Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 56645 

51 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). 

52 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

improve the transparency of this 

process. 

With respect to an event that causes 

the price to cross to a different specified 

percentage threshold for breaking 

trades, the Commission believes that the 

proposal is sufficiently clear regarding 

the applicability of the new rule. As to 

the specific example provided by the 

commenter, under the proposed rule, if 

a stock triggers a trading pause, the 

Trading Pause Trigger Price would be 

used as the Reference Price. The 

Trading Pause Trigger Price is 

calculated by the listing market over a 

rolling five minute period. If the 

Trading Pause Trigger Price is 

calculated at a level below $25.00, as 

identified in the example, then the 10% 

threshold would apply to clearly 

erroneous execution reviews of the 

Trigger Trade and other transactions 

that occur immediately after a Trigger 

Trade but before the trading pause is 

fully implemented across markets. If 

another series of transactions trigger a 

second trading pause, the review 

process set forth in the rule would be 

repeated and a new Reference Price 

would be calculated to determine the 

appropriate percentage threshold. 

With respect to the potential for 

market participants to engage in 

manipulation in order to achieve a 

higher trade break percentage threshold, 

the Commission emphasizes that it will 

vigorously pursue instances of illegal 

market manipulation. In addition, 

during the pilot period, the Commission 

will work with FINRA to review the 

operation of the amended rule, and 

make improvements as warranted, 

including if it appears the selected 

percentage thresholds create distortions 

or incent improper or illegal behavior. 

With respect to the chosen 

parameters, the Commission notes that 

the parameters that were selected were 

the product of a coordinated and 

deliberate effort by FINRA and the 

Exchanges to improve the handling of 

clearly erroneous trades. Regarding the 

specific comment expressing concern 

that breaking trades only when they are 

10%, 5% or 3% away from the Trading 

Pause Trigger Price has the practical 

effect of doubling the trading pause 

parameters, the Commission notes that, 

as an initial matter, implementation of 

the individual stock trading pause 

should prevent most trades from 

occurring at prices outside of the 

Trading Pause Trigger Price. To the 

extent trades occur outside of such price 

before the trading pause is fully applied 

across all markets, the Commission 

believes that it is appropriate to break 

these ‘‘leakage’’ trades only when they 

are a meaningful percentage away from 

the Trading Pause Trigger Price. This is 

consistent with the traditional approach 

of the Exchanges and FINRA to take the 

more extreme step of breaking a trade 

only in cases where it occurs at a price 

sufficiently away from the current 

market price that the parties should 

have been on notice it may be ‘‘clearly 

erroneous.’’ Of course, the pilot program 

may indicate that different parameters 

are better to accomplish the stated goals. 

If so, the parameters could be changed 

as part of the overall initiative. The 

Commission will further study and 

consider the examples and suggestions 

offered by the commenters during the 

pilot period. 

D. Commission Findings 

The Commission finds that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the requirements of the Act and the 

rules and regulations thereunder 

applicable to FINRA. In particular, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

requirements of Section 15A(b)(6) of the 

Act,51 which, among other things, 

requires that the rules of FINRA be 

designed to prevent fraudulent and 

manipulative acts and practices, 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. 

In the Commission’s view, the 

proposed rule change will help assure 

that the determination of whether a 

clearly erroneous trade has occurred 

will be based on clear and objective 

criteria, and that the resolution of the 

incident will occur promptly through a 

transparent process. The proposed rule 

change also should help assure 

consistent results in handling erroneous 

trades across the U.S. markets, thus 

furthering fair and orderly markets, the 

protection of investors and the public 

interest. Finally, the Commission notes 

that the proposed rule change is being 

implemented on a pilot basis so that the 

Commission and FINRA can monitor 

the effects of the pilot on the markets 

and investors, and consider appropriate 

adjustments, as necessary. 

IV. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,52 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–FINRA– 

2010–032), be, and hereby is, approved. 

By the Commission. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23075 Filed 9–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7173] 

Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA) Request for Grant 

Proposals: Study of the United States 

Institutes for Scholars and Secondary 

Educators 

Announcement Type: New 

Cooperative Agreement. 

Funding Opportunity Number: ECA/ 

A/E/USS–11–05–09. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Number: 19.401. 

Key Dates: 

Application Deadline: October 27, 

2010. 

Executive Summary: The Branch for 

the Study of the United States, Office of 

Academic Exchange Programs, Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 

invites proposal submissions for the 

design and implementation of five 

different Study of the United States 

Institutes to take place over the course 

of six weeks beginning in June 2011, 

pending the availability of funds. These 

Institutes should provide a 

multinational group of experienced 

educators with a deeper understanding 

of U.S. society, culture, values, and 

institutions. 

Four of these Institutes will be for 

groups of 18 foreign university level 

faculty, focusing on American Politics 

and Political Thought, Contemporary 

American Literature, Religious 

Pluralism in the United States, and U.S. 

Foreign Policy. The fifth Institute will 

be a general survey course on the study 

of the United States for a group of 30 

foreign secondary educators. 

Applicants may propose to submit 

one proposal to host only one Institute 

listed under this competition. Should an 

applicant submit multiple proposals 

under this competition, all proposals 

will be declared technically ineligible 

and given no further consideration in 

the review process. 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

56646 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 

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. 

Purpose: Study of the United States 

Institutes are intensive academic 

programs whose purpose is to provide 

foreign university faculty, secondary 

educators, and other scholars the 

opportunity to deepen their 

understanding of American society, 

culture, and institutions. The ultimate 

goal is to strengthen curricula and to 

improve the quality of teaching about 

the United States in academic 

institutions abroad. 

The Bureau is seeking detailed 

proposals for five different Study of the 

United States Institutes. Applications 

may be submitted by public and private 

U.S. colleges, universities, and other 

not-for-profit academic organizations 

that have an established reputation in a 

field or discipline related to the specific 

program theme, and which meet the 

provisions described in Internal 

Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 

501(c)(3). 

Overview: Each program should be six 

weeks in length; participants will spend 

approximately four weeks at the host 

institution, and approximately two 

weeks on an educational study tour, 

including four to five days in 

Washington, DC, at the conclusion of 

the Institute. The educational travel 

component should directly complement 

the academic program, and should 

include visits to cities and other sites of 

interest in the region around the 

recipient institution, as well as to 

another geographic region of the 

country. The recipient institution also 

will be expected to provide participants 

with guidance and resources for further 

investigation and research on the topics 

and issues examined during the 

Institute after they return home. 

The Study of the United States 

Institute on American Politics and 

Political Thought should provide a 

multinational group of 18 experienced 

foreign university faculty and 

practitioners with a deeper 

understanding of U.S. political 

institutions and major currents in 

American political thought. The 

Institute should provide the foreign 

participants insight into how 

intellectual and political movements 

have influenced modern American 

political institutions. The Institute 

should provide an overview of political 

thought during the founding period 

(constitutional foundations), and the 

development and current functioning of 

the American presidency, Congress, and 

the federal judiciary. The examination 

of political institutions might be 

expanded to include the electoral 

system, political parties and interest 

groups, the civil service system, media 

and think tanks, or the welfare/ 

regulatory state. The Institute should 

address modern political and cultural 

issues in the United States (including 

but not limited to civil rights, women’s 

rights, immigration, etc.), and the 

significance of public discourse in the 

formulation of public policy. One award 

of up to $290,000 will support this 

Institute. 

The Study of the United States 

Institute on Contemporary American 

Literature should provide a 

multinational group of up to 18 

experienced foreign university faculty 

and practitioners with a deeper 

understanding of U.S. society and 

culture, past and present, through an 

examination of contemporary American 

literature. Its purpose is twofold: (1) To 

explore contemporary American writers 

and writing in a variety of genres; and 

(2) to suggest how the themes explored 

in those works reflect larger currents 

within contemporary American society 

and culture. The program should 

explore the diversity of the American 

literary landscape, examining how 

major contemporary writers, schools 

and movements reflect the traditions of 

the American literary canon. At the 

same time, the Institute should expose 

participants to writers who represent a 

departure from that tradition, and who 

are establishing new directions for 

American literature. One award of up to 

$290,000 will support this Institute. 

The Study of the United States 

Institute on Religious Pluralism in the 

United States should provide a 

multinational group of up to 18 

experienced foreign university faculty 

and practitioners with a deeper 

understanding of U.S. society and 

culture, past and present, through an 

examination of religious pluralism in 

the United States and its intersection 

with American democracy. Employing a 

multi-disciplinary approach, drawing 

on fields such as history, political 

science, sociology, anthropology, law 

and others where appropriate, the 

program should explore both the 

historical and contemporary 

relationship between church and state 

in the United States; examine the ways 

in which religious thought and practice 

have influenced, and been influenced 

by, the development of American-style 

democracy; examine the intersections of 

religion and politics in the United States 

in such areas as elections, public policy, 

and foreign policy; and explore the 

sociology and demography of religion in 

the United States today, including a 

survey of the diversity of contemporary 

religious beliefs and its impact on 

American politics. One award of up to 

$290,000 will support this Institute. 

The Study of the U.S. Institute on U.S. 

Foreign Policy should provide a 

multinational group of 18 experienced 

foreign university faculty and 

practitioners with a deeper 

understanding of how U.S. foreign 

policy is formulated and implemented 

with an emphasis on the post Cold War 

period. This Institute should begin with 

a review of the historical development 

of U.S. foreign policy and cover 

significant events, individuals, and 

philosophies that have dominated U.S. 

foreign policy. In addition, the Institute 

should explain the role of key players in 

the field of foreign policy including the 

executive and legislative branches, the 

media, public opinion, think-tanks, nongovernmental and international 

organizations and how these players 

debate, cooperate, influence policy, and 

are held accountable. Regional sessions, 

for the entire group, highlighting salient 

topics such as energy security and 

environmental policy in Europe; trade 

and human rights issues in Asia; foreign 

aid and humanitarian assistance in 

Africa; drug trafficking and immigration 

issues for the Western Hemisphere; and 

combating terrorism in the Near East 

and South Asia are among the relevant 

issues that might be explored. In 

addition, sessions focusing on current 

issues such as nuclear disarmament, the 

Middle East peace process, or U.S. 

military actions would be appropriate. 

The host institution should provide a 

comprehensive and cohesive program, 

ensuring that a diversity of views is 

presented and remain flexible based on 

final composition of the participant 

group. One award of up to $290,000 will 

support this Institute. 

The Study of the U.S. Institute for 

Secondary Educators should provide a 

multinational group of 30 experienced 

secondary school educators (teachers, 

teacher trainers, curriculum developers, 

textbook writers, or education ministry 

officials) with a deeper understanding of 

U.S. society, education, and culture— 

past and present. The Institute should 

be organized around a central theme or 

themes in U.S. civilization and should 

have a strong contemporary component. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 56647 

Through a combination of traditional, 

multi-disciplinary, and interdisciplinary 

approaches, program content should be 

imaginatively integrated in order to 

elucidate the history and evolution of 

U.S. educational institutions and values, 

broadly defined. The program should 

also serve to illuminate contemporary 

political, social, and economic debates 

in American society. One award of up 

to $360,000 will support this Institute. 

Program Design: Each Study of the 

U.S. Institute should be designed as an 

intensive, academically rigorous 

seminar for an experienced group of 

educators from abroad. Each Institute 

should be organized through an 

integrated series of lectures, readings, 

seminar discussions, and regional travel 

and site visits, and also should include 

sessions that expose participants to U.S. 

pedagogical philosophy and practice for 

teaching the discipline. Each Institute 

also should include some opportunity 

for limited but well-directed 

independent research. Each program 

should draw from a diverse disciplinary 

base, and should itself provide a model 

of how a foreign university might 

approach the study of United States. 

Applicants are encouraged to design 

thematically coherent programs in ways 

that draw upon the particular strengths, 

faculty, and resources of their 

institutions as well as upon the 

nationally recognized expertise of 

scholars and other experts throughout 

the United States. 

Participants: Participants will be 

nominated by U.S. Embassies and 

Fulbright Commissions from all regions 

of the world, with final selection made 

by the Bureau’s Branch for the Study of 

the United States. Every effort will be 

made to select a balanced mix of male 

and female participants. Participants 

will be diverse in terms of age, 

professional position, and experience 

abroad. All participants will have a 

good knowledge of English. 

Program Dates: The Institutes should 

be a maximum of 44 days in length 

(including participant arrival and 

departure days) and should begin by 

June 2011, pending the availability of 

funds. 

Program Guidelines: While the 

conception and structure of the Institute 

agenda is the responsibility of the 

recipient, it is essential that proposals 

provide a detailed and comprehensive 

narrative describing the objectives of the 

Institute; the title, scope and content of 

each session; planned site visits; and 

how each session relates to the overall 

Institute theme. Proposals must include 

a syllabus that indicates the subject 

matter for each lecture, panel 

discussion, group presentation, or other 

activity. The syllabus also should 

confirm or provisionally identify 

proposed speakers, trainers, and session 

leaders, and clearly show how assigned 

readings will advance the goals of each 

session. Overall, proposals will be 

reviewed on the basis of their 

responsiveness to RFGP criteria, 

coherence, clarity, and attention to 

detail. The accompanying Project 

Objectives, Goals, and Implementation 

(POGI) document provides programspecific guidelines that all proposals 

must address fully. 

Please note: In a cooperative agreement, 

the Branch for the Study of the United States 

is substantially involved in program 

activities above and beyond routine grant 

monitoring. The Branch will assume the 

following responsibilities for the Institute: 

Participate in the selection of participants; 

oversee the Institute through one or more site 

visits; debrief participants in Washington, DC 

at the conclusion of the Institute; and engage 

in follow-on communication with the 

participants after they return to their home 

countries (see POGI document for additional 

details). The Branch may request that the 

recipient make modifications to the academic 

residency and/or educational travel 

components of the program. The recipient 

will be required to obtain approval of 

significant program changes in advance of 

their implementation. 

II. Award Information 

Type of Award: Cooperative 

Agreement. ECA’s level of involvement 

in this program is listed under number 

I above. 

Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2011. 

Approximate Total Funding: 

$1,520,000 (pending the availability of 

funds). 

Approximate Number of Awards: Five 

(5). 

Approximate Average Award: Four 

awards of $290,000 for 18 participants 

each; one award of $360,000 for 30 

participants. 

Floor of Award Range: Approximately 

$290,000. 

Ceiling of Award Range: $360,000. 

Anticipated Award Date: Pending 

availability of funds, February 1, 2011. 

Anticipated Project Completion Date: 

March 2012. 

