Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20243 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 13, 2011. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 15, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(382) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(382) New and amended regulations 

for the following APCDs were submitted 

on July 11, 2007, by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District. 

(1) Permit to Operate for the Kiefer 

Landfill (‘‘Permit to Operate No. 17359 

(Rev01)’’), as revised on November 13, 

2006. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–8466 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

45 CFR Part 2553 

RIN 3045–AA52 

Retired and Senior Volunteer Program 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (Corporation) is 

issuing a final rule that sets forth a 

competitive process for selecting grant 

recipients for the Retired and Service 

Volunteer Program (RSVP), including 

performance measurement 

requirements, as required by the 

Domestic Volunteer Service Act 

(DVSA), as amended by the Edward M. 

Kennedy Serve America Act (Serve 

America Act) (Pub. L. 111–13) of April 

21, 2009. 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 

11, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katharine Delo Gregg at (202) 606–6965 

(kgregg@cns.gov). The TDD/TTY 

number is (202) 606–3472. You may 

request this rule in an alternative format 

for the visually impaired. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background—The October 26, 2010, 

Proposed Rule 

On October 26, 2010, the Corporation 

published a proposed rule (45 CFR part 

2553) in the Federal Register (Vol. 75, 

No. 206) to regulate the competitive 

grantmaking process for the Retired and 

Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). 

The proposed rule implements RSVP 

re-competition statutory requirements 

set forth in the Edward M. Kennedy 

Serve America Act (Serve America Act), 

which President Obama signed into law 

on April 21, 2009. The Serve America 

Act reauthorizes and expands national 

service programs administered by the 

Corporation for National and 

Community Service (Corporation) by 

amending the National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) and the 

Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 

(DVSA). 

The Serve America Act amended the 

DVSA by requiring the Corporation to 

develop a competitive process for 

selecting grant recipients for the RSVP 

Program, beginning in fiscal year 2013. 

The competitive process, as directed by 

statute, will include the use of peer 

review panels with expertise in senior 

service and aging, site inspections, as 

appropriate, and evaluations of existing 

grantees. The amended statute requires 

that, beginning in fiscal year 2013, 

RSVP grants be awarded for a period of 

3 years, with an option for renewal of 

3 years if the grantee meets the 

performance measures established in its 

grant award, as well as complying with 

the terms and conditions of the grant. 

60-Day Comment Period 

In the Federal Register of October 26, 

2010 (45 CFR part 2553), the 

Corporation published the proposed 

rule, with a 60-day comment period. 

The Corporation received a total of 21 

comments from twelve commenters, 

including one association that 

represents several hundred members. 

Comments are discussed in detail in 

Part III. 

In general, most of the comments 

supported the proposed regulations. 

II. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The current competitive process for 

selecting RSVP grantees only occurs 

when there is new money above the 

appropriated base funding for RSVP 

grants. The future competitive process 

for selecting RSVP grantees will include 

the same elements specified in the 

amended DVSA that have been used for 

previous competitive processes. The 

elements specified in the amended 

DVSA are discussed below. 

A. Peer review panels [DVSA 

§ 201(e)(2)(B)(i); 45 CFR 2553.71(b)]: As 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
20244 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

of 2013, RSVP grant applications will be 

reviewed by blended peer review panels 

that will include members with 

specialized expertise in senior service 

and aging, as well as Corporation staff, 

who will offer their expert opinions 

concerning each application. The use of 

blended peer review panels is well 

established at the Corporation and is 

currently part of the process of selecting 

grantees for other programs such as 

AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve 

America. The Corporation also has 

considerable experience in using 

outside reviewers with expertise in 

senior service and aging on selection 

panels for Senior Corps grants, 

including RSVP. The Corporation’s 

existing processes for announcing peer 

review opportunities, registering 

potential reviewers, selecting reviewers 

for particular competitions, managing 

review panels, and considering peer 

review opinions in making the final 

selection of grantees will be adapted to 

meet the requirements for RSVP grant 

competitions. 

B. Site inspections [DVSA 

§ 201(e)(2)(B)(ii); 45 CFR 2553.71(b)]: As 

appropriate, on-going RSVP grant 

applicants or proposed project sites may 

be visited by Corporation 

representatives as part of the 

competitive selection process. While 

such site inspections would normally 

not be needed, circumstances could 

arise during the grantee selection 

process where on-site observations or 

meetings might be helpful, for example, 

in clarifying aspects of an application or 

validating the capacity of an 

organization to administer a federal 

grant. 

C. Performance Measures, Outcomes, 

and Other Criteria [DVSA 

§§ 201(e)(2)(B)(v) and 201(g); 45 CFR 

2553.12(l) and Subpart J]: As a part of 

the competitive process, the Corporation 

will develop performance measures, 

outcomes, and other criteria that will be 

used in the evaluation of applicants. 

The performance measures will be 

established in the Notification of 

Funding Availability and may be 

different than those incorporated in 

current grants. These performance 

measures, outcomes, and criteria will 

reflect the different needs of rural and 

urban communities. These performance 

measures, outcomes, and criteria will be 

used in conducting the competitive 

process and in developing assessment 

reports as described in paragraph D, 

below. 

Pursuant to section 201(g)(2)(A) & (B) 

of the Serve America Act, prior to Fiscal 

Year 2014 that is, the first year after 

initiation of the competitive process, the 

performance measures, outcomes, and 

other criteria established for the 

competitive process may not be updated 

or modified, except when the 

Corporation determines that a 

performance measure, outcome, or 

criterion has become operationally 

problematic. In such cases, after 

consulting with RSVP project directors, 

sponsor executives, and others as 

appropriate, and notifying the 

authorizing committees, the Corporation 

may eliminate that performance 

measure, outcome, or criterion, or 

modify it. 

D. Assessments of existing RSVP 

projects [DVSA §§ 201(f) and (g); 45 CFR 

2553(f)]: The Corporation has set up a 

mechanism for consulting with RSVP 

project directors during the 

development and implementation of the 

assessment process. All existing RSVP 

grants will receive a report from the 

Corporation in a standardized format 

that assesses program strengths and 

weaknesses in a way that can assist the 

grantee with program improvement. 

This report will guide the Corporation’s 

training and technical assistance for the 

project. The standardized report will, in 

addition to assessing the program’s 

strengths and weaknesses, include: 

1. An assessment of the extent to 

which the grantee meets or exceeds the 

performance measures, outcomes, and 

other criteria established for its grant; 

2. An assessment of whether the 

project has adequately addressed the 

needs of the population and community 

it serves; 

3. An assessment of the grant’s efforts 

to collaborate with other community 

organizations, units of government, and 

entities providing services to seniors; 

4. An assessment of the project’s 

compliance with requirements for 

appropriate use of Federal funds, based 

on use of a protocol for fiscal 

management; and 

5. An assessment of whether the 

project is in conformity with eligibility, 

outreach, enrollment, and other RSVP 

programmatic requirements. 

To the maximum extent practicable, 

the report for each project will take into 

account input received from individuals 

who are knowledgeable about RSVP, 

including current or former employees 

of the Corporation and representatives 

of the communities served by RSVP 

volunteers. 

The process of assessing existing 

RSVP grants will begin in Fiscal Year 

2010 and run through Fiscal Year 2012, 

with the objective of completing the 

assessment and resulting training and 

technical assistance prior to conducting 

the initial cycle of grant competitions in 

Fiscal Year 2013. 

E. Maintenance of volunteers and 

geographic service areas [DVSA 

§ 201(e)(2)(B)(iv)]: The Corporation will 

ensure that (a) grants awarded as a 

result of the competitive selection 

process beginning in Fiscal Year 2013 

are for at least the same number of 

volunteers annually as were supported 

for the service area during the previous 

grant cycle and (b) maintain a similar 

program distribution as was maintained 

during the previous grant cycle. In 

addition, the Corporation will minimize 

any disruption to RSVP volunteers that 

might result from implementing the 

competitive process of grantee selection. 

F. Program Termination [DVSA 

§ 201(g)(3); 45 CFR 2553.31]: Until 2013, 

the Corporation will continue to initiate 

termination or denial of an application 

for refunding in the event that a grantee 

does not meet one or more of the 

performance measures, outcomes, and 

other criteria established as described 

above. Any such termination or denial 

of refunding will follow the notification 

and due process currently followed in 

such cases, in accordance with Section 

412 of the DVSA, as implemented by 45 

CFR part 1206 Grants and Contracts— 

Suspension and Termination and Denial 

of Application for Refunding, except 

that after initiation of competition in FY 

2013, the provisions governing denial of 

refunding will not apply to a grant that 

has been competed in accordance with 

45 CFR 2553.71, and where the grantee 

has also completed its optional threeyear renewal term. 

G. Technical Assistance [DVSA 

§ 201(h) and (j); 45 CFR 2553.71(f)]: The 

Corporation will develop procedures for 

providing technical assistance, 

including regular monitoring visits, to 

assist grantees in meeting the 

established performance measures, 

outcomes, and criteria. One component 

of such technical assistance, which was 

launched in October 2009, is an online 

resource guide available at http:// 

www.nationalserviceresources.org/rsvponline-resource-guide. The Corporation 

updates this online guide from time to 

time with examples of high-performing 

RSVP projects and other information. 

H. Grant Extension for Purpose of 

New Competition [DVSA § 201(i); 

2553.71(e)]: To minimize disruption to 

volunteers and services, if a grantee fails 

to meet one or more of the established 

performance measures, outcomes, and 

other criteria, the Corporation will 

continue to fund the current grantee for 

up to 12 months if the competition for 

a replacement sponsor has not resulted 

in a replacement sponsor. During those 

12 months, the Corporation will 

conduct a new competition to serve the 

geographic area served by the current 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20245 

grantee and reach out to other potential 

sponsors. The current grantee will be 

eligible for the new competition and, 

during the 12-month period, the 

Corporation may continue to provide 

training and technical assistance in 

meeting established performance 

measures. 

All provisions of part 2553 not 

modified by the amendments described 

below will remain in effect, including 

the provision in § 2553(a) that a 

‘‘Corporation grant may be awarded to 

fund up to 90 percent of the total project 

cost in the first year, 80 percent in the 

second year, and 70 percent in the third 

and succeeding years.’’ Thus, the 

Corporation will continue to require 

that a current grantee applying for a new 

grant must contribute from nonCorporation funds at least 30 percent of 

the total project cost. A new applicant, 

on the other hand, will be required to 

contribute 10 percent in the first year of 

the grant, 20 percent in the second year, 

and 30 percent in the third and 

succeeding years. 

III. Comments and Response 

Of the 21 comments received, the vast 

majority of the comments pertained to 

clarification of the implementation of 

the proposed regulation but generally 

supported the regulation. The comments 

and our responses are set forth below. 

Comment: Seven comments stated 

that specifying the ‘‘blended peer review 

panels that will include members with 

specialized expertise in senior service’’ 

is insufficient and encouraged the 

Corporation to utilize peer reviewers 

with specialized knowledge applicable 

to RSVP grants. 

Response: The Corporation agrees and 

will engage peer review panelists that 

possess the appropriate expertise and 

knowledge base to meet the 

requirements of the SAA, and to 

participate in a robust and transparent 

competitive review process. 

Comment: Seven comments suggested 

that site inspections be preceded by 

prior notice, as well as explicitly state 

that the purpose of the site visits is 

constructive, and not intended to be an 

evaluation of the particular program. 

Response: The Corporation will 

clarify that the site inspections are a 

part of the competitive review intended 

to assist the Corporation during 

competition in clarifying aspects of an 

application or validating the capacity of 

an organization to administer a Federal 

grant, as well as other elements of the 

application review process, and are not 

part of technical assistance nor intended 

as a continuous improvement tool. 

Comment: Twelve comments 

expressed concern that the development 

of performance measures would not be 

consistent with the Corporation’s larger 

goals, nor would they reflect grantees’ 

specific circumstances and local needs. 

Response: The Corporation agrees that 

coordination between national standard 

measures and grantee initiated measures 

is essential. The Corporation’s new 

strategic plan will help to inform how 

the overall performance measures will 

fit within a structure of national and 

local measures. 

Comment: Nine comments suggested 

that if the Corporation consults 

meaningfully with grantees when 

providing the required pre-competition 

assessment, the process will go more 

smoothly and the results will be better. 

In addition, the process will be more 

efficient and more widely supported if 

the report for each project includes 

input not only from Corporation but 

from community representatives who 

actually work with, and benefit from, 

RSVP as well. 

Response: The Corporation agrees 

with this comment, as the process for 

disseminating the pre-competition 

assessments to existing RSVP grantees 

includes one-on-one consultation 

between state program officers and 

grantee project directors, occurring 

upon the grantee’s receipt of the 

assessment, and is designed to ensure 

the grantee receives appropriate 

technical assistance to maximize the 

effectiveness of the assessment. 

Additionally, the Community 

Stakeholder Survey was provided to all 

current grantees as a tool to measure 

how effectively an RSVP project builds 

meaningful, interactive community 

partnerships and identifies and 

addresses community needs from the 

perspective of the project’s community 

stakeholders. The survey is designed to 

be completed by the group whom the 

grantee feels is the most appropriate. 

Comment: Four comments stated 

support of the Corporation’s intention to 

enroll at least the same number of 

volunteers as were supported during the 

previous grant cycle, but also inquired 

about the sponsor’s corresponding 

responsibilities. Specifically, a 

commenter expressed concern about a 

sponsor’s program responsibilities with 

regard to maintaining the number of 

volunteers, stating that the proposed 

language misinterprets Congressional 

intent in that the commenter believes 

the language in the statute is directed to 

the Corporation, not to the program 

sponsor. 

Response: The Corporation believes 

that, as the grant-making entity, it has 

the responsibility and authority to 

require a program sponsor that is being 

replaced by a subsequent program 

sponsor to maintain the current 

requirements concerning the 

maintenance of volunteers and 

geographic service areas. The 

Corporation also maintains that the 

statutory requirement is not mutually 

exclusive, in that both the Corporation 

and project sponsors who are being 

replaced by subsequent sponsors have 

separate, independent responsibilities, 

in regard to the implementation of the 

competitive process, to ‘‘make every 

effort to minimize the disruption to 

volunteers.’’ Therefore, § 2553.23(i) is 

merely the Corporation’s 

implementation of this Congressional 

mandate. 

Comment: Six comments stated that 

grantees should be able to work with the 

Corporation on the substance of the 

technical assistance provided to 

grantees. 

Response: The Corporation agrees 

with this comment and has convened, 

and will continue to convene, a working 

group of project directors to consult on 

many aspects of preparing for 

competition, including technical 

assistance. 

Comment: Six comments disagreed 

with the level of non-Corporation 

matching funds, which requires current 

grantees to maintain their required 

matching funds at a minimum of 30 

percent of the total project cost. 

Response: The proposed policy of 

requiring non-Corporation matching 

funds to be at a minimum of 30 percent 

of the total project cost when the 

incumbent is awarded another grant 

reflects an internal alignment with 

Corporation policy. The underlying 

rationale for the policy is that the 

incumbent has already achieved a level 

of program operations that supports the 

grant. New applicants are provided a 

comparable opportunity to achieve the 

same level of program operations. 

IV. Effective Dates 

The final rule takes effect July 11, 

2011. 

V. Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866 

The Corporation has determined that 

this rule is not an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule within the meaning of 

E.O. 12866 because it is not likely to 

result in: (1) An annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or an 

adverse and material effect on a sector 

of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or state, local, or 

tribal government or communities; 

(2) the creation of a serious 

inconsistency or interference with an 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
20246 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

action taken or planned by another 

agency; (3) a material alteration in the 

budgetary impacts of entitlement, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) the raising of novel legal 

or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. It 

is, however, a significant rule and has 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget in accordance 

with E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This rule has been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ although not economically 

significant, under section 3(f) of E.O. 

12866. Accordingly, the rule has been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605 (b), 

the Corporation certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This regulatory action will not 

result in (1) an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more; (2) a 

major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or 

(3) significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. Therefore, the 

Corporation has not performed the 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis that 

is required under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., for 

major rules that are expected to have 

such results. 

Unfunded Mandates 

For purposes of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, as well as 

Executive Order 12875, this regulatory 

action does not contain any federal 

mandate that may result in increased 

expenditures in either federal, state, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or impose an annual burden 

exceeding $100 million on the private 

sector. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains no information 

collection requirements and is therefore 

not subject to the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, 

prohibits an agency from publishing any 

rule that has Federalism implications if 

the rule either imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs on state and 

local governments and is not required 

by statute, or the rule preempts state 

law, unless the agency meets the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of section 6 of the Executive Order. The 

rule does not have any Federalism 

implications, as described above. 

List of Subjects in Part 2553 

Aged, Grant programs—social 

programs, Volunteers. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Corporation for National 

and Community Service amends 45 CFR 

part 2553 as follows: 

PART 2553—THE RETIRED AND 

SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2553 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4950 et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 2553.12 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (l) 

through (r) as paragraphs (m) through (s) 

respectively; and 

■ b. Adding a new paragraph (l) to read 

as follows: 

§ 2553.12 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(l) Performance measures. Indicators 

intended to help determine the impact 

of an RSVP project on the community, 

including the volunteers. Performance 

measures currently include, but are not 

limited to, the following performance 

indicators: 

(1) Output indicator. The amount or 

units of service that RSVP volunteers 

have completed, or the number of 

people the project has served. An output 

indicator does not provide information 

on benefits or other changes in the lives 

of the volunteers or the people served. 

(2) Outcome indicator. Specifies a 

change that has occurred in the lives of 

the people served or the volunteers. It 

is an observable and measurable 

indication of whether or not a project is 

making progress toward its outcome 

target. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 2553.23 by adding new 

paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows: 

§ 2553.23 What are a sponsor’s program 

responsibilities? 

* * * * * 

(i) Minimize any disruption to RSVP 

volunteers when one sponsor is 

replaced by another as a result of 

relinquishment, denial of refunding, or 

recompetition of a grant. 

(j) Make every effort to meet such 

performance measures as may be 

established for the RSVP project by 

mutual agreement. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 2553.31 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 2553.31 What are the rules on 

suspension, termination and denial of 

refunding of grants? 

* * * * * 

(c) Beginning in FY 2013, the 

procedures for suspension and 

termination of RSVP grants, which are 

specified in 45 CFR part 1206, shall 

continue to apply, but the procedures in 

part 1206 applicable to denial of 

refunding of an RSVP grantee shall not 

apply to any grant awarded through the 

competitive process described in 

§ 2553.71 of this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Revise § 2553.71 to read as follows: 

§ 2553.71 What is the process for 

application and award of a grant? 

As funds become available, the 

Corporation solicits applications for 

RSVP grants from eligible organizations 

through a competitive process. 

(a) What are the application 

requirements for an RSVP grant? An 

applicant must: 

(1) Submit required information 

determined by the Corporation. 

(2) Demonstrate compliance with any 

applicable requirements specified in the 

Notice of Funding Availability or Notice 

of Funding Opportunity. 

(b) What process does the Corporation 

use to select new RSVP grantees? 

(1) The Corporation reviews and 

determines the merits of an application 

by its responsiveness to published 

guidelines and to the overall purpose 

and objectives of the program. In 

conducting its review during the 

competitive process, the Corporation 

considers the input and opinions of 

those serving on a peer review panel, 

including members with expertise in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20247 

senior service and aging, and may 

conduct site inspections, as appropriate. 

(2) The selection process includes: 

(i) Determining whether an 

application complies with the 

application requirements, such as 

deadlines, eligibility, and programmatic 

requirements, including performance 

measurement requirements; 

(ii) Applying published selection 

criteria, as stated in the applicable 

Notice of Funding Availability or Notice 

of Funding Opportunity, to assess the 

quality of the application; 

(iii) Applying any applicable 

priorities or preferences, as stated in the 

applicable Notice of Funding 

Availability or Notice of Funding 

Opportunity; 

(iv) Ensuring innovation and 

geographic, demographic, and 

programmatic diversity across the 

Corporation’s RSVP grantee portfolio; 

and 

(v) Identifying the applications that 

most completely respond to the 

published guidelines and offer the 

highest probability of successfully 

carrying out the overall purpose and 

objectives of the program. 

(c) How is a grant awarded? 

(1) Subject to the availability of funds, 

the award will be documented by a 

Notice of Grant Award (NGA). 

(2) The Corporation and the 

sponsoring organization are parties to 

the NGA. The NGA will document the 

sponsor’s commitment to fulfill specific 

programmatic objectives and financial 

obligations. It will document the extent 

of the Corporation’s obligation to 

provide assistance to the sponsor. 

(d) What happens if the Corporation 

rejects an application? The Corporation 

will return to the applicant an 

application that is not approved for 

funding, informing the applicant of the 

Corporation’s decision. 

(e) For what period of time does the 

Corporation award a grant? The 

Corporation awards an RSVP grant for a 

specified period that is 3 years in 

duration with an option for a grant 

renewal of 3 years, if the grantee’s 

performance and compliance with grant 

terms and conditions are satisfactory. 

The Corporation will use the Denial of 

Refunding procedures set forth in 45 

CFR part 1206 to deny funding to a 

grantee when the Corporation 

determines that the grant should not be 

renewed for an additional 3 years. 

(f) What assistance in preparation for 

competitive award of all RSVP grants 

will the Corporation provide to sponsors 

who have previously received a grant 

and whose grants are expiring in fiscal 

year 2011, 2012, or 2013? (1) For each 

grant expiring in fiscal years 2011, 2012, 

or 2013, the Corporation will evaluate 

the grant, to the maximum extent 

practicable, in fiscal years 2010, 2011, 

and 2012, respectively. 

(2) The evaluation will give particular 

attention to the different needs of rural 

and urban projects, including those 

serving Native American communities, 

and will evaluate the extent to which 

the sponsor meets or exceeds 

performance measures, outcomes, and 

other criteria established by the 

Corporation. 

(3) To the maximum extent 

practicable, the Corporation will ensure 

that each evaluation is conducted by a 

review team made up of trained 

individuals who are knowledgeable 

about RSVP, including current or former 

employees of the Corporation and 

representatives of communities served 

by RSVP volunteers, who will provide 

their input and opinions concerning 

each grant. 

(4) The Corporation will use the 

evaluation findings as the basis for 

providing recommendations for program 

improvement, and for the provision of 

training and technical assistance. 

(5) The evaluation will assess: 

(i) The project’s strengths and areas in 

need of improvement; 

(ii) Whether the project has 

adequately addressed population and 

community-wide needs; 

(iii) The efforts of the project to 

collaborate with other community-based 

organizations, units of government, and 

entities providing services to seniors, 

taking into account barriers to such 

collaboration that such programs may 

encounter; 

(iv) The project’s compliance with the 

program requirements for the 

appropriate use of Federal funds as 

embodied in a protocol for fiscal 

management; 

(v) To what extent the project is in 

conformity with the eligibility, 

outreach, enrollment, and other 

requirements for RSVP projects; and 

(vi) The extent to which the project is 

achieving other measures of 

performance developed by the 

Corporation, in consultation with the 

review team. 

■ 6. Add a new Subpart J to read as 

follows: 

Subpart J—Performance Measures 

Sec. 

2553.100 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

2553.101 What is the purpose of 

performance measurement? 

2553.102 What performance measurement 

information must be part of an 

application for funding under RSVP? 

2553.103 Who develops the performance 

measures? 

2553.104 What performance measures must 

be submitted to the Corporation and how 

are these submitted? 

2553.105 How are performance measures 

approved and documented? 

2553.106 How does a sponsor report 

performance measures to the 

Corporation? 

2553.107 What must a sponsor do if it 

cannot meet its performance measures? 

2553.108 When may a sponsor change a 

project’s performance measures? 

2553.109 What happens if a sponsor fails to 

meet the performance measures included 

in the Notice of Grant Award (NGA)? 

Subpart J—Performance Measurement 

§ 2553.100 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart sets forth the minimum 

performance measurement requirements 

for Corporation-funded Retired and 

Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) 

projects. 

§ 2553.101 What is the purpose of 

performance measurement? 

The purpose of performance 

measurement is to strengthen the RSVP 

project and foster continuous 

improvement. Reporting on 

performance measures is used by the 

Corporation as part of assessing the 

impact of the project on the community 

and on the accomplishment of the 

objectives established in the 

Corporation’s Strategic Plan. In 

addition, as part of the competitive 

process, performance measures are used 

to assess how an applicant for a grant 

approaches the design of volunteer 

activities and the measurement of their 

impact on community needs. 

§ 2553.102 What performance 

measurement information must be part of 

an application for funding under RSVP? 

An application to the Corporation for 

funding under RSVP must contain: 

(a) Performance measures. 

(b) Estimated performance data for the 

project years covered by the application. 

(c) Actual performance data, where 

available, for the preceding completed 

project year. 

§ 2553.103 Who develops the performance 

measures? 

(a) An applicant is responsible for 

developing its own project-specific 

performance measures. 

(b) In addition, the Corporation may 

establish performance measures that 

will apply to all Corporation-sponsored 

RSVP projects, which sponsors will be 

responsible for meeting. 

§ 2553.104 What performance measures 

must be submitted to the Corporation and 

how are these submitted? 

(a) An applicant for Corporation funds 

is required to submit at least one of each 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
20248 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

of the following types of performance 

measures as part of their application. 

The Corporation will provide standard 

forms. 

(1) Output indicators. 

(2) Outcome indicators. 

(b) An applicant must also submit any 

uniform performance measures the 

Corporation may establish for all 

applicants. 

(c) The Corporation may specify 

additional requirements relating to 

performance measures on an annual 

basis in program guidance and related 

materials. 

§ 2553.105 How are performance 

measures approved and documented? 

(a) The Corporation reviews and 

approves performance measures for all 

applicants that apply for funding from 

the Corporation. 

(b) An applicant must follow 

Corporation-provided guidance and 

formats provided when submitting 

performance measures. 

(c) Final performance measures, as 

negotiated between the applicant and 

the Corporation, will be documented in 

the Notice of Grant Award (NGA). 

§ 2553.106 How does a sponsor report 

performance measures to the Corporation? 

The Corporation will set specific 

reporting requirements, including 

frequency and deadlines, concerning 

performance measures established in 

the grant award. A sponsor is required 

to report on the actual results that 

occurred when implementing the grant 

and to regularly measure the project’s 

performance. 

§ 2553.107 What must a sponsor do if it 

cannot meet its performance measures? 

Whenever a sponsor finds it is not on 

track to meet its performance measures, 

it must develop a plan to get back on 

track or submit a request to the 

Corporation to amend its performance 

measures. The request must include all 

of the following: 

(a) Why the project is not on track to 

meet its performance requirements; 

(b) How the project has been tracking 

performance measures; 

(c) Evidence of corrective steps taken; 

(d) Any new proposed performance 

measures; and 

(e) A plan to ensure that the project 

will meet the new proposed measure(s). 

§ 2553.108 When may a sponsor change a 

project’s performance measures? 

Performance measures may be 

changed only if the Corporation 

approves the sponsor’s request to do so. 

§ 2553.109 What happens if a sponsor fails 

to meet the performance measures included 

in the Notice of Grant Award (NGA)? 

If a sponsor fails to meet a target 

performance measure established in the 

NGA, the Corporation will negotiate a 

period of no more than one year for 

meeting the performance measure. At 

that point, if the sponsor still fails to 

meet the performance measure, the 

Corporation may take one or more of the 

following actions: 

(a) Reduce the amount of the grant; 

(b) Suspend, terminate, or deny 

refunding of the grant, in accordance 

with the provisions of Section 2553.31 

of this part; 

(c) Take this information into account 

in assessing any application from the 

organization for a new grant or 

augmentation of an existing grant under 

any program administered by the 

Corporation; 

(d) Amend the terms of any 

Corporation grant to the organization; or 

(e) Take other actions that the 

Corporation deems appropriate. 

Dated: April 5, 2011. 

Wilsie Y. Minor, 

Acting General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8556 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–28–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 10–264; RM–11615, DA 11– 

572] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Decatur, IL 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission grants a 

petition for rulemaking filed by 

WAND(TV) Partnership (‘‘WAND(TV)’’), 

the licensee of WAND(TV), Decatur, 

Illinois, requesting the substitution of 

channel 17 for channel 18 at Decatur. 

WAND(TV) states that this channel 

substitution will expand service to a 

greater number of viewers and lessen 

the interference to its normally 

protected service area. 

DATES: This rule is effective May 12, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adrienne Y. Denysyk, 

adrienne.denysyk@fcc.gov, Media 

Bureau, (202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 10–264, 

adopted March 29, 2011, and released 

March 30, 2011. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/). This document 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 

1–800–478–3160 or via the company’s 

Web site, http://www.bcipweb.com. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

information collection burden ‘‘for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this Report and Order in a report to be 

sent to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Barbara A. Kreisman, 

Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. 

Final Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, 

and 339. 

§ 73.622 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES