3942 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Notices

contribute to maximum sharing of

information and establishment of longterm institutional and individual ties.

9. Cost-Effectiveness

Overhead and direct administrative

costs to USIA should be kept as low as

possible. All other items proposed for

USIA funding should be necessary and

appropriate to achieve the program’s

objectives.

10. Cost-Sharing

Proposals should maximize costsharing through other private sector

support as well as direct funding

contributions and/or in-kind support

from the prospective grantee institution

and its partners.

11. Follow-On Activities

Proposals should provide a plan for

continued exchange activity (without

USIA support) which ensures that

USIA-supported programs are not

isolated events.

12. Project Evaluation

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 or other technique plus

description of a methodology to use to

link outcomes to original project

objectives. Grantees will be expected to

submit intermediate reports after each

project component is concluded or

quarterly, whichever is less frequent.

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 needs of the program

may require the award to be reduced,

revised, or increased. Final awards

cannot be made until funds have been

appropriated by Congress, allocated and

committed through internal USIA

procedures.

Notification

All applicants will be notified of the

results of the review process on or about

June 16, 1995. Awards made will be

subject to periodic reporting and

evaluation requirements.

Dated: January 11, 1995.

Dell Pendergrast,

Deputy Associate Director, Educational and

Cultural Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–1181 Filed 1–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M

Regulation of Broadcast Radio

Frequencies (South Africa)

ACTION: Notice—Request for proposals.

SUMMARY: The Office of Citizen

Exchanges of the United States

Information Agency’s Bureau of

Education and Cultural Affairs

announces an open competition for an

assistance award. Public or private nonprofit organizations meeting the

provisions described in IRS regulation

501(c)(3) may apply to develop a twoway exchange project to assist South

Africa’s Independent Broadcasting

Authority (IBA) to enhance its

institutional capacity. The project

should provide U.S.-based activities for

approximately 6–8 IBA commissioners

and senior staff to demonstrate U.S.

policies and practices involved in the

regulation of broadcasting. The project

also should provide in-country

consultancies to assist the IBA

implement strategies aimed at

enhancing its organizational structure

and policy-making procedures. The

program should begin in summer/fall

1995. Consultation with U.S.

Information Service (USIS) posts in

South Africa in the development of the

project proposal is encouraged.

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.’’

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 name and number:

All communications with USIA

concerning this announcement should

refer to the above title and reference

number E/P–95–38.

DATES: Deadline for proposals: All

copies must be received at the U.S.

Information Agency by 5 p.m.

Washington, D.C. time on Friday, March

17, 1995. Faxed documents will not be

accepted, nor will documents

postmarked on March 17, 1995, but

received at a later date. It is the

responsibility of each applicant to

ensure that proposals are received by

the above deadline.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Africa/Near East/South Asia Division of

the Office of Citizen Exchanges, U.S.

Information Agency, 301 4th Street,

S.W., Room 220, Washington, D.C.

20547, tel. 202–619–5319, fax 202–619–

4350, Internet address

STAYLOR@USIA.GOV, to request a

Solicitation Package, which includes

more detailed award criteria; all

application forms; and guidelines for

preparing proposals, including specific

criteria for preparation of the proposal

budget. Please specify USIA Program

Officer Stephen Taylor on all inquiries

and correspondences. Interested

applicants should read the complete

Federal Register announcement before

addressing inquiries to the Office of

Citizen Exchanges or submitting their

proposals. Once the RFP deadline has

passed, the Office of Citizen Exchanges

may not discuss this competition in any

way with applicants until the Bureau

proposal review process has been

completed.

ADDRESSES: Applicants must follow all

instructions provided in the Solicitation

Package and send fully completed

applications. Send the original and 14

copies to: U.S. Information Agency, Ref.:

E/P–95–38, Office of Grants

Management, E/XE, Room 336, 301 4th

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the Bureau’s authorizing legislation,

programs must maintain a nonpolitical

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

race, gender, religion, geographic

location, socioeconomic status, and

physical challenges. Applicants are

strongly encouraged to adhere to the

advancement of this principle.

Overview

Background

Prior to 1994, the only legal,

unencoded broadcaster in the Republic

of South Africa was the South African
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Notices 3943

Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), a

state-owned national broadcaster with

both commercial and public service

responsibilities. Rather than provide a

forum for the free and open discussion

of national issues, the SABC came to

serve as an advocate of government

Apartheid policy.

Until recently, SABC was managing

some 23 national, regional and local

radio services and three television

services. The SABC budget was

approved by Parliament and supervised

by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which,

together with the Postmaster General,

managed the airwaves.

Legislation adopted in 1993 created

the Independent Broadcasting Authority

(IBA), loosely modeled on the U.S.

Federal Communications Commission

(FCC), to publicly manage the radio

frequency spectrum and institutionalize

freedom of speech protections by

shielding the broadcast media from

direct political controls. The IBA

consists of six commissioners and two

co-chairpersons appointed in April

1994.

Program Overview

The Office of Citizen Exchanges (E/P)

proposes development of a two-way

exchange project designed to enhance

the institutional capabilities of South

Africa’s Independent Broadcasting

Authority. The project should assist the

Authority to develop a plan to assure

citizens’ access to the airwaves in a

manner consistent with democratic

practices in public resource

management. The project should bring

South African participants to the United

States to study U.S. regulation of the

broadcast media, and send U.S.

specialists to South Africa to provide

on-site consultancies. While the

program should cover regulations of all

broadcast media, activities should focus

on radio, which is South Africa’s

predominant broadcast medium. The

program should begin in summer/fall

1995.

Project Objectives

The project should be designed to:

—Provide participants with a broad

understanding of U.S. laws,

regulations and policies relevant to

the administration of broadcasting;

—Introduce participants to the

operation of the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC),

including its administrative, technical

and legal branches, and examine its

relations with the three branches of

the federal government and other

public and private organizations;

—Study FCC policies affecting local

control, ownership and management

of broadcasting operations; guidelines

promoting diversity of station

ownership; policies affecting freedom

of speech and programming; historic

and contemporary public service

requirements; the history of

regulations promoting political

fairness in broadcasting; free speech

limits on broadcasters; ownership

requirements; and licensing

procedures;

—Examine major trends and

developments in broadcasting

technologies and related policy issues

such as the implications of direct

broadcasting from satellites;

competition for limited broadcasting

frequencies; the sale and leasing of

frequencies; the funding of public

broadcasting, including university

and community-based operations; and

management of cable television

systems;

—Introduce participants to U.S.

commercial and public broadcasting

organizations, professional

associations and public interest

groups to study the impact of

regulatory policies;

—Assist participants to identify specific

objectives for enhancing the IBA’s

institutional capacity;

—Provide consultancies in South Africa

aimed at assisting the IBA to enhance

organizational structure,

administrative practices and policy

formulation which ensure public

participation, transparency in

decision making, and respect for the

business integrity and free speech of

broadcasters;

—Develop appropriate support

materials to assist participant achieve

their objectives relative to the IBA’s

instutitional capacity;

—Lay the groundwork for linkages

between institutions in the United

States and South Africa aimed at

promoting regulatory policies

consistent with constitutional free

speech protections in South Africa

and evolving technological trends.

Participants

The project should be designed for

commissioners and senior staff members

of South Africa’s Independent

Broadcasting Authority. The delegation

during the U.S. phase of the project

probably would total 6–8 participants.

The delegation possibly who play role

in formulating regulatory policy

governing South Africa’s airwaves. USIS

personnel will select the South African

participants, although recommendations

from the grantee institution are

welcome. For program phases in South

Africa, the grantee institution will select

the American presenters in consultation

with USIA.

USIS offices will facilitate the

issuance of visas for the South African

participants and can help with the

distribution of program-related

materials in South Africa.

Programmatic Considerations

USIA will give careful consideration

to proposals which demonstrate:

(1) In-depth, substantive knowledge of

the historic evolution of U.S. policy

relative to the regulation of radio and

television broadcasting, as well as

contemporary issues in the broadcasting

field;

(2) First-hand connections with

appropriate U.S. public and private

sector organizations and institutions

involved in the management of

broadcast frequencies;

(3) The capacity to organize and

manage international exchange

programs, including the handling of predeparture arrangements, orientation

activities, oversight and problemsolving involved in such programs.

USIA is especially interested in multiphase programs in which the phases

build on one another and lay the

groundwork for new and long-term

relationships between American and

South African professionals. Proposals

which are overly ambitious and those

which are very general in nature will

not be competitive. The Office of Citizen

Exchanges does not award grants to

support projects whose focus is limited

to technical matters, or to support

scholarly research projects,

development of publications for

dissemination in the United States,

individual student exchanges, film

festivals or exhibits. The Office of

Citizen Exchange does not provide

scholarships or support for long-term

(one semester or more) academic

studies. Competitions sponsored by

other Bureau offices also are announced

in the Federal Register and may have

different application requirements as

well as different objectives.

Program Suggestions

The proposed project should include

at least one phases for South African

participants in the U.S. and at least one

phase for American specialists in South

Africa. Programming elements might

include in-country workshops or

seminars led by American experts,

specialized American consultancies

conducted in South Africa, a study tour

in the U.S. for selected South African

participants and U.S.-based professional

attachments. A planning visit overseas

by the American organizer can also be

considered if crucial to successful
3944 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Notices

development and implementation of the

program.

The project should include formats

which maximize interaction between

the South African participants and the

program presenters. Participants should

observe interaction between public and

private sector officials involved in the

formulation, implementation and

evaluation of regulatory policy, such as

legislators, regulators, stations

managers, technicians, advertisers,

interest group leaders and educators.

The program design should provide

adequate time for participants to meet

individually with American

professionals who have similar interests

and specializations. While not required,

the presenters’ familiarity with

broadcasting in South Africa is

desirable.

Program Responsibilities

The grantee institution’s

responsibilities include: selecting

presenters, themes and topics for

discussion; organizing a coherent

progression of activities; providing any

support materials; providing all travel

arrangements, lodging and other

logistical arrangements for the South

African participants and U.S. presenters

who travel to South Africa; and

overseeing the project on a daily basis

to achieve maximum program

effectiveness. The grantee institution is

responsible for coordinating plans and

project implementation with E/P,

participating USIS posts, and any South

African collaborating institutions.

At the start of each phase, the grantee

institution will conduct an orientation

session for the participants and, at the

conclusion, conduct participant

evaluations. The institution will submit

a report at the completion of each

program phase, including a final

program report summarizing the entire

project and resulting organizational

links. The institution must also submit

a final financial report. To prepare the

participants for their U.S. experience, E/

P encourages the grantee organization to

forward a set of preliminary materials

which might include an introduction to

the U.S. system of government, the

principles underlying U.S. regulation of

broadcasting, the practices of U.S.

broadcasters and other background

information about the project. E/P will

ask the South African participants to

prepare brief outlines describing their

own particular interests in these areas.

The grantee institution should brief the

American presenters on the South

African participants’ backgrounds,

interests and concerns.

Other Program Considerations

Consutation with USIS posts in South

Africa in the development of the project

proposal is encouraged. Letters of

commitment from participating U.S.

institutions and individuals would

enhance a proposal.

USIA also encourages the

development of specialized written

materials to enhance this professional

development program. USIA is

interested in organizations’ ideas on

how to ‘‘reuse’’ specialized materials by

providing them to universities, libraries

or other institutions for use by a larger

audience. If not already available,

glossaries of specialized terms might be

developed. However, please note that,

according to current USIA regulations,

materials developed with USIA funds

may not be distributed in the United

States.

The grantee institution should

maximize cost-sharing in all elements of

the project and seek to stimulate U.S.

private sector support including from

foundations and corporations.

All participants will be covered under

the terms of a USIA-sponsored health

insurance policy. The premium is paid

by USIA directly to the insurance

company.

Funding

Competition for USIA funding

support is keen. Selection of a grantee

institution is based on the substantive

nature of the program proposal; the

applicant’s professional capability to

carry the program through to a

successful conclusion; and cost

effectiveness, including in-kind

contributions and the ability to keep

overhead costs at a minimum. USIA will

consider funding up to approximately

$100,000, but 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

comparative line item budget for the

entire program based on the specific

guidance in the Solicitation Package.

Applicants must provide a summary

budget as well as a break-down

reflecting both the administrative

budget and the program budget. For

further clarification, applicants may

provide optional, separate sub-budgets

for each program phase or activity in

order to facilitate USIA decisions on

funding. USIA will consider funding the

following costs:

1. International and domestic air

fares; visas; transit costs (e.g., airport

fees); ground transportation costs.

2. Per diem: For foreign participants

during activities in the United States,

organizations have the option of using a

flat rate of $140/day or the published

Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) per

diem rates for individual American

cities. (Note: U.S. institutional staff

must use the published FTR per diem

rates, not the flat rate.) For activities

overseas, standard Federal Travel

Regulations per diem rates must be

used.

3. Escort-interpreters: Interpretation

for U.S.-based programs is provided by

the State Department’s Language

Services Division. Typically,

delegations ranging from 8–12

participants require two simultaneous

interpreters and one escort officer. Grant

proposal budgets should contain a flat

$140/day per diem rate for each State

Department escort/interpreter, as well as

home-program-home air fare of $400 per

interpreter and any U.S. travel expenses

during the program itself. Salary

expenses are covered centrally and are

not part of the applicant’s budget

proposal. USIA grants do not pay for

foreign interpreters to accompany

delegations during travel to or from

their home country. Interpreters are not

available for U.S.-based internship

activities.

4. Book and cultural allowances:

Participants are entitled to a one-time

book allowance of $50 plus a cultural

allowance of $150 per person during

programs taking place in the United

States. U.S. staff do not receive these

benefits. Escort interpreters are

reimbursed for actual cultural expenses

up to $150.

5. Consultants: Consultants may be

used to provide specialized expertise or

to make presentations. Honoraria

generally should not exceed $250/day.

Subcontracting organizations may also

be used, in which case the written

contract(s) should be included in the

proposal.

6. Material development: Proposals

may contain costs to purchase, develop

and translate materials for participants.

USIA reserves the rights to these

materials for future use.

7. Room rentals, which generally

should not exceed $250/day.

8. One working meal per project, for

which per capita costs may not exceed

$5–$8 for a lunch or $14.–$20 for a

dinner. The number of invited guests

may not exceed the number of

participants by more than a factor of two

to one.

9. Return travel allowance: $70 for

each participant which is to be used for

incidental expenditures incurred during

international travel.

10. Other costs necessary for the

effective administration of the program,

including salaries for grant organization
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 1995 / Notices 3945

employees, benefits, and other direct

and indirect costs per detailed

instructions in the application package.

E/P encourages cost-sharing, which

may be in the form of allowable direct

or indirect costs. E/P would be

especially interested in proposals which

demonstrate a program vision which

goes well beyond that which can be

supported by the requested USIA grant

and which would try to use a USIA

grant to leverage additional funding

from other sources to support elements

of the broader program plan.

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 Agency contracts office, as well as

the USIA Office of African Affairs and

the USIA post overseas, where

appropriate. Proposals may also 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 grant awards

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. Institutional Reputation and Ability

Applicant institutions should

demonstrate their potential for

excellence in program design and

implementation and/or provide

documentation of successful programs.

If an applicant is a previous USIA grant

recipient, responsible fiscal

management and full compliance with

all reporting requirements for past

Agency grants as determined by USIA’s

Office of Contracts will be considered.

Relevant substantive evaluations of

previous projects may also be

considered in this assessment.

2. Project Personnel

The thematic and logistical expertise

of project personnel should be relevant

to the proposed program. Resumes or

C.V.s should be summaries which are

relevant to the specific proposal and no

longer than two pages each.

3. Program Planning

A detailed agenda and relevant work

plan should demonstrate substantive

rigor and logistical capacity.

4. Thematic Expertise

Proposal should demonstrate the

organization’s expertise in the subject

area which promises an effective

sharing of information.

5. Support of Diversity

Proposals should demonstrate the

recipient’s commitment to promoting

the awareness and understanding of

diversity.

6. Cross-Cultural Sensitivity and Area

Expertise

Evidence should be provided of

sensitivity to historical, linguistic,

religious, and other cross-cultural

factors, as well as relevant knowledge of

the target geographic area/country.

7. Ability To Achieve Program

Objectives

Objectives should be realistic and

feasible. The proposal should clearly

demonstrate how the grantee institution

will meet program objectives.

8. Multiplier Effect

Proposed programs should strengthen

long-term mutual understanding and

contribute to maximum sharing of

information and establishment of longterm institutional and individual ties.

9. Cost-Effectiveness

Overhead and direct administrative

costs to USIA should be kept as low as

possible. All other items proposed for

USIA funding should be necessary and

appropriate to achieve the program’s

objectives.

10. Cost-Sharing

Proposals should maximize costsharing through other private sector

support as well as direct funding

contributions and/or in-kind support

from the prospective grantee institution

and its partners.

11. Follow-On Activities

Proposals should provide a plan for

continued exchange activity (without

USIA support) which ensures that

USIA-supported programs are not

isolated events.

12. Project Evaluation

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 or other technique plus

description of a methodology to use to

link outcomes to original project

objectives. Grantees will be expected to

submit intermediate reports after each

project component is concluded or

quarterly, whichever is less frequent.

Notice

The terms and conditions published

in this RFP are binding and may not be

modified by an 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 needs of the program

may require the award to be reduced,

revised, or increased. Final awards

cannot be made until funds have been

appropriated by Congress, allocated and

committed through internal USIA

procedures.

Notification

All applicants will be notified of the

results of the review process on or about

June 16, 1995. Awards made will be

subject to periodic reporting and

evaluation requirements.

Dated: January 11, 1995.

Dell Pendergrast,

Deputy Associate Director, Educational and

Cultural Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–1182 Filed 1–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M