Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25873

e. There is a plan to recruit trainees

for the program.

f. If the proposal includes developing

educational materials, there is a plan for

OSHA to review the materials during

development.

g. There is a plan to evaluate the

program’s effectiveness and this

includes plans to follow-up with

trainees to see if the training resulted in

workplace change.

h. The planned work can be

accomplished in one year.

2. Program Experience

a. The organization applying for the

grant demonstrates experience with

occupational safety and health.

b. The organization applying for the

grant demonstrates experience training

adults in work-related subjects.

c. The staff to be assigned to the

project have experience in (1)

occupational safety and health, (2) the

specific topic chosen, and (3) training

adults.

d. The organization applying for the

grant demonstrates experience in

recruiting and training the population it

proposes to serve under the grant.

3. Administrative Capability

a. The applicant organization

demonstrates experience managing a

variety of programs.

b. The applicant organization has

administered, or will work with an

organization that has administered, a

number of different Federal and/or State

grants over the past five years.

c. The application is complete,

including forms, budget detail, narrative

and workplan, and required

attachments.

4. Budget

a. The budgeted costs are reasonable.

b. The proposed non-Federal share is

at least 20% of the total budget.

c. The budget complies with Federal

cost principles (which can be found in

applicable OMB Circulars) and with

OSHA budget requirements contained

in the grant application instructions.

d. The cost per trainee is less than

$500 and the cost per training hour is

reasonable.

In addition to the factors listed above,

the Assistant Secretary will take other

items into consideration, such as the

geographical distribution of the grant

programs and the coverage of

populations at risk.

How Much Money Is Available for

Grants?

There is approximately $2,000,000

available for this program. The average

Federal award will be $100,000.

How Long Are Grants Awarded For?

Grants are awarded for twelve-month

periods. Grants may be renewed for

additional twelve-month periods

depending on whether there are funds

available, there is still a need for the

training, and the grantee has performed

satisfactorily.

How Do I Get a Grant Application

Package?

Grant application instructions may be

obtained from the OSHA Office of

Training and Education, Division of

Training and Educational Programs,

1555 Times Drive, Des Plaines, Illinois

60018. The application instructions are

also available at http://www.oshaslc.gov/Training/sharwood/

sharwood.html.

When and Where are Applications To

Be Sent?

The application deadline is 4:30 p.m.

Central Time, June 26, 1998.

Applications are to be mailed to the

Division of Training and Educational

Programs, OSHA Office of Training and

Education, 1555 Times Drive, Des

Plaines, IL 60018. Applications will not

be accepted by fax.

How Will I be Told if My Application

Was Selected?

Organizations selected as grant

recipients will be notified by a

representative of the Assistant

Secretary, usually from an OSHA

Regional Office. An applicant whose

proposal is not selected will be notified

in writing.

Notice that an organization has been

selected as a grant recipient does not

constitute approval of the grant

application as submitted. Before the

actual grant award, OSHA will enter

into negotiations concerning such items

as program components, funding levels,

and administrative systems. If the

negotiations do not result in an

acceptable submittal, the Assistant

Secretary reserves the right to terminate

the negotiation and decline to fund the

proposal.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of

May 1998.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 98–12372 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–U

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY

(CFDA No. 84.257F)

NIFL Regional Technology HUB

Project; Notice Inviting Applications

for New Awards for Fiscal Year 1998

AGENCY: The National Institute for

Literacy (NIFL).

ACTION: Notice.

PURPOSE: The purpose of these grants is

to establish a second generation of

regional hubs to extend the Literacy

Information and Communication

System (LINCS) infrastructure

throughout the literacy community in

each region. Each hub will form a

consortium with all states in the

region—‘‘member states’’—and, in

cooperation with member states, a

network of targeted local literacy

programs. Each regional hub will be

expected to build on the achievements

of the region’s previous hub and to

build strong partnerships with other

technology efforts in the region. In the

process of enhancing the technological

capacity of states and local programs,

regional hubs will—

• Increase the literacy field’s

electronic knowledge base by collecting

and exchanging new literacy

information resources, especially locally

developed materials, and creating indepth collections on important literacy

topics.

• Encourage the widespread use of

the NIFL’s systematic procedures and

uniform standards for information

collection and exchange.

• Provide innovative delivery of high

quality, easy-to-access information

resources to the adult education and

literacy community through the use of

variety of tools, including multi-media.

• Enable member states and local

programs to be self-sufficient in their

efforts to enhance the LINCS database

and communication tools.

• Enhance communication and

community-building by connecting

increasingly larger numbers of literacy

stakeholders of all kinds—researchers,

practitioners, administrators, students,

and policymakers—and closing the gap

between information ‘‘haves’’ and ‘‘have

nots.’’

• Integrate the use of technology into

every aspect of learning and teaching in

the adult education and literacy field.

Deadline for Transmittal of

Applications: June 26, 1998.

Eligible Applicants: State, regional,

and national organizations, or consortia

of such organizations, in OVAE Region

I.

Available Funds: This announcement

envisions a two-year cooperative
25874 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

agreement. In the first year a total of

$150,000 is available for the grant. Year

2 fundi ng is subject to program

authorization and availability of

appropriations, and contingent upon

satisfactory completion of the first year

play of action.

Estimated Number of Awards: One

award in the OVAE Region I.

Estimated Award Amount: $150,000.

Project Period: Two years.

Applicable Regulations: The National

Institute for Literacy has adopted the

following regulations included in the

Education Department Grants

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR):

34 CFR Part 74; 34 CFR Part 75,

§§ 75.50, 75.51, 75.102, 75.117, 75.109–

75.192, 75.200, 75.201, 75.215; 34 CFR

Parts 77, 80, 82, 85.

Note: The selection criteria used for this

competition are set out in this Notice. While

the criteria are patterned on those used

generally by the U.S. Department of

Education, they have been adapted by the

NIFL to meet the needs of this program.

While the NIFL is associated with the

Departments of Education, Labor, and Health

and Human Services, the policies and

procedures regarding rulemaking and

administration of grants are not adopted by

the NIFL except as expressly stated in this

Notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jaleh Behroozi Soroui, National Institute

for Literacy, 800 Connecticut Avenue,

NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006.

Telephone: 202–632–1506. FAX: 202–

632–1512. E-mail:

jaleh@literacy.nifl.gov

Information about NIFL’s funding

opportunities, including the

Application Notices, Newsletters, Policy

Updates, etc., can be viewed on the

LINCS WWW server (under Current

Events, under grants). LINCS URL:

http://novel.nifl.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions: For purposes of this

announcement the following definitions

apply:

Literacy An individual’s ability to

read, write, and speak in English, and

compute and solve problems at levels of

proficiency necessary to function on the

job and in society, to achieve one’s goals

and develop one’s knowledge and

potential (as stated in the National

Literacy Act of 1991).

Adult Education and Literacy

Community The aggregate of

individuals and groups at all levels

nationwide that are actively involved

with adult education and literacy

instruction, including individuals such

as researchers, practitioners,

policymakers, adult learners, and

administrators, and groups such as state

and local departments of education,

human services, and labor; libraries;

community-based organizations;

businesses and labor unions; and

volunteer and civic groups.

State Literacy Resource Centers

(SLRCs) State or regional organizations

supported through federal, state, or

private funds for the purpose of

coordinating the delivery and

improvement of literacy services across

agencies and organizations in the state

or region, enhancing the capability of

state and local organizations to provide

literacy services, building a database of

literacy-related information, and

working closely with the NIFL and other

national literacy organizations to

enhance the national literacy

infrastructure.

NIFL Standards NIFL’s guidelines

and standards for organizing materials

in a uniform format for posting on the

Internet. These standards are found in

NIFL’s ‘‘Starting Point’’ manual and

Adult Literacy Thesaurus (ALT).

OVAE Regions The four regions of

the United States designated by the U.S.

Department of Education’s Office of

Vocational and Adult Education

(OVAE):

Region I: Connecticut, Delaware,

District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto

Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virgin

Islands.

Region II: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,

South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,

Virginia, West Virginia.

Region III: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,

Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South

Dakota, Wisconsin.

Region IV: Alaska, Arizona,

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,

Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Federal

States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall

Islands, No. Mariana Islands.

Regional Hub or Regional Technology

Hub An Internet-based electronic

information retrieval and

communication site that serves states in

a particular OVAE region by acting as

the focal point for LINCS activity,

including training and technical

assistance.

Background

The National Institute For Literacy

(NIFL), as authorized by the National

Literacy Act of 1991, has the legislative

mandate to develop a national literacy

database. The intent of this mandate is

to assure the consolidation and

accessibility of scattered and hard-toaccess information resources for

literacy.

As a first step in carrying out this

charge, the NIFL conducted a study in

1992 of the literacy community’s

information needs by type of users and

quality and format of existing literacy

databases. In 1993, following up on the

results of this survey, the NIFL formed

eight work groups of representatives

from the literacy community to develop

a vision and work plan for establishing

an information and communication

system, which is called LINCS. The

work groups used a consensus-building

process to produce a framework,

standards, and guidelines for LINCS,

which are presented in the NIFL’s

‘‘Starting Point’’ manual.

In order to implement the work

groups’ vision and plans, NIFL

developed a LINCS on-line prototype to

examine and demonstrate the potential

and capabilities of an Internet-based

national literacy information and

communication network. The LINCS

prototype was developed as a World

Wide Web system on the Internet,

accessible by multi-media tools (such as

Mosaic or Netscape) and text-based

tools (such as Lynx). LINCS was

designed to access literacy data

available in multiple locations and to

feature searchable literacy holdings and

other literacy resources.

In 1995, the NIFL initiated the

funding of regional hubs in all OVAE

regions in order to build a nationwide

infrastructure for extending LINCS

services throughout the adult education

and literacy community. Grants were

made to state agencies in all four

regions, and grantees—called lead

states—had the task of creating regional

networks for LINCS by helping all states

and territories in their regions acquire

the technological capability and

expertise to establish their own LINCS

home pages, populate their site with

locally produced materials, and extend

LINCS services to local programs and

users. To date, 38 states have

established LINCS home pages on the

Internet, and 130 local programs have

received training and technical

assistance in accessing LINCS.

LINCS currently permits

simultaneous search across the home

pages of all existing regional hubs and

member states, as well as many major

national and international organizations

and databases. In addition, LINCS

provides the literacy community with

important up-to-the-minute information

on adult education and literacy policies,

an event calendar, funding

announcements, and information on

other literacy initiatives. LINCS also

provides members of the literacy
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25875

community with opportunities for

sharing expertise and resources on

major literacy-related issues through

several moderated forums/listservs.

Plans for the Future

Over the past five years, the NIFL has

provided the leadership and tools to

prepare the adult literacy community

for the 21st century through major

system-building initiatives, including

the creation of LINCS and its regional

hubs. The NIFL intends to sustain the

momentum of building systems that

help professionalize the adult literacy

community by continuing its initiatives

in technology. During the next three

years, the NIFL plans to expand LINCS

use as widely as possible throughout the

literacy community, to enhance LINCS

resources and features, and to offer a

range of services through LINCS that

will increase the qualitative and

quantitative technological capabilities of

the field. The success of these plans will

depend on—

• Increased collaboration among the

NIFL, regional hubs, member states, and

all other major technology initiatives

nationwide.

• Maintaining compatibility and

consistency of LINCS efforts among the

NIFL and regional hubs.

• Continuous enhancement of LINCS

based on the state-of-the art technology.

Overview of Regional Technology Hubs

The NIFL will award one grant to

public and private organizations, or

consortia of organizations, for the

support of a regional technology hub in

OVAE Region I. No more than one grant

will be made in Region I.

Selection Criteria: (a)(1) In evaluating

applications for a grant under this

competition, the Director uses the

following selection criteria.

(2) The maximum score for all the

criteria in this section is 100 points.

(3) The maximum score for each

criterion is indicated in parentheses

with the criterion.

(b) The Criteria—(1) Mission and

Strategy (5 points). The Director reviews

each application to determine the

appropriateness of the applicant’s stated

mission and strategy for the proposed

regional hub, including consideration

of:

(i) The degree to which the stated

mission and strategy for operating a

regional hubreflect an understanding of

the NIFL’s goals and purposes for

LINCS;

(ii) The degree to which the

application demonstrates an

understanding of the previous regional

hub’s strengths and weaknesses; and

(iii) The quality and coherence of

proposed strategies for providing

leadership to member states and

targeted local programs.

(2) Institutional Capability (20 points).

The Director reviews each application to

determine the capabilities of the

organization to sustain a long-term, high

quality, and coherent program,

including consideration of:

(i) The applicant’s experience in

establishing and carrying out

collaborative working relationships with

other states, other state agencies, local

programs, and other public and private

groups;

(ii) The applicant’s experience in the

use of technology to enhance

accessibility of information and ease of

communication;

(iii) The capabilities of staff who will

oversee project implementation;

(iv) The applicant’s capacity to

provide resources—including hardware,

software, and training—to member

states and local programs; and

(v) The applicant’s willingness and

ability to continue the project at the end

of the two-year grant period.

(3) Plan of Operation (30 points). The

Director reviews each application to

determine the quality of the plan of

operation, including consideration of:

(i) The quality of the design of the

project;

(ii) How well the objectives of the

project relate to the intended purposes

of the regional technology hubs, as

outlined in this request for applications;

(iii) The quality of the applicant’s

plan to use its resources and personnel

to achieve each project objective;

(iv) The extent to which the plan of

management is effective and ensures

proper and efficient administration of

the project;

(v) The quality of the plan to establish

effective working relationships with

other organizations in the region as

required for effective development of

the project;

(vi) The quality of the plan for

leveraging additional resources for the

project at the regional level and in each

member state; and

(vii) The extent to which the

applicant’s plan includes sound

methods for achieving measurable goals.

(4) Technical Soundness (15 points).

The Director reviews each application to

determine the technical soundness of

the proposed project, including

consideration of:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

demonstrates knowledge of current

Internet technologies, databases,

telecommunications practices,

equipment configurations, and

maintenance;

(ii) The extent to which the applicant

demonstrates a thorough knowledge of

literacy data collections, dissemination,

and NIFL standards;

(iii) The extent to which the applicant

demonstrates a commitment to provide

technical support, training, and

equipment to member states;

(iv) The extent to which the applicant

will consider the perspectives of a

variety of service providers in carrying

out the work of the regional hub;

(v) The extent to which the proposed

training content is comprehensive and

at appropriate levels; and

(vi) The extent to which training

methods, mechanisms, and structure are

likely to be effective.

(5) Budget and Cost Effectiveness (10

points). The Director reviews each

application to determined the extent to

which:

(i) The budget is adequate to support

project activities;

(ii) Costs are reasonable in relation to

the objectives of the project;

(iii) The budgets for any subcontracts

are detailed and appropriate; and

(iv) The budget details resources, cash

and in-kind, that the applicant and

others, especially member states, will

provide to the project in addition to

grant funds.

(6) Evaluation Plan (10 points). The

Director reviews each application to

determine the quality of the evaluation

plan for the project, including

consideration of:

(i) The quality of methods and

mechanisms to be used to document

and evaluate progress in relation to the

project’s mission and goals;

(ii) The strength of the applicant’s

statement of measurable outcomes for

all project goals; and

(iii) The quality of methods that will

be used to document and evaluate the

impact of the project’s program on target

audiences.

(7) Quality of Key Personnel (10

points). The Director reviews each

application to determine the quality of

key personnel for all project activities,

including consideration of:

((i) The qualifications of the project

director;

(ii) The qualifications of other key

personnel;

(iii) The experience and training of

key personnel in leading a consortium

of states and working in fields related to

project objectives; and

(iv) the applicant’s policy, as part of

its nondiscriminatory employment

practices, to ensure that its personnel

are selected for employment without

regard to race, color, national origin,

religion, gender, age, or disability.
25876 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

Application Requirements

Project Narrative

The project narrative is critical and

must thoroughly reflect the capacity of

the applicant to lead the regional

technology effort and build on the

achievements of the previous regional

hub. The narrative must clearly describe

the applicant’s plan for attaining

measurable goals as identified in each of

the sections listed below.

The narrative should not exceed

twenty (20) single-spaced pages, or forty

(40) double-spaced pages. The narrative

may be amplified by material in

attachments and appendices, (not

exceeding 20 pages), but the body

should stand alone to give a complete

picture of the project. Proposals that

exceed 20 single-spaced pages or 40

double-spaced pages will not be

reviewed.

The narrative must encompass the full

two years of project activities, with

detailed plans for Year 1 and milestones

for Year 2. The applicant must address

the following areas, which correspond

to the funding criteria:

1. Mission and Strategy

The applicant must state goals,

objectives, and overall expected project

achievements for the two-year grant

period, including:

a. How the applicant’s goals and

objectives relate to NIFL’s purposes for

LINCS and the regional hubs, as

outlined under Plans for the Future and

Overview of the Regional Technology

Hubs in this notice.

b. How the project will build on the

work of the previous regional hub in

enhancing the technological capacity of

the region’s adult education and literacy

community.

c. What services will be provided to

all member states and targeted local

programs in the region.

d. How the project will serve the

entire adult education and literacy

community, including the full range of

public and private program (including

libraries, local education agencies,

community colleges, volunteer and

community-based organizations, etc.).

2. Institutional Capabilities

The applicant must describe its

qualifications to act as the lead site of

a regional consortium of all member

states in carrying out the proposed

project, including evidence of the

following:

a. The organizational capacity to lead

member states in achieving project goals

and objectives.

b. A successful leadership track

record for working closely with other

agencies in the region in implementing

a coordinated regional plan.

c. The ability to secure the support

and involvement of member states,

including their involvement in the

development of the application.

d. The capacity to maintain and

continuously enhance a sizable literacy

collection on the Internet.

e. The availability of sufficient

hardware, software, and technical

expertise to maintain a home page and

provide the necessary support to

member states.

f. A secure funding basis for the

duration of the project.

g. The ability to leverage other

funding and resources to sustain the

project beyond the grant.

3. Plan of Operation

The applicant must develop a twoyear plan of operation that is both

ambitious and realistic. While aiming

high, the applicant must demonstrate an

awareness of the constraints inherent in

each particular situation. In addition to

being reasonable and achievable, the

plan must address both the immediate

needs and the future vision and

direction of the project. The plan must

clearly identify the measurable

outcomes that will result from project

implementation. The description of the

plan must address the following:

a. Creating the regional hub: How the

applicant will establish and maintain a

regional hub on the Internet that—

(1) Reflects knowledge of the previous

hub’s strengths and weaknesses, and

builds on its achievements.

(2) Provides a seamless and

uninterrupted transition of services and

resources from the previous hub.

(3) Mirrors the LINCS information

structure and the system architecture,

and is consistent with the NIFL vision

for building a technology infrastructure,

including hardware, software, and

networking system compatibilities.

b. Supporting member states: How the

applicant will help member states

become technologically self-sufficient

and develop the management

capabilities to use and contribute to

LINCS, including states’ ability to:

(1) Maintain a strong home page with

a seamless interface with the applicant’s

and LINCS home pages.

(2) Provide technical assistance,

training, and high quality, updated

resources to local adult education and

literacy programs.

c. Enhancing the knowledge base:

How the applicant will work with

member states to gather information that

broadens and deepens the literacy

field’s knowledge base and enhances

LINCS content, including—

(1) A measurable plan for the region

and all member states that describes

how the applicant will:

(a) Assess the information available in

each member state and how it can be

collected for use on LINCS.

(b) Provide for the collection of

information that responds to end users’

educational and training needs.

(c) Focus on the collection of high

quality resources, instructional

materials, and tools, including

information on exemplary projects.

(d) make provisions for including

print and non-print materials, such as

audio and video materials, in their

entirety.

(e) Be organized according to the NIFL

standards.

(2) A plan for developing a special indepth collection of information that

represents the region’s particular

strengths in terms of resources and

expertise.

(3) The resources to be made available

to help member states achieve their

measurable goals for information

collection.

(4) How the applicant and member

states will collect and update local

program data according to NIFL

standards.

(5) How the applicant will exercise

quality control of the hub’s home page.

d. Extending LINCS use to local

programs: How the applicant will work

with member states to extend LINCS use

to target local programs, including:

(1) Determining how to enhance the

technical capacity of local programs and

end users.

(2) Selecting a specified number of

local programs to target.

(3) The support to be provided to each

member state for serving local programs,

including—

(a) The kind of resources to be

provided.

(b) The kind of hardware and software

to be used.

(c) The training and technical

assistance to be provided.

(4) Leveraging other resources for

working with local programs.

(5) Evaluating the success of the

project at the local level.

(6) The specific outcomes expected in

year 1.

e. Delivering resources: How

innovative technologies will be used to

provide easy and efficient methods of

delivering resources to the adult

education and literacy community,

including—

(1) What tools will be used.

(2) What hardware, software, and

technical assistance will be provided for

using these tools.

(3) How multi-media resources will be

incorporated into project activities.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25877

(4) How these tools will enable

literacy practitioners to access LINCS’

variety of resources in all available

formats.

(5) How these tools will help learners

with low skill levels and learners with

special needs use LINCS resources.

f. Enhancing communication and

community-building: How the applicant

will enhance communication

throughout the adult education and

literacy community across and within

member states through the use of

telecommunication tools (such as

listservs, forums, audio/video

conferencing and networking, and

virtual workspace programs),

including—

(1) The kind of tools to be used.

(2) The specific content to be offered.

(3) How these tools will be used to

link up literacy researchers,

practitioners, administrators, students,

and policymakers.

(4) How these tools will provide a

medium for professional development

within and among the member states

and targeted local programs.

g. Integrating technology into teaching

learning: How the applicant, in

partnership with member states and

local programs, will develop a two-year

implementation plan for integrating

technology into the daily teaching and

learning routine of the adult education

and literacy system, including—

(1) How the applicant will assess the

existing level of integration in every

member state.

(2) How the applicant will identify

and use information about other

national, state, and local efforts to

integrate technology into teaching and

learning.

(3) What resources will be recruited

for the development of the two-year

plan.

(4) How the applicant will support

member states in developing and

implementing plans for technology

integration, including the selection of

local programs as pilot sites.

(5) What kind of partnership will be

developed with other regional and state

agencies involved in similar efforts.

(6) How the applicant will evaluate

progress in integrating technology.

(7) The minimum outcomes expected

in Year 1.

h. Organization and management:

How the applicant will ensure

appropriate project organization and

management that will—

1. Empower member states to become

technologically independent in

implementing project’s activities.

2. Use and build on the strength and

expertise of member states.

3. Ensure close collaboration and

coordination of technology efforts

among member states.

4. Ensure close collaboration with

NIFL and other regional hubs, including

cooperation in implementing new

requirements or standards developed by

NIFL in concert with regional hubs to

assure uniformity across the LINCS

network.

The description of plans for

organization and management should

include—

(1) How the applicant involved

member states in developing the

application.

(2) How the applicant will involve

member states and local programs in

overseeing project implementation and

evaluating progress.

(3) How the applicant will provide for

expanding the roles of member states in

carrying out project activities (i.e., by

providing states with resources and

funds appropriate to their level of need

and expertise).

(4) How the applicant will provide for

developing a formal agreement with all

member states that clearly identifies the

rights, roles, and responsibilities of each

state with regard to all project activities.

(5) What tools will be used to

maintain communication among the

applicant and member states.

(6) How the applicant will provide for

the management of any other

partnership, consultant, or subcontract

arrangement.

(7) How the applicant will help

member states to—

(a) explore and leverage other sources

of financial support and market their

achievements.

(b) develop active state-level

partnerships, especially with state

education agencies.

(8) How the applicant will identify

agencies within each state (including at

a minimum the state literacy resource

center and state office of adult

education) to be involved in regional

hub activities.

I. Broad-based collaboration: How the

applicant will work with member states

to develop collaborative relationships

with other agencies, organizations, and

projects that will—

1. Widen LINCS usage in the field.

2. Provide global access to all literacyrelated resources.

3. Further project objectives.

4. Be a potential source for future

project support.

The description should include—

(1) How the applicant will work with

member states to secure the active

cooperation and partnership of

appropriate state agencies, especially

those dealing with education, labor, and

human services.

(2) How the applicant will identify

and develop partnerships with

technology-based educational projects,

especially those in the areas of

telecommunications, on-line services,

networking, and multi-media.

(3) How the applicant will pursue

partnerships with private entities,

including telecommunication and high

tech business and industry.

4. Technical Soundness

Describe how the applicant will

provide for the provision of hardware,

software, and networking system that

will—

(1) Address issues of interpretability

and scalability,

(2) Support using audit-video, multimedia, and interactive Internet tools,

and

(3) Keep pace with high-end

technology.

The description should include

assurances that the following will be in

place—

(1) An electronic system for the

regional HUB that mirrors the LINCS

structure, which consist of a UNIXbased server capable of providing the

following services for the regional HUB

and its member states:

(a) World Wide Web (WWW) HTTP

services;

(b) Wide Area Information Server

(WAIS) database services;

(c) Character-based web browser

(LYNX) services,

(d) Internet Electronic Mail (SMTP)

services;

(e) File Transfer Protocol (FTP)

services;

(f) List (listproc, majordomo) services;

(g) Connectivity to the Internet via a

dedicated Internet connection of

sufficient capacity that will allow a

sustained usage that must not exceed

30% of the total circuit capacity, and

the combined circuit and web server

must be able to transfer an average web

page at a rate of 20 kilobytes in three

seconds to a client web browser at NIFL,

during peak usage times, and must also

be able to deliver quality audio and

video products at usable rates to

multiple concurrent users;

(h) Maintain information in both

HTML documents and WAIS databases;

(i) Serve as the HUB’s WWW, WAIS,

Audio and Video server; and

(j) Provide dial-in and Internet access

to users via a command line Web

browser (e.g., Lynx), for those that do

not have the ability to run graphical

browsers such as Netscape, Internet

Explorer, Mosaic, etc. Provide user

accounts on the local server for these

users, dial-in model access, etc. (Note

that all the software developed for the
25878 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

NIFL homepage by the Logistics

Management Institute and UUCOM is

freely available for re-use).

(2) Provide assurances that the

applicant will create a home page

design that is similar to the LINCS home

page, so that the same ‘‘look and feel’’

can be achieved throughout the

network.

