Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, 61325-61329 [2013-24142]

Download as PDF 61325 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Notices Data collection activity Affected public Respondents Estimated number of respondents State Agency Child Nutrition Directors. Frequency of response Total annual responses Average burden hours per response Total annual burden estimate (hours) 53 1 53 1 53 TOTAL—YEAR 3 ....................... .............................. .............................. 1,956 1 1,956 0.7727 1,511.46 TOTAL—YEAR 2 (Existing Burden). .............................. .............................. 1,938 4.9355 9,565 .5346 5,094 TOTAL BURDEN FOR #0584– 0562. .............................. .............................. 1,956 5.8901 11,521 .5733 6605.46 Dated: September 25, 2013. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. [FR Doc. 2013–24143 Filed 10–2–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–30–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new collection for the School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study. DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received on or before December 2, 2013. ADDRESSES: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: John Endahl, Senior Program Analyst, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:29 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1004, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of John Endahl at 703–305–2576 or via email to john.endahl@fns.usda.gov. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to John Endahl at 703–305–2127. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study. Form Number: N/A. OMB Number: Not yet assigned. Expiration Date: Not yet determined. Type of Request: New collection. Abstract: The School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study (SNMCS) comes at a time of unprecedented change for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP). In the 2012–2013 school year (SY), the school meal programs began to undergo far-reaching changes, mainly stemming from the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA). Key reforms enacted by this legislation include new, more stringent meal pattern and nutrient requirements for school meals, new offer-versus-serve (OVS) rules, gradually increased prices for paid meals, and introduction of nutrition standards for competitive foods. School food service practices are being revised dramatically. Changes in practices, prices, and available foods may influence which students participate in the programs. The new requirements are intended to better align USDA meals and snacks with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and to improve participating students’ food and nutrient intake. Complying with the new requirements might affect the costs PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 of producing school lunches and breakfasts. Conducting the SNMCS at this historic juncture will provide FNS with crucial information about the effects of the new meal standards on nutritional quality and the cost of school meals. No national study has concurrently examined the cost of producing school meals, the nutritional profile of school meals and the amount of plate waste in school meals. The SNMCS will collect a broad range of data from nationally representative samples of public school food authorities (SFAs), schools, students, and parents during SY 2014–2015. These data will provide Federal, State, and local policymakers with needed information about how federally sponsored school meal programs are operating after implementation of the new nutrition standards and other changes in regulations. Comparisons of results from the SNMCS with previous studies (the School Nutrition and Dietary Assessment [SNDA] and the School Lunch and Breakfast Cost [SLBC] studies) will provide information to assess the effects of the new nutrition standards on foodservice operations, the nutrient content of school meals as offered and served, meal costs and revenues, and student consumption of school meals and dietary intake. The SNMCS will be the first assessment of school meals after implementation of these major changes. The SNMCS sample will include 502 unique SFAs, 1,200 schools, 2,400 students and their parents, and observations of plate waste from 5,040 lunches and 3,360 breakfasts. The sample is designed to provide required levels of statistical precision and data quality while minimizing data collection costs and respondent burden. The SNMCS sample will be divided into three groups of SFAs, with various levels of data collected from each group. The data collection includes the administration of several different types of instruments and modes, including self-administered web-based SFA director and school principal surveys, a E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1 61326 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Notices food service manager survey, an electronic menu survey, competitive foods checklists, cafeteria environment observation, plate waste observation, Automated Multiple Pass Method 24hour dietary recalls, measurement of student’s height and weight, student/ parent surveys, meal cost interviews, and collection of administrative cost data. Affected Public: Respondent groups include: (1) Directors of school food authorities (SFAs); (2) State child nutrition officials; (3) local education agency business managers, (4) school foodservice managers (FSMs); (5) principals; (6) school staff appointed by principals to complete observation checklists (school liaisons); and (7) students and their parents. Estimated Number of Respondents: The proposed final samples will include 502 unique SFAs; 1,200 schools; 2,400 students and their parents; and 5,040 and 3,360 plate waste observations at lunch and breakfast, respectively. Group 1 includes 106 SFAs but no schools. These SFAs will participate in the SFA Director Survey to provide the precision required for estimates of SFA Survey. The additional cost interviews from this group will provide data for the meal cost estimates, along with completing the Expanded Menu Survey. Plate waste will be observed at a subsample of Group 3 schools; we will observe 5,040 NSLP lunches and 3,360 SBP breakfasts from 56 SFAs and 168 schools. In both the Group 2 and 3 schools, school liaisons will complete two checklists to provide information on competitive foods, and interviewers will complete a Cafeteria Observation Form. Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: All respondents will be asked to respond to each instrument only once. Estimated Total Annual Responses: 24,031. Estimated Time per Response: 55 minutes (0.91 hours). The estimated response varies from 15 minutes to 600 minutes (10 hours), depending on the survey and the respondent group, as shown in the following table. Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 21,912. See the table below for each type of respondent. characteristics and policies. Group 2 comprises 100 SFAs and 300 schools. The Group 2 sample will include the 4 largest SFAs and 12 schools sampled from them plus a sample of 96 other SFAs and 288 of their schools (3 per SFA). Group 2 SFAs and schools will participate in the SFA Director Survey, FSM Survey, and Principal Survey; in addition, their FSMs will complete the Basic Menu Survey. Interviews will be completed with 2,400 students and their parents from these schools to provide information on meal program participation, satisfaction, and students’ dietary intake from school meals and food outside school over 24 hours. Group 3 includes 300 SFAs and 900 schools (3 per SFA). The Group 3 sample will include the 4 largest SFAs and 12 of their schools, plus a sample of 296 other SFAs and 888 of their schools (3 per SFA). This group includes participants in the SFA Director Survey, Pre-Visit SFA Director Questionnaire and Forms, SFA Director and Business Manager Cost Interviews and follow-up interviews, interviews to collect administrative data on food prices, FSM Survey, and Principal Estimated number of respondents Respondents State ................................................. Telephone Survey (Administrative Data on Indirect Cost Rates). Non-respondents 3 1 3 0.07 0.2 State education agency financial officer (Group 3). Non-respondents 47 1 47 0.33 16 15 1 15 0.07 1 Foodservice managers (Group 2). Non-respondents 300 1 300 49 1 49 Foodservice managers (Group 3). Non-respondents 975 1 975 41 1 41 0.07 3 SFA directors (Groups 1, 2, 3). Non-respondents 366 1 366 0.67 245 64 1 64 0.07 5 Foodservice managers (Groups 2, 3). Non-respondents 1,200 1 1,200 0.33 396 127 1 127 0.07 9 Principals (Groups 2 and 3). 1,137 1 1,137 0.5 Local and Tribal ................................ Local and Tribal ................................ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Local and Tribal ................................ Local and Tribal ................................ VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:29 Oct 02, 2013 Self-Administered Web Survey (Basic Menu Survey). Self-Administered Web Survey (Expanded Menu Survey). Self-Administered Web Survey (SFA Director Survey). Self-Administered Web Survey (FSM Survey). Self-Administered Web Survey (Principal Survey). Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Total annual responses Total annual burden estimate (hours) Data collection activity Local and Tribal ................................ Frequency of response Average burden hours per response Affected public E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1 8 0.07 10 2,400 3 9,750 569 61327 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Notices Estimated number of respondents Respondents Local and Tribal ................................ Telephone Survey (SFA Director Planning Interview). Non-respondents 2 1 2 0.07 0.1 SFA directors (Group 2). Non-respondents 73 1 73 0.33 24 7 1 7 0.07 0.5 SFA directors (Group 3). Non-respondents 219 1 219 0.83 182 11 1 11 0.07 0.8 SFA Directors/ LEA business managers (Group 3). Non-respondents 219 1 219 3 657 45 1 45 0.07 3 Foodservice managers (Group 3). Non-respondents 900 1 900 0.25 225 49 1 49 0.07 3 Foodservice managers (Group 3). Non-respondents 975 1 975 0.5 45 1 45 0.07 3 Principals (Group 3). Non-respondents 900 1 900 0.75 675 11 1 11 0.07 0.8 SFA directors/ LEA business managers (Group 3). Non-respondents 208 1 208 0.17 35 11 1 11 0.07 0.8 SFA directors/ LEA business managers (Group 3). Non-respondents 208 1 208 2 416 190 1 190 0.07 13 760 1 760 0.5 380 300 1 300 0.17 51 Foodservice managers (Group 3). 168 1 168 0.17 29 ............................. ............................. 9,625 1 9,625 1.72 16,583 Self-Administered Web Survey (SFA Director Survey). Non-respondents 15 1 15 0.07 1 Local and Tribal ................................ Local and Tribal ................................ Local and Tribal ................................ Local and Tribal ................................ Local and Tribal ................................ Local and Tribal ................................ Local and Tribal ................................ Local and Tribal ................................ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Local and Tribal ................................ Subtotal State, Local & Tribal Governments. Private Sector for-Profit .................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:29 Oct 02, 2013 Self-Administered Web Survey (SFA Director Pre-visit Questionnaire and Forms). In-person Interview (SFA Director and Business Manager Cost Interview). Telephone Survey (FSM Pre-visit Questionnaire). In-person Interview (FSM Cost Interview). Telephone Survey (Principal Cost Interview). In-person Interview (Follow-Up SFA Director Prep Forms). In-person Interview (Follow-Up SFA Director and Business Manager Cost Interview). In-person Interview (Competitive Foods Checklist). Self-Administered Observation Form (Point-ofSale Form). Self-Administered Observation Form (Plate Waste Observations). Jkt 232001 PO 00000 School staff liaisons (Groups 2 and 3). Foodservice managers (Group 2). Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Total annual responses Total annual burden estimate (hours) Data collection activity Local and Tribal ................................ Frequency of response Average burden hours per response Affected public E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1 488 61328 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Notices Affected public Data collection activity Respondents Estimated number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden hours per response Total annual responses Total annual burden estimate (hours) Private Sector or-Profit ..................... Private Sector for-Profit .................... Private Sector for-Profit .................... Private Sector for-Profit .................... Subtotal Private Sector for-Profit Business. Individual ........................................... Individual ........................................... Telephone Survey (SFA Director Planning Interview). Self-Administered Web Survey (SFA Director Pre-visit Questionnaire). In-person Interview (SFA Director and Business Manager Cost Interview). In-person Interview (Follow Up SFA Director Prep Forms). In-person Interview (Follow-Up SFA Director and Business Manager Cost Interview). 0.67 91 1 1 1 0.07 0.1 SFA directors (Group 2). Non-respondents 27 1 27 0.33 9 2 1 2 0.07 0.1 SFA directors (Group 3). Non-respondents 81 1 81 0.83 67 4 1 4 0.07 0.3 SFA directors/ LEA business managers (Group 3). Non-respondents 81 1 81 3 243 4 1 4 0.07 0.3 SFA directors/ LEA business managers (Group 3). Non-respondents 77 1 77 0.17 13 4 1 4 0.07 0.3 77 1 77 2 154 509 1 509 1.13 579.1 In-person Interview (24-Hour Dietary Recall, Day 1). Non-respondents 359 1 359 0.07 25 Students .............. Parents ............... Non-respondents 2,400 800 106 1 1 1 2,400 800 106 0.83 0.50 0.07 1992 400 7 Students .............. Parents ............... Non-respondents 600 200 120 1 1 1 600 200 120 0.75 0.75 0.07 450 150 8 Parents ............... Non-respondents 800 35 1 1 800 35 0.17 0.07 136 3 Parents ............... Non-respondents 200 359 1 1 200 359 0.17 0.07 34 25 Students .............. Non-respondents 2,400 359 1 1 2,400 359 0.17 0.07 408 25 Parents ............... Non-respondents 2,400 359 1 1 2,400 359 0.42 0.02 1008 7 Telephone Survey (24-Hour Dietary Recall, Day 2). Individual ........................................... Self-Administered Form (Food Diary, Day 2). Individual ........................................... In-person Interview (Child/ Youth Interview). Individual ........................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 136 ............................. Self-Administered Form (Food Diary, Day 1). In-person or Telephone Interview (Parent Interview). Individual ........................................... In-person Interview (Height and Weight Measurement Form). 18:29 Oct 02, 2013 1 ............................. Individual ........................................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 136 SFA directors/ LEA business managers (Group 3). Private Sector for-Profit .................... SFA directors (Groups 1, 2, 3). Non-respondents Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1 61329 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Notices Affected public Data collection activity Respondents Estimated number of respondents Frequency of response Total annual responses Average burden hours per response Total annual burden estimate (hours) Students .............. Subtotal Individuals ................... Grand Total ............................... ............................. ............................. Dated: September 26, 2013. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. [FR Doc. 2013–24142 Filed 10–2–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–30–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Revision of the Land Management Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Forest Service, USDA. Notice of Initiating the development of a land management plan revision for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. AGENCY: ACTION: The Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, located in North Carolina, are initiating the development of a land management plan revision (forest plan) for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (NFs). A Draft Assessment has been posted to our Web site. We are inviting the public to help us develop a preliminary ‘‘need for change’’ and a proposed action for the land management plan revision. DATES: A draft