Please note: There is no definition of low-income, although first priority is given to those "who cannot afford to eat adequately."

909.4-909.15 Is information about the purpose, development and procedures relating to the State Plan for Title VII.

*909.16 The two statements on staffing of the state administrative level are rather vague. There is no spelling out of what their functions should be, to whom they are accountable, and what their responsibilities are towards "project areas" and actual "project sites."

*909.17 "Advisory assistance" is also so unspecific as to be virtually meaningless; it seems to leave a fuller description to either the guidelines or the State Plan itself. It does call for some involvement by consumers and experts without stating the reason, degree of involvement or accountability. The only requirement: That it "be functional prior to the approval by the State agency of awards under this Part." For example, would they have a say in granting of awards? Should be spelled out. As it stands, it sounds like maximum feasible tokenism 909.18 Coordination with other agencies, both governmental and private, is a major goal of AoA programs since their own resources are so limited.

*909.19 Vagueness again indescribing the identification of target groups to be served. No criteria are established or priorities set other than those in 909.1. It is left to the State Plan to provide "assurances" that those with the greatest need will be served. There is no mention of low-income persons as a target group, although they are stressed in the statute.

*909.20 In this section on selection of areas, no definition is given of "major" concentrations of eligible participants. Does "major" mean more than 50%?

The "poverty threshold" referred to is currently $2,348 annual income for a couple and $1,861 for a single adult. This is based not on the actual cost of living needs of older adults but on an emergency food budget established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (for short term use) arbitrarily multiplied by three. (b) The selection of project areas is to be based in part on the minority group population of the area "at least in proportion to their numbers of the eligible individuals in the state."

909.21 (a) Project awards may be in cash or kind from state agencies. Unfortunately they have not bothered to clarify what “in kind” grants could be. The vagueness might permit states to reduce the amount of awards by giving more "in kind."

*(b) The Regulations encourage the States "to the extent feasible" to make awards to “projects . . . operated by minority individuals,” while the legislation is far more specific: "preference shall be given in awarding primarily lowincome individuals and (states shall) provide assurances that, to the extent feasible, grants will be awarded to projects operated by and serving the needs of minority. Indian and limited English-speaking eligible individuals in proportion to their numbers in the State." The Regulations seem to either not be able to differentiate between "low-income" and "minority" or to forget the former altogether.

*(c) The same problems which applied in discussing the definition of “project area" 909.3 (c) apply here, but compounded. There is no directive in the law itself calling for a "single recipient" of an award" for the entire project area" as the Regulations state. The only exception which the Regulations do allow is in cities over 250,000 population, and then only with the approval of SRS. This means that in "project areas" only one grantee will be recognized, which then may award subcontracted to administer individual local nutrition sites within the project area." The Regulation are not more explicit about whether grants can only be awarded to a single agency or group or whether a number of groups may join together to form a proiect.

*(d) To require that non-public agencies applying for project grants be reviewed by "the appropriate major unit (s) of local general purpose government" adds an additional restriction on the awarding of grants. It also fails to explain for what purpose or in what form "the State agency shall secure comments"; there is no indication whether this is done as a courtesy or whether it has some bearing on how the grants are awarded. A time limit might be set so that this does not delay implementation.

*(e) It seems almost arbitrary and unnecessary restrictive to require that at least 100 meals be served daily in a project area. This may not be possible in some remote rural areas for example, while other project areas in densely populated urban areas may have the capacity and the need to serve many more

than 100. Note that the language says "an average of at least 100" which would seem to allow for some fluctuations above or below that figure. It also is stipulated for project areas, meaning that individual sites within those projects may serve fewer meals, as long as cumulatively the sites serve about 100.

*909.22 This section seems directed at bolstering or assuring the continued existence of present nutrition programs around the country which conform to the standards of Title VII. A full year is allowed for those remaining projects of the original thirty-two funded for research and demonstration purposes under Title IV of the Older Americans Act in 1968 to meet the standards of Title VII. This holds true for any existing nutrition programs for the elderly. *909.23 SRS requires annual state operating plans.

