62096 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 

establishing a national standard for meal 

charges and alternate meals and best 

practices guidance. While the FNS 

study showed that unpaid debt is not a 

systemic issue, for some schools and 

school districts unpaid debt has become 

a greater problem given other budgetary 

restraints. To assist these schools and 

school districts, FNS is seeking 

comments, concerns and suggestions on 

the extent of the problems and what has 

been done across the nation to address 

this issue of maintaining access to meals 

and also a school food service in strong 

financial standing. 

FNS’ objective is to receive input from 

a broad spectrum of parties that may be 

affected by policies on a number of 

topics relating to meal charges. These 

include students and their parents, 

school district officials, school food 

service staff, State agency officials, and 

the general public. FNS has an interest 

in working with States and school 

districts to ensure that schools are 

providing access to healthy meals to all 

children, but are also able to pay for the 

costs that they incur. FNS is particularly 

interested in learning if there is a 

relationship between a student who is 

extended ‘‘credit’’ and that child’s 

eligibility for free and reduced priced 

meals. 

FNS intends to use the information it 

receives to prepare a report on the 

feasibility of establishing national 

standards for meal charges and the 

provision of alternate meals and to 

provide recommendations for 

implementing those standards, as 

required by the HHFKA. Information 

submitted to FNS will also help to 

develop ‘‘Best Practices’’ guidance for 

meal charge policies and assist FNS in 

developing recommendations for 

Congressional review. 

To assist in developing comments, 

FNS is seeking input regarding the 

following questions. FNS welcomes 

comments to all questions below. 

1. Does your school district have a 

written policy on meal charges and/or 

when alternate meals may be provided? 

If so, please attach your policy or a link 

to a Web site containing the policy to 

your comment. 

2. Which officials are responsible for 

developing the policies (e.g., school 

district business officials, the school 

food service director, school principals, 

etc.)? 

3. Are there any grade level 

differences; for example, are only 

children below high school allowed to 

charge meals? 

4. May children who do not have their 

payment or who have outstanding 

charges/unpaid balance select any 

reimbursable meal or are children 

offered alternate meals in lieu of the 

selection of reimbursable meals? If 

alternate meals are offered, what types 

of foods are offered in alternate meals? 

5. Are reimbursable alternate meals 

available? If so, at what eligibility rate 

is your school district claiming these 

meals? 

6. Does your school’s unpaid meal 

charge policy include a modified 

approach for handling students based 

on the duration of unpaid meal status, 

and if so, how? 

7. Are there any consequences outside 

the meal service for students who do not 

have their meal payment for the day 

(e.g., the student may not participate in 

extracurricular activities or report cards 

are not released, etc)? 

8. How does the school ensure the 

children’s eligibility status does not 

become apparent to other children or 

school staff as result of the school’s 

implementation of the credit 

procedures? 

9. Does a child’s unpaid meal status 

become apparent to other children or 

school staff? If so, how? Are there 

measures you take to minimize the 

chances these children are identified 

and what do you find to be the most (or 

least) effective strategies? 

10. Is any financial support to the 

school food service from the school 

district provided to offset costs related 

to the meal charges policy? 

11. How are parents informed of the 

policies about charging meals, limits on 

charges, low account balances, 

outstanding balances, and methods of 

payment? 

12. Have outstanding debts increased 

or decreased in your school district over 

the last 3 school years? 

13. What steps does your school 

district provide to assist families with 

meal charges to apply for free or 

reduced price meals? 

14. Are children with outstanding 

debts mostly those: 

a. Eligible for reduced price meals; 

b. Potentially eligible for free or 

reduced price but who have not applied 

or been certified; or 

c. Who applied but were not eligible? 

15. How do outstanding meal 

payments affect the ability of food 

service to meet the meal pattern 

requirements? 

16. Does your school district have a la 

carte sales? If so, are children allowed 

to charge these items and how is 

repayment of any charges handled? 

17. If your school district does not 

have a meal charge policy, how does 

that affect children who do not have 

their meal payment for the day? 

When preparing information in 

response to this request, please keep in 

mind that FNS is seeking comments 

within the current statutory structure of 

the school meals programs. For 

example, while serving all meals at no 

cost to all students would eliminate the 

need for credit policies; this approach 

would require statutory change as 

currently, schools may only offer all 

students free meals if they are operating 

under a Special Provision, including the 

Community Eligibility Provision. This 

approach is beyond the scope of this 

information request. FNS appreciates 

your thoughtful and responsive 

comments. 

Dated: October 8, 2014. 

Jeffrey J. Tribiano, 

Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24575 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Request for Information: Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

Revision of the Program and Budget 

Summary Statement Part B—Program 

Activity Statement 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS), USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Each year, Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

State agencies are required to submit the 

Program and Budget Summary 

Statement Part B, Program Activity 

Statement (FNS–366B) to the Food 

Nutrition Service (FNS) per 7 CFR 

272.2(c)(ii). Information collected on 

this form includes fraud activity for the 

reporting fiscal year such as a total 

number of fraud referrals, 

investigations, prosecutions, 

disqualification consent agreements 

(DCA), administrative disqualification 

hearings (ADH) and ADH waivers. This 

form further contains data on program 

dollars associated with pre-certification 

and post-certification fraud 

investigations, as well as program 

dollars that may be recovered resulting 

from an ADH or prosecution. This 

information is reported not later than 45 

days after the end of the State agency’s 

fiscal year, which is typically August 

15th for most States. FNS is 

contemplating proposed changes to this 

form in order to improve the reliability 

and accuracy of State integrity reporting 

by revising data field definitions, such 

as what constitutes an investigation, for 

clarity and consistency. FNS is also 

considering an increase in the frequency 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 62097 

of reporting and would be interested in 

better understanding what impact 

increasing the reporting frequency may 

have on stakeholders. Furthermore, FNS 

is considering the addition of new data 

elements in order to better understand 

the impact and value returned to the 

taxpayer as a result of fraud prevention 

activities. Through this notice, FNS 

announces a request for information 

regarding the impacts for consideration 

in revising the Program Activity 

Statement (FNS–366B). FNS will 

consider all comments in the 

development of the new reporting form. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to 

Jane Duffield, Chief, State 

Administration Branch, Program 

Accountability and Administration 

Division, Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

3101 Park Center Drive, Room 818, 

Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may 

also be emailed to SNAPSAB@

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 FNS office 

located at 3101 Park Center Drive, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22302, Room 800, 

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

to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday). 

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 this request for information 

should be directed to Kelly Stewart at 

(703) 305–2425. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: State 

agencies report annually to FNS using 

the Program and Budget Summary 

Statement Part B—Program Activity 

Statement (FNS–366B) per 7 CFR 

272.2(c)(ii) of the Federal regulations. 

FNS is considering changes to the form 

that could include changing the 

reporting frequency, adding new data 

elements, and changing or removing 

current data elements. FNS is also 

soliciting stakeholder suggestions for 

establishing with State data a national 

cost avoidance calculation 

methodology, as well as obtaining input 

on how best to clearly define all data 

elements and instructions to gain 

consistency among States. 

FNS National and Regional Office 

staff developed a national standardized 

Recipient Integrity Management 

Evaluation (ME) protocol which 

provides a comprehensive assessment of 

how effectively States are managing 

recipient fraud prevention activities and 

provides an opportunity for 

communication between FNS and State 

agencies. Management evaluations have 

allowed FNS to discuss the FNS–366B 

with State and local officials, gathering 

information about its usefulness and 

ease of completing the form. Based on 

the results of management evaluations 

completed to date, it is apparent that 

State reporting lacks consistency and 

the FNS–366B does not have clearly 

defined data elements or instructions. 

Due to the lack of clarity in these 

instructions, responses are left open to 

interpretation, and can and do vary 

among States, leading to unreliable 

reported data. 

Further, the FNS–366B lacks certain 

data elements that would increase its 

effectiveness and provide more accurate 

information on the types, as well as 

impact, of fraud prevention activities 

implemented by State Agencies. FNS is 

considering the addition of new data 

elements, such as those focusing on 

trafficking investigations and 

disqualifications, in order to gather 

better information that allows FNS to 

focus fraud prevention and detection 

strategies where they are most needed. 

FNS is also considering changes to the 

frequency States report the information 

collected on the FNS–366B. An increase 

in reporting frequency would allow for 

greater and more timely access to 

program data. It would help States, FNS, 

and other stakeholders identify trends, 

inconsistencies and inefficiencies 

earlier in each fiscal year. With more 

current data, States and other interested 

parties would be able to identify gaps 

and areas in need of greater attention, 

and allow States to respond more 

quickly to those gaps. 

FNS is proposing to add new 

reporting elements to better measure the 

effectiveness and impact of fraud 

prevention activities. FNS would like to 

define a standard national methodology 

for States to determine cost avoidance 

from their fraud prevention activities in 

order to quantify a return on investment 

for investigations or activities that result 

in a finding of fraud. A cost avoidance 

calculation methodology would attempt 

to quantify program dollars that a fraud 

determination outcome, such as a 

finding of an intentional program 

violation (IPV), prevented from being 

improperly used. For example, if an 

investigation finds that a recipient is 

guilty of trafficking, by establishing an 

IPV, how many program dollars might 

have been abused if the case was not 

investigated or prosecuted? Related to 

this, FNS would like to identify a 

methodology to measure how quickly 

disqualification takes place once 

recipient trafficking is identified. This 

methodology should allow FNS to 

assess how quickly States investigate 

and remove individuals that are guilty 

of trafficking, while ensuring FNS rules 

and regulations are upheld and clients 

receive due process. 

Finally, FNS is always mindful of the 

importance of balancing integrity and 

access. The Agency does not tolerate 

any level of fraud and takes an 

aggressive stance to work with its 

partners to hold guilty individuals 

accountable for their actions. 

However, those actions cannot be 

taken at the expense of discouraging 

eligible individuals from participating 

in the program or violating any 

individual’s right to due process. FNS is 

interested in stakeholder input 

regarding the types of information that 

might be collected to help ensure that 

fraud prevention strategies are not 

resulting in any unintended 

consequences that adversely impact 

program access. Examples include 

failing to advise an individual of their 

rights, unlawfully withholding an 

eligible individual’s access to benefits, 

or using coercion to obtain a signed 

disqualification consent agreement. 

With these general interests in mind, 

FNS is seeking information from 

stakeholders on the following particular 

questions: 

1. What new data elements should 

FNS consider adding to the FNS–366B 

that are not currently reported? 

2. Do States currently utilize or 

possess performance measurement 

methods or tools to evaluate the new 

data elements being suggested? If not, 

what evaluation tools should be 

developed in order to collect and/or 

analyze new data elements? 

3. What data elements should FNS 

remove or revise on the FNS–366B? 

4. What, if any, barriers would States 

have to reporting trafficking fraud as a 

separate category from other types of 

fraud? 

5. How are investigations currently 

defined? Should investigations be 

separated into pre-certification 

investigations and post-certification 

investigations for reporting purposes? 

Why or why not? What other 

distinctions should be considered? 

6. What barriers, if any, keep States 

from accurately completing the form? 

a. Are these concerns regarding the 

form and/or instructions? 

b. Are there hurdles within State 

agencies that make reporting of data 

required on this form difficult? 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
62098 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Notices 

7. Do States or stakeholders anticipate 

an increase in administrative 

expenditures or other impact if SNAP 

restructures the FNS–366B? If yes, 

please explain. 

8. How much time would be required 

for State agencies to adjust their systems 

and reporting mechanisms in order to 

provide different or additional 

information on a revised FNS–366B? 

9. How would increasing the 

frequency of reporting impact 

stakeholders? If additional costs would 

be part of this impact, please explain. 

10. How is this data currently used by 

the State and what benefit(s) does it 

provide? 

11. What data and methodology for 

calculating cost avoidance as a result of 

fraud prevention activities should FNS 

consider? 

12. What data and methodology 

should be considered to measure how 

quickly recipient trafficking suspects are 

investigated and disqualified in 

accordance with FNS rules and 

regulations? 

13. What data should FNS consider 

collecting to ensure that fraud 

prevention activities do not adversely 

impact program access? 

Dated: October 8, 2014. 

Jeffrey J. Tribiano, 

Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24572 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest; 

Idaho; Johnson Bar Fire Salvage 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service gives 

notice of its intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Johnson Bar Fire Salvage Project. The 

Proposed action would utilize ground 

based (tractor and skyline) and 

helicopter logging systems to harvest 

trees killed by the Johnson Bar Fire. 

Harvested areas would be replanted 

with early seral species such as 

ponderosa pine, western white pine and 

western larch. Approximately 3 miles of 

roads would be decommissioned to 

reduce sediment related impacts to the 

watershed. The EIS will analyze the 

effects of the proposed action and 

alternatives. The Nez Perce-Clearwater 

Forests invites comments and 

suggestions on the issues to be 

addressed. The agency gives notice of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analysis and decision making 

process on the proposal so interested 

and affected members of the public may 

participate and contribute to the final 

decision. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 

November 17, 2014. The draft 

environmental impact statement is 

expected in March 2015 and the final 

environmental impact statement is 

expected July 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Mike Ward or Tam White, 

Interdisciplinary Team Leaders; 502 

Lowry Street, Kooskia, Idaho 83539. 

Comments may also be sent via email to 

comments-northern-nezperce-moosecreek@fs.fed.us 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Ward, Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader, (208) 926–6413 or Tam White, 

Interdisciplinary Team Leader (208) 

926–6416. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

objective of the Johnson Bar Fire 

Salvage Project would be to recover the 

economic value of the timber burned in 

the fire and move the area towards 

desired species compositions 

(ponderosa pine, western white pine 

and western larch) through reforestation 

as well as improve watershed 

conditions. 

Purpose: Provide a sustained yield of 

resource outputs at a level that will help 

support the economic structure of local 

communities and provide for regional 

and national needs (Nez Perce Forest 

Plan, II–1) 

Need: There is a need to utilize dead 

trees resulting from the fire in a timely 

manner to provide social and economic 

benefits before they lose commercial 

value and merchantability, which 

would contribute to the supply of 

timber for local, regional, and national 

needs. 

Purpose: Reduce potential sediment 

inputs into the aquatic ecosystem. 

Need: Sediment input from gravel and 

native surface roads can flow into 

streams, negatively affecting fish habitat 

and water quality. Improvement of 

watershed function and stream 

conditions can be accomplished by 

reducing road densities and repairing 

existing roads and culverts to reduce 

sediment and improve drainage. 

The Proposed Action would: Salvage 

harvest approximately 4,000 acres of 

dead trees within the approximate 

13,000 acre fire area. Harvesting 

operations would primarily utilize 

skyline and helicopter logging systems 

with a small component of ground 

based tractor skidding where 

appropriate. Openings are likely to 

exceed 40 acres. 

Approximately 23 segments of 

temporary roads would be built to 

provide line machine access from 

existing system roads. These spurs 

generally average approximately 0.16 

miles each and would be removed 

following harvest. 

Fire killed or ‘‘dead’’ trees for the 

purposes of this project are determined 

using guidelines that determine 

mortality by the amount of scorch and 

fire severity surrounding the roots and 

lower trunk. Field validation of these 

guidelines indicates they are accurate 

for the forest types and fire severity in 

the project area. All live trees will be 

generally retained however incidental 

removal may occur to facilitate harvest 

operations. 

Reforestation would plant long lived 

early seral tree species such as 

ponderosa pine, western white pine and 

western larch. This strategy would 

allow us to continue towards the goal of 

restoring more resilient tree species 

across the landscape. Seventeen to 

thirty-three tons per acre of standing 

and down large woody debris would be 

left across the treatment area to provide 

soil microclimate and habitat, long term 

nutrients, soil stability, and snag 

habitat. For safety reasons, retention 

would generally occur in clumps rather 

than individual snags distributed across 

the units. Retention would generally 

favor the largest snags. Approximately 3 

miles of unneeded roads may be 

decommissioned by placing them in a 

hydrologically stable condition. This 

may involve a range of road 

decommissioning methods from culvert 

removal to full recontouring. 

As they are developed, additional 

information and maps will be posted to 

‘‘NEPA Projects’’ page on the Forests 

Web site: http://data.ecosystemmanagement.org/nepaweb/project_

list.php?forest=110117. 

Responsible Official and Lead Agency 

The USDA Forest Service is the lead 

agency for this proposal. The Nez PerceClearwater Forest Supervisor is the 

responsible official. 

The Decision To Be Made is whether 

to adopt the proposed action, in whole 

or in part, or another alternative; and 

what mitigation measures and 

management requirements will be 

implemented. 

The Scoping Process for the EIS is 

being initiated with this notice. The 

scoping process will identify issues to 

be analyzed in detail and will lead to 

the development of alternatives to the 

proposal. The Forest Service is seeking 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES