33292 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Notices

Review Process

The Bureau 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. All

eligible proposals will be reviewed by

the program office. 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 Acting Assistant

Secretary for Educational and Cultural

Affairs. Final technical authority for

assistance awards, grants, or cooperative

agreements resides with the Bureau’s

Grants Officer.

Review Criteria

Technically eligible applications will

be competitively reviewed according to

the criteria stated below. These criteria

are not rank ordered and all carry equal

weight in the proposal evaluation:

1. Quality of the program idea:

Proposals should exhibit originality,

substance, precision, and relevance to

the Bureau’s mission, as well as the

objectives of the FLEX program.

Program design must reflect an

understanding of young people and of

cultural traits that would be specific to

this population.

2. Program planning: Detailed agenda

and relevant work plan should

demonstrate substantive undertakings

and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan

should adhere to the program overview

and guidelines described above.

3. Ability to achieve program

objectives: Objectives should be

reasonable, feasible, and flexible.

Proposals should clearly demonstrate

how the institution will meet the

program’s objectives and plan.

4. Multiplier effect/impact/follow on:

Proposed programs should describe the

impact that workshop participants will

have on others, both in their U.S. host

communities and in the NIS after they

return home. There should be a plan for

providing students with tools they can

take back to their NIS home countries to

implement concepts and ideas they

have gained from the workshop.

Proposals also should explain how

students will be prepared to transition

back to their host communities.

5. Support of diversity: Proposals

should demonstrate substantive support

of the Bureau’s policy on diversity.

Achievable and relevant features should

be cited in both program administration

(selection of participants, program

venue and program evaluation) and

program content (orientation and wrapup sessions, program meetings, resource

materials and follow-up activities).

6. Institutional capacity: Proposed

personnel and institutional resources

should be adequate and appropriate to

achieve the program or project’s goals.

7. Institution’s 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 Grant Staff. The

Bureau will consider the past

performance of prior recipients and the

demonstrated potential of new

applicants.

8. 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. A

draft survey questionnaire or other

technique plus description of a

methodology to use to link outcomes to

original project objectives is

recommended. The successful applicant

will be expected to submit a final report.

9. 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.

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

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

the Freedom Support Act of 1992.

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.

Notification

Final awards cannot be made until

funds have been appropriated by

Congress, allocated and committed

through internal Bureau procedures.

Dated: June 8, 2001.

Helena Kane Finn,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational

and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of

State.

[FR Doc. 01–15542 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–05–U

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3704]

Bureau of Educational and Cultural

Affairs Request for Grant Proposals:

Israeli-Arab Scholarship Program

SUMMARY: The Office of Academic

Exchange Programs of the Bureau of

Educational and Cultural Affairs

announces an open competition for an

assistance award for the Israeli-Arab

Scholarship Program. Public and private

non-profit organizations with at least

four years of experience in conducting

international exchange programs and

meeting the provisions described in IRS

regulation 26 CFR 1.501(c) may submit

proposals to provide administrative and

program support services for the IsraeliArab Scholarship Program.

Program Information

Overview

The Israeli-Arab Scholarship Program

(IASP) is a congressionally mandated

and endowed program. The Israeli-Arab

Scholarship Program provides an

opportunity for highly qualified IsraeliArab graduate students to attend

institutions of higher education in the

U.S., providing them both a quality

graduate education and an opportunity

to experience American democracy and

society.

The Bureau’s Office of Academic

Exchange Programs and the Public

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Notices 33293

Affairs Section (PAS) of the U.S.

Embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel, jointly

administer the Israeli-Arab Scholarship

Program. Applicants are recruited,

screened, and selected by PAS Tel Aviv

with the assistance of a panel of hostcountry academics. The Office of

Academic Exchange Programs is

responsible for allocation of funding

and policy administration. The

successful applicant will have

responsibility for program

administration, which involves

performance of services in the following

broad categories: Program Planning and

Management; Recruitment/Selection

Support Services; Placement and

Budgeting Services; Supervision and

Support Services; Special Programs

Management; Fiscal Management; and

Program Projection, Reporting and

Evaluation Services.

Guidelines

Program administration activities

should cover the time period October 1,

2001 through December 31, 2003. The

expected grantee caseload for fiscal year

2002 (FY 2002) is projected to be up to

four (4) new students for academic year

2002–2003. Applicants for this award

should submit a program proposal with

budget projections for the first program

year only. Prior year renewal grants will

be administered by the organization

currently administering the program.

Programs must comply with J–1 visa

regulations. Please refer to Solicitation

Package for further information.

Budget Guidelines

The Bureau anticipates awarding one

grant up to the amount of $150,000 to

support program and administrative

costs required to implement this

program. The Bureau encourages

applicants to provide maximum levels

of cost-sharing and funding from private

sources in support of its programs.

Proposals that contain administrative

expenses to 20% of the overall budget

will be deemed more competitive.

Applicants must submit a

comprehensive budget for the entire

program. There must be a summary

budget as well as breakdowns reflecting

both administrative and program

budgets. Applicants may provide

separate sub-budgets for each program

component, phase, location, or activity

to provide clarification.

Please refer to the Solicitation

Package for complete budget guidelines

and formatting instructions.

Announcement Title and Number: All

correspondence with the Bureau

concerning this RFGP should reference

the above title and number ECA/A/E/

NEA–IASP02.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alice A. Armitage, Office of Academic

Exchange Programs, ECA/A/E/NEA–SA,

Room 212, U.S. Department of State,

301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC

20547, phone: (202) 619–6863, fax: (202)

205–2466, email: aarmitag@pd.state.gov

to request a Solicitation Package. The

Solicitation Package contains detailed

award criteria, required application

forms, specific budget instructions, and

standard guidelines for proposal

preparation. Please specify Bureau

Program Officer Alice A. Armitage on

all other inquiries and correspondence.

Please read the complete Federal

Register 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.

To Download a Solicitation Package via

Internet

The entire Solicitation Package may

be downloaded from the Bureau’s

website at http://exchanges.state.gov/

education/RFGPs. 

Please read all information before

downloading.

Deadline for Proposals

All proposal copies must be received

at the Bureau of Educational and

Cultural Affairs by 5 p.m. Washington,

DC time on Thursday, July 19, 2001.

Faxed documents will not be accepted

at any time. Documents postmarked the

due date but received on a later date

will not be accepted. Each applicant

must ensure that the proposals are

received by the above deadline.

Applicants must follow all

instructions in the Solicitation Package.

The original and seven copies of the

application should be sent to: U.S.

Department of State, SA–44, Bureau of

Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.:

ECA/A/E/NEA–IASP02, Program

Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534,

301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC

20547.

Applicants must also submit the

‘‘Executive Summary’’ and ‘‘Proposal

Narrative’’ sections of the proposal on a

3.5’’ diskette, formatted for DOS. These

documents must be provided in ASCII

text (DOS) format with a maximum line

length of 65 characters. The Bureau will

transmit these files electronically to the

Public Affairs section at the U.S.

Embassy for its review, with the goal of

reducing the time it takes to get embassy

comments for the Bureau’s grants

review process.

Diversity, Freedom and Democracy

Guidelines

Pursuant to the Bureau’s authorizing

legislation, programs must maintain a

non-political character and should be

balanced and representative of the

diversity of American political, social,

and cultural life. ‘‘Diversity’’ should be

interpreted in the broadest sense and

encompass differences including, but

not limited to ethnicity, race, gender,

religion, geographic location, socioeconomic status, and physical

challenges. Applicants are strongly

encouraged to adhere to the

advancement of this principle both in

program administration and in program

content. Please refer to the review

criteria under the ‘‘Support for

Diversity’’ section for specific

suggestions on incorporating diversity

into the total proposal. Public Law 104–

319 provides that ‘‘in carrying out

programs of educational and cultural

exchange in countries whose people do

not fully enjoy freedom and

democracy,’’ the Bureau ‘‘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 in their program contents, to

the full extent deemed feasible.

Review Process

The Bureau 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 Diplomacy section overseas,

where appropriate, will review all

eligible proposals. 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 Acting Assistant

Secretary for Educational and Cultural

Affairs. Final technical authority for

assistance awards resides with the

Bureau’s Grants Officer.

Review Criteria

Technically eligible applications will

be competitively reviewed according to

the criteria stated below. These criteria

33294 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Notices

are not rank ordered and all carry equal

weight in the proposal evaluation:

1. Quality of the program idea:

Proposals should exhibit originality,

substance, precision, and relevance to

the Bureau’s mission.

2. Program planning: Detailed agenda

and relevant work plan should

demonstrate substantive undertakings

and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan

should adhere to the program overview

and guidelines described above.

3. Ability to achieve program

objectives: Objectives should be

reasonable, feasible, and flexible.

Proposals should clearly demonstrate

how the institution will meet the

program’s objectives and plan.

4. Multiplier effect/impact: Proposed

programs should strengthen long-term

mutual understanding, including

maximum sharing of information and

establishment of long-term institutional

and individual linkages.

5. Support of Diversity: Proposals

should demonstrate substantive support

of the Bureau’s policy on diversity.

Achievable and relevant features should

be cited in both program administration

(selection of participants, program

venue and program evaluation) and

program content(orientation and wrapup sessions, program meetings, resource

materials and follow-up activities).

6. Institutional Capacity: Proposed

personnel and institutional resources

should be adequate and appropriate to

achieve the program or project’s goals.

7. Institution’s 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 Grant Staff. The

Bureau will consider the past

performance of prior recipients and the

demonstrated potential of new

applicants.

8. Institutional Network: Proposals

should include proof of an existing

network with U.S. academic and

international exchange community or

demonstrated potential to develop such

a network.

9. 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. A

draft survey questionnaire or other

technique plus description of a

methodology to use to link outcomes to

original project objectives is

recommended. Successful applicants

will be expected to submit intermediate

reports after each project component is

concluded or quarterly, whichever is

less frequent.

10. 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.

11. Cost-sharing: Proposals should

maximize cost-sharing through other

private sector support as well as

institutional direct funding

contributions.

Authority

Overall grant making authority for

this program is contained in Public Law

102–138, the ‘‘Foreign Relations

Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992

and 1993.’’ The purpose of the

legislation is to establish ‘‘a program of

scholarships for Israeli-Arabs to attend

institutions of higher education in the

United States.’’ The funding authority

for the program above is provided

through legislation.

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.

Notification

Final awards cannot be made until

funds have been appropriated by

Congress, allocated and committed

through internal Bureau procedures.

Dated: June 13, 2001.

Helena Kane Finn,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational

and Cultural, Affairs, U.S. Department of

State.

[FR Doc. 01–15543 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Intent To Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement and Hold Scoping

Meetings for San Diego International

Airport—Lindbergh Field, San Diego,

CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration DOT.

ACTION: Notice to hold one (1) public

scoping meeting and one (1)

Governmental/Public Agency scoping

meeting.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

Environmental Impact Statement will be

prepared for development

recommended by the Master Plan for

San Diego International AirportLindbergh Field, San Diego, California.

To ensure that all significant issues

related to the proposed action are

identified, one (1) public scoping

meeting and one (1) governmental and

public agency scoping meeting will be

held.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David B. Kessler, AICP, Environmental

Protection Specialist, AWP–611.2,

Planning Section, Airports Division,

Federal Aviation Administration,

Western-Pacific Region, P.O. Box 92007,

Los Angeles, California 90009–2007,

Telephone: 310/725–3615. Comments

on the scope of the EIS should be

submitted to the address above and

must be received no later than 5 p.m.

Pacific Daylight Time, Friday, August

10, 2001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

will prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement for future development

recommended by the Master Plan for

San Diego International AirportLindbergh Field (Lindbergh Field). The

need to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) is based on the

procedures described in FAA Order

5050.4A, Airport Environmental

Handbook. Lindbergh Field is a

commercial service airport located

within a standard metropolitan

statistical area and the proposed

development that will require FAA

approval of the Airport Layout Plan; the

area around the airport contains noncompatible land uses in terms of aircraft

noise; and the proposed development is

likely to be controversial.

The Port of San Diego has decided to

prepare an independent Draft

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for

the proposed development, pursuant to

the California Environmental Quality

Act of 1970 (CEQA). FAA anticipates

that the Port of San Diego will publish

their Draft EIR during the summer of

2001. The Lead Agency for the

preparation of the EIS is the Federal

Aviation Administration. The following

master planning development

alternatives and the No Action

Alternative are proposed to be evaluated

in the EIS as described below: