[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54629-54635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27282]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Part 246

RIN 0584-AC64


Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 
Children (WIC): Food and Nutrition Services and Administration Funding 
Formulas Rule

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
lflf

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to revise both the food and the nutrition 
services and administration (NSA) funding formulas to improve the 
effectiveness of WIC funds distribution now that WIC is in a relatively 
stable funding environment. The revised food funding formula would help 
to ensure food funds are allocated to State agencies that can utilize 
the funds to maintain current participation as well as to direct funds, 
as available, to State agencies that are serving a lesser proportion of 
their WIC eligible population than other State agencies. The revised 
NSA funding formula would simplify the funding formula by deleting 
obsolete components and updating existing components to more equitably 
distribute funds among State agencies.

DATE: To be assured of consideration, written comments on this rule 
must be postmarked by January 11, 1999. No electronically transmitted 
correspondence will be accepted.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Ron Vogel, Acting Director, 
Supplemental Food Programs Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 540, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 
305-2746. All written comments will be available for public inspection 
during regular business hours (8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Monday through 
Friday) at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah McIntosh, Chief, Program 
Analysis and Monitoring Branch, Supplemental Food Programs Division, 
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, 
Virginia 22302, (703) 305-2710. An analysis package containing the 
formula database, comparisons and mathematical computations is 
available upon request at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

    This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 
under Executive Order 12866 and has been determined to be significant. 
An impact analysis statement has been prepared and is available upon 
request.

Public Law 104-4

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4 (2 U.S.C.), 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 (FNS) generally must prepare 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 FNS 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 the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or 
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). 
Shirley R. Watkins, Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition and Consumer 
Services, has certified that this rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed rule would affect how FNS will calculate food and NSA grant 
allocations for State agencies. State agencies are not small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements 
subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507).

Executive Order 12372

    The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 
Children (WIC) is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
Programs under No. 10.557. For the reasons set forth in the final rule 
in 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and related Notice (48 FR 29114), this 
program is included in the scope of Executive Order 12372 which 
requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Executive Order 12988

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil 
Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have a 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 Dates'' paragraph of this 
preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this 
rule or the applications of its provisions, all applicable 
administrative procedures must be exhausted.

Background

Need for Revisions to the WIC Funding Formulas

    The WIC Program has consistently demonstrated its effectiveness in 
promoting the health and nutritional well-being of low-income women, 
infants and children at nutritionally related medical or dietary risk. 
The WIC Program has grown and changed significantly during the past few 
years. However, as growth has plateaued, FNS believes that it is 
appropriate to propose changes to both the NSA and food funding 
formulas to enhance their effectiveness at distributing funds fairly 
and equitably among WIC State agencies

[[Page 54630]]

in an environment where appropriations are relatively stable.
    The WIC Program is a fixed grant program, not a Federal entitlement 
program, and is not guaranteed unlimited funds. WIC State agencies must 
manage within a finite appropriation level; however, State agencies 
have considerable latitude to manage program costs to accommodate 
variable funding levels.
    These revised formulas would better provide State agencies with the 
equal opportunity to serve eligible persons who apply for benefits. 
Currently, State agency funding levels are not necessarily proportional 
to their WIC eligible population. The revised formulas are intended to 
allocate funds more fairly among all State agencies under a relatively 
stable funding environment.

Stakeholder Input

    FNS believes that the rulemaking process is enhanced by public 
opinion, and that, to the extent permissible, discussion and input on 
the most equitable and fair distribution of WIC funds should occur 
prior to publication of the final funding regulation. In fact, section 
204(a) of UMRA requires meetings with our cooperators in State, local, 
and tribal governments so we may receive their ``meaningful and timely 
input in the development of regulatory proposals''. To fulfill this 
statutory obligation, FNS and the National Association of WIC Directors 
(NAWD) convened a committee to discuss the appropriateness of the 
current funding formula components and ways in which the allocation 
formula could be improved. This committee was composed of FNS 
employees, designated State agency employees, and a designated employee 
of a local municipal government agency.
    To further the goal of obtaining stakeholder input into the 
regulatory process, this proposal actively solicits comments from State 
agencies, NAWD, advocacy groups and other interested parties on the 
proposed funding formula changes. We are particularly seeking comment 
on whether and how some components of the current funding formulas 
should be deleted or modified as a way to determine the most 
appropriate funding methodology to fairly and equitably distribute WIC 
funds.

Nutrition Services and Administration (NSA) Funding Formula

    The current WIC NSA funding formula became effective April 1, 1988. 
The objectives of the formula were to ensure a reasonable measure of 
funding stability while providing funding levels that enabled 
equivalent services to participants across State agencies and to 
promote incentives for reducing food costs so that more persons may be 
served.
    The current NSA formula is, however, complicated and a tremendous 
amount of data collection is required for the formula--some of which 
may no longer be needed or has little impact on the actual allocation 
of funds. Further, some data are not available in time to permit 
issuance of final grants at the beginning of the fiscal year. As a 
result, the current NSA funding formula may no longer be the most 
efficient and effective means of distributing NSA funds.

Current NSA Provisions--General

    Section 246.16(c)(2) of the WIC regulations sets forth both the NSA 
funding requirements as established in section 17(h) of the Child 
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) and the process by which NSA 
funds are allocated to State agencies. The current NSA funding formula 
meets the legislative requirements by: (1) establishing a ``target'' 
NSA funding level, referred to as parity, that each State agency should 
receive as its fair share NSA grant; (2) preserving stability by 
guaranteeing, to the extent funds are available, the prior year NSA 
grant level, and then gradually moving State agencies to their parity 
target level; and (3) addressing the varying needs of each State agency 
by allocating regional discretionary funds based on regional and 
National priorities.
    The following outlines the current provisions and proposed changes 
to the NSA funding formula:

Section 246.16(c)(2)(ii)(B)--Current NSA Parity Component

    The current parity target level is based primarily on the number of 
participants projected to be served by State agencies. Using food grant 
levels allocated for the current fiscal year, FNS projects the number 
of participants each State agency is expected to serve taking into 
consideration its State-reported per participant food costs and 
inflation. In addition to projected participation, three adjustments 
are made to this participation-based formula to recognize factors 
believed to affect the cost of Program administration. These include:
    (a) Economies of scale--Recognizes the higher per participant costs 
associated with smaller participation levels (currently an adjustment 
is made at three levels: 5,000 or fewer participants, 5,001-15,000 
participants, and more than 15,000 participants);
    (b) Salary differentials--Considers the differential salary levels 
paid within each State for employees in Public Administration, Health 
and Social Services; and
    (c) Targeting of benefits to high-risk participants--Considers the 
proportion of Priority I participants served by the State agency.
    Eighty percent of funds available for allocation through the parity 
component are allocated in accordance with projected participation, 
adjusted by the economy of scale factor. This is done on the basis of 
administrative grant per participant (AGP) rates that are adjusted for 
the higher per participant costs associated with smaller participation 
levels (15,000 or fewer participants per month). Twenty percent of 
funds available for the parity grant component are allocated on the 
basis of differential salary levels and service to Priority I 
participants.

Proposed ``Fair Share'' Component

Renaming the Parity Component

    The term ``parity'' is used to describe the basic concept of 
gradually moving State agencies to a funding level that represents 
their respective ``fair share'' of available funds. FNS believes that 
the term ``fair share'' better describes the purpose and intent of this 
component and, therefore, proposes that the current ``parity'' 
component be renamed the ``NSA fair share'' component. This change 
would also provide continuity with terminology used in the food funding 
formula.

Food Cost Data Used in Calculating Projected Participation

    The NSA funding formula projects the number of participants to be 
served by each State agency by dividing the current year food grant 
level by the State-reported per participant food cost, adjusted for 
inflation. The data currently used represents the closed-out per 
participant food cost data for the 12-month period beginning in July 
and ending in June prior to the fiscal year for which the grants are 
being calculated. This closed-out food cost data is usually available 
150 days after the report month. Therefore, closed-out food cost data 
for June is available to FNS in late November. This data is then used 
in the calculation of final WIC grants, which are usually released by 
January 1.
    To allow for the calculation of final WIC grants at the beginning 
of the fiscal year, FNS proposes that April through March closed-out 
food cost data be used. As is currently done, an inflation adjustment 
would be applied to the food cost data to more accurately project

[[Page 54631]]

actual food costs and to adjust for inflationary increases that may 
occur during the remainder of the fiscal year. While other timeframes 
were considered for use, it was felt that a 12-month base of food cost 
data was necessary to take into consideration seasonal fluctuations of 
food prices. While the current regulations do not address the specific 
months of food cost data used in the calculations, FNS did want to 
inform interested parties of the change in the timeframes that will be 
used when final regulations are issued.

Economy of Scale/Bands

    As noted above, NSA costs are affected by economy of scale. There 
are certain fixed administrative costs in the delivery of program 
benefits incurred by a State agency that do not vary regardless of the 
size of the caseload. Therefore, State agencies with larger 
participation levels are able to realize reductions in costs per 
participant as these fixed costs are spread among more participants. 
Smaller State agencies, particularly Indian Tribal Organizations 
(ITOs), have comparatively higher costs per participant. Although the 
current NSA funding formula includes a size-adjusted cost factor, other 
alternatives and adjustment factors were examined to determine if the 
current adjustments adequately recognize the various range of 
administrative expenditures for State agencies of differing sizes.
    The current adjustment factors were based on administrative 
expenditures per participant (AEP) calculated over 10 years ago. The 
expenditures per participant were evaluated and compared to the size of 
the State agency, creating ``bands'' or groupings. The size of the 
bands were determined using regression techniques that analyzed the 
relationship between the administrative cost per participant and total 
participation levels. By analyzing the positive correlation between 
these two factors, the band sizes were determined based on the grouping 
of State agencies of various sizes. For each State agency, an 
adjustment factor is used to establish a funding level applied to each 
band of participation. The first 5,000 participants are adjusted at a 
level that is no more than 68 percent higher than the per participant 
funding provided for average participation levels exceeding 15,000 
monthly. The next 10,000 participants, or average monthly participation 
levels between 5,001 and 15,000 participants, are funded at a level 
that is no more than 2.4 percent higher than the per participant 
funding for participation levels exceeding 15,000 monthly. These 
percentages (68 percent and 2.4 percent) equal the percent differences 
between the weighted average AEP for the State agencies with 
participation levels up to 5,000 and in the range of 5,001 to 15,000, 
respectively, and the weighted average AEP for State agencies with 
participation levels over 15,000. The weighted average AEP for 
participation up to 5,000 was calculated by dividing the FY 1986 total 
Federal NSA expenditures for State agencies in that size group by their 
FY 1986 total cumulative participation. The weighted average AEPs for 
State agencies with participation levels between 5,001 and 15,000 and 
over 15,000 were calculated in a similar way using FY 1986 data and 
allowing for higher AEPs for the first 15,000 participants.
    After lengthy consideration, FNS determined that the current bands 
should be retained because the updated NSA cost information needed to 
determine new band sizes is unavailable. It was felt that the data upon 
which the AEP bands are currently based remains the best available. 
However, more research and analysis is needed to understand how 
economies of scale actually affect WIC NSA costs, what specific costs 
are most influenced, the participation level(s) at which economies of 
scale vary and how much allowance should be made at each of those 
levels. Therefore, FNS will conduct further analysis in this area to 
examine how funding for different size State agencies might be 
acknowledged in the NSA funding formula. Until FNS's further analysis 
is completed and appropriate baseline data is available, it is proposed 
that the current bands of 5,000 or fewer; 5,001 to 15,000; and over 
15,000 and the corresponding percent adjustment between bands be 
retained. Comments on this aspect of the funding formula are welcome as 
are suggestions as to how economies of scale can be objectively and 
fairly determined for future consideration.

Salary and Priority I Participant Targeting Component

    The combined salary and targeting component determines 20 percent 
of a State agency's NSA fair share target level. In an effort to 
simplify the funding formula and to delete obsolete components, both 
the salary and targeting components were analyzed to determine whether 
they continue to have a significant and appropriate impact on the final 
NSA grant allocations.
    Salary Component. Salary data were incorporated into the current 
funding formula in recognition that salary costs represent by far the 
most significant contributor to WIC NSA costs. Additionally, due to 
regional variations in labor costs, similar levels of service have 
different salary costs. The salary data used to compute differential 
salary levels for State agencies includes average annual salaries for 
State and local government workers provided by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. BLS does not gather this information for 
American Samoa, Guam or the ITOs. Therefore, the salary level for a GS-
9, step 1 in the Federal Government's General Schedule pay scale is 
used for American Samoa, Guam and ITOs acting as State agencies. FNS 
determined that a GS-9, step 1 salary is a reasonable approximation of 
the salary costs incurred on an individual employee basis by State 
agencies in American Samoa, Guam and the ITOs. The most current data 
available from BLS reflects average salary levels paid 2 years prior to 
the applicable fiscal year for which funds are allocated. The GS-9 
salary level used for American Samoa, Guam and ITO State agencies 
reflects the salary level for the same year as the available BLS data.
    Overall, most State agencies are affected only slightly by the 
salary component, primarily because the salary component makes up only 
10 percent of the total parity component (called the fair share target 
funding level in this proposed rule). An analysis of the final grants 
with and without the salary component reveals that for approximately 90 
percent of WIC State agencies, the difference in final NSA grants 
without the salary component is within 3 percent (+/-) of a State's 
grant inclusive of the salary adjustment.
    FNS recognizes that the salary component is a controversial area 
and that there are strong opinions and arguments supporting both the 
inclusion and deletion of the salary component in the NSA funding 
formula. Therefore, FNS proposes to retain the current salary 
component, which would continue to equal 10 percent of the NSA fair 
share component of the NSA funding formula. However, comments on 
whether the current salary factor contributes to an appropriate and 
fair allocation of NSA funds are welcomed.
    Targeting Component. The targeting component was originally 
designed to provide an incentive for targeting benefits to the highest 
risk participants, Priority I women and infants, as defined in current 
Program regulations at Sec. 246.7(e)(4)(i). At the time it was 
incorporated into the NSA funding formula in 1988, the food funding 
formula also included a targeting component. In a time when WIC was

[[Page 54632]]

not able to meet the need for Program benefits, targeting funds to 
those State agencies that were serving a greater proportion of high 
risk individuals was a necessary objective. Now, however, based on 
estimates derived from State-reported participation data, nationwide, 
virtually all fully eligible infants are receiving services through the 
WIC Program and most fully eligible women are participating at some 
point during their pregnancies. Therefore, FNS believes the targeting 
component is no longer needed to encourage and support service to 
Priority I participants.
    The targeting component is based on a complex process, dependent on 
State reported data, requiring many computations to calculate a 
targeting index by which each State agency's share of targeting funds 
is determined. Its effect on the final NSA funding allocation today is 
negligible. Therefore, FNS proposes to delete this component. Targeting 
was deleted from the food funding formula in a final food funding rule 
published in the Federal Register October 6, 1994. Elimination of this 
feature from the NSA formula would result in formula consistency. By 
deleting the targeting component, 100 percent of the NSA ``fair share'' 
funds would be allocated based on projected participation levels, 
adjusted for State agency size (90 percent) and salary differentials 
(10 percent).

Section 246.16(c)(2)(i) NSA Stability Funds

    Throughout the deliberations on the possible revisions to the NSA 
funding formula, it was recognized that a critical aspect of NSA 
funding is the stability component. The stability grant helps to 
guarantee, to the extent funds are available, some measure of funding 
continuity that acknowledges that State agencies have fixed NSA costs 
that are relatively stable from year to year and are necessary for 
continued Program operations. In the event that available funding is 
insufficient to fund State agencies at their prior year funding level, 
each State agency experiences a pro-rata reduction to its grant, as is 
done with the food funding formula.
    The stability component would be continued in this proposed rule, 
with modifications. It is recognized that the funding formula, if 
properly designed, should calculate an NSA grant commensurate with a 
State agency's NSA funding needs. In the past, discretionary funding 
decisions made by FNS may have, over time, unnecessarily inflated the 
grant allocations provided to particular States due to additional 
funding allocated for large capital expenditures. These discretionary 
funds then become a permanent part of a State agency's stability grant 
the following year. Therefore, FNS proposes changes to the stability, 
or base, grant calculation to eliminate consideration of discretionary 
funding (or, as described below, ``operational adjustment funding'') 
allocations made in the prior fiscal year.
    FNS proposes to revise Sec. 246.16 (c)(2)(i) to provide each State 
agency a stability grant equal to its NSA grant from the previous year, 
less any discretionary fund adjustments for that year. As is currently 
the case, each State agency's stability grant would be reduced by a 
pro-rata share if insufficient funds were available.

Section 246.16(c)(2)(ii) NSA Residual Funds

    Currently, after NSA stability grants are determined, any remaining 
funds available for allocation are referred to as residual funds and 
are distributed according to Sec. 246.16(c)(2)(ii) of current Program 
regulations. Residual funds represent funding that either: (1) Helps to 
cover NSA costs associated with increases in projected participation, 
or (2) moves State agencies closer to their ``fair share'' target 
funding level. The fair share for NSA funds is an administrative grant 
per person (AGP) for each projected participant, adjusted for factors 
that affect NSA costs.
    FNS proposes that priority for residual funds should be given only 
to State agencies below their NSA fair share target funding level. The 
fair share principle, which is participant-based, represents the amount 
of NSA funds needed by a State agency to support current participation 
projections based on the food grant the State agency will receive. The 
part of the current regulatory provision which provides funds on the 
basis of increased participation countervails the fair share objective 
by allocating funds to State agencies which are already over their fair 
share funding level.
    Therefore, the proposed NSA formula grant for each State agency 
would be calculated based on each State agency's fair share target 
funding level, which considers the difference between the estimated 
cost of projected participation (as adjusted for economy of scale and 
salary differential) and the prior year NSA formula grant. If a State 
agency's NSA fair share target funding level is greater than its 
stability grant, the State agency would be eligible to receive 
additional NSA funds proportionate to their respective shortfall from 
the fair share target funding level.

Section 246.16 (c)(2)(iii) Discretionary Funds

    The success of the WIC Program is due in large part to the 
flexibility of the program to accommodate individual State needs and 
initiatives. As the WIC Program continues to change and mature, the 
responsiveness of the Program to meet State agencies' varying needs and 
provide for program innovation becomes more critical.
    Section 246.16 (c)(2)(iii) currently requires that ten percent of 
each State agency's total NSA grant level be subtracted and aggregated 
by region to form the FNS regional discretionary funding pools. In FY 
1998, these pools amounted to over $100 million nationally. Each FNS 
regional office then allocates the discretionary funds back to State 
agencies within the region on the basis of the varying needs of State 
agencies and national guidelines. Through the regional allocation of 
discretionary administrative funds, the funding process can satisfy 
many of the administrative and structural needs not accounted for in 
the NSA funding formula (e.g., one-time acquisition costs for 
management information systems).
    FNS considered the discretionary funding allocation process and the 
actual use of these funds. As a result of these considerations, it was 
determined that the term ``discretionary'' does not fully represent or 
accurately describe the use of these funds, and that many State 
agencies must use these funds for operational costs. Therefore, FNS 
proposes to change the name ``discretionary funds'' to ``operational 
adjustment funds'' (OAF). This change will help clarify that the use of 
the funds are for both capital investments as well as operational 
activities, and that, in many cases, the funds are a critical part of a 
State agency's WIC grant and are needed to support ongoing operations.
    The degree to which FNS regions have been inconsistent in the 
methodology used to award discretionary fund allocations and the 
adherence to national guidelines was also considered. While some 
regions have used a competitive process to award the majority of 
available discretionary funds, other regions simply returned a large 
portion of the available discretionary funds to the State agencies in 
their region according to the distribution allocated through the 
funding formula. This inconsistency has caused concern as funding for 
projects becomes more competitive and funding levels for the program 
are being scrutinized. Further, FNS regions including large State 
agencies

[[Page 54633]]

contributing to the regional fund have more flexibility than regions 
with smaller State agencies. FNS recognizes that regions have various 
funding resources and needs and, for most regions, the process employed 
for discretionary fund allocations is a mutually acceptable one in 
which the State agencies and the regions are satisfied with the 
process. After much consideration of this issue, it was decided to 
allow up to 10 percent of the total regional NSA funds to be used for 
OAF (formerly discretionary fund) allocations. However, regions would 
be given the authority to withhold less than 10 percent of the total 
regional NSA funds available if deemed appropriate for that region's 
needs.

Food Funding Formula

Current Food Funding Provisions--General

    The current food funding formula, finalized on October 6, 1994, was 
developed for use during a time of participation growth and annual 
increases in WIC appropriations. The primary objectives were to: (1) 
Provide a greater share of funds to State agencies receiving 
comparatively less than their fair share of funds; (2) simplify the 
food funding formula and delete obsolete components; and (3) provide 
for a level of stability for State agencies. While the current food 
funding formula has met those objectives, WIC has now entered a time in 
which, at least for the foreseeable future, increases in appropriations 
are not likely and emphasis must be placed on shifting available funds 
among State agencies to reflect demographic changes in the eligible 
population and to reach the maximum number of participants possible 
within available Program resources.
    The following outlines the current provisions and proposed changes 
to the food funding formula:

Section 246.16 (c)(3)(ii) Current Food Stability Component

    The stability component of the current food funding formula 
provides that each State agency receive its prior year food grant, 
adjusted for full inflation, contingent on available resources. If 
funding is inadequate to fund all State agencies at this level, each 
State agency would receive a reduced stability grant based on a pro-
rata reduction of funds.
    The current stability component, in a stable funding environment, 
results in little if any additional funding to assist State agencies 
that, for historical reasons or due to demographic shifts, do not have 
a share of WIC funding proportionate to their share of their eligible 
WIC population. These State agencies are considered to be ``under fair 
share''. Therefore, FNS proposes that the stability component of the 
food funding formula be modified to allow some funds to be available to 
allocate to under fair share State agencies to further the objective of 
funding equity among State agencies. In a relatively stable funding 
environment, mechanisms must be in place to allow for some movement of 
funds to correspond to shifts in eligible populations, and the ability 
of State agencies to fully utilize available funding to maximize 
participation.

Proposed Stability Component

    Long consideration was given to stability food funding and whether 
full inflation should be guaranteed. Concerns were raised that if State 
agencies were not funded with full inflation, prior year end 
participation levels may not be sustained, thereby forcing some State 
agencies to cut caseload. This concern, however, was countered by the 
objective of making available, to the extent possible, additional 
funding to under fair share State agencies so that they have the 
opportunity to add participants to bring them closer to the level of 
service provided by State agencies that have received allocations above 
their fair share.
    After exploring options available, FNS proposes to modify 
Sec. 246.16 (c)(3)(ii) to redefine stability as the prior year food 
grant level, without any initial adjustments for inflation. Any funds 
remaining after guaranteeing prior year end grant levels would be 
split. Fifty percent of the remaining funding would be provided for an 
inflation allowance based on the fair share funding level allocated 
with the new year appropriation instead of the prior year grant levels 
currently used in the formula. The remaining 50 percent would be 
allocated to under fair share State agencies to bring them closer to 
their fair share level. The funds subject to the 50/50 split would 
include current year appropriated funds and unspent recoverable funds 
from the prior fiscal year.
    These changes to the stability component would ensure that even in 
a funding environment in which the Program receives only a modest 
increase above prior year grant levels, State agencies with less than 
their fair share of funds would continue to receive a greater increase 
in funding relative to over fair share State agencies.
    We recognize that the 50/50 split of the remaining funds after 
prior year grant levels are funded and the inflation calculation are 
different than what was discussed with the NAWD Committee. However, we 
were persuaded during the review process that a more aggressive 
approach was necessary to shift available funds to under fair share 
State agencies. Therefore, we are particularly interested in comments 
concerning the split of funds and the method used to calculate 
inflation adjustments.
    To determine the amount of funds allocated to each State agency, 
State agencies would initially receive their prior year end food grant 
as their stability grant. As is currently done, if funds are 
insufficient to fund all State agencies at the prior year end grant 
level, each State agency would receive a pro-rata reduction to its 
grant. If funds are available in excess of prior year-end grant levels, 
50 percent of such funds would be made available to each State agency 
for inflation. An inflation allowance will be calculated based on the 
difference between each State agency's inflated appropriated fair share 
grant level and their appropriated fair share grant level. The 
remaining 50 percent of available funds would be allocated to under 
fair share State agencies proportionate to their shortfall from their 
fair share target funding level. Once all State agencies have received 
their target food inflation level, 100 percent of all available funds 
would be allocated to under fair share State agencies. If sufficient 
funding is available to fund inflation and all under fair share State 
agencies up to their fair share target levels of funding, additional 
funds would be allocated according to Sec. 246.16 (c)(3)(iii)(B) to any 
State agency requesting additional food funds.

Section 246.16 (c)(3)(i)(B) Adjustments for Higher Cost Areas

    In calculating the fair share target food level for State agencies, 
the regulations permit an adjustment for the higher cost of food for 
State agencies located outside of the 48 contiguous States and the 
District of Columbia. This adjustment is done to ensure that the share 
of funds received by these State agencies is adequate to serve their 
share of the eligible population given their higher costs. Currently, 
five State agencies receive this adjustment. Current regulations allow 
for these adjustments after a State agency demonstrates that it has 
successfully implemented voluntary cost containment measures, such as 
improved vendor management practices, participation in multi-state 
agency infant formula rebate contracts or other cost containment 
efforts. FNS believes that the current adjustments

[[Page 54634]]

and conditions under which adjustments may be applied are consistent 
with Program objectives and consistent with high cost adjustments 
available to States in the National School Lunch Program and the School 
Breakfast Program and, therefore, no changes to this component of the 
food funding formula are proposed.

Section 246.16 (e) (2) (i) Food Spending Performance Standard

    The current food spending performance standard was implemented in 
fiscal year 1995. Failure to meet this standard results in an 
adjustment of the current year grant. The current standard requires 
each State agency to expend at least 97 percent of its food grant. 
Typically, State agencies cannot spend 100 percent of their WIC grants 
due to factors that are inherent to the Program. For example, because 
the federal grant is the only source of funds for WIC in most states, 
State agencies must exercise caution to ensure that they do not spend 
more than their federal grant. In addition, because State agencies must 
estimate the value of vouchers and checks to distribute food benefits, 
they cannot determine the Program's actual food costs until the 
vouchers and checks have been redeemed and processed. While FNS 
recognizes that the structure of the Program may cause some State 
agencies to have difficulty meeting this expenditure standard, the 
majority of State agencies should be able to expend at least 97 percent 
of its food funds in a stable funding environment. Therefore, the 97 
percent food spending performance standard would be retained and the 
obsolete references to the performance standards for fiscal years 1995-
1997 would be deleted.

Eligibility Data

    Data on the number of individuals estimated to be income eligible 
for Program benefits is produced annually at the national level. State-
level estimates of income-eligible infants and children are produced 
using similar data. These estimates, in turn, are used to estimate the 
fair share funding levels for WIC food grants. Much consideration was 
given as to the reliability and accuracy of the income eligible data. 
Current regulations stipulate at Sec. 246.16(c)(3)(i) that the income 
eligible data be calculated by FNS using the best available, nationally 
uniform, indicators. FNS continues to believe that the current 
methodology is the best available data and proposes no changes at this 
time. However, FNS will reevaluate the method for estimating the 
potential eligible population if new data sources or methods become 
available that could improve the current estimation process.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 246

    Food assistance programs, Food donations, Grant programs--Social 
programs, Indians, Infants and children, Maternal and child health, 
Nutrition education, Public assistance programs, WIC, Women.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 246 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 246--SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS 
AND CHILDREN

    1. The authority citation for part 246 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S. C. 1786.

    1. In Sec. 246.16:
    a. Paragraph (c)(2)(i) is revised.
    b. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) is revised.
    c. Paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(iv) are redesignated as 
paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(v), respectively, and a new paragraph 
(c)(2)(iii) is added.
    d. Newly redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(iv) is revised.
    e. Newly redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(v) is amended by removing 
the word ``discretionary funds'' and adding, in its place, the word 
``operational adjustment funds''.
    f. The heading of paragraph (c)(3)(i) and the first sentence of 
paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) are revised.
    g. Paragraph (c)(3)(ii) is revised.
    h. The heading of paragraph (c)(3)(iii)and the first sentence of 
paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) are revised.
    i. The first sentence of paragraph (e)(2)(i) is revised.
    The revisions and an addition read as follows:


Sec. 246.16  Distribution of funds.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Fair share target funding level determination. For each State 
agency, FNS will establish, using all available NSA funds, an NSA fair 
share target funding level which is based on each State agency's 
average monthly participation level for the fiscal year for which 
grants are being calculated, as projected by FNS. Each State agency's 
projected participation level shall be adjusted to account for the 
higher per participant costs associated with small participation levels 
and differential salary levels relative to a national average salary 
level. The formula shall be adjusted to account for these cost factors 
in the following manner: 90 percent of available funds shall provide 
compensation based on rates which are proportionately higher for the 
first 15,000 or fewer participants, as projected by FNS, and 10 percent 
of available funds shall provide compensation based on differential 
salary levels, as determined by FNS.
    (ii) Stability allocation funding level. To the extent funds are 
available and subject to the provisions of paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this 
section, each State agency shall receive an amount equal to 100 percent 
of the final formula-calculated NSA grant of the preceding fiscal year, 
prior to any operational adjustment funding allocations made under 
paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section. If funds are not available to 
provide all State agencies with their stability allocation funding 
level, all State agencies shall have their stability allocation funding 
level reduced by a pro-rata share as required by the short fall of 
available funds.
    (iii) Fair share allocation. Any funds remaining available for 
allocation for NSA after the stability allocation required by paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii) of this section has been completed and subject to the 
provisions of paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section shall be allocated 
to bring each State agency closer to its NSA fair share target funding 
level. FNS shall make fair share allocation funds available to each 
State agency based on the difference between the NSA fair share target 
funding level and the stability allocation funding level, which are 
determined in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of 
this section, respectively. Each State agency's difference shall be 
divided by the sum of the differences for all State agencies, to 
determine the percent share of the available fair share allocation 
funds each State agency shall receive.
    (iv) Operational adjustment funds. Each State agency's final NSA 
grant shall be reduced by up to 10 percent, and these funds shall be 
aggregated for all State agencies within each FNS region to form an 
operational adjustment fund. The Regions shall allocate these funds to 
State agencies according to national guidelines and shall consider the 
varying needs of State agencies within the region.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Fair share target funding level determination. (A) For each 
State agency, establish a fair share target funding level which shall 
be an amount of funds proportionate to the State agency's share of the 
national aggregate population of persons who are income eligible to 
participate in the Program

[[Page 54635]]

based on the 185 percent of poverty criterion.
* * * * *
    (ii) Stability allocation. To the extent funds are available, each 
State agency shall receive a stability allocation equal to its final 
authorized grant level as of September 30 of the prior fiscal year. If 
funds are not available to provide all State agencies with their full 
stability allocation, all State agencies shall have their full 
stability allocation reduced by a pro-rata share as required by the 
short fall of available funds.
    (iii) Inflation/fair share allocation. (A) If funds remain 
available after the allocation of funds under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of 
this section, the funds shall be allocated as provided in this 
paragraph. First, FNS will calculate a target inflation allowance based 
on the fair share funding level determined for current year 
appropriated funds. This fair share funding level is then adjusted by 
the anticipated rate of food cost inflation as determined by the 
Department. Second, FNS will allocate 50 percent of the available funds 
to the State agencies in proportionate shares to meet the target 
inflation level. Third, FNS will allocate 50 percent of the available 
funds to each State agency which has a stability allocation, as 
determined in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section and adjusted for 
inflation as determined in this paragraph, which is still less than its 
fair share target funding level. The amount of funds allocated to each 
State agency shall be based on the difference between its stability 
allocation plus target inflation funds and the fair share funding 
target level. Each State agency's difference shall be divided by the 
sum of the differences for all such State agencies, to determine the 
percentage share of the 50 percent of available funds each State agency 
shall receive. In the event a State agency declines any of its 
allocation under either this paragraph or paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this 
section, the declined funds shall be reallocated in the percentages and 
manner described in this paragraph. Once all State agencies receive 
allocations equal to their full target inflation levels, any remaining 
funds shall be allocated or reallocated, in the manner described in 
this paragraph, to those State agencies still under their fair share 
target funding level.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The amount allocated to any State agency for food benefits in 
the current fiscal year shall be reduced if such State agency's food 
expenditures for the preceding fiscal year do not equal or exceed 97 
percent of the amount allocated to the State agency for such costs. * * 
*
* * * * *
    Dated: October 1, 1998.
Shirley R. Watkins,
Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 98-27282 Filed 10-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P