of the Assessment report for the revision of the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs land management plan was posted on the following Web site at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/nfsnc/nprevision on September 20, 2013. Public meetings associated with the development of the preliminary ‘‘need for change’’ and a proposed action will be announced on the Web site cited above. It is anticipated that the Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (which will accompany the land management plan revision for the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs), will be published in the Federal Register around December 2013 to January 2014. ADDRESSES: Written comments or questions concerning this notice should be addressed to National Forests in North Carolina, Nantahala and Pisgah Plan Revision, 160 Zillicoa St., Suite A, Asheville, North Carolina 28801. Comments or questions may also be sent via email to NCplanrevision@fs.fed.us. All correspondence, including names tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:29 Oct 02, 2013 Jkt 232001 2,400 1 2,400 0.03 72 ............................. ............................. 13,897 24,031 1 1 13,897 24,031 0.34 .......................... 4,750 21,912 and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Berner, Forest Planner, 828–257– 4200. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (Eastern time), Monday through Friday. More information on the planning process can also be found on the Nantahala and Pisgah Plan Revision Web site at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/nfsnc/ nprevision. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the 2012 Forest Planning Rule (36 CFR Part 219), the planning process encompases three-stages: Assessment, plan revision, and monitoring. The first stage of the planning process involves assessing social, economic, and ecological conditions of the planning area, which is documented in an assessment report. A draft of the assessment report for the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs was posted on the Forest Web site at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/nfsnc/ nprevision on September 20, 2013. This notice announces the start of the second stage of the planning process, which is the development of the land management plan revision. The first task of plan revision is to develop a preliminary ‘‘need for change’’, which identifies the need to change management direction in current plans due to changing conditions or other monitoring information. The next task is to develop a proposed action, which is a proposal on how to respond to needs for changes. We are inviting the public to help us develop our preliminary ‘‘need for change’’ and a proposed action. A proposed action will initiate our compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. A Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the land mangement plan revision, which will include a description of the preliminary need for change and a description of the proposed action, will be published around December 2013 to January 2014 in the Federal Register. Forest plans developed under the National Forest Management Act PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 (NFMA) of 1976 describe the strategic direction for management of forest resources for ten to fifteen years, and are adaptive and amendable as conditions changes over time. The Forest Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs was approved in 1987, with a Significant Amendment to the Forest Plan approved in 1994. On November 20, 2012, a public announcement was made that the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs were beginning to work on the Assessment for revising their Forest Plan. This notice announces the start of the second stage of the planning process, the development of the land management plan revision. Once the plan revision is completed, it will be subject to the objection procedures of 36 CFR Part 219, Subpart B, before it can be approved. The third stage of the planning process is the monitoring and evaluation of the revised plan, which is ongoing over the life of the revised plan. As public meetings, other opportunities for public engagement, and public review and comment opportunties are identified to assist with the development of the forest plan revision, public announcements will be made, notifications will be posted on the Forest’s Web site at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/nfsnc/nprevision and information will be sent out to the Forest’s mailing list. If anyone is interested in being on the Forest’s mailing list to receive these notifications, please contact Ruth Berner, the Forest Planner, at the address identified below, or by sending an email to NCplanrevision@fs.fed.us. Responsible Official The responsible official for the revision of the land management plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is Kristin Bail, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in North Carolina, 160 Zillicoa St., Suite A, Asheville, North Carolina 28801. Dated: September 25, 2013. Kristin Bail, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 2013–24218 Filed 10–2–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–P E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61325-61329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request--School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) invites the general public and other
public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection.
This collection is a new collection for the School Nutrition and Meal
Cost Study.

DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received on or before
December 2, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
Comments may be sent to: John Endahl, Senior Program Analyst,
Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1004, Alexandria, VA
22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of John
Endahl at 703-305-2576 or via email to john.endahl@fns.usda.gov.
Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Go to https://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions
for submitting comments electronically.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the
request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will
be a matter of public record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of this information collection should be directed to John Endahl
at 703-305-2127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study.
Form Number: N/A.
OMB Number: Not yet assigned.
Expiration Date: Not yet determined.
Type of Request: New collection.
Abstract: The School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study (SNMCS) comes at
a time of unprecedented change for the National School Lunch Program
(NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP). In the 2012-2013 school year
(SY), the school meal programs began to undergo far-reaching changes,
mainly stemming from the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA). Key
reforms enacted by this legislation include new, more stringent meal
pattern and nutrient requirements for school meals, new offer-versus-
serve (OVS) rules, gradually increased prices for paid meals, and
introduction of nutrition standards for competitive foods. School food
service practices are being revised dramatically. Changes in practices,
prices, and available foods may influence which students participate in
the programs. The new requirements are intended to better align USDA
meals and snacks with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and to
improve participating students' food and nutrient intake. Complying
with the new requirements might affect the costs of producing school
lunches and breakfasts. Conducting the SNMCS at this historic juncture
will provide FNS with crucial information about the effects of the new
meal standards on nutritional quality and the cost of school meals. No
national study has concurrently examined the cost of producing school
meals, the nutritional profile of school meals and the amount of plate
waste in school meals.
The SNMCS will collect a broad range of data from nationally
representative samples of public school food authorities (SFAs),
schools, students, and parents during SY 2014-2015. These data will
provide Federal, State, and local policymakers with needed information
about how federally sponsored school meal programs are operating after
implementation of the new nutrition standards and other changes in
regulations. Comparisons of results from the SNMCS with previous
studies (the School Nutrition and Dietary Assessment [SNDA] and the
School Lunch and Breakfast Cost [SLBC] studies) will provide
information to assess the effects of the new nutrition standards on
foodservice operations, the nutrient content of school meals as offered
and served, meal costs and revenues, and student consumption of school
meals and dietary intake. The SNMCS will be the first assessment of
school meals after implementation of these major changes.
The SNMCS sample will include 502 unique SFAs, 1,200 schools, 2,400
students and their parents, and observations of plate waste from 5,040
lunches and 3,360 breakfasts. The sample is designed to provide
required levels of statistical precision and data quality while
minimizing data collection costs and respondent burden. The SNMCS
sample will be divided into three groups of SFAs, with various levels
of data collected from each group. The data collection includes the
administration of several different types of instruments and modes,
including self-administered web-based SFA director and school principal
surveys, a

[[Page 61326]]

food service manager survey, an electronic menu survey, competitive
foods checklists, cafeteria environment observation, plate waste
observation, Automated Multiple Pass Method 24-hour dietary recalls,
measurement of student's height and weight, student/parent surveys,
meal cost interviews, and collection of administrative cost data.
Affected Public: Respondent groups include: (1) Directors of school
food authorities (SFAs); (2) State child nutrition officials; (3) local
education agency business managers, (4) school foodservice managers
(FSMs); (5) principals; (6) school staff appointed by principals to
complete observation checklists (school liaisons); and (7) students and
their parents.
Estimated Number of Respondents: The proposed final samples will
include 502 unique SFAs; 1,200 schools; 2,400 students and their
parents; and 5,040 and 3,360 plate waste observations at lunch and
breakfast, respectively. Group 1 includes 106 SFAs but no schools.
These SFAs will participate in the SFA Director Survey to provide the
precision required for estimates of SFA characteristics and policies.
Group 2 comprises 100 SFAs and 300 schools. The Group 2 sample will
include the 4 largest SFAs and 12 schools sampled from them plus a
sample of 96 other SFAs and 288 of their schools (3 per SFA). Group 2
SFAs and schools will participate in the SFA Director Survey, FSM
Survey, and Principal Survey; in addition, their FSMs will complete the
Basic Menu Survey. Interviews will be completed with 2,400 students and
their parents from these schools to provide information on meal program
participation, satisfaction, and students' dietary intake from school
meals and food outside school over 24 hours. Group 3 includes 300 SFAs
and 900 schools (3 per SFA). The Group 3 sample will include the 4
largest SFAs and 12 of their schools, plus a sample of 296 other SFAs
and 888 of their schools (3 per SFA). This group includes participants
in the SFA Director Survey, Pre-Visit SFA Director Questionnaire and
Forms, SFA Director and Business Manager Cost Interviews and follow-up
interviews, interviews to collect administrative data on food prices,
FSM Survey, and Principal Survey. The additional cost interviews from
this group will provide data for the meal cost estimates, along with
completing the Expanded Menu Survey. Plate waste will be observed at a
subsample of Group 3 schools; we will observe 5,040 NSLP lunches and
3,360 SBP breakfasts from 56 SFAs and 168 schools. In both the Group 2
and 3 schools, school liaisons will complete two checklists to provide
information on competitive foods, and interviewers will complete a
Cafeteria Observation Form.
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: All respondents will
be asked to respond to each instrument only once.
Estimated Total Annual Responses: 24,031.
Estimated Time per Response: 55 minutes (0.91 hours). The estimated
response varies from 15 minutes to 600 minutes (10 hours), depending on
the survey and the respondent group, as shown in the following table.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 21,912. See the table
below for each type of respondent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual
Data collection Estimated Frequency of Total annual Average burden
Affected public activity Respondents number of response responses burden hours estimate
respondents per response (hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State........................... Telephone Survey Non-respondents... 3 1 3 0.07 0.2
(Administrative
Data on Indirect
Cost Rates).
State education 47 1 47 0.33 16
agency financial
officer (Group 3).
Local and Tribal................ Self-Administered Non-respondents... 15 1 15 0.07 1
Web Survey (Basic
Menu Survey).
Foodservice 300 1 300 8 2,400
managers (Group
2).
Local and Tribal................ Self-Administered Non-respondents... 49 1 49 0.07 3
Web Survey
(Expanded Menu
Survey).
Foodservice 975 1 975 10 9,750
managers (Group
3).
Local and Tribal................ Self-Administered Non-respondents... 41 1 41 0.07 3
Web Survey (SFA
Director Survey).
SFA directors 366 1 366 0.67 245
(Groups 1, 2, 3).
Local and Tribal................ Self-Administered Non-respondents... 64 1 64 0.07 5
Web Survey (FSM
Survey).
Foodservice 1,200 1 1,200 0.33 396
managers (Groups
2, 3).
Local and Tribal................ Self-Administered Non-respondents... 127 1 127 0.07 9
Web Survey
(Principal
Survey).
Principals (Groups 1,137 1 1,137 0.5 569
2 and 3).

[[Page 61327]]

Local and Tribal................ Telephone Survey Non-respondents... 2 1 2 0.07 0.1
(SFA Director
Planning
Interview).
SFA directors 73 1 73 0.33 24
(Group 2).
Local and Tribal................ Self-Administered Non-respondents... 7 1 7 0.07 0.5
Web Survey (SFA
Director Pre-
visit
Questionnaire and
Forms).
SFA directors 219 1 219 0.83 182
(Group 3).
Local and Tribal................ In-person Non-respondents... 11 1 11 0.07 0.8
Interview (SFA
Director and
Business Manager
Cost Interview).
SFA Directors/LEA 219 1 219 3 657
business managers
(Group 3).
Local and Tribal................ Telephone Survey Non-respondents... 45 1 45 0.07 3
(FSM Pre-visit
Questionnaire).
Foodservice 900 1 900 0.25 225
managers (Group
3).
Local and Tribal................ In-person Non-respondents... 49 1 49 0.07 3
Interview (FSM
Cost Interview).
Foodservice 975 1 975 0.5 488
managers (Group
3).
Local and Tribal................ Telephone Survey Non-respondents... 45 1 45 0.07 3
(Principal Cost
Interview).
Principals (Group 900 1 900 0.75 675
3).
Local and Tribal................ In-person Non-respondents... 11 1 11 0.07 0.8
Interview (Follow-
Up SFA Director
Prep Forms).
SFA directors/LEA 208 1 208 0.17 35
business managers
(Group 3).
Local and Tribal................ In-person Non-respondents... 11 1 11 0.07 0.8
Interview (Follow-
Up SFA Director
and Business
Manager Cost
Interview).
SFA directors/LEA 208 1 208 2 416
business managers
(Group 3).
Local and Tribal................ In-person Non-respondents... 190 1 190 0.07 13
Interview
(Competitive
Foods Checklist).
School staff 760 1 760 0.5 380
liaisons (Groups
2 and 3).
Local and Tribal................ Self-Administered Foodservice 300 1 300 0.17 51
Observation Form managers (Group
(Point-of-Sale 2).
Form).
Local and Tribal................ Self-Administered Foodservice 168 1 168 0.17 29
Observation Form managers (Group
(Plate Waste 3).
Observations).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal State, Local & .................. .................. 9,625 1 9,625 1.72 16,583
Tribal Governments.
Private Sector for-Profit....... Self-Administered Non-respondents... 15 1 15 0.07 1
Web Survey (SFA
Director Survey).

[[Page 61328]]

SFA directors 136 1 136 0.67 91
(Groups 1, 2, 3).
Private Sector for-Profit....... Telephone Survey Non-respondents... 1 1 1 0.07 0.1
(SFA Director
Planning
Interview).
SFA directors 27 1 27 0.33 9
(Group 2).
Private Sector or-Profit........ Self-Administered Non-respondents... 2 1 2 0.07 0.1
Web Survey (SFA
Director Pre-
visit
Questionnaire).
SFA directors 81 1 81 0.83 67
(Group 3).
Private Sector for-Profit....... In-person Non-respondents... 4 1 4 0.07 0.3
Interview (SFA
Director and
Business Manager
Cost Interview).
SFA directors/LEA 81 1 81 3 243
business managers
(Group 3).
Private Sector for-Profit....... In-person Non-respondents... 4 1 4 0.07 0.3
Interview (Follow
Up SFA Director
Prep Forms).
SFA directors/LEA 77 1 77 0.17 13
business managers
(Group 3).
Private Sector for-Profit....... In-person Non-respondents... 4 1 4 0.07 0.3
Interview (Follow-
Up SFA Director
and Business
Manager Cost
Interview).
SFA directors/LEA 77 1 77 2 154
business managers
(Group 3).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Private Sector for- .................. .................. 509 1 509 1.13 579.1
Profit Business.
Individual...................... In-person Non-respondents... 359 1 359 0.07 25
Interview (24-
Hour Dietary
Recall, Day 1).
Students.......... 2,400 1 2,400 0.83 1992
Parents........... 800 1 800 0.50 400
Individual...................... Telephone Survey Non-respondents... 106 1 106 0.07 7
(24-Hour Dietary
Recall, Day 2).
Students.......... 600 1 600 0.75 450
Parents........... 200 1 200 0.75 150
Individual...................... Self-Administered Non-respondents... 120 1 120 0.07 8
Form (Food Diary,
Day 1).
Parents........... 800 1 800 0.17 136
Individual...................... Self-Administered Non-respondents... 35 1 35 0.07 3
Form (Food Diary,
Day 2).
Parents........... 200 1 200 0.17 34
Individual...................... In-person Non-respondents... 359 1 359 0.07 25
Interview (Child/
Youth Interview).
Students.......... 2,400 1 2,400 0.17 408
Individual...................... In-person or Non-respondents... 359 1 359 0.07 25
Telephone
Interview (Parent
Interview).
Parents........... 2,400 1 2,400 0.42 1008
Individual...................... In-person Non-respondents... 359 1 359 0.02 7
Interview (Height
and Weight
Measurement Form).

[[Page 61329]]

Students.......... 2,400 1 2,400 0.03 72
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Individuals........ .................. .................. 13,897 1 13,897 0.34 4,750
Grand Total................. .................. .................. 24,031 1 24,031 .............. 21,912
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: September 26, 2013.
Audrey Rowe,
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-24142 Filed 10-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.