[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72889-72898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33504]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Part 225

RIN 0584-AC06


Summer Food Service Program: Program Meal Service During the 
School Year, Paperwork Reduction, and Targeted State Monitoring

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule contains changes to the Summer Food Service 
Program as a result of a provision in the Healthy Meals for Healthy 
Americans Act of 1994 which allows Program meal service to be provided 
during periods of unanticipated school closures such as teacher 
strikes. Additionally, this rule makes discretionary changes to 
simplify sponsor and site applications and State agency monitoring 
requirements. Except for the State agency monitoring requirements, 
which were changed substantially, the final rule makes only minor 
modifications to the provisions of the proposed rule. These changes are 
intended to reduce unnecessary and duplicative administrative burdens 
for Summer Food Service Program sponsors and State agencies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Rothstein (Summer Food Service 
Program) at the following address: Policy and Program Development 
Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Room 1006, Food and Nutrition 
Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1500, 
or by telephone at: (703) 305-2620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) provides free meals to 
children at approved feeding sites in areas with significant 
concentrations of low-income children during school vacations. SFSP 
meals are intended to take the place of the meals that children 
normally receive through the National School Lunch and Breakfast 
Programs during the school year.
    Generally, Program benefits are limited to times when school is not 
in

[[Page 72890]]

session during the months of May through September. Section 13(c)(1) of 
the National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C. 1761(c)(1)) provides an 
exception to these timeframes for areas that operate on a year-round, 
or continuous school calendar basis. In these areas, Program benefits 
may be provided at any time of the year that children are on school 
vacation. An additional exception was authorized by the Healthy Meals 
for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-448), which permits the 
SFSP to operate in areas with unanticipated school closures during 
October through April.
    On October 13, 1998, we published a proposed rule for the SFSP in 
the Federal Register (63 FR 54617). The rule proposed changes to the 
Program in the following three areas:
     Unanticipated school closures. The proposed rule set forth 
criteria for participation of sponsors and sites in the SFSP during 
periods of unanticipated (i.e., emergency) school closures during the 
months of October through April, and included language from Pub. L. 
103-448 on the types of situations that qualify;
     Paperwork reduction. The proposed rule removed unnecessary 
and duplicative sponsor and site application requirements for 
experienced sponsors and sites; and,
     Targeted State agency monitoring. The proposed rule 
revised State agency monitoring requirements to better target efforts 
to new and large sponsors, and those sponsors who have operational 
deficiencies or experience significant staff turnover from one year to 
the next.
    The proposed rule had a sixty day public comment period which ended 
on December 14, 1998. During this time, we received a total of 17 
comments. Of these, 13 were from State agencies, 2 were from SFSP 
sponsors (both of which were local school districts), and 2 were from 
community organizations. In general, commenters were supportive of the 
proposed rule. Every commenter addressed the area of ``paperwork 
reduction'' in some capacity, and primarily viewed the changes as 
positive with only minor modifications needed. The final rule is being 
published based on these comments.

A. Unanticipated School Closures

General Discussion

    Since the beginning of the SFSP, there have been times when a 
single school or an entire school system did not open as scheduled at 
the end of the summer (e.g., in the case of a teacher strike). Prior to 
1994, the NSLA prohibited the SFSP to operate during the months of 
October through April unless the school was in session on a year-round 
or continuous school calendar basis. Since the National School Lunch 
and Breakfast Programs may only operate when school is in session, many 
children were denied a nutritious meal when the schools were closed in 
these emergency situations.
    In response to these circumstances, the President signed into law 
the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994. Section 114(c) of 
this law amended section 13(c)(1) of the NSLA to allow SFSP meals to be 
served at ``non-school sites to children who are not in school for a 
period during the months of October through April due to a natural 
disaster, building repair, court order or similar cause''.

Proposed Rule Provisions

    In addition to setting forth the circumstances warranting 
implementation, the October 13, 1998, proposed rule detailed how 
existing requirements for SFSP participation would be applied when the 
Program operates during unanticipated school closures. Specifically, 
the proposed rule:
     Listed circumstances under which SFSP sponsors and sites 
are eligible to participate in the Program during unanticipated school 
closures. These circumstances included natural disaster, major building 
repairs, court orders relating to school safety or other issues, labor-
management disputes, and similar causes as approved by the State 
agency;
     In accordance with the explicit language of the law, 
permitted only non-school sites to be eligible feeding sites in these 
situations, although school food authorities would be eligible as 
sponsors;
     Waived eligibility documentation for sites that had 
previously participated in the SFSP in the current year or prior two 
calendar years; documentation of site eligibility was still required 
for all other sites;
     Streamlined the application process for sponsors which had 
successfully participated in the Program in the current year or either 
of the two prior calendar years;
     Required that all sponsors participating during 
unanticipated school closures enter into agreements with the State 
agency to operate the Program; and
     Provided State agencies discretion in conducting pre-
approval visits of sponsors operating the Program during unanticipated 
school closures, but maintained the requirement that sponsors visit all 
of their feeding sites prior to Program operations.

Comments Received and Final Rule Provisions

Non-School Sites

    Six commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule did not 
allow school sites to participate in the SFSP during unanticipated 
school closures. In general, respondents believe that schools are 
accessible to the community at large and, a uniform prohibition on 
using those sites as feeding sites during all emergency situations 
might deny eligible children SFSP meals when they most need them.
    Although we agree that school buildings are sometimes the most 
capable and logical feeding sites (e.g., during a natural disaster), 
Pub. L. 103-448 explicitly excludes school sites from participating in 
these situations. Therefore, this final rule retains the provision as 
set forth in the proposed rule. We recommend that local areas that 
encounter unanticipated school closures in which a school feeding site 
is the only viable option, should contact their State agency to find 
acceptable alternatives, or to explore the possibility of requesting a 
waiver of this provision from the Department under section 12(l) of the 
NSLA (42 U.S.C. 1760(l)). We will consider these requests on a case-by-
case basis. We do not anticipate granting waivers in situations of 
unanticipated school closures involving labor-management disputes at 
school sites unless the safety of the children being fed at the site 
can be insured. Under this rule, school food authorities that meet the 
sponsor eligibility requirements may serve as sponsors during 
unanticipated school closures.

Sponsor Applications

    We received one comment expressing concern about allowing 
experienced sponsors to participate in the Program without a current 
year application. The commenter indicated that sponsor information can 
change significantly from year to year, and recommended that we retain 
the application requirements found in the current regulations. State 
agencies that have concerns about the accuracy of the information they 
already have on file can choose to require that sponsors complete a new 
application in these circumstances. However, we believe the need to 
begin program operations quickly in these situations usually outweighs 
the need for collecting new application information from sponsors who 
have participated in the Program within the last three years. 
Accordingly, this final rule retains the streamlined application 
provision for experienced sponsors seeking to operate the Program

[[Page 72891]]

during unanticipated school closures. This provision is set forth in 
Sec. Sec. 225.6(c)(1) and 225.14(a) of this final rule.

Year-Round Sites

    One commenter expressed concern that the provisions for 
unanticipated school closures do not include year-round, or continuous 
school calendar, SFSP sponsors. The commenter was concerned that the 
type of unanticipated school closures discussed in Pub. L. 103-448 and 
the proposed rule could occur at any time of the year, not just during 
October through April. We agree with the commenter, and do not believe 
the law intended to exclude sponsors in year-round school communities 
from being able to provide SFSP meal service during unanticipated 
school closures.
    Accordingly, this final rule adds language clarifying that the 
unanticipated school closure provisions of the regulations apply to 
areas operating under a continuous school calendar system. In these 
areas, this authority is not restricted to closures that occur during 
the months of October through April, but rather is available at any 
time of the year. These revisions appear in this final rule in 
Sec. Sec. 225.6(b)(1); 225.6(b)(4); 225.6(c)(1); 225.6(c)(2)(i)(G); 
225.6(c)(3)(i)(B); 225.7(a); 225.7(d)(1)(i); 225.14(a); and 
225.15(d)(1).

Other Provisions/Clarifying Language

    We received a few comments pertaining to the meaning of ``current 
year or prior two calendar years'' in describing those sponsors who are 
exempt from application and other requirements during unanticipated 
school closures. One commenter suggested an editorial change to be more 
specific with our intent of prior participation in the Program at any 
time within three years. Therefore, we are amending the language of the 
final rule to read ``current year or in either of the prior two 
calendar years.'' These changes are contained in Secs. 225.6(b)(4); 
225.6(c)(1); 225.6(c)(2)(i)(G); 225.6(c)(3)(i)(B); and 225.14(a) of 
this final rule.
    We received no comments on the remaining provisions of the proposed 
rule on operation of the SFSP during unanticipated school closures. 
Accordingly, this final rule retains these provisions as set forth in 
the proposed rule. These provisions are contained in this final rule at 
Secs. 225.6(c)(2)(i)(G) and 225.6(c)(3)(i)(B) (documentation of site 
eligibility); Sec. 225.7(d)(1)(i) (pre-approval visits by State 
agencies); and Sec. Sec. 225.7(a) and 225.15(d) (training by State 
agencies and sponsors).

B. Paperwork Reduction

Proposed Rule Provisions

    The proposed rule took the minimum application requirements for 
SFSP sponsors and sites found in current Sec. 225.6(c)(2) and 
reorganized and substantially revised them. The proposed rule 
established separate minimum requirements for: (1) New sponsors and 
sites, and those with significant operational problems in the prior 
year; and (2) experienced sponsors and sites. In the proposed rule, 
paragraph (c)(2) contained the requirements for new sponsors/sites and 
sponsors/sites with significant operational problems, and paragraph 
(c)(3) contained the requirements for experienced sponsors/sites. The 
application requirements were grouped and discussed in the preamble to 
the proposed rule as general requirements that apply to all types of 
sponsors and sites and requirements that are specific to certain types 
of sites, such as open sites, enrolled sites, migrant sites, and 
homeless sites.
    In light of this new structure, and to help clarify application 
requirements for sponsors and sites with varying degrees of experience 
and/or success in operating the Program, new definitions were included 
in the proposed rule in Sec. 225.2 for ``new sponsor,'' ``new site,'' 
``experienced sponsor,'' and ``experienced site.'' The proposed rule 
eliminated duplicative and unnecessary requirements for experienced 
sponsors, with the intent of reducing the paperwork associated with the 
application process for these sponsors.
    The proposed rule also contained new definitions of ``open site,'' 
``closed enrolled site,'' and ``open enrolled site.'' These definitions 
were used in setting forth the application requirements, and included 
in the rule to clarify how each type of Program site demonstrates 
eligibility.

Comments Received and Final Rule Provisions

    We received a total of 17 comments in the area of Paperwork 
Reduction. In general, commenters were supportive of the changes to the 
Program outlined in the proposed rule with only minor modifications 
needed. The concerns of commenters and a discussion of these concerns 
are provided below.

General Comments

    A few commenters expressed concern that paperwork is not reduced 
under the proposed rule, but rather increased as State agencies will 
need to keep separate records for experienced and new sponsors. In 
addition, several commenters expressed concern that the integrity of 
SFSP may be compromised if we do not require all information currently 
required of SFSP sponsors on an annual basis, as information can change 
significantly from year to year for experienced sponsors.
    In response to these comments, we do not anticipate an increase in 
administrative burden once the changes are implemented. As with any new 
system, it may take additional time to create a system that 
appropriately determines and tracks new sponsors, sponsors with 
significant operational problems, and experienced sponsors. However, 
there is flexibility in how a State agency implements these provisions. 
As we indicated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the requirements 
set forth in the regulations are minimum requirements. State agencies 
may include other provisions in their applications as long as they do 
not establish additional requirements for SFSP participation.

State Agency Classification of Sponsors

    We also received several comments in the area of State agency 
classification of sponsors. Commenters suggested that we provide State 
agencies with guidelines for categorizing sponsors as having 
significant staff turnover or significant operational problems. We do 
not believe it is necessary nor prudent to include specific guidelines 
for making sponsor classifications in the final rule. We prefer to 
leave this discretion to State agencies to make assessments on a case-
by-case basis. In making these classifications, State agencies should 
consider the deficiencies, if any, noted in monitoring visits, reports 
that have been received about the sponsor or any of its sites, and 
whether staff in key positions have changed.
    Commenters also indicated that sponsors who experience significant 
operational problems should be required to attend more training or 
should be monitored more frequently by the State agency, not merely be 
required to submit more paperwork or information to the State agency. 
We believe providing additional training and monitoring for sponsors 
with operational problems is important, and encourage State agencies to 
do so. However, we also believe there is value in having these sponsors 
fully document their plans for administering the Program through the 
application process. This documentation helps ensure that they have a 
thorough understanding of Program requirements and responsibilities.

[[Page 72892]]

Definitions

    One commenter recommended including in the definition of 
experienced sponsor, a requirement that the sponsor had to have 
successfully completed an application to participate in the Program in 
the prior year. We do not believe this change is necessary. We believe 
the fact that a sponsor is experienced clearly implies that the 
organization must have successfully completed an application. 
Therefore, we are not including the commenter's recommendation in the 
final rule.
    Another commenter proposed eliminating the word ``successful'' from 
``successful participation'' as a criterion to be classified as an 
experienced sponsor. We agree that the term ``successful'' is a 
subjective term. However, we believe it conveys the appropriate 
meaning. Therefore, we are retaining it in the definition of 
experienced sponsor in Sec. 225.2 of the final rule.
    We received one comment requesting that the reference to using data 
``from other appropriate sources'' found in paragraph (a)(3) of the 
definition of ``areas in which poor economic conditions exist'' in 
Sec. 225.2 needs to be better defined. As mentioned in the proposed 
rule, to determine if a site is located in a low-income area, State 
agencies should first consult school data to determine if the site 
meets the criteria that 50 percent or more of children are eligible for 
free or reduced-price meals. Census data may be used to determine site 
eligibility in certain circumstances where it is more representative of 
an area's socioeconomic status than school data. If neither school nor 
census data indicates that a site is area eligible but ``other'' data 
sources do, State agencies must consult with FNS to assess the 
appropriateness of that data as an indicator of an area's socioeconomic 
status. Though it is used rarely, for these unique situations, we 
believe it is important to retain the language ``from other appropriate 
sources'' in the final rule as it provides some flexibility in 
determining if a source provides substantial evidence of being a low-
income area.
    We received several comments on the proposed rule's definitions of 
``open site,'' ``closed enrolled site,'' and ``open enrolled site.'' 
Commenters were concerned that the terminology would lead to confusion 
regarding the required documentation of eligibility for the different 
types of sites, especially in the case of the term ``open enrolled 
site.''
    The proposed rule defined an ``open site'' as ``a site at which 
meals are made available to all children in the area and which is 
located in an area in which at least 50 percent of the children are 
from households that would be eligible for free or reduced price school 
meals under the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast 
Program, as determined in accordance with paragraph (a) of the 
definition of Areas in which poor economic conditions exist.'' Open 
sites document their eligibility on the basis of area data showing that 
at least 50 percent of the children from the area are from households 
with incomes at or below 185 percent of poverty.
    An ``open enrolled site'' was defined as ``an enrolled site which 
is initially open to broad community participation, but at which the 
sponsor limits attendance for reasons of security, safety, or control. 
Site eligibility for an open enrolled site shall be documented in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of the definition of Areas in which poor 
economic conditions exist.'' For an open enrolled site, site 
eligibility is documented using area eligibility information, the same 
way that eligibility is documented for an open site.
    The proposed rule defined a closed enrolled site as ``a site which 
is open only to enrolled children, as opposed to the community at 
large, and in which at least 50 percent of the enrolled children at the 
site are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals under the 
National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program, as 
determined by approval of applications in accordance with 
Sec. 225.15(f) of this part.'' Thus, in contrast to open and open 
enrolled sites, a closed enrolled site documents its eligibility on the 
basis of applications from individual children that are enrolled at the 
site.
    We agree with commenters that the term ``open enrolled site'' could 
lead a reader to believe that the site's eligibility is linked to the 
income eligibility of individual children rather than the overall 
socioeconomic status of the area. Based on comments, we are changing 
the term ``open enrolled site'' in this final rule to ``restricted open 
site.'' (The wording of the definition remains the same.) We believe 
``restricted open site'' more accurately conveys the way that these 
sites must document eligibility. The definitions of ``open site,'' 
``closed enrolled site,'' and ``restricted open site'' are in 
Sec. 225.2 of this final rule.

Site Eligibility Documentation

    One commenter recommended allowing eligibility documentation for 
open and open enrolled (now ``restricted open'') sites to be collected 
every five years, instead of the three years set forth in the proposed 
rule, because a site's economic status does not change significantly in 
a five year time period. We agree that, in most cases, an area's 
overall economic status does not change rapidly. However, we are 
retaining the three year cycle for determining a site as area eligible 
when school data is used in Sec. 225.6(c)(3)(i)(B), as we believe this 
timeframe provides the appropriate balance between paperwork reduction 
and Program accountability.

Homeless Feeding Sites

    The requirements for new sponsors and sponsors with significant 
operational problems applying to participate in the Program at homeless 
feeding sites were contained in Sec. 225.6(c)(2)(i)(L) of the proposed 
rule. We did not receive any comments on the provisions relating to 
homeless feeding sites. However, minor changes have been made to the 
requirements for homeless feeding sites, since these sites are no 
longer eligible to participate in SFSP solely on the basis of being 
homeless sites. Section 107(j)(2)(A) of the Child Nutrition 
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-336) amended Section 
13(a)(3)(C) of the NSLA (42 U.S.C. 1761 (a)(3)(C)) to remove the 
special eligibility provisions for homeless feeding sites in SFSP, and 
authorized their participation in the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program, effective July 1, 1999. To continue to participate in SFSP, 
homeless sites must qualify as open or enrolled sites. Therefore, this 
final rule removes the requirement in proposed Sec. 225.6(c)(2)(i)(L) 
that site information sheets for homeless sites contain certification 
that the site's primary purpose is to provide shelter and one or more 
meal services per day to homeless families, since this information is 
no longer necessary in determining a homeless site's eligibility to 
participate in SFSP.

Budgets

    One commenter stated that experienced sponsors should not be 
required to continue to submit administrative budgets to the State 
agency, as these budgets are not an accurate indicator of what a 
sponsor needs to financially administer the Program because sponsors 
tend to add and drop sites during the course of the year. The commenter 
also stated that experienced sponsors usually have a good understanding 
of the ``lesser of cost versus rate'' concept and can effectively use 
this to project their finances for the Program. According to

[[Page 72893]]

the April 14, 1994, FNS instruction, 796-4, Revision 4, the ``lesser of 
cost versus rate'' concept means payments made to SFSP sponsors for 
their operating costs should equal the lesser of: (1) the actual 
operating costs incurred by the sponsor, or (2) the sum of the amounts 
derived by multiplying the number of meals, by type, that are served to 
participating children at the current reimbursement rates. This concept 
is also outlined in Sec. 225.9(d)(6)(i) and (ii) of the SFSP 
regulations.
    As mentioned in the proposed rule, updating and submitting 
administrative and operating budgets to the State agency is an 
important process as it ensures that Federal funds are properly spent. 
Additionally, this process helps sponsors determine whether their 
planned expenditures will be adequately funded under the SFSP's 
``lesser of costs versus rates'' funding formula. We continue to 
believe this is important information to be submitted on an annual 
basis to the State agency. Therefore, we are retaining the requirement 
for experienced sponsors in Sec. 225.6(c)(3)(ii)(B). (The requirement 
is found in Sec. 225.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) of this final rule for new sponsors 
and sponsors with significant operational problems.)

Other Comments/Summary of Provisions

    We did not receive any comments on the remaining provisions of the 
proposed rule on sponsor and site application requirements. The 
following chart outlines the sponsor and site application requirements 
for new sponsors/sponsors with significant operational problems, and 
for experienced sponsors. Changes based on public comments received, as 
discussed above, have been incorporated in the final rule.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  New sponsors/
                                    sites and
                                  sponsors/sites   Experienced sponsors/
          Requirement            with significant          sites
                                   operational
                                     problems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Information Sheet:
    Organized and supervised    Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  N/A.
     system for serving meals    (i)(A).
     to children.
    Estimated number and types  Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  Sec.  225.6(c)(3)(i)(
     of meals to be served and   (i)(B).            A).
     times of service.
    Arrangements for delivery   Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  N/A.
     and holding of meals and    (i)(C).
     storing leftovers for
     next day meal service.
    Arrangements for food       Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  N/A.
     service during periods of   (i)(D).
     inclement weather.
    Access to means of          Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  N/A.
     communication for making    (i)(E).
     necessary adjustments for
     number of meals to be
     served at each site.
    Whether the site is rural   Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  N/A.
     or non-rural and whether    (i)(F).
     the site's food service
     will be self-prepared or
     vended.
Open sites and restricted open  Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  Sec.  225.6(c)(3)(i)(
 sites: documentation            (i)(G).            B). Documentation
 supporting area eligibility                        must be submitted
 determination.                                     every three years if
                                                    school data is used,
                                                    or earlier if
                                                    requested by the
                                                    State agency. If
                                                    census data is used,
                                                    documentation must
                                                    be submitted when
                                                    new census data
                                                    becomes available.
Closed enrolled sites: the      Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  Sec.  225.6(c)(3)(i)(
 projected number of children    (i)(H).            C).
 enrolled and projected number
 of children eligible for f/rp
 meals for each site.
NYSP sites: certification from  Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  N/A.
 sponsor that all children who   (i)(I).
 will receive SFSP meals are
 enrolled participants in NYSP.
Camps: number of children       Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  Sec.  225.6(c)(3)(i)(
 enrolled in each session who    (i)(J).            D).
 meet Program income standards.
Migrant sites: certification    Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  N/A.
 from migrant organization       (i)(K).
 that site serves children of
 migrant worker families. If
 site also serves non-migrant
 children, sponsor must
 certify that the site
 primarily serves migrant
 children.
Homeless feeding sites:         Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  N/A.
 information that demonstrates   (i)(L).
 that site is not a
 residential child care
 institution; description of
 method used to ensure that no
 cash payments or other in-
 kind services are used for
 meal service; certification
 that site only claims meals
 served to children.
Other Application
 Requirements:
    Information that            Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  Sec.  225.6(c)(3)(ii)
     demonstrates that           (ii)(A).           (A).
     applicant meets
     requirements in Sec.
     225.14; extent of Program
     payments needed including
     advance and start-up
     payments (if applicable);
     staffing and monitoring
     plan.
    Complete administrative     Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  Sec.  225.6(c)(3)(ii)
     and operating budget        (ii)(B).           (B).
     which includes projected
     administrative expenses
     and information of how
     sponsor will operate the
     Program within estimated
     reimbursement.

[[Page 72894]]

 
    Summary of how meals will   Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  Sec.  225.6(c)(3)(ii)
     be obtained; if             (ii)(C).           (C). If IFB is
     invitation for bid is                          required, sponsors
     required, sponsors must                        must submit schedule
     submit a schedule for bid                      for bid dates and
     dates and a copy of their                      copy of IFB if a
     IFB.                                           change has occurred
                                                    from previous year.
                                                    If method for
                                                    procuring meals has
                                                    changed from
                                                    previous year,
                                                    sponsors must submit
                                                    a summary of how
                                                    meals will be
                                                    obtained.
    For sponsors seeking        Sec.  225.6(c)(2)  N/A.
     approval as unit of         (ii)(D).
     local, municipal, county
     or State government,
     certification that it
     will directly operate the
     Program in accordance
     with Sec.  225.14(d)(3).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Targeted State Monitoring

General Discussion

    State agency monitoring of SFSP sponsors and sites is critically 
important as it serves as a tool for effective Program management and 
ensures that quality meals are being served to eligible children. 
However, we believe that the current State agency monitoring 
requirements do not always allow State agencies enough flexibility to 
determine where to focus their monitoring resources. Provisions in the 
proposed rule allowed State agencies to target their review efforts to 
new sponsors and those sponsors determined by the State agency to need 
follow-up monitoring. In response to public comments, this final rule 
revises some of the monitoring requirements contained in the proposed 
rule to allow State agencies to more effectively focus their monitoring 
efforts on those sponsors/sites which are new, operationally deficient, 
or demonstrate the greatest potential to be deficient in their 
operations.

Proposed Rule Provisions

Pre-approval Visits

    The proposed rule retained the current provisions, found in 
Sec. 225.7(d)(1)(i) and (ii), for State agencies to conduct pre-
approval visits of sponsors. These provisions require State agencies 
to:
     Conduct pre-approval visits for all applicant sponsors 
which did not participate in the Program in the prior year;
     Conduct optional pre-approval visits for new applicant 
school food authority sponsors which have been reviewed by the State 
agency under the NSLP during the preceding 12 months and had no 
significant deficiencies; and
     Conduct pre-approval visits for sponsors identified by the 
State agency as needing pre-operational visits as a result of 
operational problems in the prior year.
    The proposed rule removed the specific requirements for State 
agencies to conduct pre-approval visits for certain large sites and 
sites operated by private nonprofit sponsors, and made all State agency 
pre-approval visits to sites discretionary. This provision was 
contained in Sec. 225.7(d)(1)(iii) of the proposed rule.

Sponsor and Site Reviews

    The proposed rule required that, at any time during the Program 
year, State agencies were required to conduct annual reviews of sponsor 
operations and review at least 10 percent of the sponsor's sites or one 
site, whichever number was greater, for:
     Every new sponsor at least once during its first year of 
operation;
     Every sponsor which, in the determination of the State 
agency, experienced significant problems in the prior year; and
     Every sponsor with 20 or more sites.
    Under the proposed rule, all sponsors were to be reviewed at least 
once every 3 years. In addition, sponsors with large sites, larger 
numbers of sites, or significant operational problems in the prior year 
were required to be reviewed earlier. The recommendation was also made 
that State agencies prioritize their review efforts to target all other 
sponsors which increase their total number of sites by five or more, or 
whose participation increased substantially, from one year to the next.
    Finally, the proposed rule eliminated the special requirements for 
State agency review of private nonprofit organizations found in 
Sec. 225.7(d)(2)(i)(A), and removed the review requirement for 
academic-year NYSP sites, since the NSLA no longer authorizes these 
sites to participate in SFSP.
    As indicated in the preamble of the proposed rule, the proposed 
changes were not intended to result in a reduction in a State agency's 
monitoring efforts. Rather, it was intended that the State agency's 
monitoring resources would become more targeted to reviews of new 
sponsors and sponsors of over 20 sites, and other sponsors that the 
State agency identifies, and that a correspondingly greater amount of 
State agency time and effort could be spent in conducting such reviews. 
We expected each State's level of resources devoted to SFSP monitoring 
to remain the same.

Comments Received and Final Rule Provisions

    We received 3 comments pertaining to sponsor and site reviews. One 
commenter suggested removing the reference to having State agencies 
target sponsors that have increased their sites by 5 or more, 
indicating that recommendations such as this are better placed in 
guidance material. Two commenters expressed concern that the net result 
of the proposed monitoring requirements could result in significant 
reductions in the monitoring efforts put forth by State agencies.
    As a result of these comments, we are revising the State agency 
monitoring requirements in this final rule. We are removing the 
proposed requirements that the State agency annually review every 
sponsor with 20 or more sites, and that State agencies prioritize their 
review efforts to target all other sponsors which increase their total 
number of sites by five or more, or whose participation increases 
substantially, from one year to the next.
    Instead, State agencies will be required to annually review a 
number of sponsors whose Program reimbursements, in the aggregate, 
accounted for at least one-half of the total Program meal 
reimbursements in the State in the prior year. We believe that the 
three-year review cycle, coupled with the elimination of the current 
detailed and prescriptive review requirements, will provide State 
agencies the flexibility they need to properly oversee Program 
operations. The requirement to annually review sponsors with claims 
totaling one-half of Program reimbursements in the prior year ensure 
that State agencies focus on the largest sponsors. To improve Program 
management, we are

[[Page 72895]]

considering similar changes in the State agency monitoring requirements 
for the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
    Accordingly, under this final rule, State agencies are required to 
conduct annual reviews of sponsor operations and review at least 10 
percent of the sponsor's sites or one site, whichever number is 
greater, for:
     Every new sponsor at least once during its first year of 
operation;
     Every sponsor which, in the determination of the State 
agency, experienced significant problems in the prior year; and
     A number of sponsors whose Program reimbursements, in the 
aggregate, accounted for at least one-half of the total Program meal 
reimbursements in the State in the prior year.
    In addition, State agencies must review every sponsor at least once 
every 3 years. Sponsors with large numbers of sites, or a site(s) with 
a large number of children attending, should be reviewed earlier. These 
provisions are contained in Sec. 225.7(d)(2) of this final rule.

D. Procedural Matters

Executive Order 12866

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866, and therefore has not been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget.

Public Law 104-4

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, requires 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 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 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 rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and tribal 
governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 12372

    The Summer Food Service Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance under No. 10.559. For the reasons set forth in the 
final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and related notices (48 FR 
29114 and 49 FR 2276), this program is included in the scope of 
Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation 
with State and local officials.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This final rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Samuel 
Chambers, Jr., Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), 
has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Simplifying and 
streamlining the administration of the SFSP is the intended effect of 
this rule when implemented.

Executive Order 12988

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect 
with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which 
conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full 
implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect 
unless so specified in the ``Dates'' section of the preamble of the 
rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or 
the applications of its provisions, all applicable administrative 
procedures must be exhausted. This includes any administrative 
procedures available through State or local governments. SFSP 
administrative procedures are set forth at: (1) 7 CFR 225.13, which 
outlines appeals procedures for use by a sponsor or a food service 
management company; and (2) 7 CFR 225.17 and 7 CFR part 3015, which 
address administrative appeal procedures for disputes involving 
procurement by State agencies and sponsors.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule seeks to reduce the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for State agencies administering the SFSP. In accordance 
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the reporting 
requirements included in this final rule were reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). OMB approved these requirements for 7 CFR 
Part 225 under OMB number 0584-0280.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 225

    Food and Nutrition Service, Food assistance programs, Grant 
programs-health, Infants and children, Labeling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 7 CFR part 225 is amended as follows:

PART 225--SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 9, 13 and 14, National School Lunch Act, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761, and 1762a).

    2. In Sec. 225.2:
    a. New definitions of Closed enrolled site, Experienced site, 
Experienced sponsor, New site, New sponsor, Open site, and Restricted 
open site are added in alphabetical order; and
    b. The definition of Areas in which poor economic conditions exist 
is revised. The additions and revision read as follows:


Sec. 225.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Areas in which poor economic conditions exist means:
    (a) The local areas from which an open site and restricted open 
site draw their attendance in which at least 50 percent of the children 
are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals under the National 
School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program, as determined:
    (1) By information provided from departments of welfare and 
education, zoning commissions, census tracts, and organizations 
determined by the State agency to be migrant organizations;
    (2) By the number of free and reduced-price lunches or breakfasts 
served to children attending public and nonprofit private schools 
located in the areas of Program sites; or
    (3) From other appropriate sources; or
    (b) A closed enrolled site.
* * * * *
    Closed enrolled site means a site which is open only to enrolled 
children, as opposed to the community at large, and in which at least 
50 percent of the enrolled children at the site are eligible for free 
or reduced price school meals under the National School Lunch Program 
and the School Breakfast Program, as determined by approval of 
applications in accordance with Sec. 225.15(f).
* * * * *

[[Page 72896]]

    Experienced site means a site which, as determined by the State 
agency, has successfully participated in the Program in the prior year.
    Experienced sponsor means a sponsor which, as determined by the 
State agency, has successfully participated in the Program in the prior 
year.
* * * * *
    New site means a site which did not participate in the Program in 
the prior year, or, as determined by the State agency, a site which has 
experienced significant staff turnover from the prior year.
    New sponsor means a sponsor which did not participate in the 
Program in the prior year, or, as determined by the State agency, a 
sponsor which has experienced significant staff turnover from the prior 
year.
* * * * *
    Open site means a site at which meals are made available to all 
children in the area and which is located in an area in which at least 
50 percent of the children are from households that would be eligible 
for free or reduced price school meals under the National School Lunch 
Program and the School Breakfast Program, as determined in accordance 
with paragraph (a) of the definition of Areas in which poor economic 
conditions exist.
* * * * *
    Restricted open site means a site which is initially open to broad 
community participation, but at which the sponsor restricts or limits 
attendance for reasons of security, safety or control. Site eligibility 
for a restricted open site shall be documented in accordance with 
paragraph (a) of the definition of Areas in which poor economic 
conditions exist.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 225.6:
    a. Paragraph (b)(1) is amended by adding a new sentence at the end;
    b. Paragraph (b)(4) is revised;
    c. Paragraph (c)(1) is revised;
    d. Paragraph (c)(2) is revised;
    e. Paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) are redesignated as paragraphs 
(c)(4) and (c)(5), respectively, and a new paragraph (c)(3) is added;
    f. Newly redesignated paragraph (c)(4) is amended by adding a 
heading and by removing paragraph (c)(4) introductory text and adding 
it as the first sentence in newly redesignated paragraph (c)(4)(i); the 
paragraph is further amended by removing the reference to ``(c)(4)'' in 
paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(D) and adding in its place a reference to 
``(c)(5)''.
    g. Newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5) is amended by adding a 
heading;
    h. Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) is amended by removing the word ``and'' at 
the end of the paragraph;
    i. Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is amended by removing the period at the 
end of the paragraph and adding in its place the word ``; and'';
    j. A new paragraph (d)(1)(iv) is added; and
    k. Paragraph (e)(1) is revised.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec. 225.6  State agency responsibilities.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * Sponsors applying for participation in the Program due to 
an unanticipated school closure during the period from October through 
April (or at any time of the year in an area with a continuous school 
calendar) shall be exempt from the application submission deadline.
* * * * *
    (4) The State agency shall determine the eligibility of sponsors 
applying for participation in the Program in accordance with the 
applicant sponsor eligibility criteria outlined in Sec. 225.14. 
However, State agencies may approve the application of an otherwise 
eligible applicant sponsor which does not provide a year-round service 
to the community which it proposes to serve under the Program only if 
it meets one or more of the following criteria: It is a residential 
camp; it proposes to provide a food service for the children of migrant 
workers; a failure to do so would deny the Program to an area in which 
poor economic conditions exist; a significant number of needy children 
will not otherwise have reasonable access to the Program; or it 
proposes to serve an area affected by an unanticipated school closure 
during the period from October through April (or at any time of the 
year in an area with a continuous school calendar). In addition, the 
State agency may approve a sponsor for participation during an 
unanticipated school closure without a prior application if the sponsor 
participated in the program at any time during the current year or in 
either of the prior two calendar years.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Application forms. The applicant shall submit a written 
application to the State agency for participation in the Program as a 
sponsor. Sponsors proposing to serve an area affected by an 
unanticipated school closure during the period from October through 
April (or at any time of the year in an area with a continuous school 
calendar) may be exempt, at the discretion of the State agency, from 
submitting a new application if they have participated in the program 
at any time during the current year or in either of the prior two 
calendar years. The State agency may use the application form developed 
by FNS, or it may develop an application form, for use in the Program. 
Application shall be made on a timely basis in accordance with the 
deadline date established under Sec. 225.6(b)(1).
    (2) Requirements for new sponsors, new sites, and, as determined by 
the State agency, sponsors and sites which have experienced significant 
operational problems in the prior year.--(i) Site information sheets. 
At a minimum, the application submitted by new sponsors and by sponsors 
which, in the determination of the State agency, have experienced 
significant operational problems in the prior year shall include a site 
information sheet, as developed by the State agency, for each site 
where a food service operation is proposed. The site information sheet 
for new sponsors and new sites, and for sponsors and sites which, in 
the determination of the State agency, have experienced significant 
operational problems in the current year must demonstrate or describe 
the following:
    (A) An organized and supervised system for serving meals to 
attending children;
    (B) The estimated number and types of meals to be served and the 
times of service;
    (C) Arrangements, within standards prescribed by the State or local 
health authorities, for delivery and holding of meals until time of 
service, and arrangements for storing and refrigerating any leftover 
meals until the next day;
    (D) Arrangements for food service during periods of inclement 
weather;
    (E) Access to a means of communication for making necessary 
adjustments in the number of meals delivered in accordance with the 
number of children attending daily at each site;
    (F) Whether the site is rural, as defined in Sec. 225.2, or non-
rural, and whether the site's food service will be self-prepared or 
vended;
    (G) For open sites and restricted open sites, documentation 
supporting the eligibility of each site as serving an area in which 
poor economic conditions exist. However, for sites that a sponsor 
proposes to serve during an unanticipated school closure during the 
period from October through April (or at any time of the year in an 
area with a continuous school calendar), any site which has 
participated in the Program

[[Page 72897]]

at any time during the current year or in either of the prior two 
calendar years shall be considered eligible without new documentation;
    (H) For closed enrolled sites, the projected number of children 
enrolled and the projected number of children eligible for free and 
reduced price meals for each of these sites;
    (I) For NYSP sites, certification from the sponsor that all of the 
children who will receive Program meals are enrolled participants in 
the NYSP;
    (J) For camps, the number of children enrolled in each session who 
meet the Program's income standards. If such information is not 
available at the time of application, it shall be submitted as soon as 
possible thereafter and in no case later than the filing of the camp's 
claim for reimbursement for each session;
    (K) For those sites at which applicants will serve children of 
migrant workers, certification from a migrant organization which 
attests that the site serves children of migrant worker families. If 
the site also serves non-migrant children, the sponsor shall certify 
that the site predominantly serves migrant children; and
    (L) For a site that serves homeless children, information 
sufficient to demonstrate that the site is not a residential child care 
institution, as defined in paragraph (c) of the definition of school in 
Sec. 210.2 of this chapter. If cash payments, food stamps, or any in-
kind service are required of any meal recipient at these sites, 
sponsors must describe the method(s) used to ensure that no such 
payments or services are received for any Program meal served to 
children. In addition, sponsors must certify that such sites employ 
meal counting methods which ensure that reimbursement is claimed only 
for meals served to children.
    (ii) Other application requirements. New sponsors and sponsors 
which in the determination of the State agency have experienced 
significant operational problems in the prior year shall also include 
in their applications:
    (A) Information in sufficient detail to enable the State agency to 
determine whether the applicant meets the criteria for participation in 
the Program as set forth in Sec. 225.14; the extent of Program payments 
needed, including a request for advance payments and start-up payments, 
if applicable; and a staffing and monitoring plan;
    (B) A complete administrative and operating budget for State agency 
review and approval. The administrative budget shall contain the 
projected administrative expenses which a sponsor expects to incur 
during the operation of the Program, and shall include information in 
sufficient detail to enable the State agency to assess the sponsor's 
ability to operate the Program within its estimated reimbursement. A 
sponsor's approved administrative budget shall be subject to subsequent 
review by the State agency for adjustments in projected administrative 
costs;
    (C) A summary of how meals will be obtained (e.g., self-prepared at 
each site, self-prepared and distributed from a central kitchen, 
purchased from a school food authority, competitively procured from a 
food service management company, etc.). If an invitation for bid is 
required under Sec. 225.15(g), sponsors shall also submit a schedule 
for bid dates, and a copy of their invitation for bid; and
    (D) For each applicant which seeks approval under Sec. 225.14(b)(3) 
as a unit of local, municipal, county or State government, or under 
Sec. 225.14(b)(5) as a private nonprofit organization, certification 
that it will directly operate the Program in accordance with 
Sec. 225.14(d)(3).
    (3) Requirements for experienced sponsors and experienced sites.--
(i) Site information sheets. At a minimum, the application submitted by 
experienced sponsors shall include a site information sheet, as 
developed by the State agency, for each site where a food service 
operation is proposed. The site information sheet for experienced 
sponsors and experienced sites must demonstrate or describe the 
information below. The State agency also may require experienced 
sponsors and experienced sites to provide any of the information 
required in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (A) The estimated number and types of meals to be served and the 
times of service;
    (B) For open sites and restricted open sites, new documentation 
supporting the eligibility of each site as serving an area in which 
poor economic conditions exist shall be submitted. Such documentation 
shall be submitted every three years when school data are used. When 
census data are used, such documentation shall be submitted when new 
census data are available, or earlier if the State agency believes that 
an area's socioeconomic status has changed significantly since the last 
census. For sites that a sponsor proposes to serve during an 
unanticipated school closure during the period from October through 
April (or at any time of the year in an area with a continuous school 
calendar), any site which has participated in the Program at any time 
during the current year or in either of the prior two calendar years 
shall be considered eligible without new documentation of serving an 
area in which poor economic conditions exist;
    (C) For closed enrolled sites, the projected number of children 
enrolled and the projected number of children eligible for free and 
reduced price school meals for each of these sites; and
    (D) For camps, the number of children enrolled in each session who 
meet the Program's income standards. If such information is not 
available at the time of application, it shall be submitted as soon as 
possible thereafter and in no case later than the filing of the camp's 
claim for reimbursement for each session.
    (ii) Other application requirements. Experienced sponsors shall 
also include on their applications:
    (A) The extent of Program payments needed, including a request for 
advance payments and start-up payments, if applicable, and a staffing 
and monitoring plan;
    (B) A complete administrative and operating budget for State agency 
review and approval. The administrative budget shall contain the 
projected administrative expenses which a sponsor expects to incur 
during the operation of the Program, and shall include information in 
sufficient detail to enable the State agency to assess the sponsor's 
ability to operate the Program within its estimated reimbursement. A 
sponsor's approved administrative budget shall be subject to subsequent 
review by the State agency for adjustments in projected administrative 
costs; and
    (C) If an invitation for bid is required under Sec. 225.15(g), a 
schedule for bid dates. Sponsors shall also submit a copy of the 
invitation for bid if it is changed from the previous year. If the 
method of procuring meals is changed, sponsors shall submit a summary 
of how meals will be obtained (e.g., self-prepared at each site, self-
prepared and distributed from a central kitchen, purchased from a 
school food authority, competitively procured from a food service 
management company, etc.).
    (4) Free meal policy statement. * * *
* * * * *
    (5) Hearing procedures statement. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) If it is a site proposed to operate during an unanticipated 
school closure, it is a non-school site.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Operate a nonprofit food service during the period specified, 
as follows:

[[Page 72898]]

    (i) From May through September for children on school vacation;
    (ii) At any time of the year, in the case of sponsors administering 
the Program under a continuous school calendar system; or
    (iii) During the period from October through April, if it serves an 
area affected by an unanticipated school closure due to a natural 
disaster, major building repairs, court orders relating to school 
safety or other issues, labor-management disputes, or, when approved by 
the State agency, a similar cause.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec. 225.7:
    a. Paragraph (a) is amended by adding a new sentence at the end;
    b. Paragraph (d)(1)(i) is amended by removing the semicolon at the 
end of the paragraph, by adding a period in its place, and by adding a 
new sentence at the end of the paragraph;
    c. Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is revised;
    d. Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) is removed; and
    e. Paragraph (d)(2) is revised.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec. 225.7  Program monitoring and assistance.

    (a) * * * State agencies are not required to conduct this training 
for sponsors operating the Program during unanticipated school closures 
during the period from October through April (or at any time of the 
year in an area with a continuous school calendar).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * * In addition, pre-approval visits of sponsors proposing to 
operate the Program during unanticipated school closures during the 
period from October through April (or at any time of the year in an 
area with a continuous school calendar) may be conducted at the 
discretion of the State agency;
* * * * *
    (iii) All sites which the State agency has determined need a pre-
approval visit.
    (2) Sponsor and site reviews--(i) General. The State agency must 
review sponsors and sites to ensure compliance with Program 
regulations, the Department's non-discrimination regulations (7 CFR 
part 15) and any other applicable instructions issued by the 
Department. In determining which sponsors and sites to review, the 
State agency must, at a minimum, consider the sponsors' and sites' 
previous participation in the Program, their current and previous 
Program performance, and the results of previous reviews of the sponsor 
and sites. When the same school food authority personnel administer 
this Program as well as the National School Lunch Program (7 CFR part 
210), the State agency is not required to conduct a review of the 
Program in the same year in which the National School Lunch Program 
operations have been reviewed and determined to be satisfactory. 
Reviews shall be conducted as follows:
    (ii) Frequency and number of required reviews. State agencies 
shall:
    (A) Conduct a review of every new sponsor at least once during the 
first year of operation;
    (B) Annually review a number of sponsors whose program 
reimbursements, in the aggregate, accounted for at least one-half of 
the total program meal reimbursements in the State in the prior year;
    (C) Annually review every sponsor which experienced significant 
operational problems in the prior year;
    (D) Review each sponsor at least once every three years; and
    (E) As part of each sponsor review, conduct reviews of at least 10 
percent of each sponsor's sites, or one site, whichever number is 
greater.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec. 225.14:
    a. Paragraph (a) is amended by adding a new sentence at the end;
    b. Paragraph (d)(1) is removed; and
    c. Paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(6) are redesignated as paragraphs 
(d)(1) through (d)(5), respectively.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec. 225.14  Requirements for sponsor participation.

    (a) * * * Sponsors proposing to operate a site during an 
unanticipated school closure during the period from October through 
April (or at any time of the year in an area with a continuous school 
calendar) may be exempt, at the discretion of the State agency, from 
submitting a new application if they have participated in the program 
at any time during the current year or in either of the prior two 
calendar years.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec. 225.15, paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding a new 
sentence after the first sentence to read as follows:


Sec. 225.15  Management responsibilities of sponsors.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * * The State agency may waive these training requirements 
for operation of the Program during unanticipated school closures 
during the period from October through April (or at any time of the 
year in an area with a continuous school calendar). * * *
* * * * *
    Dated: December 15, 1999.
Samuel Chambers, Jr.,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-33504 Filed 12-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-U