13342 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 

TABLE 1 

Affected public Respondent type Instrument Number 

respondents 

Avg. number 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Total annual 

responses 

Hours per 

response Total burden 

State, Local and Tribal Government.Local WIC Agency Director ...... Interview .......... 8 2.00 16.00 0.50 8.00 

(non-response) .......................... Pre-screening .. 2 1.00 2.00 0.0835 0.17 

Local WIC Breastfeeding Coordinator.Interview .......... 8 2.00 16.00 1.00 16.00 

(non-response) .......................... Interview .......... 2 1.00 2.00 0.0835 0.17 

Local Peer Counseling Coordinator.Interview .......... 8 2.00 16.00 2.00 32.00 

(non-response) .......................... Pre-screening .. 2 1.00 2.00 0.0835 0.17 

Local Peer Counseling Coordinator.Progress Reporting Form.8 10.00 80.00 3.00 240.00 

Local WIC Agency Database 

Manager.

Interview .......... 8 1.00 8.00 0.50 4.00 

(non-response) .......................... Pre-screening .. 2 1.00 2.00 0.0835 0.17 

Local WIC Agency Database 

Manager.

Progress Reporting Form.8 10.00 80.00 0.50 40.00 

Peer Counselor ......................... Interview .......... 64 1.00 64.00 1.50 96.00 

(non-response) .......................... Pre-screening .. 6 1.00 6.00 0.0835 0.50 

Peer Counselor ......................... Questionnaire .. 64 1.00 64.00 0.25 16.00 

Total SA Reporting burden ................................................... ......................... 110 3.25 358.00 1.22 436.67 

Individual/Household .................. WIC Participant ......................... Questionnaire .. 1,800 2.00 3,600.00 0.334 1,202.40

(non-response) .......................... Pre-screening .. 200 1.00 200.00 0.0835 16.70 

Total I/H Burden ................. ................................................... ......................... 2,000.00 1.90 3,800.00 0.32 1,219.10 

Total burden ................. ................................................... ......................... 2,110.00 1.88 3,958.00 0.42 1,655.77 

Dated: March 4, 2011. 

Julia Paradis, 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5624 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request—National School 

Lunch Program (NSLP) Direct 

Certification Improvement Study 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice invites the general public and 

other public agencies to comment on 

this proposed information collection. 

This collection for ‘‘National School 

Lunch Program Direct Certification 

Improvement Study’’ is a reinstatement 

with change of a previously approved 

data collection for ‘‘Feasibility of 

Computer Matching in the National 

School Lunch Program.’’ It builds on the 

data collection for ‘‘Feasibility of 

Computer Matching in the National 

School Lunch Program.’’ This study will 

collect information from State child 

nutrition (CN) and education agencies, 

as well as local education agencies 

(LEAs). The information collection will 

build on existing knowledge by 

examining current methods of direct 

certification used by State and local 

agencies and the challenges facing 

States and LEAs in attaining high 

matching rates. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments are invited on 

(1) 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; 

(2) 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; 

and (3) 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 Steven 

Carlson, Associate Administrator, Office 

of Research, Analysis, Communications, 

and Strategic Support, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 

1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments 

may also be submitted via fax to the 

attention of Steve Carlson at 703–305– 

2020 or via e-mail to 

Steve.Carlson@fns.usda.gov. Comments 

will also be accepted through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments electronically. 

All written comments will be open for 

public inspection at the office of the 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 

during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday) at 

3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22302. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) approval. All comments will be 

a matter of public record. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the proposed information 

collection forms should be directed to 

Sheku Kamara at 703–305–2130. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: National School Lunch Program 

Direct Certification Improvement Study, 

which is an update to a previously 

approved data collection for ‘‘Feasibility 

of Computer Matching in the National 

School Lunch Program.’’ 

OMB Number: 0584–0529. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Expiration Date: Not yet determined. 

Type of Request: Reinstatement with 

change of previously approved data 

collection. 

Abstract: Direct certification was 

required of States and LEAs in the Child 

Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act 

of 2004. Direct certification enables 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 13343 

children in households that receive 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) or other public 

assistance program benefits to be 

certified to receive school lunches 

without application. Use of direct 

certification has increased since the 

2004 reauthorization but is still not 

universal, despite the mandate. In 

school year (SY) 2009–2010, 83 percent 

of National School Lunch Program 

(NSLP) districts directly certified 

children in SNAP households; these 

districts included 97 percent of all 

students in NSLP schools. Most States 

also now employ computer datamatching techniques—in which 

electronic files containing names and 

other identifying information of 

children from SNAP (or other programs) 

are matched against a student 

enrollment file containing the names 

and other identifying information, in 

order to directly certify categorically 

eligible students. 

The core aims of the study are to 

describe current direct certification 

processes and procedures employed by 

States and LEAs; explore the 

relationship between these methods and 

overall direct certification performance 

measures; and identify steps for 

continuous improvement in datamatching techniques and tools to 

increase matching rates. 

This project has 11 study objectives: 

(1) Update national information on 

current practice used by States and 

LEAs to conduct direct certification; 

(2) describe State information systems 

(IS) and databases that are used to 

conduct direct certification and what 

analyses are conducted to determine the 

efficiency of the data matching, and 

correlate State system and database 

characteristics with State performance 

measures, including those based on the 

agency’s direct certification reporting; 

(3) develop a comprehensive, up-to-date 

reference library of data-matching 

algorithms and computer code used for 

NSLP direct certification at the State 

and local levels, including a library of 

the data elements, formats, and 

definitions for all variables used in the 

matching; (4) examine relationships 

between direct certification 

implementation procedures, 

information systems and databases, and 

State performance measures of direct 

certification; (5) determine what barriers 

exist in the use of data matching in 

direct certification in NSLP in different 

States and LEAs; (6) determine what 

States have been doing with direct 

certification grants awarded by Food 

and Nutrition Services (FNS), in terms 

of improvements made and their effects; 

(7) identify ‘‘best practices’’ that could be 

used to provide technical assistance to 

those States developing continuous 

improvement plans to reach higher rates 

of data matching; (8) examine the 

current plans for improvement of the 

direct certification process in the future 

and the capability to adopt any potential 

changes that may be required in the 

subsequent legislation; (9) explore the 

records of unmatched SNAP households 

with school-age children and of 

categorically eligible SNAP children (as 

determined by NSLP application) to 

determine how direct certification could 

be further improved; (10) to estimate the 

‘‘national’’ direct certification matching 

rates under various scenarios (Optional 

Task); (11) to develop model continuous 

improvement plans for States using 

State-level matching and for States 

using local-level matching (Optional 

Task). 

To address the study objectives, three 

key data collection tasks will be 

performed: (1) A national survey of 

direct certification practices of all 50 

States, the District of Columbia, five 

territories, and of LEAs in those States 

where direct certification data matching 

is conducted at the district-level; (2) indepth case studies in seven States and 

selected LEAs, which will include site 

visits to interview program and 

technical staff involved in direct 

certification at the State and LEA levels; 

and (3) an exploration of unmatched 

SNAP participant records and NSLP 

applications from a sample of districts 

within the seven case study States, 

which will form the basis for an analysis 

of the accuracy of the matches and 

provide insight into how data matching 

could be improved. 

Taken together, the information 

collected will help FNS, State CN 

directors, and LEAs recognize promising 

trends, understand new approaches, and 

provide technical assistance for 

continuous improvement of their direct 

certification efforts. 

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal 

Government. Respondent groups 

identified include: (1) CN staff at the 

State level; (2) education staff at the 

State level; (3) State SNAP, Medicaid, 

and/or Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) program staff; and 

(4) staff from LEAs. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

The study will collect data from a total 

of 7,949 respondents across all States. 

There are three categories of data 

collection: Web-based, national survey 

(States and LEAs); in-depth interviews 

during site-visits; and collection of 

unmatched SNAP participant records 

and NSLP applications. The Web-based, 

national survey will be conducted with 

57 State (and territory) CN program 

directors and approximately 7,700 LEAs 

(2,500 LEAs will receive a long version 

of the survey; 5,200 LEAs will receive 

a short version). In-depth interviews 

during site visits will be conducted with 

7 State CN agency officials; 7 State 

education staff; 7 State SNAP officials; 

7 State Medicaid agency officials; 7 

State TANF officials; 14 (2 per State) 

State IS staff; 18 LEA staff and 18 LEA 

IS staff. Records of unmatched SNAP 

participant records will be collected by 

7 State staff and NSLP applications will 

be collected by 100 LEA staff. 

Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Time per Response: For the 

Web-based, national survey, the burden 

estimate is 1.25 hours (75 minutes) for 

State CN staff and is inclusive of the 

respondents’ time to prepare for and 

complete the survey; the burden 

estimate is 1.0 hour (60 minutes) for 

LEA staff completing a long version of 

the survey; and, 0.33 hours (20 minutes) 

for LEA staff completing the short 

version of the survey. For all persons 

who decline to participate in the survey, 

the burden estimate is 0.10 hours (6 

minutes) and includes the respondents’ 

time to read a letter and/or respond to 

a telephone call. For all respondents 

interviewed during the site visits, the 

burden estimate is 1.33 hours (80 

minutes) and includes respondents’ 

time to read an introductory letter, 

receive a reminder letter, and prepare 

for and participate in the visit. The 

burden for gathering unmatched SNAP 

records is 4.0 hours; the burden for LEA 

staff to gather NSLP applications is 4.0 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents and Nonresponders: Total 

of 4,132.42 hours, including: State CN 

staff, 73.68 hours (includes Web-based 

survey and in-depth interviews); LEA 

staff, 3,950.80 hours (includes Webbased survey, in-depth interviews, and 

collection of NSLP applications); State 

education staff, 9.33 hours; State SNAP 

staff, 9.33 hours; State Medicaid staff, 

9.33 hours; State TANF staff, 9.33 hours; 

State IS staff, 18.62 hours; LEA IS staff, 

24 hours; and State staff, 28 hours. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
13344 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED BURDEN PER RESPONDENT

Affected public Respondent type 

Estimated 

number of 

respondents 

Responses 

annually per 

respondent 

Total annual 

responses 

Estimated 

average number of hours 

per response 

Estimated total 

hours 

State, Local and Tribal 

Agencies.

Web Based Survey 

State CN staff (long survey) 

Complete.

51 1 51 1 .25 63 .75 

State CN staff (long survey) 

Attempted.

6 1 6 .10 .60 

LEA staff (long survey) 

Complete.

2,000 1 2,000 1 .00 2,000 

LEA staff (long survey) Attempted.500 1 500 .10 50 

LEA staff (short survey) 

Complete.

4,160 1 4,160 .33 1,372 .8 

LEA staff (short survey) Attempted.1,040 1 1,040 .10 104 

Site Visits 

State CN staff ..................... 7 1 7 1 .33 9 .33 

State education staff .......... 7 1 7 1 .33 9 .33 

State SNAP staff ................ 7 1 7 1 .33 9 .33 

State Medicaid staff ........... 7 1 7 1 .33 9 .33 

State TANF staff ................ 7 1 7 1 .33 9 .33 

State IS staff ...................... 14 1 14 1 .33 18 .62 

LEA staff ............................. 18 1 18 1 .33 24 

LEA IS staff ........................ 18 1 18 1 .33 24 

Unmatched SNAP Records and NSLP Applications 

State staff (SNAP unmatched records).7 1 7 4 28 

LEA staff (NSLP applications).100 1 100 4 400 

Total ............................. ............................................. 7,949 ........................ 7,949 ........................ 4,132 .42 

Dated: March 4, 2011. 

Julia Paradis, 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5627 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Beaver Creek Landscape Management 

Project, Ashland Ranger District, 

Custer National Forest; Powder River 

County, MT 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of change of responsible 

official. 

SUMMARY: On April 2, 2010 the Forest 

Service announced its notice of intent 

(NOT) to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Beaver Creek 

Landscape Management Project in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 16728). The 

notice of availability (NOA) of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Beaver Creek Landscape Management 

Project was published in the Federal 

Register on October 15, 2010 (75 FR 

63470, EIS No. 20100405, Draft EIS, 

USFS, MT). 

Responsible Official 

In the NOI the Forest Supervisor, 

Mary Erickson, was identified as the 

Responsible Official. Pursuant to Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) 2404.13 the 

District Ranger has the authority to be 

the Responsible Official for this project. 

Therefore, this is notice that Ashland 

District Ranger, Walt Allen, is the 

Responsible Official for the Beaver 

Creek Landscape Management Project. 

DATES: The Final Environmental Impact 

Statement is planned to be released in 

April 2011. 

ADDRESSES: No comments are being 

sought at this time. However, Walt 

Allen can be contacted at the Ashland 

Ranger District, P.O. Box 168, Ashland, 

MT 59003 or by phone at 406–784– 

2344. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Waring, Project Coordinator, at 

(406) 657–6205 extension 210. 

Dated: March 4, 2011. 

Chris Worth, 

Deputy Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5476 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Ontonagon Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Ontonagon Resource 

Advisory Committee will meet in 

Rockland, Michigan. The Committee is 

meeting as authorized under the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) 

and in compliance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. The purpose 

is to review and make recommendations 

on Title II Projects submitted by the 

public. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES