60600 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

information will be provided 24 hours 

a day on marine channel 13 and via 

telephone (717) 541–2140. 

(3) The bridge shall not be operated 

from the remote location in the 

following events: Failure or obstruction 

of the infrared sensors, closed-circuit 

cameras or marine-radio 

communications, or when controller 

visibility is less than 3⁄4 of a mile. In 

these situations, a bridge tender must be 

called to operate the bridge on-site. 

(4) Before the bridge closes for any 

reason, the remote operator will monitor 

waterway traffic in the area. The bridge 

shall only be closed if the off-site remote 

operator’s visual inspection shows that 

the channel is clear and there are no 

vessels transiting in the area. While the 

bridge is moving, the operator shall 

maintain constant surveillance of the 

navigation channel. 

(5) Before closing the draw, the 

channel traffic lights would change from 

flashing green to flashing red, the horn 

will sound five short blasts, and an 

audio voice warning stating, ‘‘Norfolk 

Southern’s Railroad Bridge over 

Christina River at milepost 1.4 will be 

closing to river traffic.’’ Five short blasts 

of the horn will continue until the 

bridge is seated and locked down to 

vessels, the channel traffic lights will 

continue to flash red. 

(6) When the rail traffic has cleared, 

the horn will automatically sound one 

prolonged blast followed by one short 

blast to indicate the draw is opening to 

vessel traffic. During the opening swing 

movement, the channel traffic lights 

would flash red until the bridge returns 

to the fully open position. In the full 

open position to vessels, the bridge 

channel lights will flash green followed 

by an announcement stating, ‘‘Security, 

security, security, the Norfolk Southern 

Railroad Bridge at mile 1.4 is open for 

river traffic.’’

(c) * * *

(d) The draws of the Norfolk Southern 

Railroad bridges, at miles 4.1 and 4.2, 

both at Wilmington, shall open on 

signal from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. if at least 

24 hours notice is given. From 8 p.m. to 

6 a.m., the draws need not be opened for 

the passage of vessels.

* * * * *

Dated: September 28, 2004. 

Ben R. Thomason III, 

Captain, United States Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–22850 Filed 10–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD13–04–040] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zones; Protection of Military 

Cargo, Captain of the Port Zone Puget 

Sound, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a security zone in Budd Inlet, 

Olympia, WA to protect Department of 

Defense assets and military cargo in 

Puget Sound, Washington. The 

proposed security zone, when enforced 

by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound, 

would provide for the regulation of 

vessel traffic in the vicinity of military 

cargo loading operations in the 

navigable waters of the United States.

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

November 26, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commanding 

Officer, Marine Safety Office Puget 

Sound, 1519 Alaskan Way South, 

Seattle, Washington 98134. Marine 

Safety Office Puget Sound maintains the 

public docket [CGD13–04–040] for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying at 

Marine Safety Office Puget Sound 

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTjg 

T. Thayer, c/o Captain of the Port Puget 

Sound, 1519 Alaskan Way South, 

Seattle, WA 98134, (206) 217–6232. For 

specific information concerning 

enforcement of this rule, call Marine 

Safety Office Puget Sound at (206) 217–

6200 or (800) 688–6664.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. If you 

do so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking (CGD13–04–040), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know that your submission reached 

us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. We will 

consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

We may change this proposed rule in 

view of them.

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to Marine 

Safety Office Puget Sound at the address 

under ADDRESSES explaining why one 

would be beneficial. If we determine 

that one would aid this rulemaking, we 

will hold one at a time and place 

announced by a separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

Hostile entities continue to operate 

with the intent to harm U.S. National 

Security by attacking or sabotaging 

national security assets. The President 

has continued the national emergencies 

he declared following the September 11, 

2001 terrorist attacks. 67 FR 58317 

((Sept. 13, 2002) (continuing national 

emergency with respect to terrorist 

attacks)); 67 FR 59447 ((Sept. 20, 2002) 

continuing national emergency with 

respect to persons who commit, threaten 

to commit or support terrorism)); 68 FR 

55189 ((Sept. 22, 2003 (continuing 

national emergency with respect to 

persons who commit, threaten to 

commit or support terrorism)). 

The President also has found 

pursuant to law, including the 

Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et seq.), 

that the security of the United States is 

and continues to be endangered 

following the attacks (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 

56215 (Sept. 3, 2002) (security 

endangered by disturbances in 

international relations of U.S. and such 

disturbances continue to endanger such 

relations). 

Moreover, the ongoing hostilities in 

Afghanistan and Iraq make it prudent 

for U.S. ports and waterways to be on 

a higher state of alert because the Al 

Qaeda organization and other similar 

organizations have declared an ongoing 

intention to conduct armed attacks on 

U.S. interests worldwide. 

