Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Notices 37591

NYSE, Rebekah Liu, Special Counsel, Division,

Commission, and Sonia Patton, Attorney, Division,

Commission (June 7, 2000).

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

13 15 U.S.C. 78k–1(a)(1).

14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).

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

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(d)(1). 17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

Commission Rule 10a–1. Commission

staff notes that Commission Rule 10a–1

and Exchange Rule 440B do not permit

the execution of short sales on a minus

or zero minus tick. The Exchange

believes that the specialist should be

exempted from Commission Rule 10a–1

when he or she is taking the contra side

of an auto ex execution on a minus or

zero minus tick because of Exchange

Rule 1001(a)(iv), and has an existing

short position, or would be creating a

short position by virtue of such

execution. In such instance, the

specialist should be granted an

exemption from Commission Rule 10a–

1 because the specialist is required to

trade at a price set by other market

participants. Accordingly, the Exchange

will be submitting under separate cover

a request for the appropriate relief from

Rule 10a–1 under these circumstances.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes the basis for

this proposed rule change is the

requirement under section 6(b)(5) of the

Act 12 that an Exchange have rules that

are designed to promote just and

equitable principles of trade, to remove

impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market

and a national market system and, in

general, to protect investors and the

public interest. The proposed rule

change also is designed to support the

principles of Section 11A(a)(1) of the

Act 13 in that it seeks to assure

economically efficient execution of

securities transactions, make it

practicable for brokers to execute

investors’ orders in the best market, and

provide an opportunity for investors’

orders to be executed without the

participation of a dealer.

With respect to the addition to the

summary fine list under NYSE Rule

476A, the proposed rule change will

also advance the objectives of section

6(b)(6) of the Act 14 by providing a

procedure whereby member

organizations can be ‘‘appropriately

disciplined’’ in those instances when a

rule violation is minor in nature, but a

sanction more serious than a warning or

cautionary letter is appropriate. In

addition, the proposed rule change

provides a fair procedure for imposing

such sanctions, in accordance with the

requirements of sections 6(b)(7) 15 and

6(d)(1) 16 of the Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change will impose

any burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance

of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

The Exchange has not solicited or

received written comments on the

proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register or within such longer period (i)

as the Commission may designate up to

90 days of such date if it finds such

longer period to be appropriate and

publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii) as to which the Exchange consents,

the Commission will:

A. By order approve the proposed rule

change, or

B. Institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule change

should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW,

Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of

the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the NYSE. All

submissions should refer to the File No.

SR–NYSE–00–18 and should be

submitted by July 6, 2000.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.17

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–15127 Filed 6–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3334]

Bureau of Educational and Cultural

Affairs: Program Title: Israel-Arab

Peace Partners Program; Request for

Proposals

SUMMARY: The Office of Citizen

Exchanges of the Bureau of Educational

and Cultural Affairs of the United States

Department of State announces an open

competition for grants under the IsraelArab Peace Partners Program. U.S.

public and private non-profit

organizations meeting the provisions

described in IRS regulation 26 CFR

1.501(c) may submit proposals to

develop and implement exchange

programs involving participants from

both Israel and one or more Arab

countries/entities in the Middle East or

North Africa. Four grant awards are

anticipated, as outlined below.

Program Information

Overview

The Office of Citizen Exchanges of the

Bureau of Educational and Cultural

Affairs, U.S. Department of State,

consults with and supports American

public and private nonprofit

organizations in developing and

implementing multi-phased, often

multi-year, exchanges of professionals,

academics, youth leaders, public policy

advocates, etc. These exchanges are

focused on issues crucial to both the

United States and the foreign countries

involved, they represent focused,

substantive, and cooperative interaction

among counterparts, and they entail

both theoretical and experiential

learning for all participants. A primary

goal is the development of sustained,

international institutional and

individual linkages. In addition to

providing a context for professional

development and cooperative,

international problem-solving, these

projects are intended to introduce

participants to one another’s political,

social, and economic structures.

Desirable components of an exchange

may be local citizen involvement and

activities that orient foreign participants

to American society and culture.

37592 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Notices

The Israel-Arab Peace Partners

Program is based on the premise that

people-to-people exchanges—

particularly those that are youth

oriented and that focus on cooperative

efforts in community and institutional

development—will contribute to

enhanced mutual understanding and

will increase the prospect for peaceful

co-existence among Middle Eastern

societies, specifically between Israel and

its Arab neighbors. Participants should

include college and graduate students as

well as leaders and public policy

advocates in various professions. In

response to the aspirations of this

program, the Office of Citizen

Exchanges solicits proposals for four

exchange projects that respond to the

project foci and guidelines suggested

below.

1. Dispute Resolution/Conflict

Prevention

This exchange should focus on preemotive dispute resolution, peer

mediation, and conflict prevention and

management in the context of school,

community, and youth organization

activities. Participants might be teacher

trainers, mediators, secondary school

teachers, youth organization leaders,

and older students. The focus should be

on initiatives and programs that have

been found to be effective in defusing or

managing conflict based on, or

exacerbated by, communal differences.

The role played by the media in

communal conflict, the destructive

effects of stereotyping and scapegoating,

and the positive potential for youth

initiative and activism are all topics that

might be addressed. The project should

entail two to three phases of

international travel, and it should

directly involve, in the course of its

several phases, 15 to 20 foreign

participants. Grant requests that do not

exceed $135,000 will receive priority

consideration.

2. Environmental Concerns and Civic

Responsibility

This exchange should engage

teachers, trainers, project leaders, and

youth, and it should focus on

environmental concerns, civic

responsibility, and activism/

volunteerism. Community or schoolbased, non-governmental organizations

that have engaged in grass-roots

educational efforts and have mobilized

local schools and youth groups to

undertake projects to conserve/protect

the environment, perhaps including or

overlapping with grassroots lobbying

efforts or the initiation of public-private

cooperative projects, are a model. The

project should entail two to three phases

of international travel, and it should

directly involve, in the course of its

several phases, 15 to 20 foreign

participants. Grant requests that do not

exceed $135,000 will receive priority

consideration.

3. Strengthening Non-Governmental

Organizations

This exchange should focus on

developing, strengthening, and

managing community service-oriented,

youth-based, non-governmental

organizations. The development of a

sense of community service/

responsibility and a feeling of efficacy

among the successor generations of the

Middle East may nurture a broader

sense of responsibility for cooperative

efforts between/among communities.

This project may focus on leadership

and management training as well as on

such organizational needs as education,

recruitment, fundraising, public

relations, and program development.

The project should entail two to three

phases of international travel, and it

should directly involve, in the course of

its several phases, 15 to 20 foreign

participants. Grant requests that do not

exceed $135,000 will receive priority

consideration.

4. A Community-Based Exchange

The applicant should propose a

community-based exchange which

would bring together, in a sustained

series of discussions and site visits,

young civic activists, organizational

leaders, and public policy advocates in

various professions from five

communities: One American

community, one Israeli community, and

at least three communities selected from

potential partners: Egypt, Jordan, the

West Bank/Gaza, Morocco, Tunisia,

Qatar, the United Arab Emirates,

Kuwait, or Oman. This project should

focus on a general theme of mutual

importance to the participating

communities, such as conflict

resolution, primary and high school

education, administration of justice,

preventing corruption in government,

social welfare, urban environment, etc.

This exchange would involve a greater

number of participants than the three

projects suggested above. Grant requests

that do not exceed $161,000 will receive

priority consideration.

Suggested activities for the above

projects might include:

1. Initial needs assessment/orientation

travel (if necessary) by American

organizers to develop contacts and

relationships with both American

Mission officers and counterpart

organizations/individuals in the

countries with which the exchange will

be conducted.

2. A U.S.-based program, including

orientation to program purposes and to

U.S. society, discussions, site visits,

limited shadowing or internship

opportunities.

3. A return visit by selected American

professionals/youth to collaborate with

participants in the U.S.-based program

in conducting workshops, seminars, onsite training, networking.

4. Longer (two-week), intensive, joint

internship in the U.S. for two or three

selected youth leaders—one Israeli; one

or more Arab—from the Middle East.

The Office of Citizen Exchanges

encourages applicants to be creative in

planning project implementation.

Activities may include both theoretical

orientation and experiential,

community-based initiatives designed to

achieve concrete objectives.

Applicants should, in their proposals,

identify any partner organizations and/

or individuals in the U.S. with which/

whom they are proposing to collaborate

and justify on the basis of experience,

accomplishments, etc.

Selection of Participants

Successful applications should

include a description of an open, meritbased participant selection process.

Applicants should anticipate working

closely with the Public Affairs Sections

of U.S. Embassies (PAS) abroad in

selecting participants, with Embassies

retaining the right to nominate

participants and to advise the grantee

regarding participants recommended by

other entities.

Public Affairs Section Involvement

The Public Affairs Sections of the U.S.

Embassies play an important role in

project implementation. Posts evaluate

project proposals, coordinate planning

with the grantee organization and incountry partners, facilitate in-country

activities, nominate participants and vet

grantee nominations, observe in-country

activities, debrief participants, and

evaluate project impact. U.S. Missions

are responsible for issuing IAP–66 forms

in order for foreign participants to

obtain the necessary J–1 visas for entry

to the United States. They also serve as

a link to in-country partners and

participants.

Though project administration and

implementation are the responsibility of

the grantee, the grantee is expected to

inform the PAS in participating

countries of its operations and

procedures and to coordinate with and

involve PAS officers in the development

of project activities. The PAS should be

consulted regarding country priorities,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Notices 37593

current security issues, and related

logistic and programmatic issues.

Visa Regulations

Foreign participants on programs

sponsored by ECA are granted J–1

Exchange Visitor visas by the U.S.

Embassy in the sending country. All

programs must comply with J–1 visa

regulations. Please refer to Solicitation

Package for further information.

Budget Guidelines

Applicants must submit a

comprehensive line item budget based

on guidance provided in the Proposal

Submission Instructions (PSI) of the

Solicitation Package. Maximum award

amounts are cited above. Grants

awarded to organizations with less than

four years of experience in conducting

international exchange programs will be

limited to $60,000.

Applicants must submit a

comprehensive budget for the entire

program. Awards may not exceed the

amounts cited in the guidelines above.

There must be a summary budget as

well as breakdowns reflecting both

administrative and program budgets.

Applicants may provide separate subbudgets for each program component,

phase, location, or activity to provide

clarification. Proposals that present

evidence of cost sharing—in cash or in

kind—representing 33% or more of the

total cost of the exchange project will

receive priority consideration.

Allowable costs include the

following:

(1) Direct program expenses

(2) Administrative expenses,

including indirect costs

Please refer to the Solicitation

Package for budget guidelines and

formatting instructions.

Announcement Title and Number

All correspondence with the Bureau

concerning this RFP should reference

the above title and number ECA PE/C–

00–68.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Office of Citizen Exchanges, ECA/PE/C,

Room 224, U.S. Department of State,

301 4th Street, SW, Washington, DC

20547, attention: Thomas Johnston.

Telephone number 202/260–0299 or

202/619–5325; fax number 202/619–

435; Internet address to request a

Solicitation Package,

tjohnsto@pd.state.gov. The Solicitation

Package contains detailed award

criteria, required application forms,

specific budget instructions, and

standard guidelines for proposal

preparation. Please specify Bureau

Program Officer Thomas Johnston on all

inquiries and correspondence.

Please read the complete Federal

Register announcement before sending

inquiries or submitting proposals. Once

the RFP deadline has passed, Bureau

staff may not discuss this competition

with applicants until the proposal

review process has been completed.

To Download a Solicitation Package

Via Internet

The entire Solicitation Package may

be downloaded from the Bureau’s

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

education/rfps. Please read all

information before downloading.

Deadline for Proposals

All proposal copies must be received

at the Bureau of Educational and

Cultural Affairs by 5 p.m. Washington,

DC time on Friday, September 8, 2000.

Faxed documents will not be accepted

at any time. Documents postmarked the

due date but received on a later date

will not be accepted. Each applicant

must ensure that the proposals are

received by the above deadline.

Applicants must follow all

instructions in the Solicitation Package.

The original and ten copies of the

application should be sent to: U.S.

Department of State, SA–44, Bureau of

Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.:

ECA/PE/C–00–68, Program

Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 336,

301 4th Street, SW, Washington, DC

20547.

Applicants must also submit the

‘‘Executive Summary’’ and ‘‘Proposal

Narrative’’ sections of the proposal on a

3.5′′ diskette, formatted for DOS. These

documents must be provided in ASCII

text (DOS) format with a maximum line

length of 65 characters. The Bureau will

transmit these files electronically to the

Public Affairs section at the US Embassy

for its review, with the goal of reducing

the time it takes to get embassy

comments for the Bureau’s grants

review process.

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, socioeconomic status, and physical

challenges. 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 the total

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.’’

Proposals should reflect advancement of

this goal in their program contents, to

the full extent deemed feasible.

Year 2000 Compliance Requirement

(Y2K Requirement)

The Year 2000 (Y2K) issue is a broad

operational and accounting problem

that could potentially prohibit

organizations from processing

information in accordance with Federal

management and program specific

requirements including data exchange

with the Bureau. The inability to

process information in accordance with

Federal requirements could result in

grantees’ being required to return funds

that have not been accounted for

properly.

The Bureau therefore requires all

organizations use Y2K compliant

systems including hardware, software,

and firmware. Systems must accurately

process data and dates (calculating,

comparing and sequencing) both before

and after the beginning of the year 2000

and correctly adjust for leap years.

Additional information addressing the

Y2K issue may be found at the General

Services Administration’s Office of

Information Technology website at

http://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov.

Review Process

The Bureau will acknowledge receipt

of all proposals and will review them

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

forwarded to panels of Bureau officers

for advisory review. Proposals may also

be reviewed by the Office of the Legal

Adviser or by other Department

elements. Final funding decisions are at

the discretion of the Department of

State’s Under Secretary for Public

Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Final

technical authority for assistance

awards (grants or cooperative

agreements) resides with the Bureau’s

Grants Officer.

37594 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Notices

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 be substantive, well

thought out, focused on issues of

demonstrable relevance to all proposed

participants, and responsive, in general,

to the exchange suggestions and

guidelines provided above.

2. Implementation Plan and Ability to

Achieve Objectives: A detailed project

implementation plan should establish a

clear and logical connection between

the interest, the expertise, and the

logistic capacity of the applicant and the

objectives to be achieved. The plan

should discuss, in concrete terms, how

the institution proposes to achieve the

objectives. Institutional resources—

including personnel—assigned to the

project should be adequate and

appropriate to achieve project

objectives. The substance of workshops

and site visits should be included as an

attachment, and the responsibilities of

U.S. participants and in-country

partners should be clearly described.

3. Institution’s Record/Ability:

Proposals should include an

institutional record of successful

exchange programs, with reference to

responsible fiscal management and full

compliance with reporting

requirements. The Bureau will consider

the demonstrated potential of new

applicants and will evaluate the

performance record of prior recipients

of Bureau grants as reported by the

Bureau grant staff.

4. Follow-on Activities: Proposals

should provide a plan for sustained

follow-on activity (building on the

linkages developed under the grant and

the activities initially funded by the

grant, after grant funds have been

depleted), ensuring that Bureausupported projects are not isolated

events.

5. Project Evaluation/Monitoring:

Proposals should include a plan to

monitor and evaluate the project’s

implementation, both as the activities

unfold and at the end of the program.

Reports should include both

accomplishments and problems

encountered. A discussion of survey

methodology or other disclosure/

measurement techniques, plus a

description of how outcomes are

defined in terms of the project’s original

objectives, is recommended. Successful

applicants will be expected to submit a

report after each project component is

concluded or semi-annually, whichever

is less frequent.

6. Impact: Proposed projects should,

through the establishment of

substantive, sustainable individual and

institutional linkages and through

encouraging maximum sharing of

information and cross-boundary

cooperation, enhance mutual

understanding among communities and

societies.

7. Cost Effectiveness and Cost

Sharing: Administrative costs should be

kept low. Proposal budgets that provide

evidence of cost sharing comprised of

cash or in-kind contributions,

representing 33 percent or more of the

total cost of the exchange will be given

priority consideration. Cost sharing may

be derived from diverse sources,

including private-sector contributions

and/or direct institutional support.

8. Support for Diversity: Proposals

should demonstrate support for the

Bureau’s policy on diversity. Features

relevant to this policy should be cited

in program implementation (selection of

participants, program venue, and

program evaluation), program content,

and program administration.

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 FulbrightHays Act. The purpose of the Act is ‘‘to

enable the Government of the 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.

Notice

The terms and conditions published

in this RFP 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 RFP does not constitute an award

commitment on the 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.

Notification

Final awards cannot be made until

funds have been appropriated by

Congress, allocated and committed

through internal Bureau procedures.

Dated: June 5, 2000.

Evelyn S. Lieberman,

Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and

Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

[FR Doc. 00–14666 Filed 6–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–11–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Trade Policy Staff Committee; Public

Comments on Proposed United StatesJordan Free Trade Agreement

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This publication gives notice

that United States intends to conduct

negotiations with the Hashemite

Kingdom of Jordan to conclude a free

trade agreement. The Trade Policy Staff

Committee (TPSC) is requesting written

comments from the public to assist the

United States Trade Representative

(USTR) in formulating negotiating

objectives for the agreement and to

provide advice on how specific goods

and services and other matters should

be treated under the agreement. This

publication also provides notice that

USTR, through the TPSC, will perform

an environmental review of the

agreement.

DATES: Public comments are due by

noon July 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

procedural questions concerning public

comments, contact Gloria Blue,

Executive Secretary, TPSC, Office of the

USTR, 600 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20508 (202) 395–3475.

All other questions regarding the

negotiations should be addressed to

Adam Shub, Director for Middle Eastern

Affairs, Office of the USTR (202) 395–

3320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6,

2000, President Clinton agreed with

Jordan’s King Abdullah II to negotiate a

bilaterial free trade agreement. In the

negotiations, the United States and

Jordan will seek to eliminate duties and

commercial barriers to bilateral trade in

U.S.- and Jordanian-origin goods and

also expect to address trade in services,

trade-related aspects of intellectual

property rights, trade-related