Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Notices 57127

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3Phlx previously adopted these changes to its Fee 

Schedule and billing policies in a rule change that 

was effective on May 3, 2004, the date it was filed 

with the Commission. See Securities Exchange Act 

Release No. 49856 (June 15, 2004), 69 FR 3441 (June 

21, 2004) (SR–Phlx–2004–32).

4See letter from Murray L. Ross, Phlx, to Nancy 

Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of Market 

Regulation, SEC, dated July 9, 2004 (‘‘Amendment 

No. 1’’). In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange 

removed references in the Fee Schedule to the 

proposed date that the retroactive fees would take 

effect.

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50129 

(July 30, 2004), 69 FR 47970.

6 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission notes that it has considered the 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49098 

(January 16, 2004), 69 FR 3974 (January 27, 2004) 

(Order approving the demutualization of Phlx).

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,12 which 

requires, among other things, that the 

Exchange’s rules be designed to promote 

just and equitable principles of trade, to 

prevent fraudulent and manipulative 

acts and, in general, to protect investors 

and the public interest. The 

Commission believes that the proposed 

rule change should help to ensure that 

all registered persons are kept up-todate on regulatory, compliance, and 

sales practice-related industry issues. 

Further, the Commission believes that 

the proposed rule change will reinforce 

the importance of compliance with just 

and equitable principles of trade by 

exposing all registered industry 

participants to the full benefits of the 

Regulatory Element programs, which 

include a new Regulatory Element 

module that focuses specifically on 

ethics.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

section 19(b)(2) of the Act,13 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–NYSE–2004–

33), as amended, is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.14

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–2353 Filed 9–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50401; File No. SR–Phlx–

2004–39] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; 

Order Granting Approval to Proposed 

Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 

Thereto Relating to Retroactive 

Application of Permit Holder Fees and 

Billing Policies 

September 16, 2004. 

On June 30, 2004, the Philadelphia 

Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to: 

(1) Apply retroactively a recent 

amendment to its schedule of fees and 

charges (‘‘Fee Schedule’’) that adopted a 

permit fee category, designated as 

‘‘Other,’’ for permit holders who did not 

fit within any other permit fee 

categories; (2) apply retroactively a 

billing policy that set the date of 

notification for terminating a permit as 

the date that permit fee billing would 

cease; and (3) assess retroactively only 

one monthly permit fee in certain 

limited situations where two monthly 

permit fees otherwise would be 

imposed.3 The proposal would apply 

these Fee Schedule changes and billing 

policies retroactively to February 2, 

2004, the date that the permit fees were 

first imposed. On July 12, 2004, Phlx 

filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed 

rule change.4 The proposed rule change, 

as amended, was published for 

comment in the Federal Register on 

August 6, 2004.5 The Commission 

received no comments on the proposal.

The Commission finds that the 

proposed rule change, as amended, is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to a national 

securities exchange 6 and, in particular, 

the requirements of section 6(b) of the 

Act 7 and the rules and regulations 

thereunder. The Commission finds 

specifically that the proposed rule 

change, as amended, is consistent with 

section 6(b)(5) of the Act,8 which 

requires that the rules of the Exchange 

provide for the equitable allocation of 

reasonable dues, fees, and other charges 

among its members and issuers and 

other persons using its facilities. The 

proposed rule change would apply 

recent amendments to the Exchange’s 

Fee Schedule and billing policies 

retroactively to February 2, 2004, the 

date that permit fees were first imposed 

by the Exchange in connection with its 

recent demutualization.9 The proposed 

rule change is intended to remedy the 

fact that a few permit holders did not fit 

into any of the permit fee categories 

initially established by the Exchange 

and thus were not subject to permit fees 

as of February 2, 2004. Thus, the 

proposed rule change is intended to 

apply the Exchange’s permit fees and 

permit fee billing practices in an evenhanded manner to all Exchange member 

organizations since the introduction of 

the permit fees on February 2, 2004.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

section 19(b)(2) of the Act,10 that the 

proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2004–

39), as amended, be, and hereby is, 

approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.11

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–2350 Filed 9–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4836] 

Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA) Request for Grant 

Proposals: International Education 

Training Program 

Announcement Type: Cooperative 

Agreement. 

Funding Opportunity Number: ECA/

A/S/A–05–12. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Number: 00.000. 

Dates: None. 

Application Deadline: November 12, 

2004. 

Executive Summary: Public and 

private non-profit organizations meeting 

the provisions described in Internal 

Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 

501(c)(3), including consortia, may 

submit proposals to train international 

education professionals from accredited 

U.S. colleges and universities 

throughout the United States to work 

effectively with international students, 

scholars, international exchange 

programs, and U.S. study abroad 

programs and to enhance community 

involvement with participants in these 

programs. Funded activities must be 

open to staff from any accredited U.S. 

institution of higher education. 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Authority: Overall grant making 

authority for this program is contained 

in the Mutual Educational and Cultural 

Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87–

256, as amended, also known as the 

Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the 

Act is ‘‘to enable the Government of the 

57128 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Notices 

United States to increase mutual 

understanding between the people of 

the United States and the people of 

other countries * * *; to strengthen the 

ties which unite us with other nations 

by demonstrating the educational and 

cultural interests, developments, and 

achievements of the people of the 

United States and other nations * * * 

and thus to assist in the development of 

friendly, sympathetic and peaceful 

relations between the United States and 

the other countries of the world.’’ The 

funding authority for the program above 

is provided through legislation.

Purpose:

(1) To support the training and 

development of international 

educational exchange professionals 

based at U.S. institutions of higher 

learning who assist international 

students and scholars studying in the 

U.S. and American students seeking to 

study overseas. 

(2) To support the involvement of 

international students with the U.S. 

institutions and local communities 

where they study and live. Through 

programs that enable foreign students 

and scholars to achieve a better 

understanding of the United States 

during their time in this country and 

that encourage them to help Americans 

learn more about the world outside our 

borders, the potential of foreign students 

to contribute to international 

understanding is enhanced. 

Overview: International educational 

exchanges advance the mutual 

understanding and cooperation of 

people in the United States with the rest 

of the world. A growing number of 

international education professionals 

work with international students and 

scholars, American students, 

international exchange programs, and 

U.S. study abroad programs on U.S. 

campuses and in the communities 

served by these institutions. The work 

of these international education 

professionals complements the efforts 

undertaken by the State Department 

through its Public Affairs Sections as 

well as through bi-national Fulbright 

Commissions, helping to provide the 

basis for managing educational 

exchanges professionally and for 

ensuring that these exchanges benefit 

the students and scholars who 

participate in them. 

International education professionals 

need specific skills and tools in order to 

manage and expand their institutions’

international exchange agendas. The 

training of these professionals should be 

designed to strengthen the programs and 

services offered by their institutions. 

When international education 

professionals receive up-to-date training 

in their field, international students and 

scholars gain a more well-rounded U.S. 

experience and a broader appreciation 

of U.S. academic and community 

values, while U.S. students become 

engaged more frequently in study 

abroad programs and learn more about 

how the U.S. relates to the rest of the 

world than they could learn at home. 

The issues confronted by 

international exchange professionals are 

more complex than they had been prior 

to September 11, 2001. There are new 

laws and regulations governing visa 

processing, and new, security-related 

procedures for the entry and exit of 

foreign nationals. A new information 

processing system—SEVIS (the Student 

and Exchange Visitor Information 

System)—has been established to screen 

students and scholars before their entry 

into the United States and to monitor 

their status after they arrive. 

Responsible officials at educational 

institutions must be familiar with the 

system and how to use it. New visa 

application procedures add time to the 

academic application process, and new 

regulations require closer tracking of 

students during their stay in the U.S. 

At the same time, other countries 

have increased their attempts to attract 

international students, and U.S. 

institutions must now compete with 

other countries for talented 

international students just as they 

compete for the best U.S. students. 

While in recent years the number of 

U.S. students who study and travel 

abroad has increased, they still 

represent only a small fraction of the 

total number of U.S. students at U.S. 

institutions of higher education. U.S. 

institutions continue to struggle to 

engage more U.S. students in study 

abroad programs. 

