5236 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Notices 

committee participants, and detailed 

information about recruitment plans 

and advertising of program 

opportunities to eligible individuals 

and/or institutions. The narrative also 

should address the applicant’s plan to 

encourage policy relevant research, 

methods for dissemination of research 

products, and plans for bringing Title 

VIII to the service of the U.S. 

Government, where applicable. 

Applicants who have received 

previous grants from the Title VIII 

Program should provide detailed 

information on the individual and 

institutional awards made, including, 

where applicable, names/affiliations of 

recipients, and amounts and types of 

awards. Applicants should specify both 

past and anticipated applicant to award 

ratios. A summary of the applicant’s 

past grants under the Title VIII Program 

also should be included. 

Proposals from national organizations 

involving language instruction programs 

should provide, for those programs 

supported in the past year, indications 

of progress achieved by Title VIIIfunded students, information on the 

criteria for evaluation, including levels 

of instruction, degrees of intensiveness, 

facilities, methods for measuring 

language proficiency (including preand post-testing), instructors’

qualifications, and budget information 

showing estimated costs per student. 

Certifications: Applicants must 

include (1) a description of affirmative 

action policies and practices and (2) 

certifications of compliance with the 

provisions of: (a) the Drug-Free 

Workplace Act (Pub. L. 100–690), in 

accordance with Appendix C of 22 CFR 

137, Subpart F; and (b) Section 319 of 

the Department of the Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act 

(Pub. L. 101–121), in accordance with 

Appendix A of 22 CFR 138, New 

Restrictions on Lobbying Activities.

Review Process: All eligible proposals 

will be reviewed by the program office, 

a grant review panel and the Advisory 

Committee for Studies of Eastern Europe 

and the Independent States of the 

Former Soviet Union. Proposals also 

may be reviewed by the Office of the 

Legal Advisor or by other Department 

elements. Final funding decisions are at 

the discretion of the Department of 

State’s Deputy Secretary. Final technical 

authority for grants resides with the 

Department of State’s Grants Officers. 

Review Criteria: Technically eligible 

proposals will be competitively 

reviewed according to the following 

criteria: 

(1) Quality of the Program Idea: 

Proposals should be responsive to the 

guidelines provided in this request for 

proposals, and should exhibit 

originality, substance, precision, and 

relevance to the State Department’s 

mission, the legislation supporting the 

Title VIII Program, and the FREEDOM 

Support and SEED Acts. 

(2) Program Planning: Program 

objectives should be stated clearly. 

Objectives should respond to priorities 

and address gaps in knowledge for 

particular fields and/or regions. A 

timeline outlining expected 

achievement of milestones should be 

included. Responsibilities of partner 

organizations, if any, should be 

described clearly. 

(3) Institutional Capacity: Proposed 

personnel and selection committees 

should be adequate and appropriate to 

achieve the program’s goals. The 

proposal should reflect the applicant’s 

expertise and knowledge in conducting 

national competitive award programs of 

the type the applicant proposes on the 

countries of Southeast Europe and/or 

Eurasia. Past performance of prior 

recipients and the demonstrated 

potential of new applicants will be 

considered.

(4) Cost-Effectiveness and CostSharing: Overhead and administrative 

costs in the proposal budget should be 

kept to a minimum. All other items 

should be necessary and appropriate. 

Proposals should maximize costsharing, including in-kind assistance, 

through contributions from the 

applicant, partner organizations, as well 

as other private sector support. Costsharing should be included as a separate 

column in the budget request. Proposal 

budgets that do not provide cost-sharing 

will be deemed less competitive in this 

category. 

(5) Evaluation, Monitoring, Database, 

Reporting: Proposals should include a 

plan to evaluate and monitor program 

successes and challenges. Methods for 

linking outcomes to program objectives 

are recommended. The proposal should 

address the applicant’s willingness and 

ability to contribute to the alumni 

database. Successful applicants will be 

required to submit quarterly financial 

and program reports. 

Part III 

Available Funds: Funding for this 

program is subject to final Congressional 

action and the appropriation of FY 2004 

funds. Funding may be available at a 

level of approximately $5.0 million. In 

Fiscal Year 2003, the program was 

funded at $5.0 million from the 

FREEDOM Support and SEED Acts, 

which funded grants to eight national 

organizations. The number of awards 

may vary each year, depending on the 

level of funding and the quality of the 

applications submitted. 

The Department legally cannot 

commit funds that may be appropriated 

in subsequent fiscal years. Thus multiyear projects cannot receive assured 

funding unless such funding is supplied 

out of a single year’s appropriation. 

Grant agreements may permit the 

expenditure from a particular year’s 

grant to be made up to three years after 

the grant’s effective date. 

The terms and conditions published 

in this Request for Proposals are binding 

and may not be modified by any 

Department representative. Issuance of 

the Request for Proposals does not 

constitute an award commitment on the 

part of the U.S. Government. The 

Department reserves the right to reduce, 

revise, or increase proposal budgets in 

accordance with the needs of the 

program and the availability of funds.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information or to arrange a 

consultation, contact Susie Baker, Title 

VIII Program Officer, E-mail: 

ACsbaker@us-state.osis.gov; Tel: (202) 

647–0243, Fax: (202) 736–4851.

Dated: January 26, 2004. 

Kenneth E. Roberts, 

Executive Director, Advisory Committee for 

Studies of Eastern Europe and the 

Independent States of the Former Soviet 

Union, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 04–2153 Filed 2–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–32–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Commission 

Presidential Determination on 

Provision of Aviation Insurance 

Coverage for Commercial Air Carrier 

Service in Domestic and International 

Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the President has authorized the Federal 

Aviation Administration to replace the 

current practice of renewing U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

and Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) war risk aviation insurance 

policies at 60-day intervals and 

substitute a longer extension of policies, 

until August 31, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Rodgers, Director, APO–1, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20591, telephone 202–267–3274.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Notices 5237

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since 

September of 2001, DOT/FAA have 

provided aviation war risk insurance 

and renewed the coverage in 60-day 

increments. By statute, DOT/FAA must 

continue to provide this insurance 

coverage until August 31, 2004. From a 

purely administrative perspective, the 

exchange of renewal documentation 

every 60 days with approximately 75 

insured airlines and a large number of 

finance and leasing companies increases 

the chance for errors and omissions. 

Extending the duration until August 31, 

2004 will eliminate excessive paper 

work and time pressure for all 

concerned. 

Affected Public: Air Carriers who 

currently have Third Party War-Risk 

Insurance with the Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

The text of the Memorandum from the 

President to the Secretary of 

Transportation is set forth below.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 16, 

2004. 

John Rodgers, 

Director, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans.

Memorandum for the Secretary of 

Transportation 

Subject: Provision of Aviation Insurance 

Coverage for Commercial Air Carrier 

Service in Domestic and International 

Operations 

Title 3—Presidential Determination No. 

2004–13 of December 11, 2003

By the authority vested in me by 49 U.S.C. 

44302, et seq., I hereby: 

1. Determine that continuation of U.S.-flag 

commercial air service is necessary in the 

interest of air commerce, national security, 

and the foreign policy of the United States; 

2. Approve provision by the Secretary of 

Transportation of Insurance or reinsurance to 

U.S.-flag air carriers against loss or damage 

arising out of any risk from the operation of 

an aircraft in the manner and to the extent 

provided in Chapter 443 of 49 U.S.C.: 

(a) Until August 31, 2004; 

(b) After August 31, 2004, but no later than 

December 31, 2004, when he determines that 

such insurance or reinsurance cannot be 

obtained on reasonable terms and conditions 

from any company authorized to conduct an 

insurance business in a State of the United 

States; and 

3. Delegate to the Secretary of 

Transportation the authority, vested in me by 

49 U.S.C. 44306(c), to extend this 

determination for additional periods beyond 

August 31, 2004, but no later than December 

31, 2004, when he finds that the continued 

operation of aircraft to be insured or 

reinsured is necessary in the interest of air 

commerce or the national security, or to carry 

out the foreign policy of the United States 

Government. 

You are directed to bring this 

determination immediately to the attention of 

all air carriers within the meaning of 49 

U.S.C. 40102(2), and to arrange for its 

publication in the Federal Register. 

George W. Bush

[FR Doc. 04–2203 Filed 2–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

Noise Exposure Map Notice

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) announces its 

determination that the noise exposure 

maps submitted by Snohomish County 

for Paine Field/Snohomish County 

Airport under the provisions of 49 

U.S.C. 47501 et. seq (Aviation Safety 

and Noise Abatement Act) and 14 CFR 

part 150 are in compliance with 

applicable requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the 

FAA’s determination on the noise 

exposure maps is January 8, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis Ossenkop, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Airports Division, 1601 

Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA, 98055–

4056, telephone 425–227–2611. 

Comments on the proposed noise 

compatibility program should also be 

submitted to the above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice announces that the FAA finds 

that the noise exposure maps submitted 

for Paine Field/Snohomish County 

Airport are in compliance with 

applicable requirements of part 150, 

effective January 8, 2004. Under 49 

U.S.C. section 47503 of the Aviation 

Safety and Noise Abatement Act 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the Act’’), an 

airport operator may submit to the FAA 

noise exposure maps which meet 

applicable regulations and which depict 

non-compatible land uses as of the date 

of submission of such maps, a 

description of projected aircraft 

operations, and the ways in which such 

operations will affect such maps. The 

Act requires such maps to be developed 

in consultation with interested and 

affected parties in the local community, 

government agencies, and persons using 

the airport. An airport operator who has 

submitted noise exposure maps that are 

found by FAA to be in compliance with 

the requirements of Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FAR) part 150, 

promulgated pursuant to the Act, may 

submit a noise compatibility program 

for FAA approval which sets forth the 

measures the operator has taken or 

proposes to take to reduce existing noncompatible uses and prevent the 

introduction of additional noncompatible uses. 

The FAA has completed its review of 

the noise exposure maps and 

accompanying documentation 

submitted by Snohomish County for 

Paine Field/Snohomish County Airport. 

The documentation that constitutes the 

‘‘noise exposure maps’’ as defined in 

section 150.7 of part 150 includes the 

following from the September 2003, 

Paine Field FAR Part 150 Noise 

Exposure Maps Update:

• Figure 7 at page 19, Existing Noise 

Exposure Map, 2002/2003; 

• Figure 8 at page 20 Future Noise 

Exposure Map, 2008; 

• Figure 6 at page 12 Flight Tracks; 

• Figure 5 at page 11 Noise 

Monitoring Sites; 

• Table 1 at page 9 Summary of 

Aviation Forecasts 2002–2008’

• Tables 2 through 5 at pages 14–18 

present flight track utilizations by 

runway and aircraft type; 

• Figure 7 at page 18, Existing 2002 

Noise Exposure Map, presents estimates 

of the number of persons residing with 

the DNL 55, 60, and 65 noise contours; 

• Figure 8 at page 20, Future 2008 

Noise Exposure Map, presents estimates 

of the number of persons residing with 

the DNL 55, 60, and 65 noise contours; 

• Pages 20 through 24 and the 

Appendix present consultation details. 

• The year of submission (2003) 

airport operations data is equivalent to 

the submitted existing condition Noise 

Exposure Map (2002) operations data 

and the five-year forecast Noise 

Exposure Map is reasonable. 

• There are no properties on or 

eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places within the 

DNL 65 contour.

The FAA has determined that these 

noise exposure maps and accompanying 

documentation are in compliance with 

applicable requirements. This 

determination is effective on January 8, 

2004. 

FAA’s determination on an airport 

operator’s noise exposure maps is 

limited to a finding that the maps were 

developed in accordance with the 

procedures contained in appendix A of 

FAR Part 150. Such determination does 

not constitute approval of the 

applicant’s data, information or plans, 

or a commitment to approve a noise 

compatibility program or to fund the 

implementation of that program. If 

questions arise concerning the precise 

relationship of specific properties to 

noise exposure contours depicted on a 

noise exposure map submitted under 

section 47503 of the Act, it should be