Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3409

involved U.S. citizenry and its

governments prepared for and capable

of lessening the impacts of drought—

consistently and timely—in the new

millennium.

This vision is based on the following

principles:

Consideration of all affected entities

and related issues, including legal,

economic, geographic, climate,

religious, and cultural differences;

fairness and equity; and environmental

concerns;

Comprehensive, long-term strategies

that emphasize drought planning and

measures to reduce the impacts of

drought;

Federal role focused on appropriate

coordination, technical assistance,

education, and incentives while at all

times respecting the rights and

responsibilities of Federal, State, and

local governments, and tribal

sovereignty;

Self-reliance and self-determination;

Lessons learned from past drought

experiences;

Shared drought-related expertise and

knowledge across international borders.

In addition to your own views and

thoughts regarding a national drought

policy, as you review the draft vision

and guiding principles, the Commission

would be interested in your thoughts

regarding the following questions:

1. What is the best means for

informing the public of Federal

assistance for drought planning and

mitigation?

2. What type of information do you

need for responding to the drought?

3. What needs do you or your

organization presently have with respect

to addressing drought conditions?

4. What do you see as the Federal role

with respect to drought preparedness?

Drought response? Should Federal

emergency assistance be contingent on

advance preparedness?

5. Are there any ways you feel that the

Federal Government could better

coordinate with State, regional, tribal,

and local governments in mitigating or

responding to droughts?

6. What lessons have you or your

organization learned from past drought

experiences that would be beneficial in

the creation of a national drought

policy?

Signed at Washington, D.C., on January 18,

2000.

Keith Kelly,

Administrator, Farm Service Agency.

[FR Doc. 00–1633 Filed 1–19–00; 2:27 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

RIN 0584–AC89

National School Lunch Program: Pilot

Projects, Alternatives to Free and

Reduced Price Application

Requirements and Verification

Procedures

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces pilot

projects which would permit selected

school food authorities and State

agencies to test alternatives to the

application procedures and verification

process for households participating in

the National School Lunch Program.

This notice responds to recent data

comparisons which suggest that the

existing application procedures and

verification process do not effectively

deter misreporting of eligibility

information. The results of these tests

will be used in considering revisions to

the current application procedures and

verification process to reduce the

misreporting of eligibility information.

DATES: Applications to conduct a pilot

project must be postmarked no later

than March 21, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Matthew Sinn by telephone at (703)

305–2017 to request an application

packet or in writing to: Matthew Sinn,

Office of Analysis Nutrition and

Evaluation, Room 503, 3101 Park Center

Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302; or

electronically at,

matthew.sinn@fns.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Is There Additional Information on the

Internet?

You can get copies of the complete

text of 7 CFR part 210, which covers the

NSLP, and 7 CFR part 245, which

includes the current application and

verification requirements, from the FNS

Web site at http://www.fns.usda.gov/

cnd. Access the National School Lunch

Program, then Regulations and Policy to

find a link to the federal regulations for

application and verification

requirements.

What are the Current Free and Reduced

Price Meal Application Procedures?

Under the National School Lunch

Program (NSLP), each school year,

school food authorities distribute free

and reduced price meal applications to

households of enrolled children.

Households complete the information

required on the application and return

it to the school food authority. School

food authority officials then determine

whether the household is either

categorically eligible or income eligible

for benefits based on the NSLP’s Income

Eligibility Guidelines. The information

required to determine categorical

eligibility are the name of the child, the

appropriate food stamp case number,

Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) case number or an

equivalent identifier used for the Food

Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations (FDPIR), and the signature

of an adult household member. The

information required to determine

income eligibility are the names of all

household members including the child

for whom application is made; the

social security number of the adult who

signs the application or an indication

that the household member does not

have a social security number; the

current amount of income received by

each household member identified by

the individual who receives it; and the

source of the income, such as wages,

welfare, alimony, and the signature of

an adult household member.

As an option to using the above

application procedures to establish a

child’s eligibility, school food

authorities have been allowed since

1991 to directly certify children for free

meal benefits. School food authorities

may certify children eligible for free

meal benefits, without further

application, by directly communicating

with the appropriate State or local

agency to obtain documentation that the

children are members of food stamp

households or members of households

certified eligible for TANF or FDPIR.

This certification process is referred to

as ‘‘direct certification.’’

What are the Current Verification

Process Requirements?

School food authorities must verify

the eligibility information on a sample

of the free and reduced price

applications submitted in any given

school year as required in 7 CFR 245.6a.

Generally, school food authorities verify

a minimum of 3% of the applications

which have been approved for free and

reduced price meal benefits.

Alternatively, a school food authority

may verify a smaller sample by focusing

on households whose income is within

$100 of the annual income eligibility

guidelines and selecting a portion of

their applications originally approved

based on categorical eligibility through

participation in the Food Stamp

Program, TANF or FDPIR. Households

that were directly certified are not

required to be verified.

3410 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

Why are Changes to the Application

Procedures and Verification Process

Being Considered?

Over the years, the administering

State agencies have conducted

comprehensive on-site evaluations of

school food authorities participating in

the NSLP. The findings indicate that

school food authorities have been

determining free and reduced price

eligibility in accordance with the

regulatory requirements. In spite of their

efforts, the number of children approved

to receive free meals appears to exceed

the number of children who are eligible

for free meals. The Food and Nutrition

Service (hereinafter ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or

‘‘our’’) is attempting to address this

disparity.

Recent comparisons of NSLP data

with data from the U.S. Bureau of the

Census, Current Population Survey

(CPS), suggest that the number of

children determined eligible for free

meals in the NSLP exceeds the number

of children that the CPS data identifies

as potentially eligible. In fact, in 1997,

the number of children approved for

free school meals, according to our data,

was substantially higher than the

number of school-aged children at or

below 130 percent of the poverty

guidelines (the free meal eligibility

guideline), according to CPS data.

This data comparison is consistent

with audit survey work by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)

Office of Inspector General (OIG). The

OIG determined that in one state nearly

20% of the households approved for

free or reduced price meals were

determined to be ineligible as a result of

subsequent verification conducted by

school food authorities (Food and

Nutrition Service National School

Lunch Program Verification of

Applications in Illinois: Audit Report

No. 27010–0011–Ch). In that survey

work, OIG reviewed the verification

process in 102 school food authorities.

Forty one school food authorities

reported no changes in household

eligibility due to verification. However,

in 61 of the 102 school food authorities,

the verification process resulted in a

termination/reduction rate of 19.05%.

The CPS data, the audit survey findings,

and other program oversight activity

suggest that a substantial number of

households misreport eligibility

information in order to gain eligibility to

free and reduced price meal benefits in

the NSLP.

The reasons for misreporting

eligibility information may be more

complicated than a desire to simply

wrongfully secure free and reduced

price meal benefits in the NSLP. A

number of local, State and Federal

programs use free and reduced price

approval as a criterion for other benefits.

As a result, households may have an

added incentive to gain approval for

meal benefits in order to obtain other

benefits such as free textbooks, reduced

athletic or band fees and other related

services.

In addition, other State and Federal

program funds are often linked to the

free and reduced price meal data. For

example, a State may distribute all or a

portion of its allotment of Federal

education funding to schools in

proportion to the enrollment of students

eligible for free or reduced price meal

benefits. These links, in which the

number of students eligible for free and

reduced price benefits cause a school’s

funding to increase, may discourage

school food authorities from veryifying

more applications than the minimum

required by current regulations.

What are the Objectives of the Pilot

Projects?

We considered universally increasing

the number of applications to be

verified by school food authorities as an

obvious measure that would likely

decrease misreporting of eligibility

information. However, we recognize

that such an approach may only provide

a limited ameliorative effect. Therefore,

we decided to test other approaches.

