Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 25595 

further states that, given the current competitive 

pressures in the option industry, no exchange can 

take any of its share of trading for granted. ISE 

states that, in order for it to maintain its market 

share, it must compete vigorously for order flow, 

and that given the portability of order flow from one 

exchange to another, a pricing misstep can easily 

result in loss of order flow, customers and, 

ultimately, revenue. See id. 

26See id. ISE represents that as of March 9, 2009, 

of the more than 2,000 underlying securities whose 

options are traded on ISE, 41 products are singly 

listed on ISE, which collectively represent less than 

.02 percent of ISE’s total contract volume. Of those 

41 products, 16 are proprietary ISE index options, 

all of which are available for licensing by ISE to any 

other exchange, four are index options that ISE has 

non-exclusively licensed from index providers and 

that are available to other exchanges to license, 10 

are options on Exchange Traded Funds that other 

exchanges have chosen not to list, and the 

remaining 11 products are equity options that either 

the other exchanges have chosen not to list or are 

in the process of being de-listed and thus are 

available for closing only transactions on ISE. 

ISE further notes that when another exchange has 

shown an interest in trading a proprietary ISE 

product, the Exchange has licensed the trading in 

that product to the other exchange. For example, 

ISE represents that NYSE Arca recently signed a 

license agreement with ISE to list and trade ISE’s 

foreign currency options, and that this ISE 

proprietary product is now multiply listed. ISE 

states that it is ready, willing, and able to license 

its proprietary index products for trading on other 

exchanges on commercially reasonable terms. See 

id. at 15797 to 15798. 

27See NYSE Arca Order, supra note 11, at 74784. 

28See id. at 74783. 

29 Id. 30 Id. Information on transactions executed on ISE 

is available through OPRA. 31See Notice, supra note 3, at 15798. 32 In reaching its conclusion in the NYSE Arca 

Order, the Commission noted that the fact that 95% 

of the professional users of Nasdaq core data (where 

Nasdaq has a substantial market share in Nasdaqlisted stocks) choose not to purchase Nasdaq’s 

depth-of-book market data strongly suggests that no 

exchange has monopoly pricing for its depth-ofbook order data. See NYSE Arca Order, supra note 

11, at 74785. 

33The Commission stated in the NYSE Arca 

Order that broker-dealers are not required to obtain 

depth-of-book order data to meet their duty of best 

execution. See id. at 74788 for a more detailed 

discussion. Likewise, the Commission does not 

view obtaining depth-of-book data as a necessary 

prerequisite to broker-dealers satisfying the duty of 

best execution with respect to the trading of 

standardized options. 

34The Commission notes that the CTA 

participants’ fees have long provided for a lower fee 

for non-professional subscribers, and that the fees 

approved by the Commission in the NYSE Arca 

Order also provided for lower fees for nonprofessional subscribers. See NYSE Arca Order, 

supra note 11, at 74772. 

35 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

36 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

ISE currently trades options on 16 

proprietary index products that are not 

traded on any other exchange. ISE 

represents that these 16 options 

currently represent less than 0.02% of 

ISE’s total contract volume.26 The 

Commission believes that, given the 

small percentage of ISE’s total contract 

volume represented by these 16 

products, the inclusion of data on these 

products in ISE’s Depth of Market 

product will not confer market power 

on ISE to compel market participants to 

purchase the entire ISE data feed. The 

Commission therefore believes that the 

inclusion of depth-of-book data for these 

products in ISE’s Depth of Market 

product does not undermine the finding 

that ISE was subject to significant 

competitive forces in setting the terms 

of its proposal. 

In addition to the need to attract order 

flow, the availability of alternatives to 

ISE’s Depth of Market product 

significantly affect the terms on which 

ISE can distribute this market data.27 In 

setting the fees for its Depth of Market 

product, ISE must consider the extent to 

which market participants would 

choose one or more alternatives instead 

of purchasing its data.28 The most basic 

source of information concerning the 

depth generally available at an exchange 

is the complete record of an exchange’s 

transactions that is provided in the core 

data feeds.29 In this respect, the core 

data feeds that include an exchange’s 

own transaction information are a 

significant alternative to the exchange’s 

market data product.30 Further, other 

options exchanges can produce their 

own depth of market data products, and 

thus are sources of potential 

competition for ISE. In addition, one or 

more securities firms could act 

independently and distribute their own 

order data, with or without a fee. 

ISE states in it is filings that of the 

nearly 200 firms that are members of the 

Exchange, less than 15 percent currently 

access the Depth of Market product, 

which the Exchange has been offering at 

no cost.31 The fact that many of ISE’s 

own members did not choose to access 

the Depth of Market product even when 

there was no cost for doing so strongly 

suggests that ISE does not have 

monopoly pricing power for its Depth of 

Market product.32

The Commission believes that there 

are a number of alternative sources of 

information that impose significant 

competitive pressures on ISE in setting 

the terms for distributing its Depth of 

Market product. The Commission 

believes that the availability of those 

alternatives, as well as ISE’s compelling 

need to attract order flow, imposed 

significant competitive pressure on ISE 

to act equitably, fairly, and reasonably 

in setting the terms of its proposal.33

Because ISE was subject to significant 

competitive forces in setting the terms 

of the proposal, the Commission will 

approve the proposal in the absence of 

a substantial countervailing basis to find 

that the terms of the proposal fail to 

meet the applicable requirements of the 

Act or the rules thereunder. The 

Commission did not receive any 

comments on the terms of the proposal. 

Further, an analysis of the proposal does 

not provide such a basis. The 

Commission notes that the per 

controlled device fees as proposed will 

be the same for all Professional 

subscribers ($50) and the same for all 

Non-Professional subscribers ($5). The 

fees therefore do not unreasonably 

discriminate among types of 

subscribers, such as by favoring 

participants in the ISE market or 

penalizing participants in other 

markets.34

IV. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,35 that the 

proposed rule change, as amended (SR– 

ISE–2007–97), be, and hereby is, 

approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.36

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–12357 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 6640] 

Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs (ECA) Request for Grant 

Proposals: Critical Language 

Scholarships for Intensive Summer 

Institutes 

Announcement Type: New 

Cooperative Agreements. 

Funding Opportunity Number: ECA/ 

A/E–10–01. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Number: 00.000. 

Key Dates: 

Application Deadline: July 10, 2009. 

Executive Summary: The Office of 

Academic Exchange Programs of the 

Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs announces an open competition 

for two or more assistance awards for 

the 2010 Critical Language Scholarships 

for Intensive Summer Institutes, which 

provide foreign language instruction 

overseas for American undergraduate 

and graduate students. Public and 

private non-profit organizations, or 

consortia of such organizations, meeting 

the provisions described in Internal 

Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 

501(c)(3), may submit proposals to 

cooperate with the Bureau in the 

administration and implementation of 

one or both of the two components 

25596 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 

available under this competition. Each 

component requires a separate proposal 

submission. 

It is anticipated that the total amount 

of funding available for all FY 2010 

administrative and program costs to 

support both program components A 

and B, including all language groupings, 

outlined below will be $10,000,000. 

Applicant organizations bidding on two 

or more language groups must submit a 

separate proposal not exceeding 

$350,000 for the recruitment and 

selection of all participants (Component 

A). Applicant organizations may submit 

proposals requesting funds not 

exceeding $9,650,000 to implement the 

CLS institutes between June and August 

2010 (Component B). 

Average participant costs per 

language group under Component B 

should not exceed $16,000. 

Component A: Participant 

Recruitment and Selection: The first 

component of this competition is for 

recruitment and selection of all U.S. 

participants for these summer institutes. 

While the CLS Institutes are active in 

multiple countries, it is important that 

a single worldwide program identity be 

maintained. Therefore, applicant 

organizations applying to administer 

programs for two or more language 

groups are required to submit a separate 

proposal for this component, 

demonstrating the capacity to conduct a 

nationwide participant recruitment and 

selection process for all language 

institutes. 

Only applicant organizations applying 

for two or more of the language groups 

listed below will be eligible to bid on 

this component. Only one organization 

will be selected to administer the 

participant recruitment and selection 

process. 

Component B: Administration and 

Implementation of Institutes: 

The second component is for the 

administration and implementation of 

six- to ten-week summer institutes 

overseas for participants in countries 

where Arabic, Chinese, Indonesian, 

Japanese, Korean, Russian and the Indic, 

Persian, and Turkic language families 

are widely spoken. 

Eligible organizations or consortia 

may submit proposals for the 

administration and implementation of 

one or more of the following language 

groupings: 

• Arabic language institutes in the 

Near East and North Africa region for 

not less than a total of 185 advanced 

beginning, intermediate and advanced 

students. 

• Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, and 

Korean language institutes in the East 

Asia and Pacific region for not less than 

a total of 155 beginning (Korean and 

Indonesian only), intermediate and 

advanced students. 

• Azerbaijani, Russian and Turkish 

language institutes in the Europe and 

Eurasia region for not less than a total 

of 143 beginning (Turkish only), 

intermediate and advanced students. 

• Persian and Indic (Bangla/Bengali, 

Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu) language 

institutes in the South Central Asia 

region for not less than a total of 92 

beginning (Indic languages only), 

intermediate and advanced students. 

See section on ‘‘Country and 

Language Information’’ under 

‘‘Administration and Implementation of 

Institutes’’ for additional information 

and a description of language levels. 

These summer institutes should offer 

U.S. undergraduate and graduate 

students structured classroom 

instruction and less formal interactive 

learning opportunities through a 

comprehensive exchange experience 

that primarily emphasizes language 

learning. Proposals from applicant 

organizations should demonstrate the 

development of new institutional 

language-teaching capacity overseas for 

these summer institutes and not propose 

enrolling participants in programs 

already in existence. This program is 

designed to develop additional overseas 

language study opportunities for U.S. 

students. 

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 

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 through legislation. 

Purpose: The Bureau of Educational 

and Cultural Affairs (ECA) is supporting 

the participation of American 

undergraduate and graduate students in 

intensive, substantive foreign language 

study to dramatically increase the 

number of Americans learning, 

speaking, and teaching critical need 

foreign languages. 

Foreign language skills are essential to 

engaging foreign governments and 

peoples, especially in critical world 

regions, to promote understanding, 

convey respect for other cultures, and 

encourage reform. These skills are also 

fundamental to the economic 

competitiveness and security interests 

of the nation. 

The goals of the Critical Language 

Scholarships (CLS) for Intensive 

Summer Institutes are: 

• To develop a cadre of Americans 

with advanced linguistic skills and 

related cultural understanding who are 

able to advance international dialogue, 

and compete effectively in the global 

economy; and 

• To improve the ability of Americans 

to engage with the people of other 

countries in the language of the partner 

country. 

In order to achieve these goals, the 

Bureau supports programs for American 

undergraduate and graduate students to 

gain and improve language proficiency 

in Arabic, Chinese, Indonesian, 

Japanese, Korean, Russian and the Indic, 

Persian, and Turkic language families. 

ECA plans to issue a single award for 

recruitment and selection of all 

participants and one or more awards for 

the administration of the CLS Institutes. 

Organizations with expertise in one or 

more of the indicated languages may 

also seek partners in the other languages 

to submit a single proposal as a 

consortium. Consortia submitting 

proposals must designate a lead 

institution to receive the award. 

Other Notes: The organization must inform 

the ECA program officer of its progress at 

each stage of the project’s implementation in 

a timely fashion. 

Component A: Participant Recruitment 

and Selection 

An applicant organization applying 

for two or more language groups must 

submit a separate proposal to conduct a 

nationwide competition for participants, 

which includes recruiting, screening, 

and selecting U.S. citizen undergraduate 

and graduate students for the program. 

Funding requested in a proposal for this 

element should not exceed $350,000. 

Recruitment: Applicant organizations 

should propose a comprehensive 

outreach plan to publicize and recruit 

for the program at U.S. colleges and 

universities nationwide. Information 

about the overall CLS program and 

specific institutes, along with all 

accompanying application materials, 

should be posted online. 

The Bureau requests that student 

applicants use an online application 

system. An alternate paper-based 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 25597 

application should also be provided for 

those candidates unable to apply online. 

These paper-based applications, 

however, must be entered into the 

online system by recipient organization 

program staff. All application materials 

should be available in a sortable, 

searchable, electronically accessible 

database format that can be easily 

shared with the Bureau upon request. 

Selection: Selected participants 

should show strong evidence of ability 

to succeed in an intensive, demanding 

language study program and should 

represent the diversity of the United 

States. Diversity addresses religion, 

ethnicity, socio-economic status, and 

physical abilities. Selected students 

should also represent diversity of 

institutional type and fields of study, a 

balance between genders, and a balance 

between undergraduate and graduate 

students. Preference should be given to 

candidates with no previous study 

overseas. Selected students should have 

completed at least their first year of 

undergraduate study by the summer of 

2010. Selected students should 

demonstrate the intention and ability to 

continue their language study beyond 

the scholarship period and apply their 

critical language skills later in their 

professional careers. The students’ 

language skills at the start of the 

institute should meet the requirements 

for each language outlined in 

Component B. 

ECA should approve the selection 

plan for candidates, as well as the 

selection of both finalists and alternates 

for the program. 

Publicity: The proposal must describe 

how these intensive summer language 

institutes will be publicized to media 

outlets, including print, online, and 

broadcast to reach the widest possible 

audience of qualified students. The 

applicant organization should also 

describe the response to and 

management of a significant volume of 

queries and applications and proposed 

ideas to ensure diversity. The recipient 

organization will also work closely with 

ECA to publicize the achievements of 

the students attending these institutes. 

The applicant organization should 

provide information on successful 

media outreach campaigns it has 

conducted in the past. Please refer to the 

PSI for additional guidance. 

Other Notes: All materials and 

correspondence related to the program will 

acknowledge it as a program of the Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the 

U.S. Department of State. ECA will retain 

copyright use of and be allowed to distribute 

materials related to this program as it sees fit. 

Planning Meeting: The recipient 

organization will be responsible for 

convening a planning meeting for all 

institute directors and relevant ECA 

staff. This planning meeting should 

occur in Washington, DC in the winter 

of 2009/2010. 

The planning meeting is intended to 

develop common elements and 

consistency of standards across all 

institutes. Among the agenda items will 

be presentations by each recipient 

organization of their preliminary plans 

for the proposed institute(s), especially 

contact hours of language instruction. 

Planned cultural activities that include 

language-learning components should 

also be presented. Issues related to 

student placement, testing, and 

evaluation should also be discussed. 

The recipient organization for 

Component A should present on the 

plan for recruitment and selection of all 

participants. 

This meeting should be planned in 

close consultation with ECA. 

Component B: Administration and 

Implementation of Institutes 

Through these institutes, 

undergraduate and graduate students 

from the United States will spend six to 

ten weeks on programs abroad in the 

summer of 2010. Since there is an 

emphasis on substantial progress in 

foreign language advancement, 

applicant organizations need to explain 

clearly the utility and advantages when 

proposing programs of approximately 

six weeks. The CLS institutes will 

provide intensive language instruction 

in a classroom setting, and should also 

provide language-learning opportunities 

through immersion in the cultural, 

social, and educational life of the 

partner country. The program should 

enhance the participants’ knowledge of 

the host country’s history, culture, and 

political system as these support 

language learning. Language study must 

be the primary focus of the program. 

Applicant organizations should 

submit a proposal for administration of 

one or more of the language groups. 

Funding requested in proposals for the 

administration of all language groups 

should not exceed $9,650,000. Average 

participant costs per language group 

should not exceed $16,000. 

Expected Program Results: 

• Participants will demonstrate a 

substantive, measurable increase in 

language proficiency (verified through 

testing). 

• Participants will demonstrate a 

deeper understanding of the host 

country’s society, institutions, and 

culture. 

• Alumni will continue their foreign 

language study, apply their linguistic 

skills in their chosen career fields, and/ 

or participate in other exchanges where 

the language they have studied is 

spoken. 

Capacity of Administering 

Organization: U.S. applicant 

organizations or consortia must have the 

necessary capacity in the partner 

country or countries to implement the 

program through either their own offices 

or partner institutions. Organizations 

may demonstrate their organization’s 

direct expertise, or they may partner 

with other organizations to best respond 

to the requirements outlined in this 

RFGP. Organizations that opt to work 

with sub-award arrangements should 

clearly outline all duties and 

responsibilities of the partner 

organization, preferably in the form of 

sub-award agreements and 

accompanying budgets. 

Organizations or consortia applying 

for this award must demonstrate their 

capacity for conducting projects of this 

nature, focusing on three areas of 

competency: (1) Provision of foreign 

language instruction programs and 

provision of educational and cultural 

activities as outlined in this document; 

(2) language level-appropriate 

programming for the target audience; 

and (3) experience in conducting 

programs in the proposed partner 

country or countries. Applicant 

organizations must present a proposal 

that clearly indicates the building of 

new and increased institutional 

language study capacity overseas for 

these summer institutes. 

Institute Information: Each six-to tenweek overseas summer institute for 

undergraduate and graduate students 

should focus on language study and 

should include four to six hours per day 

of formal and informal language 

training. The recipient organization(s) 

should provide multiple levels 

(beginning to advanced) of language 

instruction. While teaching 

conversational vocabulary will be 

necessary to help students function in 

their immersion setting, classes should 

also provide formal instruction in 

grammar, vocabulary, and 

pronunciation, as well as covering 

speaking, listening, reading, and 

writing, including non-Roman 

alphabets. 

The institutes should also include a 

secondary cultural immersion 

component designed to reinforce 

language learning with planned 

excursions, which give the students the 

opportunity to participate in activities 

designed to teach them about 

community life and the culture and 

history of the host country. The program 

activities should enhance the 

participants’ understanding of 

25598 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 

contemporary society, culture, media, 

political institutions, ethnic diversity, 

history, and environment of the host 

country. All these activities should 

incorporate a language component. 

Staff should be physically present and 

available to support the participants 

throughout the institute. 

The Bureau reserves the right to make 

changes in eligible countries for 

programming based on safety and 

security or other concerns. 

Country and Language Information: 

Near East and North Africa Region 

For Arabic language institutes: 

Applicant organizations should describe 

plans for not less than a total of 185 

participants in the Arabic language 

institutes. Arabic language instruction 

should be available for three levels of 

students: advanced beginning, 

intermediate, and advanced. 

Approximately 120 of the participants 

should receive instruction at the 

intermediate/advanced levels while the 

rest should receive elementary level 

instruction. The proposed institutes 

should make explicit accommodation 

for learners of varying skill levels. 

Classroom instruction should 

emphasize Modern Standard Arabic 

with class time devoted also to 

colloquial Arabic, as appropriate. 

Students should also gain knowledge of 

colloquial Arabic through informal 

study and through interaction with their 

host community. 

Some previous study of the 

language—at least equivalent to an 

academic year—is required for 

participants in the elementary Arabic 

institutes. Participants in the 

intermediate/advanced Arabic institutes 

will have already studied the language 

formally for at least two years by the 

start of the summer program. The 

recipient organization should devise a 

plan to test all students prior to 

placement to determine the appropriate 

level of instruction. 

Applicant organizations should plan 

to place students in a country or 

countries in North Africa, the Middle 

East, or the Gulf region, with the 

exception of Algeria, Iraq, Israel, Libya, 

Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. 

Applicant organizations should not plan 

to place students in the West Bank or 

Gaza. 

East Asia and Pacific Region 

For Chinese language institutes: 

Applicant organizations should 

describe plans for not less than a total 

of 80 participants in the Chinese 

language institutes. Chinese language 

instruction should be available for two 

levels of students: intermediate and 

advanced. The proposed institutes 

should make explicit accommodation 

for learners of varying skill levels. 

Chinese instruction should be in 

Mandarin only. Teaching materials used 

in the program should be available in 

both simplified and traditional character 

versions. The Hanyu pinyin 

romanization system should be used. 

Participants in the intermediate/ 

advanced Chinese institutes will have 

already studied the language formally 

for at least two years by the start of the 

summer program. The recipient 

organization should devise a plan to test 

all students prior to placement to 

determine what level of instruction 

should be received. 

Applicant organizations should plan 

to place students in the People’s 

Republic of China (mainland China) for 

study. 

For Indonesian language institutes: 

Applicant organizations should describe 

plans for not less than a total of 15 

participants in the Indonesian language 

institutes. Indonesian language 

instruction should be available for three 

levels of students: beginning, 

intermediate, and advanced. Eight of the 

participants should receive instruction 

at the intermediate/advanced level 

while the rest should receive beginning 

level instruction. The proposed institute 

should make explicit accommodation 

for learners of varying skill levels. 

No prior study of the language is 

required for participants in the 

beginning Indonesian institutes. 

Participants in the intermediate/ 

advanced Indonesian institutes will 

have already studied the language 

formally for at least two years by the 

start of the summer program. The 

recipient organization should devise a 

plan to test all students prior to 

placement to determine what level of 

instruction should be received. 

Applicant organizations should plan 

to place students in Indonesia. 

For Japanese language institutes: 

Applicant organizations should describe 

plans for not less than a total of 30 

participants in the Japanese language 

institutes. Japanese language instruction 

should be available for two levels of 

students: intermediate, and advanced. 

The proposed institutes should make 

explicit accommodation for learners of 

varying skill levels. 

Participants in the intermediate/ 

advanced Japanese institutes will have 

already studied the language formally 

for at least two years by the start of the 

summer program. The institutes should 

devise a plan to test all students prior 

to placement to determine what level of 

instruction should be received. 

Applicant organizations should plan 

to place students in Japan. Location of 

the institutes should be in a city other 

than Tokyo in order to maximize 

language-learning immersion 

opportunities. 

For Korean language institutes: 

Applicant organizations should describe 

plans for not less than a total of 30 

participants in the Korean language 

institutes. Korean language instruction 

should be available for three levels of 

students: beginning, intermediate, and 

advanced. Ten of the participants 

should receive instruction at the 

intermediate/advanced level while the 

rest should receive beginning level 

instruction. The proposed institutes 

should make explicit accommodation 

for learners of varying skill levels. 

The Hangeul alphabet system should 

be used. Students should also be 

introduced to NAKL. 

No prior study of the language is 

required for participants in the 

beginning Korean institutes. 

Participants in the intermediate/ 

advanced Korean institutes will have 

already studied the language formally 

for at least two years by the start of the 

summer program. The recipient 

organization should devise a plan to test 

all students prior to placement to 

determine what level of instruction 

should be received. 

Applicant organizations should plan 

to place students in South Korea. 

Location of the institutes should be in 

a city other than Seoul in order to 

maximize language-learning immersion 

opportunities. 

Europe and Eurasia Region 

For Azerbaijani language institute: 

Applicant organizations should describe 

plans for not less than a total of eight 

participants in the Azerbaijani language 

institute. Azerbaijani language 

instruction should be available for two 

levels of students: intermediate, and 

advanced. The proposed institutes 

should make explicit accommodation 

for learners of varying skill levels, as 

well as for a potential bridge course for 

Turkish speakers who wish to learn 

Azerbaijani. 

Participants in the intermediate/ 

advanced Azerbaijani institute will have 

already studied the language formally 

for at least two years by the start of the 

summer program. Students who have 

studied Turkish formally for at least two 

years by the start of the summer 

program may also be considered. The 

recipient organization should devise a 

plan to test intermediate/advanced 

students prior to placement to 

determine what level of instruction 

should be received. 

Applicant organizations should plan 

to place students in Azerbaijan. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 25599 

For Russian language institutes: 

Applicant organizations should describe 

plans for not less than a total of 80 

participants in the Russian language 

institutes. Russian language instruction 

should be available for two levels of 

students: intermediate and advanced. 

The proposed institutes should make 

explicit accommodation for learners of 

varying skill levels. 

Participants in the intermediate/ 

advanced Russian institutes will have 

already studied the language formally 

for at least two years by the start of the 

summer program. The recipient 

organization should devise a plan to test 

all students prior to placement to 

determine what level of instruction 

should be received. 

Applicant organizations should plan 

to place students in Russia. Location of 

the institutes should be in a city other 

than Moscow or St. Petersburg in order 

to maximize language-learning 

immersion opportunities. 

For Turkish language institutes: 

Applicant organizations should describe 

plans for not less than a total of 55 

participants in the Turkish language 

institutes. Turkish language instruction 

should be available for three levels of 

students: beginning, intermediate, and 

advanced. Thirty-five of the participants 

should receive instruction at the 

intermediate/advanced level while the 

rest should receive beginning level 

instruction. The proposed institutes 

should make explicit accommodation 

for learners of varying skill levels. 

No prior study of the language is 

required for participants in the 

beginning Turkish institutes. 

Participants in the intermediate/ 

advanced Turkish institutes will have 

already studied the language formally 

for at least two years by the start of the 

summer program. The recipient 

organization should devise a plan to test 

intermediate/advanced students prior to 

placement to determine what level of 

instruction should be received. 

Applicant organizations should plan 

to place students in Turkey. Location of 

the institutes should be in a city other 

than Istanbul in order to maximize 

language-learning immersion 

opportunities. 

South Central Asia Region 

For Indic language institutes: 

Applicant organizations should describe 

plans for not less than a total of 72 

participants in the Indic language 

institutes. Instruction should be 

available for each of these Indic 

languages: Bangla/Bengali, Hindi, 

Punjabi, and Urdu. For these language 

institutes, not less than 18 students 

should learn Bengali/Bangla, not less 

than 18 Hindi, not less than 18 Punjabi, 

and not less than 18 Urdu. All Indic 

language instruction should be available 

for three levels of students: beginning, 

intermediate, and advanced. Overall, 36 

of the participants should receive 

instruction at the intermediate/ 

advanced level while the rest should 

receive beginning level instruction. The 

proposed institutes should make 

explicit accommodation for learners of 

varying skill levels. 

No prior study of the language is 

required for participants in the 

beginning Indic institutes. Participants 

in the intermediate/advanced Indic 

institutes will have already studied the 

relevant language formally for at least 

two years by the start of the summer 

program. The recipient organization 

should devise a plan to test all students 

prior to placement to determine what 

level of instruction should be received. 

Applicant organizations should plan 

to place students in Bangladesh and/or 

India. 

For Persian language institutes: 

Applicant organizations should describe 

plans for not less than a total of 20 

participants in the Persian language 

institutes. Persian language instruction 

should be available for two levels of 

students: intermediate, and advanced. 

The proposed institutes should make 

explicit accommodation for learners of 

varying skill levels. 

Participants in the intermediate/ 

advanced Persian institutes will have 

already studied the language formally 

for at least two years by the start of the 

summer program. The institutes should 

devise a plan to test all students prior 

to placement to determine what level of 

instruction should be received. 

Applicant organizations should plan 

to place students in a site outside of Iran 

for the study of Persian. 

Orientations: Recipient 

organization(s) will organize 

substantive, in-person, pre-departure 

orientations for all participants. 

Working in consultation with ECA, the 

orientation should include a security 

briefing on the host country. The 

orientations must take place in 

Washington, DC. Comprehensive 

information packets should be provided, 

preferably online, well in advance of the 

orientation to all participants. A sample 

of the contents of these packets should 

be provided under Tab E. 

Recipient organization(s) may also 

organize substantive orientation for 

participants on arrival in the host 

country. The recipient organization(s) 

may also need to work in consultation 

with ECA and the U.S. Embassy in the 

host country to arrange an in-country 

security briefing to be conducted by the 

Embassy’s Regional Security Officer. 

At the end of each language program, 

the recipient organization(s) will 

organize an in-country closing 

workshop for the students prior to 

departure from their host country, 

which will focus on summarizing the 

experience, completing an evaluation, 

language testing, developing plans for 

activities at home, and preparing for reentry. 

Project Activities: Describe in detail 

the major components of the program, 

including project planning; the host 

venues; orientations (U.S. and overseas); 

assessment and testing; language 

instruction; educational enrichment 

activities; cultural activities; participant 

monitoring; and logistics. 

Assessment and Testing: 

Standardized pre- and post-institute 

testing should be done to determine 

participants’ language proficiency and 

progress. 

Pre- and post-testing should measure 

the student’s advancement in language 

learning. ECA will work with the 

recipient organization(s) to develop and 

implement an instrument to measure 

students’ increased language proficiency 

due to participation in this program. 

The data should be analyzed and 

reported by the recipient organization(s) 

to ECA for the program, disaggregated 

by institute. 

Alumni Tracking and Follow-On 

Activities: Alumni activities are an 

important part of ECA’s academic 

exchange programs. Alumni 

programming in the form of newsletters 

and listservs provides critical program 

follow-on and maximizes and extends 

the benefit of the participants’ program. 

Please refer to the PSI for additional 

guidance on alumni outreach and 

follow-on engagement. 

ECA maintains the alumni.state.gov 

Web site for all of its exchange program 

participants. The CLS Program 

maintains an online community through 

this global Web site. The recipient 

organization(s) will also be responsible 

for maintaining this community on 

behalf of the CLS Program. 

The applicant organization is strongly 

urged to outline how it will creatively 

organize and financially support alumni 

activities at a minimal cost to ECA. 

ECA/A/E Involvement: In a 

Cooperative Agreement, ECA/A/E is 

substantially involved in program 

activities above and beyond routine 

award monitoring. ECA/A/E activities 

and responsibilities for this program are 

as follows: 

Component A: Participant 

Recruitment and Selection. 

25600 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 

(1) Review all print and online 

materials regarding the institutes before 

publication and dissemination. 

(2) Review and approve the 

recruitment strategy. 

(3) Work with the recipient 

organization to publicize the program 

through various media outlets. 

(4) Review and approve application 

forms. 

(5) Participate in selection 

committees. 

(6) Confirm final selection of 

principal and alternate candidates. 

Component B: Administration and 

Implementation of Institutes. 

(1) Review all print and online 

materials regarding the institutes before 

publication and dissemination. This 

review also includes individual 

institute’s instructional materials and 

cultural activities, which must be 

provided to ECA at least two months in 

advance of the start of the institute. 

(2) Review and approve participant 

award documentation, including Terms 

and Conditions. 

(3) Work with recipient 

organization(s) to plan and implement 

participant pre-departure orientations. 

(4) Work with recipient 

organization(s) to offer standardized 

pre- and post-institute testing of 

participants’ language proficiency and 

progress. 

(5) Review project activity schedules 

for all institutes. 

(6) Monitor the progress of the 

recipient organization(s) at each stage of 

the project’s implementation through 

timely updates. 

(7) Provide Bureau-approved 

evaluation surveys for completion by 

participants after completion of 

program. 

(8) Provide substantive input on 

alumni activities and follow-up events. 

Funding: Award funding for 

Component A involving recruitment, 

selection, and the directors’ meeting 

will cover costs associated with this 

component, not exceeding $350,000. 

Award funding for Component B 

involving administration and 

implementation of the institutes will 

support costs including testing, 

orientation, travel, tuition and 

maintenance costs, educational 

enhancements, cultural and social 

activities, health benefits coverage, 

alumni activities, and administrative 

costs. This element should not exceed 

$9,650,000 overall. Average participant 

costs per language group should not 

exceed $16,000. 

Though not directly applicable to this 

program, programs must comply with J– 

1 visa regulations. Please refer to the 

Project Objectives, Goals, and 

Implementation (POGI) document and 

the Proposal Submission Instructions 

for further information. 

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: 2010. 

Approximate Total Funding: 

$10,000,000. 

Approximate Number of Awards: 2 or 

more. 

Ceiling of Award Range: $9,650,000. 

Floor of Award Range: $350,000. 

Anticipated Award Date: Pending 

availability of funds, the proposed start 

date is October 1, 2010. 

Anticipated Project Completion Date: 

Approximately 14 to 18 months after the 

start date, depending on the proposed 

program plan. 

Additional Information: Pending 

successful implementation of this 

program and the availability of funds in 

subsequent fiscal years, it is ECA’s 

intent to renew this cooperative 

agreement for two additional fiscal years 

before openly competing it again. 

III. Eligibility Information 

III.1. Eligible Applicants: 

Applications may be submitted by 

public and private non-profit 

organizations meeting 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 

award 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 that 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: 

Bureau grant guidelines require that 

organizations with less than four years 

experience in conducting international 

exchanges be limited to $60,000 in 

Bureau funding. ECA anticipates 

awarding two or more cooperative 

agreement awards in an amount over 

$60,000 to support program and 

administrative costs required to 

implement this exchange program. 

Therefore, organizations with less than 

four years experience in conducting 

international exchanges are ineligible to 

apply under this competition. 

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 Office of Academic Exchange 

Programs (ECA/A/E), Room 234, U.S. 

Department of State, SA–44, 301 4th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, 

Telephone (202) 453–8135, Fax (202) 

453–8125, E-mail: ManleyHL@state.gov 

to request a Solicitation Package. Please 

refer to the Funding Opportunity 

Number (ECA/A/E–10–01) 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 Bureau Special Projects 

Officer Heidi Manley and refer to the 

Funding Opportunity Number 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 25601 

‘‘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 form that 

is part of the formal application 

package. 

IV.3b. All proposals must contain an 

executive summary, proposal narrative 

and budget. Applicant organizations 

bidding on two or more language groups 

should submit one proposal for 

administration and implementation of 

the language institutes and a separate 

proposal for recruitment and selection 

of all participants. Each proposal should 

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 

Although not applicable to this 

competition, 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. 

A copy of the complete regulations 

governing the administration of 

Exchange Visitor (J) programs is 

available at http://exchanges.state.gov 

or from: 

United States Department of State, 

Office of Exchange Coordination and 

Designation, ECA/EC/ECD—SA–44, 

Room 734, 301 4th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20547, Telephone: 

(202) 203–5029, FAX: (202) 453–8640. 

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 

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. Each applicant organization 

must plan to use three surveys through 

the Bureau’s E-GOALS system, in 

addition to any surveys of its own. 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. 

25602 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 

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 short-term outcome, 

whereas behavior and institutional 

changes are normally considered longerterm 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. 

Additional guidance on using the 

Bureau’s E-GOALS system for 

evaluation is located in the POGI. 

IV.3d.4. Describe in your proposal 

your plans for: overall program 

management, staffing, coordination with 

ECA and with overseas institutes 

enrolling clusters of students, testing, 

orientation, and cultural enrichment 

opportunities for students. If bidding on 

two or more language groups, also 

indicate your plans for recruitment and 

selection. Please provide a staffing plan 

that outlines the responsibilities of each 

staff person and explains which staff 

members will be accountable for each 

program responsibility. 

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. Applicants must submit a 

comprehensive budget for the entire 

program. 

Budget requests for administration of 

both Component A and B may not 

exceed $10,000,000. There must be a 

summary budget as well as breakdowns 

reflecting both administrative and 

program budgets. Applicants should 

provide separate sub-budgets for each 

program component, phase, location, or 

activity to provide clarification. 

Applicants should also provide copies 

of any sub-award agreements that would 

be implemented under terms of this 

award. 

IV.3e.2. Allowable costs for the 

program and additional budget guidance 

are outlined in detail in the POGI 

document. 

Please refer to the POGI and the PSI 

documents in the Solicitation Package 

for complete budget guidelines and 

formatting instructions. 

IV.3F. Application Deadline and 

Methods Of Submission: 

Application Deadline Date: July 10, 

2009. 

Reference Number: ECA/A/E–10–01. 

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., DHL, Federal Express, UPS, 

Airborne Express, or U.S. Postal Service 

Express Overnight Mail, etc.), or 

(2) Electronically through http:// 

www.grants.gov. 

Please Note: ECA strongly encourages 

organizations interested in applying for this 

competition to submit printed, hard copy 

applications as outlined in section IV.3f.1., 

below rather than submitting electronically 

through Grants.gov. This recommendation is 

being made as a result of the anticipated high 

volume of grant proposals that will be 

submitted via the Grants.gov webportal as 

part of the Recovery Act stimulus package. 

As stated in these RFGPs, ECA bears no 

responsibility for data errors resulting from 

transmission or conversion processes for 

proposals submitted via 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. 

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, one fully-tabbed copy, 

and eight copies of the application with 

Tabs A–E (for a total of ten copies) 

should be sent to: U.S. Department of 

State, SA–44, Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/A/E–10–01, 

Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, 

Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20547. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 25603 

Applicants submitting hard-copy 

applications must also submit the 

‘‘Executive Summary’’ and ‘‘Proposal 

Narrative’’ sections of the proposal in 

text (.txt) or Microsoft Word format on 

a PC-formatted disk. The Bureau will 

provide these files electronically to the 

appropriate Public Affairs Section(s) at 

the U.S. embassy(ies) for its(their) 

review. 

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 strongly encourages 

organizations interested in applying for this 

competition to submit printed, hard copy 

applications as outlined in section IV.3f.1. 

above, rather than submitting electronically 

through Grants.gov. This recommendation is 

being made as a result of the anticipated high 

volume of grant proposals that will be 

submitted via the Grants.gov webportal as 

part of the Recovery Act stimulus package. 

As stated in this RFGP, ECA bears no 

responsibility for 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. 

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 assistance 

awards (cooperative agreements) resides 

with the Bureau’s Grants Officer. 

Review Criteria: Technically eligible 

applications will be competitively 

reviewed according to the criteria stated 

below: 

(1) Quality of the Program Idea: 

Proposals should exhibit originality, 

substance, precision, and relevance to 

the Bureau’s mission and the purposes 

outlined in this solicitation. Proposals 

should demonstrate how students 

would be monitored and trained, and 

also how they will be supported as 

alumni. If bidding on two or more 

language groups, proposals should also 

show how students would be recruited 

and selected. The level of creativity, 

resources, and effectiveness will be 

primary factors for review. 

(2) Program Planning and Ability to 

Meet Program Objectives: Proposals 

should clearly demonstrate an 

understanding of the program’s 

priorities and how the organization will 

achieve them through objectives that are 

reasonable, feasible, and flexible. The 

Narrative should address all of the items 

in the Statement of Work and 

Guidelines described above. A detailed 

agenda and relevant work plan should 

demonstrate organizational competency 

and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan 

should adhere to the program overview, 

timetable and guidelines described in 

this solicitation. The substance of the 

instruction and the exchange activities 

should be described in detail and 

included as an attachment. The 

responsibilities of partner organizations 

will be clearly delineated. 

(3) Support of Diversity: Proposals 

should demonstrate substantive support 

of the Bureau’s policy on diversity in 

both program administration (selection 

of participants, program venue, and 

program evaluation) and program 

content (orientation and wrap-up 

sessions, program meetings, resource 

materials, and follow-up activities). 

Proposals should articulate a diversity 

plan, not just a statement of compliance. 

(4) Follow-on/Alumni Activities: 

Proposals should provide a plan for 

continued contact with returnees to 

ensure that they are tracked over time, 

utilized and/or organized as alumni, 

and provided opportunities to reinforce 

the knowledge and skills they acquired 

on the exchange and share them with 

others. Proposals should provide a 

strategy for maximizing the 

opportunities for alumni to further their 

study of the language and culture of the 

host country, presenting plans that are 

within the context of the grant (with 

Bureau support) and after its completion 

(without the Bureau’s financial 

25604 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 

support). Please refer to the PSI for 

additional guidance on alumni outreach 

and follow-on engagement. 

(5) Institutional Capacity: Applicant 

organizations should demonstrate 

knowledge of each country’s 

educational environment and the 

capacity for hosting this language 

institute. Proposals should include 

detailed information about the applicant 

organization’s capacity in the United 

States and about in-country support for 

the program, including descriptions of 

experienced personnel who will 

implement it. Institutional resources 

should be adequate and appropriate to 

achieve the project’s goals. Proposals 

should demonstrate an institutional 

record of successful exchange programs. 

The Bureau will consider the past 

performance of prior recipients and the 

demonstrated potential of new 

applicants. 

(6) Program Evaluation: Proposals 

should include a plan and methodology 

to evaluate the program’s successes and 

challenges, both as the activities unfold 

and at the end of the program. The 

evaluation plan should show a clear 

link between program objectives and 

expected outcomes, and should include 

a description of performance indicators 

and measurement tools. Applicant 

organizations will indicate their 

willingness to submit periodic progress 

reports in accordance with the program 

office’s expectations. The final project 

evaluation should provide qualitative 

and quantitative data about the project’s 

influence on the participants’ long-term 

language-learning goals. 

(7) Cost-Effectiveness/Cost-Sharing: 

The overhead and administrative 

components of the proposal, including 

salaries and honoraria, should be kept 

as low as possible. While lower ‘‘per 

participant’’ figures will be favorably 

viewed, the Bureau expects all figures to 

be realistic. All other items should be 

necessary and appropriate. Proposals 

should maximize cost-sharing through 

institutional direct funding 

contributions, as well as other private 

sector support. Proposals should 

demonstrate a quality, cost-effective 

program. Proposals that demonstrate a 

significant reduction to per participant 

costs will be determined to be more 

competitive. 

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 an 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 two copies of the following 

reports: 

(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. 

(4) Interim program and financial 

reports that include information on the 

progress made on the program plan and 

program results to date. 

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. 

VI.4. Program Data Requirements: 

Organizations awarded grants will be 

required to maintain specific data on 

program participants and activities in an 

electronically accessible database format 

that can be shared with the Bureau as 

required. As a minimum, the data must 

include the following: 

(1) Name, address, contact 

information and biographic sketch of all 

persons who travel internationally on 

funds provided by the grant or who 

benefit from the grant funding but do 

not travel. 

(2) Itineraries of international and 

domestic travel, providing dates of 

travel and cities in which any exchange 

experiences take place. Final schedules 

for in-country and U.S. activities must 

be received by the ECA Program Officer 

at least three work days prior to the 

official opening of the activity. 

VII. Agency Contacts 

For questions about this 

announcement, contact: Heidi Manley, 

Office of Academic Exchange Programs, 

Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs, ECA/A/E–10–01, U.S. 

Department of State, SA–44, 301 4th 

Street, SW., Room 234, Washington, DC 

20547, Telephone (202) 453–8135, Fax 

(202) 453–8125, E-mail: 

ManleyHL@state.gov. 

All correspondence with the Bureau 

concerning this RFGP should reference 

the above title and number ECA/A/E– 

10–01. 

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. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 25605 

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. In addition, it 

reserves the right to accept proposals in 

whole or in part and to make an award 

or awards in the best interest of the 

program. Awards made will be subject 

to periodic reporting and evaluation 

requirements per section VI.3 above. 

Dated: May 18, 2009. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational 

and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E9–12416 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 6641] 

Culturally Significant Objects Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Dalou 

in England: Portraits of Womanhood, 

1871–1879’’ 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following determinations: Pursuant to 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority 

No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as 

amended, and Delegation of Authority 

No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], 

I hereby determine that the objects to be 

included in the exhibition ‘‘Dalou in 

England: Portraits of Womanhood, 

1871–1879,’’ imported from abroad for 

temporary exhibition within the United 

States, are of cultural significance. The 

objects are imported pursuant to loan 

agreements with the foreign owners or 

custodians. I also determine that the 

exhibition or display of the exhibit 

objects at the Yale Center for British Art, 

New Haven, CT, from on or about June 

10, 2009, until on or about August 23, 

2009, and at possible additional 

exhibitions or venues yet to be 

determined, is in the national interest. 

Public Notice of these Determinations is 

ordered to be published in the Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Julie 

Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of 

the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 

State (telephone: (202–453–8050). The 

address is U.S. Department of State, SA– 

44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, 

Washington, DC 20547–0001. 

Dated: May 22, 2009. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational 

and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E9–12453 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Generalized System of Preferences 

(GSP): Notice Regarding the Initiation 

of the 2009 Annual GSP Product and 

Country Eligibility Practices Review 

and Deadlines for Filing Petitions 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Notice and solicitation for 

public petitions. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces that 

the Office of the United States Trade 

Representative (USTR) will receive 

petitions in 2009 to modify the list of 

products that are eligible for duty-free 

treatment under the GSP program and to 

modify the GSP status of certain GSP 

beneficiary developing countries 

because of country practices. This 

notice determines that the deadline for 

submission of country practice petitions 

for the 2009 Annual GSP Product and 

Country Eligibility Practices Review is 5 

p.m., Wednesday, June 24, 2009. This 

notice further determines that the 

deadline for submission of product 

petitions, other than those requesting 

competitive need limitation (CNL) 

waivers or section 503(c)(1)(E) 

determinations regarding products not 

produced in the United States on 

January 1, 1995, is 5 p.m., Wednesday, 

June 24, 2009. The deadline for 

submission of petitions requesting CNL 

waivers and 503(c)(1)(E) determinations 

regarding products not produced in the 

United States on January 1, 1995 is 5 

p.m., Tuesday, November 17, 2009. The 

lists of product petitions and country 

practice petitions accepted for review 

will be announced in the Federal 

Register at later dates. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tameka Cooper, GSP Program, Office of 

the United States Trade Representative, 

1724 F Street, NW., Room F–214, 

Washington, DC 20508. The telephone 

number is (202) 395–6971, the fax 

number is (202) 395–2961, and the email address is 

Tameka_Cooper@ustr.eop.gov. 

Public versions of all documents 

relating to this review will be made 

available for public viewing at http:// 

www.regulations.gov upon completion 

of processing and no later than 

approximately two weeks after the 

relevant due date. Public versions of the 

petitions submitted for the June 24, 

2009, deadline will be available in 

docket USTR–2009–0015 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

I. 2009 Annual GSP Review 

The GSP regulations (15 CFR part 

2007) provide the timetable for 

conducting an annual review, unless 

otherwise specified by Federal Register 

notice. Notice is hereby given that, in 

order to be considered in the 2009 

Annual GSP Product and Country 

Practices Eligibility Review, all petitions 

to modify the list of articles eligible for 

duty-free treatment under GSP or to 

review the GSP status of any beneficiary 

developing country must be received by 

the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade 

Policy Staff Committee no later than 5 

p.m. on Wednesday, June 24, 2009. 

Petitions requesting CNL waivers and 

503(c)(1)(E) determinations regarding 

products not produced in the United 

States on January 1, 1995, must be 

received by the GSP Subcommittee of 

the Trade Policy Staff Committee no 

later than 5 p.m. on Tuesday, November 

17, 2009, in order to be considered in 

the 2009 Annual Review. Petitions 

submitted after the respective deadlines 

will not be considered for review. 

GSP Product Review Petitions 

Interested parties, including foreign 

governments, may submit petitions to: 

(1) Designate additional articles as 

eligible for GSP benefits, including to 

designate articles as eligible for GSP 

benefits only for countries designated as 

least-developed beneficiary developing 

countries, or only for countries 

designated as beneficiary sub-Saharan 

African countries under the African 

Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA); 

(2) withdraw, suspend or limit the 

application of duty-free treatment 

accorded under the GSP with respect to 

any article, either for all beneficiary 

developing countries, least-developed 

beneficiary developing countries or 

beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

countries, or for any of these countries 

individually; (3) determine whether a 

like or directly competitive product was 

produced in the United States on 

January 1, 1995, for the purposes of 

section 503(c)(1)(E); (4) waive the 

‘‘competitive need limitations’’ for 

individual beneficiary developing 

countries with respect to specific GSPeligible articles (these limits do not 

apply to either least-developed 

beneficiary developing countries or 

AGOA beneficiary sub-Saharan African 

countries); and (5) otherwise modify 

GSP coverage.