The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528-531, as amended) and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614, as amended) authorize the Forest Service to sell National Forest System timber to private purchasers through a competitive bidding process. Bidders are required to provide a bid guarantee and a performance guarantee to protect against damage to the natural resources and financial loss to the Federal government. The bidders, however, are not required to provide a payment guarantee.

To satisfy the requirement for performance guarantees for National Forest System timber sale contracts, the Forest Service currently uses Standard Form 25—Performance Bond (SF-25). This form was developed by the General Services Administration in response to the Miller Act (40 U.S.C. 270a-270f) and is unique to construction contracts. SF-25 was intended for use in conjunction with the Federal government's purchase of a product or service rather than the sale of a product, as is the case in the sale of National Forest System timber.

SF-25 does not guarantee payment from a holder of a timber sale contract or from a surety company, if a holder of a timber sale contract defaults on the contract. SF-25 also does not incorporate requirements of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, which specifies that a surety company be assessed for additional charges of interest, late-payment penalties, and administrative costs, if a payment is not made by a specified date. (31 U.S.C. 3717)

The Forest Service addressed the issue of no guarantee of payment by holders of timber sale contracts by proposing a new form, FS-6500-11-Performance Bond, in a proposed policy, Timber Sale Performance and Payment Bond Form Revision, with a request for comments that was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 1989 (54 FR 1742). The Forest Service would require timber sale contractors to use FS-6500-11, in lieu of SF-25, to meet the requirement to provide a surety to guarantee a bid payment. FS-6500-11 would clarify: (1) What the surety company would be guaranteeing, (2) when payment would be due from a surety company in case of default of the contract by the principal, and (3) the additional charges that include interest, penalties, and administrative costs, that would be assessed if payment had not been received from the surety company by a specified date. (31 U.S.C. 3717) (FSH 6509.11h, chapter 20)

In the proposed policy, the agency also had proposed revising the FS-6500-12—Payment Bond Form and FS-6500-12a—Blanket Payment Bond Form to provide for assessment of interest, penalties and administrative costs for late payment, as required by the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended. (31 U.S.C. 3717) The agency received comments from 21 respondents: 10 from timber companies and 11 from surety companies. Twenty of the 21 respondents opposed revising the bond forms.

The surety companies maintained that, under the tenets of suretyship, by making payment before a dispute has been settled, a surety may be viewed by the court as a “volunteer.” According to the sureties, by being viewed as a “volunteer,” a surety would lose its right to reimbursement by the principal. Sureties further maintained that being viewed as a “volunteer” also would create an open-ended bond liability for sureties that would include assessment of interest, penalties, and administrative costs. Sureties maintained that unliquidated damages should not be due and interest should not begin to accrue, in the case of a dispute and appeal, until a board or court has decided that a damage amount was properly due and owing. Sureties maintained they should only be obligated, if so determined by a court or board in the case of a dispute, to pay the amounts owed by the principal, including interest owed by the principal, up to the penal sum of the bond.

Sureties also maintained that the Forest Service has been acting as judge and jury in denying a surety due process by prejudging which defenses have been valid for contesting a billing. Sureties maintained that the Forest Service has refused to recognize the “normal concept” of suretyship and has attempted to turn a bond into a demand instrument, such as a Letter of Credit.

The 10 timber companies maintained, if the Forest Service proceeded with revisions to FS-6500-12 and FS-6500-12a, surety bonds would be too costly for small timber companies.

One respondent wanted to eliminate performance bonding.

Because of the nature of the comments, the Chief of the Forest Service determined that further review would be necessary.

Subsequently, the Forest Service had requested an opinion from the Comptroller General on whether the agency could assess interest, penalties, and administrative costs on delinquent debts during the pendency of appeals taken pursuant to the Contracts Disputes Act of 1978. The Forest Service also had requested an opinion as to whether corporate sureties, providing performance bonds for timber sale contracts, would be subject to the assessment of interest, penalties, and administrative costs, in addition to the penal sums owed under their bonds.

The Comptroller General published the following decision in 1991 (70 Comp. Gen. 517, 518):

(a) Under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, the Forest Service should assess interest, late-payment penalties, and administrative costs on delinquent contract debts during the pendency of appeal by debtors under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978; and

(b) If it becomes necessary or appropriate to invoke the surety's bond, the surety would be liable for charges against the contractor assessed under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended. The surety also would be liable for charges assessed against the surety itself, interest, penalties, and administrative costs, after the surety's obligation under the bond has been invoked.

Soon after the decision of the Comptroller General was published, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a significant decision in the case, Insurance Company of North America vs. United States, 951 F.2d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1991), which held a surety company liable for interest that accrued from the time the Federal government properly demanded payment from the surety, throughout the pending litigation, and until the Federal government received payment in full, even when the amount of interest increased the surety's obligation beyond the penal amount of the bond. The court decided that “[t] he surety's obligation to pay does not wait for completion of legal contests between the principal and the creditor.” The surety's obligation to pay continues to accrue during litigation between the principal and the creditor.

Additionally, the General Accounting Office, in a report to Congress in October of 1993 entitled “Timber Sale Contract Defaults—Forest Service Needs to Strengthen Its Performance Bond and Contract Provisions,” recommended that the Forest Service clarify the liability provisions in a new performance bond, which would clearly make plain that the surety company would be liable for damages at the time of default, as well as for interest, penalties, and administrative costs on delinquent debts from the time the default occurs.

In response to the decision of the Comptroller General, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case, Insurance Company of North America vs. United States, and the recommendations of the United States General Accounting Office, the Forest Service proposes to use FS-6500-11-Performance Bond, FS-6500-12-Payment Bond, and FS-6500-12a-Blanket Payment Bond to meet the requirements of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended.

FS-6500-11, FS-6500-12, and FS-6500-12a would set forth a surety's obligation and potential liability at the time a timber sale purchaser obtains a performance guarantee or payment guarantee. These forms would ensure that surety companies know their obligations to safeguard the interests of the public and would meet the requirements of the payment or performance bond, if a purchaser failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of a timber sale contract. (31 U.S.C. 3717) (FSH 6509.11h, chapter 20)

Timber sale contractors must provide certain information to the Forest Service. The following forms are designed to provide this information: FS-6500-11, FS6500-12, and FS-6500-12a. The request for information meets the information collection requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996. Therefore, the agency has withdrawn the proposed policy, Timber Sale Performance Bond and Payment Bond Form Revision, and is now requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget to collect this information. (withdrawn on April 27, 1998 (63 FR 21773))

Respondents would be holders of National Forest System timber sale contracts. They would be asked to provide the following same information on all three forms: the name and address of the principal that has entered into or assumed a timber sale contract; the name and address of the surety that would guarantee the performance of the principal; the penal sum of the bond; the timber sale contract number and name; the period for which the performance would be guaranteed; and the signatures, certifications, dates, and seals, as appropriate, for principal, surety, and witnesses.

The following describes the new information collection:

Title: FS-6500-11-Performance Bond.

OMB Number: New.

Expiration Date of Approval: New.

Type of Request: This is a new information collection that has not received approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

Abstract: FS-6500-11-Performance Bond will replace Standard Form 25-Performance Bond and will guarantee the faithful performance and fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the contract.

FS-6500-11 (a) will provide for a surety company to become liable for the default of a timber sale contract by its principal, (b) will provide when such payment is due from the surety company, and (c) will incorporate requirements of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, which specify that the surety company be assessed for additional charges of interest, late-payment penalties, and administrative costs, if payment is not made by a specified date.

FS-6500-11 will ensure that bidders provide a corporate surety bond, cash, certified check, cashier check, bank draft, postal money order, assigned savings account, certificate of deposit, securities, or an irrevocable letter of credit to address the issues of payment guarantees, blanket payment guarantees, and performance guarantees.

FS-6500-11 also will meet the requirements of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, and will incorporate the decisions of the Comptroller General of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the recommendations of the United States General Accounting Office.

Respondents will be holders of National Forest System timber sale contracts.

Estimate of Burden: 15 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Individuals, large and small businesses, and corporations that hold a timber sale contract and use performance bonds to guarantee performance.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 750 hours.

The following describes the new information collection:

Title: FS-6500-12-Payment Bond.

OMB Number: New.

Expiration Date of Approval: New.

Type of Request: This is an information collection that has not received approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

Abstract: FS-6500-12-Payment Bond will guarantee that holders of timber sale contracts pay the Federal government the agreed upon amount as required under the contract.

Respondents will be holders of National Forest System timber sale contracts.

Estimate of Burden: 15 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Individuals, large and small businesses, and corporations that hold a timber sale contract and use payment bonds to guarantee payment for timber.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,350.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 338 hours.

The following describes the new information collection:

Title: FS-6500-12a-Blanket Payment Bond.

OMB Number: New.

Expiration Date of Approval: New.

Type of Request: This is an information collection that has not received approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

Abstract: FS-6500-12a-Blanket Payment Bond will guarantee that, if the principal fails for any reason to make any payment, the surety will make the payment.

Respondents will be holders of National Forest System timber sale contracts.

Estimate of Burden: 15 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Individuals, large and small businesses, and corporations that hold a timber sale contract and use blanket payment bonds to guarantee payment for timber.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 150.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 38 hours.

The agency invites comment on the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (b) 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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including name and address when provided, will become a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

The “Land and Resource Management Plan” (Forest Plan), required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, describes the current and desired future condition of the lands and natural resources of the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF). The Forest Plan also contains the guidance and direction to move the forest toward the desired state. The need for any action or proposal is found in the broad context of the total Forest as expressed in the Forest Plan.

The Forest Plan addresses the need for improving the landownership pattern of National Forest lands within the DBNF boundary. Ideally, federal holdings should be concentrated in large, contiguous blocks (as opposed to smaller, scattered tracts). Reasons cited in the Forest Plan are to increase favorable water flows and improve water quality (Forest Plan, pages III-6, IV-2, and C-1) and to reduce management costs (Forest Plan, pages II-24, III-8, IV-1, IV-43, IV-72, and C-1). Although the DBNF has large blocks of good consolidation within its boundary, it also has areas where federal ownership is sparse and scattered (Forest Plan, page IV-72). This proposal lies within the Redbird Ranger District. The landownership pattern for the district is similar to that described for the DBNF and the general guidelines are applicable at the smaller scale.

Instructions regarding the consolidation of landownership are found in the Forest Plan primarily in Chapter IV.

The Lands section under Resource Objectives (Forest Plan, IV-72) states, in part:

Additional guidance is contained in the Forest Plan, Appendix C—Landownership Adjustment Plan.

A basic objective of the Forest Plan is emphasized; that the Forest Service is to dispose of small isolated tracts and consolidate large contiguous blocks to improve efficiency of management and administration and increase favorable water flows and improve water quality.

The Landownership Adjustment Plan also contains language specific to the Redbird Ranger District:

Tracts 107Ab and 745 are two of 43 isolated tracts identified by the Forest Service as potential exchange candidates.

Actual experience, since the Forest Plan was developed, has shown that the availability of acquisition funding varies widely from year to year. Funds for direct acquisition may be available at some point in the future.

This action would move the DBNF toward consolidation by exchanging two isolated federal tracts located on the Redbird Ranger District for a single privately owned track that is nearly surrounded by National Forest System land.

(a) This action would help the DBNF meet Forest Management Goals (Daniel Boone Forest Plan, Pages IV-1, 2) in the following ways:

(1) Manage the Forest in a manner that is sensitive to economic efficiency.

This proposal—Presently, the minimum time required to access Tract 107 Ab from the Redbird District office is 11/2 hours under optimum conditions. Tract 745 requires over two hours to reach including 30-45 minutes of foot travel. The private tract can be reached from the office in approximately one hour.

(2) Manage the transportation system for increased cost effectiveness and efficiency to meet resource management needs.

This proposal—Both federal tracts are landlocked. Tract 745 requires the acquisition of 1/4 mile of right-of-way and the reconstruction of 1/4 mile of an old mine road to access a public road. Tract 107 Ab requires the acquisition of approximately 11/4 miles of right-of-way and possibly the same amount of road construction or reconstruction depending on the disposition of the surrounding land currently being strip-mined. The private track would require no right-of-way if accessed from above and approximately 700 feet if from below. Road construction would be approximately 700 feet to 2000 feet depending on the high or low route.

(3) Consolidate federal ownership, within land adjustment boundaries, to resolve problems related to intermingled landownership.

(4) Acquire lands that provide favorable flows of water and provide the opportunities to improve water quality.

This proposal—A slight net gain in water quality and watershed protection may occur as a result of the exchange because the tract to be gained by the government contains a perennial stream. Tracts 107Ab and 745 are on intermittent or ephemeral streams.

(b) Resource Objectives

The Resource Objective of improving the efficiency of management and effective production of goods and services would be met through consolidation by reducing landline maintenance, road construction, access time, trespass and claims.

(c) Forest Wide General Direction/Standards and Guidelines

(1) Land Exchange Agreements should be considered where protection of T&E species habitat may occur as the result of such exchange (Forest Plan, IV-11).

This proposal—While no federally listed species are known to occur on National Forest lands on the Redbird District, the Indiana bat (endangered) has been captured within the administrative boundary. It is assumed that the entire forested area on the district is summer roosting habitat. The type of habitat found on the Leslie Resources tract is similar to that found on both of the government tracts. The proposed exchange would result in a net gain, in acres, of Indiana bat habitat that is under Federal ownership. The biological evaluation for the project, and the supporting concurrence by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined “Not likely to affect” the Indiana bat or any other federally listed species.

(2) Develop a landownership pattern that will provide efficiency of administration of Daniel Boone National Forest lands. This will involve land exchange, acquisition and jurisdictional transfers (Forest Plan IV-43).

This proposal—Implementing the exchange proposal would reduce boundary line location and maintenance needs by 4.15 miles of line and 27 corners. In addition, problems associated with intermingled landownership (for example: 107Ab-timber trespass, 745-no access) would be reduced.

(3) Weeks Law Funds and exchange will be utilized to consolidate National Forest Lands and secure low productive lands and lands having soil/water improvement needs so as to provide for favorable water flow and future timber production.

This proposal—None of the tracts involved are considered low productive lands. The watershed is stable and water quality good on all tracts.

(4) Disposal of federal tracts will be coordinated with other resource areas to assure the following are given adequate consideration—

(i) Floodplains and riparian areas.

(ii) Public recreation needs.

(iii) Significant historical or archeological sites.

(iv) Threatened and endangered species of wildlife or vegetation.

(v) Key wildlife habitat.