The objectives of the pilot projects are

to:

1. Explore methods of deterRing

misreporting of eligibility information

before the application is approved;

2. Explore methods of better detecting

the misreporting of eligibility

information after the application has

been approved; and,

3. Evaluate the cost effectiveness of

several methods before changing the

regulations in order to help ensure that

any future regulatory actions effectively

deter and/or detect the misreporting of

eligibility information.

What Criteria Will be Used to Select the

Pilot Sites?

Applications to participate in the

pilot project must meet the following

criteria and conditions, regardless of

whether they propose to test one of the

alternatives we have designed or

propose to design and test their own

alternative:

1. Proposals must not include a

significant barrier to program eligibility

for households that would otherwise be

eligible for benefits.

2. Proposals must have some

transferability, but universal

transferability is not required. For

example, a large school food authority

may design a system that is cost

effective, due to economies of scale, for

other larger school food authorities but

may be cost prohibitive in smaller

school food authorities.

3. Proposals must ensure that children

eligible for free and reduced price meals

are not overtly identified (42 U.S.C.

1758(b)(4)).

4. Proposals must ensure that when

households meet the NSLP eligibility

criteria and requirement(s) of the

alternative, they are promptly notified

and the children receive the benefits to

which they are entitled. Unless a shorter

timeframe is stipulated by the

administering State agency, eligibility

determinations should be made within

10 working days of receipt of the

eligibility information.

Are There Limits to What can be Tested

Through the Pilot Projects?

Section 12(l) of the Richard B. Russell

National School Lunch Act (NSLA) 42

U.S.C. 1760(l) allows us to grant waivers

for many requirements under the NSLA

or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 or

regulations issued under either Act.

However, under this waiver authority,

we may not grant a waiver that increases

Federal costs or that relates to: (a) the

nutritional content of meals served; (b)

Federal reimbursement rates; (c) the

provision of free and reduced price

meals; (d) limits on the price charged for

a reduced price meal; (e) maintenance of

effort; (f) equitable participation of

children in private schools; (g)

distribution of funds to State and local

school food authorities and service

institutions participating in a program

under the NSLA and the Child Nutrition

Act of 1966; (h) the disclosure of

information relating to students

receiving free or reduced price meals

and other recipients of benefits; (i)

prohibiting the operation of a profit

producing program; (j) the sale of

competitive foods; (k) the commodity

distribution program under section 14 of

the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1762a; (l) the

special supplemental nutrition program

authorized under section 17 of the Child

Nutrition Act of 1966, 42 U.S.C. 1786;

or (m) enforcement of any constitutional

or statutory right of an individual

including title VI of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, title IX of the

Education Amendments of 1972, the

Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

and the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act. Therefore, we will reject

applications that request statutory or

regulatory waivers that are not

authorized. In addition, we will reject

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3411

applications that are inconsistent with

the objectives of these pilot projects.

How Long Will the Pilot Project Last?

Pilot sites must conduct an alternative

application procedure or verification

process for 3 consecutive school years,

beginning in school year 2000–2001.

Who May Apply for a Pilot Project?

School food authorities may apply to

test one of the alternatives we have

developed (explained later in this

notice) or an approvable alternative they

have developed to improve the integrity

of the application procedures or

verification process under the NSLP.

School food authorities may be asked to

identify a second alternative they would

be willing to test in the event that their

first choice is not available. In addition,

State agencies may apply to test one of

the alternatives we have developed or

an alternative they have developed to

improve the integrity of the application

procedures or verification process under

the NSLP.

Do School Food Authorities Need State

Agency Approval?

School food authorities applying to

test an alternative must obtain the

approval of their administering State

agency as part of the application

process. All applications must be

submitted to us by the administering

State agency. Applications must be

postmarked no later than March 21,

2000.

How Many Pilot Sites Will Be Selected?

We would like to test the 4

alternatives we have designed, with at

least two pilot sites testing each

alternative. As a result, we envision a

minimum of 8 pilot sites for this

purpose. Given cost limitations, no

more than 10–12 pilot sites will be

selected, which will allow for school

food authority designed alternatives.

How Many Alternatives May a School

Food Authority Test?

In any school food authority, only one

alternative may be tested. School food

authorities may apply to test one of the

alternatives we have designed or apply

to test their own alternative. School

food authorities do not have to apply to

test an alternative in all schools under

their jurisdiction, however for

applicants that are not single-site school

food authorities, we would like the

alternative to be tested in more than one

school.

How Will the Effectiveness of

Alternative Procedures Be Evaluated?

We designed the alternatives to

prevent incorrect receipt of meal

benefits either by deterring households

from misreporting eligibility

information on their application

(deterrence measures) or identifying

misreporting after it occurs through the

verification process (detection

measures). Throughout the pilot

projects, we will be collecting data to

evaluate how well the alternatives deter

or detect the misreporting of eligibility

information, how much burden the

alternatives place on the pilot sites and

the cost effectiveness of the alternatives.

What Are the USDA Designed Alternate

Procedures Pilot Sites May Apply to

Use?

We have identified several possible

approaches to deterring and detecting

the misreporting of eligibility

information in the NSLP. The

approaches outlined in this notice are

partially based on findings and

recommendations from the OIG and

other Program assessments by USDA.

We have designed four alternatives that

we would like to test and have allowed

for additional alternatives. The first two

alternatives test changes to the

application process, the third alternative

tests changes to the verification process.

The fourth alternatives tests changes to

both the application procedures and the

verification process. In recognition that

interested school food authorities and

State agencies may have alternative

approaches to the existing application

procedures or verification process that

would reduce misreporting, we will

accept applications for school food

authority or State agency designed

alternatives. Such proposals must meet

the criteria used to select pilot sites,

discussed previously, as well as those

under ‘‘Alternative 5—School food

authority/State agency alternative.’’ The

chart below summarizes the alternatives

followed by a detailed description of

each alternative:

3412 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

Alternative 1

households confirm

eligibility at the time

of application

Alternative 2

third party school

meal benefit determination and confirmation system

Alternative 3

verify direct certification

Alternative 4

graduated increase in

verification sample

size

Alternative 5

school food authority/

state agency alternative

Application Related

Changes

Pilot site requires all

applicant household

to attach to their

free and reduced

price applications,

confirmation of the

income or categorical information or

acceptable collateral contact information.

Pilot site contracts

with a third party to

establish a benefit

determination and

eligibility confirmation system. The

system would require confirmation

of the income or

categorical eligibility

information listed

on the application

for all applicant

households.

No changes to application or direct certification procedures.No changes to application or direct certification procedures

during first year.

During second and

third year, all

households with

benefits terminated

or reduced the prior

year due to

verification must

provide confirmation of eligibility to

the school food authority at the time of

application.

School food authorities/State agencies

may apply to conduct the following:

(a) Apply to pilot

test a modification of one of the

alternatives, 1–4;

or

(b) Design the procedures and

apply to test a

comprehensive

benefit determination system

that covers Federal and State

assistance programs, not simply

the Child Nutrition Programs;

or,

(c) Design the procedures and

apply to test a

proposal to deter

and/or detect

misreporting of

eligibility of information.

Verification Related

Changes

Verification requirements of § 245.6a

are waived.

Verification requirements of § 245.6a

are waived.

Pilot site with a significant number of

students approved

through direct certification conducts

verification on all directly certified

households by December 15.

Verification requirements for applications are unchanged.

Pilot site contracts

with third party to

verify 3% of the applications.

If 25% or more of

verified applications

had benefits terminated or reduced,

the third party randomly selects an

additional 50% of

remaining applications and verifies

them.

If the target amount is

reached again, the

third party verifies

the remainder of

the applications.

Alternative 1—Households Confirm

Eligibility at the Time of Application

The first alternative would require all

households who submit a free and

reduced price meal application to

provide documents or an acceptable

collateral contact which confirm the

income or categorical eligibility

information listed on their application.

No changes would be made for

households that were directly certified.

This alternative would operate as

follows:

1. At the beginning of the school year,

the pilot site would notify households

that in order to be determined eligible

for free or reduced price meal benefits,

their free and reduced price meal

application must be accompanied by

documentation that confirms income or

categorical eligibility information listed

on their application (e.g., pay stubs,

letter from welfare office) or collateral

contact information that allows for

confirmation of eligibility. Pilot sites

must include information about this

requirement in any public notification,

including the application materials that

are sent to each household.

2. Children from households that fail

to provide documents which confirm

the income or categorical eligibility

information listed on their application

or fail to provide an acceptable

collateral contact would not be

approved for meal benefits.

3. Supporting documents (e.g., pay

stubs, letters from employer, letter from

welfare office) must reflect the income

or categorical eligibility information

current as of the time the application is

submitted. In the case of households

applying based on categorical eligibility,

the supporting documents must confirm

‘‘current’’ eligibility for food stamps,

TANF, or the FDPIR programs. For the

purposes of this alternative, ‘‘current’’

eligibility means that the household is

certified as eligible for food stamps,

TANF or FDPIR at the time the

household submits an application for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3413

free and reduced price meal benefits.

Households that cannot supply written

confirmation must supply a collateral

contact from which the pilot site may

confirm the eligibility information

either orally or in writing.

4. If the pilot site also conducts direct

certification to establish eligibility, no

changes would be made to the direct

certification process.

5. Verification requirements would be

waived since the confirmation of

eligibility occurs at the time of

application.

Alternative 2—Third Party School Meal

Benefit Determination and

Confirmation System

The second alternative would permit

pilot sites to contract with a third party

to establish a benefit determination and

confirmation system. The system would

use the current application and/or direct

certification procedures and must

provide for confirmation of eligibility

through methods available to the third

party. The third party may be a public

entity or private company that has

access to information allowing

determination or confirmation of

eligibility for meal benefits. For

example, the local food stamp office

could be contracted with to determine

eligibility of households. Likewise, a

private company may specialize in

conducting wage matching and a pilot

site could retain the company to

determine eligibility of households and

use the company’s wage matching

process to confirm eligibility at the time

of application. Entities contracting with

pilot sites to determine eligibility for

meal benefits or confirmation of

eligibility for meal benefits will be

required to assure that information

obtained from program participants is

maintained in compliance with the

confidentiality provisions of Section

9(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the NSLA (42 U.S.C.

1758(b)(2)(C)(iii).

This benefit determination and

confirmation system would, at a

minimum, require confirmation of the

income or categorical eligibility

information listed on the application.

Confirmation would be established

through wage matching, by asking

households to provide supporting

documents, through collateral contacts

or by other means available to the third

party. Prospective pilot sites should be

aware that applications for this

alternative will only be accepted when

the third party provides specialized

service related to determining and

confirming benefits. Therefore,

applications will not be accepted for

pilot projects proposing to employ a

food service management company for

the benefit determination and

confirmation system. This alternative

would operate as follows:

1. At the beginning of the school year,

the pilot site or third party would notify

households that in order to be

determined eligible for free or reduced

price meal benefits, the income and

categorical eligibility information listed

on their free and reduced price meal

application must be confirmed at the

time of application. Confirmation may

be through wage matching, submission

of supporting documents or through

other means. Pilot sites may require

additional information from the

household, such as social security

numbers, in order to accomplish

confirmation of eligibility. Pilot sites

must advise households of the

procedures and include any notices

required by statute (e.g., Privacy Act).

2. Households that do not have their

eligibility determined through the third

party’s process must be allowed to

provide documentation or collateral

contact information that confirms

eligibility. For example, a household

that does not appear in a wage match

database must be allowed to provide

documentation or collateral contact

information to confirm eligibility.

3. Children from households that fail

to provide documents or collateral

contact information which confirms the

income or categorical eligibility

information listed on their application

or that fail to have their eligibility

confirmed by the third party would not

be approved for free and reduced price

meal benefits.

4. Supporting documents (e.g., pay

stubs, letter from employer, letter from

welfare office) must reflect the income

or categorical eligibility information

current as of the time the application is

submitted. In the case of households

applying for categorical eligibility, the

supporting document must confirm

‘‘current’’ eligibility for food stamps,

TANF, or the FDPIR program. For the

purposes of this alternative, ‘‘current’’

eligibility means that the household is

certified as eligible for food stamps,

TANF or FDPIR at the time the

household submits an application for

free and reduced price meal benefits.

5. If the pilot site also conducts direct

certification to establish eligibility, no

changes would be made to the direct

certification process.

6. Verification requirements would be

waived since the confirmation of

eligibility occurs at the time of

application.

Alternative 3—Verify Direct

Certification

The third alternative would require

pilot sites to verify the continued

eligibility of all children whose

eligibility was established through

direct certification. Currently, children

may be directly certified for free meal

benefits through eligibility in other

programs: food stamps, TANF and

FDPIR. These programs generally

provide a 3 to 4 month certification of

eligibility period. Verification of

eligibility for those children is not

required but households are required to

notify school food authority officials if

they no longer receive benefits from the

program that originally established

eligibility for school meals. In the event

a household notifies school officials that

they are no longer eligible, the school

food authority is required to supply a

free and reduced price meal application

to allow the household to apply based

on family size and income. However, if

households fail to notify school officials

when they are no longer eligible for food

stamps, TANF or FDPIR, there is no

mechanism to detect this change in

benefit status. This alternative would

operate as follows:

1. The pilot site would continue to

inform households of children directly

certified for free meal benefits that they

are required to inform the pilot site if

eligibility in the certifying program

ends. In addition, the pilot site would

inform such households that the

eligibility of the directly certified

children will be subject to verification.

2. By December 15, the pilot site

would verify the continued eligibility of

all children that were originally

approved through the direct

certification process for free meal

benefits.

3. The verification process must

require all households of directly

certified children to provide documents

confirming current eligibility for free

meal benefits or collateral contact

information that allows for

confirmation. As a procedural

alternative to collecting supporting

documents or collateral contact

information from households that were

originally directly certified, pilot sites

may run a second direct certification

match or ‘‘verification match’’ of such

households.

4. Households that do not supply

documents or collateral contact

information to confirm their eligibility

would have their benefits for free meals

terminated. If a pilot site chose to run

a second direct certification match,

households that were no longer

identified as eligible through the direct

3414 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

certification match would have their

benefits for free meals terminated. For

all households that have benefits

terminated, the pilot site would be

required to provide a ten day advance

notification of the benefit termination

prior to the termination of benefits. The

notice must advise households of the

change in eligibility, the reason for the

change, the right to appeal as listed in

7 CFR 245.6a(e) and the right to reapply

at any time during the school year.

5. Households of children that had

meal benefits terminated as a result of

the direct certification verification

would have the opportunity to submit

an application for free and reduced

price meals, however, documents

confirming the information on the

application would be required at the

time of application.

6. The pilot site would continue to

conduct verification as outlined in 7

CFR 245.6a on the household size and

income/categorical eligibility

applications.

Alternative 4—Graduated Increase in

Verification Sample Size

The fourth alternative would require

pilot sites to contract with a third party

to verify additional applications through

a graduated increase in the sample size

when a high percentage of error is

disclosed by the original sample. When

the third party finds through the

standard verification process that a high

percentage of verified households have

benefits terminated or reduced,

additional verification would be

conducted by the third party. Pilot sites

would expand the sample size when the

error rate of the original sample meets

or exceeds a target amount of 25%. This

alternative would operate as follows:

1. Pilot sites would select an original

3% sample of free and reduced price

meal benefit applications through

random selection and a third party

would conduct the verification process

by December 15 as currently outlined in

7 CFR 245.6a;

2. If 25% or more of the households

in the original sample have benefits

terminated or reduced for any reason,

including non-response, the third party

would expand the sample size by

randomly closing 50% of the remaining

applications and verifying their

eligibility, making sure not to re-select

applications from the original sample.

3. If 25% or more of the households

in the second sample have benefits

terminated or reduced for any reason,

including non-response, the third party

would verify all remaining applications.

4. Under this alternative, no changes

would be made to the direct

certification process.

5. For all households that have

benefits terminated, the third party

would be required to provide a ten day

advance notification of the termination/

reduction prior to the actual reduction

or termination. The notice must advise

households of the change in eligibility,

the reason for the change, the right to

appeal as listed in 7 CFR 245.6a(e) and

the right to reapply at any time during

the school year.

6. All households that had benefits

terminated or reduced as a result of

verification and who wish to apply to

meal benefits in the current year or the

following year would be required to

provide confirmation of eligibility at the

time of application.

Alternative 5—School Food Authority/

State Agency Alternative

There are three possibilities for school

food authorities or State agencies to test

their own alternative. One method is to

test a variation of one of the alternatives,

1–4. A second method might be to

design a comprehensive benefit

determination system that covers

multiple Federal, State and local

assistance programs, not simply the

Child Nutrition Programs. Pilot sites

interested in designing a comprehensive

benefit system must develop an

application for a combination of several

Federal, State and local benefits. Such

pilot sites would develop the

application, notification procedures and

procedures for determining eligibility

for the benefits covered by the

application and apply to test the system.

In addition, the comprehensive benefit

system must include internal controls to

ensure the delivery of benefits to

eligible applicants and to deter or detect

misreporting of eligibility information.

The third method for school food

authorities or State agencies is to design

another procedure to deter or detect

misreporting of eligibility information

for school meal benefits and apply to

test the alternative.

What are the Additional

Responsibilities for Pilot Sites?

Pilot sites must retain complete and

accurate records that allow us to

evaluate the cost effectiveness of

alternatives and whether the

alternatives effectively deter

misreporting or correctly detect

households that should no longer be

receiving benefits. Selected pilot sites

must supply us, or our contractor, with

requested information and data

throughout the course of the pilot

project. Pilot sites must also agree to

devote appropriate staff time to work

with us or the contractor during the

three years the pilot projects are in

operation.

Specific recordkeeping and reporting

requirements will depend on the pilot

procedures and extant recordkeeping

activities. Pilot sites must agree to send

us, upon request, copies of all records

related to their pilot project.

Classification

Executive Order 12866

This notice has been determined to be

not significant and is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget under Executive Order 12866.

Public Law 104–4

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,

we 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 us

to identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, more costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This notice contains no Federal

mandates (under 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 notice is not subject

to the requirements of sections 202 and

205 of the UMRA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This action is not a rule as defined by

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 through 612) and thus is exempt

from the provisions of that Act.

Executive Order 12372

The National School Lunch Program

is listed in the Catalog of Federal

Domestic Assistance under No. 10.555.

It is subject to the provisions of

Executive Order 12372 which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials, (7 CFR Part

3015, Subpart V and final rule related

notice at 48 FR 29112, June 24, 1983).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3415

Dated: January 13, 2000.