(3) Provide assurances that the

applicant will, at a minimum, have (a)

appropriately scaled Internet

connectivity described above

(connectivity may vary); (b) a WAIS

database server(s) on the Internet

[configuration is based on the

LINCSearch multiple database search

program]; (c) LINCS Locally produced

Materials and Organization forms and

guidelines on the HUB’s server; and (d)

the WAIS database(s) with literacy

collections and program data, using

‘‘Starting Point’’ record structures,

standards and Adult Literacy

Thesaurus.

(4) Describe how the applicant will

provide technical assistance, funding,

and other resources to assure that all

member states have their own directory

of resources on the hub server or their

own WAIS server, as well as the

technical capacity to update their

databases according to NIFL standards.

(5) Provide assurances that the

applicant will for each member state, at

a minimum, have—

(a) Assessment of the equipment

needs.

(b) Inventory of equipment provided

to implement project activities.

(c) Plans for purchasing or upgrading

equipment, as well as software and

networking systems.

(6) Describe how the applicant’s

measurable training and technical

assistance activities will—

(a) Focus on raising awareness and

educating practitioners on resources

available through LINCS (broad-based

training).

(b) Build greater knowledge, and

skills in using the LINCS technology for

teaching and learning (targeted

training).

(c) Result in establishing a team of

trainers at the regional level and for

every member state.

(d) Assist member states to become

independent in implementing state

training plans and maintaining their

web site.

(e) Adopt or develop training models

(i.e., training trainers, workshops

supplemented by peer coaching or

modeling, etc.) that can be used to meet

the needs of geographically dispersed

staff at various levels of knowledge and

skills.

(f) Provide methods, mechanisms,

structures, and materials for training—

both on-line and off-line—that can be

replicated, maintained, easily

accessible, and updated beyond the life

of this project.

(g) Provide technical assistance for

member states and local programs that

help staff and end users at varying

levels of technical sophistication, with

special attention to non-technical staff.

(h) Assist member states in selection

and installation of hardware and

software within the proposed timeline.

5. Budget and Cost-Effectiveness

The applicant must describe plans for

managing the project budget and

ensuring cost-effectiveness, including—

a. Provisions for ensuring the most

efficient and cost-effective use of project

funds.

b. Provisions for identifying and

securing additional funds to continue

and expand the project beyond the end

of the grant.

c. A time line for the project,

consisting of a table or diagram listing

major tasks or milestones and including

estimates of funds, time, training

schedules, personnel, facilities, and

equipment allocated to each program

area, as well as the timing of progress

and other reports, meetings, and other

similar events.

6. Monitoring and Evaluation

The applicant must describe a plan

for monitoring and evaluation that is

based on the measurable goals of the

project. The description of the plan

must include how the applicant will—

a. Demonstrate the project’s

effectiveness in achieving its objectives.

b. Assess the project’s impact on

member states and the broader literacy

community.

c. Evaluate the effectiveness of the

lead site’s role in working with member

states.

d. Use on-line methods (such as web

tools) to collect and analyze data on the

effectiveness of the resources presented.

e. Evaluate the project’s impact on

targeted local programs.

f. Confirm and report evaluation

results

7. Key Personnel

The applicant must describe how it

will ensure the capacity of key

personnel to carry out the work of the

project, including—

a. A description of the main

qualifications of key personnel to carry

out project tasks.

b. Identification of key staff members

at the regional and member state level,

their specific roles, and the number of

hours required to carry out their tasks.

Other Application Requirements

The application shall include the

following:

Project Summary: The proposal must

contain a 200-word summary of the

proposed project suitable for

publication. It should not be an abstract

of the proposal, but rather a selfcontained description of the activities

that would explain the proposal. The

summary should be free of jargon and

technical terminology, and should be

understandable by a non-specialist

reader.

Budget Proposal: ED Form 424A must

be completed and submitted with each

application. The form consists of

Sections A, B, and C. On the back of the

form are general instructions for

completion of the budget. All applicants

must complete Sections A and C. If

Section B is completed, include the

nature and source of non-federal funds.

Attach to Section C a detailed

explanation and amplification of each

budget category. Included in the

explanation should be a complete

justification of costs in each category.

Additional instructions include:

• Prepare a separate itemization and

brief narrative for each of the member

states in the region in addition to

submitting an itemized budget narrative

for the project as a whole.

• Personnel items should include

names (titles or position) of key staff,

number of hours proposed and

applicable hourly rates.

• Include the cost, purpose, and

justification for travel, equipment,

supplies, contractual and other.

Training stipends are not authorized

under this program.

• Clearly identify in all instances

contributed costs and support from

other sources, if any.

• Show budget detail for financial

aspects of any cost-sharing, joint or

cooperative funding.

Disclosure of Prior NIFL Support: If

any consortium member state has

received NIFL funding in the past two

years, the following information on the

prior awards is required:

• NIFL award number, amount and

period of support;

• A summary of the results of the

completed work; and

• A brief description of available

materials and other related research

products not described elsewhere.

If the applicant has received a prior

award, the reviewers will be asked to

comment on the quality of the prior

work described in this section of the

proposal.

Current and Pending Support: All

current project support from whatever
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25879

source (such as Federal, State, or local

government agencies, private

foundations, commercial organizations)

must be listed. The list must include the

proposed project and all other projects

requiring a portion of time of the Project

Director and other project personnel,

even if they receive no salary support

from the project(s). The number of

person-months or percentage of effort to

be devoted to the projects must be

stated, regardless of source of support.

Similar information must be provided

for all proposals that are being

considered by or will be submitted soon

to other sponsors.

If the project now being submitted has

been funded previously by another

source, the information requested in the

paragraph above should be furnished for

the immediately preceding funding

period. If the proposal is being

submitted to other possible sponsors, all

of them must be listed. Concurrent

submission of a proposal to other

organizations will not prejudice its

review by the NIFL.

Any fee proposed to be paid to a

collaborating or ‘‘partner’’ for-profit

entity should be indicated. (Fees will be

negotiated by the Grants Officer.) Any

copyright, patent or royalty agreements

(proposed or in effect) must be

described in detail, so that the rights

and responsibilities of each part are

made clear.

If any part of the project is to be

subcontracted, a budget and work plan

prepared and duly signed by the

subcontractor must be submitted as part

of the overall proposal and addressed in

the narrative.

Reporting: In addition to working

closely with the Institute, the applicant

will be required to submit a final annual

report of activities. This report will be

presented to the Institute staff, the

National Institute Advisory Board and

the Interagency Group. Detailed

specifications for the report will be

provided to the consortium within three

months after the award.

For planning purposes, the applicant

may assume that the following

information will be provided:

• Project(s) Title

• Project Abstract

A concise narrative describing in

layman’s language the subject purposes,

methods, expected outcomes (including

products), and significance of the

project.

• Significant Products: A list of

significant holdings available for access

associated with the consortium.

• Significant Accomplishments.

A past-tense abstract that describes

the consortium’s accomplishments,

known uses of the holdings and

evidence of positive impact.

The grantee must also submit the

following reports:

• Quarterly Performance: A brief 4–5

page report of progress—Due: Within 30

days at the end of each quarter.

Acknowledgment of Support and

Disclaimer: An acknowledgment of

NIFL support and a disclaimer must

appear in publications of any material,

whether copyrighted or not, based on or

developed under NIFL supported

projects:

This material is based upon work

supported by NIFL under Grant No.

(grantee should enter NIFL grant

number).

Except for articles or papers

published in professional journals, the

following disclaimer should be

included:

Any opinions, findings, and

conclusions or recommendations

expressed in this material are those of

the author(s) and do not necessarily

reflect the views of the NIFL.

Instructions for Transmittal of

Applications

(a) To apply for a cooperative

agreement grant—

(1) Mail the original and seven (7)

copies of the application on or before

the deadline date of June 26, 1998 to:

National Institute for Literacy, 800

Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 200,

Washington, DC 20006, Attention: Jaleh

Behroozi Soroui, (CFDA #84.257F).

(2) Hand deliver the application by

4:30 p.m. (Washington, DC time) on the

deadline date to the address above.

(b) An applicant must show one of the

following as proof of mailing:

(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service

postmark.

(2) A legible mail receipt with the

date of mailing stamped by the U.S.

Postal Service.

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or

receipt from a commercial carrier.

(c) If an application is mailed through

the U.S. Postal Service, the Director

does not accept either of the following

as proof of mailing:

(1) A private metered postmark.

(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by

the U.S. Postal Service.

Notes: (1) The U.S. Postal Service does not

uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before

relying on this method, an applicant should

check with the local post office.

(2) The NIFL will mail a Grant

Applicant Receipt Acknowledgement to

each applicant. If an applicant fails to

receive the notification of application

receipt within 15 days from the date of

mailing, the applicant should call the

NIFL at (202) 632–1525 or (202) 632–

1500.

(3) The applicant must indicate on the

envelope and in Item 10 of the

application for Federal Assistance

(Standard Form 424) the CFDA number

of the competition under which the

application is being submitted.

Application Instructions and Forms:

The appendix to this application is

divided into three parts plus a statement

regarding estimated public reporting

burden and various assurances and

certifications. These parts and

additional materials are organized in the

same manner that the submitted

application should be organized. The

parts and additional materials are as

follows:

Part I: Application for Federal

Assistance (Standard Form 424 (Rev. 4–

88) and instructions.

Part II: Budget Information-NonConstruction Programs (ED Form 424A)

and instructions.

Part III: Application Narrative.

Additional Materials: Estimated

Public Reporting Burden.

Assurances-Non-Construction

Programs (Standard Form 424B).

Certification Regarding Lobbing;

Debarment, Suspension, and other

responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free

Workplace Requirements (ED 80–0013).

Certification Regarding Debarment,

Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary

Exclusion: Lower Tier Covered

Transactions (ED 80–0014, 9/90) and

instructions.

Note: ED 80–0014 is intended for the use

of recipients and should not be transmitted

to the NIFL.

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

(Standard form LLL) (if applicable) and

instructions. An applicant may submit

information on a Photostat copy of the

application and budget forms, the

assurances and the certifications.

However, the application form, the

assurances, and certifications must each

have an original signature. No award

can be made unless a complete

application has been received.

Information about NIFL’s funding

opportunities, including copies of

application notices for discretionary

grant competitions, can be viewed on

the NIFL homepage—LINCS—on the

World Wide Web at: (http://

novel.nifl.gov/Grants.html). However,

the official application notice for a

discretionary grant competition is the

notice published in the Federal

Register.

Instructions for Estimated Public

Reporting Burden: According to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no

persons are required to respond to a

collection of information unless it

displays a valid OMB control number.
25880 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

The valid OMB control number for this

information is under OMB control

number 3430–0004, Expiration date:

May, 2000. The time required to

complete this information collection is

55 hours per response, including that

time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and disseminating the data

needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. If you

have any comments concerning the

accuracy of the time estimate or

suggestions for improving this form,

please write to: the National Institute for

Literacy, 800 Connecticut Avenue, NW,

Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20006–

2712.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1213C.

Dated: May 6, 1998.

Andrew J. Hartman,

Director, NIFL.

[FR Doc. 98–12422 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6055–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Report to Congress on Abnormal

Occurrences Fiscal Year 1997

Dissemination of Information

Section 208 of the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–

438) identifies an abnormal occurrence

(AO) as an unscheduled incident or

event that the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) determines to be

significant from the standpoint of public

health or safety. The Federal Reports

Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–66) requires that AOs be

reported to Congress on an annual basis.

During fiscal-year 1997, six events that

occurred at facilities licensed or

otherwise regulated by the NRC and the

Agreement States were determined to be

AOs. These events are discussed below.

As required by Section 208, the

discussion for each event includes the

date and place, the nature and probable

consequences, the cause or causes, and

the action taken to prevent recurrence.

Each event is also being described in

NUREG–0090, Vol. 20, ‘‘Report to

Congress on Abnormal Occurrences,

Fiscal Year 1997.’’ This report will be

available at NRC’s Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street N.W. (Lower

Level), Washington, D.C., about three

weeks after the publication date of this

Federal Register Notice.

97–1 Loss of Two of Three High

Pressure Injection Pumps at Oconee

Nuclear Station Unit 3

One of the AO reporting criteria notes

that a major deficiency in design,

construction, control, or operation

having significant safety implications

requiring immediate remedial action

can be considered an AO.

Date and Place—May 3, 1997; Oconee

Unit 3, a pressurized water nuclear

reactor plant designed by Babcock and

Wilcox Company, operated by the Duke

Energy Corporation (formerly known as

Duke Power Company), and located

about 8 miles north of Clemson, South

Carolina.

Nature and Probable Consequences—

On May 3, 1997, the Oconee Unit 3

reactor was shut down and the reactor

coolant system (RCS) was being cooled

down for inspection of the high pressure

injection (HPI) discharge piping. The

need for the inspection resulted from

RCS leakage from a weld crack in the

HPI makeup piping on Unit 2. Reactor

pressure was approximately 270 psig,

RCS temperature was approximately

205° F, one reactor coolant pump (RCP)

was running, and the Low Pressure

Injection System was being used to cool

down the RCS. Makeup water to the

RCS to compensate for the temperature

decrease was being supplied from the

letdown storage tank (LDST) by one of

the three HPI pumps. Makeup to the

LDST consisted of periodic batch

additions as needed. These plant

conditions were below the point where

the technical specifications required

that the HPI system must be operable;

that is, required to mitigate a smallbreak loss-of-coolant accident.

Plant cool-down evolutions appeared

to be normal until the ‘‘B’’ HPI pump

started to cavitate and makeup flow to

the reactor coolant system was lost. A

RCP seal water (which is also supplied

by the HPI pump) low-flow signal

automatically started the ‘‘A’’ HPI

pump. However, it also began to

cavitate. (The third HPI pump is not

designed to automatically start on this

signal and remained in the standby

condition.) The operators stopped both

pumps and began troubleshooting the

problem. A Notification of Unusual

Event was declared when it was

recognized that the pumps would be

inoperable past the shift that was on

duty. Unit 3 pressure and temperature

were stabilized and there was no

immediate concern that conditions

would worsen.

Later investigations revealed that the

potential for a more serious situation

existed if there had been a small break

loss-of-coolant accident, which is the

design basis for the HPI system, prior to

this event. If such an accident had

occurred, all three of the HPI pumps

would have automatically started and

become inoperable very quickly. In

addition, the pumps may have become

air bound and unavailable when the

pump suction was transferred to the

Borated Water Storage Tank to inject

into the RCS. This would have

significantly complicated recovery from

the accident, but would have been

within the Emergency Operating

Procedure guidance and training

provided to the operators. It would,

however, increase the probability of

core damage. The length of time that

Unit 3 was in this degraded status could

not be accurately determined, but the

condition may have existed since startup in March 1997, when plant

conditions required that the HPI system

be operable.

Cause or Causes—Loss of the HPI

pumps occurred when all of the water

was inadvertently pumped from the

LDST because of faulty level indication.

The erroneous level indication was

caused by the loss of approximately

one-half of the water in the level

detector reference leg because of a slight

leak in the instrument fitting. This loss

of the reference leg water caused the

tank level instrument to indicate a water

level higher than the actual level, a

condition that may have existed since

February 1997, the last time the

reference leg was verified to be full. It

also caused the loss of the low-level

alarm. As a result of these conditions,

the operators did not provide makeup

water to the tank when it was needed,

resulting in the HPI pump continuing to

run until the tank was empty. The LDST

level detection system consists of two

level instruments connected to a

common reference leg. Thus, the

condition affected both level detectors

equally.

In addition, the control room

operators did not properly monitor and

detect the inaccurate LDST level

indications. They did not notice that for

a short period of time the indicated

level stopped decreasing and

continuously showed the tank to be

approximately half-full at the same time

water was being pumped from the tank.

Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence

Licensee—Corrective actions included

(1) the addition of a second reference leg

to the LDST to provide separate level

indications, (2) enhanced operator

training and procedures, and (3) the

performance of an HPI System

Reliability Study that is to be completed

by December 31, 1997.