Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Notices 32409

Narrative’’ sections of the proposal on a

3.5′′ diskette, formatted for DOS. These

documents must be provided in ASCII

text (DOS) format with a maximum line

length of 65 characters. ECA will

transmit these files electronically to

Public Affairs Sections at U.S.

Embassies in the NIS for review, with

the goal of reducing the time it takes to

obtain embassy comments for ECA’s

grants review process.

Diversity, Freedom and Democracy

Guidelines: Pursuant to ECA’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

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,’’ ECA ‘‘shall take

appropriate steps to provide

opportunities for participation in such

programs to human rights and

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, to the full extent deemed

feasible.

Review Process: ECA 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. The Program

Office, as well as the Public Affairs

Sections overseas, where appropriate,

will review all eligible proposals.

Eligible proposals will be subject to

compliance with Federal and ECA

regulations and guidelines and

forwarded to ECA 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 Acting Assistant Secretary for

Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final

technical authority for assistance

awards (grants or cooperative

agreements) resides with an ECA Grants

Officer.

Review Criteria: Technically eligible

applications will be competitively

reviewed according to the criteria stated

below. These criteria are not rank

ordered and all carry equal weight in

the proposal evaluation:

1. Program Development: The

proposal should exhibit originality,

substance, precision, and relevance to

ECA’s mission. Objectives should be

reasonable, feasible, and flexible. A

detailed and relevant work plan should

demonstrate substantive understanding

of program goals and logistical capacity.

2. Institutional Capacity: Proposed

personnel and institutional resources

should be adequate and appropriate to

achieve the program’s goals. The

proposal should demonstrate an

institutional record of successful

exchange programs, including

responsible fiscal management and full

compliance with all reporting

requirements for past ECA grants. ECA

will consider the past performance of

prior recipients and the demonstrated

potential of new applicants.

3. Multiplier Effect: The program

should strengthen long-term mutual

understanding, including maximum

sharing of information and

establishment of long-term institutional

and individual linkages.

4. Support of Diversity: The proposal

should demonstrate the applicant

organization’s commitment to

promoting the awareness and

understanding of diversity through

participant recruitment efforts, the

selection of U.S. host institutions, and

other measures.

5. Follow-on and Alumni Activities:

The proposal should provide a plan for

continued activity which ensures that

ECA-supported programs are not

isolated events, but have meaning and

scope beyond the time the actual

exchange took place.

6. Project Evaluation: The proposal

should include plans to evaluate the

program’s success, both during and after

the program.

7. Cost-effectiveness: 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.

8. Cost-sharing: The proposal should

maximize cost sharing through private

sector support as well as institutional

direct funding contributions.

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

Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the

Act is ‘‘to enable the Government of the

United States to increase mutual

understanding between the people of

the United States and the people of

other countries * * *; to strengthen the

ties which unite us with other nations

by demonstrating the educational and

cultural interests, developments, and

achievements of the people of the

United States and other nations * * *

and thus to assist in the development of

friendly, sympathetic and peaceful

relations between the United States and

the other countries of the world.’’ The

funding authority for the program above

is provided principally through

FREEDOM Support Act legislation.

Notice: The terms and conditions

published in this RFGP are binding and

may not be modified by any ECA

representative. Explanatory information

provided by ECA that contradicts

published language will not be binding.

Issuance of the RFGP does not

constitute an award commitment on the

part of the Government. ECA 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 ECA procedures.

Dated: June 5, 2001.

Helena Kane Finn,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational

and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of

State.

[FR Doc. 01–15052 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee Meeting on Transport

Airplane and Engine Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a

public meeting of the FAA’s Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee

(ARAC) to discuss transport airplane

and engine (TAE) issues.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for

June 26–27, 2001, beginning at 8:30 a.m.

32410 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Notices

on June 26. Arrange for oral

presentations by June 22.

ADDRESSES: Boeing Commercial

Airplane Group, 535 Garden Avenue,

N., Building 10–16, Room 11G4, Renton,

WA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Effie

M. Upshaw, Office of Rulemaking

ARM–209, FAA, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,

Telephone (202) 267–7626, FAX (202)

267–5075, or e-mail at

effie.upshaw@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is given of

an ARAC meeting to be held June 27–

28, in Renton, WA.

The agenda will include:

June 26

• Opening Remarks

• FAA Report

• Joint Aviation Authorities Report

• Transport Canada Report

• Harmonization Management Team

Report

• Executive Committee Report

• Human Factors Harmonization

Working Group (HWG) Report

• Seat Test HWG Report

• Design for Security HWG Report

• Ice Protection HWG Report

• Engine HWG Report

• Continued Airworthiness Assessment

Methodology Working Group Report

• Flight Test HWG Report

• Electromagnetic Effects HWG Report

• Powerplant Installation HWG Report

• Mechanical Systems HWG Report

• Cargo Standard HWG Report

June 27

• General Structures HWG Report

• Airworthiness Assurance HWG

Report

• Extended Range with Two-Engine

Aircraft Tasking Update

• Loads & Dynamics HWG Report

• Flight Guidance System HWG Report

• System Design and Analysis HWG

Report

• Avionics Systems HWG Report

• Electrical Systems HWG Report

The ARAC is expected to approve the

following submittals for forwarding to

the FAA:

• Recommendations addressing

installation of a primary ice detection

systems, or visual cues for recognizing

ice accretion on specified airplane

surfaces (Ice Protection HWG);

• Recommendation revising the Class B

cargo compartments and establishing

standards for a new Class F cargo

compartment; and

• Technical reports drafted under the

fast track process by the Human

Factors, Loads and Dynamics,

Mechanical Systems, and Avionics

Systems HWG’s.

Additionally, there will be a

discussion/review of FAA-prepared

documents that evolved from technical

reports prepared by the System Design

and Analysis HWG under the fast track

process.

Attendance is open to the public, but

will be limited to the space available.

Visitor badges are required to enter

Boeing Building 10–16. Please confirm

your attendance with Norm Turner,

(425) 234–3312, or by e-mail—

norman.g.turner@Boeing.com.—and

provide the following information: full

legal name, country of citizenship, and

company that you represent, if

applicable. Please arrive 15 minutes

early to avoid any problems with

parking or badges.

The public must make arrangements

by June 22 to present oral statements at

the meeting. Written statements may be

presented to the committee at any time

by providing 25 copies to the Assistant

Executive Director for Transport

Airplane and Engine issues or by

providing copies at the meeting. Copies

of the documents to be approved may be

made available by contacting the person

listed under the heading FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

If you are in need of assistance or

require a reasonable accommodation for

the meeting or meeting documents,

please contact the person listed under

the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. Sign and oral interpretation, as

well as a listening device, can be made

available if requested 10 calendar days

before the meeting.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 6, 2001.

Brenda Courtney,

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 01–15163 Filed 6–12–01; 2:26 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Policy Statement Number ANM–01–02]

FAA Policy on Type Certification

Assessment of Thrust Management

Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of policy statement;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This notice announces an

FAA policy applicable to the type

certification of transport category

airplanes. This notice advises the

public, in particular manufacturers of

transport category airplanes and their

suppliers, that the FAA intends to adopt

a new policy concerning the type

certification assessment of thrust

management systems. This notice is

necessary to advise the public of this

FAA policy and give all interested

persons an opportunity to present their

views on it.

DATE: Send your comments by July 16,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments on this

policy statement to the individual

identified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike McRae, Federal Aviation

Administration, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Transport Standards Staff,

Propulsion/Mechanical Systems Branch,

ANM–112, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, WA 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2133; fax (425) 227–1320; email: mike.mcrae@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

You may comment on this policy

statement by sending any written data,

views, or arguments as you may desire.

You must identify the Policy Statement

Number ANM–01–02 on your

comments, and send your comments, in

duplicate, to the address indicated

above. The Transport Airplane

Directorate (Transport Standards Staff)

will consider all communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments.

Background

The FAA traditionally has certified

automated thrust management features,

such as autothrottles and ‘‘target rating’’

displays, on the basis that they are only

conveniences to reduce crew workload

and do not relieve the crew of any

responsibility for assuring proper thrust

management. Consequently, even when

the crew is no longer directly involved

in performing a given thrust

management function, they must be

‘‘aware’’ when this function is not being

performed safely. Further, when they do

become ‘‘aware’’ of any thrust

management malfunction, they must be

capable of taking appropriate corrective

action to safely address that

malfunction.

For most thrust management systems

(TMS) that the FAA has certified to

date, this crew ‘‘awareness’’ has been

accepted as coming from:

a. Inherent aircraft operational cues

(for example, failure of the throttles to

properly respond to an autothrottle

command is usually assumed to be