Samuel Chambers, Jr.,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–1434 Filed 1–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Southwest Washington Provincial

Advisory Committee Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

SUMMARY: The Southwest Washington

Provincial Advisory Committee will

meet on Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at

the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Office, located at 10600 NE 51 Circle,

Vancouver, Washington. The meeting

will begin at 10 a.m. and continue until

4:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is

to: (1) Review the Law Enforcement

program on the Forest; (2) Review the

Cowlitz Valley Ranger District Flood

Restoration Program; (3) Approve

revisions to the Committee Vision

Statement; and (4) Provide for a Public

Open Forum. All Southwest

Washington Provincial Advisory

Committee meetings are open to the

public. Interested citizens are

encouraged to attend. The ‘‘open forum’’

provides opportunity for the public to

bring issues, concerns, and discussion

topics to the Advisory Committee. The

‘‘open forum’’ is scheduled as part of

agenda item (4) for this meeting.

Interested speakers will need to register

prior to the open forum period. The

committee welcomes the public’s

written comments on committee

business at any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting

to Linda Turner, Public Affairs

Specialist, at (360) 891–5195, or write

Forest Headquarters Office, Gifford

Pinchot National Forest, 10600 NE 51st

Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682.

Dated: January 14, 2000.

Claire Lavendel,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 00–1504 Filed 1–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR

SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List Additions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled.

ACTION: Additions to the Procurement

List.

SUMMARY: This action adds to the

Procurement List services to be

furnished by nonprofit agencies

employing persons who are blind or

have other severe disabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 2000.

ADDRESS: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled, Crystal Gateway 3, Suite 310,

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia 22202–4302.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leon A. Wilson, Jr. (703) 603–7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On November 29 and December 10,

1999, the Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled published notices (64 FR

69225 and 66611) of proposed additions

to the Procurement List.

The Following Comments Pertain to

Grounds Maintenance/Vegetation

Control, Concord Naval Weapons

Station, Concord, California

Comments were received from the

current contractor for this service in

response to a request for sales data. The

contractor indicated that losing this

contract would have a severe adverse

impact on the company because of the

percentage of the company’s total sales

it represents and because the company

would be unable to replace the lost

revenue with a similar contract

‘‘anytime soon.’’ The percentage of the

company’s total sales which its contract

for this service represents is well below

the level which the Committee normally

considers to constitute severe adverse

impact on a company which loses a

service to the Procurement List. In

addition, the contractor’s uncertainty

about when it would be able to replace

the lost revenue indicates that the

possibility of mitigating the less than

severe impact it will experience is not

a remote one. Consequently, the

Committee believes that addition of this

service to the Procurement List will not

have a severe adverse impact on the

company.

The Following Material Pertains to the

Two Services Being Added to the

Procurement List:

After consideration of the material

presented to it concerning capability of

qualified nonprofit agencies to provide

the services and impact of the additions

on the current or most recent

contractors, the Committee has

determined that the services listed

below are suitable for procurement by

the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C.

46–48c and 41 CFR 51–2.4. I certify that

the following action will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The major

factors considered for this certification

were:

1. The action will not result in any

additional reporting, recordkeeping or

other compliance requirements for small

entities other than the small

organizations that will furnish the

services to the Government.

2. The action will not have a severe

economic impact on current contractors

for the services.

3. The action will result in

authorizing small entities to furnish the

services to the Government.

4. There are no known regulatory

alternatives which would accomplish

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46—48c) in

connection with the services proposed

for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following services

are hereby added to the Procurement

List:

Grounds Maintenance/Vegetation

Control, Concord Naval Weapons

Station, Concord, Calfornia.

Janitorial/Grounds Maintenance, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, U.S.

Horticultural Research Laboratory, Fort

Pierce, Florida.

This action does not affect current

contracts awarded prior to the effective

date of this addition or options that may

be exercised under those contracts.

Louis R. Bartalot,

Deputy Director (Operations).

[FR Doc. 00–1485 Filed 1–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR

SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Proposed Additions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed Additions to

Procurement List.

SUMMARY: The Committee has received

proposals to add to the Procurement List

services to be furnished by nonprofit

agencies employing persons who are

blind or have other severe disabilities.

COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR

BEFORE: February 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase

From People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled, Crystal Gateway 3, Suite 310,

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia 22202–4302.