This proposal—There are 2.3 acres of floodplain areas on the tracts administered by the DBNF. The private tract has 5.5 acres of floodplains. The exchange would result in a net floodplain increase of 3.2 acres under Federal ownership. Riparian areas are limited to narrow branch bottoms on intermittent streams. All of the tracts are considered to have little potential for recreation beyond the present use of hunting and root collection. The archaeological survey found no significant sites on any of the tracts. The Kentucky State Historical Preservation Officer concurred with this determination. See above for the discussion on threatened and endangered species. There is no key wildlife habitat identified on any of the tracts.

(d) Appendix C—Landownership Adjustment Plan.

This proposal—Two of the forty three isolated tracts identified as exchange candidates on the Redbird Ranger District would be exchanged for one tract in the zone of consolidation. The efficiency of administration and management would be increased and more favorable water flows and improved water quality is expected due to a net increase in intermittent stream channels of National Forest land.

The Landownership Adjustment Plan contains two sets of criteria to be considered in exchanges (Page C-5, 6). The first list contains criteria used to evaluate tracts being considered for acquisition. A second list is used to evaluate tracts being considered for exchange.

Criteria to consider for the acquisition tract:

(1) Protection of threatened and endangered species habitat.

This proposal—Potential habitat for the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) occurs on the tract to be acquired. The exchange would result in a net increase in the amount of this habitat under Federal ownership.

(2) Meeting public demands for dispersed and developed recreation, wildlife and fish habitat, improved water quality and yields, soil and other resource production.

This proposal—The watershed of the private tract is currently vegetated and stable. This would be maintained. Dispersed recreation and wildlife management should improve through consolidation.

(3) Prevention and or elimination of unacceptable adverse impacts to National Forest resources.

This proposal—Forest protection in terms of fire control, trespass, and claims should improve. The tract that would be gained by the Forest Service is more accessible and oversight of the land will improve.

(4) Opportunity to reduce resources management costs for timber, recreation, wildlife, fish and other resources.

This proposal—Management costs are expected to decrease because of easier and efficient access.

(5) Opportunity to reduce or eliminate management cost sin boundary line location, rights-of-way acquisition, road and trail development.

The proposal—The costs associated with boundary lines and all aspects of transportation development would be reduced.

(6) Increase the commercial timber base for sustained yields of high quality hardwood and softwoods sawtimber and veneer products.

This proposal—The timber base would be increased by approximately 6 acres.

(7) Providing public access to National Forest land and resources.

This proposal—The consolidation of National Forest land provides more and better options for the development of public access.

(8) Improvement or consolidation of the National Forest landownership pattern.

This proposal—National Forest land would be consolidated through this exchange.

(9) Some cultivated land may be acquired as part of a larger parcel that is suitable for National Forest administration.

This proposal—No cultivated land is involved.

(10) Resource outputs and resource protection for Congressionally designated areas.

This proposal—No Congressionally designated areas are involved.

(11) Costs to administer and/or develop after acquisition.

This proposal—The tract to be acquired is similar to the federal lands surrounding it. No unusual administration or development costs would be anticipated.

(12) Suitability of land for National Forest administration considering past and existing land uses, location surrounding, or adjacent land use, mineral ownership and deep constraints, existing resources and potential uses.

This proposal—There are no known situational encumbrances that would render this tract to be less than suitable for inclusion into the National Forest System for a broad range of uses.

Criteria to consider for the exchange tracts:

(1) Most of the land exchange base is scattered, isolated, and inefficient to manage, but is needed for exchange to provide or protect public resources in areas where ownership can be consolidated through the land exchange process.

This Proposal—The Land Ownership Adjustment Plan prepared by the Redbird District identifies tracts 107Ab and 745 as candidates for exchange. These two tracts are completely isolated from other National Forest property.

(2) Opportunity is offered to reduce or eliminate management costs in boundary line location, right-of-way acquisition and access development, trespass, title claims, special use administration, and resource management.

This Proposal—Implementing the exchange proposal would reduce boundary line location and maintenance needs by 4.15 miles of line and 27 corners. in addition, problems, associated with intermingled landownership (for example: 107Ab-timber trespass, 745-no access) would be reduced. Neither of these tracts is closer than two air miles to a federally consolidated tract.

(3) Land has become non-National Forest in character or is unsuitable for continued National Forest administration due to past or existing land uses, encumbrances, surrounding, or adjacent land use and deed constraints.

This Proposal—Tract 107Ab will eventually be an island surrounded by a reclaimed strip mine of hundreds of acres in size.

(4) Land is suitable and needed for community expansion and development. Private development of the land would not unreasonably conflict with forest land management objectives and administration of National Forest resources.

This Proposal—There are no communities in the vicinity of the tracts. The exchange proposal would contribute to economic stability of the area by providing continued employment for those living and working in the area.

(5) Opportunity is offered to achieve needed resource and land management objectives through land exchange.

This Proposal—Acquiring the one private tract through exchange would help consolidate portions of the National Forest.

The land would be managed for multiple-use and would give Federal protection to any significant archaeological sites or habitat for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive (PETS) species that may occur. The tracts to be acquired are known to contain suitable habitat for the Indiana Bat (IB). This proposal offers multiple opportunities to achieve needed resource and land management objectives.

The Daniel Boone National Forest is seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action.

To facilitate public participation several measures are being taken. Information about the project proposal is being mailed to all who are on the current list to receive scoping information from the Redbird Ranger District. Public notices are being published four consecutive times in the newspapers of Perry, Leslie and Owsley Counties, Kentucky and once each in the Manchester Enterprise, Manchester, Kentucky and the Herald Leader, Lexington, Kentucky. Public notices are also being placed at post offices in the vicinity of the exchange tracts.

Additionally, the public may visit Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision.

Comments submitted during the scoping process should be in writing. They should be specific to the action being proposed and should describe as clearly and completely as possible any issues the commenter has with the proposal. This input will be used in preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The scoping process includes:

(a) Identifying potential issues.

(b) Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.

(c) Eliminating nonsignificant issues or those previously covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.

(d) Exploring additional alternatives.

(e) Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

Preliminary issues identified for the proposed exchange are as follows:

(a) If exchanged, it is likely that Tract 107Ab will be strip mined, using the controversial method known as “mountain top removal”.

(b) Consolidation through the purchase of land is preferred to exchange by some people. National Forest lands should not be given up once acquired.

(a) No Action: The exchange would not take place.

(b) Proposed Action: The Daniel Boone National Forest would exchange Tract 107Ab (52.15 acres), located on Langdon Branch in Leslie County, Kentucky, and Tract 745 (39.96 acres), located on Spicer Fork in Perry County, Kentucky for a 98.17 acre tract located on the Rock House Branch of Buffalo Creek in Owsley County, Kentucky, which is owned by Leslie Resources, Inc.

(c) An alternative to purchase was discussed. The proponents declined, being interested only in the exchange. The alternative will not be considered further.

The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and to be available for public comment by July 2001. At that time, the Environmental Protection Agency will publish a notice of availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the DEIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of DEIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519. 553 (1978). Also, environmental objectives that could be raised at the DEIS stage but that are not raised until after the completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritage, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334 (E.D.Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the FEIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if the comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provision of the National Environmental Policy Act of 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

After the comment period ends on the DEIS, the comments will be analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the FEIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in September 2001. The responsible official will consider the comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision regarding this proposed action.

The responsible official will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR part 215.

The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the modifications to the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Jeffrey R. Vonk, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project.

The project purpose is flood prevention. The planned project includes the floodproofing of two structures and channel work to increase flow capacity along 4.64 miles of channel.

The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are no file and may be reviewed by contacting J.R. Flores, Acting Director, Watershed Planning Services.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Virginia will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Virginia regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made to the subject standards.

Foreign governments sometimes require U.S. importers of strategic commodities to furnish their supplier with a U.S. Delivery Verification Certificate validating that the commodities shipped to the U.S. were in fact received. This procedure increases the effectiveness of controls over exports of strategic commodities.

Submitted, as required, on form BXA-647P.

OMB Number: 0694-0016.

Form Number: BXA-647P.

Type of Review: Regular submission for extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Time Per Response: 31 minutes per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 56.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No start-up capital expenditures.

Comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.

On December 1, 2000, Taiho Corporation of America (“Taiho America”) requested that the Department revoke in part the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. Specifically, Taiho America requested that the Department revoke the order with respect to imports meeting the following specifications: (1) Carbon steel flat products measuring 0.975 millimeters in thickness and 8.8 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%-11% tin, 9%-11% lead, maximum 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 13%-17% carbon, 13%-17% aromatic polyester, with a balance (approx. 66%-74%) of polytetrafluorethylene (“PTFE”); and (2) carbon steel flat products measuring 1.02 millimeters in thickness and 10.7 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%-11% tin, 9%-11% lead, less than 0.35% iron, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45%-55% lead, 3%-5% molybdenum disulfide, with a balance (approx. 40%-52%) of polytetrafluorethylene (“PTFE”).

On December 21, 2000, domestic producers of the like product, Bethlehem Steel Corporation; Ispat Inland Steel; LTV Steel Company, Inc.; National Steel Corporation; and U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation, stated that they have no interest in the importation or sale of steel from Japan with these specialized characteristics. As noted above, we gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Initiation and Preliminary Results. We received no comments from interested parties.

The merchandise covered by this changed circumstances review is certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. This changed circumstances administrative review covers all manufacturers/exporters of carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) Carbon steel flat products measuring 0.975 millimeters in thickness and 8.8 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%-11% tin, 9%-11% lead, maximum 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 13%-17% carbon, 13%-17% aromatic polyester, with a balance (approx. 66%-74%) of polytetrafluorethylene (“PTFE”); and (2) carbon steel flat products measuring 1.02 millimeters in thickness and 10.7 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%-11% tin, 9%-11% lead, less than 0.35% iron, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45%-55% lead, 3%-5% molybdenum disulfide, with a balance (approx. 40%-52%) of polytetrafluorethylene (“PTFE”).

The affirmative statement of no interest by petitioners concerning carbon steel flat products, as described herein, constitutes changed circumstances sufficient to warrant partial revocation of this order. Also, no party commented on the Initiation and Preliminary Results. Therefore, the Department is partially revoking the order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan with regard to products which meet the specifications detailed above, in accordance with sections 751(b) and (d) and 782(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d)(1). Also, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties, as applicable, and to refund any estimated antidumping duties collected for all unliquidated entries of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the specifications indicated above, and not subject to final results of an administrative review as of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the final results of this changed circumstances review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222. We will also instruct Customs to pay interest on such refunds in accordance with section 778 of the Act.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This changed circumstances administrative review, partial revocation of the antidumping duty order and notice are in accordance with sections 751(b) and (d) and 782(h) of the Act and sections 351.216 and 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“Department”) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

The period of review (“POR”) is February 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000. This review covers the following exporters (referred to collectively as “the respondents”): China Metallurgical Import & Export Hunan Corporation/Hunan Nonferrous Metals Import & Export Associated Corporation (“CMIECHN/CNIECHN”), Minmetals Precious and Rare Minerals Import & Export Company (“Minmetals”), London & Scandinavian Metallurgical Co. Ltd./Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (“LSM/SMC”),1 Sumitomo Canada, Ltd. (“SCL”), and China National Electronics Import & Export Hunan Company (“CEIEC”).

On November 7, 2000, the Department published the Preliminary Results, 2 and invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. The petitioner and the PRC respondents submitted case briefs on December 15, 2000, and December 18, 2000, respectively. LSM/SMC also submitted a case brief on December 15, 2000. All parties submitted rebuttal briefs on January 5, 2001. At the request of certain interested parties, we held a public hearing on January 16, 2001.

The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

The merchandise covered by this review is manganese metal, which is composed principally of manganese, by weight, but also contains some impurities such as carbon, sulfur, phosphorous, iron and silicon. Manganese metal contains by weight not less than 95 percent manganese. All compositions, forms and sizes of manganese metal are included within the scope of this administrative review, including metal flake, powder, compressed powder, and fines. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 8111.00.45.00 and 8111.00.60.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

As stated in the Preliminary Results, CEIEC notified the Department that it had not made any U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR. Entry data provided by the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) confirms that there were no POR entries from CEIEC of manganese metal.3 Therefore, consistent with the Department's regulations and practice,4 we are rescinding this review with respect to CEIEC.

As stated in the Preliminary Results, on June 19, 2000, SCL informed the Department that, given the small volume of merchandise it entered during the period of review (“POR”), SCL would not participate in this review. In the Preliminary Results, consistent with section 776(b) of the Act, we determined that the use of total adverse facts available was appropriate for this company. We have not identified any information or arguments since the Preliminary Results that would prompt a reconsideration of this finding. Therefore, for the reasons explained in the Preliminary Results, we have used total adverse facts available to determine a margin for SCL in this review.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Bernard T. Carreau, fulfilling the duties of Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated March 7, 2001, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Based on our review of comments received and a re-examination of surrogate value data, we have made certain changes to the calculations for the final results. These changes are discussed in the comments section of the Decision Memo or in the referenced final calculation memoranda for particular companies.

We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000:

Because we are rescinding the review with respect to CEIEC, the company-specific rate for that company remains unchanged.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Because certain importer-specific assessment rates calculated in these final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the exporters named above, the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these firms established in the final results of this review, except that, for exporters with de minimis rates (i.e., less than 0.5 percent) no deposit will be required; (2) for previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period during which they were reviewed; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the rate will be the PRC country-wide rate, which is 143.32 percent; and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 2000).

On July 31, 2000, the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan, covering the period June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2000 (65 FR 46687). The preliminary results are currently due no later than May 31, 2001. On January 9, 2001, the Department extended the preliminary results due date by 90 days (66 FR 1644).

Because of the complex issues enumerated in the Memorandum from Edward C. Yang to Joseph A. Spetrini, Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan, dated March 6, 2001 and on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, we find that it is not practicable to complete this review by the scheduled deadline. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 30 days (i.e., until July 2, 2001).

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are in reference to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations refer to 19 CFR part 351 (April 1, 2000).

On November 7, 2000, we published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 1998-99 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order and finding on TRBs from Japan (see Preliminary Results at 66711). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. At the request of certain interested parties, we held a public hearing on January 24, 2001. The Department has now completed these reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Imports covered by the A-588-054 finding are sales or entries of TRBs, four inches or less in outside diameter when assembled, including inner race or cone assemblies and outer races or cups, sold either as a unit or separately. This merchandise is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.15.

Imports covered by the A-588-604 order include TRBs and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, which are flange, take-up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating TRBs, and roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. Products subject to the A-588-054 finding are not included within the scope of this order, except those manufactured by NTN. This merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and 8483.90.80. The HTS item numbers listed above for both the A-588-054 finding and the A-588-604 order are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

The period for each 1998-99 review is October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999. The review of the A-588-054 case covers TRB sales by two manufacturers/exporters (Koyo and NSK). The review of the A-588-604 case covers TRBs sales by three manufacturers/exporters (Koyo, NTN, and NSK).

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 1998-1999 Administrative Reviews of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan (A-588-604/A-588-054); Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews” (Decision Memorandum) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Bernard T. Carreau, fulfilling the duties of Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated March 7, 2001, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the Main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

For a discussion of comments on our application of facts available, see the “Facts Available/Further Manufacturing” section of the Decision Memorandum, which is on file in B-099 and available on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. See also Preliminary Results at 66712.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. We have also corrected certain programming and clerical errors in our preliminary results, where applicable. Any alleged programming or clerical errors with which we do not agree are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memorandum, accessible in room B-099 and on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.

We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period October 1, 1998 through September 30, 1999:

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. With respect to both export price and constructed export price sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting percentage margins against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the relevant proceeding during the review period.

As a result of a five-year (“sunset”) review, the Department has revoked the antidumping finding (A-588-054) and duty order (A-588-604) on TRBs from Japan. The effective date of revocation is January 1, 2000. See Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Bearings from Hungary, Japan, Romania, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, 65 FR 42667 (July 11, 2000). Therefore, there are no cash deposit requirements for shipments of TRBs from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice of final results of administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” is defined under the Act to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The definition for “harm” includes significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. -

NMFS may issue permits, under limited circumstances, to take listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307. -

GPID currently serves approximately 8,000 patrons owning a total of 7,700 acres in Jackson and Josephine counties. Savage Rapids Dam provides GPID with its primary water supply. Water is delivered through 160 miles of canals in the greater Grants Pass area. The water provided by GPID is not treated and thus is not used for human consumption. Of the 8,000 patrons, about 300 own more than 5 acres, and the remaining 7,700 own less than 5 acres. The patrons with more than 5 acres represent a variety of agricultural interests as well as some industrial interests. Of the 7,700 patrons owning less than 5 acres, most use GPID water for small hayfields and/or personal vegetable gardens. -

Fish passage has been an issue at Savage Rapids Dam since GPID constructed the dam in 1921. Currently, there are fish ladders located at both the north and south sides of the dam to provide for upstream and downstream fish migration. The north fish ladder is a rectangular, concrete structure containing pools 8 feet long and 9 feet wide. The south fish ladder is a concrete structure approximately 100 feet long and divided into 10 pools. Extending from the bottom of the south ladder to the river are a series of fish resting pools and attraction channels. -

GPID proposes to operate Savage Rapids Dam consistent with conservation measures developed during 1998-2000 to reduce take, with further operational modifications based on the timing of fish runs. The duration of this proposal is one year. During the 1-year implementation period, GPID will continue to pursue Federal authorization and funding for dam removal. Within one year, more information regarding the likelihood and timing of dam removal will be available, and a new proposed action can be identified. The current proposed action would divert 150 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from the Rogue River into GPID’s distribution system during the 2001 irrigation season, from April to October. -

Activities associated with the north turbine/pump intake, south gravity intake, and the fish ladders have the potential to impact species subject to protection under the Act. Section 10 of the Act contains provisions for the issuance of incidental take permits to non-Federal land owners for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities and will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. In addition, the applicant must prepare and submit to NMFS for approval a habitat conservation plan containing a strategy to minimize, mitigate, and monitor all take associated with the proposed activities to the maximum extent practicable. The applicant must also ensure that adequate funding for the Plan will be provided. -

GPID has initiated discussions with NMFS regarding the possibility of a Permit and associated Plan for activities at Savage Rapids Dam. Activities proposed for inclusion in this Permit include: all aspects of operating the dam, including opening and closing the radial gates, installing and removing the stoplogs, and operating the fish ladders, the turbine and the screens, and the diversion facilities. The Permit and Plan would also cover monitoring activities and related scientific experiments in the Plan area. The duration of the proposed Permit and Plan is one year. -

NMFS is formally initiating an environmental review of the project through this Federal Register notice. This notice announces a 30-day public comment period, during which other agencies, tribes, and the public are invited to provide comments on the Plan and Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Assessment considers the No Action alternative, the Proposed Action, and two additional action alternatives. -

Under the No Action Alternative, a 99-year incidental take permit would be issued for a Plan that would not make changes to its historical operations (prior to 1998) although structural changes made to facilities since 1998 would remain in place. In addition, GPID would not pursue dam removal, and no monitoring for impacts to fish would occur. Under the Proposed Action, NMFS would issue a 1-year Incidental Take Permit, and GPID would implement its proposed Habitat Conservation Plan at Savage Rapids Dam. Under another Alternative, which would further restrict irrigation operations while continuing to pursue funding for dam removal, NMFS would issue a 1-year Incidental Take Permit, and GPID would implement a Habitat Conservation Plan with a monitoring program and shut down triggers that are similar to the Proposed Action. A final Alternative proposes the issuance of a 99-year Incidental Take Permit for a Plan that would replace the north irrigation screens with new screens in compliance with NMFS’ screen criteria. The Savage Rapids Dam and its water-powered turbine pumps would remain in place with this Alternative. No monitoring of impacts to fish would occur, and there would be no triggers for the shut-down of operations. -

Alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail include an Alternative based on the Proposed Action and the removal of the dam, which includes the construction of two new pumping plants and site restoration. This alternative was not analyzed because of the uncertainty associated with funding. Late in 2000, Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith introduced legislation to provide Federal funding to remove Savage Rapids Dam, but there was no time to move the bill forward during the session. The bill will be re-introduced in the current Congress, although funding is uncertain at this time. -

The No Action, Proposed Action, and two alternatives are analyzed in detail in the draft Environmental Assessment. -

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act and to National Environmental Policy Act regulations. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of the Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. If it is determined that the requirements are met, a permit will be issued for the incidental take of listed species. The final permit decision will be made no sooner than April 16, 2001. -

Hardbound copies are available for viewing, or partial or complete duplication, at the following libraries: Medford Headquarters Library, Headquarters Regional Services, 413 West Main Street, Medford, Oregon 97501, Tel (541) 774-8689; Rogue River Regional Library, West County Regional Services, 412 East Main Street, Rogue River, Oregon 97537, Tel (541) 582-1714; Josephine County Library Services, Main Library, 200 N.W. “C” Street, Grants Pass, OR 97526, Tel (541) 474-5480. The documents are also available electronically on the World Wide Web at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1habcon/habweb/hcp.htm.

Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) required NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals that occurs in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. These reports must contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.

The MMPA also requires NMFS and FWS to review these reports annually or every 3 years for non-strategic stocks and revise them if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. These updated reports represent the 2000 revisions of reports for which NMFS is responsible.

Draft 2000 SARs were made available for a 90-day public review and comment period on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31520). Prior to their release for public review and comment, NMFS subjected the draft reports to internal technical review and to scientific review by regional Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) established under the MMPA. Following the close of the comment period, NMFS revised the reports as needed to prepare final 2000 SARs. Printed copies may be obtained by request (see ADDRESSES).

In response to a request from the three regional SRGs, NMFS appended the most recent copies of the SARs for polar bears, sea otters, walrus, and manatees to NMFS' final 2000 SARs. These reports were prepared by the FWS and were included so that interested constituents would have reports for all regional stocks in a single document.

NMFS received four letters containing comments on the draft 2000 SARs. Each letter contained multiple comments, and three of these letters addressed reports on stocks in each of the three regional reports. Other comments were related to national issues common among the regional reports. The comments and responses below are separated according to the regional scope of the comments. A few of these comments addressed minor editorial suggestions for specific reports, and these are not included below

Comment 1: Many comments recommended additional research, monitoring, or conservation measures based on information contained in the draft SARs. For example, several comments noted that mortality estimates of some stocks were not reliable because adequate observer programs had not been implemented in several fisheries. Others stated that NMFS must convene additional take reduction teams.

Response: NMFS understands that abundance and mortality estimates for many stocks of marine mammals are less precise or current than if they were based on additional information. Such a situation is the unfortunate consequence of a finite budget and many conservation issues. NMFS prioritizes abundance estimates according to the age and precision of the estimate and the estimated mortality level, particularly mortality incidental to commercial fishing interactions. When annual mortality is considered to be relatively small, the priority for updating the estimate is low. In those cases in which a low mortality rate (e.g., less than 10 per year) exceeds a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level calculated from an abundance estimate that included only a small part of the stock's range (e.g., false killer whale, Hawaiian stock), the priority for obtaining an abundance estimate is low relative to many other situations. Other than a rotating observer program in the Alaska Region, existing observer programs are tied directly to existing take reduction plans. NMFS will not be able to implement large, new observer programs until new funds are available or until the success of the current take reduction plans makes the associated observer programs unnecessary. Although NMFS recognizes that fishery-related mortality exceeds PBR in some stocks of marine mammals, no new take reduction team, other than one for the coastal stock of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, can be convened until additional funds are appropriated or until funds can be redirected from existing take reduction plans that have been declared successful.

Comment 2: The SARs include many stocks of marine mammals with abundance estimates that are at least 5 years old. According to the guidelines for developing SARs, the calculated PBR values should be decreased by 20 percent per year when minimum population estimates are more than 5 years old. The commenter encourages NMFS to follow these guidelines throughout the SARs and to schedule population surveys to obtain current abundance estimates for management and to avoid these default PBRs and their possible impacts on fisheries. Other comments also noted abundance estimates that were old and recommended that PBR be changed to zero for several stocks of marine mammals nationally.

Response: NMFS and FWS prepared guidelines for the initial stock assessment reports in 1995 and included a provision for reducing the PBR where abundance estimates were more than 5 years old. NMFS and FWS reviewed these guidelines, in consultation with the regional SRGs, after the initial reports were completed to evaluate how well the guidelines were performing and to revise as appropriate. Following the review, the guidelines were revised to state that abundance estimates older than 8 years are not reliable indicators of the current number of marine mammals in the affected stock. The revised guidelines state that PBR will be undefined when abundance estimates are more than 8 years old. All assessment reports and the guidelines for preparing them are available electronically (see Electronic Access).

Comment 3: There is an inconsistency to the cycle in which regions revise stock assessments. For example, Alaska has revised some stock assessments while the Pacific Region revised all stock assessments. Some stocks may be experiencing declines or other significant impacts and warrant more frequent review.

Response: MMPA section 117(c) provides that SARs are to be reviewed based on an established schedule (at least annually for strategic stocks or stocks for which significant new information is available; at least once every 3 years for all other stocks). When it is determined, based on review, that the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined, the SAR must be revised. The Pacific SRG requested that reports for non-strategic stocks be reviewed as a group every 3 years. The Alaska SRG requested that NMFS review and revise, as needed, one third of the reports annually so that each is reviewed every 3 years. Thus, the reports for non-strategic stocks in both regions are reviewed and updated, as needed, every 3 years.

Comment 4: All regions s hould provide two summary charts in the revised SARs. The first should show which portions of which stock assessments had been revised. The second chart would provide a summary of the fisheries in each region.

Response: NMFS will attempt to include these summary tables in future SARs.

Comment 1: The lack of monitoring in a number of coastal gillnet fisheries appears likely to lead to an underestimate of mortality in harbor porpoise stocks.

Response: NMFS clearly indicates in each harbor porpoise SAR that the estimates of mortality in these stocks are underestimated because of a lack of monitoring of coastal fisheries.

Comment 2: The commenter noted that the Gulf of Alaska harbor seal stock is not considered strategic at this time. However, because of the ongoing decline in this stock and the discussion of the need to split the stock into smaller management units, NMFS should consider this stock strategic and review the SAR annually.

Response: NMFS reviews its new information regularly. If significant new information became available that would allow the status of the harbor seal stocks to be described more accurately, then NMFS would update the reports as a result of the new information. In addition, it should be noted that, although this stock appears to be at a lower population level than estimated during the 1970s and 1980s, there is little evidence that the stock is currently declining.

Comment 3:The commenter suggested that NMFS consider changing the stock structure of Dall's porpoise to indicate a delineation between the Bering Sea and western North Pacific and that there may also be sufficient information to delineate an eastern North Pacific stock of Dall’s porpoise.

Response: NMFS will consider this comment during the next review of this stock in 2002. The pertinent information has not been sufficiently reviewed to include in the final 2000 SAR.

Comment 4: The commenter noted that there are no data provided on the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals during 1997 and 1998. This should be remedied.

Response: NMFS agrees and will include the information in the 2001 SAR.

Comment 5: There is currently no PBR established for the northern right whale stock in the north Pacific due to lack of information about population size. The commenter recommended that the PBR for this stock of right whales be set at zero as it has been for the western North Atlantic stock.

Response: The PBR for the western North Atlantic stock of right whales has been set to zero because the population is small and appears to be declining. Because no minimum population level or trend is currently available for the eastern North Pacific stock of northern right whales, a PBR cannot be calculated at this time. When sufficient information becomes available, NMFS would include a PBR estimate in the report.

Comment 6: The reports for minke whales and fin whales have not been revised, despite the fact that the fin whale stock is a strategic stock and the minke whale SAR has not been revised since 1997.

Response: NMFS reviews the SAR for the fin whale stock every year. However, because no new information has become available on the fin whale or the minke whale stocks, the SARs have not been updated. The SAR must be updated when the status of the stock has changed or new information allows its status to be determined more accurately. NMFS, however, tries to include any new information when it becomes available.

Comment 7: At this time, the SAR for bowhead whales includes estimates of the subsistence harvest only through 1996. These estimates are provided annually to the International Whaling Commission, and NMFS should update the information in the SAR.

Response: NMFS agrees and will include the information in the 2001 SAR.

Comment 8: NMFS should consider developing an index of abundance for those stocks for which entire population estimates will be very difficult to obtain.

Response: NMFS uses minimum abundance estimates, which may be based upon surveys of only a portion of the stock's range, when information is available. Section 117(a) gives detailed guidance on the information to be included in SARs, and the guidance does not include indices of abundance.

Comment 1: NMFS should include details of the new correction factor that has been applied to the counts of beluga whales in Cook Inlet in the stock assessment report. Information related to the new correction factor should be published for review.

Response: The SARs are designed to be a brief report on the status of the stock, including summaries of specific information required in the MMPA. For brevity and clarity, the details and methods used to prepare the various estimates in the reports are not included in the SAR; rather, interested readers may use the cited references that include such detail. Pertinent description of the new correction factor can be found in Hobbs et al. 1999, which is currently in review and should be published soon. In the interim, a copy of the paper may be obtained by contacting NMFS (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Comment 2: One commenter indicated the draft SAR is in error because it indicates that early estimates of the beluga whale population, such as those in Klinkhart (1966) and Calkins (1983), are uncorrected counts rather than population estimates corrected for animals that were underwater at the time of the survey.

Response: NMFS has conducted a review of the literature on which this statement is based and is confident that the draft SAR appropriately characterizes the early estimates as direct counts of individuals. Although Klinkhart (1966) does not identify whether the numbers provided are direct counts or estimates, Calkins (1987) clearly refers to the numbers reported in Klinkhart (1996) and other reports as being direct counts that do not account for animals that were missed during the survey.

Comment 3: Delete the statement that indicated a retraction of the range of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet.

Response: This statement on the range of the beluga stock is based on a thorough review of reports and data on beluga whale distribution in Cook Inlet in June and July collected through 1999. Beluga were sighted frequently in the central and lower regions of Cook Inlet in June/July during the 1970s and 1980s. In contrast, virtually no beluga have been found in central or lower Cook Inlet during June/July since 1995. These observations support the statement made in the SAR; however, the text of the SAR was modified to specify that the between-year comparisons of beluga distribution are being made for June/July only.

Comment 4: The only “habitat concerns” listed in the SAR pertains to the oil and gas industry and imply “adverse impacts” related to planned lease sales. This section should be updated to reflect the conclusions in the Federal Register notice which announced that listing of the Cook Inlet beluga stock under the ESA was not warranted.

On June 14, 2000, notice was published in the Federal Register (65 FR 37361) that an amendment of Permit No. 909-1465-00, issued September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50494), had been requested by the above-named person. The requested amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Regulations Governing the Taking, Importing, and Exporting of Endangered Fish and Wildlife (50 CFR part 222).

The amendment authorizes the extension of the study for sperm whales only to waters of the Caribbean Sea and mid-western Atlantic with an increase in takes of 250 individuals by biopsy and 750 individuals by incidental harassment over the course of the permit. The amendment also allows for biopsy sampling of female sperm whales with calves present as long as calves are longer than 4.5 meters in length.

Issuance of this permit amendment, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit amendment (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit amendment, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

The Corporation for National and Community Service was established in 1993 to engage Americans of all ages and backgrounds in service to their communities. The Corporation's national and community service programs provide opportunities for participants to serve full-time and part-time, with or without stipend, as individuals or as part of a team. AmeriCorps*State, National, VISTA, and National Civilian Community Corps programs engage thousands of Americans on a full, or part-time basis, at over 1,000 locations to help communities meet their toughest challenges. Learn and Serve America integrates service into the academic life or experiences of nearly one million youth from kindergarten through higher education in all 50 states. The National Senior Service Corps uses the skills, talents and experience of over 500,000 older Americans to help make communities stronger, safer, healthier and smarter.

AmeriCorps*State and AmeriCorps*National programs, which involve over 40,000 Americans each year in results-driven community service, are grant programs managed by: (1) Governor-appointed state commissions (see “Glossary of Terms”) that select and oversee programs operated by local organizations; (2) national non-profit organizations that act as parent organizations (see “Glossary of Terms”) for operating sites across the country; (3) Indian tribes; or (4) U.S. Territories.

Learn and Serve America provides service-learning opportunities for approximately 1.2 million youth and students in 2,500 projects annually through grants to state education agencies (see “Glossary of Terms”), Indian Tribes and U.S.Territories, nonprofit agencies, community-based organizations, and higher education institutions and organizations. The National Senior Service Corps awards grants to nearly 1,300 local organizations to operate the Retired and Senior Volunteer (RSVP), Foster Grandparent (FGP) and Senior Companion (SCP) programs in their communities.

In addition, the Corporation supports the AmeriCorps*VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) and AmeriCorps*NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps) programs. Annually more than 6,000 AmeriCorps*VISTA members develop grassroots programs, mobilize resources and build capacity for service across the nation. AmeriCorps*NCCC provides the opportunity for approximately 1,000 individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 to participate each year in ten-month residential programs located mainly on inactive military bases. For additional information on the national service programs supported by the Corporation, go to http://www.nationalservice.org.

Training and technical assistance for Corporation programs takes place at local, state, regional and national levels, with most occurring at the local and state levels. To ensure equity and to promote quality, the Corporation funds a series of national training and technical assistance agreements. Most requests for assistance to national providers come through state commissions, state education agencies, state offices or parent organizations. See “Glossary of Terms” in Section VI for additional details.

State and local government entities, non-profit organizations, institutions of higher education, Indian tribes, commercial entities are eligible to apply. Pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S C. 501(c)(4), which engages in lobbying, is not eligible to apply. Organizations that operate or intend to operate Corporation-supported programs are eligible.

We will consider proposals from single applicants, applicants in partnership and applicants proposing other approaches to meeting the requirement that we consider to be responsive to this Notice.

Organizations may apply to provide training and technical assistance in partnership with organizations seeking other Corporation funds. Based on previous training and technical assistance competitions and our estimate of potential applicants, we expect fewer than ten applications to be submitted in each area.

Section 198 of the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12653 authorizes the Corporation to provide, directly or through contracts or cooperative agreements, training and technical assistance in support of activities under the national service laws. Section 125 of the National and Community Service Act and titles I and II of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act provide additional authority.

Awards made under this Notice will be in the form of cooperative agreements. Administration of cooperative agreements is controlled by Corporation regulations, 45 CFR Part 2541 (for agreements with state and local government agencies) and 45 CFR Part 2543 (for agreements with institutions of higher education, non-profit organizations and commercial entities). The provider must comply with reporting requirements, including submitting semi-annual financial reports and progress reports linking progress on deliverables to expenditures.

Cooperative agreements require substantial involvement on the part of the government. Substantial involvement includes frequent and regular communication with and monitoring by the Corporation's cognizant training officer.

The Corporation expects that activities assisted under the agreements awarded through this Notice will commence on or about July 1, 2001, following the conclusion of the selection and award process. The Corporation will make awards covering a period not to exceed three years. Applications must include a detailed work plan of proposed activities and a line-item budget for year one of the agreement and should note projected changes to proposed activities for years two and three of the award period. If the Corporation approves an application and enters into a multi-year award agreement, at the outset it will provide funding only for the first year of the award period. The Corporation has no obligation to provide additional funding in subsequent years. Funding for the second and third years of an award period is contingent upon satisfactory performance, the availability of funds and any other criteria established in the award agreement.

To ensure that materials generated with Corporation funding for training and technical assistance purposes are available to the public and readily accessible to grantees and sub-grantees, the Corporation reserves a royalty-free, non-exclusive, and irrevocable right to obtain, use, reproduce, publish, or disseminate publications and materials produced under the agreement, including data, and to authorize others to do so. The provider must agree to make such publications and materials available to the national service field, as identified by the Corporation, at no cost or at the cost of reproduction. All materials developed for the Corporation must be consistent with Corporation editorial and publication guidelines and must be accessible to individuals with disabilities to the extent required by law.

Providers selected under this Notice are to provide training services, training curriculum development and dissemination, materials development and ongoing technical assistance to Corporation grantees and their sub-grantees. The Corporation requires providers to integrate the deliverables and principles listed below into their service delivery.

a. Electronically track training and technical assistance requests, referrals and services provided based on guidance from the Corporation.

b. Develop a system for referring awardees to local content area experts who can provide staff, member and volunteer training.

a. Respond to ongoing requests for training and technical assistance from national service grantees and sub-grantees.

b. In collaboration with training and technical assistance staff, develop and implement a plan to promote services to grantees and sub-grantees.

c. Develop and maintain a web-site of training and technical assistance resources, effective practices and e-courses in provider's area with links to national service sites, as directed by the Corporation.

d. Work with the national service grantees and sub-grantees who request assistance to identify and clarify their needs and determine an appropriate service response.

a. Develop course and publication outlines and descriptions in collaboration with Training and Technical Assistance staff.

b. Coordinate scheduling of training delivery with the provider's training and technical assistance officer and, as appropriate, with the area manager, state commission, state education agency, and Corporation state office where each training event will be held.

c. Deliver training that is interactive, experiential, consistent with the principles of adult learning, uses web-based technology and is sensitive to program and audience diversity, skill level and learning style.

d. Submit training event dates to the National Service Resource Center for posting on its national training calendar.

e. Show how approach will ensure support for small, faith-based, and other community-based organizations.

f. Ensure that all training and technical assistance and resources including web sites are accessible to persons with disabilities as required by law to include the following:

i. Notifying potential participants that reasonable accommodations will be provided upon request;

ii. Providing reasonable accommodations when requested to do so, including provision of sign language interpreters, special assistance, and documents in alternate formats;

iii. Using accessible locations for training events;

iv. Providing training and technical assistance materials that are accessible to persons with disabilities, by using accessible technology, providing materials in alternate formats upon request, captioning videos and not using solely a non-voice-over format, and when indicating a telephone number, including a non-voice telephone alternative such as TDD or e-mail;

v. Deliver training that enhances the capacity of awardees to function independently and effectively, which includes, but is not limited to, the following:

a. Develop and manage a peer-to-peer system that uses staff of national service programs and others affiliated with national service programs and makes use of a full range of service delivery options, e.g., phone consultations, teleconferences, videoconferences and other electronic communication; materials' development and distribution; and site visits.

b. Document system's operation, including peer selection criteria, preparation process, and assignment procedure.

c. Provide an after-action report outlining the issues addressed, actions taken, results achieved and follow-up actions required. Reports must be submitted in a timely manner with copies provided to all interested parties, including state commission staff and Corporation program officers.

a. Research, identify, document and transmit effective tools and practices through all provider's training and technical assistance services.

b. Submit effective tools and practices in stipulated format to the Effective Practices Information Center database (EpiCenter—see “Glossary of Terms”), and, if appropriate, to the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse; encourage grantee use of same.

c. Develop and implement a dissemination plan for all materials (e.g., publications, videotapes, etc.) produced under this agreement.

a. Develop and submit a plan for evaluating the impact of training and technical assistance services, particularly the impact of training events relative to each training event's objectives and the principles and deliverables of this Notice.

b. Conduct an assessment after each training and technical assistance event.

c. Maintain records of these evaluations and provide them to the Corporation, or an authorized representative, upon request.

d. Submit aggregate evaluation summaries of training-and-technical-assistance events' evaluations as part of progress reports to the Corporation.

e. The Corporation may conduct an independent assessment of each provider's performance.

The provider is responsible for submitting timely progress and financial reports during and at the conclusion of the award period to the Corporation as follows:

a. Semi-annual Progress Reports. Progress reports must be submitted semi-annually and are due October 31, 2001, for the period ending September 30, 2001, and April 30, 2002, for the period ending March 31, 2002. The provider must develop the capacity to submit this information electronically. At a minimum, progress reports must provide the information below:

i. A comparison of accomplishments with the goals and objectives for the reporting period;

ii. An annotated version of the approved budget that compares actual costs with budgeted costs by line item, and explains differences. The explanation should include, as appropriate, an analysis of cost overruns and high-cost units and a description of service requests not anticipated in the provider's original budget;

iii. A description of the services provided to include:

(a) Number of requests received by topic area and stream of service;

(b) Activity conducted to address each request (e.g., training, on-site technical assistance, phone consultation and other electronic communication, and materials development and shipment) and mode of delivery (e.g., staff member, consultant, peer and/or other provider);

(c) Number of participants in each training and technical assistance event by service stream (see “Glossary of Terms”);

(d) Client feedback on the services rendered (including the aggregate evaluation of each training event); and

(e) Problems encountered in delivering services with recommendations for correcting them.

iv. List of upcoming activities and events with dates and locations;

v. Recommended training and technical assistance focus areas as suggested by analyses of service activities and trends;

vi. Discussion of developments that hindered, or may hinder, compliance with the cooperative agreement;

vii. List of materials submitted to the National Service Resource Center and National Service-learning Clearinghouse;

viii. List of practices and supporting documentation or materials submitted to the Effective Practices Information Center database (EpiCenter).

b. Financial reports must be submitted semi-annually to include a summary of expenditures during the period. A cumulative report must be submitted on the Financial Status Report (FSR) form SF 269A.

c. Final Reports.

i. Providers completing the final year of their agreement must submit, in lieu of the last quarterly progress report, a final progress report that is cumulative over the entire award period. This final progress report is due within 90 days after the close of the agreement.

ii. Providers completing the final year of their award must submit, in lieu of the last semi-annual FSR, a final FSR that is cumulative over the entire award period. This FSR is due within 90 days after the end of the agreement.

d. Financial reports must be submitted in three (3) copies to the Office of Grants Management. Progress reports shall be submitted in three (3) copies to the Corporation's cognizant training officer of the award.

e. The provider must meet as necessary with the cognizant training officer or with other staff or consultants designated by the Corporation training official to exchange views, ideas, and information concerning T/TA. The provider must submit such special reports as may be reasonably requested by the Corporation.

a. Assure that provider staff and consultants are fully versed in the background, approach, vocabulary, assets, needs and objectives of the Corporation and each of its program streams.

b. Participate in the planning and implementation of national provider meetings and training events as requested by the Corporation.

c. Collaborate in materials' development and training events organized by other providers or the Corporation, as requested.

d. Share effective practices with other providers through the training and technical assistance listserv, the Effective Practices Information Center database (EpiCenter) and other mechanisms such as the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse and the National Service Resource Center (see “Glossary of Terms”).

e. Creatively and effectively use technology as a cost-effective strategy for reaching large numbers of grantees and subgrantees.

The Corporation will evaluate proposals in each of the ten categories listed below. The funding ranges listed are approximate and reflect resource availability for the first year only.

Specific requirements for each category follow:

These services are targeted to the needs of an innovative category of AmeriCorps programs referred to as the “AmeriCorps Education Award” program. Like other AmeriCorps programs, the Education Award program provides education awards to members following their successful completion of service. Unlike other AmeriCorps programs, this program does not fund living allowances for members and provides only limited administrative support to projects.

The AmeriCorps Education Award program encourages the initiation of new service models as well as the expansion of older, effective service models. Specific tasks include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Work with at least 10 state commissions and AmeriCorps Education Award programs on their special program management needs and to support the integration of Education Award programs into the national service network.

b. Provide T/TA to program directors on the topics of: recruitment, selection, motivation and retention of members; member management and development; team-building; working with and developing community partners; multi-site program management; service-learning methodology including member orientation and reflection sessions; problem identification and collaborative solution generation; time management and day-to-day organizational skills; working with diverse members.

c. Organize at least 40 facilitated peer visits in response to requests from programs, state commissions and national direct grantees.

d. Develop, test and implement a process for AmeriCorps Education Award programs to document member activities.

e. Work with at least 10 state commissions and AmeriCorps Education Award programs on the special program management needs of Education Award programs and to support the integration of Education Award programs into the national service network.

This category of services addresses the pre-service and in-service training needs of the AmeriCorps*VISTA program. The provider in this category must work in collaboration with the AmeriCorps*VISTA manager of training and member services and other designated Corporation staff to design and deliver an integrated pre-service and early service training program (curricula, lesson plans, training materials, etc.) for approximately 5000 AmeriCorps*VISTA trainees and members and 1000 field supervisors that reflects the training objectives, indicators and design considerations identified during the recent AmeriCorps*VISTA training initiatives workshop (see appendix) and that increases programming impact and maximizes on-board strength.

AmeriCorps*VISTA training takes place both regionally and nationally. The provider selected for this category must design and deliver training for both regional and national training events most of which will take place during five distinct two-week training periods or windows. Training windows for calendar year 2001 include: (a) July 8-22, (b) August 12-26, and (c) November 4-18.

Specific tasks include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Observe twelve training events (two supervisors' training events, member pre-service orientations or early service training events) in each of the five Corporation clusters and one national pre-service orientation/supervisors' training. This process should take place during the July-August 2001 training period and should inform training plan development.

b. Develop in collaboration with an AmeriCorps*VISTA design team an integrated supervisors', pre-service and early service training plan that includes, at minimum, curricula, lesson plans, training materials, a training of trainers roll out and overall suggested delivery schedule (see paragraph two above) and meets the goals and objectives identified by the AmeriCorps*VISTA working group (see appendix).

The training design developed by the provider in collaboration with the AmeriCorps*VISTA design team must establish the minimum level of involvement of Corporation state staff at each training event. Corporation area managers may authorize greater state staff involvement as they deem appropriate. In some cases, state staff will play a significant role in implementing the training program and the responsibility of the provider will be reduced. The provider will need to be flexible and accommodating to different approaches to state staff involvement in training events.

The provider must ensure that each of the training components (field supervisors' training, pre-service orientation (PSO) and early service training (EST)) builds upon the former to achieve an integrated and cumulative effect.

c. Develop six regional training teams of experienced training professionals to deliver the training curricula developed above for approximately 1,000 field supervisors and 5,000 members and trainees. Preference should be given to training professionals who have experience conducting AmeriCorps* VISTA training and proposed teams must be approved by the AmeriCorps*VISTA manager of training and member services and Corporation field staff (i.e., cluster training specialists and other state staff as assigned).

The provider's pre-approved training teams should consist of a core group of quality trainers who provide all phases of training (field supervisors' training, PSO and EST) for each cluster, so that they can be attentive to training integration and the cumulative impact of training. Training teams should consist of trainers who are either from the region being serviced or whose regular travel to training events is not cost-prohibitive.

Training teams will be responsive to one or more training representative(s) for each Corporation cluster (e.g., cluster training specialist and other staff) and will ultimately report to the AmeriCorps*VISTA manager of training and member services. Being “responsive” means that the provider will collaborate closely with training specialists and those Corporation state staff who may be involved in training to ensure that the needs of the cluster and AmeriCorps*VISTA are met. Indeed, these Corporation staff should be considered part of the “training team” working as a unit to ensure the accomplishment of training objectives.

The provider's training team's point of contact for training dates, event coordination, logistics and budget at the cluster-level will be the cluster training specialist.

d. Pilot the proposed integrated training program (field supervisors' training, trainee pre-service orientation, and member early service training) in one cluster during the first quarter of FY2002 (October-December) during which a training-of-trainers could take place. Begin training for the other clusters in January-February of 2002 with full implementation in all clusters by April 1, 2002

e. Conduct the following for each of the Corporation's five clusters within a given fiscal year: (a) Five approximately 2. 5 day supervisors' training events, each for 30-50 supervisors; (b) five approximately 2. 5 day pre-service orientations, each for approximately 160 AmeriCorps*VISTA trainees; and (c) five approximately 2. 5 day early service training events, each for approximately 140 AmeriCorps*VISTA members for an approximate total of fifteen training events per cluster and seventy-five training events per year. (Note: Numbers of trainees per cluster given here are averages as numbers vary from one cluster to another and from one time of year to another. In some clusters, events may need to be broken into smaller sub-units.)

f. Conduct five approximately 2.5 day joint pre-service orientation-supervisors' training events for AmeriCorps*VISTA national projects each year, one during each training window. Each event will include approximately 150 trainees and 30 supervisors.

g. Assess quality of training and training delivery after each training window and, based on discussions with the cluster and the AmeriCorps*VISTA manager of training and member services, revise and implement a revised the training design, as requested.

h. Adapt training to accommodate cross-stream opportunities and other cluster or state needs.

i. Develop and implement a training evaluation program that surveys members at EST about the quality of preparation received at PSO and surveys them again by mail toward the end of their service about the effectiveness of PSO and EST. (This will be complemented by an independent annual evaluation survey conducted by the Corporation and an outside evaluation organization.)

j. Print, store, and ship all materials needed for AmeriCorps*VISTA training events including provider generated training materials and Corporation generated AmeriCorps*VISTA materials such as invitation packets, member handbooks, and supervisors' manuals, etc. beginning in January-February 2002. The supervisors' manual is approximately 150 pages and perfect bound and the member handbook is approximately 250 pages and perfect bound. Invitation packets include folders and approximately 30 pages of text. Materials should be printed for approximately 5000 members/trainees and 1000 field supervisors each year. Materials should also be formatted for posting on the Corporation's AmericCorps*VISTA web site.

k. Develop and implement a system for providing telephone and on-line technical assistance as follow-up to training events. Technical assistance will primarily consist of referrals to Corporation offices, other members or supervisors or to appropriate TTA providers.

In 1998 and 1999 the Corporation pilot tested two sets of training materials on citizenship development. The services in this category respond to the need to increase use of these materials by developing and delivering training for them. Tasks under this category include, but are not limited, to the following:

a. Design, pilot, disseminate and evaluate training of trainer materials around the publications “Guide to Effective Citizenship” and “By the People.”

b. Develop a 30-40 page instructor's manual that provides step-by-step guidance on developing training sessions based on the materials contained in “By the People.”

c. Provide technical assistance to programs and commissions on how to use the materials effectively including structuring and establishment of citizenship training programs.

d. Conduct member training on civic engagement (one session per month × 24 months) for a group of approximately 50 AmeriCorps programs to be identified by the Corporation.

e. Conduct training of trainers sessions on how to use the materials at the National and Community Service Conference in June 2001 in Minneapolis.

f. Provide on-line and telephone assistance and resource materials.

Approximately sixty-five percent of the Corporation's programs in some way address the educational success of children and youth. The services that support these programs should: (1) Build the capacity of project directors to design and implement a broad range of sustainable and high quality family, early childhood and adult literacy; math and reading tutoring; mentoring; and out of school time projects in school and community-based settings that include well-developed member and volunteer training plans, and (2) identify and disseminate effective practices in the above named project areas and project settings.

Training and materials should reflect current research of the field and the Corporation's principles of high quality national service and principles of high quality tutoring programs. Literacy training and materials should support the use of multiple reading strategies, assessment as an essential part of instruction, appropriate and effective use of a broad spectrum of literacy activities (one-on-one tutoring, read aloud, language enrichment activities, computer-assisted learning, etc.) for preschool through high school, parents as a child's first teacher and schools as partners in tutoring endeavors. Special attention should be given to developing materials and support for programs taking place in community-based settings and for out of school time programs using computers to increase academic success. When appropriate, training and materials should use a service-learning approach.

Specific tasks include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Conduct a cross-stream needs assessment (telephone surveys, mailing, focus groups, etc.) to identify the activities and training needs of community-based out of school time math and reading tutoring programs and out of school time programs using computers to increase academic success. Findings will inform all provider training and materials' development.

b. When appropriate, incorporate a service-learning approach into training and materials.

c. Work with the representatives of state commissions, state education agencies and Corporation state offices and higher education, tribal and national direct awardees to develop, pilot and evaluate a replicable model for state-based education forums. Forums will be one to two day structured opportunities for project staff and their counterparts in a state to share best practices and to learn new skills related to managing and implementing effective tutoring, mentoring or out of school time projects. Forum model will include working with a state planning committee and strategies for identifying, selecting and preparing local trainers. Forums will be a springboard for developing ongoing state networks. Work with ten states to implement the model.

d. Develop a strategy for providing ongoing support to ten state-based peer networks (see above).

e. Respond to 15 cluster or state requests for project director training in math or reading tutoring, family or adult literacy, literacy assessment, mentoring, and out of school time for project directors in all streams of service. Training events will be one-two days in duration.

f. Develop and maintain a web site of resources for project directors engaged in adult and family literacy, math and reading tutoring, homework help, mentoring and out of school time projects, particularly those using computers to increase student learning. Web site will include a substantive section on training, electronic courses, three monographs that put research into practice, and a section on program examples or models.

g. Respond to requests for information on effective literacy, math, mentoring and out of school time etc. program design, implementation, and assessment strategies.

h. Use Corporation listservs as tools for gathering information and disseminating technical assistance and information on best practices.

i. Develop and up-link via satellite a series of three to five broadcast quality videotapes for project directors on training tutors in basic one-on-one reading tutoring strategies. Series may include material produced by the field, should be accompanied by a comprehensive tutor training manual and should be supported by a web-based training course.

These services address the diverse technical and programmatic needs of the Corporation's environmental programs. On-line communities will inexpensively provide timely targeted information, as well as networking opportunities for the geographically dispersed programs of this sector.

Specific tasks include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Establish, promote and maintain an interactive web site responding to the T/TA needs of environmental programs in all three of the Corporation's program streams (AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, and National Senior Service Corps). On-line services should include, but are not limited to, a listserv, real-time communications, and the posting of documents relevant to programs.

b. Conduct at least 10 planned web-based community events (web guest-forums, information requests, effective-practice postings, theme discussions, etc.) which provide current, relevant information to programs.

Corporation-funded programs need access to training and technical assistance information regarding their responsibilities and procedures for the management of federal funds. Sound fiscal management is critical to the effective operation of national service programs. The Corporation envisions a national network of consultants who would be easily accessible for follow-up and would have state of the art knowledge of relevant state and local law and regulations.

Specific tasks include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Conduct at least 25 state-based workshops or workshops presented in the context of grantees' meetings.

b. Conduct at least 20 on-site technical assistance visits to state commissions, Corporation state offices, state education agencies, and tribal, national non-profit and higher education grantees and programs from all streams of service.

c. Provide telephone and on-line technical assistance.

d. Develop and maintain a network of geographically-dispersed expert resource people. Staff from Corporation-funded programs should be included in the network.

e. Develop materials to include a compilation of effective practices used in the field.

These services respond to the need for program staff (and, through them, volunteers, members and other participants) to receive training that promotes understanding and respect among diverse groups, that provides skills for working with and managing diverse populations and that offers techniques for preventing and resolving situations where diversity and communication interfere with achieving program goals. Special attention should be given to findings of the Macro study on diversity funded by the Corporation for National Service. (Call the Corporation contact persons for a copy of “Study of Race, Class and Ethnicity, November 1997”.)

Specific tasks include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Collaborate with state commissions, Corporation state offices, state education agencies and a representative group of tribal, national non-profit and higher education grantees in the implementation of a minimum of 20 regional training workshops of 20-25 participants each. Workshops should increase personal awareness of and competency with diversity issues. They should also enhance staff skills in developing and supporting diverse, well-functioning teams and community partnerships, as well as in diagnosing diversity challenges and facilitating discussions and training.

b. Deliver a minimum of 10 customized T/TA sessions in response to site-specific diversity issues.

c. Help state commission, Corporation state office, state education agency, tribal, national non-profit and higher education grantee staff programs enhance their ability to access and select effective diversity training.

d. Provide on-line and telephone assistance and resource materials.

These services respond to the range of needs for program management and training assistance expressed by grantees who are seeking to improve program performance and quality. In accordance with the strategy of devolution, this category provides the opportunity for organizations to propose providing services to multiple jurisdictions, typically states or clusters, rather than on a national scope. Funding for this category will primarily be provided from Program Development Assistance and Training (PDAT) funds (see “Glossary of Terms”) as requested by the state commissions to which those funds are allocated. Awards will only be made in cases where potential users of services, such as state commissions, indicate a desire to have the award made and to provide funding. Specific tasks may include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Provide, arrange for, or connect programs to information, training, and technical assistance in organizational development and program management based on information gathered through a needs assessment.

b. Offer training in various settings (state-based and regional) and of varying duration and complexity. Such training may be organized by the provider in response to a request or may be in the context of events organized by a state commission, other provider or the Corporation.

c. Develop materials for use in delivering training.

d. Provide technical assistance on-site, on-line, and by telephone in the form of one-time consultations and multiple interventions, as required.

e. The T/TA services offered are generally expected to address the following types of topics: board development and management; staff management; program planning and management; continuous improvement; program evaluation; volunteer, member and participant recruitment, management, support, development and retention; community partnerships and organizational collaboration; multi-site management; effective communication and public awareness; and program sustainability.

f. Coordinate peer exchanges among national service programs.

g. Organize and support affinity groups (i.e., groups of programs defined by their common focus or needs).

h. Collaborate with and broker services of other public and private providers of training and technical assistance services available at the national, state or local levels.

These services respond to the need for a central repository of information and materials in the field of national service and the need for the development and distribution of new information in response to changing program needs and the need for technical assistance in technology. These services also support programs engaged in Digital Divide activities and include an assessment of Digital Divide grantees training and technical assistance needs. Specific tasks include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Provide a toll-free assistance line for awardees to access resource center and technology technical assistance.

b. Provide reference services and referrals to national T/TA providers.

c. Maintain and expand a lending library of publications, kits, curricula, on-line courses and videos on topics relevant to national service programs, as well as copies of publications produced by other national T/TA providers and Corporation-supported programs.

d. Develop resource materials and disseminate them to grantees, as requested.

e. Conduct literature searches in response to requests for information and resources on specific issues from national service programs.

f. Publish a 2-4 page quarterly update of T/TA resources to be distributed to grantees by web or fax.

g. Update and maintain the Corporation's training resources web page including publishing a resource guide of national T/TA services and maintaining a master calendar of T/TA events.

h. Initiate and manage approximately 20-25 electronic listservs that connect Corporation programs and subgroups of Corporation-supported programs as appropriate.

i. Provide a minimum of 10 on-request training sessions for Digital Divide awardees. Training topics will be identified through a needs assessment and training will take place in collaboration with other providers.

j. Provide a minimum of 10 on-request training sessions on managing information, developing technology plans, and accessing Internet resources (including information on necessary equipment, costs and access options).

k. Provide consultation on-line and by telephone on different aspects of information management including the development and maintenance of resource libraries at the local level and topics relevant to Digital Divide programs.

l. Provide resources via the World Wide Web including a searchable database of library holdings and on-line versions of available updated print resources.

m. Develop and maintain a web page of resources for Digital Divide grantees on effective use of technology for adults and youth including information on accessing local technology resources and other topics as identified by the needs assessment (see “i” above).

These services respond to the needs of grantees from all streams of service to build larger constituencies, create more partnerships, leverage more resources, and generate additional funds as match requirements increase and Federal funds decrease. Specific tasks include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Design training specific to the needs of Corporation-funded programs and deliver that training through state-based and regional workshops of varying duration and complexity. At minimum, the provider must conduct ten regional and 35 state-based training sessions.

b. Develop a sustainability curriculum that (1) acknowledges applicable law and Corporation policy; (2) addresses the unique challenges service programs face in sustaining local operations; and (3) offers planning and implementation strategies for accessing community resources, to include raising funds in ways consistent with Office of Management and Budget guidelines.

c. Provide coaching to grantees for problem-solving around strategic and action planning and board development related to resource development.

d. Develop materials to support T/TA activities.

e. Offer telephone and on-line technical assistance.

In August 2000, the Corporation for National Service launched EpiCenter, a database-enabled web site, in response to a growing need to share effective program practices and knowledge across the national service network. This online database is a means to collect and disseminate ideas and information that lead to program improvement and successful outcomes for service beneficiaries, participants, institutions, and communities. Effective practices (See “Glossary of Terms”) are based on knowledge gleaned from practical experience, technical assistance efforts, and empirical research. The evolving database currently contains practices related to education, the environment, public safety, other human needs (including health and housing), service-learning, and common program management concerns (e.g., recruiting, volunteer management, partnerships, and sustainability).

Applicants will be expected to review the site in detail regarding both the conceptual framework and technical specifications. The database can be visited at www.nationalservice.org/resources/epicenter. At present, traffic on the site is low, although slowly increasing. Initial holdings in the database have increased, from 40 practices (at launch) to more than 100 (at present). We expect the database to grow substantially. Applicants may call to request current usage data from the Corporation (see section on “For Further Information Contact”). The first phase of the award will focus on building EpiCenter to maximize its content and increase user traffic. Services include maintaining the database, programming site enhancements, collecting and managing information, conducting outreach, making presentations, and developing marketing materials.

The provider will be expected to: (1) Enrich and expand the content of the database, ensuring that practices are relevant and of value and are communicated in user-friendly language; (2) build EpiCenter's presence and utility within the national service community and increase traffic to the site; (3) increase the capacity of national service practitioners to identify effective program practices and augment the volume of online submissions; and (4) maintain a web site that is responsive to emerging technologies and customer needs.

Specific tasks include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Collect information and manage database.

(1) Provide an assessment of the feasibility of identifying and collecting effective practices (based on EpiCenter's conceptual framework) across national service stakeholders and throughout the service community at large.

(2) Identify potential sources of formal and informal knowledge on effective practices that will: (a) Augment current holdings and fill gaps in the database; (b) satisfy varied stakeholder needs; and (c) respond to emerging trends in national service.

(3) Recommend an information collection strategy that allows for the collection of effective practices across national service stakeholders and related communities of practice. Stakeholders include Corporation for National Service units, grantees and subgrantees, technical assistance providers, and service partners. Communities of practice include community-based organizations, foundations, and applied social science researchers. The collection strategy should focus on ensuring the ongoing identification, collection, organization, and exchange of effective practices through EpiCenter and the development of relationships to support this strategy. Proposals must specify a level of staffing, potential methods of information collection (including travel for on-site consultations with Corporation for National Service staff), and a timeline in support of this strategy.

(4) Populate and maintain the database based on the information collection strategy and ensure adherence to content quality standards. Prepare abstracts and summaries of effective practices, edit online submissions, classify and catalogue effective practices, locate materials, secure approvals to upload practices, obtain permission to post full-text documents and create hyperlinks. Maintain a policy and procedures manual.

(5) Provide telephone or electronic assistance to users. Respond promptly to requests for providing materials in alternate formats.

(6) Prepare and/or update, as needed, policies, procedures, guidelines, tools, and other resources, in consultation with the Corporation training official.

b. Develop systems and manage site.

i. Provide an analysis of the system hardware and software and make recommendations for improvement, including modifications and enhancements to page design, content design, and site design (including user interface, navigation, search and indexing capabilities). These recommendations must ensure that EpiCenter: (A) Meets optimal standards of web-usability within applicable e-commerce guidelines for federal web sites; and (b) is fully accessible to persons with disabilities as required by law, including applicable provisions of the Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards, 36 CFR Part 1194, published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80500).

ii. Provide technical support to maintain server and database connectivity, conduct accessibility testing, ensure optimum user response time, make web page changes, and analyze user activity. The provider must regularly provide the Corporation with an analysis of server statistics to measure system performance, operability, and site traffic. The provider must assist the Corporation in using these data to improve site usability and performance and inform the Corporation whenever a system performance issue arises.

iii. Train users. Design training and materials that will enable Corporation-funded practitioners to identify and apply effective practices to program operations and service activities, using the operational definition of effective practices in EpiCenter (see “Glossary of Terms”). Training workshops should take into account the variable technology skills of users and build upon program-specific monitoring, evaluation, and reporting tools, mechanisms, or information flows that capture effective practice information. The provider will deliver training through national, state-based, and regional workshops of varying duration and complexity. At a minimum, the provider must conduct training sessions at five national conferences, five regional conferences, and at least five program specific training sessions.

iv. Provide marketing services. Design and implement a marketing strategy and materials to increase awareness of EpiCenter and develop metrics to track its growth as a technical assistance resource.

Applicants must submit one unbound, original proposal and two bound copies. Applicants may voluntarily submit two additional bound copies for a total of four copies. Proposals may not be submitted by facsimile. Proposals must include the following:

The cover page must include the name, address, phone number, fax number, e-mail address of the contact person and World Wide Web site URL (if available) of the applicant organization; the category for which the application is being submitted; a 25-50 word summary of proposed training and technical assistance activities; and, the total funding amount requested for the first year.

A one-two page list of all proposed training and technical assistance activities and materials.

A bulleted narrative of no more than 20 double-spaced, single-sided, typed pages in no smaller than 12-point font that includes:

a. The applicant's proposed strategy and rationale for providing training and technical assistance to a diverse multi-program national service audience for year one with proposed changes (if any) for years two and three. The applicant should use the specific deliverables and requirements outlined in Section IV of this Notice as a starting point for a plan and should present these deliverables in a way that creatively reflects the applicant's areas of expertise and knowledge of national service audiences. It is not appropriate to simply re-list the tasks stated in this Notice. As appropriate, the applicant should also include the following information for each proposed training and technical assistance activity, product, or event: Type of activity, number, frequency, audience, knowledge and skills learners will gain, estimated audience size, content, skill level, proposed needs assessment and continuous improvement strategies.

b. A detailed one-year work plan and timeline for completing all training and technical assistance activities. The work plan should include all deliverables and the tasks leading to them.

c. A plan for regularly evaluating performance and using findings for continuous improvement.

A 75-100 word description for one face to face training course in the provider's content area. The face to face course should be considered part of either a basic two-day introductory level event for 75-100 new national service grantees or part of a two-day advanced level training event for 75-100 more experienced grantees. Applicants should assume that participants represent all streams of service.

Applicant should submit a session description that includes content level (see above) and desired learner outcomes. Applicant should also submit a detailed outline of session content and the activities that will lead to them.

A one-page description of how applicant proposes to use technology, particularly e-learning, to effectively broaden the reach of training delivery. Description should include target audience (if not cross-stream), proposed use of technology, rationale for approach, course level, concepts and skills to be delivered, desired learner outcomes, and how outcomes will be achieved.

An organizational chart that clearly shows the place of the training and technical assistance provider in the parent organization's structure and resumes and a narrative of no more than three double-spaced, single-sided, typed pages in no smaller than 12-point font which describes:

a. The organization's capacity to provide training and technical assistance services nationwide, including descriptions of recent work similar to that being proposed.

b. The organization's knowledge of and experience with each national service program.

c. References that can be contacted related to that work.

d. List of proposed staff that includes each one's areas of expertise.(Note: Final list will be subject to Corporation approval.)

A detailed, line-item budget with costs organized by personnel, task and sub-task and related to the activities and deliverables outlined in the introductory narrative and work plan. Costs in proposed budgets must consist solely of costs allowable under applicable cost principles found in OMB Circulars.

Applicants should be mindful that a demonstrated commitment to providing services in the most cost-effective manner possible will be a major consideration in the evaluation of proposals. Provider match is not required. The budget should include:

a. Proposed staff and expert-consultant hours and pay rates by task and sub-task;

b. Types and quantities of other direct costs being proposed by task and subtask (for example, amounts of travel and volume of other task-related resources, such as communications, postage, etc.).

Provide a budget narrative that corresponds with all items in the line-item budget and that includes an explanation and cost basis for all cost estimates that appear in the line-item budget. The narrative should clearly show the following:

a. How each cost was derived, using equations to reflect all factors considered.

b. The anticipated unit cost (with derivation) of the various deliverables (such as training events, publications and technical assistance interventions).

To ensure fairness to all applicants, the Corporation reserves the right to take remedial action, up to and including disqualification, in the event a proposal fails to comply with the requirements relating to page limits, line spacing, and font size. The Corporation will assess applications based on the criteria listed below.

The Corporation will consider the quality of the proposed activities based on:

a. Evidence of the applicant's knowledge of the goals of the Corporation, the goals of the Corporation's program streams (see Section VI. “Glossary”), and the Corporation's training and technical assistance requirements and principles as outlined in this Notice and demonstrated by applicant's past experience and proposed approach.

b. Evidence of the applicant's knowledge of adult learning and experience in training adults; the audience appropriateness, strategic nature (i e., broad reaching and capacity building), effectiveness and creativity of the applicant's approach.

The Corporation will consider the organizational capacity of the applicant to deliver the proposed services based on:

a. Evidence of the organization's experience in delivering high-quality adult training and technical assistance in the category under consideration in a flexible, responsive, collaborative and creative manner; experience with or knowledge of national or community service as described by applicant; experience using technology as a teaching tool.

b. Evidence of experience providing training and technical assistance to adults in the appropriate training and technical assistance category on the part of the proposed staff and consultants as demonstrated by annotated staff lists or resumes.

c. Demonstrated ability to manage a federal grant or apply sound fiscal management principles to grants and cost accounting as evidenced by an annotated list of applicant's previous grants experience.

d. Demonstrated ability to provide training and technical assistance services nationwide (does not apply to multi-state training and technical assistance cooperatives) as evidenced by proposed technology plan, proposed staffing and previous levels of activity and experience.

The Corporation will consider how the applicant:

a. Proposes to assess the effectiveness and need for its services and products delivered under the award.

b. Plans to use assessments of its services and products to modify and improve subsequent services and products.

The Corporation will consider the budget based on:

a. Cost of each proposed training and technical assistance activity in relation to the scope and depth of the services proposed (i.e., the number of states, programs and individuals the proposed activities are intended to reach);

b. The clarity and thoroughness of the budget and budget narrative (see specifications under “Budget Narrative”).

Groups of programs defined by their common focus or needs.

The Corporation's field offices are organized into five regions (“clusters”) as follows:

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virgin Islands.

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin.

Alaska, American Samoa, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Mariannas, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.

Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia.

Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas.

Training events planned in conjunction with the Corporation's training and technical assistance officer and the commissions, state offices, state education agencies or Tribal, national direct and higher education grantees in a particular region.

The following definition is used to guide submissions of effective practice(s) to the Effective Practices Information Center (EpiCenter): An effective practices is an action or series of actions by a grantee, program staff, national service participant, or technical assistance provider that helps to solve an essential problem facing a national service program and the community it serves, leading to a successful outcome. Effective practices address issues shared by program staff or national service participants across local program or operating sites and can be replicated in or adapted to serve in more than one locale. Effective practices can be described and documented in terms of (1) the problem it solves; (2) the context in which it has been successful; (3) the level of outcome or impact it helped to achieve; and (4) evidence of success of the practice.

EpiCenter is the Corporation's online database of effective program practices in national service. Its mission is to support practitioners in developing sustainable programs that lead to positive outcomes for beneficiaries, participants, institutions, and communities and to make this information widely accessible across the national service network. Providers are required to submit effective training and program practices to EpiCenter. The database can be visited at www.nationalservice.org/resources/epicenter.

Entities funded directly by the Corporation. These include and are not limited to: state commissions; state education agencies; Tribes and U.S.Territories; national direct parent organizations; institutions, consortia and organizations of higher education; local governments; and non-profit organizations. Many grantees also subgrant a significant portion of their funds to others (e.g., a state commission conducts a competition and review process and funds AmeriCorps programs throughout a state; a state education agency (SEA) conducts a competition and review process and funds school systems throughout a state). Regulations do not allow the 1,300 Senior Corps grantees to subgrant.

The Learn and Serve America National Service-Learning Clearinghouse is a collaborative effort among twelve national partner organizations to collect and disseminate information on service-learning for national service awardees and the general public engaged in service-learning. The Clearinghouse maintains and operates a web site and service-learning listservs, a library of print and media materials related to service-learning, and a toll-free information and referral service. Providers are required to submit copies of service-learning related training materials and training scripts to the Learn and Serve America National Service-Learning Clearinghouse.

The Learn and Serve America Training and Technical Assistance supports service-learning programs in schools, institutions of higher education, and community organizations through peer-based training and technical assistance. The Exchange links programs with local peer mentors, refers programs to regional trainers, and informs programs of regional service-learning events and initiatives. When providing training and technical assistance to Learn and Serve America grantees or subgrantees, providers must coordinate with the Exchange.

The National Service Resource Center (NSRC) serves as a repository of information on all aspects of national service. The NSRC manages most of the Corporation's listservs. Training and technical assistance publications are posted or distributed by the NSRC and its web site includes a calendar of training events and links to all current providers.

The legal applicant for Corporation for National Service national direct funds; the organization responsible for the management and oversight of the national direct grant.

Program Development Assistance and Training (PDAT) funds are awarded annually to state commissions to support training and technical assistance activities for their grantees and states.

Refers to the Corporation's three programs: AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America and National Senior Service Corps. Cross-stream activities, therefore, refer to activities conducted or attended by representatives from more than one program stream.

Many Corporation awardees competitively award a significant portion of their funds to other entities known as subgrantees. State commissions, for example, subgrant to local non-profit organizations. Senior Corps programs do not subgrant (see “Grantees”).

Refers to the categories within each of the above streams and includes the following:

Currently managed by the National Service Resource Center, the training and technical assistance listserv is one way providers share best practices with one another. Providers also share effective practices through the Effective Practices Information Center (EpiCenter) and the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse.

Field supervisors will:

• Understand Corporation and AmeriCorps*VISTA as they relate to national and community service.

• Design and manage clear, realistic outcome-based member assignments within the context of multi-year programs with sustainability impact goals.

• Articulate and administer the benefits, terms and conditions of AmeriCorps*VISTA service.

• Develop and implement an effective two-to-three week AmeriCorps*VISTA on-site orientation and training plan.

• Understand the Corporation web-based recruitment system and develop and implement an effective AmeriCorps*VISTA recruitment strategy including effective screening and selection.

• Provide quality member support to optimize member satisfaction and impact and to reduce attrition.

Trainees will:

• Identify with AmeriCorps*VISTA program and establish their relationship with VISTA and the Corporation state office.

• Develop a sense of pride and inspiration about AmeriCorps*VISTA, an appreciation for the VISTA legacy of service, a dedication and commitment to a year of immersion, sacrifice and service.

• Understand their role as an AmeriCorps*VISTA member and in their assignment and community, and their relationship to their project's ultimate goals and to their supervisor.

• Develop an understanding of the unique capacity building nature of their assignments, with clear and realistic expectations about the challenges they will confront and strategies for getting started.

• Understand the AmeriCorps*VISTA benefits, terms and conditions of service; complete enrollment documents; and take the Oath of Service.

Members will:

• Develop strategies and problem solving skills for overcoming obstacles and challenges they are facing on-site.

• Appreciate and validate their accomplishments to-date and set new goals for remainder of service.

• Develop skills to add value to their role as agents of sustainability in their projects:

• E.g., resource mobilization; community volunteer recruitment and management, community mobilization.

• Develop plans for integrating new skills into their ongoing work.

• Renew sense of pride and inspiration, appreciation for the VISTA legacy service, dedication and commitment.

The Corporation for National and Community Service was established in 1993 to engage Americans of all ages and backgrounds in service to their communities. It provides assistance to organizations that carry out AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, and National Senior Service Corps programs. These programs provide opportunities for participants to serve full-time and part-time, with or without stipend, as individuals or as part of a team.

AmeriCorps programs engage thousands of Americans at over 1,000 locations. AmeriCorps*State and AmeriCorps*National Direct programs, which involve over 40,000 Americans each year in results-driven community service, are grant programs managed by (1) state commissions that select and oversee programs operated by local organizations; (2) national non-profit organizations that act as parent organizations for operating sites across the country; (3) U.S. Territories; or (4) Indian tribes. Through AmeriCorps* Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) programs, about 6,000 VISTA members serve to develop grassroots programs, mobilize resources, and build capacity for service programs across the nation. The AmeriCorps* National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) provides an opportunity for approximately 1,000 individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 to participate in a residential service program located mainly on downsized military bases.

Learn and Serve America integrates service into the academic life of more than one million youth from kindergarten through higher education. It does this by awarding grants to state education agencies, state commissions, schools, colleges and universities, nonprofit organizations, U.S. Territories, and Indian tribes to carry out school-based, community-based, and higher-education service-learning programs.

The National Senior Service Corps uses the skills, talents, and experience of over 500,000 older Americans to help make communities stronger, safer, healthier, and smarter. It operates through grants to local organizations for Retired and Senior Volunteer Programs, Foster Grandparent Programs, and Senior Companion Programs to provide service to their communities.

For additional information on the national service programs supported by the Corporation, go to http://www.nationalservice.org.

WBRS is a mission-critical, online operating system that enables the Corporation, state commissions, national direct parent organizations, and AmeriCorps state, national direct, and NCCC programs to manage AmeriCorps activities more efficiently. Initiated in 1997 and implemented in 1999, this internet-based system permits the electronic processing of AmeriCorps member data (enrollments, status changes, exits, and education awards) and electronic reporting on project progress, expenditures, and financial match requirements. The system has other reporting functions that serve as management tools (e.g., enrollment, retention, attrition, and service-hour analyses), and includes security-protocol, audit-trail, and intelligent-agent features that control access, track transactions, and detect irregularities that could indicate fraud or mismanagement.

WBRS is a dynamic, interactive reporting system built in Lotus Notes/Domino, which makes heavy use of Java script, Lotus script, and Secure Socket Layer (SSL) programming. The system is built with approximately 200 databases comprising data from 500,000 documents, and involves over 50,000 lines of ‘CGI’ code maintained in code libraries. In total, the WBRS dataset requires approximately 40 gigabytes on three servers. Site activity is about 20,000-30,000 hits a day.

Aguirre International, Incorporated, headquartered in San Mateo, California, is the current WBRS provider. Aguirre's WBRS oversight involves staffing in the following categories: project management, information technology, programming, technical support, training, and documentation/administration. Hosting services for WBRS are currently provided by Interliant Inc., headquartered in Purchase, New York. (http://www.interliant.com).

Prospective applicants interested in becoming familiar with the function and operation of WBRS should e-mail Jim Ekstrom at the Corporation (jekstrom@cns.gov; subject WBRS NOFA) for instructions on accessing a WBRS training database and online help desk.

Public-sector agencies, non-profit organizations, institutions of higher education, Indian tribes, and for-profit companies are eligible to apply. Pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4), which engages in lobbying, is not eligible to apply. Organizations that operate or intend to operate Corporation-supported programs are eligible. The Corporation will consider proposals from single applicants and applicants in partnership. Organizations may apply to provide the services required by this Notice in partnership with organizations seeking other Corporation funds. Based on previous training and technical assistance competitions and the Corporation's estimate of potential applicants, the Corporation expects fewer than ten applications to be submitted in response to this Notice.

Funding awarded under this Notice will be via cooperative agreement. Administration of cooperative agreements is controlled by the Corporation's regulations, 45 CFR part 2541 (for agreements with state and local government agencies) and 45 CFR part 2543 (for agreements with institutions of higher education, non-profit organizations, and other entities). The awardee must comply with reporting requirements, including submitting semi-annual financial reports and semi-annual progress reports linking progress on deliverables to expenditures.

To ensure that materials generated for training and technical assistance purposes are available to the public and readily accessible to grantees and sub-grantees, the Corporation retains royalty-free, non-exclusive, and irrevocable license to obtain, use, reproduce, publish or disseminate products, including data produced under the agreement, and to authorize others to do so. To the extent practicable, the awardee must agree to make products available to the national service field as identified by the Corporation at no cost or at the cost of reproduction. All materials developed at the Corporation's request must be produced consistent with Corporation editorial and publication guidelines.

The Corporation expects that work under the agreement awarded through this Notice will commence on or about July 1, 2001, following the conclusion of the Corporation's selection and award process. The Corporation will make an award covering a period not to exceed three years. Applications must include a proposed budget and proposed activities for the entire award period, with a line-item budget and detailed work plan for the first budget year only. If the Corporation approves an application and enters into a multi-year award agreement, at the outset it will provide funding only for an initial phase of the award period. The Corporation has no obligation to provide additional funding. Additional funding is contingent upon satisfactory performance, the availability of funds, and any other criteria established in the award agreement.

Section 198 of the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12653, authorizes the Corporation to provide, directly or through contracts or cooperative agreements, training and technical assistance in support of activities under the national service laws.

The applicant selected under this Notice (the provider) must address the general requirements listed below in delivering its services.

a. Develop and implement a plan to promote services to grantees and sub-grantees in collaboration with Corporation training and technical assistance staff.

b. Work with grantees and sub-grantees who request assistance to clarify their needs and determine an appropriate response.

a. Ensure that curricula are based on an assessment of participant needs and skill levels.

b. Ensure that course outlines, descriptions, and schedules are approved by Corporation staff and, when appropriate, submitted to the National Service Resource Center (Glossary) for the national training calendar.

c. Deliver training that is interactive, experiential, and consistent with the principles of adult learning. Use train-the-trainer models and other transfer-of-skills methods to enhance the capacity of the field to function independently.

d. Ensure that training is accessible to persons with disabilities as required by law, including applicable provisions of the Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards, 36 CFR part 1194, published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80500).

e. Electronically track training requests, referrals, and services provided based on Corporation guidance.

f. Disseminate materials produced under this agreement.

g. Use other training methods, including the use of CD-ROMs, online materials, and web-based training, to complement training conducted in classroom and other in-person settings.

a. Progress Report. Submit a progress report semi-annually in three copies to the Training and Technical Assistance Office beginning October 31, 2001, for the period ending September 30, 2001. During the final year of the agreement, the provider must submit, in lieu of the last semi-annual progress report, a final progress report that is cumulative over the entire award period. This final report will be due not later than 90 days after the close of the agreement, unless the Corporation approves an extension. The provider must have or develop the capacity to submit progress reports electronically. At minimum, progress reports must provide the following information:

(1) A comparison of accomplishments with the goals and objectives for the reporting period;

(2) An annotated version of the approved budget that compares actual costs with budgeted costs by line item, and explains differences. The explanation should include, as appropriate, an analysis of cost overruns and high-cost units and a description of service requests not anticipated in the original budget;

(3) A description of the services provided, including:

(a) Number of requests received by topic area and source;

(b) Activity conducted to address each request (e.g., training, on-site technical assistance, phone consultation and other electronic communication, materials development and shipment) and mode of delivery (e.g., staff, consultant, other);

(c) Number of participants in each training or technical assistance event;

(d) Client feedback on the services rendered (including the aggregate evaluation of each event);

(e) Problems encountered in delivering services with recommendations for correcting them.

(4) List and dates of upcoming activities and events;

(5) Recommended training and technical assistance focus areas as suggested by analyses of service activity and trends;

(6) Discussion of developments that hindered, or may hinder, compliance with the cooperative agreement;

(7) List of materials submitted to the National Service Resource Center;

(8) List of effective practices and materials submitted to EpiCenter (Glossary).

b. Financial Report. Submit a Financial Status Report (SF Form 269A) semi-annually in three copies to the Office of Grants Management beginning October 31, 2001, for the period ending September 30, 2001. During the final year of the agreement, the provider must submit, in lieu of the last semi-annual financial status report, a final financial status report that is cumulative over the entire award period. This final report will be due not more than 90 days after the end of the agreement, unless the Corporation approves an extension. The provider must develop the capacity to submit financial status reports electronically.

c. Special Reports. Submit such special reports as requested by the Corporation.

a. Assure that provider staff and consultants are knowledgeable of the Corporation's background, objectives, and programs.

b. Help plan and implement national provider meetings and training events as requested by the Corporation.

c. Collaborate in materials development and training events organized by other providers or the Corporation, as requested.

The applicant selected under this Notice must provide services to system users in two areas: (1) System administration and management; and (2) end-user training and support. The requirements in these areas are addressed below.

The provider must base its need for system administration and management personnel, at minimum, on the system specifications, size, and activity level described above in the background segment of Section IV, Scope of Activities to be Supported. To ensure continuity, the provider will be required to establish at least a provisional arrangement with Interliant, Incorporated—the current web-hosting provider “ and to make arrangements for continuing to secure a web-hosting service for the balance of the cooperative agreement period. The applicant must include the cost of providing web-hosting services in its proposal.

a. Supervising the WBRS servers and web site, including any web-hosting contractor responsibilities. Supervising includes monitoring application efficiency, analyzing user activity, monitoring and preventing system downtime, and supervising and arranging for the archiving of data. Accordingly, the provider must:

(1) Regularly provide the Corporation an analysis of archive logs and site use that includes, at minimum, hit analyses, path analyses, page statistics, and session length. The provider must assist the Corporation in using these data to improve site usability and performance.

(2) In collaboration with the web-hosting provider, carefully monitor the site for downtime, brownouts, and other system delays. The provider must inform the Corporation whenever a system-performance issue arises.

b. Rectifying system problems. From time to time, WBRS requires reprogramming to address application bugs or incompatibilities with the National Service Trust (Glossary). The provider must coordinate closely with the Trust programming staff to ensure the smooth uploading of member and program data.

c. Effecting system enhancements. The Corporation may determine that certain system enhancements are required either to implement a change in policy or law or to increase the effectiveness of WBRS. To effect these changes, the provider must have:

(1) Staff proficient in Lotus Notes/Domino, Javascript, Lotus script, and Secure Socket Layer (SSL) programming to address simple to highly complex tasks.

(2) Programming and design capacity to develop a new version of WBRS should the Corporation direct it to do so.

This requirement includes several parts. The ultimate goal of these elements is to ensure that WBRS users are well trained in using the system and have access to resources when they need additional help. At a minimum, provider services to satisfy this requirement must include the following elements: (1) A system for training WBRS users; (2) a technical assistance system; (3) a means for capturing and disseminating effective WBRS practices; and (4) a process for evaluating WBRS services. The following sections describe each of these requirements.

a. A system for training WBRS users. WBRS currently has over 5,000 users, most of whom have been trained by the current provider. As a result of staff turnover and program growth, however, there is a continuing need to deliver basic WBRS training. Advanced training is also required to prepare staff to make effective use of WBRS' management features. Finally, to institutionalize the use of WBRS, the Corporation has required that every state commission, national direct parent organization, tribe, and territory have at least one staff member who has been certified as a local WBRS administrator and therefore can train basic WBRS users, provide technical assistance on basic WBRS questions, and otherwise act as a resource within their network of programs. The provider must deliver training to satisfy these three requirements.

(1) Basic WBRS training. The provider must be able to train up to 600 individuals per year, nationwide, in the basic operation of WBRS. In so doing, the provider must assess the training needs among user groups and schedule training sessions in a way that balances ease of user access against cost.

(2) Advanced WBRS training. In Year One of the agreement, the provider must design a training session on using WBRS as a management tool (for example, in managing a budget or tracking member progress toward completion). The provider must determine the number and location of staff who wish to receive advanced training, and then schedule training sessions in a way that balances ease of user access against cost. In subsequent years, the provider must determine the need for additional advanced training prior to creating a training schedule.

(3) Local WBRS administrator training. In Year One of the agreement, the provider must assist the Corporation in identifying individuals who could become local WBRS administrators, who would assist grantees with their administration of WBRS. The provider must also design and conduct training that will provide those selected to be local WBRS administrators the requisite knowledge and skills. In subsequent years, the provider must assist the Corporation in determining the need for additional administrator training and provide it as necessary, balancing ease of user access against cost.

b. Technical Assistance System.

The provider must establish a technical assistance system that will enable WBRS users to request and receive help with system operations problems via e-mail or telephone. In so doing, the provider must, at minimum, provide the services outlined below (over the past 12 months, WBRS help desk requests have averaged 50 per week, and programming associated with system maintenance, repair, and enhancements has totaled about 5,700 hours):

(1) Maintain the present online WBRS help system to keep it current with WBRS operations;

(2) Specify the response-time standard it intends to maintain when addressing assistance requests;

(3) Maintain database tracking logs of all user-help and technical-assistance requests to ensure that all requests are addressed and that standards for customer service are maintained;

(4) Develop and implement a system for referring technical assistance requests to Corporation staff, WBRS programmers or others, as appropriate, if the help desk is not the appropriate source for addressing user needs or if user questions raise programming or policy issues.

c. Capturing and disseminating effective WBRS practices. The provider must facilitate the use of effective WBRS practices among system users by employing the following means:

(1) Documenting and transmitting effective practices through all training and technical assistance services;

(2) Submitting information on effective WBRS practices in the stipulated formats to EpiCenter and, as appropriate, to the National Service Resource Center, and encouraging their use.

d. Evaluating WBRS services. To facilitate improving WBRS services, the provider must evaluate its services and their effectiveness. At minimum, the provider must:

(1) Develop and submit a plan for evaluating the impact of training and technical assistance services, especially as they relate to training event objectives and the general requirements of this Notice;

(2) Conduct an assessment after each training and technical assistance event;

(3) Maintain records of these assessments and provide them to the Corporation or an authorized representative upon request.

Applicants must submit one unbound, original proposal and two copies. Proposals may not be submitted by facsimile. Proposals must include the following:

The cover page must include the name, address, phone number, fax number, e-mail address, and World Wide Web site URL (if available) of the applicant organization and contact person; a 50-100 word summary of proposed activities.

A one-two page outline of all proposed activities and materials.

A bulleted narrative of no more than 20 double-spaced, single-sided, typed pages in no smaller than 12-point font that includes:

a. Proposed Strategy. The applicant's proposed strategy and rationale for providing WBRS training and technical assistance services to WBRS users for one year. The applicant must include the specific deliverables and requirements outlined in Section IV of this Notice as a starting point for a plan, and should present these deliverables and requirements in a way that reflects the applicant's areas of expertise and knowledge of national service audiences. It is not appropriate simply to re-list the tasks stated in this Notice. As appropriate, the applicant should also include the following information for each proposed activity, product, and event: type, number, frequency, audience and estimated audience size, content, skill level, desired learning outcomes, and proposed needs-assessment and continuous-improvement strategies.

b. Work Plan. A detailed one-year work plan and timeline for completing all system administration and management and end-user training and support activities. The work plan must include all deliverables and the tasks leading to them.

c. Evaluation Plan. A plan for regularly evaluating system performance and service delivery and reporting findings and proposed improvements to the Corporation.

A 75-100 word sample course description and off-the-shelf course outline for each of two courses in the applicant's specialty area. One course should be a basic two-five day introductory course for 15-20 inexperienced participants and the other should be a two-five day advanced course for 15-20 experienced participants. Course outlines should include desired learning outcomes and the activities that will lead to them.

A one-page description of how the applicant proposes to use technology, especially e-learning, to broaden and extend effectively the reach of training. The description should include the rationale for the proposed approach, the target audience, course level, concepts and skills to be delivered, desired learning outcomes, and how the outcomes will be achieved.

a. Organizational Chart. A chart that depicts the applicant's organization and, as applicable, its position within a parent organization.

b. Narrative. A narrative of no more than three double-spaced, single-sided, typed pages in no smaller than 12-point font which describes:

(1) The organization's capacity to provide system administration, management, training, and technical assistance services to geographically dispersed users, and discusses recent work similar to that being proposed.

(2) The organization's knowledge of AmeriCorps.

(3) The organization's knowledge of and proficiency in the programming and use of Lotus Notes/Domino. Include references related to this work.

(4) Staff backgrounds and strengths. (Include in an appendix a list and resumes of management staff and their anticipated rates of pay; for other staff and/or expert consultants include a summary of their relevant background. This information is not subject to the page limits that are otherwise applicable).

A detailed, line-item budget with hours and costs organized by personnel, task and sub-task and related to the activities and deliverables outlined in the introductory narrative and work plan.

a. Include staff and expert-consultant hours and pay rates being proposed by task and sub-task, and indicate by task and sub-task the types and quantities of other direct costs being proposed (for example, amounts of travel; volume of other task-related resources, such as communications, postage, etc.). Costs in proposed budgets must consist solely of costs allowable under applicable cost principles found in OMB Circulars.

b. Provide a budget narrative that includes an explanation of the basis for the cost estimates. The organization of the budget narrative should parallel that of the line-item budget. Each of the elements and sub-elements that comprise the totals of the individual budget lines must be fully explained in the narrative. The narrative should show how each cost was derived, using equations to reflect all factors considered. Also provided should be the anticipated unit cost (with derivation) of the various deliverables, such as training events and technical assistance interventions.

To ensure fairness to all applicants, the Corporation reserves the right to take remedial action, up to and including disqualification, in the event a proposal fails to comply with the requirements relating to page limits, line spacing, and font size. The Corporation will assess applications based on the criteria listed below.

The Corporation will consider the quality of the proposed activities based on:

a. Understanding of the Needs of AmeriCorps Programs. Evidence of the applicant's understanding of the needs of AmeriCorps programs, the principles of adult learning, and the training and technical assistance principles and requirements outlined in this Notice.

b. Soundness of Proposed Strategy. Evidence of the responsiveness, comprehensiveness, and creativity of the applicant's approach.

The Corporation will consider the organizational capacity of the applicant to deliver the proposed services based on:

a. Experience. Evidence of experience in providing systems management and administration services, providing online and telephone-based technical support, designing or maintaining online reporting systems, and delivering high-quality training and technical assistance to adults.

b. Staff. Evidence of training or experience in relevant content areas.

c. Grant Experience. Demonstrated ability to manage a federal grant or apply sound fiscal management principles to grants and cost accounting.

d. Capacity. Demonstrated ability to provide systems administration, software development, and training and technical assistance services nationwide.

a. Scope of Plan. Proposed method for assessing the need for and effectiveness of services and products delivered under the award.

b. Continuous Improvement. Proposed method for using assessments of services and products to modify and improve subsequent services and products.

The Corporation will consider the budget based on the factors below. Applicants should be mindful that a demonstrated commitment to providing services in the most cost-effective manner possible will be a major consideration in the evaluation of proposals. (Provider match is not required.)

a. Cost-effectiveness. Cost of each proposed activity in relation to the scope and depth of the services proposed (i.e., the number of states, programs, and individuals the proposed activities are intended to reach).

b. Scope. Scope of the proposed service activity (e.g., the number of states, programs, and individuals the proposed activities are intended to reach).

c. Clarity. The clarity and thoroughness of the budget and budget narrative.

A database-enabled web site designed to share effective program practices and knowledge across the national service network, EpiCenter disseminates ideas and information that lead to program improvement and successful outcomes for beneficiaries, participants, institutions, and communities. These practices are based on knowledge gleaned from practical experience, technical assistance efforts, and empirical research. The evolving database currently contains practices related to education, the environment, public safety and other human needs (including health and housing), service-learning, and common program management concerns (e.g., recruiting, volunteer management, partnership, and sustainability). The database can be visited at www.nationalservice.org/resources/epicenter/.

Entities funded directly by the Corporation. These include, but are not limited to, state commissions; state education agencies; Tribes and U.S. Territories; national direct parent organizations; institutions, consortia, and organizations of higher education; local governments; and non-profit organizations.

Currently managed by ETR Associates, Inc., Scotts Valley, California, the National Service Resource Center (NSRC) serves as a repository of information on all aspects of national service. The NSRC manages most of the Corporation's listservs, and its web site includes a calendar of training events and links to all current providers. The NSRC also has a lending library. Training and technical assistance publications are posted or distributed by the NSRC. Providers will be required to submit copies of their training materials and scripts to the NSRC.

Provides a secure repository for education awards earned by eligible AmeriCorps participants. It is based on enrollment and exit data provided by AmeriCorps grantees and members. The data are subject to the scrutiny of annual, systematic financial audit. The systems used to enter and store the data use edit and range checks. Optical scanning techniques are used to enter the data electronically.

Many Corporation grantees sub-grant a significant portion of their funds to other entities. Examples include state commissions that, through a competitive process, fund AmeriCorps programs throughout a state, and state education agencies that, through competition, fund school systems throughout a state. By regulation, Senior Corps grantees are not permitted to sub-grant.

This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The entire agenda will consist of classified information that is specifically authorized by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and is properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that all sessions of the meeting shall be closed to the public because they concern matters listed in 552b(c)(1) of title 5, U.S.C.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

• Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) Six-Month Status Review

• Introduction and Discussion of Proposed FY 2003 Budget Advice

• Introduction and Discussion of Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB)

• Board Discussion of Products from the Committee Restructuring

• Introduction and Discussion of Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) Letter on Importance of Cleanup

• Board Discussion of Products from the Committee Restructuring Workshop (continued)

• Adoption of FY 2003 Budget Advice

• Updates

• Hanford April Stewardship Workshop

• INEEL Vadose Zone Roundtable

• Identification of June Board meeting topics

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gail McClure's office at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided equal time to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Gail McClure, Department of Energy Richland Operation Office, PO Box 550, Richland, WA 99352, or by calling her at (509) 373-5647.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Jerry Johnson's office at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and every reasonable provision will be made to accommodate the request in the agenda. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Pantex Public Reading Rooms located at the Amarillo College Lynn Library and Learning Center, 2201 South Washington, Amarillo, TX phone (806) 371-5400. Hours of operation are from 7:45 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Thursday; 7:45 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Friday; 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturday; and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday, except for Federal holidays. Additionally, there is a Public Reading Room located at the Carson County Public Library, 401 Main Street, Panhandle, TX phone (806) 537-3742. Hours of operation are from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday; 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday through Friday; and closed Saturday and Sunday as well as Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing or calling Jerry S. Johnson at the address or telephone number listed above.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

This agenda is subject to change at least one day in advance of the meeting.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Ann DuBois at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments at the beginning of the meeting.

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available at the Public Reading Room located at the Board's office at 1640 Old Pecos Trail, Suite H, Santa Fe, NM. Hours of operation for the Public Reading Room are 9 a.m.-4 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Minutes will also be made available by writing or calling Ann DuBois at the Board's office address or telephone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http:www.nnmcab.org.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), by order issued February 13, 1997, confirmed and approved Rate Schedules KP-1-D, JHK-2-B, JHK-3-B, and PH-1-B for the period October 1, 1996, to September 30, 2001. A current repayment study prepared in February of 2001 shows that existing rates are not adequate to recover all costs required by present repayment criteria. Southeastern is proposing new rates to recoup these unrecovered costs.

A revised repayment study with a revenue increase of $2,308,000 in Fiscal Year 2002 and all future years over the current repayment study shows that all costs are repaid within their service life. Therefore, Southeastern is proposing to revise the existing rates to generate this additional revenue. The increase is primarily due to costs associated with the rehabilitation of the John H. Kerr Project currently underway, a new transmission agreement with Virginia Electric & Power Company, and retirement and pension benefits expenses not previously recovered.

Under the proposed rates, the capacity charge will increase from the current $1.86 per kilowatt per month to $2.05 per kilowatt per month. The energy charge will increase from the current 7.67 mills per kilowatt-hour to 8.62 mills per kilowatt-hour. In addition, Southeastern proposes to establish a Tandem Transmission rate, which is designed to recover the cost of transmitting power from a project to the border of another transmitting system. This rate is to be a formulary pass-through rate based on the charges by transmission facilitators and is initially estimated to be $0.61 per kilowatt per month.

Southeastern is proposing the following rate schedules to be effective for the period from October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2006.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Virginia to whom power may be transmitted and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Virginia Electric and Power Company.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Virginia to whom power may be transmitted pursuant to contracts between the Government and Virginia Electric and Power Company. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Virginia to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Virginia Electric and Power Company. The customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in the service area of Virginia Electric and Power Company. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Virginia to whom power may be transmitted and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Carolina Power & Light.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Virginia to whom power may be transmitted pursuant to contracts between the Government and Carolina Power & Light. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Virginia to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Carolina Power & Light. The customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in the service area of Carolina Power & Light. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Virginia to whom power may be transmitted and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and American Electric Power Service Corporation.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Virginia to whom power may be transmitted pursuant to contracts between the Government and American Electric Power. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in Virginia to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and American Electric Power. The customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement.

Available to public bodies and cooperatives in the service area of American Electric Power. The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement.

The referenced repayment studies are available for examination at the Samuel Elbert Building, Elberton, GA 30635. Proposed Rate Schedules VA-1, VA-2, VA-3, VA-4, CP&L-1, CP&L-2, CP&L-3, CP&L-4, AP-1, AP-2, AP-3, and AP-4 are also available.

During each of these workshops, EPA plans to provide an overview of the final CWT effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards and guidance on their implementation. EPA will also devote considerable time for questions and answers during this workshop.

The final CWT rule and related documents are available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to all parties interested in SFIREG's information exchange relationship with EPA regarding important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process are invited and encourage to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “Federal Register—Environmental Documents. You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-00709. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00709 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-00709. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

The following topics will be discussed at the 2-day meeting:

Pesticide Regulatory Education Program Water Quality Course for 2001

Pesticide Management Plan Rule Status Discussion

Surface Water Issues

Pesticide Use/Usage Data

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture

Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic National Action Plan

Committee Member Up-date

Office of Pesticide Program Up-date

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Up-date

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits Federal agencies from discriminating against qualified persons on the grounds of disability. The law not only applies to internal employment practices but also extends to agency interaction with members of the public who participate in FEMA programs. (FEMA's implementation of section 504 of this Act is codified in 44 CFR part 16.) Contractors who plan meetings, conferences, or seminars for FEMA must develop a plan to ensure that minimum accessibility standards for the disabled as set forth in the contract clause will be met. The plan must be approved by a FEMA Contracting Officer.

Title: FEMA Contract Clause—Accessibility of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars to Persons with Disabilities.

Type of Information Collection: Extension of currently approved collection.

OMB Number: 3067-0213.

Form Numbers. Not Applicable.

Abstract. Contractors who plan meetings, conferences or seminars for FEMA must submit a plan to the Contracting Officer detailing how the minimum accessibility standards for the disabled set forth in the contract clause will be met.

Affected Public: Business and other for-profit.

Number of Responses: FEMA estimates that 10 contractors would be required to comply annually with the contract clause, with an average of 3 hours per response to prepare the plan.

Frequency of Response: One response per year per contract, using a consolidated plan for multiple meetings under one contractor.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 30 hours.

Estimated Cost: $1033.00.

Comments: Written comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate 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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments should be received within 60 days of the date of this notice.