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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Notices 37595

environmental and labor matters, and

other issues.

Written comments with as much

specificity as possible, including data,

views and arguments, are invited on:

(a) General and commodity-specific

negotiating objectives for the agreement.

(b) Economic costs and benefit to U.S.

producers and consumers of removal of

tariffs and non-tariff barriers to U.S.-

Jordan trade.

(c) Treatment of specific goods

(described by Harmonized System tariff

numbers) under the agreement,

including comments on (1) product

specific import or export interests or

barriers, (2) experience with particular

measures that should be addressed in

the negotiations, and (3) in the case of

articles for which immediate

elimination of tariffs is not appropriate,

recommended staging schedule for such

elimination.

(d) Adequacy of existing customs

measures to ensure Jordanian origin of

imported goods, and appropriate rules

of origin for goods entering the United

States under the agreement.

(e) Proposals for service sectors to be

addressed in the agreement, existing

barriers to trade in those sectors, and

economic costs and benefits of removing

such barriers.

(f) Relevant trade-related intellectual

property rights issues that should be

addressed in the negotiations.

(g) Relevant trade-related

environmental and labor issues that

should be addressed in the negotiations.

(h) Possible environmental effects of

the agreement.

USTR, through the TPSC, will

perform an environmental review of the

proposed agreement pursuant to

Executive order 13141, 64 FR 63169.

Comments identifying as present or

potential trade barriers laws or

regulations that are not primarily traderelated should address the economic,

political and social objectives of such

regulations and the degree to which

they discriminate against producers of

the other country.

Written Comments

Persons submitting written comments

should provide twenty (20) copies no

later than noon, July 17, 2000, to Gloria

Blue at address listed above. Where

possible, please supplement written

comments with a computer disk of the

submission containing as much of the

technical details as possible either in

spreadsheet or word processing table

format, with each tariff line/services

sector in a separate cell. The disk

should have a label identifying the

software used and the submitter.

Written comments submitted in

connection with this request, except for

information granted ‘‘business

confidential’’ status pursuant to 15 CFR

2003.6, will be available for public

inspection in the USTR Reading Room

(Room 101) at the address noted above.

An appointment to review the file may

be made by calling Brenda Webb at

(202) 395–6186. The Reading Room is

open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 12

noon, and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Monday

through Friday.

Business confidential information,

including any information submitted on

disks, will be subject to the

requirements of 15 CFR 2003.6. Any

business confidential material must be

clearly marked as such on the cover

letter or page and each succeeding page,

and must be accompanied by a nonconfidential summary thereof. If the

submission contains business

confidential information, twenty copies

of a public version that does not contain

confidential information, must be

submitted. A justification as to why the

information contained in the

submission should be treated

confidentially must be included in the

submission. In addition, any

submissions containing business

confidential information must be clearly

marked ‘‘Confidential’’ at the top and

bottom of the cover page (or letter) and

each succeeding page of the submission.

The version that does not contain

confidential information should also be

clearly marked, at the top and bottom of

each page, ‘‘public version’’ or ‘‘nonconfidential.’’

Nancy A. LeaMond,

USTR, Chief of Staff.

[FR Doc. 00–15060 Filed 6–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3901–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–175]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding

Regarding Indian Measures Affecting

Trade and Investment in the Motor

Vehicle Sector

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of the United

States Trade Representative (‘‘USTR’’ is

providing notice of the request for the

establishment of a dispute settlement

panel under the Marrakesh Agreement

Establishing the World Trade

Organization (‘‘WTO’’), by the United

States, to examine Public Notice No. 60

((PN)/97–02) of the Indian Ministry of

Commerce, published in the Gazette of

India Extraordinary, effective 12

December 1997 (‘‘Public Notice 60’’);

the Foreign Trade (Development and

Regulation) Act 1992; the Export and

Import Policy, 1997–2002; memoranda

of understanding signed by the

Government of India with

manufacturing firms in the motor

vehicle sector pursuant to Public Notice

No. 60; and certain related Indian

legislative and administrative measures.

In this dispute, the United States alleges

that these measures are inconsistent

with the obligations of India under

Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994

(GATT 1994) and Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of

the Agreement on Trade-Related

Investment Measures. The USTR invites

written comments from the public

concerning the issues raised in this

dispute.

DATES: Although the USTR will accept

any comments received during the

course of the dispute settlement

proceedings, comments should be

submitted by July 28, 2000, to be

assured of timely consideration by the

USTR in preparing its first written

submission to the panel.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Sandy

McKinzy, Monitoring and Enforcement

Unit, Office of the General Counsel,

Room 122, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW, Washington, DC, 20508, Attn: India

Motor Vehicle Dispute. Telephone:

(202) 395–3582.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven F. Fabry, Associate General

Counsel, telephone: (202) 395–3582;

Christopher Rosettie, Director for

Multilateral Services and Investment

Affairs, telephone: (202) 395–7271; or

Joseph Damond, telephone: (202) 395–

6813.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C.

3537(b)(1)), the USTR is providing

notice that on May 15, 2000, the United

States submitted a request for the

establishment of a WTO dispute

settlement panel to examine the United

States’ claim that certain Indian

measures affecting trade and investment

in the motor vehicle sector are

inconsistent with India’s obligations

under the GATT 1994 and the

Agreement on Trade-Related Investment

Measures. The WTO Dispute Settlement

Body is likely to establish a dispute

settlement panel no later than the end

of July, 2000. Under normal

circumstances, the panel, which will