Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-04-25 · SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Notice

14,886 words·~68 min read·/register/2006/04/25/06-3756·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 7905-01-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53677; File No. PCAOB-2006-01] Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Order Approving Proposed Ethics and Independence Rules Concerning Independence, Tax Services, and Contingent Fees and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Amendment Delaying Implementation of Certain of These Rules April 19, 2006. I. Introduction On July 26, 2005, 1 the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “Board” or the “PCAOB”) adopted proposed Ethics and Independence Rules Concerning Independence, Tax Services and Contingent Fees, 2 (herein, “the proposed rules”) pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”) 3 and Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 4 The proposed rules include general rules with respect to ethics and independence, restrict certain types of tax services a registered public accounting firm may provide to its audit clients, and prohibit contingent fee arrangements for any services a registered public accounting firm provides to its audit clients, in order to maintain its independence.
On November 22, 2005, the Board adopted certain technical amendments to Rule 3502, including its title, and Rule 3522. 5 1 On August 2, 2005, the PCAOB submitted its proposed rules to the Commission for approval. 2 PCAOB Release No. 2005-014. 3 15 U.S.C. 7202 *et seq.* 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 5 PCAOB Release No. 2005-020. On November 23, 2005, the PCAOB submitted the technical amendments to the Commission for approval. Notice of the proposed rules, including the November 22, 2005 technical amendments, was published in the **Federal Register** on March 7, 2006, 6 and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) received eight comment letters.
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rules. 6 Release No. 34-53427; File No. PCAOB-2006-01. On March 28, 2006, the PCAOB adopted an additional statement, delaying the implementation schedule for Rules 3523 and 3524 of the proposed rules, 7 and submitted that amendment to the filing to the Commission. The Commission finds there is good cause to approve this amendment prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the **Federal Register** and, for the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the amendment. 7 PCAOB Release No. 2006-001.
II. Description The Act established the PCAOB to oversee the audits of public companies and related matters, to protect investors, and to further the public interest in the preparation of informative, accurate and independent audit reports. 8 Section 103(a) of the Act directs the PCAOB to establish auditing and related attestation standards, quality control standards, and ethics standards to be used by registered public accounting firms in the preparation and issuance of audit reports as required by the Act or the rules of the Commission. 8 Section 101(a) of the Act.
Overall Framework (Rules 3501 and 3502) Proposed Rules 3501 and 3502 will create an overall framework within the PCAOB's ethics rules. Proposed Rule 3501 sets forth the requirement for the accounting firm to be independent of its audit client throughout the audit and professional engagement period as a fundamental ethical obligation of the auditor. This requirement for the auditor to be independent encompasses the obligation to satisfy the independence criteria set out in the rules and the standards of the PCAOB, but also an obligation to satisfy all other independence criteria applicable to the engagement, including the independence criteria set out in the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Proposed Rule 3502 establishes a standard of ethical conduct for persons associated with registered public accounting firms, indicating that these persons shall not take or omit to take an action knowing, or recklessly not knowing, that the act or omission would directly and substantially contribute to a violation by the accounting firm of the Act, the rules of the Board, or provisions of the securities laws. These two proposed rules would be effective 10 days after the date of this order.
Contingent Fees (Rule 3521) Proposed Rule 3521 would treat registered public accounting firms as not independent if they enter into contingent fee arrangements, directly or indirectly, with audit clients. 9 While the PCAOB's definition of contingent fees was adapted from the Commission's definition, there are two distinct differences. The principal difference is the elimination of the exception in Rule 2-01(c)(5) of Regulation S-X for fees “in tax matters, if determined based on the results of judicial proceedings or the findings of government agencies.
” The PCAOB found this provision had been misinterpreted and could permit fees that jeopardized the independence of auditors. In addition, the proposed rule would expressly indicate that the contingent fees cannot be received “directly or indirectly” from the audit client. We do not object to the language that has been included in the PCAOB's proposed rule. The proposed rule would not be applied to contingent fee arrangements that were paid in their entirety, converted to fixed fee arrangements, or otherwise unwound before 60 days after the date of this order. 9 The proposed definition of “contingent fee” includes any fee established for the sale of a product or the performance of any service pursuant to an arrangement in which no fee will be charged unless a specified finding or result is attained, or in which the amount of the fee is otherwise dependent upon the finding or result of such product or service.
However, a fee is not a contingent fee if the amount is fixed by courts or other public authorities and not dependent upon a finding or result. Tax Transactions (Rule 3522) Proposed Rule 3522 would prohibit auditors from providing any non-audit services to its audit clients related to the marketing, planning or opining in favor of the tax treatment of transactions that are confidential transactions under the Internal Revenue Service's regulations or transactions that would be considered aggressive tax position transactions. 10 As such, this proposed rule adds to the list of services an audit firm is prohibited from providing its audit clients in order to maintain its independence.
While the Board considered a wide-range of tax services, they ultimately determined that these particular types of tax services (confidential transactions or aggressive tax transactions) represented a class of tax-motivated transactions that presented an unacceptable risk of impairing an auditor's independence. The proposed rule would not be applied to tax services that were completed by the accounting firm by 60 days after the Commission approves the rules. 10 The PCAOB has defined aggressive tax positions as those that are initially recommended, directly or indirectly, by the auditor and a significant purpose of which is tax avoidance, unless the proposed tax treatment is at least more likely than not to be allowable under applicable tax laws.
Tax Services for Persons in a Financial Reporting Oversight Role (Rule 3523) Proposed Rule 3523 adds to the list of services an audit firm is prohibited from providing its audit clients in order to maintain its independence by prohibiting audit firms from providing any tax service to any person who fills a financial reporting oversight role at an audit client, 11 or an immediate family member of such individual, unless such person is in that role solely because he or she is a member of the board of directors or similar management governing body.
The proposed rule includes those individuals who are in a financial reporting oversight role at an affiliate of the entity being audited unless that affiliate is either not material to the consolidated entity or the affiliate's financial statements are audited by another auditor. Based on the March 28, 2006 amendment, this proposed rule would not be applied to tax services being provided pursuant to an engagement in process at the time the Commission approves the rules, provided that such services are completed on or before October 31, 2006. 12 11 The PCAOB's definition of a “financial reporting oversight role” matches the Commission's definition of the same term. 12 The proposed rule also provides a transition period for those individuals that are hired or promoted into a financial reporting oversight role; this transition period allows for the tax services in process to be completed within 180 days after the hiring or promotion.
Auditor's Responsibility in Connection With Audit Committee Pre-Approval of Tax Services (Rule 3524) Proposed Rule 3524 would require the auditor seeking pre-approval to perform tax services to provide the audit committee written documentation of the scope of the proposed tax service and the fee structure for the engagement, discuss with the audit committee the potential effects on the firm's independence of performance of the services, and document the firm's discussion with the audit committee.
The Board amended the proposed effective date for this rule as part of its March 28, 2006 statement. As amended, the proposed rule would not be applied to any tax service pre-approval occurring before 60 days after the Commission approves the rules. Additionally, due to considerations of potentially existing audit committee procedures and schedules for pre-approving all audit and non-audit services, in cases where the registrant pre-approves non-audit services via policies and procedures, the rule will not apply to any tax service that has started within one year after the Commission approves the rules.
The Board provided this longer transition so that most tax services considered within an annual audit committee review process that occurred prior to Commission approval could proceed without the need for additional pre-approval. III. Discussion The Commission's comment period on the proposed rules ended on April 3, 2006, and the Commission received eight comment letters. The majority of comment letters came from accounting firms, 13 although one professional organization, 14 one registrant 15 and one individual also responded.
In general, the respondents expressed support for the proposed rules, though a number of the commenters requested either revisions or additional clarifying guidance from either the Commission or the PCAOB, as discussed in more detail below. 13 Deloitte & Touche LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, KPMG, McGladrey & Pullen, and PricewaterhouseCoopers. 14 American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 15 Capital Group Companies. Response to Specific Request for Comment on Proposed Rule 3522 In its public release of the proposed rules for comment, the Commission asked respondents to comment on proposed Rule 3522, specifically as to whether it was clear from the Board's discussion that a subsequent listing of a transaction, while not in and of itself impairing the auditor's independence prior to the listing of the transaction, may impact independence from the date of listing forward.
Further, the Commission questioned whether additional guidance was necessary regarding the consideration of an auditor's independence when a transaction planned or opined on by the auditor subsequently becomes listed. The accounting firms and the AICPA responded to this question. Some commenters 16 indicated that if the audit committee and the firm, in good faith, reached a conclusion that the proposed transaction was allowable at the time the tax services were provided, the subsequent listing of the transaction should not impair the auditor's independence, as long as the firm is not in a position of defending its original advice.
The PCAOB received similar comments during its exposure of the rule and responded by stating that it agreed with commenters that a *per se* rule that a subsequent listing of a transaction impaired an auditor's independence in either the period of the transaction or subsequent to the listing was not appropriate. The PCAOB stated that firms should be cautious in participating in transactions that could become listed, and that subsequent to the listing the firm and the audit committee should consider the potential impact of defending the transaction on the auditor's independence. 16 KPMG, E&Y, AICPA, PWC.
Commenters 17 on the Commission's Notice requested guidance on the subsequent consideration of independence upon the listing of the transaction and made a number of suggestions. Suggestions on this included: Clarifying that a subsequent listing of a transaction has no retroactive impact on independence and does not *per se* impair independence going forward, clarifying that the subsequent determination as to the impact on auditor independence should rest primarily with the audit committee, and clarifying that an audit committee's good faith determination in determining if the subsequent listing impairs independence should be considered conclusive.
We agree that listing of a transaction does not result in a *per se* violation of an auditor's independence in either the period in which the transaction occurred or in subsequent periods. Based on the large percentage of commenters who felt that additional guidance is necessary regarding the subsequent determination of independence upon the listing of a transaction, we encourage the PCAOB to provide such guidance within a reasonable period of time after the approval of the proposed rules. 17 D&T, PWC, McGladrey.
Rule 3523 A number of commenters raised concerns in relation to the PCAOB's application of the principle of “individuals in a financial reporting oversight role” to its proposed Rule 3523. The PCAOB has proposed a definition of the term “financial reporting oversight role” that matches the way in which the Commission has defined the term in our independence rules. However, while the defined term is identical to the Commission's definition, the proposed application of that term differs from the Commission's application.
In the Commission's independence rules pertaining to employment relationships, there are restrictions on the time frame in which a former professional employee of an audit firm can fill a “financial reporting oversight role” at an *issuer-client, or significant subsidiary of that issuer,* without negatively impacting the independence of the audit firm. In contrast, the PCAOB's proposed rule prohibits the audit firm from providing tax services to a person in a financial reporting oversight role at the *audit client or material affiliate of the audit client,* with some exceptions ( *i.e.* , individuals who serve as directors are not included).
Commenters 18 expressed concerns that the PCAOB's proposed rule extends the definition of “financial reporting oversight role” to a broader group of individuals than the Commission's independence rule, and that application of the rule to such a broad group will make monitoring compliance burdensome. This issue was not raised in the PCAOB's comment period because the reference to individuals at material affiliates was added by the PCAOB in response to comments seeking clarification regarding whether the rule applied to immaterial subsidiaries.
The PCAOB added language to the rule to make clear that it did not apply to immaterial subsidiaries. However, based on commenters' requests for further clarification, we encourage the PCAOB to issue additional guidance. 18 AICPA, D&T, E&Y, KPMG, PWC. Additional Comments The AICPA and one accounting firm commented how the standard for liability in the rule compares to the standard for liability under Section 21C of the Exchange Act. The AICPA also questions whether the PCAOB's standard setting authority encompassed the adoption of rules related to the responsibility of associated persons not to knowingly or recklessly contribute to an accounting firm's violation of rules or applicable law.
We believe that the rule is within the scope of the PCAOB's authority, particularly its authority to establish ethical standards. A number of commenters made requests for additional implementation guidance from the PCAOB upon the approval of the rules. Commenters raised questions regarding certain language in proposed Rule 3522 pertaining to the confidentiality restrictions in the rule and the use of the term “planning” in the rule text. Based on these comments, we recommend the PCAOB provide additional implementation guidance on these topics.
IV. Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 1; Solicitation of Comments The Board's March 28, 2006 amendment to the implementation schedule for certain of the proposed rules (the “March 28, 2006 amendment”) would delay the effective date for Rules 3523 and 3524. Rule 3523 originally had an effective date of the later of June 30, 2006 or 10 days after the date that the Commission approved the rules. The PCAOB acknowledged in its adoption of the rule that the proposed rule would lead to some registered firms terminating recurring engagements to provide tax services and may require certain members of public companies' senior management to find other tax preparers.
In order to allow for as smooth a transition as possible, the PCAOB decided to amend the effective date such that Rule 3523 would not apply to tax services that are being provided pursuant to an engagement in process at the time the Commission approves the rules, provided that such services are completed on or before the later of October 31, 2006 or 10 days after the date of this order. Rule 3524 requires certain disclosure, discussion, and documentation when a registered firm seeks audit committee pre-approval to provide a public company audit client tax services that are not otherwise prohibited by Commission or PCAOB rules.
Acknowledging that some companies choose to use pre-approval policies and procedures to approve certain tax services, the original proposed rules provided two different effective dates: 60 days after the date that the Commission approves the rules or, in the case of an issuer that pre-approves non-audit services by policies and procedures, the rule would not apply to any tax service provided by March 31, 2006. Considering the time period since the rules' adoption, the PCAOB decided to amend the effective date with respect to tax services provided to audit clients whose audit committees pre-approve tax services pursuant to policies and procedures.
As a result, under the proposed amendment, Rule 3524 would not apply to any such tax service that is begun within one year after the date of this order. This transition period should allow most tax services considered in an annual audit committee review process that occurred prior to Commission approval to proceed without the need for a firm to seek new pre-approval. We find good cause to approve the March 28, 2006 amendment prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing the March 28, 2006 amendment in the **Federal Register** .
The original proposed rules, as noted above, were published in the **Federal Register** . We believe that the March 28, 2006 amendment, by delaying the effective date for certain of the proposed rules, addresses some of the concerns raised by commenters regarding the time period in which auditors would have to comply with the new rules. The March 28, 2006 amendment does not modify the scope and purpose of the rules as originally proposed but simply extends compliance dates commensurate with the original filing date.
Finally, we also find that it is in the public interest to approve the rules as soon as possible to assist accounting firms in making arrangements to efficiently implement the proposed rules. Accordingly, we believe good cause exists, consistent with Sections 107 and 109 of the Act, and Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act, to approve the March 28, 2006 amendment to the proposed rules on an accelerated basis. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the March 28, 2006 amendment, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Act and the securities laws or is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/pcaob.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number PCAOB-2006-01 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No.
PCAOB-2006-01. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of PCAOB. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should be submitted on or before May 25, 2006. V. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that proposed rules, including the March 28, 2006 amendment, are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the securities laws and are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors.
However, to facilitate implementation of the proposed rules, the Commission expects the PCAOB will issue additional implementation guidance as requested by a number of the commenters. *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 107 of the Act and Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that the Proposed Ethics and Independence Rules Concerning Independence, Tax Services, and Contingent Fees (File No. PCAOB-2006-01), as amended, be and hereby are approved. By the Commission. Nancy M.
Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6125 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53678; File No. SR-Amex-2006-36] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Adoption of a Licensing Fee for Options on the First Trust IPOX-100 Index Fund Shares April 19, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 12, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by Amex.
Amex has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to modify its Options Fee Schedule by adopting a per contract license fee for the orders of specialists, registered options traders (“ROTs”), firms, non-member market makers, and broker-dealers in connection with options transactions on the shares of the First Trust IPOX-100 Index Fund (symbol: FPX). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at *http://www.amex.com,* at the principal office of the Amex, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Amex proposes to adopt a per contract licensing fee for options on FPX. This fee change will be assessed on members commencing April 13, 2006. The Exchange has entered into numerous agreements with various index providers for the purpose of trading options on certain exchange traded funds (“ETFs”), such as FPX. This requirement to pay an index license fee to a third party is a condition to the listing and trading of these ETF options.
In many cases, the Exchange is required to pay a significant licensing fee to the index provider that may not be reimbursed. In an effort to recoup the costs associated with certain index licenses, the Exchange has established a per contract licensing fee for the orders of specialists, ROTs, firms, non-member market makers and broker-dealers, which is collected on every option transaction in designated products in which such market participant is a party. 5 5 *See, e.g.* , Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52493 (September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56941 (September 29, 2005).
The purpose of this proposal is to charge an options licensing fee in connection with options on FPX. Specifically, Amex seeks to charge an options licensing fee of $0.10 per contract side for FPX options for specialist, ROT, firm, non-member market maker and broker-dealer orders executed on the Exchange. In all cases, the fees will be charged only to the Exchange members through whom the orders are placed. The proposed options licensing fee will allow the Exchange to recoup its costs in connection with the index license fee for the trading of the FPX options.
The fees will be collected on every order of a specialist, ROT, firm, non-member market maker, and broker-dealer executed on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposal to require payment of a per contract licensing fee in connection with the FPX options by those market participants that are the beneficiaries of Exchange index license agreements is justified and consistent with the rules of the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the Amex, in recent years, has revised a number of fees to better align Exchange fees with the actual cost of delivering services and reduce Exchange subsidies of such services.
Amex believes that the implementation of this proposal is consistent with the reduction and/or elimination of these subsidies. Amex also believes that these fees will help to allocate to those market participants engaging in transactions in FPX options, a fair share of the related costs of offering such options. The Exchange asserts that the proposal is equitable as required by Section 6(b)(4) of the Act. 6 In connection with the adoption of an options licensing fee for FPX options, the Exchange believes that charging an options licensing fee, where applicable, to all market participant orders except for customer orders is reasonable, given the competitive pressures in the industry.
Accordingly, the Exchange seeks, through this proposal, to better align its transaction charges with the cost of providing products. 6 Section 6(b)(4) states that the rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. 2. Statutory Basis Amex believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 7 regarding the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among exchange members and other persons using exchange facilities. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Amex believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 9 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2006-36 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-36.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-36 and should be submitted on or before May 16, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6146 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53675; File No. SR-NASD-2006-049] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Brut's Routing Order Process April 18, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 13, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which items have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has designated the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act, 3 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in *italics* ; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 4714. Routing—Nasdaq-Listed Securities (a)-(b)—No Change
(c)In the event an order becomes non-marketable while it is in the execution queue, or the order is not marketable upon return to Nasdaq, the order shall be included in the Nasdaq Market Center book (if consistent with the order's time in force condition) in accordance with the time priority established by the time-stamp assigned to the order when it was initially submitted to the Nasdaq Market Center. Once an order is placed in the Nasdaq Market Center book it shall not be routed outside the Nasdaq Market Center *unless otherwise instructed* . (d)-(f) No Change 4905. Order Processing
(a)Brut Book Order Process—No Change
(b)Brut Order Routing Process
(1)No Change
(2)With the exception of Thru Brut and Directed Cross Orders that specifically direct *to* which market center an order is to be routed, [orders routed out of the Brut System to other market centers for potential execution are generally delivered to other market centers in price/size priority. If the routed order is smaller in size than the total combined displayed share amounts of accessible market centers at the best price level, the Brut System delivers the routed order to the available market centers in price/size priority. If the routed order is larger than the total combined displayed share amounts of accessible market centers at the best price level, the Brut System delivers over-sized orders to each displayed market center's quote in proportion to the individual market's center share of that total displayed share amount.] *if an order for a security is not executed in its entirety in the Brut System and such order is designated for routing, the order (or the unfilled portion thereof—referred to hereinafter as an “order”) shall be processed as follows:* *(A) The order shall be routed to other markets accessible through the Brut System router at a price better than the Orders available in the Brut System as a limit order. Routed orders shall be executed pursuant to the rules and regulations of the destination market.* *(B) In the event an order routed from the Brut System to another market is not executed in its entirety, the remaining portion of the order shall be returned to the Brut System and shall be eligible for execution, or re-routing, if marketable. A market order that is converted to a limit order for routing will become a market order again upon return to the Brut System.* *(C) In the event an order becomes non-marketable while it is in the execution queue, or the order is not marketable upon return to the Brut System, the order shall be included in the Brut System book (if consistent with the order's time in force condition) in accordance with the time priority established by the time-stamp assigned to the order when it is returned to the Brut System. Once an order is placed in the Brut System book it shall not be routed outside the Brut System unless otherwise instructed.* *(D) An order that has been routed to another market shall have no time standing in the Brut System execution queue relative to other orders in the Brut System. A request from a Brut Participant to cancel an order while it is outside the Brut System shall be processed subject to the applicable rules of the market to which the order has been routed.* [(3) In the event an order routed to another market center is not executed in its entirety, the remaining portion of the order shall be returned to the System and, if upon return the order is marketable against a System order then priced at the NBBO, it will be subjected to Brut Book Process prior to any further routing.
(4)An order that has been routed to another market shall have no time standing in the System execution queue relative to other orders in the System. A request from a Participant to cancel an order while it is outside the System shall be processed subject to the applicable rules of the market center to which the order has been routed.] II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Nasdaq represents that the purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify the rule language pertaining to routing to external venues through the Brut service to conform more closely with the rule language pertaining to routing to external venues through the Nasdaq Market Center. 4 The one corresponding change to Nasdaq's routing language is necessary for clarification purposes so as to more accurately reflect the current routing process and does not indicate an actual system change. 5 Currently, Brut's rules describe the algorithm used for determining to which routing destination and for how many shares Brut will send orders. Nasdaq believes that this limits Brut's ability to adjust its routing algorithm to achieve optimal routing results. 4 *See* NASD Rule 4714. 5 *See* NASD Rule 4706. By adopting language more consistent with Nasdaq's routing rules, Nasdaq represents that Brut will have more flexibility to adjust its routing algorithm based on a number of factors, including: speed, certainty of execution, potential of reserve shares, and cost. As such, Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change would promote uniformity between Nasdaq-operated trading systems and provide the capacity to adopt the same routing logic in anticipation of the eventual integration of these systems into a single trading platform. The rule differs slightly from Nasdaq's routing rules, however, in that the Brut system uses the timestamp of an order when it is returned to the Brut system for ranking the order on the book, whereas the Nasdaq Market Center uses the order's original timestamp. Nasdaq believes that this difference is not significant and that it would be too costly to conform this feature in the Brut system in light of the imminent integration of the systems. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 6 in general and with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 7 in particular, in that it is designed to foster coordination and cooperation with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities. Nasdaq believes the proposal is consistent with this obligation because it is designed to improve the routing process by making it more efficient and offering subscribers more routing options. 6 15 U.S.C. 78o-3. 7 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Nasdaq has designated the foregoing rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 9 because the rule change does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; or
(iii)become operative for 30 days from the day on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASD-2006-049 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-049. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-049 and should be submitted on or before May 16, 2006. 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6126 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53673; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-80] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to the Automated Delivery and Handling of Stop and Stop-Limit Orders April 18, 2006. I. Introduction On December 15, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 the proposed rule change relating to the automated delivery and handling of stop and stop-limit orders. On March 6, 2006, Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change with the Commission. 3 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 27, 2006. 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended, on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1, which replaced the original filing in its entirety, added clarifying language to the description of the proposed rule change and adopted a definition of “agency order” in Phlx Rule 1080(b)(i)(A). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53514 (March 17, 2006), 71 FR 15240 (March 27, 2006). II. Description of the Proposal The Phlx proposed to amend Phlx Rules 1066(c)(1) and 1080(b)(i)(A) and (C), and to delete Options Floor Procedure Advices (“OFPAs”) A-5 and A-6, to permit customer and off-floor broker-dealer stop 5 and stop-limit 6 orders in options to be delivered via the Exchange's Automated Options Market (“AUTOM”) System 7 and to be handled electronically. The Exchange also proposed to amend Phlx Rule 1080(b)(i)(A) to include the definition of “agency order” in the rule and to delete certain provisions in the Exchange's rules that were either redundant or no longer practical. 5 A stop order is a contingency order to buy or sell when the market for a particular option contract reaches a specified price. A stop order to buy becomes a market order when the option contract trades or is bid at or above the stop price. A stop order to sell becomes a market order when the option contract trades or is offered at or below the stop price. *See* Phlx Rule 1066(c)(1). 6 A stop-limit order is a contingency order to buy or sell at a limited price when the market for a particular option contract reaches a specified price. A stop limit order to buy becomes a limit order executable at the limit price or better when the option contract trades or is bid at or above the stop-limit price. A stop limit order to sell becomes a limit order executable at the limit price or better when the option contract trades or is offered at or below the stop limit price. *See id.* 7 *See* Phlx Rule 1080. III. Discussion The Commission has reviewed the proposed rule change, as amended, and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 8 In particular, the Commission finds the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act 9 which, among other things, requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating securities transactions, to remove impediments to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 8 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The proposal is intended to increase the number of orders handled electronically and establish rules that permit the electronic delivery and handling of stop and stop-limit orders via the Exchange's AUTOM System. The Commission notes that increasing the number of orders handled electronically should increase the efficiency and accuracy of the handling of such orders. In addition, the proposal is substantially similar to a rule currently in effect on the International Securities Exchange, Inc. 10 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48811 (November 20, 2003), 68 FR 66909 (November 28, 2003). The Exchange requests accelerated approval of the proposal to permit implementation of the functionality for stop and stop-limit orders in AUTOM as soon as possible. Therefore, the Exchange requests that the Commission find good cause for approving the proposal, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission notes that the proposal and Amendment No. 1 were noticed for the full 21-day comment period, and the Commission received no comments regarding the proposal, as amended. As discussed more fully above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change should permit the Exchange to handle stop orders and stop limit orders more efficiently. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act 11 to approve the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Phlx-2005-80), as amended, be and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6147 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10453] Kansas Disaster # KS-00012 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Kansas (FEMA-1638-DR), dated 4/13/2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Straight Line Winds. *Incident Period:* 3/12/2006 through 3/13/2006. *Effective Date:* 4/13/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 6/12/2006. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 04/13/2006, applications for Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Douglas, Wyandotte. The Interest Rates are: Percent *Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere:* 5.000 *Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere:* 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10453. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-6192 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10442 and # 10443] Missouri Disaster Number MO-00003 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 1. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1635-DR ), dated 4/5/2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding *Incident Period:* 3/30/2006 through 4/3/2006. *Effective Date:* 4/17/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 6/5/2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 1/5/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Missouri, dated 4/5/2006 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Andrew, Butler, Dunklin, Pettis, St. Francois, Stoddard. *Contiguous Counties:* Missouri: Benton, Bollinger, Buchanan, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Cooper, Dekalb , Gentry, Henry, Holt, Iron, Jefferson, Johnson, Lafayette, Madison, Morgan, Nodaway, Perry, Ripley, Saline, Scott, Ste. Genevieve, Washington, Wayne. Arkansas: Clay, Craighead, Greene. Kansas: Doniphan. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-6191 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10440 and # 10441] Tennessee Disaster Number TN-00008 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 2. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-1634-DR), dated 04/05/2006. *Incident:* Tornadoes and Severe Storms. *Incident Period:* 04/02/2006 through 04/08/2006. *Effective Date:* 04/17/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 06/05/2006. EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/05/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee , dated 04/05/2006 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Benton, Cannon, Carroll, Cheatham, Cumberland, Davidson, Dickson, Fayette, Haywood, Maury, Sumner, Warren, Weakley. *Contiguous Counties:* Tennessee: Bledsoe, Coffee, Decatur, Dekalb, Fentress, Giles, Grundy, Hardeman, Henderson, Henry, Hickman, Houston, Humphreys, Lawrence, Lewis, Macon, Marshall, Montgomery, Morgan, Perry, Putnam, Rhea, Roane, Robertson, Rutherford, Sequatchie, Shelby, Stewart, Tipton, Trousdale, Van Buren, White, Williamson, Wilson. Kentucky: Allen, Graves, Hickman, Simpson. Mississippi: Benton, Marshall. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008). Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-6193 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10322 and # 10323] Texas Disaster Number TX-00097 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 5. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1624-DR), dated 1/11/2006. *Incident:* Extreme Wildfire Threat. *Incident Period:* 12/1/2005 and continuing. *Effective Date:* 4/17/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 4/30/2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 10/11/2006. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road Fort, Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 1/11/2006 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Potter. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-6190 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10322 and # 10323] Texas Disaster Number TX-00097 AGENCY: Small Business Administration (SBA). ACTION: Amendment 4. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1624-DR), dated 01/11/2006. *Incident:* Extreme Wildfire Threat. *Incident Period:* 12/01/2005 and continuing. DATES: *Effective Date:* 04/12/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/30/2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 10/11/2006. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 01/11/2006, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 04/30/2006. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008.) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-6194 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE Bureau of Diplomatic Security [Public Notice 5382] Customs Clearance Requirements of Foreign Missions and Freight Forwarders AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of State has determined, under the Foreign Missions Act, that any shipment sent from abroad to any foreign diplomatic or consular mission, or its personnel must be cleared by U.S. Customs and Border Protection solely through the Department of State's diplomatic customs clearance procedure and form. This decision makes it unlawful for any person or entity ( *i.e.* freight forwarders) to assist foreign missions in clearing shipments through customs by any other means. It clearly states that private entities as well as foreign missions are required to comply with the Department of State's diplomatic customs clearance procedure and it is the intended effect of this rule to increase such compliance. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 25, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *Technical information:* Cliff Seagroves, 202-895-3541, *seagrovescc@state.gov.* *Legal information:* Susan Benda, 202-647-0308, *bendas@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Foreign Missions Act defines a foreign mission's acquisition of “services relating to customs” as a “benefit”. 22 U.S.C. 4302(a)(1)(B). By virtue of Delegation of Authority 214, the Director of the Department of State's Office of Foreign Mission has the authority to make a determination limiting they way in which a foreign mission may obtain a “benefit”. Such a determination may also make it “unlawful for any person to make available any benefits to a foreign mission” except in accordance with OFM requirements. 22 U.S.C. 4311(a). Dated: April 18, 2006. Richard J. Griffin, Director, Office of Foreign Missions, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-6184 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-43-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5381] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA); Request for Grant Proposals: Exchange Program for School Principals From Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela *Announcement Type:* Cooperative Agreement. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/A/S/X-06-10. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 00.000. *Key Dates:* Application Deadline: June 1, 2006. *Executive Summary:* The Fulbright Teacher Exchange Branch in the Office of Global Educational Programs of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
(ECA)announces an open competition for an assistance award program to support an exchange program for school principals from Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Applications may be submitted by U.S. organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). The program will provide an intensive three-week U.S. professional development program for 6-7 qualified secondary school principals from each of the respective countries. The participants will not have visited the U.S. previously and will not speak English; therefore translation should be provided throughout the program. I. Funding Opportunity Description I.1. 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. I.2. Purpose The purpose of the program is to support professional development and regional interaction among principals from Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela so as to strengthen the education systems in their respective countries. Through close collaboration with U.S. educators on topics of leadership, school administration and civic engagement, the principals will gain a deeper understanding of the United States so that they can share their experiences of a diverse democratic society with teachers and students in their home communities. By providing an opportunity for partnerships with U.S. principals, this program will form a basis for productive and lasting relationships and mutual understanding between South American and U.S. educators. I.3. Program Goals The proposals should reflect five overall goals:
(1)To produce a highly focused regional program that exposes secondary school principals from Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela to best practices in leadership and school administration in the United States;
(2)to provide a variety of learning formats for them to share, discuss and compare issues of diversity, professional development for teachers, effective use of educational resources, community involvement and civic education in the three South American countries and U.S. secondary schools;
(3)to provide opportunities for secondary school principals to gain computer skills;
(4)to support collaboration between South American and U.S. principals by arranging ten-day visits to U.S. secondary schools to reinforce academic learning under the previous goals; and
(5)to provide participants with opportunities to interact with Americans to gain an awareness and understanding of U.S. culture and society. The overall program content should focus on leadership and administrative strategies that are culturally appropriate and can be implemented in schools with limited resources in South America. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs seeks proposals that demonstrate a deep understanding of the local educational systems in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela and of the issues surrounding secondary school management and administration. Proposals should outline practical and feasible follow-on activities that build on the achievements of the program while promoting the continued exchanges of ideas between the participants, their U.S. partners and the U.S. cooperating institution. I.4. Planning The cooperating institution should coordinate closely with The Fulbright Teacher Exchange Branch (ECA/A/S/X), the Public Affairs Sections of Embassies Caracas, La Paz and Quito as well as the Fulbright Commission in Quito regarding activities and responsibilities for this program. During the planning phase, the cooperating institution should make one trip to the three countries to conduct a needs assessment in consultation with representatives from the Public Affairs Sections of the U.S. Embassies in La Paz, Quito and Caracas and the Fulbright Commission in Ecuador as well as Ministries of Education and educators in La Paz and Quito. Based on the assessment, the cooperating institution should submit a detailed schedule and program plan for the U.S. based program to the Fulbright Teacher Exchange Branch for approval. For further detailed information, see the Program Objectives, Goals and Implementation (POGI), which is part of this solicitation document. I.5. In-Country Recruitment and Orientation The Public Affairs Sections
(PAS)of the U.S. Embassies in La Paz and Quito and the Fulbright Commission in Ecuador will recruit and select participants in collaboration with the Ministries of Education. In Venezuela, the Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy may request assistance with the recruitment, selection, and orientation of Venezuelan participants from an on-the-ground non-governmental organization (NGO). The cooperating institution should budget approximately $5,000 for costs associated with sub-contracting with an NGO in Venezuela—to be coordinated with ECA/A/S/X and PAS Caracas. The cooperating institution should develop an application form and publicity materials for use in all three countries. The Public Affairs Sections and Commission representatives in La Paz and Quito and the designated non-governmental organization in Caracas will conduct a one-day pre-departure orientation for the participants. The cooperating institution should provide background information to these partners in the field about cultural and other practical issues concerning the principals' stay in the U.S., the goals of the school administrator exchange program, the program schedule, packets of materials for the in-country pre-departure orientation workshops and information on comparative school administration and educational models. The cooperating institution should make certain that participants create an “action plan” for the exchange before they depart from their home countries, outlining individual goals and objectives. “Action planning” should be integrated into both the pre-departure orientation and the U.S. professional development and school visits so that participants may assess their progress toward meeting their goals and objectives when they return home. I.6. U.S.-Based Professional Development The three-week program should have three components, all of which should include simultaneous or consecutive Spanish language interpretation:
(1)A one-week intensive overview of U.S. public school administration, leadership development seminars and an introduction to the use of the internet to support research and outreach;
(2)a ten-day work shadowing portion in which the participants will partner with U.S. secondary school principals. School placements should be made with U.S. administrators who speak fluent Spanish or consecutive translation should be made available; and
(3)a two to three day educational and cultural program in Washington, DC. The program should meet the needs of the Bolivian, Ecuadorian and Venezuelan participants through activities designed by U.S. education specialists with appropriate expertise in public school administration. Time should be allotted for professional activities including “action planning,” school visits, presentations to students, consultations with educational and community organizations, and school board and parent teacher association meetings. The three-week program should also include cultural activities and home hospitality to facilitate interaction among participants and the local community to promote mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela. The final site visit to Washington, DC should complement and reinforce the academic and work shadow programs. This visit will include a de-briefing at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and the Bureau of Western Hemispheric Affairs at the Department of State, meetings at professional and educational organizations, and visits to educational and cultural sites. Simultaneous or consecutive translation must be provided. Administration and management of all phases of the program will be the responsibility of the U.S. cooperating institution. The U.S. institution is responsible for domestic and international travel arrangements and simultaneous or consecutive translation in Spanish during the program. The U.S. cooperating institution is also responsible for funding lodging, food, and allowances for participants while in the U.S. I.7. Follow-On Projects The final stage of this program will consist of follow-on projects between participants and their U.S. partner school administrators that will build upon the school management practices they learned in the U.S. The U.S. cooperating institution will be responsible for developing follow-on projects in close collaboration with the Fulbright Teacher Exchange Branch of the Department of State and Public Affairs Sections of U.S. Embassies in La Paz, Caracas, and Quito and the Fulbright Commission in Ecuador. The cooperating institution will assist program participants and U.S. principals to plan and organize projects to ensure long-term partner school collaboration. I.8. Budget Guidelines 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 submit separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity to provide clarification. The cost to the Bureau for the program, including the work shadow portion and the in-country follow-on activities, may not exceed $250,000. One grant will be awarded to conduct the school administrator development activities, work shadow portion and follow on for the three countries. In a cooperative agreement, ECA/A/S/X will be substantially involved in the program activities mentioned above and beyond routine grant monitoring. ECA/A/S/X activities and responsibilities for this program are as follows: • Formulation of program policy; • Clearing texts and program guidelines for publication; • Oversight of the content for the pre-departure orientation and U.S.-based program including the review and approval of school program schedules and Washington, DC de-briefing. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative Agreement. *Fiscal Year Funds:* 2006. *Approximate Total Funding:* $250,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* One. *Approximate Average Award:* $250,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* September 1, 2006. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* September 2008. 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 grant for two additional fiscal years, before openly competing it again. 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 grant agreement. Cost sharing may be for 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.2. 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 one grant, in an amount of $250,000, 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. The Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost sharing and funding in support of its programs. 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 Fulbright Teacher Exchange Branch, ECA/A/S/X, Room 349, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, (Tel.) 202-453-8877,
(Fax)202-453-8890, and e-mail, *saritime@state.gov* to request a Solicitation Package. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/A/S/X-06-10 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. Please specify Mary Ellen Sariti and refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/A/S/X-06-10 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/education/rfgps/menu.htm* 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 original and eight copies of the application should be sent per the instructions under IV.3f. “Application Deadline and Methods of Submission” section below. IV.3a. You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the U.S. Government. This number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* or call 1-866-705-5711. Please ensure that your DUNS number is included in the appropriate box of the SF-424 which are part of the formal application package. IV.3b. All proposals must contain an executive summary, proposal narrative and budget. Please refer to the Solicitation Package. It contains the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions
(PSI)document for additional formatting and technical requirements. IV.3c. You must have nonprofit status with the IRS at the time of application. If your organization is a private nonprofit which has not received a grant or cooperative agreement from ECA in the past three years, or if your organization received nonprofit status from the IRS within the past four years, you must submit the necessary documentation to verify nonprofit status as directed in the PSI document. Failure to do so will cause your proposal to be declared technically ineligible. IV.3d. Please take into consideration the following information when preparing your proposal narrative: IV.3d.1. *Adherence to All Regulations Governing the J Visa.* The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is placing renewed emphasis on the secure and proper administration of Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by grantees 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 pre-arrival information and orientation to participants, monitoring of participants, proper maintenance and security of forms, recordkeeping, reporting and other requirements. The U.S. cooperating institution will be responsible for issuing DS-2019 forms to participants in this program. A copy of the complete regulations governing the administration of Exchange Visitor
(J)programs is available at *http://exchanges.state.gov* or from: 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)401-9810. Fax:
(202)401-9809. 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. The Bureau expects that the grantee will track participants or partners and be able to respond to key evaluation questions, including satisfaction with the program, learning as a result of the program, changes in behavior as a result of the program, and effects of the program on institutions (institutions in which participants work or partner institutions). The evaluation plan should include indicators that measure gains in mutual understanding as well as substantive knowledge. Successful monitoring and evaluation depend heavily on setting clear goals and outcomes at the outset of a program. Your evaluation plan should include a description of your project's objectives, your anticipated project outcomes, and how and when you intend to measure these outcomes (performance indicators). The more that outcomes are “smart” (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and placed in a reasonable time frame), the easier it will be to conduct the evaluation. You should also show how your project objectives link to the goals of the program described in this RFGP. Your monitoring and evaluation plan should clearly distinguish between program *outputs* and *outcomes. Outputs* are products and services delivered, often stated as an amount. Output information is important to show the scope or size of project activities, but it cannot substitute for information about progress towards outcomes or the results achieved. Examples of outputs include the number of people trained or the number of seminars conducted. *Outcomes* , in contrast, represent specific results a project is intended to achieve and is usually measured as an extent of change. Findings on outputs and outcomes should both be reported, but the focus should be on outcomes. We encourage you to assess the following four levels of outcomes, as they relate to the program goals set out in the RFGP (listed here in increasing order of importance): 1. *Participant satisfaction* with the program and exchange experience. 2. *Participant learning* , such as increased knowledge, aptitude, skills, and changed understanding and attitude. Learning includes both substantive (subject-specific) learning and mutual understanding. 3. *Participant behavior* , concrete actions to apply knowledge in work or community; greater participation and responsibility in civic organizations; interpretation and explanation of experiences and new knowledge gained; continued contacts between participants, community members, and others. 4. *Institutional changes* , such as increased collaboration and partnerships, policy reforms, new programming, and organizational improvements. Please note: Consideration should be given to the appropriate timing of data collection for each level of outcome. For example, satisfaction is usually captured as a short-term outcome, whereas behavior and institutional changes are normally considered longer-term outcomes. Overall, the quality of your monitoring and evaluation plan will be judged on how well it
(1)specifies intended outcomes;
(2)gives clear descriptions of how each outcome will be measured;
(3)identifies when particular outcomes will be measured; and
(4)provides a clear description of the data collection strategies for each outcome ( *i.e.* , surveys, interviews, or focus groups). (Please note that evaluation plans that deal only with the first level of outcomes [satisfaction] will be deemed less competitive under the present evaluation criteria.) The U.S. cooperating institution 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. Describe your plans for: *i.e.,* sustainability, overall program management, staffing, coordination with ECA and PAS or any other requirements etc. IV.3e. Please take the following information into consideration when preparing your budget: IV.3e.1. Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire program. The grant awarded will not exceed $250,000. 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. IV.3e.2. Allowable costs for the program include the following:
(1)International and domestic travel.
(2)U.S. ground transportation.
(3)Participant maintenance (3 weeks).
(4)Professional development seminars (instruction, materials, logistics).
(5)Stipends for U.S. host principals.
(6)Cultural activities.
(7)Book allowance/shipping.
(8)Cooperating institution administrative costs.
(9)Follow-on programming. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. IV.3f. Application Deadline and Methods of Submission: *Application Deadline Date:* June 1, 2006. *Reference Number:* ECA/A/S-06-10. *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.* 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.2. *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 and eight copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/A/S/X-06-10, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. Applicants submitting hard-copy applications must also submit the “Executive Summary” and “Proposal Narrative” sections of the proposal in text (.txt) format on a PC-formatted disk. The Bureau will provide these files electronically to the appropriate Public Affairs Sections at the U.S. embassies for 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 follow the instructions available in the ‘Get Started’ portion of the site ( *http://www.grants.gov/GetStarted* ). Applicants have until midnight (12 a.m.) of the closing date to ensure that their entire application has been uploaded to the *grants.gov* site. 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. Applicants will receive a confirmation e-mail from grants.gov upon successful submission of an application. ECA will not notify you upon receipt of electronic applications. 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. The program office, as well as the Public Diplomacy sections 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 Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for assistance awards grants 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 and Program Planning:* Proposals should exhibit originality, substance, precision, and relevance to the Bureau's mission. Proposals should demonstrate substantive expertise in professional development for secondary school administrators. Proposals should also illustrate effective use of community and regional resources to enhance the educational and cultural experiences of participants. Proposals should focus on leadership and administrative strategies appropriate for implementation in schools in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Proposals should provide a detailed calendar and relevant work plan and demonstrate how the institution will meet the program's objectives during the U.S. based training. 2. *Ability To Achieve Program Objectives:* Objectives should be reasonable, feasible, and flexible. Proposals should clearly demonstrate how the cooperating institution will meet the program's objectives and plan. 3. *Multiplier Effect/Impact:* Proposed programs should strengthen long-term mutual understanding, including maximum sharing of information and establishment of long-term linkages between U.S. and South American schools. 4. *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 wrap-up sessions, program meetings, resource materials and follow-up activities). 5. *Institutional Capacity:* Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the program or project's goals. 6. *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 Grants Staff. The Bureau will consider the past performance of prior recipients and the demonstrated potential of new applicants. 7. *Follow-on Activities:* Proposals should provide a plan for continued follow-on activity ensuring that Bureau supported programs are not isolated events. 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 are recommended. 9. *Cost-Effectiveness and 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. VI. Award Administration Information VI.1. 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 Assistance Award Document
(AAD)from the Bureau's Grants Office. The AAD and the original grant proposal with subsequent modifications (if applicable) shall be the only binding authorizing document between the recipient and the U.S. Government. The AAD 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 Non-profit Organizations. Please reference the following Web sites for additional information: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants* *http://exchanges.state.gov/education/grantsdiv/terms.htm#articleI.* VI.3. Reporting Requirements You must provide ECA with a hard copy original plus two copies of the final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award. U.S. cooperating institutions 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. Optional 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. The ECA Program Officer and partners abroad must receive final schedules for in country and U.S. activities at least seven workdays prior to the official opening of the activity. VII. Agency Contacts For questions about this announcement, contact: Mary Ellen Sariti, Fulbright Teacher Exchange Branch, Office of Global Educational Programs, ECA/A/S/X, Room 349, ECA/A/S/X-06-10, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, (Tel.) 202-453-8877 (Fax.) 202-453-8890, *saritime@state.gov.* All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the above title and number ECA/A/S/X-06-10. Please read the complete announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. VIII. Other Information Notice The terms and conditions published in this RFGP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFGP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements per section VI.3 above. Dated: April 19, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-6183 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at Searcy County Municipal Airport, Marshall, Arkansas AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property. SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release of land at the Searcy County Municipal Airport under the provisions of Title 49 United States Code, Section 47153. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Edward Agnew, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office, ASW-630, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0630. In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Judge Johnny Hinchey, County of Searcy, Arkansas, at the following address: County of Searcy, P.O. Box 1370, Searcy, AR 72650. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Don Harris, Senior Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office, ASW-631, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0630. The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this same location. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at Searcy County Municipal Airport under the provisions of the Act. On April 4, 2006, FAA determined that the request to release property at Searcy County Municipal Airport submitted by the County of Searcy met the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 155. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than May 31, 2006. The following is a brief overview of the request: The County of Searcy requests the release of approximately 2 acres of airport property. The land is encumbered by Federal grant assurances pursuant to the receipt of Federal Airport Improvement Program funds. The release of property will allow the city of Marshall to accept a United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development grant for the construction and operation of a fire station at the airport. The appraised value of the subject property is $22,000.00. The city has committed toward providing in-kind services of fire protection and emergency medical services for the public airport at an estimated value of $2,400.00 annually. Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Searcy County Municipal Airport. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 6, 2006. Kelvin L. Solco, Manager, Airports Division. [FR Doc. 06-3756 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 11
5 references not yet in our index
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • Pub. L. 87-256
  • 22 CFR 62
  • Pub. L. 104-319
  • Pub. L. 106-113
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 7202
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 552
U.S.C.§ 78f
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
U.S.C.§ 78o–3
U.S.C.§ 78c
U.S.C.§ 4302
U.S.C.§ 4311
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Pub. L.Pub. L. 87-256
Cite22 CFR 62
Cites 16 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.