Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices 34785

etc, and overall indirect rates in cost

and by percentage. It is the desire of the

Department of State to have the

maximum utilization of the limited

funds used for program operation in lieu

of administrative and indirect cost. A

‘‘Special Note’’ to offerors. While the

grant may not be awarded on the basis

of lowest overall cost, the program cost

to administrative cost and the direct

cost to indirect cost ratios will be an

important issue in the final selection.

Applicants requesting funds to

supplement a program having other

sources of support should submit a

current budget for it showing how

specific lines in the budget would be

affected by the allocation of requested

grant funds. Other funding sources and

amounts, when known, should be

identified.

(3) The applicant’s cost sharing

proposal, if applicable containing

appropriate details and cross-references

to the requested budget.

(4) The organization’s most recent

audit report (the most recent U.S.

Government audit report if available)

and the name, address, and point of

contact of the audit agency. Notice to

Applicants: The threshold for grants

that trigger an audit requirement under

OMB Circular A–133 has been raised

from $25,000.00 to $300,000.00.

(5) An indication of the offer’s

priorities if funding is being requested

for more than one program or activity.

All payments will be made to the

recipient through the Department of

State.

Evaluation Factors and Proposal

Selection

A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP)

will perform the technical review from

the U.S. Embassy’s Bicommunal Team

in Nicosia.

A/LM/AQM will make the final

selection after reviewing evaluation

results and recommendations from the

TEP. The applicant should describe its

overall organizational and management

structure. Domestic and international. It

should describe how the capabilities of

this structure will compliment actual

operation and success of the program. It

should describe all previous experience

with similar programs and layout

tentative operational plans that

demonstrate complete understanding of

the requirements of the Statement of

Work. The proposal should reflect the

institution’s expertise in international

affairs, especially those that pertain to

the current political, economic, and

social environment on the island of

Cyprus. Since the BSP focuses on

bringing together the Greek Cypriot and

Turkish Cypriot communities on

Cyprus, a perception of total

impartiality in the application will also

be a tantamount issue. The proposal

should also demonstrate the applicant’s

overall management approach is

rational and within reason. The

technical elements of the proposal will

be significantly more important than the

cost proposal in the final selection

process. The applicant should

specifically address each of the

evaluation criteria elements identified

below. The proposal should address

succinctly, but completely, the elements

described below and follow the format

requirements. Proposals should include

the following items:

TAB A—Table of Contents and

Executive Summary

TAB B—Narrative

The narrative should demonstrate

proven ability to handle logistics as

well as include the U.S.

institution’s mission and date of

establishment.

TAB C—Budget Submission

The budget included with the

proposal should be broken down

into the administrative direct cost

of the program and the indirect

cost. Direct costs are those costs

that are totally attributed to the cost

of the program. Indirect costs are

those costs that are attributed to the

overall operation of the

organization.

TAB D—Past Performance References

At a minimum, the applicant will

provide the following information

for three references:

• Name of the referenced organization

• Project name

• Project description

• Performance period of the contract/

grant

• Amount of the contract/grant

• Technical contact person and

telephone number for referenced

organization

• Administrative contact person and

telephone number for referenced

organization

A/LM/AQM may contact

representatives from the organizations

cited in the examples to obtain

information on the applicant’s past

performance. A/LM/AQM also may

obtain past performance information

from sources other than those identified

by the applicant.

Resumes

Resumes of any key program staff,

except the proposed FOR should be

included in the submission. Proposed

personnel and institutional resources

should be adequate and appropriate to

achieve the program’s goals. Resume

should not exceed two pages.

The proposals will be considered on

the following criteria in priority order:

A. Organizational Capabilities

1. Organizational experience and/or

knowledge of the political, economic,

and social environment on Cyprus.

2. Demonstrates sensitivity to political

and cultural concerns of a divided

Cyprus.

3. Demonstrates an understanding of

the program.

4. Qualifications and experience of

corporate staff.

5. The organizational structure and

management capabilities of the offeror.

6. The international structure and

experience of the offeror.

B. Program Capabilities

1. Ability to have Nicosia Field Office

open by 21 August 2000.

2. Demonstrates understanding of

program and experience and knowledge

to provide the development of the

Bicommunal programs.

C. Program/Administrative and Direct/

Indirect Cost Comparisons and Overall

Cost

Proposal Deadline

Seven copies of the proposal should

be submitted by 30 June 2000, 4 pm

local time to:

An Application sent by mail must be

addressed to: Dr. Holly Peirce,

Bicommunal Coordinator, American

Embassy Nicosia, FPO, AE 09836.

An application that is hand delivered

must be to: American Embassy, North

Gate, Metochiou and Ploutarchou

Streets, Engomi, Nicosia, Cyprus,

Attention: Holly Peirce (x2064) or Rita

Shipillis (x2605).

Scott McDonald,

Post Management Officer, Bureau of

European Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 00–13538 Filed 5–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–23–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3324]

Notice of Open Session of the Cultural

Property Advisory Committee

Pursuant to the authority vested in

me, under Department of State

Delegation of Authority No. 236–2, the

Cultural Property Advisory Committee

will meet in open session from

approximately 10 am to 12 noon, on

Wednesday, June 28, 2000. The session

will be held in the Trustees Room, 2nd

Floor, The New York Public Library,

Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street, New

York, NY.

34786 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices

This open session is solely for

information exchange between the

Cultural Property Advisory Committee

and persons interested in the work of

the Committee pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

2601, et seq., the Convention on

Cultural Property Implementation Act.

Information about the Committee, the

Act, and the 1970 UNESCO Convention

on the Means of Prohibiting and

Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and

Transfer of Ownership of Cultural

Property may be found at http://

exchanges.state.gov/education/culprop.

The Committee will make

presentations about its work and about

implementation of the Act followed by

a question and answer period. In order

to allow the maximum participation

possible, individuals will be limited to

five minutes each for comments/

questions.

Due to the Library’s security

procedures and limited seating, prior

notification of attendance is required.

Attendees must use the entrance on

42nd Street, between Fifth and Sixth

Avenues. Interested persons should

contact the Cultural Property Office at

(202) 619–6612 by 5 pm (ESDT), June

23.

Dated: May 25, 2000.

William B. Bader,

Assistant Secretary of State for Educational

and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 00–13543 Filed 5–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–11–U

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Dockets No. 301–62a and 301–100a]

Proceedings Concerning the European

Communities’ Regime for the

Importation, Sale and Distribution of

Bananas and the European

Communities’ Measures Concerning

Meat and Meat Products

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Request for comments

SUMMARY: The interagency Section 301

Committee is soliciting written

comments on possible modifications to

actions taken by the United States as a

result of the European Communities’

(EC) failure to implement the

recommendations and rulings of the

World Trade Organization (WTO)

Dispute Settlement Body in proceedings

regarding (i) the EC’s regime for the

importation, sale, and distribution of

bananas (the EC-Bananas case) and (ii)

the EC’s ban on the import of U.S. meat

and meat products produced from

animals treated with certain hormones

(the EC-Beef Hormones case). Comments

are requested with respect to the

products listed in the annexes to this

notice. The Section 301 Committee will

consider the comments received in

response to this notice, as well as

comments previously received with

respect to particular products.

Accordingly, persons who have

previously submitted comments with

respect to particular products are

requested not to resubmit such

comments, although persons may wish

to submit updates to previously

submitted comments. The relevant

statutory provision provides that the

actions taken by the United States in the

Beef and Bananas cases should be

modified, unless (1) the USTR and the

affected U.S. industries agree that such

changes are unnecessary, or (2)

resolution of the case is imminent.

DATES: To be assured of consideration,

written comments should be submitted

by 5 p.m. on June 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: Chairman, Section 301

Committee, Attn: Implementation of

WTO Recommendations, Room 100, 600

17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sybia Harrison, Staff Assistant to the

Section 301 Committee, (202) 395–3419,

for questions concerning procedures for

filing submissions in response to this

notice; Ralph Ives, Deputy Assistant

U.S. Trade Representative, (202) 395–

6127, for questions concerning the ECBananas case or the EC-Beef Hormones

case; or William Busis, Associate

General Counsel (202) 395–3150, for

questions concerning procedures under

Section 301 or the WTO Agreement.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. The EC-Bananas Case

The EC’s regime governing the

importation, sale, and distribution of

bananas is discriminatory and has

harmed the economic interests of the

United States by denying to U.S.

companies a major portion of their

banana distribution business. WTO

dispute settlement panels have

confirmed that the EC’s banana regime

is inconsistent with the EC’s obligations

under the WTO Agreement.

Furthermore, WTO arbitrators have

determined that the EC’s banana regime

has nullified or impaired U.S. benefits

under the WTO Agreement in the

amount of $191.4 million per year. The

procedural and substantive background

of the U.S. investigation under Sections

301 to 309 of the Trade Act of 1974, as

amended (‘‘Section 301’’) and the

associated WTO proceedings concerning

the EC’s banana regime is set forth in

prior notices (64 FR 19,209, 63 FR

71,665, 63 FR 63,099, 63 FR 56,687, and

63 FR 8248)

As a result of the EC’s failure to

comply with recommendations and

rulings of the WTO Dispute Settlement

Body (DSB) to bring its discriminatory

banana regime into compliance with

WTO obligations, on April 19, 1999 the

DSB authorized the United States to

suspend the application to the EC, and

member States thereof, of WTO tariff

concessions and related obligations

covering trade in an amount of $191.4

million per year. Pursuant to that

authorization, the USTR announced a

list of EC products, reprinted in Annex

I to this notice, that would be subject to

a 100 percent rate of duty (64 FR 19209).

Since that time, the United States and

the EC have continued to consult in an

effort to resolve this dispute. However,

the EC has still failed to bring its banana

regime into compliance with the EC’s

obligations under the WTO Agreement.

B. The EC-Beef Hormones Case

The EC bans the import of beef and

beef products produced from animals to

which certain hormones have been

administered, despite the facts that such

products have been consumed safely for

decades and that no scientific basis

exists for imposing such a ban. The

effect of the EC ban is to prohibit the

import of substantially all U.S.-

produced beef and beef products. WTO

panels have confirmed that the EC has

no scientific basis for banning imports

of U.S. beef, and that the EC ban is

inconsistent with the EC’s WTO

obligations. Furthermore, WTO

arbitrators have determined that the

EC’s import ban on U.S. beef and beef

products has nullified or impaired U.S.

benefits under the WTO Agreement in

the amount of $116.8 million each year.

The procedural and substantive

background of the U.S. investigation

under Section 301 and the associated

WTO proceedings concerning the EC’s

beef import ban is set forth in prior

notices (64 FR 40,638 and 64 FR

14,486).

As a result of the EC’s failure to

comply with DSB recommendations and

rulings concerning its beef import ban,

on July 26, 1999 the DSB authorized the

United States to suspend the application

to the EC, and member States thereof, of

WTO tariff concessions and related

obligations covering trade in an amount

of $116.8 million per year. Pursuant to

that authorization, the USTR announced

a list of EC products, reprinted in Annex

III to this notice, that would be subject