Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices 66405

L. 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

Currently, the IRS is soliciting

comments concerning an existing final

regulation, LR–189–80 (TD 7927),

Amortization of Reforestation

Expenditures (§§ 1.194–2 and 1.194–4).

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before February 17, 1998

to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue

Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

should be directed to Carol Savage,

(202) 622–3945, Internal Revenue

Service, room 5569, 1111 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Amortization of Reforestation

Expenditures.

OMB Number: 1545–0735.

Regulation Project Number: LR–189–

80.

Abstract: Internal Revenue Code

section 194 allows taxpayers to elect to

amortize certain reforestation

expenditures over a 7-year period if the

expenditures meet certain requirements.

The regulations implement this election

provision and allow the IRS to

determine if the election is proper and

allowable.

Current Actions: There is no change to

this existing regulation.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households, business or other for-profit

organizations, and farms.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

12,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 30

minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 6,001.

The following paragraph applies to all

of the collections of information covered

by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless the collection of information

displays a valid OMB control number.

Books or records relating to a collection

of information must be retained as long

as their contents may become material

in the administration of any internal

revenue law. Generally, tax returns and

tax return information are confidential,

as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval. All comments will become a

matter of public record.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

collection of information; (c) ways to

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity

of the information to be collected; (d)

ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on

respondents, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology;

and (e) estimates of capital or start-up

costs and costs of operation,

maintenance, and purchase of services

to provide information.

Approved: December 10, 1997.

Garrick R. Shear,

IRS Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–32965 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Notice of Renewal of the Charter of the

Information Reporting Program

Advisory Committee

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.

L. 92–463, as amended), this

announcement serves as notice that the

Department of the Treasury and the

General Services Administration’s

Committee Management Secretariat

have renewed the charter of the

Information Reporting Program

Advisory Committee (IRPAC) for a twoyear period beginning on November 7,

1997. As the services of IRPAC are

expected to be needed for an indefinite

period of time, no termination date has

been established which is less than two

years from this date.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1991

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

established IRPAC in response to a

recommendation made by the United

States Congress. The primary purpose of

IRPAC is to provide an organized public

forum for discussion of relevant

information reporting issues between

the officials of the IRS and

representatives of the payer community.

IRPAC offers constructive observations

about current or proposed policies,

programs, and procedures and, when

necessary, suggests ways to improve the

operation of the Information Reporting

Program (IRP). IRPAC reports to the

National Director, Office of Specialty

Taxes, who is the executive responsible

for information reporting payer

compliance. IRPAC is instrumental in

providing advice to enhance the IR

Program. Increasing participation by

external stakeholders in the planning

and improvement of the tax system will

help achieve the goals of increasing

voluntary compliance, reducing burden,

and improving customer service. IRPAC

is currently comprised of 18

representatives from various segments

of the information reporting payer

community and one member from the

Social Security Administration. IRPAC

members are not paid for their time or

services, but consistent with Federal

regulations, they are reimbursed for

their travel and lodging expenses to

attend two or three meetings each year.

DATES: The request for renewal of the

charter was signed by the Secretary of

the Treasury on November 7, 1997.

Official approval from the General

Service Administration’s Committee

Management Secretariat was obtained

on the same day. This charter renewal

will expire in two years.

ADDRESSES: Questions or concerns

should be directed to Ms. Kate LaBuda

at IRS, Office of Payer Compliance,

CP:EX:ST:PC, Room 2013, 1111

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions or concerns will also be taken

over the telephone. Call Ms. Kate

LaBuda at 202–622–3404 (not a toll-free

number).

Dated: December 12, 1997.

Kate LaBuda,

(Acting) Director, Office of Payer Compliance,

Office of Specialty Taxes.

[FR Doc. 97–32961 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

UNITED STATES INFORMATION

AGENCY

Women’s Leadership Training Program

for Central and Eastern Europe;

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 offer leadership

training skills to women in Albania,

Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech

Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
66406 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices

Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia,

Slovakia, and Slovenia.

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 cited above is provided

through the Fulbright-Hays Act.

Progams 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–98–19.

Deadline for Proposals: All copies

must be received at the U.S. Information

Agency by 5 p.m. Washington, D.C. time

on Friday, February 27, 1998. 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. We anticipate that grants

will begin on or about June 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Office of Citizen Exchange (E/PE)

Room 224, U.S. Information Agency,

301 4th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20547, telephone: 202–619–5319, fax:

202–619–4350, or Internet address:

cminer@usia.gov, to request a

Solicitation Package containing more

detailed information. Please request

required application 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–98–19,

Office of Grants Management, E/XE,

Room 326, 301 4th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 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:

Overview

USIA is interested in proposals that

encourage the growth of democratic

institutions in Central and Eastern

Europe. Exchanges and training

programs supported by the Office of

Citizen Exchange’s institutional grants

should operate at two levels: they

should enhance institutional

relationships; and they should offer

practical 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 an in-country

institution in Central and Eastern

Europe; a proven track record of

conducting program activity; costsharing from American or in-country

sources, including donations or air

fares, hotel and/or 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. We

recommend that programs with a U.S.

component include letters of

commitment from host institutions,

even if tentative. Letters of commitment

from any in-country partners should

also be provided. 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.

USIA requests proposals for projects

that offer leadership training skills to

representatives of women’s

organizations who are active in their

own communities in Albania, Bosnia,

Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic,

Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,

Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and

Slovenia. The focus of the training

program should be on how to identify

priorities, organize and form coalitions,

and influence decision makers about

issues and problems affecting the wellbeing of people in local communities.

Proposals are not limited to a onecountry focus but may address how to

build networks among women’s

organizations in several countries.

Project activities may include:

internships; study tours; short-term

training; consultations; and extended,

intensive workshops taking place in the

United States or in Central and Eastern
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices 66407

Europe. Prospective grantee institutions

should identify the Central and Eastern

European local organizations and

individuals with whom they are

proposing to collaborate and describe in

detail previous cooperative

programming and contacts. Program

activity may take place in Central and

Eastern Europe or in the United States.

This activity is intended to follow-up on

issues addressed in the Vital Voices

conference held in Vienna from July 9–

11. For more information on the

conference, please see the Vital Voices

Homepage at http://www.usia.gov/

vitalvoices.

Selection of Participants

Programs should describe clearly 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 foreign participants,

USIA and USIS posts abroad retain the

right to nominate participants and to

approve or reject participants

recommended by the grantee institution.

Priority will be given to foreign

participants who have not previously

traveled to the United States.

Visa Regulations

Foreign participants on programs

sponsored by the Office of Citizen

Exchanges are granted J–1 Exchange

Visitor visas by the American Embassy

in the sending country.

Project Funding

Since USIA grant assistance

constitutes only a portion of total

project funding, proposals should list

and provide evidence of other sources of

financial and in-kind support. Proposals

with substantial private sector support

from foundations, corporations, and

other institutions will be considered

highly competitive.

Although no set funding limit exists,

proposals for less that $75,000 will

receive preference. Organizations with

less that four years of successful

experience in managing international

exchange programs are limited to

$60,000. Applicants are invited to

provide both an all-inclusive budget as

well as separate sub-budgets for each

program component, phase, location or

activity in order to facilitate USIA

decisions on funding. While a

comprehensive line item budget based

on the model in the Solicitation Package

must be submitted, separate component

budgets are optional.

The following project costs are

eligible for consideration for funding:

1. International and domestic air

fares; 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. Per diem rates may be accessed at http:/

/www.policyworks.gov/.

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 interpreters, 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.

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. A return travel allowance of $70 for

each participant which is to be used for

incidental expenditures incurred during

international travel.

10. 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.

11. Administrative Costs. Other costs

necessary for the effective

administration of the program,

including salaries or grant organization

employees, benefits, and other direct

and indirect costs per detailed

instructions in the application package.

Please refer to the Solicitation

Package for complete budget guidelines

and formatting instructions.

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 NIS 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. Quality of Program Idea: Proposals

should respond to the program

requirements of the RFP and exhibit

originality, substance, precision, and

relevance to the Agency mission.

2. Program planning and 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

topic in this announcement and should

relate to the current conditions in the

target 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, interships, 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.

3. 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 wrap-
66408 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices

up sessions, program meetings, resource

materials and follow-up activities).

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

Notification

Final awards cannot be made until

funds have been appropriated by

Congress, allocated and committed

through internal USIA procedures.

Dated: December 11, 1997.

Robert L. Earle,

Deputy Associate Director for Educational

and Cultural Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–32815 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Cost-of-Living Adjustments and

Headstone or Marker Allowance Rate

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: As required by law, the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is

hereby giving notice of cost-of-living

adjustments (COLAs) in certain benefit

rates and income limitations. These

COLAs affect the pension, parents’

dependency and indemnity

compensation (DIC), and spina bifida

programs. These adjustments are based

on the rise in the Consumer Price Index

(CPI) during the one-year period ending

September 30, 1997. VA is also giving

notice of the maximum amount of

reimbursement that may be paid for

headstones or markers purchased in lieu

of Government-furnished headstones or

markers in Fiscal Year 1998, which

began on October 1, 1997.

DATES: These COLAs are effective

December 1, 1997. The headstone or

marker allowance rate is effective

October 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Trowbridge, Consultant, Compensation

and Pension Service (213B), Veterans

Benefit Administration, Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273–

7218.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38

U.S.C. 2306(d), VA may provide

reimbursement for the cost of nonGovernment headstones or markers at a

rate equal to the actual cost or the

average actual cost of Governmentfurnished headstones or markers during

the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year

in which the non-Government

headstone or marker was purchased,

whichever is less.

Section 8041 of Pub. L. 101–508

amended 38 U.S.C. 2306(d) to eliminate

the payment of the monetary allowance

in lieu of a VA-provided headstone or

marker for deaths occurring on or after

November 1, 1990. However, in a

precedent opinion (O. G. C. Prec. 17–

90), VA’s General Counsel held that

there is no limitation period applicable

to claims for benefits under the

provisions of 38 U.S.C. 2306(d).

The average actual cost of

Government-furnished headstones or

markers during any fiscal year is

determined by dividing the sum of VA

costs during that fiscal year for

procurement, transportation, and

miscellaneous administration,

inspection and support staff by the total

number of headstones and markers

procured by VA during that fiscal year

and rounding to the nearest whole

dollar amount.

The average actual cost of

Government-furnished headstones or

markers for Fiscal Year 1997 under the

above computation method was $109.

Therefore, effective October 1, 1997, the

maximum rate of reimbursement for

non-Government headstones or markers

purchased during Fiscal Year 1998 is

$109.

Cost-of-Living Adjustments

Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.

5312 and section 306 of Pub. L. 95–588,

VA is required to increase the benefit

rates and income limitations in the

pension and parents’ DIC programs by

the same percentage, and effective the

same date, as increases in the benefit

amounts payable under title II of the

Social Security Act. The increased rates

and income limitations are also required

to be published in the Federal Register.

The Social Security Administration

has announced that there will be a 2.1

percent cost-of-living increase in Social

Security benefits effective December 1,

1997. Therefore, applying the same

percentage and rounding up in

accordance with 38 CFR 3.29, the

following increased rates and income

limitations for the VA pension and

parents’ DIC programs will be effective

December 1, 1997: