Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices 46797

additional 60 days and also requested a

public hearing. KCS replied to these

petitions stating in essence that

petitioners had not provided sufficient

reason why the 45-day comment period

was inadequate.

In carefully reviewing CCAP’s

concerns, as well as those expressed by

other parties, SEA believes that the 45-

day comment period specified by CEQ

guidelines is sufficient in this case.

However, in order to allow every

opportunity for public input into the

Board’s NEPA process in this case, SEA

will accept comments to the draft EIS

for an additional 15 days past the

current due date of September 8, 1997.

Comments to the draft EIS will now be

due on September 23, 1997.

If you wish to file comments on the

draft EIS, send an original and 10 copies

to: Vernon A. Williams, Secretary,

Surface Transportation Board, Suite

700, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20423. Mark the lower left corner of

the envelope: Attention: Michael

Dalton, Environmental Comments,

Finance Docket No. 32530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Dalton, Section of

Environmental Analysis, Room 528,

Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423;

phone number (202) 565–1530. TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 565–1695.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because

the Board served the draft EIS on the

parties of record on July 16, 1997 and

the 45-day comment period did not

begin until the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) published the

Notice of EIS Availability in the Federal

Register on July 25, 1997, the actual

total time between the service and

distribution of the draft EIS and the end

of the comment period is 55 days. The

additional 15-day extension results in a

70-day comment period.

In addition, CEQ guidelines and the

Board’s environmental rules do not

require a public hearing to solicit

comments on a draft EIS. SEA believes

that the submission of written

comments, which is the Board’s normal

procedure, is sufficient to develop the

record in this case. In this regard, the

Board has found that written comments

provide necessary and effective written

documentation of environmental issues

and concerns for our public record.

By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief,

Section of Environmental Analysis.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–23462 Filed 9–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

Fee Schedule for the Service to the

TREASURY DIRECT Investor of Selling

Securities Held in TREASURY DIRECT

Accounts in the Secondary Market

AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt,

Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury is announcing the schedule of

fees to be charged to the TREASURY

DIRECT investor for the service of

selling unmatured securities held in

TREASURY DIRECT in the secondary

market. The service will be provided by

a designated Federal Reserve Bank

acting as fiscal agent of the United

States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Koch, Director, Division of

Customer Service, Bureau of the Public

Debt, (304) 480–6748; Susan Klimas,

Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Bureau of the Public Debt,

(304) 480–5192; Edward C. Gronseth,

Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Bureau of the Public

Debt, (304) 480–5192.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 4, 1997, the Department of

the Treasury amended the general

regulations governing book-entry

Treasury Bonds, Notes and Bills to offer

TREASURY DIRECT investors the

service of selling their unmatured

marketable securities held in their

TREASURY DIRECT accounts in the

secondary market. At the request of the

investor, the securities will be

transferred to the designated Federal

Reserve Bank, acting as fiscal agent of

the United States, to be sold on behalf

of the investor.

A transaction fee will be charged for

each security sold on behalf of the

investor. For purposes of computing the

transaction fee, a security is considered

as any amount within a TREASURY

DIRECT account which is identified by

a separate CUSIP number. Thus, if an

investor has several holdings within a

TREASURY DIRECT account of varying

amounts, but all are identified by the

same CUSIP number, and all are

transferred in one transaction, only one

transaction fee will be charged, since

the holdings are considered as one

security. If the investor has several

holdings within a TREASURY DIRECT

account, each with a different CUSIP

number, then a separate transaction fee

will be charged for each holding, as

each holding with a separate CUSIP

number is considered a separate

security. If an investor has two

TREASURY DIRECT accounts, and each

account has a security with a CUSIP

identical to the security in the other

account, then a separate transaction fee

will be charged for each security, since

each security within each account is

considered a separate security. If the

Federal Reserve Bank is unable to

complete the sale of the security, no

transaction fee will be charged. The

transaction fee will be deducted from

the settlement amount by the Federal

Reserve Bank.

Schedule of Fees for the Sale of

Securities in the Secondary Market

The fee schedule for the sale of an

unmatured security held in TREASURY

DIRECT by the designated Federal

Reserve Bank in the secondary market

on behalf of the investor is as follows:

a fee of $34 will be charged for each

security held in a TREASURY DIRECT

account which is sold in the secondary

market on behalf of the investor by the

designated Federal Reserve Bank acting

as fiscal agent of the United States.

Dated: August 29, 1997.

Richard L. Gregg,

Commissioner of the Public Debt.

[FR Doc. 97–23570 Filed 9–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–39–M

UNITED STATES INFORMATION

AGENCY

Training Programs for Slovakia,

Slovenia, Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia, the

Baltics and Poland

ACTION: Request for proposals.

SUMMARY: The Office of Citizen

Exchanges of the United States

Information Agency’s Bureau of

Educational and Cultural Affairs

announces an open competition for an

assistance award. Public and private

non-profit organizations meeting the

provisions described in IRS regulation

26 CFR 1.501(c) may apply to develop

training programs that link their

international exchange interests in

Central and Eastern Europe with

counterpart institutions/groups in ways

supportive of the aims of the Bureau of

Educational and Cultural Affairs.

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
46798 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices

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 cited above is provided

through the Fulbright-Hays Act.

Programs and projects must conform

with Agency requirements and

guidelines outlined in the Solicitation

Package. USIA projects and programs

are subject to the availability of funds.

Announcement Title and Number: All

communications with USIA concerning

this RFP should refer to the

announcement’s title and reference

number E/P–98–04.

Deadline for Proposals: All copies

must be received at the U.S. Information

Agency by 5 p.m. Washington, DC time

on Friday, November 14, 1997. Faxed

documents will not be accepted at any

time. Documents postmarked by the due

date but received at a later date will not

be accepted. Grants may begin on March

1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Office of Citizens Exchange, E/PE,

Room 220, U.S. Information Agency,

301 4th Street SW., Washington, DC

20547, telephone: 202–619–5319; fax:

202–619–4350; Internet Address:

{cminer@usia.gov} to request a

Solicitation Package containing more

detailed forms, and standard guidelines

for preparing proposals, including

specific criteria for preparation of the

proposal budget.

To Download a Solicitation Package

Via Internet: The entire Solicitation

Package may be downloaded from

USIA’s website at http://www.usia.gov/

education/rfps. Please read all

information before downloading.

To Receive a Solicitation Package Via

Fax on Demand: The entire Solicitation

Package may be received via the

Bureau’s ‘‘Grants Information Fax on

Demand System’’, which is accessed by

calling 202/401–7616. Please request a

‘‘Catalog’’ of available documents and

order numbers when first entering the

system.

Please specify USIA Program Officer

Christina Miner on all inquiries and

correspondences. Interested applicants

should read the complete Federal

Register announcement before sending

inquiries or submitting proposals. Once

the RFP deadline has passed, Agency

staff may not discuss this competition in

any way with applicants until the

Bureau proposal review process has

been completed.

Submissions: Applicants must follow

all instructions given in the Solicitation

Package. The original and ten copies of

the application should be sent to: U.S.

Information Agency, Ref.: E/P–98–04,

Office of Grants Management, E/XE,

Room 326, 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. This

material must be provided in ASCII text

(DOS) format with a maximum line

length of 65 characters. USIA will

transmit these files electronically to

USIS posts overseas for their review,

with the goal of reducing the time it

takes to get posts’ comments for the

Agency’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’’, USIA ‘‘shall take

appropriate steps to provide

opportunities for participation in such

programs to human rights and

democracy leaders of such countries.’’

Proposals should account for

advancement of this goal in their

program contents, to the full extent

deemed feasible.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Diminished resources have forced USIA

to limit the scope of this announcement;

regrettably, proposals for countries and

themes other than the ones described

below will not be eligible for

consideration.

USIA is interested in proposals in the

following areas and countries:

Slovakia: Projects should focus on the

free-flow of information for Slovak

libraries. Objectives of the project would

be to introduce the practical use of new

technologies and new library services

for citizens. There is particular interest

in assisting the parliamentary library to

become a source of information about

the parliament and lawmaking for the

whole country and not just a research

service for its members. In addition,

Slovak partners should include the

librarian’s association and leading

university and public libraries,

particularly Bratislava’s University

Library. Proposals for less than $110,000

will receive preference. Costs of up to

$10,000 may be used to cover

equipment purchases and subscriptions

to the Internet.

Slovenia: Projects should focus on

municipal administration and devolving

greater administrative power from the

federal level to municipalities. The first

phase of the project should consist of incountry workshops for mayors from

many of the 147 counties or ‘‘opcina’’ in

Slovenia. Workshop topics could

include how local governments raise

revenue, economic development for

municipalities and the provision of

municipal services. During the second

phase of the project six to eight mayors

should participate in a U.S. study tour

which would include site visits to

municipal governments in small to

medium sized cities. Proposals for less

than $75,000 will receive preference.

Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia: Proposals for

this multi-country project should focus

on the themes of diversity in a

democracy, the protection of minority

rights, and human rights law. The first

phase of the project would consist of incountry workshops held in Bosnia,

Croatia, and Serbia for 20 to 30

participants in each country. The

workshops may be held outside of the

capital cities. Phase two should be a

U.S. program for approximately three

participants from each country.

Proposals for less than $75,000 will be

given preference.

Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania: Proposals

for this multi-country project should

focus on intellectual property rights

(IPR), with a special concentration on

copyright protection for films/videos,

music recordings, computer software,

and similar products subject to piracy.

Participants should include: (1)

Government officials responsible both

for drafting and enforcing laws and

regulations; (2) lawyers, judges and

distributors or licensing organizations

involved with presenting and deciding

infringement cases; and (3) press and

media, to engage them in raising public

consciousness about IPR protection. The

first phase of the project would bring

U.S. project staff to Estonia, Latvia and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices 46799

Lithuania in order to become familiar

with the particular legal regime and

market environment in each country

and to meet with the principal players

in the copyright enforcement arena.

Project staff would also familiarize

themselves with the efforts of

organizations such as the WTO, EU

Phare, WIPO, and embassy elements

that are already working in the area.

The second phase of the project

would include one to two day training

workshops in each country. The

workshops would consist of seminars

for customs officers on techniques for

identifying and seizing infringing goods;

for lawyers and judges on the elements

of proving infringement, damages and

remedies allowed by statute; and the

licensees, copyright owners and media

representatives on informing the public

about the value of protecting copyrights.

A final workshop component should

bring the above groups of people

together to facilitate understanding of

the full scope of the issue and to

develop an effective solution to issues of

piracy. The third phase of the project

would be a U.S. training program for a

selected group of participants.

Participants would receive first-hand

exposure to piracy investigation

techniques, customs inspection

practices, licensing policies of collective

rights organizations, preparation and

presentation of a case in court, public

relations strategies and related IPR

enforcement and protection endeavors.

Projects for less than $100,000 will

receive preference.

Poland: Projects should consist of two

parts. Part one should focus on

intellectual property rights and

copyright law. Participants should be

representatives of both large and small

Polish presses. The second part should

focus on economic survival techniques

for small press operations. Participants

should include representatives of

Poland’s small, serious presses. The

project goals should be to foster better

respect of intellectual property rights in

Poland and to help serious, small

presses survive in Poland’s free market

economy. Projects for less than $90,000

will receive preference.

Exchange and training programs

supported by institutional grants should

operate at two levels: They should

enhance institutional relationships; and

they should offer practical and

comparative information to individuals

to assist them with their professional

responsibilities. Strong proposals

usually have the following

characteristics: An existing partner

relationship between an American

organization and a host-country

institution; a proven track record of

conducting program activity; cost

sharing from American or in-country

sources, including donations of air fares,

hotel and housing costs; experienced

staff with language facility; and a clear,

convincing plan showing how

permanent results will be accomplished

as a result of the activity funded by the

grant. USIA wants to see tangible forms

of time and money contributed to the

project by the prospective grantee

institution, as well as funding from

third party sources.

Note: Research projects or projects limited

to technical issues are not eligible for support

nor are film festivals or exhibits. Exchange

programs for students or faculty or proposals

that request support for the development of

university curricula or for degree-based

programs are also ineligible under this RFP.

Proposals to link university departments or

to exchange faculty and/or students are

funded by USIA’s Office of Academic

Programs (E/A) under the University

Affiliation Program and should not be

submitted in response to this RFP.

Guidelines

1. All grant proposals must clearly

describe the type of persons who will

participate in the program as well as the

process by which participants will be

selected. In the selection of all foreign

participants, USIA and USIS posts

retain the right to nominate participants

and to approve or reject participants

recommended by the program

institution. Programs must also comply

with J–1 visa regulations.

2. Programs that include internships

in the U.S. should provide letters

tentatively committing host institutions

to support the internships. Letters of

commitment from the hosts of study

tour site visits should also be included,

if applicable.

3. Applicants are encouraged to

consult with USIS offices regarding

program content and partner

institutions before submitting proposals.

Award-receiving applicants will be

expected to maintain contact with the

USIS post throughout the grant period.

Proposed Budget

Please refer to the Solicitation

Package for complete budget

instructions. Applicants must submit a

detailed line item budget based on

specific instructions in the Program and

Budget Guidelines of Proposal

Submission Instructions. Proposals for

the following amounts will receive

preference:

Slovakia: $110,000.

Slovenia: $75,000.

Croatia/Bosnia/Serbia: $75,000.

Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania: $100,000.

Poland: $90,000.

Proposals with strong cost-sharing

will be given priority.

Grants awarded to eligible

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. There must be a

summary budget as well as a breakdown

reflecting both the administrative

budget and the program budget. For

further clarification, applicants may

provide separate sub-budgets for each

program component, phase, location, or

activity in order to facilitate USIA

decisions on funding.

Allowable costs for the program

include the following:

(1) International and domestic air

fares; visas; transit costs; ground

transportation costs.

(2) Per Diem. For the U.S. program,

organizations have the option of using a

flat $140/day for program participants

or the published U.S. Federal per diem

rates for individual American cities. For

activities outside the U.S., the published

Federal per diem rates must be used.

Note: U.S. escorting staff must use the

published Federal per diem rates, not the flat

rate.

(3) Interpreters. If needed, interpreters

for the U.S. program are provided by the

U.S. State Department Language

Services Division. Typically, a pair of

simultaneous interpreters is provided

for every four visitors. USIA grants do

not pay for foreign interpreters to

accompany delegations from their home

country. Grant proposal budgets should

contain a flat $140/day per diem for

each Department of State interpreter, as

well as home-program-home air

transportation of $400 per interpreter

plus any U.S. travel expenses during the

program. Salary expenses are covered

centrally and should not be part of an

applicant’s proposed budget.

(4) Book and cultural allowance.

Participants are entitled to and escorts

are reimbursed a one-time cultural

allowance of $150 per person, plus a

participant book allowance of $50. U.S.

staff do not get these benefits.

(5) Consultants. May be used to

provide specialized expertise or to make

presentations. Daily honoraria generally

do not exceed $250 per day.

Subcontracting organizations may also

be used, in which case the written

agreement between the prospective

grantee and subcontractor should be

included in the proposal.

(6) Room rental, which generally

should not exceed $250 per day.

(7) Materials development. Proposals

may contain costs to purchase, develop,

and translate materials for participants.
46800 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices

(8) One working meal per project. Per

capita costs may not exceed $5–8 for a

lunch and $14–20 for a dinner,

excluding room rental. The number of

invited guests may not exceed

participants by more than a factor of

two-to-one.

(9) All USIA-funded delegates will be

covered under the terms of a USIAsponsored health insurance policy. The

premium is paid by USIA directly to the

insurance company.

(10) Other costs necessary for the

effective administration of the program,

including salaries for grant organization

employees, benefits, and other direct

and indirect costs per detailed

instructions in the application package.

Review Process

USIA 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.

Eligible proposals will be forwarded

to panels of USIA officers for advisory

review. All eligible proposals will be

reviewed by the program office, as well

as the USIA Office of East European and

Newly Independent States Affairs and

the USIA post overseas, where

appropriate. Proposals may be reviewed

by the Office of the General Counsel or

by other Agency elements. Funding

decisions are at the discretion of the

USIA Associate Director for Educational

and Cultural Affairs. Final technical

authority for assistance awards (grants

or cooperative agreements) resides with

the USIA 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. Program planning ability to achieve

objectives: Program objectives should be

stated clearly and precisely and should

reflect the applicant’s expertise in the

subject area and the region. Objectives

should respond to the priority topics in

this announcement and should relate to

the current conditions in each of the

countries. They should be reasonable

and attainable. A detailed work plan

should explain step by step how

objectives will be achieved. The

substance of seminars, presentations,

consulting, internships, and itineraries

should be spelled out in detail. A

timetable indicating when major

program tasks will be undertaken

should be provided. Responsibilities of

in-country partners should be clearly

described.

2. 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).

3. Institutional Capacity: Proposed

personnel and institutional resources

should be adequate and appropriate to

achieve the program or project’s goals.

The narrative should demonstrate

proven ability to handle logistics.

Proposal should reflect the institution’s

expertise in the subject area and

knowledge of the country. Proposals

should demonstrate the institutional

record of successful exchange programs,

including responsible fiscal

management and full compliance with

all reporting requirements for past

Agency grants as determined by USIA’s

Office of Contracts. The Agency will

consider the past performance of prior

recipients and the demonstrated

potential of new applicants.

4. Project Evaluation: USIA is resultsoriented. Proposals should include a

plan to evaluate the activity’s success,

both as the activities unfold and at the

end of the program. USIA recommends

that the proposal include a draft survey

questionnaire and/or plan for use of

another measurement technique (such

as focus group) to link outcomes to

original project objectives. Awardreceiving organizations/institutions will

be expected to submit intermediate

reports after each project component is

concluded or quarterly, whichever is

less frequent.

5. Follow-on Activities: Proposals

should provide a plan for continued

follow-on activity (without USIA

support) which ensures that USIA

supported programs are not isolated

events.

6. Cost-effectiveness/cost sharing: 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. Proposals should

maximize cost-sharing through other

private sector support as well as

institutional direct funding

contributions.

Notice

The terms and conditions published

in this RFP are binding and may not be

modified by any USIA representative.

Explanatory information provided by

the Agency 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 Agency 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. Organizations

will be expected to cooperate with USIA

in evaluating their programs under the

principles of the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993,

which requires federal agencies to

measure and report on the results of

their programs and activities.

Notification

Final awards cannot be made until

funds have been appropriated by

Congress, allocated and committed

through internal USIA procedures.

Dated: September 28, 1997.

James D. Whitten,

Acting Deputy Associate Director for

Educational and Cultural Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–23432 Filed 9–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M