*909.24 Project applicants that are turned down may appeal for a hearing back to the state agency. This needs amplification; unless specified as such, the hearing might easily not be impartial, with applicants appealing to the same agency that rejected their proposals initially. Unfortunately, there is a jurisdictional problem here which prevents these applicants from appealing to a Federal agency.

909.25 Calling for a public information program in such broad terms is meaningless. The State agency must be mandated to advertise this new program and its benefits not just "throughout the state" but clearly directing it at target groups, using other languages where indicated.

909.26 Up to 10% of the State's allotment under Title VII every fiscal year is to be used for administrative costs of the program. A state may make an exception to this limit only with the prior approval of the Secretary of HEW.

909.27-909.28 These are internal regulations of SRS relating to the filing of reports and for fiscal control and accounting by state agencies and projects.

*909.29 Ongoing statewide evaluations of the nutrition program are mandated, including quarterly on-site reports of each project. These are to be directed particularly at gauging "the impact of the nutrition program on the target group." 909.30 Methods of administration are left to the State plan to delineate. 909.31 Standards of personnel administration are to follow U.S. Civil Service and other federal and state guidelines.

*909.32 (a) In describing regulations for the staffing of projects, SRS has noted from Title VII-that "preference must be given to persons aged sixty or over." But, while it is commendable that the regulations also state that "project staff must be . . . representative of the minority individuals participating," the qualifier "to the extent feasible" is too unspecific. (b) Following Title VII, SRS calls on each project to "encourage the voluntary participation" of students and others.

*909.33

Project councils are not actually mentioned in Title VII and are an important addition of the Regulations.

(a) Their responsibilities are described as advising on "all matters relating to the delivery of nutrition services within the project and to approve all policy decisions related to . . . menus . . . fee guidelines . . . hours of operation . . . decorating and furnishing." There needs to be some clarification of the relationship between this Council and the "recipient of a grant or contract" which it is to advise. Is this latter a staff person? a public official? a board of directors? an agency executive? (See 909.21)

(b) The exact membership of the Council is left vague. "More than one-half ... shall be actual consumers of the nutrition services." These are to be "representative of each major congregate meal site," but this is undefined. If a project area has, for example, twenty sites, each serving between 10 and 50, which are the "major" ones? Why shouldn't all the sites be represented? How many representatives from each site? What should the total size be? And how many "other members of the Council" (including, according to these proposed regulations, "persons competent in the field of service in which the nutrition program is being provided" and those familiar with "the needs of elderly persons") should there be?

(c) Each state agency is given the task of developing the "formal procedures" regarding these Councils; this will mean that there will be no national unformity. *909.34 (a) The selection of congregate meal sites is to be based on the "major concentrations of older persons" of low-income in these areas. The adjective "major" is used again without definition-what proportion of a population does it refer to? This was the same problem in 909.20. The income standard used (Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census-$1,861 annually at present for a

single older adult) is the same as that in 909.20. This is an extremely low poverty threshold.

(b) Sites should be located within walking distance of most of the people in the target area. This must refer only to the more urbanized communities. No mention is made of finding sites in rural areas; nor is transportation more than briefly referred to in 909.38. Sites may be "schools, churches, senior centers and other appropriate facilities."

(c) This assures that the atmosphere of sites is "pleasant" and that they are "conducive to expanding the project and for providing necessary and related social services."

*909.35. It is mandated that each project must identify: "total numbers of target group eligible individuals. . . general locations of concentrations . . . and the nutrition and related social service needs of such individuals." But there is no provision for this type of staffing in 909.32, nor is there any clear reason why this type of research must be done by the project itself. As now written, these activities-although important-would have to be financed out of nutrition funds while they probably should be paid for out of the administrative funds at the state level. State agencies probably have done most of this research already.

909.36 (a) The nutrition requirements are that each site must serve "at least one hot meal per day, five or more days a week . . ." This language differs slightly from the statute which gave the same responsibility to each project. (b) Each meal is to "contain at least one-third of the current daily recommended dietary allowance as established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Science-National Research Council.

909.37 The proposed regulations for home delivered meals are no more specific than Title VII itself. They state that projects will deliver meals "where necessary to meet the needs of target group eligible individuals who are homebound." Does this mean those project participants who are taken ill? Or does it mean some participants may be those permanently confined to their homes by disability or feebleness? Can a project refuse to provide this service, and, if so, can an otherwise "eligible" individual appeal this decision? Some more specific guidelines would be important here.

909.38. This section delineates which supporting social services are to be provided by the project "to the extent that such services are needed and are not already available and accessible to the individuals participating." The first two items listed, outreach and transportation, are listed from social services in Title VII. Both are vital to enable participation in the program, but should they be funded out of the same limited pot as such social services as information and referral, health and welfare counselling, nutrition education and recreation activities?

(b) The Regulations maintain that not more than 20% of the State's allotment should be used for social services. This means that, since only up to 10% may be used for administration, that the remaining 70% must pay for the nutrition and other components.

(c) SRS guidelines govern all social services.

909.39

The use of existing resources is encouraged.

*909.40 The statute has very little to say about charges to recipients for costs of meals, only that these should be "low-cost." SRS has proposed, therefore, that a participant be offered a range of "suggested contributions," established by the projects, from which to "determine for himself what he is able to contribute toward the cost of a meal." Participants would be given the option to pay nothing, a small portion, or the entire cost of the meal, depending on ability to pay and inclination to do so. The suggested schedules would serve only as a guide for the optional fee, not as a means test. Research on the Title IV research and demonstration nutrition projects showed that the small amount of money taken in as contributions added little to their capital. Its main purpose was to allow participants to keep their dignity and to feel like they were helping. If the contributions were to be set at one level and the participants were told they could pay all, part or none of it, everything would seem to be much simpler for both the consumers and the administrators. If presented with a "suggested" scale, participants might feel somewhat confused-or even intimidated.

The Regulations also propose that the participants' contributions be kept confidential and that food stamps might be accepted for home-delivered meals. The Food Stamp Act, as it stands, does not permit Food Stamps to pay for hot meals

other than those which are home-delivered-or to be used by anyone also receiving Donated Foods (surplus commodities).

*909.41 The Regulations propose that the projects, where feasible, serve as certification, information and distribution centers for food stamps and commodities.

*909.42 This protects the rights of confidentiality of those involved with the

program.

909.43-909.49 These sections, which cover such topics as the training of personnel, project record keeping and purchase of goods and services, are reiterations of the mandates of Title VII.

909.50-909.62 These are also taken more or less verbatim from the statute. They discuss such things as allotment formula, program costs to both the state and federal governments, availability of surplus commodities and treatment of

income.

The formula for each state's allotment is based on the number of people in it over 60 with a floor of no less than .005% of the total appropriation.

76-300 0-72-pt. 2-9

FROM THE SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICE

[45 CFR PART 909]

NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR THE ELDERLY

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Notice is hereby given that the regulations set forth in tentative form below are proposed by the Administrator, Social and Rehabilitation Service, with the approval of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The proposed regulations relate to the implementation of Public Law 92-258, approved March 22, 1972, which authorizes a new title VII of the Older Americans Act. The new title provides for grants to States for nutrition projects to assist in meeting the nutritional and social needs of persons aged 60 or over. The regulations set forth the organizational and administrative requirements for State agencies administering the program, and the standards which the nutrition projects must meet.

Prior to the adoption of the proposed regulations, consideration will be given to any comments, suggestions, or objections thereto which are submitted in writing to the Administrator, Social and Rehabilitation Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201, within a period of 15 days from the date of publication of this notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER. It is the policy of the Department that 30 days' notice will be given for proposed rule making in the formulation of rules and regulations governing Department grant programs. Compliance with such procedures, however, would involve delay in implementing the provisions of Public Law 92-258, which authorize appropriations for the period beginning July 1, 1972. Accordingly, we find that under the circumstances it is impracticable to allow the usual period of notice. Comments received will be available for public inspection in Room 5121 of the Department's offices at 301 C Street SW., Washington DC, on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (area code 202–963–7361). Dated: May 26, 1972.

Approved: June 1, 1972.

ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON,

Secretary.

JOHN D. TWINAME, Administrator, Social and Rehabilitation Service.

A new Part 909 is added to Chapter IX of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows: