Comment on FR Doc # 2012-13943

Comments on proposed revision of FNS-742 School Food Authority Verification Collection Report. From: Minnesota Department of Education, Food and Nutrition Service. 1. In Section 2 of the form, line 2-4 is for an SFA that operates any type of alternate provision for only NSLP or SBP, and this line apparently is intended to include P 2 or 3 when offered for only NSLP or SBP. It was not immediately apparent that this line applied to P 2/ 3, because it follows the line about “other” alternatives. It may help if the text on line 2-4 would state “an alternate provision including P 2 / 3.” Another suggestion that might help would be to reorder the lines so that the order is P 2 /3, then Community Eligibility option, then “other alternative”, then alternate provision for only NSLP or SBP. 2. There are several new data elements on the form that are in addition to the data element of reporting the number of directly certified SNAP recipients that was required by law. These additional requirements include the reporting of error-prone applications and the number of applications verified for cause. For SFAs that do not have an electronic system capable of generating a report of these numbers, it will take time for the SFA to collect this data. For example, an SFA without an electronic system that has a report of this data will have to review all of its approved applications to determine how many were in the error-prone category, even if the SFA was not required to focus verification on error-prone applications. 3. Many of the estimates of burden for reporting and recordkeeping appear to be very low and should be reevaluated. In the table for reporting burden, the estimated hours per response for state agencies is 1.163. This may reflect the time to send the report to USDA, but usually a state agency will spend many hours “cleaning up” the data that has been collected from schools before the data can be collated into the USDA format and successfully uploaded to USD