This RFGP invites proposals to train 

international educational exchange 

professionals in U.S. higher education 

in ways that will equip them to improve 

the capacity of their institutions to 

participate effectively in international 

exchanges of scholars and students. The 

Bureau encourages applicant 

organizations to propose a program 

designed to address creatively the 

current challenges faced by U.S. 

educational institutions in the 

development and administration of their 

international programs. The program 

proposed must include the following 

initiative:

• Training for U.S. international 

education professionals with eligibility 

for participation open to staff from any 

accredited U.S. institution of higher 

education. The training programs 

should encourage and reinforce 

cooperation among professionals in this 

field by ensuring that they have up-todate knowledge of current issues in 

international education and that they 

are equipped to provide the human 

resources that are required to administer 

international programs on their 

campuses. U.S. Department of State 

sponsorship will be recognized at all 

training events, and appropriate ECA 

representatives should be invited to 

attend. 

The proposed program could include 

the following optional components: 

• Cooperative grants to institutions 

participating in international education 

training to enhance the involvement of 

international students in the U.S. with 

American life and culture on their 

campuses. These grants should be given 

to institutions for substantive, high 

impact activities. 

• Publications, materials, and 

workshops that promote international 

education and educational exchange at 

U.S. institutions of higher education 

and that contribute to the 

internationalization of U.S. postsecondary education. 

II. Award Information 

Type of Award: Cooperative 

Agreement. 

Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2005. 

Approximate Total Funding:

$535,000. 

Approximate Number of Awards:

One. 

Approximate Average Award:

$535,000. 

Anticipated Award Date: Pending 

availability of funds, January 1, 2005. 

Anticipated Project Completion Date:

December 31, 2005. 

Additional Information: Pending 

successful implementation of this 

program and the availability of funds in 

subsequent fiscal years, the Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs may 

renew this cooperative agreement for 

two additional fiscal years before openly 

competing it again. 

III. Eligibility Information

III.1. Eligible Applicants 

Applications may be submitted by 

public and private non-profit 

organizations meeting the provisions 

described in Internal Revenue Code 

section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). Both single 

institutions and consortia may apply. 

III.2. Cost Sharing or Matching Funds 

There is no minimum or maximum 

percentage required for this 

competition. However, the Bureau 

encourages applicants to provide 

maximum levels of cost sharing and 

funding in support of its programs. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Notices 57129

When cost sharing is offered, it is 

understood and agreed that the 

applicant must provide the amount of 

cost sharing as stipulated in its proposal 

and later included in an approved grant 

agreement. Cost sharing may be in the 

form of allowable direct or indirect 

costs. For accountability, you must 

maintain written records to support all 

costs that are claimed as your 

contribution, as well as costs to be paid 

by the Federal government. Such 

records are subject to audit. The basis 

for determining the value of cash and 

in-kind contributions must be in 

accordance with OMB Circular A–110, 

(Revised), Subpart C.23—Cost Sharing 

and Matching. In the event you do not 

provide the minimum amount of cost 

sharing as stipulated in the approved 

budget, ECA’s contribution will be 

reduced in like proportion. 

III.3. Other Eligibility Requirements 

(a) Bureau grant guidelines require 

that organizations with less than four 

years experience in conducting 

international exchanges be limited to 

$60,000 in Bureau funding. ECA 

anticipates awarding one cooperative 

agreement, in an amount up to $535,000 

to support program and administrative 

costs required to implement this 

exchange program. Therefore, 

organizations with less than four years 

experience in conducting international 

exchanges are ineligible to apply under 

this competition. The Bureau 

encourages applicants to provide 

maximum levels of cost sharing and 

funding in support of its programs. 

(b) Technical Eligibility: All proposals 

must comply with the following: 

proposals must address the 

requirements listed in this Request for 

Grant Proposals and the technical 

eligibility requirements outlined in the 

accompanying Proposal Submission 

Instructions (PSI) document. In 

addition, proposals must develop a 

program open to all accredited U.S. 

institutions of higher education or they 

will be declared technically ineligible 

and given no further consideration in 

the review process. 

IV. Application and Submission 

Information

Note: Please read the complete Federal 

Register announcement before sending 

inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the 

RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may 

not discuss this competition with applicants 

until the proposal review process has been 

completed.

IV.1. Contact Information To Request an 

Application Package 

Please contact the Educational 

Information and Resources Branch of 

the Global Educational Programs Office, 

ECA/A/S/A, Room 349, U.S. 

Department of State, SA–44, 301 4th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, 

telephone number 202–619–5434 and 

fax number 202–401–1433, e-mail 

address frisbiejz@state.gov to request a 

Solicitation Package. Please refer to the 

Funding Opportunity Number ECA/A/

S/A–05–12 located at the top of this 

announcement when making your 

request.

The Solicitation Package contains the 

Proposal Submission Instruction (PSI) 

document that consists of required 

application forms and standard 

guidelines for proposal preparation. 

It also contains the Project Objectives, 

Goals and Implementation (POGI) 

document, which provides specific 

information, award criteria and budget 

instructions tailored to this competition. 

Please specify Bureau Program Officer 

Jean Frisbie and refer to the Funding 

Opportunity Number ECA/A/S/A–05–

12 located at the top of this 

announcement on all other inquiries 

and correspondence. 

IV.2. To Download a Solicitation 

Package Via Internet 

The entire Solicitation Package may 

be downloaded from the Bureau’s Web 

site at http://exchanges.state.gov/

education/rfgps/menu.htm. Please read 

all information before downloading. 

IV.3. Content and Form of Submission 

Applicants must follow all 

instructions in the Solicitation Package. 

The original and six copies of the 

application should be sent per the 

instructions under IV.3e. ‘‘Submission 

Dates and Times section’’ below. 

IV.3a. You are required to have a Dun 

and Bradstreet Data Universal 

Numbering System (DUNS) number to 

apply for a grant or cooperative 

agreement from the U.S. Government. 

This number is a nine-digit 

identification number, which uniquely 

identifies business entities. Obtaining a 

DUNS number is easy and there is no 

charge. To obtain a DUNS number, 

access http://

www.dunandbradstreet.com or call 1–

866–705–5711. Please ensure that your 

DUNS number is included in the 

appropriate box of the SF–424 which is 

part of the formal application package. 

IV.3b. All proposals must contain an 

executive summary, proposal narrative 

and budget. 

Please refer to the solicitation 

package. It contains the mandatory 

Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) 

document and the Project Objectives, 

Goals and Implementation (POGI) 

document for additional formatting and 

technical requirements. 

IV.3c. You must have nonprofit status 

with the IRS at the time of application. 

If your organization is a private 

nonprofit which has not received a grant 

or cooperative agreement from ECA in 

the past three years, or if your 

organization received nonprofit status 

from the IRS within the past four years, 

you must submit the necessary 

documentation to verify nonprofit status 

as directed in the PSI document. Failure 

to do so will cause your proposal to be 

declared technically ineligible. 

IV.3d. Diversity, Freedom and 

Democracy Guidelines. Pursuant to the 

Bureau’s authorizing legislation, 

programs must maintain a non-political 

character and should be balanced and 

representative of the diversity of 

American political, social, and cultural 

life. ‘‘Diversity’’ should be interpreted 

in the broadest sense and encompass 

differences including, but not limited to 

ethnicity, race, gender, religion, 

geographic location, socio-economic 

status, and disabilities. Applicants are 

strongly encouraged to adhere to the 

advancement of this principle both in 

program administration and in program 

content. Please refer to the review 

criteria under the ‘Support for Diversity’

section for specific suggestions on 

incorporating diversity into your 

proposal. Public Law 104–319 provides 

that ‘‘in carrying out programs of 

educational and cultural exchange in 

countries whose people do not fully 

enjoy freedom and democracy,’’ the 

Bureau ‘‘shall take appropriate steps to 

provide opportunities for participation 

in such programs to human rights and 

democracy leaders of such countries.’’

Public Law 106–113 requires that the 

governments of the countries described 

above do not have inappropriate 

influence in the selection process. 

Proposals should reflect advancement of 

these goals in their program contents, to 

the full extent deemed feasible. 

IV.3d.1. Program Monitoring and 

Evaluation. Proposals must include a 

plan to monitor and evaluate the 

project’s success, both as the activities 

unfold and at the end of the program. 

The Bureau recommends that your 

proposal include a draft survey 

questionnaire or other technique plus a 

description of a methodology to use to 

link outcomes to original project 

objectives. The Bureau expects that the 

grantee will track participants or 

partners and be able to respond to key 

evaluation questions, including 

satisfaction with the program, learning 

57130 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Notices 

as a result of the program, changes in 

behavior as a result of the program, and 

effects of the program on institutions 

(institutions in which participants work 

or partner institutions). The evaluation 

plan should include indicators that 

measure gains in mutual understanding 

as well as substantive knowledge. 

Successful monitoring and evaluation 

depend heavily on setting clear goals 

and outcomes at the outset of a program. 

Your evaluation plan should include a 

description of your project’s objectives, 

your anticipated project outcomes, and 

how and when you intend to measure 

these outcomes (performance 

indicators). The more that outcomes are 

‘‘smart’’ (specific, measurable, 

attainable, results-oriented, and placed 

in a reasonable time frame), the easier 

it will be to conduct the evaluation. You 

should also show how your project 

objectives link to the goals of the 

program described in this RFGP.

Your monitoring and evaluation plan 

should clearly distinguish between 

program outputs and outcomes. Outputs

are products and services delivered, 

often stated as an amount. Output 

information is important to show the 

scope or size of project activities, but it 

cannot substitute for information about 

progress towards outcomes or the 

results achieved. Examples of outputs 

include the number of people trained or 

the number of seminars conducted. 

Outcomes, in contrast, represent 

specific results a project is intended to 

achieve and is usually measured as an 

extent of change. Findings on outputs 

and outcomes should both be reported, 

but the focus should be on outcomes. 

We encourage you to assess the 

following four levels of outcomes, as 

they relate to the program goals set out 

in the RFGP (listed here in increasing 

order of importance): 

1. Participant satisfaction with the 

program and exchange experience. 

2. Participant learning, such as 

increased knowledge, aptitude, skills, 

and changed understanding and 

attitude. Learning includes both 

substantive (subject-specific) learning 

and mutual understanding. 

3. Participant behavior, concrete 

actions to apply knowledge in work or 

community; greater participation and 

responsibility in civic organizations; 

interpretation and explanation of 

experiences and new knowledge gained; 

continued contacts between 

participants, community members, and 

others. 

4. Institutional changes, such as 

increased collaboration and 

partnerships, policy reforms, new 

programming, and organizational 

improvements.

Please note: Consideration should be given 

to the appropriate timing of data collection 

for each level of outcome. For example, 

satisfaction is usually captured as a shortterm outcome, whereas behavior and 

institutional changes are normally 

considered longer-term outcomes.

Overall, the quality of your 

monitoring and evaluation plan will be 

judged on how well it (1) specifies 

intended outcomes; (2) gives clear 

descriptions of how each outcome will 

be measured; (3) identifies when 

particular outcomes will be measured; 

and (4) provides a clear description of 

the data collection strategies for each 

outcome (i.e., surveys, interviews, or 

focus groups). (Please note that 

evaluation plans that deal only with the 

first level of outcomes [satisfaction] will 

be deemed less competitive under the 

present evaluation criteria.) 

Grantees will be required to provide 

reports analyzing their evaluation 

findings to the Bureau in their regular 

program reports. All data collected, 

including survey responses and contact 

information, must be maintained for a 

minimum of three years and provided to 

the Bureau upon request. 

Describe your plans for: 

sustainability, overall program 

management, staffing, and coordination 

with ECA. 

IV.3e. Please take the following 

information into consideration when 

preparing your budget: 

IV.3e.1. Applicants must submit a 

comprehensive budget for the entire 

program. There must be a summary 

budget as well as breakdowns reflecting 

both administrative and program 

budgets. Applicants may provide 

separate sub-budgets for each program 

component, phase, location, or activity 

to provide clarification. 

IV.3e.2. Allowable costs for the 

program include the following: 

(1) Salaries and benefits. 

(2) Office supplies and expenses, 

including communications, postage, and 

shipping. 

(3) Other direct and indirect costs. 

Please refer to the Solicitation 

Package for complete budget guidelines 

and formatting instructions. 

IV.3f. Submission Dates and Times: 

Application Deadline Date: Friday, 

November 12, 2004. 

Explanation of Deadlines: In light of 

recent events and heightened security 

measures, proposal submissions must be 

sent via a nationally recognized 

overnight delivery service (i.e., DHL, 

Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, 

or U.S. Postal Service Express Overnight 

Mail, etc.) and be shipped no later than 

the above deadline. The delivery 

services used by applicants must have 

in-place, centralized shipping 

identification and tracking systems that 

may be accessed via the Internet and 

delivery people who are identifiable by 

commonly recognized uniforms and 

delivery vehicles. Proposals shipped on 

or before the above deadline but 

received at ECA more than seven days 

after the deadline will be ineligible for 

further consideration under this 

competition. Proposals shipped after the 

established deadlines are ineligible for 

consideration under this competition. It 

is each applicant’s responsibility to 

ensure that each package is marked with 

a legible tracking number and to 

monitor/confirm delivery to ECA via the 

Internet. ECA will not notify you upon 

receipt of application. Delivery of 

proposal packages may not be made via 

local courier service or in person for this 

competition. Faxed documents will not 

be accepted at any time. Only proposals 

submitted as stated above will be 

considered. Applications may not be 

submitted electronically at this time.

Applicants must follow all 

instructions in the Solicitation Package.

Important note: When preparing your 

submission please make sure to include one 

extra copy of the completed SF–424 form and 

place it in an envelope addressed to ‘‘ECA/

EX/PM’’.

The original and six copies of the 

application should be sent to: U.S. 

Department of State, SA–44, Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: 

ECA/A/S/A–05–12, Program 

Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 

301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20547. 

Along with the Project Title, all 

applicants must enter the above 

Reference Number in Box 11 on the SF–

424 contained in the mandatory 

Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) 

of the solicitation document. 

IV.3g. Intergovernmental Review of 

Applications: Executive Order 12372 

does not apply to this program. 

V. Application Review Information 

V.1. Review Process 

The Bureau will review all proposals 

for technical eligibility. Proposals will 

be deemed ineligible if they do not fully 

adhere to the guidelines stated herein 

and in the Solicitation Package. All 

eligible proposals will be reviewed by 

the program office, as well as the Public 

Diplomacy section overseas, where 

appropriate. Eligible proposals will be 

subject to compliance with Federal and 

Bureau regulations and guidelines and 

forwarded to Bureau grant panels for 

advisory review. Proposals may also be 

reviewed by the Office of the Legal 

Adviser or by other Department 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Notices 57131

elements. Final funding decisions are at 

the discretion of the Department of 

State’s Assistant Secretary for 

Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final 

technical authority for grants resides 

with the Bureau’s Grants Officer. 

Review Criteria

Technically eligible applications will 

be competitively reviewed according to 

the criteria stated below. These criteria 

are not rank ordered and all carry equal 

weight in the proposal evaluation: 

1. Quality of the Program Idea:

Proposals should exhibit originality, 

substance, precision, and relevance to 

the Bureau’s mission. Proposals must be 

responsive to the objectives stated in 

this document. 

2. Program Planning: Detailed agenda 

and relevant work plan should 

demonstrate substantive undertakings 

and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan 

should adhere to the program overview 

and guidelines described above. 

3. Ability to Achieve Program 

Objectives: Objectives should be 

reasonable, feasible, and flexible. 

Proposals should clearly demonstrate 

how the institution will meet the 

program’s objectives and plan. The 

timeline for programs should be realistic 

and appropriate. 

4. Multiplier Effect/Impact: Proposed 

programs should strengthen long-term 

mutual understanding, including 

maximum sharing of information. 

5. Support of Diversity: Proposals 

should demonstrate substantive support 

of the Bureau’s policy on diversity. 

Achievable and relevant features should 

be cited in both program administration 

(selection of participants, program 

venue and program evaluation) and 

program content (orientation and wrapup sessions, program meetings, resource 

materials and follow-up activities). 

6. Institutional Capacity: Proposed 

personnel and institutional resources 

should be adequate and appropriate to 

achieve the program or project’s goals. 

7. Institution’s Record/Ability:

Proposals should demonstrate an 

institutional record of successful 

exchange programs, including 

responsible fiscal management and full 

compliance with all reporting 

requirements for past Bureau grants as 

determined by Bureau Grants Staff. The 

Bureau will consider the past 

performance of prior recipients and the 

demonstrated potential of new 

applicants. 

8. Follow-on Activities: Proposals 

should provide a plan for continued 

follow-on activity (without Bureau 

support) ensuring that Bureau 

supported programs are not isolated 

events. 

9. Project Evaluation: Proposals 

should include a plan to evaluate the 

activity’s success, both as the activities 

unfold and at the end of the program. A 

draft survey questionnaire or other 

technique plus description of a 

methodology to use to link outcomes to 

original project objectives is 

recommended. 

10. Cost-effectiveness: The overhead 

and administrative components of the 

proposal, including salaries and 

honoraria, should be kept as low as 

possible. All other items should be 

necessary and appropriate. 

11. Cost-sharing: Proposals should 

maximize cost-sharing through other 

private sector support as well as 

institutional direct funding 

contributions. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

VI.1a. Award Notices 

Final awards cannot be made until 

funds have been appropriated by 

Congress, allocated and committed 

through internal Bureau procedures. 

Successful applicants will receive an 

Assistance Award Document (AAD) 

from the Bureau’s Grants Office. The 

AAD and the original grant proposal 

with subsequent modifications (if 

applicable) shall be the only binding 

authorizing document between the 

recipient and the U.S. Government. The 

AAD will be signed by an authorized 

Grants Officer, and mailed to the 

recipient’s responsible officer identified 

in the application. 

Unsuccessful applicants will receive 

notification of the results of the 

application review from the ECA 

program office coordinating this 

competition. 

VI.2. Administrative and National 

Policy Requirements 

Terms and Conditions for the 

Administration of ECA agreements 

include the following:

Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–122, ‘‘Cost Principles for 

Nonprofit Organizations’’

Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–21, ‘‘Cost Principles for 

Educational Institutions’’

OMB Circular A–87, ‘‘Cost Principles 

for State, Local and Indian 

Governments’’

OMB Circular No. A–110 (Revised), 

Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and 

Agreements with Institutions of 

Higher Education, Hospitals, and 

other Nonprofit Organizations. 

OMB Circular No. A–102, Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for 

Grants-in-Aid to State and Local 

Governments 

OMB Circular No. A–133, Audits of 

States, Local Government, and Nonprofit Organizations

Please reference the following Web 

sites for additional information: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants., http:/

/exchanges.state.gov/education/

grantsdiv/terms.htm#articleI

VI.3. Reporting Requirements 

You must provide ECA with a hard 

copy original plus two copies of the 

following reports: 

(1) A final program and financial 

report no more than 90 days after the 

expiration of the award; 

(2) Quarterly financial reports and 

quarterly program reports that contain 

descriptions and evaluations of 

activities carried on during that period. 

Grantees will be required to provide 

reports analyzing their evaluation 

findings to the Bureau in their regular 

program reports. (Please refer to IV. 

Application and Submission 

Instructions (IV.3.d.3) above for Program 

Monitoring and Evaluation information. 

All data collected, including survey 

responses and contact information, must 

be maintained for a minimum of three 

years and provided to the Bureau upon 

request. 

All reports must be sent to the ECA 

Grants Officer and ECA Program Officer 

listed in the final assistance award 

document. 

VII. Agency Contacts 

For questions about this 

announcement, contact: Program Officer 

Jean Frisbie, Educational Information 

and Resources Branch, Global 

Educational Programs Office, Room 349, 

ECA/A/S/A, U.S. Department of State, 

SA–44, 301 4th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20547, telephone 202–

619–5434 and fax 202–401–1433, 

frisbiejz@state.gov.

All correspondence with the Bureau 

concerning this RFGP should reference 

the above title and number ECA/A/S/A–

05–12. 

Please read the complete Federal 

Register announcement before sending 

inquiries or submitting proposals. Once 

the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau 

staff may not discuss this competition 

with applicants until the proposal 

review process has been completed. 

VIII. Other Information 

Notice: The terms and conditions 

published in this RFGP are binding and 

may not be modified by any Bureau 

representative. Explanatory information 

provided by the Bureau that contradicts 

published language will not be binding. 

Issuance of the RFGP does not 

constitute an award commitment on the 

57132 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Notices 

part of the Government. The Bureau 

reserves the right to reduce, revise, or 

increase proposal budgets in accordance 

with the needs of the program and the 

availability of funds. Awards made will 

be subject to periodic reporting and 

evaluation requirements per section VI.3 

above.

Dated: September 14, 2004. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 

Department of State.

[FR Doc. 04–21385 Filed 9–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19120] 

Notice of Receipt of Petition for 

Decision That Nonconforming 2001 

Ducati 900 Motorcycles Are Eligible for 

Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for 

decision that nonconforming 2001 

Ducati 900 motorcycles are eligible for 

importation. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

receipt by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a 

petition for a decision that 2001 Ducati 

900 motorcycles that were not originally 

manufactured to comply with all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards are eligible for importation 

into the United States because (1) they 

are substantially similar to vehicles that 

were originally manufactured for sale in 

the United States and that were certified 

by their manufacturer as complying 

with the safety standards, and (2) they 

are capable of being readily altered to 

conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket number and notice number, 

and be submitted to: Docket 

Management, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. (Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 

5 p.m.) Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (volume 65, 

number 70; pages 19477–78), or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–3151).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a 

motor vehicle that was not originally 

manufactured to conform to all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards shall be refused admission 

into the United States unless NHTSA 

has decided that the motor vehicle is 

substantially similar to a motor vehicle 

originally manufactured for importation 

into and sale in the United States, 

certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of 

the same model year as the model of the 

motor vehicle to be compared, and is 

capable of being readily altered to 

conform to all applicable Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards. 

Petitions for eligibility decisions may 

be submitted by either manufacturers or 

importers who have registered with 

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As 

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA 

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and 

affords interested persons an 

opportunity to comment on the petition. 

At the close of the comment period, 

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the 

petition and any comments that it has 

received, whether the vehicle is eligible 

for importation. The agency then 

publishes this decision in the Federal 

Register. 

J.K. Technologies of Baltimore, 

Maryland (‘‘JK’’) (Registered Importer 

90–006) has petitioned NHTSA to 

decide whether non-U.S. certified 2001 

Ducati 900 motorcycles are eligible for 

importation into the United States. The 

vehicles that JK believes are 

substantially similar are 2001 Ducati 

900 motorcycles that were 

manufactured for sale in the United 

States and certified by their 

manufacturer as conforming to all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. 

The petitioner claims that it compared 

non-U.S. certified 2001 Ducati 900 

motorcycles to their U.S. certified 

counterparts, and found the vehicles to 

be substantially similar with respect to 

compliance with most Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards.

JK submitted information with its 

petition intended to demonstrate that 

non-U.S. certified 2001 Ducati 900 

motorcycles as originally manufactured, 

conform to many Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards in the same manner as 

their U.S. certified counterparts, or are 

capable of being readily altered to 

conform to those standards. 

Specifically, the petitioner claims that 

non-U.S. certified 2001 Ducati 900 

motorcycles are identical to their U.S. 

certified counterparts with respect to 

compliance with Standard Nos. 106 

Brake Hoses, 111 Rearview Mirrors, 116 

Brake Fluid, 119 New Pneumatic Tires 

for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars,

120 Tire Selection and Rims for 

Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, 122 

Motorcycle Brake Systems, and 205 

Glazing Materials.

The petitioner further contends that 

the vehicles are capable of being readily 

altered to meet the following standards, 

in the manner indicated below: 

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective 

Devices and Associated Equipment:

installation of U.S.-model front and rear 

reflex reflectors. 

Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls 

and Displays: installation of U.S.-model 

speedometer and left commutator. 

The petitioner also states that a 

certification label must be affixed to the 

motorcycle to comply with the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 567. 

Comments should refer to the docket 

number and be submitted to: Docket 

Management, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. It is requested but not required 

that 10 copies be submitted. 

All comments received before the 

close of business on the closing date 

indicated above will be considered, and 

will be available for examination in the 

docket at the above address both before 

and after that date. To the extent 

possible, comments filed after the 

closing date will also be considered. 

Notice of final action on the petition 

will be published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to the authority 

indicated below.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and 

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 04–21378 Filed 9–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P