Additional Information: Pending 

successful implementation of these 

programs and the availability of funds 

in subsequent fiscal years, it is ECA’s 

intent to renew these cooperative 

agreements for two additional fiscal 

years before openly competing them 

again. 

III. Eligibility Information 

III.1. Eligible Applicants 

Applications may be submitted by 

public and private U.S. colleges, 

universities, and other not-for-profit 

academic organizations that have an 

established reputation in a field or 

discipline related to the specific 

program theme, and which meet the 

provisions described in Internal 

Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 

501(c)(3). 

III.2. Cost Sharing or Matching Funds 

There is no minimum or maximum 

percentage required for this 

competition. However, the Bureau 

encourages applicants to provide 

maximum levels of cost sharing and 

funding in support of its programs. 

When cost sharing is offered, it is 

understood and agreed that the 

applicant must provide the amount of 

cost sharing as stipulated in its proposal 

and later included in an approved 

agreement. Cost sharing may be in the 

form of allowable direct or indirect 

costs. For accountability, you must 

maintain written records to support all 

costs which are claimed as your 

contribution, as well as costs to be paid 

by the Federal government. Such 

records are subject to audit. The basis 

for determining the value of cash and 

in-kind contributions must be in 

accordance with OMB Circular A–110, 

(Revised), Subpart C.23—Cost Sharing 

and Matching. In the event you do not 

provide the minimum amount of cost 

sharing as stipulated in the approved 

budget, ECA’s contribution will be 

reduced in like proportion. 

III.3. Other Eligibility Requirements 

(a) Bureau grant guidelines require 

that organizations with fewer than four 

years experience in conducting 

international exchanges be limited to 

$60,000 in Bureau funding. ECA 

anticipates making five awards, four in 

an amount up to $290,000, and in one 

in an amount up to $360,000 to support 

the program and administrative costs 

required to implement this exchange 

program. Therefore, organizations with 

fewer than four years experience in 

conducting international exchanges are 

ineligible to apply under this 

competition. The Bureau encourages 

applicants to provide maximum levels 

of cost sharing and funding in support 

of its programs. 

(b) Technical Eligibility: It is the 

Bureau’s intent to award five separate 

cooperative agreements to five different 

institutions under this competition. 

Therefore prospective applicants may 

submit only one proposal under this 

competition. All applicants must 

comply with this requirement. Should 

an applicant submit multiple proposals 

under this competition, all proposals 

will be declared technically ineligible 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

56648 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 

and given no further consideration in 

the review process. 

IV. Application and Submission 

Information 

Note: Please read the complete 

announcement before sending inquiries or 

submitting proposals. Once the RFGP 

deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not 

discuss this competition with applicants 

until the proposal review process has been 

completed. 

IV.1 Contact Information to Request an 

Application Package 

Please contact the Branch for the 

Study of the United States, ECA/A/E/ 

USS, Fourth Floor, U.S. Department of 

State, SA–5, 2200 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20522–0504, (202) 632– 

3340 to request a Solicitation Package. 

Please refer to the Funding Opportunity 

Number ECA/A/E/USS–11–05–09 

located at the top of this announcement 

when making your request. 

Alternatively, an electronic 

application package may be obtained 

from grants.gov. Please see section IV.3f 

for further information. 

The Solicitation Package contains the 

Proposal Submission Instruction (PSI) 

document which consists of required 

application forms, and standard 

guidelines for proposal preparation. 

It also contains the Project Objectives, 

Goals, and Implementation (POGI) 

document, which provides specific 

information, award criteria, and budget 

instructions tailored to this competition. 

Please specify Brendan M. Walsh and 

refer to the Funding Opportunity 

Number ECA/A/E/USS–11–05–09 

located at the top of this announcement 

on all other inquiries and 

correspondence. 

IV.2. To Download a Solicitation 

Package Via Internet 

The entire Solicitation Package may 

be downloaded from the Bureau’s Web 

site at http://exchanges.state.gov/grants/ 

open2.html, or from the Grants.gov Web 

site at http://www.grants.gov. 

Please read all information before 

downloading. 

IV.3. Content and Form of Submission 

Applicants must follow all 

instructions in the Solicitation Package. 

The application should be submitted 

per the instructions under IV.3f. 

‘‘Application Deadline and Methods of 

Submission’’ section below. 

IV.3a. You are required to have a Dun 

and Bradstreet Data Universal 

Numbering System (DUNS) number to 

apply for a grant or cooperative 

agreement from the U.S. Government. 

This number is a nine-digit 

identification number, which uniquely 

identifies business entities. Obtaining a 

DUNS number is easy and there is no 

charge. To obtain a DUNS number, 

access http:// 

www.dunandbradstreet.com or call 1– 

866–705–5711. Please ensure that your 

DUNS number is included in the 

appropriate box of the SF–424 which is 

part of the formal application package. 

IV.3b. All proposals must contain an 

executive summary, proposal narrative, 

and budget. 

Please Refer to the Solicitation 

Package. It contains the mandatory 

Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) 

document and the Project Objectives, 

Goals, and Implementation (POGI) 

document for additional formatting and 

technical requirements. 

IV.3c. You must have nonprofit status 

with the IRS at the time of application. 

Please note: Effective January 7, 2009, 

all applicants for ECA federal assistance 

awards must include in their 

application the names of directors and/ 

or senior executives (current officers, 

trustees, and key employees, regardless 

of amount of compensation). In 

fulfilling this requirement, applicants 

must submit information in one of the 

following ways: 

(1) Those who file Internal Revenue 

Service Form 990, ‘‘Return of 

Organization Exempt From Income 

Tax,’’ must include a copy of relevant 

portions of this form. 

(2) Those who do not file IRS Form 

990 must submit information above in 

the format of their choice. 

In addition to final program reporting 

requirements, award recipients will also 

be required to submit a one-page 

document, derived from their program 

reports, listing and describing their 

grant activities. For award recipients, 

the names of directors and/or senior 

executives (current officers, trustees, 

and key employees), as well as the onepage description of grant activities, will 

be transmitted by the State Department 

to OMB, along with other information 

required by the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act 

(FFATA), and will be made available to 

the public by the Office of Management 

and Budget on its USASpending.gov 

Web site as part of ECA’s FFATA 

reporting requirements. 

If your organization is a private 

nonprofit which has not received a grant 

or cooperative agreement from ECA in 

the past three years, or if your 

organization received nonprofit status 

from the IRS within the past four years, 

you must submit the necessary 

documentation to verify nonprofit status 

as directed in the PSI document. Failure 

to do so will cause your proposal to be 

declared technically ineligible. 

IV.3d. Please take into consideration 

the following information when 

preparing your proposal narrative: 

IV.3d.1. Adherence to All Regulations 

Governing the J Visa. The Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs places 

critically important emphases on the 

security and proper administration of 

the Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs 

and adherence by award recipients and 

sponsors to all regulations governing the 

J visa. Therefore, proposals should 

demonstrate the applicant’s capacity to 

meet all requirements governing the 

administration of the Exchange Visitor 

Programs as set forth in 22 CFR part 62, 

including the oversight of Responsible 

Officers and Alternate Responsible 

Officers, screening and selection of 

program participants, provision of prearrival information and orientation to 

participants, monitoring of participants, 

proper maintenance and security of 

forms, record-keeping, reporting and 

other requirements. 

ECA will be responsible for issuing 

DS–2019 forms to participants in this 

program. 

A copy of the complete regulations 

governing the administration of 

Exchange Visitor (J) programs is 

available at http://exchanges.state.gov 

or from: Office of Designation, Private 

Sector Programs Division, U.S. 

Department of State, ECA/EC/D/PS, SA– 

5, 5th Floor, 2200 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20522–0505. 

Please refer to Solicitation Package for 

further information. 

IV.3d.2. 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, socio-economic 

status, and disabilities. 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 your 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 56649 

democracy leaders of such countries.’’ 

Public Law 106–113 requires that the 

governments of the countries described 

above do not have inappropriate 

influence in the selection process. 

Proposals should reflect advancement of 

these goals in their program contents, to 

the full extent deemed feasible. 

IV.3d.3. Program Monitoring and 

Evaluation. Proposals must include a 

plan to monitor and evaluate the 

project’s success, both as the activities 

unfold and at the end of the program. 

The Bureau recommends that your 

proposal include a draft survey 

questionnaire or other technique plus a 

description of a methodology to use to 

link outcomes to original project 

objectives. The Bureau expects that the 

recipient organization will track 

participants or partners and be able to 

respond to key evaluation questions, 

including satisfaction with the program, 

learning as a result of the program, 

changes in behavior as a result of the 

program, and effects of the program on 

institutions (institutions in which 

participants work or partner 

institutions). The evaluation plan 

should include indicators that measure 

gains in mutual understanding as well 

as substantive knowledge. 

Successful monitoring and evaluation 

depend heavily on setting clear goals 

and outcomes at the outset of a program. 

Your evaluation plan should include a 

description of your project’s objectives, 

your anticipated project outcomes, and 

how and when you intend to measure 

these outcomes (performance 

indicators). The more that outcomes are 

‘‘smart’’ (specific, measurable, attainable, 

results-oriented, and placed in a 

reasonable time frame), the easier it will 

be to conduct the evaluation. You 

should also show how your project 

objectives link to the goals of the 

program described in this RFGP. 

Your monitoring and evaluation plan 

should clearly distinguish between 

program outputs and outcomes. Outputs 

are products and services delivered, 

often stated as an amount. Output 

information is important to show the 

scope or size of project activities, but it 

cannot substitute for information about 

progress towards outcomes or the 

results achieved. Examples of outputs 

include the number of people trained or 

the number of seminars conducted. 

Outcomes, in contrast, represent 

specific results a project is intended to 

achieve and is usually measured as an 

extent of change. Findings on outputs 

and outcomes should both be reported, 

but the focus should be on outcomes. 

We encourage you to assess the 

following four levels of outcomes, as 

they relate to the program goals set out 

in the RFGP (listed here in increasing 

order of importance): 

1. Participant satisfaction with the 

program and exchange experience. 

2. Participant learning, such as 

increased knowledge, aptitude, skills, 

and changed understanding and 

attitude. Learning includes both 

substantive (subject-specific) learning 

and mutual understanding. 

3. Participant behavior, concrete 

actions to apply knowledge in work or 

community; greater participation and 

responsibility in civic organizations; 

interpretation and explanation of 

experiences and new knowledge gained; 

continued contacts between 

participants, community members, and 

others. 

4. Institutional changes, such as 

increased collaboration and 

partnerships, policy reforms, new 

programming, and organizational 

improvements. 

Please note: Consideration should be given 

to the appropriate timing of data collection 

for each level of outcome. For example, 

satisfaction is usually captured as a shortterm outcome, whereas behavior and 

institutional changes are normally 

considered longer-term outcomes. 

Overall, the quality of your 

monitoring and evaluation plan will be 

judged on how well it (1) specifies 

intended outcomes; (2) gives clear 

descriptions of how each outcome will 

be measured; (3) identifies when 

particular outcomes will be measured; 

and (4) provides a clear description of 

the data collection strategies for each 

outcome (i.e., surveys, interviews, or 

focus groups). (Please note that 

evaluation plans that deal only with the 

first level of outcomes [satisfaction] will 

be deemed less competitive under the 

present evaluation criteria.) 

Recipient organizations will be 

required to provide reports analyzing 

their evaluation findings to the Bureau 

in their regular program reports. All 

data collected, including survey 

responses and contact information, must 

be maintained for a minimum of three 

years and provided to the Bureau upon 

request. 

IV.3e. Please take the following 

information into consideration when 

preparing your budget: 

IV.3e.1. Applicants must submit SF– 

424A—‘‘Budget Information—NonConstruction Programs’’ along with a 

comprehensive budget for the entire 

program. Budget requests for either of 

the two scholar institutes may not 

exceed $290,000, and administrative 

costs should be no more than 

approximately $95,000. Budget requests 

for the Institute for Secondary Educators 

may not exceed $360,000, and 

administrative costs should be no more 

than approximately $110,000. 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. 

IV.3e.2. Allowable costs for the 

program include the following: 

(1) Institute staff salary and benefits; 

(2) Participant housing and meals; 

(3) Participant travel and per diem; 

(4) Textbooks, educational materials, 

and admissions fees; 

(5) Honoraria for guest speakers; 

(6) Follow-on programming for 

alumni of Study of the United States 

programs. 

Please refer to the Solicitation 

Package for complete budget guidelines 

and formatting instructions. 

IV.3f. Application Deadline and 

Methods of Submission: 

Application Deadline Date: October 

27, 2010. 

Reference Number: ECA/A/E/USS– 

11–05–09. 

Methods of Submission: 

Applications may be submitted in one 

of two ways: 

(1) In hard-copy, via a nationally 

recognized overnight delivery service 

(i.e., Federal Express, UPS, Airborne 

Express, or U.S. Postal Service Express 

Overnight Mail, etc.), or 

(2) Electronically through http:// 

www.grants.gov. 

Along with the Project Title, all 

applicants must enter the above 

Reference Number in Box 11 on the 

SF–424 contained in the mandatory 

Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) 

of the solicitation document. 

IV.3f.1. Submitting Printed 

Applications. Applications must be 

shipped no later than the above 

deadline. Delivery services used by 

applicants must have in-place, 

centralized shipping identification and 

tracking systems that may be accessed 

via the Internet and delivery people 

who are identifiable by commonly 

recognized uniforms and delivery 

vehicles. Proposals shipped on or before 

the above deadline but received at ECA 

more than seven days after the deadline 

will be ineligible for further 

consideration under this competition. 

Proposals shipped after the established 

deadlines are ineligible for 

consideration under this competition. 

ECA will not notify you upon receipt of 

application. It is each applicant’s 

responsibility to ensure that each 

package is marked with a legible 

tracking number and to monitor/confirm 

delivery to ECA via the Internet. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

56650 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 

Delivery of proposal packages may not 

be made via local courier service or in 

person for this competition. Faxed 

documents will not be accepted at any 

time. Only proposals submitted as 

stated above will be considered. 

Important note: When preparing your 

submission please make sure to include one 

extra copy of the completed SF–424 form and 

place it in an envelope addressed to ‘‘ECA/ 

EX/PM’’. 

The original and six (6) copies of the 

application should be sent to: Program 

Management Division, ECA–IIP/EX/PM, 

Ref.: ECA/A/E/USS–11–05–09, SA–5, 

Floor 4, Department of State, 2200 C 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20522– 

0504. 

IV.3f.2. Submitting Electronic 

Applications. Applicants have the 

option of submitting proposals 

electronically through Grants.gov 

(http://www.grants.gov). Complete 

solicitation packages are available at 

Grants.gov in the ‘‘Find’’ portion of the 

system. 

Please Note: ECA bears no responsibility 

for applicant timeliness of submission or data 

errors resulting from transmission or 

conversion processes for proposals submitted 

via Grants.gov. 

Please follow the instructions 

available in the ‘Get Started’ portion of 

the site (http://www.grants.gov/ 

GetStarted). 

Several of the steps in the Grants.gov 

registration process could take several 

weeks. Therefore, applicants should 

check with appropriate staff within their 

organizations immediately after 

reviewing this RFGP to confirm or 

determine their registration status with 

Grants.gov. 

Once registered, the amount of time it 

can take to upload an application will 

vary depending on a variety of factors 

including the size of the application and 

the speed of your internet connection. 

In addition, validation of an electronic 

submission via Grants.gov can take up 

to two business days. 

Therefore, we strongly recommend 

that you not wait until the application 

deadline to begin the submission 

process through Grants.gov. 

The Grants.gov Web site includes 

extensive information on all phases/ 

aspects of the Grants.gov process, 

including an extensive section on 

frequently asked questions, located 

under the ‘‘For Applicants’’ section of 

the Web site. ECA strongly recommends 

that all potential applicants review 

thoroughly the Grants.gov Web site, 

well in advance of submitting a 

proposal through the Grants.gov system. 

ECA bears no responsibility for data 

errors resulting from transmission or 

conversion processes. 

Direct all questions regarding 

Grants.gov registration and submission 

to: Grants.gov Customer Support. 

Contact Center Phone: 800–518–4726. 

Business Hours: Monday–Friday, 7 

a.m.–9 p.m. Eastern Time. 

E-mail: support@grants.gov. 

Applicants have until midnight 

(12 a.m.), Washington, DC time of the 

closing date to ensure that their entire 

application has been uploaded to the 

Grants.gov site. There are no exceptions 

to the above deadline. Applications 

uploaded to the site after midnight of 

the application deadline date will be 

automatically rejected by the grants.gov 

system, and will be technically 

ineligible. 

Please refer to the Grants.gov Web 

site, for definitions of various 

‘‘application statuses’’ and the difference 

between a submission receipt and a 

submission validation. Applicants will 

receive a validation e-mail from 

grants.gov upon the successful 

submission of an application. Again, 

validation of an electronic submission 

via Grants.gov can take up to two 

business days. Therefore, we strongly 

recommend that you not wait until the 

application deadline to begin the 

submission process through Grants.gov. 

ECA will not notify you upon receipt of 

electronic applications. 

It is the responsibility of all 

applicants submitting proposals via the 

Grants.gov web portal to ensure that 

proposals have been received by 

Grants.gov in their entirety, and ECA 

bears no responsibility for data errors 

resulting from transmission or 

conversion processes. 

Optional—IV.3f.3. You may also state 

here any limitations on the number of 

applications that an applicant may 

submit and make it clear whether the 

limitation is on the submitting 

organization, individual program 

director or both. 

IV.3g. Intergovernmental Review of 

Applications: Executive Order 12372 

does not apply to this program. 

V. Application Review Information 

V.1. Review Process 

The Bureau will review all proposals 

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 

subject to compliance with Federal and 

Bureau regulations and guidelines and 

forwarded to Bureau grant panels 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 Assistant Secretary for 

Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final 

technical authority for cooperative 

agreements resides with the Bureau’s 

Grants Officer. 

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 Plan and Ability 

to Achieve Program Objectives: 

Proposals should exhibit originality, 

substance, precision, and relevance to 

the Bureau’s mission. A detailed agenda 

and relevant work plan should 

demonstrate substantive undertakings 

and logistical capacity. Objectives 

should be reasonable, feasible, and 

flexible. Proposals should demonstrate 

clearly how the institution will meet the 

program’s objectives and plan. 

2. Support for Diversity: Proposals 

should demonstrate substantive support 

of the Bureau’s policy on diversity. 

Achievable and relevant features should 

be cited in both program administration 

(program venue and program 

evaluation) and program content 

(orientation and wrap-up sessions, 

program meetings, presenters, and 

resource materials). 

3. Evaluation: Proposals should 

include a plan to evaluate the activity’s 

success, both as the activities unfold 

and at the end of the program. A draft 

survey questionnaire or other technique 

plus a description of a methodology to 

use to link outcomes to original project 

objectives is strongly recommended. 

4. 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. 

5. Institutional Track Record/Ability: 

Proposals should demonstrate an 

institutional record of successful 

exchange programs, including 

responsible fiscal management and full 

compliance with all reporting 

requirements for past Bureau grants as 

determined by Bureau Grants Staff. The 

Bureau will consider the past 

performance of prior recipients and the 

demonstrated potential of new 

applicants. Proposed personnel and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 56651 

institutional resources should be fully 

qualified to achieve the project’s goals. 

6. Follow-up and Follow-on Activities: 

Proposals should discuss provisions 

made for follow-up with returned 

participants as a means of establishing 

longer-term individual and institutional 

linkages. Proposals also should provide 

a plan for continued follow-on activity 

(without Bureau support) ensuring that 

Bureau supported programs are not 

isolated events. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

VI.1a. Award Notices 

Final awards cannot be made until 

funds have been appropriated by 

Congress, allocated and committed 

through internal Bureau procedures. 

Successful applicants will receive a 

Federal Assistance Award (FAA) from 

the Bureau’s Grants Office. The FAA 

and the original proposal with 

subsequent modifications (if applicable) 

shall be the only binding authorizing 

document between the recipient and the 

U.S. Government. The FAA will be 

signed by an authorized Grants Officer, 

and mailed to the recipient’s 

responsible officer identified in the 

application. 

Unsuccessful applicants will receive 

notification of the results of the 

application review from the ECA 

program office coordinating this 

competition. 

VI.2 Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements 

Terms and Conditions for the 

Administration of ECA agreements 

include the following: 

Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–122, ‘‘Cost Principles for 

Nonprofit Organizations.’’ 

Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–21, ‘‘Cost Principles for 

Educational Institutions.’’ 

OMB Circular A–87, ‘‘Cost Principles 

for State, Local and Indian 

Governments.’’ 

OMB Circular No. A–110 (Revised), 

Uniform Administrative Requirements 

for Grants and Agreements with 

Institutions of Higher Education, 

Hospitals, and other Nonprofit 

Organizations. 

OMB Circular No. A–102, Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for 

Grants-in-Aid to State and Local 

Governments. 

OMB Circular No. A–133, Audits of 

States, Local Government, and Nonprofit Organizations. 

Please reference the following Web 

sites for additional information: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants; 

http://fa.statebuy.state.gov. 

VI.3. Reporting Requirements 

You must provide ECA with a hard 

copy original plus one copy of the 

following reports: 

Mandatory: 

(1) A final program and financial 

report no more than 90 days after the 

expiration of the award; 

(2) A concise, one-page final program 

report summarizing program outcomes 

no more than 90 days after the 

expiration of the award. This one-page 

report will be transmitted to OMB, and 

be made available to the public via 

OMB’s USAspending.gov Web site—as 

part of ECA’s Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act 

(FFATA) reporting requirements. 

(3) A SF–PPR, ‘‘Performance Progress 

Report’’ Cover Sheet with all program 

reports. 

Award recipients will be required to 

provide reports analyzing their 

evaluation findings to the Bureau in 

their regular program reports. (Please 

refer to IV. Application and Submission 

Instructions (IV.3.d.3) above for Program 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

information.) 

All data collected, including survey 

responses and contact information, must 

be maintained for a minimum of three 

years and provided to the Bureau upon 

request. 

All reports must be sent to the ECA 

Grants Officer and ECA Program Officer 

listed in the final assistance award 

document. 

VII. Agency Contacts 

For questions about this 

announcement, contact: Brendan M. 

Walsh, U.S. Department of State, Branch 

for the Study of the United States, ECA/ 

A/E/USS, SA–5, Fourth Floor, ECA/A/ 

E/USS–11–05–09, 2200 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20522–0503, (202) 632– 

3340, WalshBM@state.gov. 

All correspondence with the Bureau 

concerning this RFGP should reference 

the above title and number ECA/A/E/ 

USS–11–05–09. 

Please read the complete 

announcement before sending inquiries 

or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP 

deadline has passed, Bureau staff may 

not discuss this competition with 

applicants until the proposal review 

process has been completed. 

VIII. Other Information 

Notice 

The terms and conditions published 

in this RFGP 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 RFGP 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 per section VI.3 

above. 

Dated: September 9, 2010. 

Ann Stock, 

Assistant Secretary for Educational and 

Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23145 Filed 9–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Notice of Cancellation of Meeting of 

the Chairs of the Industry Trade 

Advisory Committee (ITACs) 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting cancellation. 

SUMMARY: A notice was published in the 

Federal Register dated September 7, 

2010, Volume 75, No. 172, Page 54416, 

announcing a meeting of the Industry 

Trade Advisory Committee Chairs 

(ITACs), scheduled for September 17, 

2010, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon. The 

meeting was to be closed to the public 

from 10 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. and open to 

the public from 11 a.m. to 12 noon. 

However, the meeting has been 

postponed. The new time and 

additional details will be provided in a 

later Federal Register announcement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ingrid Mitchem, DFO at (202) 482–3269, 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. 

Myesha Ward, 

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for 

Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23146 Filed 9–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3190–W0–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

ITS Joint Program Office; Trucking 

Industry Mobility & Technology 

Coalition Annual Meeting 

AGENCY: Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

The Trucking Industry Mobility & 

Technology Coalition (TIMTC) Annual 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES