audit.

(2) Non-base year records. A school

food authority shall ensure that nonbase year records pertaining to total

daily meal count information, edit

checks and on-site review

documentation are retained for schools

under Provision 2 and Provision 3. In

addition, a school food authority shall

ensure that non-base year records

pertaining to annual enrollment data

and the number of operating days,

which are used to adjust the level of

assistance, are retained for schools

under Provision 3. Such records shall be

retained for three years after submission

of the final Claim for Reimbursement for

the fiscal year. School food authorities

that are granted an extension of a

provision shall retain records of the

available and approved socioeconomic

data which is used to determine the

income level of the school’s population

for the base year and year(s) in which

extension(s) are made. In addition, State

agencies must also retain records of the

available and approved socioeconomic

data which is used to determine the

income level of the school’s population

for the base year and year(s) in which

extensions are made. Such records shall

be retained at both the school food

authority level and at the State agency

during the period the provision is in

effect, including all extensions, plus 3

fiscal years after the submission of the

last Claim for Reimbursement which

employed base year data. If audit

findings have not been resolved, records

shall be retained beyond the 3-year

period as long as required for the

resolution of the issues raised by the

audit.

(h) Availability of documentation.

Upon request, the school food authority

shall make documentation including

enrollment data, participation data,

available and approved socioeconomic

data that was used to grant the

extension, if applicable, or other data

available at any reasonable time for

monitoring and audit purposes. In

addition, upon request from FNS,

school food authorities under Provision

2 or Provision 3, or State agencies shall

submit to FNS all data and

documentation used in granting

extensions including documentation as

specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of

this section.

(i) Return to standard meal counting

and claiming. A school food authority

may return a school to standard

notification, certification and counting

procedures at any time if standard

procedures better suit the school’s

program needs. The school food

5804 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

authority will then notify the State

agency.

(j) Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,

where a statistical survey procedure is

permitted in lieu of eligibility

determinations for each child, may

either maintain their standard

procedures in accordance with § 245.4

or may opt for Provision 2 or Provision

3 provided the eligibility requirements

as set forth in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d)

and (e) as applicable, of this section are

met.

(k) Statistical income measurements.

Statistical income measurements that

are used under this part shall meet the

following standards:

(1) The sample frame shall be limited

to enrolled students who have access to

the school meals program,

(2) A sample of enrolled students

shall be randomly selected from the

sample frame,

(3) The response rate to the survey

shall be at least 80 percent,

(4) The number of households that

complete the survey shall be sufficiently

large so that it can be asserted with 95

percent confidence that the true

percentage of students who are enrolled

in the school, have access to the school

meals program, and are eligible for free

meals is within plus or minus 2.5

percentage points of the point estimate

determined from the sample, and,

(5) To minimize statistical bias, data

from all households that complete the

survey must be used when calculating

the enrollment based claiming

percentages for § 245.9(c)(2)(iii) and

§ 245.9(e)(2)(iii) of this section.

4. In § 245.11, a new paragraph (h) is

added to read as follows:

§ 245.11 Action by State agencies and

FNSROs.

* * * * *

(h) The State agency shall take action

to ensure the proper implementation of

Provisions 1, 2, and 3. Such action shall

include:

(1) Notification. Notifying school food

authorities of schools implementing

Provision 2 and/or 3 that they must

return to standard application and meal

counting procedures or apply for an

extension under Provision 2 or 3. Such

notification must be in writing, and be

sent no later than February 15 of the

fourth year of a school’s current cycle;

(2) Return to standard procedures.

Returning the school to standard

application and meal counting

procedures if the State agency

determines that records were not

maintained; and,

(3) Technical assistance. Securing

technical assistance, adjustments to the

level of financial assistance for the

current school year, and returning the

school to standard application and meal

counting procedures, as appropriate, if a

State agency determines at any time

that:

(i) The school or school food authority

has not correctly implemented

Provision 1, Provision 2 or Provision 3;

(ii) Meal quality has declined because

of the implementation of the provision;

(iii) Participation in the program has

declined over time;

(iv) Eligibility determinations were

incorrectly made; or

(v) Meal counts were incorrectly taken

or incorrectly applied.

(4) State agency recordkeeping. State

agencies shall retain the following

information annually for the month of

October and, upon request, submit to

FNS:

(i) The number of schools using

Provision 2 and Provision 3 for NSLP;

(ii) The number of schools using

Provision 2 and Provision 3 for SBP

only;

(iii) The number of extensions granted

to schools using Provision 2 or

Provision 3 during the previous school

year;

(iv) The number of extensions granted

during the previous year on the basis of

Food Stamp/FDPIR data;

(v) The number of extensions granted

during the previous year on the basis of

Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) data;

(vi) The number of extensions granted

during the previous year on the basis of

local data collected by a city or county

zoning and/or economic planning office;

(vii) The number of extensions

granted during the previous year on the

basis of applications collected from

enrolled students;

(viii) The number of extensions

granted during the previous year on the

basis of statistically valid surveys of

enrolled students; and

(ix) the number of extensions granted

during the previous year on the basis of

alternate data as approved by the State

agency’s respective FNS Regional

Office.

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Shirley R. Watkins,

Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition and

Consumer Services.

[FR Doc. 00–2550 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00–ANM–01]

Proposed Revision of Class E

Airspace, Englewood, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This proposal would amend

the Englewood, CO, Class E airspace to

accommodate the revision of a Standard

Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP)

at the Centennial Airport, Englewood,

CO.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Manager,

Airspace Branch, ANM–520, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

00–ANM–01, 1601 Lind Avenue SW,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The official docket may be examined

in the office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel for the Northwest Mountain

Region at the same address.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

in the office of the Manager, Air Traffic

Division, Airspace Branch, at the

address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis Ripley, ANM–520.6, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

00–ANM–01, 1601 Lind Avenue SW,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056:

telephone number: (425) 227–2527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments, as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit,

with those comments, a self-addressed

stamped postcard on which the