The Coast Guard, through this 

proposed rule, intends to assist the 

Department of Defense protect vital 

national security assets, in waters of 

Puget Sound. This proposed rule would 

add Budd Inlet as a permanent security 

zone in 33 CFR 165.1321. The security 

zones permanently established in 33 

CFR 165.1321 exclude persons and 

vessels from these zones during military

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Proposed Rules 60601

cargo loading and unloading operations 

and set forth the procedures for 

obtaining permission to enter, move 

within or exit these security zones. 

Likewise, entry into zone described in 

this proposed rule will be prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port or his designee. The Captain of the 

Port may be assisted by other Federal, 

State, or local agencies. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

On May 14, 2004 we published a 

notice of proposed rule making (69 FR 

26783) and on August 27, 2004, we 

published a final rule entitled ‘‘Security 

Zone; Protection of Military Cargo, 

Captain of the Port Zone Puget Sound, 

WA’’, in the Federal Register (69 FR 

52600), which established security 

zones to protect military cargo loading 

operations in the Blair and Sitcum 

Waterways, Commencement Bay, WA. 

Since May 21, 2004, the Captain of the 

Port Puget Sound has issued three 

temporary final rules establishing 

security zones in Budd Inlet, West Bay, 

Olympia, Washington (CGD13–04–035 

signed August 12, 2004; CGD13–04–027 

signed June 4, 2004; and CGD13–04–026 

signed May 21, 2004). Unfortunately, 

the May 2004 notice of proposed rule 

making for 33 CFR 165.1321 was 

published before the Coast Guard was 

notified that Budd Inlet would be used 

for military cargo loading operations. 

Like the final rule we established for 

the Blair and Sitcum Waterways, the 

temporary final rules established in 

Budd Inlet were established to protect 

facilities used by vessels to load and/or 

unload military cargo. Other than the 

location, the restrictions and 

requirements contained in these 

temporary final rules were virtually 

identical to the requirements 

established in 33 CFR 165.1321 for the 

Blair and Sitcum Waterways. Hence, 

this proposed rule would amend 33 CFR 

165.1321 by adding Budd Inlet, 

Olympia, WA to the areas where 

permanent security zones are 

established for military cargo loading 

operations. However, the Captain of the 

Port will only enforce the security zones 

established in 33 CFR 165.1321, 

including the zone proposed for Budd 

Inlet, after issuing a notice of 

enforcement. Upon notice of suspension 

of enforcement, all persons and vessels 

are authorized to enter, move within 

and exit this security zone. This 

proposed rule is deemed necessary to 

protect vital national security assets and 

military cargo.

The Coast Guard proposes 

establishing a security zone in the Budd 

Inlet Security Zone which controls all 

vessel movement in a limited portion of 

Budd Inlet, West Bay, WA which 

includes all waters enclosed by the 

following points: 47°03′12′′ N, 

122°25′21′′ W, which is approximately 

the northwestern end of the fence line 

enclosing Berth 1 at Port of Olympia; 

then northerly to 47°03′15′′ N, 

122°54′21′′ W, which is the approximate 

300 feet north along the shoreline; then 

westerly to 47°03′15′′ N, 122°54′26′′ W; 

then southerly to 47°03′06′′ N, 

122°54′26′′ W; then southeasterly to 

47°03′03′′ N, 122°54′20′′ W, which is 

approximately the end of the T-shaped 

pier; then north to 47°03′01′′ N, 

122°54′21′′ W, which is approximately 

the southwestern corner of berth 1; then 

northerly along the shoreline to the 

point of origin. [Datum: NAD 1983.] 

This proposed rule would be enforced 

from time to time by the Captain of the 

Port Puget Sound for such times before, 

during, and after military cargo loading 

and unloading as he or she deems 

necessary to prevent damage or injury to 

any vessel or waterfront facility, to 

safeguard ports, harbors, territories, or 

waters of the United States or to secure 

the observance of the rights and 

obligations of the United States. The 

Captain of the Port Puget Sound will 

cause notice of enforcement or 

suspension of enforcement of this 

security zone to be made by all 

appropriate means to effect the widest 

publicity among the affected segments 

of the public, including Marine Safety 

Office Puget Sound’s Internet Web page 

located at http://www.uscg.mil/d13/

units/msopuget. In addition, Marine 

Safety Office Puget Sound maintains a 

telephone line that is manned 24-hoursa-day, 7-days-a-week. The public can 

contact Marine Safety Office Puget 

Sound at (206) 217–6002 or (800) 688–

6664 to obtain information concerning 

enforcement of this rule. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). We expect the economic impact 

of this rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. Although this 

proposed rule would restrict access to 

the regulated area, the effect of this 

proposed rule would not be significant. 

This expectation is based on the fact 

that the regulated area established by 

the rule would encompass a limited area 

in Budd Inlet, Olympia, WA. In 

addition, temporary final rules 

established for past cargo loading and 

unloading operations have only lasted 

from a few days to over a week in 

duration. Hence, the Coast Guard 

expects that enforcement periods under 

this proposed rule will be of similar 

duration. Further, Coast Guard forces 

will actively monitor and enforce the 

Budd Inlet security zone and are 

authorized by the Captain of the Port to 

grant authorization to vessels to enter 

this waterway. In addition, in certain 

circumstances VTS may grant 

authorization to enter, move within or 

depart this waterway. In other words, 

those vessels or persons who may be 

impacted by this rule may request 

permission to enter, move within or 

depart this security zone. Finally, the 

Coast Guard will cause a notice of 

suspension of enforcement to be 

published when cargo loading or 

unloading operations have concluded. 

For the above reasons, the Coast Guard 

does not anticipate any significant 

economic impact. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This proposed rule would affect the 

following entities, some of which may 

be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to operate 

near or anchor in the vicinity of Budd 

Inlet.

This proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons: (i) The security 

zone is limited in size; (ii) designated 

representatives of the Captain of the 

Port may authorize access to the 

security zone; (iii) security zone for any 

given operation will effect the given 

geographical location for a limited time; 

(iv) the Coast Guard will make 

notifications via maritime advisories so 

mariners can adjust their plans 

accordingly and (v) the Coast Guard will 

cause a notice of suspension of

60602 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

enforcement to be published when cargo 

loading or unloading operations have 

concluded. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact one of the 

points of contact listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments

The Coast Guard recognizes the rights 

of Native American Tribes under the 

Stevens Treaties. Moreover, the Coast 

Guard is committed to working with 

Tribal Governments to implement local 

policies to mitigate tribal concerns. We 

have determined that these security 

zones and fishing rights protection need 

not be incompatible. We have also 

determined that this Proposed Rule does 

not have tribal implications under 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it does not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Nevertheless, Indian tribes that have 

questions concerning the provisions of 

this proposed rule or options for 

compliance are encourage to contact the 

point of contact listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Environment 

The Coast Guard’s preliminary review 

indicates this proposed rule is 

categorically excluded from further 

environmental documentation under 

figure 2–1, paragraph 34(g) of 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D. 

The environmental analysis and 

Categorical Exclusion Determination 

will be prepared and be available in the 

docket for inspection and copying 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. All 

standard environmental measures 

remain in effect.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. In § 165.1321, add paragraph(c)(3) 

to read as follows:

§ 165.1321 Security Zone; Protection of 

Military Cargo, Captain of the Port Zone 

Puget Sound, WA.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) Budd Inlet Security Zone: The 

Security Zone in Budd Inlet, West Bay, 

Olympia, WA, includes all waters 

enclosed by a line connecting the 

following points: 47°03;′12′′ N, 

122°25′21′′ W, which is approximately 

the northwestern end of the fence line 

enclosing Berth 1 at Port of Olympia;

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Proposed Rules 60603

then northerly to 47°03′15′′ N, 

122°54′21′′ W, which is the approximate 

300 feet north along the shoreline; then 

westerly to 47°03′15′′ N, 122°54′26′′ W; 

then southerly to 47°03′06′′ N, 

122°54′26′′ W; then southeasterly to 

47°03′03′′ N, 122°54′20′′ W, which is 

approximately the end of the T-shaped 

pier; then north to 47°03′01′′ N, 

122°54′21′′ W, which is approximately 

the southwestern corner of berth 1; then 

northerly along the shoreline to the 

point of origin. [Datum: NAD 1983.]

* * * * *

Dated: September 22, 2004. 

Danny Ellis, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Puget Sound.

[FR Doc. 04–22744 Filed 10–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

45 CFR Chapter XXV 

Notice Inviting Preliminary Informal 

Public Input in Advance of Learn and 

Serve America Program Changes

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service.

ACTION: Request for comments and 

notice of meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (the 

Corporation) invites the public to share 

its views during two scheduled 

conference calls and two scheduled 

public meetings on issues related to 

Learn and Serve America. In response to 

Executive Order 13331, the 

Corporation’s Board of Directors Grants 

Management Task Force Report, and in 

preparation for the expected round of 

new funding in 2006, Learn and Serve 

America is considering combining grant 

guidelines, provisions, and regulations 

into a single, streamlined document. We 

are interested in public views about the 

future of Learn and Serve America 

programs and the ways in which those 

programs have an impact on students, 

communities, and the institutions that 

operate programs. Some issues under 

consideration include: Learn and Serve 

America grant selection criteria, 

intensity and duration of a participant’s 

community service, the role of Learn 

and Serve America grantees within 

Unified State Plans, timing and 

substance of Learn and Serve America 

grant applications, and definitions of 

key terms. The Corporation is also 

interested in receiving input on 

allowable subgrant types, project 

expenditures, performance indicators 

and evaluation requirements, grantee 

reporting, intergenerational 

participation, and program 

sustainability and institutionalization.

DATES: Please submit written input to 

the Corporation as soon as possible. We 

will consider input as we begin 

consideration of possible revisions to 

the Learn and Serve America guidelines, 

provisions and regulations and during 

the drafting of a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. In addition, the 

Corporation will hold two toll-free 

conference calls and two public input 

meetings. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for conference call and 

input meeting information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

input to the Corporation by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically through the 

Corporation’s e-mail address system to 

LSADirections@cns.gov.

(2) By fax to (202) 565–2787, 

Attention Amy Cohen, Director, Learn 

and Serve America. 

(3) By mail sent to: Corporation for 

National and Community Service, Attn: 

Amy Cohen, Director, Learn and Serve 

America, 1201 New York Avenue NW., 

Room 9609, Washington, DC 20525. 

(4) By hand delivery or by courier to 

the Corporation’s mailroom at Room 

6010 at the mail address given in 

paragraph (3) above, between 9 a.m. and 

4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Due to continued delays in the 

Corporation’s receipt of mail, we 

strongly encourage responses via e-mail 

or fax.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about the substance 

of this notice or to request this notice in 

an alternative format for the visually 

impaired, contact Amy Cohen at (202) 

606–5000, ext. 484; acohen@cns.gov.

For further information about the 

conference calls, please refer to our 

National Service-Learning 

Clearinghouse Web site at http://

www.servicelearning.org or call Pat 

Carpenter at (202) 606–5000, ext. 209; 

pcarpenter@cns.gov. The TDD/TTY 

number is (800) 833–3722.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For more 

information on the Corporation, please 

visit our Web site at http://

www.nationalservice.org. When 

providing oral or written input on the 

issues outlined above, please especially 

consider the following questions: 

Leveraging Corporation assistance:

How can we ensure that as many 

educational institutions as possible 

realize the benefits of community 

service-learning through the programs 

and services of the Corporation, and in 

general improve the cost effectiveness 

and efficiency of Corporation grants and 

technical assistance? Should we grant 

competitive preferences to organizations 

that have never before received Learn 

and Serve America funds? How should 

these questions apply to grantees that 

operate local programs directly and to 

grantees that provide subgrants to others 

to operate local programs? 

Sustainability and 

institutionalization: How can the 

Corporation ensure that appropriate 

steps are being taken to build servicelearning into the fabric of the 

educational or community organization? 

How can we ensure that Learn and 

Serve America grantee and subgrantee 

programs can continue to be successful 

without Federal support? What are 

appropriate components of grantee 

‘‘sustainability plans?’’ How should 

these questions apply to grantees that 

operate local programs directly; to 

grantees that provide subgrants to others 

to operate local programs? 

Focusing on community needs: How 

can the Corporation ensure that Federal 

funds are used most effectively to meet 

community needs and that all Learn and 

Serve America participants make a 

positive impact on community problems 

and needs? 

Duration and Intensity of service:

What policies should be adopted 

concerning the intensity (i.e., service 

hours per time period) and duration of 

community service expected of Learn 

and Serve America participants? 

Selection Criteria: What criteria 

should the Corporation use in selecting 

grantees in its competitive Learn and 

Serve America programs? Should Learn 

and Serve America have two sets of 

grant application and selection criteria: 

one for consortia and grant 

intermediaries (State Education 

Agencies, Grant Making Entities, and 

Higher Education Consortia), and one 

for local programs? If so, what should 

such separate criteria include? 

Subgrants: What policies should 

govern sub-granting? Should there be 

limits on duration or on type of 

subgrant? How many levels of 

subgranting should be allowed? 

Grant application and process: For 

how many months before commencing 

or continuing a project does a grantee 

need to know that its application is 

approved? For how many months before 

commencing or continuing a project 

does a grantee need to know that its 

grant is awarded? What is a reasonable 

amount of time needed to prepare an 

application? In general, how can the 

Corporation simplify and streamline its 

grant application documents and 

processes? In particular, can we