[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-838]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 13, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Parts 210, 215 and 220

 

National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children 
and School Breakfast Program: Finalization of Coordinated Review Effort 
Interim Rule

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 17, 1991, the Department published a final rule in the 
Federal Register which set forth the Coordinated Review Effort, a 
unified accountability system required by the Child Nutrition and WIC 
Reauthorization Act of 1989. On August 26, 1992, the Department 
published an interim rule in the Federal Register which became 
effective on September 25, 1992, and which modified a number of 
provisions contained in the 1991 final rule. This rulemaking responds 
to the comments received during the interim rule comment period and 
adopts as final, with changes, the provisions which were set forth in 
the August 26, 1992 interim rule. These revisions are a part of the 
Coordinated Review Effort and are intended to facilitate the review 
activities of the State agencies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 14, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Eadie or Charles Heise, 
Policy and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Division, FNS, 
USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, room 1007, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, 
Phone: 703-305-2620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Classification

    This final rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 
12866.
    This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 through 612). The Acting 
Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service has certified that this 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This rule will affect State agencies and 
school food authorities since this rule is expected to clarify 
regulatory requirements and facilitate the review activities of State 
agencies. However, the effect of these modifications will not be 
significant since State agencies and school food authorities already 
conduct review activities under the Coordinated Review Effort and this 
rule will not increase their current Coordinated Review Effort 
activities.
    The National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for 
Children and the School Breakfast Program are listed in the Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos. 10.555, 10.566, and 10.553, 
respectively, and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 
12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and 
local officials. (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V and final rule-related 
notice at 48 FR 29112, June 24, 1983.)
    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect 
with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which 
conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full 
implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect 
unless so specified in the ``EFFECTIVE DATE'' section of this 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, the 
administrative procedures are set forth under the following 
regulations: (1) School food authority appeals of State agency findings 
as a result of a Coordinated Review must follow State agency hearing 
procedures as established pursuant to 7 CFR 210.18(q); (2) school food 
authority appeals of FNS findings as a result of a Coordinated Review 
must follow FNS hearing procedures as established pursuant to 7 CFR 
210.30(d)(3); 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).

Information Collection

    The reporting and recordkeeping requirements identified in this 
rule have been approved by the OMB for use through September 30, 1994. 
The OMB control number is 0584-0006.

Background

Legislative History

    Section 110 of Public Law 101-147, enacted November 10, 1989, 
amended the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751-1769c) by adding 
a new section 22 which states: ``There shall be a unified system 
prescribed and administered by the Secretary for ensuring that local 
food service authorities that participate in the school lunch program 
under this Act comply with the provisions of this Act * * *. [E]ach 
State educational agency shall--(A) require that local food service 
authorities comply with the provisions of this Act; and (B) ensure such 
compliance through reasonable audits and supervisory assistance 
reviews. * * * In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall--(1) 
assist the State educational agency in the monitoring of programs 
conducted by local food service authorities; and (2) through management 
evaluations, review the compliance of the State educational agency and 
the local school food service authorities with regulations issued under 
this Act * * *.''

Regulatory History

    On July 17, 1991, the Department published a final rule in the 
Federal Register (56 FR 32920) which set forth the Coordinated Review 
Effort, a unified accountability system required by the Child Nutrition 
and WIC Reauthorization Act of 1989. On August 26, 1992, the Department 
published an interim rule in the Federal Register (57 FR 38579) which 
modified a number of provisions contained in the July 17 final rule. 
The interim rulemaking was effective on September 25, 1992 and provided 
for a 60-day comment period which ended on October 26, 1992. Fifty-four 
comments were received during the comment period. The Department would 
like to take this opportunity to thank those individuals who commented 
on the interim rulemaking. It was clear that commenters put a great 
deal of effort in describing their concerns and offering their 
suggestions. The Department is most appreciative of that effort. This 
final rule responds to the comments received during the interim rule 
comment period and restates, as appropriate, the provisions set forth 
in the interim rule. The provisions set forth in the interim rule:
     Implementation Dates--Authorized FNS to approve a State 
agency's written request showing good cause to delay implementation of 
the Coordinated Review Effort from July 1, 1992 to January 1, 1993. 
(Sec. 210.18(a))
     Residential Child Care Institutions--Excluded residential 
child care institutions from the 100/100 school selection criteria. 
(Sec. 210.18(e))
     Application Review Procedures--Allowed State agencies the 
option of reviewing (a) all approved free and reduced price 
applications effective for the review period (as required in the July 
17, 1991 final Coordinated Review Effort rule) or (b) all approved free 
and reduced price applications back to the beginning of the school 
year, or (c) all approved free and reduced price applications effective 
on the day(s) the review is conducted. (Sec. 210.18(g))
     Notice of Fiscal Action or Withholding Payment--Required 
State agencies to advise school food authorities in writing of the 
grounds for denial of all or a part of a Claim for Reimbursement or 
withholding of payment resulting from a review conducted under 
Sec. 210.18 and of the appeal rights available to affected school food 
authorities. (Sec. 210.18(j))
     Withholding Payment--Limited mandatory withholding of 
payments on a follow-up review. Specifically, the interim rule limited 
mandatory withholding of all Program payments to those school food 
authorities with critical area violations which exceed review 
threshold(s). In addition, the interim rule required the withholding of 
a minimum of 10 percent of Program payments where serious problems 
continue to exist in either of two aspects of the general areas of 
review, verification and recordkeeping. (Sec. 210.18(l))
     Withholding Payment Exception--Allowed State agencies to 
reduce the amount withheld from a school food authority which fails to 
take corrective action by as much as 60 percent of the total Program 
payments when it is determined to be in the best interest of the 
Program. Withholding less than 40 percent would continue to require the 
approval of FNS. (Sec. 210.18(l))
     Fiscal Action--Allowed State agencies to limit fiscal 
action from the point corrective action occurs back through the 
beginning of the review period for errors of certification, issuance of 
benefits and updating eligibility status identified on an 
administrative review, provided corrective action occurs. 
(Sec. 210.18(m))
     Administrative Appeal Process--Established an 
administrative appeal procedure which allows school food authorities 
the opportunity to appeal the denial of all or a part of a Claim for 
Reimbursement or withholding of payments which result from a review 
required under Sec. 210.18. (Sec. 210.18(q), Sec. 210.30(d), 
Sec. 215.11(b)(2), and Sec. 220.13(f)(2))
     Overpayment Disregard--Allowed FNS, the Department's 
Office of Inspector General and State agencies to disregard any 
overpayment identified by management evaluations, reviews or audits if 
the total, in any fiscal year, does not exceed $600. (Sec. 210.19(d), 
Sec. 215.13(e) and Sec. 220.15(f))
    Commenter concerns, corrections and revisions addressed in this 
rulemaking are discussed in this preamble by the pertinent regulatory 
citation.

Section 210.18(a)  Implementation Dates

    Section 210.18(a), Implementation dates, of the interim rule, 
authorized FNS to approve a State agency's written request to delay 
implementation of the Coordinated Review Effort from July 1, 1992 to 
January 1, 1993 if FNS determined that the State agency demonstrated 
good cause to delay implementation.
    Nineteen commenters to the interim rule expressed concerns 
regarding the start of the staggered review cycles which resulted from 
the delayed start option. In general, commenters sought to standardize 
the review cycle so that all State agencies are on the same cycle. A 
number of beginning and ending dates were suggested; however, there was 
no consensus of opinion.
    Two commenters, on behalf of the same State agency, requested that 
FNS allow a 5-year review cycle for those State agencies which review 
all other school related programs on a 5-year cycle.
    The Department concurs that a standardized cycle of review is in 
the best interest of the Program. To protect the interests of both 
those State agencies beginning on July 1, 1992 and of those beginning 
on January 1, 1993, the Department has determined to extend the first 
year of the first 4-year cycle. Thus, paragraph (a) is unchanged and 
the first sentence of introductory paragraph (c) has been revised to 
read: ``The first year of the first 4-year review cycle began on July 
1, 1992, or as otherwise authorized under paragraph (a) of this section 
and shall end on June 30, 1994. For each State agency, the first 4-year 
review cycle shall end on June 30, 1997.''
    Given the commenter concerns regarding standardization of the 
review cycle in this final rule, the Department has determined to 
retain the 4-year cycle, thus making no provision for the 5-year cycle 
sought by two commenters. However, the Department will continue to 
consider this issue for possible future revision.

Section 210.18(e)  Residential Child Care Institutions

    Section 210.18(e), Number of schools to review, as amended by the 
interim rule, limited the number of multi-site residential child care 
institutions a State agency needs to review to the minimum number 
identified in Table A. Paragraph (e)(1) of the interim rule stated 
``Except for residential child care institutions, the State agency 
shall review all schools with a free average daily participation of 100 
or more and a free participation factor of 100 percent or more. In no 
event shall the State agency review less than the minimum number of 
schools in Table A.'' (Table A was not changed.)
    Generally, residential child care institutions are single unit 
institutions; however, in some cases, the residential child care 
institution has a number of units that report to a single governing 
body, (e.g., State administered juvenile detention centers). The term 
``multi-site residential child care institution'' is intended to refer 
to those institutions which have a number of units that report to a 
single governing body.
    Six commenters to the interim rule, all representing State 
agencies, addressed this provision. All were in complete support of the 
interim provision to limit the number of multi-site residential child 
care institutions a State agency needed to review to the minimum number 
identified in Table A. For this reason, the provisions set forth in 
paragraph (e)(1) of the interim rule are adopted without change.

Section 210.18(g)  Application Review Procedures

    Section 210.18(g), Critical areas of review, as amended by the 
interim rule, expanded the methodology for the review of the free and 
reduced price applications. Rather than limiting the review of the free 
and reduced price applications to those applications effective for the 
review period, paragraph (g)(1) of the interim rule allowed the State 
agency to review (a) all approved free and reduced price applications 
effective for the review period; or (b) all approved free and reduced 
price applications back to the beginning of the school year; or (c) all 
approved free and reduced price applications effective on the day(s) 
the review is conducted.
    Thirteen commenters addressed this provision of the interim rule. 
Virtually all commenters were supportive of this provision; however, a 
number of commenters requested expanding the provision to include 
specific procedures to facilitate implementation of this provision. 
Some commenters questioned implementation of this provision, as well as 
what is meant by ``statistically valid sample'' and how potential 
reclaims (overpayment of Federal funds) would be calculated. Some 
commenters were confused about references to an abbreviated application 
provision and whether it became effective on September 25, 1992, as did 
the other provisions of the interim rule.
    This final rule leaves unchanged the provisions of paragraph (g)(1) 
as presented in the interim rule. The Department would like to assure 
commenters that instructions for implementation of this provision, for 
implementation of the statistical sampling provision and for 
information on how to calculate potential reclaims are addressed in the 
guidance materials prepared for the Coordinated Review Effort. These 
materials were developed by FNS, with the help of State agency and 
local personnel. The materials were distributed to State agencies in 
the Spring of 1993. Thus, all of the questions raised by commenters can 
be resolved through reference to these materials.
    The Department would like to take this opportunity to clarify a 
misunderstanding regarding an abbreviated review of the free and 
reduced price applications. The development of procedures which would 
enable State agencies to conduct an abbreviated review of free and 
reduced price applications is currently underway. However, it is the 
Department's position that these procedures would benefit from the 
solicitation of public comment. Thus, the Department is also developing 
a proposed rulemaking which will set forth the proposed procedures and 
request comments from the public. Since the Department intends to 
pursue a proposed rulemaking, these procedures will not become 
effective until such time as the proposal is issued, comments are 
received and analyzed, and a final rule is published in the Federal 
Register.

Section 210.18(j)  Notice of Fiscal Action or Withholding Payment

    Section 210.18(j), Exit conference and notification, as amended by 
the interim rule, required the State agency to notify school food 
authorities in writing of the grounds for denial of all or a part of a 
Claim for Reimbursement resulting from a review conducted under 
Sec. 210.18. The notice, ``which shall be sent by certified mail, 
return receipt requested, shall also include a statement indicating 
that the school food authority may appeal the denial of all or a part 
of a Claim for Reimbursement or withholding payment and the entity 
(i.e., FNS or State agency) to which the appeal should be directed.''
    Only one commenter, a State agency, addressed this provision. While 
agreeing that the information should be made available to the school 
food authority, the commenter observed that the information could be 
provided at the entrance or exit conference. Requiring a certified 
letter was seen as ``overkill''.
    Since only one commenter found these provisions burdensome, the 
Department leaves unchanged the provision as set forth in the interim 
rule. The Department believes the ``certified'' letter requirement is 
necessary to document that the State agency has met the required 
timeframes.

Section 210.18(l)(1)  Withholding Payment

    Section 210.18(l)(1), Withholding payment, as amended by the 
interim rule, limited the mandatory withholding provision to those 
school food authorities with critical area violations which exceed the 
review threshold(s) and/or where serious problems continue to exist in 
either of two aspects of the general areas of review, verification and 
recordkeeping. In addition, rather than withholding all Program 
payments for serious violations of the verification or recordkeeping 
requirements, paragraph (l)(1)(iv) required the State agency to 
withhold a minimum of 10 percent of the Program payments if the State 
agency finds, on a follow-up review, that serious problems continue to 
exist in the school food authority's verification or recordkeeping 
activities.
    Of the 13 commenters addressing this provision, two commenters 
disapproved of withholding payment for any reason whereas one commenter 
approved of the interim rule provision. Other commenters offered 
suggestions to modify the interim provisions. For example, four 
commenters suggested limiting mandatory withholding to critical areas, 
one commenter suggested limiting mandatory withholding for both the 
critical and general areas to 10 percent of the Program payments, and 
one commenter suggested withholding only those payments related to 
critical area violations in the specific schools which caused a 
threshold to be exceeded.
    Several commenters opposed the 10 percent withholding provision 
because it was perceived as burdensome and too complex to administer. 
Commenters argued that more guidance will be needed to implement this 
provision. Two commenters asked for a definition of ``serious 
problems''.
    This final rule limits the mandatory withholding provision to those 
school food authorities with critical area violations which exceed the 
review threshold(s). State agencies are encouraged to withhold payments 
for serious problems in the areas of verification and recordkeeping; 
however, the mandatory minimum withholding for serious verification and 
recordkeeping problems has been removed.

Section 210.18(l)(3)  Withholding Payment Exception

    Section 210.18(l)(3), Exceptions, as amended by the interim rule, 
allowed the State agency to withhold as little as 40 percent of total 
program payments. To withhold less than 40 percent continued to require 
the approval of FNS.
    Of the three commenters addressing this provision, two commenters 
supported the flexibility of this provision and one commenter argued 
that withholding 40 percent is too burdensome and too complex to 
administer. It was suggested that where funds for an individual school 
can be separately identified, their claim for reimbursement be withheld 
instead of that of the entire school food authority.
    This final rule makes no change to the exception authorized under 
paragraph (l)(3) in the interim rule. Commenter suggestions are being 
taken under advisement pending a review of withholding situations as 
they arise.

Section 210.18(m)  Fiscal Action

    Section 210.18(m), Fiscal action, as amended by the interim rule, 
allowed a State agency to limit fiscal action for errors found on a 
first review related to certification, updating eligibility and issuing 
benefits. For first review errors related to certification, issuance of 
benefits and updating eligibility status, the State agency was 
authorized to limit fiscal action to the period from the point 
corrective action occurs back through the beginning of the review 
period, provided corrective action occurs.
    Of the 14 commenters addressing this interim provision all 
expressed varying degrees of support. Two commenters representing the 
same State agency suggested that while limiting fiscal action to the 
review period is appropriate, this change, when taken together with the 
expanded application review methodology allowing options for the review 
period and the increased overpayment disregard threshold, may result in 
future increased error rates since there is less likelihood of having 
to repay funds which were incorrectly claimed. These commenters 
questioned whether it is appropriate to have all three changes.
    Five commenters argued that the interim rule changes were not 
sufficient to improve fiscal action requirements set forth in the final 
rule. These commenters opposed fiscal action back to the beginning of 
the year for ``non-correctable'' errors. Several of these commenters 
suggested that there must be an error tolerance in the evaluation of 
the eligibility procedures and in the evaluation of meal components. 
Another concern related to allowing underclaims to offset fiscal 
action.
    This final rule adopts the provision as set forth in the interim 
rule. As with the withholding of payments provisions, the commenter 
suggestions are being taken under advisement pending a review of the 
implementation of the fiscal action requirements. The Department would 
like to take this opportunity to point out that existing policy 
authorizes State agencies to allow underclaims to offset overclaims.

Section 210.18(q) and Sec. 210.30(d)  Administrative Appeal Process

    Sections 210.18(q), School food authority appeal of State agency 
findings, and Sec. 210.30(d), School food authority appeal of FNS 
findings, as set forth in the interim rule, established appeal 
procedures so that school food authorities could appeal the denial of 
all or a part of a Claim for Reimbursement or withholding of payments 
resulting from a review under the Coordinated Review Effort.
    Of the 10 commenters addressing this provision, six commenters were 
supportive although several observed that the procedures were somewhat 
cumbersome. Two commenters representing the same State agency believed 
the appeal procedures were unnecessary, very cumbersome and overly 
prescriptive. These commenters observed that school food authorities 
presently have the opportunity to provide documentation to reduce 
fiscal action. Two commenters expressed concerns about the timeframes 
specified.
    This final rule leaves unchanged the appeal procedures as stated in 
Sec. 210.18(q) and Sec. 210.30(d) of the interim rule and the authority 
for such appeals as set forth in 7 CFR 215.11(b)(2) and 7 CFR 
220.13(f)(2). The appeal procedures were modeled after those used in 
the Child and Adult Care Food Program and, as such, have been tested 
over the years. As these procedures are implemented in the National 
School Lunch Program, the Department would be willing to consider 
modifications which would expedite the process. The Department intends 
to take commenter concerns under advisement until such time.

Section 210.19(d), Sec. 215.13(e) and Sec. 220.15(f)  Overpayment 
Disregard

    Section 210.19(d), Management evaluations, as amended by the 
interim rule, raised the overpayment disregard from $250 to $600. The 
interim rule made similar changes to 7 CFR 215.13(e) and 7 CFR 
220.15(f). As a result of this change, State agencies, FNS, and the 
Department's Office of the Inspector General were authorized to 
disregard any overpayment if the total overpayment does not exceed $600 
for any fiscal year.
    Eleven commenters supported the increased overpayment disregard; 
however, several commenters suggested that the disregard should be 
greater than $600. Examples of $1,000 and $750 were provided. On behalf 
of Arizona, two commenters pointed out that the State Attorney 
General's Office has indicated that Arizona prohibits disregarding any 
overpayment. The Arizona State agency suggested language which would 
enable the State agency to employ the $600 disregard.
    The final rule adopts the interim provision with only a minor 
technical change until such time as data is available to re-evaluate 
the $600 figure. In the case of the Arizona State agency, the State's 
rule of disregard does not authorize an amount in excess of the Federal 
minimum amount set forth in this final rule, but rather, sets a more 
stringent monetary standard. Because an overpayment disregard is 
discretionary on the part of the evaluating entity (unless there is 
evidence of violations of criminal law or civil fraud statutes), the 
prohibition in Arizona which prevents the State agency from 
disregarding any overpayment discovered during an evaluation does not 
conflict with this final rule. The Department will not, therefore, 
revise the final provision to allow the Arizona State agency to employ 
the $600 disregard.

Miscellaneous Correction

    Section 210.19(c)(2)(ii), Fiscal action, as amended by the interim 
rule, required fiscal action to be extended back to that point in time 
during the current school year when the infraction first occurred, 
``[u]nless otherwise specified under Sec. 210.18(m) * * *.'' The 
wording ``[u]nless otherwise specified under Sec. 210.18(m)'' was a 
technical change to accommodate the limitation on fiscal action 
authorized under Sec. 210.18(m) of the interim rule.
    The interim rule made an inadvertent change to this provision. 
Under the 1991 final rule, fiscal action was required ``back to the 
beginning of the school year or that point in time during the current 
school year when the infraction first occurred, as applicable.'' The 
interim rule incorrectly restated this provision, by replacing the 
words ``as applicable'' with the words ``whichever is earlier.'' This 
change had the effect of making the fiscal action provision more 
stringent; this was unintentional. For this reason, this final rule 
replaces the words ``whichever is earlier'' with the words ``as 
applicable'' to ensure that it is correctly stated.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 210

    Children, Commodity School Program, Food assistance programs, 
Grants programs--social programs, National School Lunch Program, 
Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus 
agricultural commodities.

7 CFR Part 215

    Children, Food assistance programs, Grant programs--social 
programs, Milk, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Special Milk Program for Children.

7 CFR Part 220

    Children, Food assistance programs, Grant programs--social 
programs, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School 
Breakfast Program.

    Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR parts 210, 215 and 220 
which was published at 57 FR 38579 on August 26, 1992, and became 
effective on September 25, 1992, is adopted as final, with the 
following changes:

PART 210--NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 210 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1751-1760, 1779.

    2. In Sec. 210.18,
    a. The first sentence of the introductory text of paragraph (c) is 
removed, and two new sentences are added in its place to read as set 
forth below.
    b. The semicolon and the words ``and/or'' at the end of paragraph 
(l)(1)(iii) are removed and replaced with a period; paragraph 
(l)(1)(iv) is removed, and paragraph (l)(1)(v) is redesignated as 
paragraph (l)(1)(iv).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec. 210.18  Administrative reviews.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * The first year of the first 4-year review cycle began on 
July 1, 1992, or as otherwise authorized under paragraph (a) of this 
section and shall end on June 30, 1994. For each State agency, the 
first 4-year review cycle shall end on June 30, 1997. * * *
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 210.19,
    a. The first sentence of paragraph (c)(2)(ii) is revised to read as 
set forth below.
    b. The fourth sentence of paragraph (d) is amended by removing the 
word ``and'' between the words ``reviews'' and ``audits'' and adding 
the word ``or'' in its place.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec. 210.19  Additional responsibilities.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Unless otherwise specified under Sec. 210.18(m) of this part, 
fiscal action shall be extended back to the beginning of the school 
year or that point in time during the current school year when the 
infraction first occurred, as applicable.* * *
* * * * *

 7 CFR PART 215--SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN

    1. The authority citation is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1772, 1779.


Sec. 215.13  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 215.13, the first sentence of paragraph (e) is amended 
by removing the word ``and'' between the words ``reviews'' and 
``audits'' and adding the word ``or'' in its place.

 PART 220--SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779, unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 220.15  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 220.15, the first sentence of paragraph (f) is amended 
by removing the word ``and'' between the words ``reviews'' and 
``audits'' and adding the word ``or'' in its place.

    Dated: January 3, 1994.
George A. Braley,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-838 Filed 1-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-U