School Food Safety Inspections, 45305-45307 [E9-21133]
Download as PDF
45305
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 74, No. 169
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
additional paperwork and costs. One
commenter, however, indicated that
data collected for the report could be
useful for planning food safety training
activities.
School Food Safety Inspections
school year, and by requiring schools to
post the most recent inspection report in
a visible location and to release a copy
of the report to the public upon request.
Section 111 also requires State agencies
to submit to the Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) the number of inspections
obtained by schools for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2009. These
statutory requirements became effective
July 1, 2005.
To implement the above
requirements, FNS published an interim
rule in the Federal Register on June 15,
2005 (70 FR 34627) and received a total
of 75 public comments (59 from school
food authorities (SFAs) or school
districts, 3 from State agencies (SAs), 5
from regulatory agencies responsible for
food safety inspections, and 8 from
other individuals).
Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS), USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
II. Public Comments
The main comments or concerns are
the following:
III. Suggestions
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 210 and 220
[FNS–2005–0002]
RIN 0584–AD64
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This final rule adopts without
change the food safety inspections
requirements for the National School
Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School
Breakfast Program (SBP) set forth in a
previous interim rule issued by the
Food and Nutrition Service as a result
of the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004. Schools
participating in the lunch and breakfast
programs must obtain two inspections
per year, post the most recent inspection
report in a visible location, and release
a copy of the report to members of the
public upon request. This rule enhances
the safety of over 38 million meals
served to school children daily.
DATES: This final rule is effective
October 2, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Wagoner or Marisol Benesch,
Policy and Program Development
Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food
and Nutrition Service at (703) 305–2590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Need for Second Inspection
Most commenters stated that the
second inspection is not necessary
because school cafeterias are safe places
to eat, with well-trained staff and/or a
manager who is certified in safe food
handling practices.
Inspection Cost
Commenters noted that funds to pay
for the second inspection and to
increase inspection staff were not
provided by law. For some schools,
expanding the inspection requirement
has more than doubled the cost for food
safety inspections.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
I. Background
Risk Assessment
Commenters said that State/local
regulatory agencies should assess the
risk level that school food operations
present and establish the frequency of
inspections. Some said that schools
rarely have critical violations and that
regulatory agencies need to focus their
resources on high risk food
establishments.
Section 111 of the Child Nutrition and
WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub.
L. 108–265; June 30, 2004) amended
section 9(h) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42
U.S.C. 1758(h)) by increasing the
number of mandatory food safety
inspections for schools participating in
the NSLP and SBP from one to two per
Reporting Requirement
One commenter mistakenly thought
that SFAs are required to send paper
copies of the inspection reports to the
SA. Another commenter stated that
collecting data for the required SA
report on the number of inspections
obtained by schools has no practical
utility for the SA and results in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:07 Sep 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Operational Issues
In some SFAs, the requirement for a
second inspection has created issues or
questions surrounding inspection fees,
scope of the second inspection, selfinspections, and third-party inspections.
Some States exempt schools from
paying food service license fees, which
limits the ability of the regulatory
agencies to financially support school
inspections. Commenters noted that in
large counties and in rural areas where
schools are spread apart, it is difficult
for schools to obtain a second food
safety inspection.
Although most commenters opposed
the increased inspection requirement, a
number of them offered the following
suggestions:
• Allow agencies responsible for food
inspections to assess the need for
additional school inspections.
• Exempt individual schools from the
second inspection if they have no major
violations on the initial inspection or if
they have a food safety program based
on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) principles.
• Allow schools to do self-inspections
based on standards established by the
inspection agency.
• Instead of a second inspection,
require school food service staff to be
certified in food safety principles.
• Minimize the burden of information
collection on the respondent schools by
allowing the SAs to collect the
inspections data as part of an existing
data collection system.
• Provide funding to meet all
requirements established by Public Law
108–265.
• A director of a local health
department recommended that school
inspections should only be conducted
by the State regulatory agencies. The
commenter noted that the Food and
Drug Administration Food Code is
adopted by a State and, typically, not by
local government. The commenter also
said that self-inspections should not be
allowed because a third-party review of
the sanitation conditions in kitchens is
needed.
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
45306
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Furthermore, the commenter said the
second inspection should not be a
routine food safety inspection, and
instead it should be a validation of an
effective HACCP-based food safety
program by a third party such as the
State regulatory agency, State-approved
local governmental agency, or a private
consultant.
IV. FNS Response
Food safety has always been a priority
for the Child Nutrition Programs.
Parents, the public and Congress also
have a strong interest in the safety of
lunches and breakfasts served to
millions of school children daily. The
2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
which is the nutritional foundation of
the school meal programs, emphasizes
food safety as well.
Increasing food safety inspections to
two per school year should help
program operators identify and correct
food safety problems faster, thereby
enhancing food safety in meal
preparation and service sites. We
recognize that obtaining two food safety
inspections annually may be difficult
for a limited number of schools.
However, the reports submitted by the
State agencies for school years 2005–
2006, 2006–2007, and 2007–2008 show
an increase in the number of schools
meeting the twice annual inspection
requirement. The compliance rate
increased from 58 percent in school year
2005–2006 to 70 percent in school year
2007–2008. This increase was possible
with FNS’ outreach efforts and the
collaboration between State/local
program operators and inspecting
agencies.
Prior to Public Law 108–265, the
NSLA statutory provisions and NSLP
and SBP regulatory provisions required
schools to obtain at least one school
food safety inspection per year, or more
if mandated by a State or local agency
responsible for food safety inspections.
In Public Law 108–265, Congress
preempted the mandates of State and
local agencies to determine the number
of food safety inspections required for
schools operating the NSLP and SBP.
FNS does not have authority to waive
the food safety requirements for
individual schools because of food
safety certification or implementation of
a HACCP-based food safety program.
Public Law 108–265 established food
safety requirements that apply
uniformly to all schools participating in
the NSLP and SBP. Furthermore, food
safety inspections and a HACCP-based
food safety program are two separate but
complementary statutory requirements.
Despite the noted cost and
administrative burden that may result
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:07 Sep 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
from the additional inspection, there is
a need to require high food safety
standards in the NSLP and SBP. These
school meal programs serve over 38
million lunches and breakfasts daily to
children ages 2 and above. A foodborne
illness in the school meal programs
could have devastating consequences, as
young children are particularly
vulnerable.
This final rule retains the authority of
the State and local regulatory agencies
to determine the nature and scope of
each school food safety inspection.
However, a follow-up inspection due to
critical violations discovered at the first
inspection does not qualify as a second
annual inspection. Self-inspections are
not qualified inspections, per the
regulatory language. The inspections
must be conducted by a State or local
agency responsible for inspections, or
by another entity formally authorized by
the State/local regulatory agency.
Regarding the reporting requirement,
SAs are only required to collect the
number of inspections obtained by
schools during the school year and
transmit this data to FNS. This
information allows the SA and FNS to
monitor the level of compliance with
this requirement and detect any
problems associated with it. FNS
provides the SAs a simple optional
template to transmit the inspections
data electronically.
We are aware that in some states the
state or local agency responsible for
inspections transmits the inspection
data directly to the SA. Although this
arrangement is acceptable to FNS, this
rule does not place any responsibility
on the inspecting agency to provide
such information to the SA or to
develop a specific tracking and
reporting system for this purpose.
In summary, this final rule adopts
without change the requirements set
forth in the interim rule published on
June 15, 2005 at 70 FR 34627 and thus
reflects the statutory requirements in
Public Law 108–265.
IV. Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be
not significant and was not reviewed by
the Office Management and Budget in
conformance with Executive Order
12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed with
regard to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601–612). It has been certified that this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
number of small entities. This rule
increases the number of food safety
inspections in schools participating in
the National School Lunch Program and
School Breakfast Program.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA,
FNS must generally 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 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 final
rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 12372
The National School Lunch Program
is listed in the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance under No. 10.555,
and the School Breakfast Program is
listed under No. 10.553. For the reasons
set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR part
3015, Subpart V and related Notice (48
FR 29115), these programs are included
in the scope of Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental
consultation with State and local
officials.
Federalism Summary Impact Statement
Executive Order 13132 requires
Federal agencies to consider the impact
of their regulatory actions on State and
local governments. Where such actions
have federalism implications, agencies
are directed to provide a statement for
inclusion in the preamble to the
regulations describing the agency’s
considerations in terms of the three
categories called for under section
(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
Prior Consultation With State and Local
Officials
Shortly after passage of Public Law
108–265, FNS held discussions with
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
State education agencies that administer
child nutrition programs and with
organizations representing State and
local inspection agencies. These
discussions provided FNS an
opportunity to inform State and local
officials about the new inspection
requirement and to hear their concerns.
FNS also issued an interim rule to
solicit pubic comments.
Nature of Concerns and Need To Issue
This Rule
The main concern of the State and
local program operators and inspection
agencies is the cost associated with the
increased inspection requirement. Some
schools now have to pay or pay more for
the food safety inspections, and some
inspection agencies have limited staff to
handle the increased inspection load.
Although we are aware that compliance
with this requirement may still be
difficult in some areas, it is our
responsibility to implement these
mandatory statutory requirements
which are non-discretionary.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Extent to Which FNS Meets Those
Concerns
FNS has considered the comments
and suggestions offered by State and
local program operators, inspection
agencies and others, but we are unable
to make changes that are inconsistent
with the inspection requirement as
prescribed by the law. We will continue
to provide information and guidance to
those affected by this rule and to
encourage regulatory agencies to help
schools comply with this rule.
To minimize the impact of this rule,
FNS will continue to apply the
inspections requirement to preparation
and service sites rather than to
individual meal programs (NSLP and
SBP). FNS will allow inspections
performed under the Summer Food
Service Program and the Child and
Adult Care Food Program to count
toward this requirement if all the meal
programs use the same food service
facility.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. This rule has 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 Date
paragraph of this rule. Prior to any
judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule or the application of its
provisions, all applicable administrative
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:07 Sep 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
procedures under section 210.18(q)
must be exhausted.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
FNS has reviewed this final rule in
accordance with the Department
Regulation 4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact
Analysis,’’ to identify any major civil
rights impacts the rule might have on
children on the basis of race, color,
national origin, sex, age or disability.
After a careful review of the rule’s intent
and provisions, FNS has determined
that it does not affect the participation
of protected individuals in the National
School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35, see 5 CFR part
1320) requires that OMB approve all
collections of information by a Federal
agency from the public before they can
be implemented. Respondents are not
required to respond to any collection of
information unless it displays a current
valid OMB control number. The
information collection requirements
associated with this action were
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget on May 29, 2009 under
OMB Control Number 0584–0006,
Expiration date May 31, 2012, which
contains the information collection
activities in the NSLP.
The entire School Food Safety
Inspection data collection burden for
both NSLP and SBP operators is
contained only in OMB Control Number
0584–0006 and not the SBP (OMB
Control Number 2, Expiration May 31,
2012) because the NSLP is a larger
nutrition program and food safety
inspections conducted in the NSLP
count toward the inspection
requirement in both meal programs. The
burden hours estimate provided in the
notice of proposed information
collection published on May 12, 2005
(70 FR 25014) has increased from
9,483,231 to 9,558,282 due to an
adjustment in the number of School
Food Authorities and schools
participating in the NSLP and SBP.
E-Government Act Compliance
FNS is committed to compliance with
the E-Government Act (E-Gov), 2002
which requires Government agencies to
provide the public the option of
submitting information or transacting
business electronically to the maximum
extent possible. FNS has requested that
State agencies submit electronically the
inspections report required by this rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45307
Public Participation
In Section 501(b) of Public Law 108–
265, Congress specifically afforded the
Secretary the option to implement the
inspections requirement through an
interim rule, while soliciting public
comments. State and local program
operators and inspection agencies
commented on the interim rule
published in the Federal Register (70
FR 34627) on June 15, 2005.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 210
Food and Nutrition Service, Grant
programs—education, Grant programs—
health, Infants and children, Nutrition,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, School breakfast and
lunch programs, Surplus agricultural
commodities.
7 CFR Part 220
Food and Nutrition Service, Grant
programs—education, Grant programs—
health, Infants and children, Nutrition,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, School breakfast and
lunch programs.
Accordingly, the interim rule that was
published at 70 FR 34627 on June 15,
2005 amending 7 CFR parts 210 and 220
is adopted as a final rule without
changes.
Dated: August 24, 2009.
Julia Paradis,
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. E9–21133 Filed 9–1–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1 and 33
[Docket No. 2007–28502; Amendment No.
1–65, 33–30]
RIN 2120–AJ06
Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft
Engine Standards Overtorque Limits
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule will amend the
certification standards for aircraft
engines to establish requirements for
approval of maximum engine
overtorque. Specifically, this action will
add a new engine overtorque test,
amend engine ratings and operating
limits, and define maximum engine
overtorque for certain turbopropeller
and turboshaft engines. The rule will
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 2, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45305-45307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21133]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 45305]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 210 and 220
[FNS-2005-0002]
RIN 0584-AD64
School Food Safety Inspections
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule adopts without change the food safety
inspections requirements for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) set forth in a previous interim
rule issued by the Food and Nutrition Service as a result of the Child
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004. Schools participating in
the lunch and breakfast programs must obtain two inspections per year,
post the most recent inspection report in a visible location, and
release a copy of the report to members of the public upon request.
This rule enhances the safety of over 38 million meals served to school
children daily.
DATES: This final rule is effective October 2, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Wagoner or Marisol Benesch,
Policy and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food
and Nutrition Service at (703) 305-2590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 111 of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of
2004 (Pub. L. 108-265; June 30, 2004) amended section 9(h) of the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C. 1758(h))
by increasing the number of mandatory food safety inspections for
schools participating in the NSLP and SBP from one to two per school
year, and by requiring schools to post the most recent inspection
report in a visible location and to release a copy of the report to the
public upon request. Section 111 also requires State agencies to submit
to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) the number of inspections
obtained by schools for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009. These
statutory requirements became effective July 1, 2005.
To implement the above requirements, FNS published an interim rule
in the Federal Register on June 15, 2005 (70 FR 34627) and received a
total of 75 public comments (59 from school food authorities (SFAs) or
school districts, 3 from State agencies (SAs), 5 from regulatory
agencies responsible for food safety inspections, and 8 from other
individuals).
II. Public Comments
The main comments or concerns are the following:
Need for Second Inspection
Most commenters stated that the second inspection is not necessary
because school cafeterias are safe places to eat, with well-trained
staff and/or a manager who is certified in safe food handling
practices.
Inspection Cost
Commenters noted that funds to pay for the second inspection and to
increase inspection staff were not provided by law. For some schools,
expanding the inspection requirement has more than doubled the cost for
food safety inspections.
Risk Assessment
Commenters said that State/local regulatory agencies should assess
the risk level that school food operations present and establish the
frequency of inspections. Some said that schools rarely have critical
violations and that regulatory agencies need to focus their resources
on high risk food establishments.
Reporting Requirement
One commenter mistakenly thought that SFAs are required to send
paper copies of the inspection reports to the SA. Another commenter
stated that collecting data for the required SA report on the number of
inspections obtained by schools has no practical utility for the SA and
results in additional paperwork and costs. One commenter, however,
indicated that data collected for the report could be useful for
planning food safety training activities.
Operational Issues
In some SFAs, the requirement for a second inspection has created
issues or questions surrounding inspection fees, scope of the second
inspection, self-inspections, and third-party inspections. Some States
exempt schools from paying food service license fees, which limits the
ability of the regulatory agencies to financially support school
inspections. Commenters noted that in large counties and in rural areas
where schools are spread apart, it is difficult for schools to obtain a
second food safety inspection.
III. Suggestions
Although most commenters opposed the increased inspection
requirement, a number of them offered the following suggestions:
Allow agencies responsible for food inspections to assess
the need for additional school inspections.
Exempt individual schools from the second inspection if
they have no major violations on the initial inspection or if they have
a food safety program based on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) principles.
Allow schools to do self-inspections based on standards
established by the inspection agency.
Instead of a second inspection, require school food
service staff to be certified in food safety principles.
Minimize the burden of information collection on the
respondent schools by allowing the SAs to collect the inspections data
as part of an existing data collection system.
Provide funding to meet all requirements established by
Public Law 108-265.
A director of a local health department recommended that
school inspections should only be conducted by the State regulatory
agencies. The commenter noted that the Food and Drug Administration
Food Code is adopted by a State and, typically, not by local
government. The commenter also said that self-inspections should not be
allowed because a third-party review of the sanitation conditions in
kitchens is needed.
[[Page 45306]]
Furthermore, the commenter said the second inspection should not be
a routine food safety inspection, and instead it should be a validation
of an effective HACCP-based food safety program by a third party such
as the State regulatory agency, State-approved local governmental
agency, or a private consultant.
IV. FNS Response
Food safety has always been a priority for the Child Nutrition
Programs. Parents, the public and Congress also have a strong interest
in the safety of lunches and breakfasts served to millions of school
children daily. The 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which is the
nutritional foundation of the school meal programs, emphasizes food
safety as well.
Increasing food safety inspections to two per school year should
help program operators identify and correct food safety problems
faster, thereby enhancing food safety in meal preparation and service
sites. We recognize that obtaining two food safety inspections annually
may be difficult for a limited number of schools. However, the reports
submitted by the State agencies for school years 2005-2006, 2006-2007,
and 2007-2008 show an increase in the number of schools meeting the
twice annual inspection requirement. The compliance rate increased from
58 percent in school year 2005-2006 to 70 percent in school year 2007-
2008. This increase was possible with FNS' outreach efforts and the
collaboration between State/local program operators and inspecting
agencies.
Prior to Public Law 108-265, the NSLA statutory provisions and NSLP
and SBP regulatory provisions required schools to obtain at least one
school food safety inspection per year, or more if mandated by a State
or local agency responsible for food safety inspections. In Public Law
108-265, Congress preempted the mandates of State and local agencies to
determine the number of food safety inspections required for schools
operating the NSLP and SBP.
FNS does not have authority to waive the food safety requirements
for individual schools because of food safety certification or
implementation of a HACCP-based food safety program. Public Law 108-265
established food safety requirements that apply uniformly to all
schools participating in the NSLP and SBP. Furthermore, food safety
inspections and a HACCP-based food safety program are two separate but
complementary statutory requirements.
Despite the noted cost and administrative burden that may result
from the additional inspection, there is a need to require high food
safety standards in the NSLP and SBP. These school meal programs serve
over 38 million lunches and breakfasts daily to children ages 2 and
above. A foodborne illness in the school meal programs could have
devastating consequences, as young children are particularly
vulnerable.
This final rule retains the authority of the State and local
regulatory agencies to determine the nature and scope of each school
food safety inspection. However, a follow-up inspection due to critical
violations discovered at the first inspection does not qualify as a
second annual inspection. Self-inspections are not qualified
inspections, per the regulatory language. The inspections must be
conducted by a State or local agency responsible for inspections, or by
another entity formally authorized by the State/local regulatory
agency.
Regarding the reporting requirement, SAs are only required to
collect the number of inspections obtained by schools during the school
year and transmit this data to FNS. This information allows the SA and
FNS to monitor the level of compliance with this requirement and detect
any problems associated with it. FNS provides the SAs a simple optional
template to transmit the inspections data electronically.
We are aware that in some states the state or local agency
responsible for inspections transmits the inspection data directly to
the SA. Although this arrangement is acceptable to FNS, this rule does
not place any responsibility on the inspecting agency to provide such
information to the SA or to develop a specific tracking and reporting
system for this purpose.
In summary, this final rule adopts without change the requirements
set forth in the interim rule published on June 15, 2005 at 70 FR 34627
and thus reflects the statutory requirements in Public Law 108-265.
IV. Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be not significant and was not
reviewed by the Office Management and Budget in conformance with
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). It has been certified
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule increases the number of
food safety inspections in schools participating in the National School
Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, FNS
must generally 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 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 final rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 12372
The National School Lunch Program is listed in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.555, and the School Breakfast
Program is listed under No. 10.553. For the reasons set forth in the
final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart V and related Notice (48 FR
29115), these programs are included in the scope of Executive Order
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and
local officials.
Federalism Summary Impact Statement
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the
impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments.
Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed
to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations
describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories
called for under section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
Prior Consultation With State and Local Officials
Shortly after passage of Public Law 108-265, FNS held discussions
with
[[Page 45307]]
State education agencies that administer child nutrition programs and
with organizations representing State and local inspection agencies.
These discussions provided FNS an opportunity to inform State and local
officials about the new inspection requirement and to hear their
concerns. FNS also issued an interim rule to solicit pubic comments.
Nature of Concerns and Need To Issue This Rule
The main concern of the State and local program operators and
inspection agencies is the cost associated with the increased
inspection requirement. Some schools now have to pay or pay more for
the food safety inspections, and some inspection agencies have limited
staff to handle the increased inspection load. Although we are aware
that compliance with this requirement may still be difficult in some
areas, it is our responsibility to implement these mandatory statutory
requirements which are non-discretionary.
Extent to Which FNS Meets Those Concerns
FNS has considered the comments and suggestions offered by State
and local program operators, inspection agencies and others, but we are
unable to make changes that are inconsistent with the inspection
requirement as prescribed by the law. We will continue to provide
information and guidance to those affected by this rule and to
encourage regulatory agencies to help schools comply with this rule.
To minimize the impact of this rule, FNS will continue to apply the
inspections requirement to preparation and service sites rather than to
individual meal programs (NSLP and SBP). FNS will allow inspections
performed under the Summer Food Service Program and the Child and Adult
Care Food Program to count toward this requirement if all the meal
programs use the same food service facility.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule has 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 Date paragraph of this rule. Prior to any
judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the application of
its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures under section
210.18(q) must be exhausted.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
FNS has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Department
Regulation 4300-4, ``Civil Rights Impact Analysis,'' to identify any
major civil rights impacts the rule might have on children on the basis
of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. After a
careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined
that it does not affect the participation of protected individuals in
the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35, see 5 CFR
part 1320) requires that OMB approve all collections of information by
a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented.
Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of
information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. The
information collection requirements associated with this action were
approved by the Office of Management and Budget on May 29, 2009 under
OMB Control Number 0584-0006, Expiration date May 31, 2012, which
contains the information collection activities in the NSLP.
The entire School Food Safety Inspection data collection burden for
both NSLP and SBP operators is contained only in OMB Control Number
0584-0006 and not the SBP (OMB Control Number 2, Expiration May 31,
2012) because the NSLP is a larger nutrition program and food safety
inspections conducted in the NSLP count toward the inspection
requirement in both meal programs. The burden hours estimate provided
in the notice of proposed information collection published on May 12,
2005 (70 FR 25014) has increased from 9,483,231 to 9,558,282 due to an
adjustment in the number of School Food Authorities and schools
participating in the NSLP and SBP.
E-Government Act Compliance
FNS is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act (E-Gov),
2002 which requires Government agencies to provide the public the
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically
to the maximum extent possible. FNS has requested that State agencies
submit electronically the inspections report required by this rule.
Public Participation
In Section 501(b) of Public Law 108-265, Congress specifically
afforded the Secretary the option to implement the inspections
requirement through an interim rule, while soliciting public comments.
State and local program operators and inspection agencies commented on
the interim rule published in the Federal Register (70 FR 34627) on
June 15, 2005.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 210
Food and Nutrition Service, Grant programs--education, Grant
programs--health, Infants and children, Nutrition, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, School breakfast and lunch programs,
Surplus agricultural commodities.
7 CFR Part 220
Food and Nutrition Service, Grant programs--education, Grant
programs--health, Infants and children, Nutrition, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, School breakfast and lunch programs.
Accordingly, the interim rule that was published at 70 FR 34627 on
June 15, 2005 amending 7 CFR parts 210 and 220 is adopted as a final
rule without changes.
Dated: August 24, 2009.
Julia Paradis,
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. E9-21133 Filed 9-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P